Wrong. It is too easy to let speculation become too ungrounded if you don't bounce them off a hard wall now and then.
I'm not buying this anymore. You've backpedalled like this three times now on three different topics. It's just an act.
Explain how "bouncing speculation off a hard wall" involves claiming the wall is underinformed or ideologically motivated. Indeed, how can any such intent be reconciled your attempts to discredit the wall? How can we buy this backpedalling after you accused the wall of having its head in the sand?
Like accepting all that KT's research implied without getting the skeptical review of her work.
Hogwash. You misrepresented not only her qualifications but also her conclusions. You told me specifically that she did not hypothesize her symptoms were the result of alien visitation, interference, and abduction. You told me specifically that she was only collecting data. Yet you have not addressed or reconciled the easily-located quotations from her own mouth establishing diametrically the opposite viewpoint.
After trying to take us to task for allegedly being unfamiliar with her work, I find your dismissal of our review to be in egregiously poor taste.
Reject some as need for you to debunk...
"Need to debunk." Still trying to discredit me by painting me as a hard-core skeptical ideologue! You constantly side-step my actual arguments in order to level these general, handwaving characterizations against me.
Which exact arguments I've made in this thread were made solely because of my "need to debunk," and what is the evidence that supports that characterization? This is a direct question for which I will compel you to provide an answer.
Her motivations were sincere.
I see no proof at all of this. Where is your proof of her sincerity?
Even so, what has this to do with the correctness of her method and the strength of her conclusions? Should we accept everyone's conclusions simply because we fail to account for them by a few common examples of malice?
I found most English teachers in college very grounded and quite good at applying common sense reasoning and deduction.
Common sense is not science.
I have been both a college student and a college teacher. I have both conducted and evaluated PhD research in scientific and technical fields. As I said, I will keep my own counsel about the value and content of those efforts. If you can demonstrate that your opinion is better or more squarely founded on fact, then perhaps I can consider it as more than handwaving.
|