TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I would then retract the "unbiassed" . I actualy don't see that to be so rediculous, as if you believe anything in the bible, then you would know that Jesus was able to do those things. If your knowledge of the bible is worth anything, then you would know that the ability to be like him is within all of us. But it's probably those like you who will never realise that.
Let's all try to be a little nicer and less personal when discussing this. When you bring up topics like this lol, people are going to disagree. And when people disagree, they can do so without being disagreeable. I'm not pointing fingers here, or trying to censor--just trying to help cool things off...
Have fun!
Have fun!
Something doesn't have to be a lie to be a scam. There are people who are just bad at science. Every graduate of a science program can't be brilliant... there must be a number of people out there who are doing work they just aren't really cut out for. There's a great deal of intellectual self-discipline required... methodologies needed that don't even occur to the average person (certainly a number that don't occur to me, since I'm not trained as a scientist, that I'd love to know about). There are common traps that even honest, good-intentioned people fall into quite easily when it comes to evaluating information (top-down thinking, observational selection, shifting the burden of proof, etc). Peer review is needed to weed out these discrepencies that are often impossible for one person, being human, to consistently avoid.
So pseudoscience doesn't have to be the work of a greedy, corrupt con-artist... which is part of why it's such a slippery problem.
So pseudoscience doesn't have to be the work of a greedy, corrupt con-artist... which is part of why it's such a slippery problem.
seedjar
Let's positive thinking!
I was actually speaking of literally interpreting the Bible, as opposed to seeing certain aspects of the recountance as metaphorical or equivocal - and I was saying so with respect to strictly interpreting the writings of historic alchemists and practitioners of other sciences, because the history of math and science is full of people who fudged, cheated and lied with regard to their results. It is only recently that the scientific community has come to appreciate the importance of honesty, publication, and peer review in the scientific process. Biblical historians have similarly found that some people have 'fudged' parts of the Bible, supposedly to further their religious, political or personal ideals.
I wasn't questioning whether or not anyone here believes in the Bible, and that indeed is a topic for an entirely different thread which I'd rather not tread upon. It's simply that these ancient documents which are referred to so often are just not credible. They have obviously been uncovered for the sake of archeology, and I can assure you that any texts on alchemy have been thoroughly tested by the chemistry and physics community, for far longer than you or I have been alive. The possibility of these properties which you speak of are far too great to simply be 'missed' by the scientific community at large; 'ormus' elements would mean fantastic things to physics. These discoveries didn't happen yesterday; if you don't see a discussion on it, it's because it's bogus and old news.
~Joe
PS - I also didn't intend to closely relate 'psuedoscience' and scams; psuedoscience is often innocent and productive, but there are cases when psuedoscience creates subcultures which are hostile to truely scientific ideas and this is bad for everyone. At its very worst, you see it develop into scams to take people's money under false pretenses alluded to by psuedoscience nomenclature. I think that psuedoscience of such degree encourages people to turn to dogma and self-centered generalization for their rationale rather than logic, and is highly destructive to literate, rational thinking.
I wasn't questioning whether or not anyone here believes in the Bible, and that indeed is a topic for an entirely different thread which I'd rather not tread upon. It's simply that these ancient documents which are referred to so often are just not credible. They have obviously been uncovered for the sake of archeology, and I can assure you that any texts on alchemy have been thoroughly tested by the chemistry and physics community, for far longer than you or I have been alive. The possibility of these properties which you speak of are far too great to simply be 'missed' by the scientific community at large; 'ormus' elements would mean fantastic things to physics. These discoveries didn't happen yesterday; if you don't see a discussion on it, it's because it's bogus and old news.
~Joe
PS - I also didn't intend to closely relate 'psuedoscience' and scams; psuedoscience is often innocent and productive, but there are cases when psuedoscience creates subcultures which are hostile to truely scientific ideas and this is bad for everyone. At its very worst, you see it develop into scams to take people's money under false pretenses alluded to by psuedoscience nomenclature. I think that psuedoscience of such degree encourages people to turn to dogma and self-centered generalization for their rationale rather than logic, and is highly destructive to literate, rational thinking.
[b said:
You can't make such an assumpton until you have spoken with someone who has actualy worked to disprove it. More has been done "to" prove it. Like I've been saying for the last 10 pages, there is more evidence to suggest it's factual, and you have brought nothing new to the table for or against it. Just opinions.
