Quote:
|
Originally Posted by R.A.F.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Outcast
...did you just wanted to amaze us with your less than brilliant insights...
|
WHY do you consider it necessary to continue to "berate" others opinions on this board. We certainly don't do that to you. All that we've ever asked is that you provide EVIDENCE to support your claims. And it seems like every time we ask, you come back with some "form" of insult. If you don't understand why we consider "free energy" to be woowoo, just say so without the personal conmmentary. |
Who is this "we" you're talking about, RAF? Are you a "mouthpiece" of some sort?
And what are you on about with the
EVIDENCE thing? Did Outcast make some claim about the ETH being factual?
And did you see algorithms provide any "
EVIDENCE" to support his, what appeared to be, pseudoskeptical stockshelf remark about "free energy crackpots?"
I suggest both of you read the definition of "skeptic," from Haisch's site no less:
"Skeptic - One who practices the method of suspended judgment, engages in rational and dispassionate reasoning as exemplified by the scientific method, shows willingness to consider alternative explanations without prejudice based on prior beliefs, and who seeks out evidence and carefully scrutinizes its validity."
Now, neither your nor algorithm's response strikes me as a "dispassionate .... willingness to consider alternative explanations...." No, instead I see the usual missives about "crackpots" and "woowoos."
Are all these
scientists "crackpots and woowoos" too? And what about Frank Drake's "recalulating" article I linked too? Should I consider him a "crackpot" or "woowoo" too?
I think Outcast's abrasiveness stems from continually seeing this kind of nonsensical response flaunted in the name of "skepticism" and "science."