Can you have out of body experiences?

[Arduin's]

Given the part you quoted and how you are commenting about a non-quoted part of my post, you are wrong on both counts.

Sorry sunshine. Back to school you go.

 

[Umbran]

Not my fault in post #79 you said the proof science gets results are its results. That is circular.

Like I said, I get it: You continue pointing at stuff a third of the way back in the thread that has been clarified since. We're done.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

So if one out of ten million people had random, very infrequent, uncontrollable paranormal powers we'd, "have already had a very good confidence they exist and were using them practically in large capacity."

Please explain EXACTLY how that would be so. ...

If ten million people had random, very infrequent paranomral powers, but we could observe and study them, we would learn how to control them better. Like we did with things like steam machines, internal combustion engines, fission, rockets, vaccines. When we start with something completely new, we always start with a small experimental system involving a small number of researcers and subjects (where applicable). Our beginning attempts are often crude, we get things wrong, stuff in the lab explodes/dies/falls apart. But we refine our procedures.

 

[Janx]

Sorry sunshine. Back to school you go.

You are failing worse now. This is your last chance, before I deem you troll and end interaction.

Saying "you're wrong" as if that's your proof is bad form. You need to back it up with some explanation.

Here's a link to the scientific method:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Note how it mentions peer review and approval.

Here's a description of Scientific Law, though it does not denote the process of moving from Theory to Law that I learned in school:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

In any case, I stand by my point that when normal people use "theory" as in "I have a theory" they are not speaking in the Science sense of Theory as published and accepted by Scientists. Just as when an Indian says "I have a doubt" he doesn't me he is dubious of your project, he means he has a question.

 

[Arduin's]

If ten million people had random, very infrequent paranomral powers, but we could observe and study them,

You FAILED to answer the question. I said "EXACTLY". "But if" doesn't qualify.

Get back to me when you have an answer. In the meantime I just blew your conclusion out of the water.

 

[Umbran]

In the meantime I just blew your conclusion out of the water.

It seems to me that an "exact" description would be impossible, without just as exacting a description of the full nature and behavior of the powers. Your scenario was not exact, so cannot get an exact response. Doubly so when your'e not clear about what is "exact" enough for you. Too much space in there for you to move goalposts, I'm afraid.

Oh, and gloating? It makes you look like you're interested in scoring points, in winning an argument on the internet. If that's accurate, then thank you for being honest. If it isn't, well, you might want to look to that before folks get the wrong impression.

 

[Arduin's]

It seems to me that an "exact" description would be impossible,

Correct. And you haven't been able to defend your assertion. It's your claim to flesh out, not mine.

 

[Umbran]

Correct. And you haven't been able to defend your assertion. It's your claim to flesh out, not mine.

Except, of course, that I didn't make the assertion to which you seem to be referring.

 

[Arduin's]

Except, of course, that I didn't make the assertion to which you seem to be referring.

I quoted you. I'm sorry, but until you deign to answer I won't waste my time responding to nothing.

 

[Kramodlog]

Like I said, I get it: You continue pointing at stuff a third of the way back in the thread that has been clarified since. We're done.

You haven't clarified the circular logic, just dodged it by pointing out stuff a third of the way back in the thread.