And yes, since the bible was created thousands of years ago, I'm sure there is much that was lost between translations and false docturines implanted in the bible. But the most important messages of the bible can't be erased.
seedjar
Let's positive thinking!
Well, if you look at the things people justify with the Bible, apparently some can forget it's more important points. But I would agree that what was best about the Bible before is still true of it today.
Anyways, the reason I make that assumption is from experience. The scientific community is very interconnected, and it's full of curious minds like yours and mine that want to reach out and find new ideas. But old news is old news; how many primary sources can you find supporting the existance of ORMEs published this year? How about the past three years? From what digging I did, on your sources and mine, there is little to nothing happening with ORMEs, except that New Age web pages are publishing links to sites that want to sell us all concoctions of ORMEs which have not been verified by the FDA. That's just suspicious. The fact that no one is investigating the topic is enough to tell me it's done alone. It might start up again some day, but as long as people are making trumped-up claims about it like this it's unlikely that scientists will take enough of an interest to keep looking. Maybe some new revelation in chemical analysis or particle physics will again indicate ORMEs and spark a new interest, but the deposits Mr. Hudson found are still there, and nobody seems to be talking about them.
~Joe
Anyways, the reason I make that assumption is from experience. The scientific community is very interconnected, and it's full of curious minds like yours and mine that want to reach out and find new ideas. But old news is old news; how many primary sources can you find supporting the existance of ORMEs published this year? How about the past three years? From what digging I did, on your sources and mine, there is little to nothing happening with ORMEs, except that New Age web pages are publishing links to sites that want to sell us all concoctions of ORMEs which have not been verified by the FDA. That's just suspicious. The fact that no one is investigating the topic is enough to tell me it's done alone. It might start up again some day, but as long as people are making trumped-up claims about it like this it's unlikely that scientists will take enough of an interest to keep looking. Maybe some new revelation in chemical analysis or particle physics will again indicate ORMEs and spark a new interest, but the deposits Mr. Hudson found are still there, and nobody seems to be talking about them.
~Joe
I gave it already... the proof is in the pudding. All these words don't mean a thing in the end if it doesn't work for you. They can help you save some money and possible side effects ahead of time, but you've weighed that for yourself already, which is fine.[b said:
We'll see what effects it has when you get it. And they're going to have to be pretty impressive to overcome the placebo effect, or to even justify spending money on a steady supply of it at all. I'd feel the same way about something as mundane as vitamins (except vitamins are even safer against health risks we might not be aware of).
Anyone in this thread who doesn't buy into this stuff can be content to wait the experiment out I'm sure, since they're already confident of the outcome. I was tempted to offer you a wager of some kind on the Turi terrorism prediction last month, because I was confident nothing concrete would result, and I wanted you to have to ask yourself just how useful the predictions were when they were brought into the realm of the pragmatic, which is the only realm where they really matter (just like this stuff).
But I quickly realized it would be incredibly tacky to make a bet on whether people were going to lose their lives or not, and dropped the idea.
PS - The pseudoscience post wasn't directed at you whatsoever, seedjar, and once again you worded it better anyway.
Well from what you have read, you should also see that a lot of the physics involved with the property of ormes would be of the likes that wasn't present some 30 or so years ago. Advancements in nuclear physics, quantum physics, and others I can't remember right now. The simple fact may be that science wasn't able to subsatialy prove or DISPROVE it in the past, but the latest surge of interest might push the scientists of today to investigate it again to prove or disprove it. The only common ground we can possibly reach at this time is that there is not enough scientific data to prove or disprove it at this time, and I hope that scientificly we in this discussion wont try to take it any further in any direction pro or con, because it would be mostly opinionative at that point. However, its affects on people is still an open topic worth discussing. The majority of info we have are the results from the large host of people who have used the ORMEs themselves, and that info unscientificly suggests a real effectiveness.
I agree that in the end if someone has a spectacular result from something (beyond placebo effect or any other likely variables) it's a little silly to explain to them why it logically shouldn't have happened.[b said:
But likewise we need to examine the testimonials that aren't there but should be. How many have these webmasters received complaining of getting ripped off? What if they far outnumber the positive ones?
And the people making the claims that ORMEs can help you achieve incredible abilities or states... why make those claims when they themselves haven't achieved them? Huge red flag there...
If you want real science, feel free to read Water Structure and Behavior by Martin Chaplin. I doubt you'll see a section on your monoatomic water molecule crystal isotope orbitle rearranged upside-down-looped atoms with healing powers.
~ Brett
~ Brett
