View Single Post
Unread 3 Jan 2007, 00:34   #3
MrL_JaKiri
The Twilight of the Gods
 
MrL_JaKiri's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,481
MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.MrL_JaKiri has ascended to a higher existance and no longer needs rep points to prove the size of his e-penis.
Re: The Scientific Proof of Life After Death

It's bollocks. Standard misdirection, in both what it says and how it says it.

It continually claims that we have evidence - but it never says what it is. It claims that we have experiments to find it - and doesn't say what they are. It claims it has supporters - but never gives more than vague quotes as to what they said. It claims that we have the mathematics to support their claims - but not a single mathematical statement appears.

The one "experimental result" that is quoted is one that is described without methodology, control or context, and at face value is something that can anyone can easily do utterly cold on any audience, simply because people choose to give vague statements greater meanings which can be built upon, or because the brain is designed to make faces or patterns out of the loosest information.

What it does go in to detail on is why, once they have evidence, they're more likely to be correct, and the amazing histories of the people who it claims support or studied these supposed phenomena, although even if these are true, more learned people than they have been more incorrect before. As in mathematics, without the argument, the source is meaningless - argument from authority is a logical fallacy for a reason.

They say that this information is "suppressed" - although they do not say by whom, or how. They mention "big names" - Carl Sagan, Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman - who have only the most passing of tangential relationships to what is being said, in order to give what is said more weight. They use false examples, like the Flat Earth one, to generalise from.

Furthermore, they seem to engage in deliberate obfuscation, with a good example being the apparant inability to break up the walls of text which would, if they had anything to say, contain their main arguments.

Balls, the lot of it.

Last edited by MrL_JaKiri; 3 Jan 2007 at 00:40.
MrL_JaKiri is offline   Reply With Quote