The weirdest book you have read...

[THX_1138]

Nothing psuedo-scientific about the observation. I also care not for your judgment on what is/isn't pseudo-science- i find myself quite capable of making that decision. Rather, an oddity that is unexplainable- science has a long history of trying to pooh-pooh anything it cannot explain as psuedo-science. Believer ? No. I am not a believer. I am merely open to the possibility of its existance/rationale. I find it far more unscientific to classify phenomena into 'believer/established' and 'unbeliever->unestablished'- there is a third state, which is essentially the indeterminate (ie, the 'i don't know- maybe/may not be') that western philosophy of science has a hard time dealing with. It fundamentally doesnt like the 'i don't know' explanation, since the philosophy of western science is bit too caught up in its notion of perfection in logic/concept (which it isn't, really and i can produce voluminous discourse in both western & eastern philosophy highlighting the limitations of scientific thought in the phenomenal world.) So save your bashings for something that is worth bashing.

well i hear those typical stock statements more often then i want to... "i am open to the possibility"... you want to be open to the possibility of something, then be open to the existence of a graviton that they are going to test for in the new particle accelerator. be open to the possibility of multicellular life under the icy oceans of Europa, or the possibility of characteroizing gravitational waves. being open to the possibility of "psycho kinesis" something that has never occured, never documented, and always busted when presented as a possibility is for people who has read too much sci fi and the only thing that they retained from the experience was warp drive... just to give you something to prove how hollow your statement is: true there is a third state between acceptance and denial, its that occupied by agnostics. but an agnostic who justifies his/her position on the sheer basis that they are "open to the possibility of something occuring" rather than supplement their belief with rational and academic proof is someone who is either hedging his/her bets or is just too plain wussy to take a stand either ways.

[CC1981]

something that has never occured, never documented, and always busted when presented as a possibility is for people who has read too much sci fi and the only thing that they retained from the experience was warp drive...

I am sorry but the timescale & scientific investigation to this process is insignificant- science has played a contrarian to this than detective. As per 'never documented' - that is clearly a misinterpretation, since science is not a commentator on the past. Instead, say, ' not that we know of'.

true there is a third state between acceptance and denial, its that occupied by agnostics. but an agnostic who justifies his/her position on the sheer basis that they are "open to the possibility of something occuring" rather than supplement their belief with rational and academic proof is someone who is either hedging his/her bets or is just too plain wussy to take a stand either ways.

it is neither about hedging bets or being too wussy ( rationale is not about machismo, which might perhaps explain your incomprehension of the topic at hand). lack of proof is not proof of non-existance. Non-existance has to be proven, not assumed to be the corollary to existance. Same goes here. It is simply a case of science having very little credibility in claiming it doesn't exist. Science has a long history of doing that, if i may point it out. This is a field that science is not qualified enough or wise enough to approach, really. Its limitations deter it from the objective with this case.

"i am open to the possibility"... you want to be open to the possibility of something, then be open to the existence of a graviton that they are going to test for in the new particle accelerator. be open to the possibility of multicellular life under the icy oceans of Europa, or the possibility of characteroizing gravitational waves.

I am open to the possibility of the answers thrown up by all the stuff you mention here. However, it does not deter from my stance on psycho-kinesis or mind-over-matter.

[THX_1138]

I am sorry but the timescale & scientific investigation to this process is insignificant- science has played a contrarian to this than detective. As per 'never documented' - that is clearly a misinterpretation, since science is not a commentator on the past. Instead, say, ' not that we know of'. it is neither about hedging bets or being too wussy ( rationale is not about machismo, which might perhaps explain your incomprehension of the topic at hand). lack of proof is not proof of non-existance. Non-existance has to be proven, not assumed to be the corollary to existance. Same goes here. It is simply a case of science having very little credibility in claiming it doesn't exist. Science has a long history of doing that, if i may point it out. This is a field that science is not qualified enough or wise enough to approach, really. Its limitations deter it from the objective with this case. I am open to the possibility of the answers thrown up by all the stuff you mention here. However, it does not deter from my stance on psycho-kinesis or mind-over-matter.

i usually print that kind of drivel on toilet paper to wipe my ass with later, especially after a bad taco salad. and while we are it, i hope you are open to the possibility of the spagetti monster, or the triple breasted mermaid. after all, their non existence has never been proven.

[CC1981]

i usually print that kind of drivel on toilet paper to wipe my ass with later, especially after a bad taco salad. and while we are it, i hope you are open to the possibility of the spagetti monster, or the triple breasted mermaid. after all, their non existence has never been proven.

Nothing unexpected- western science shows shocked incomprehension at any thought or any logic that discusses the limitations of western science as a school of thought.

after all, their non existence has never been proven.

I find your ability to distinguish between the existance of an entity and existance of a phenomena and logical implications of such existance/non-existance to be rather typical mindset of the western science. I repeat- lack of proof for existance implies the scenario of 'i don't know', not 'it doesnt exist'. Existance and non-existance both have to be established, not a default position arrived through corollaries.

[Lurker]

There are certain books that all of us remember more than others ' date=' for a variety of reasons. [/quote'] Ayn Rand's Fountainhead. Terrible terrible :whatchutalkingabout Have tried quite a few times to read it, survived a few pages and then left it..again.

[THX_1138]

Nothing unexpected- western science shows shocked incomprehension at any thought or any logic that discusses the limitations of western science as a school of thought. I find your ability to distinguish between the existance of an entity and existance of a phenomena and logical implications of such existance/non-existance to be rather typical mindset of the western science. I repeat- lack of proof for existance implies the scenario of 'i don't know', not 'it doesnt exist'. Existance and non-existance both have to be established, not a default position arrived through corollaries.

i find this amusing... this whole crap about "western science"... like science is limited to only western european countries and you want me to use the analogy of a phenomena whose non existence has not be verified, well take your pick: 1. gravitational levitation 2. spontaneous human compustion 3. you making a logical statement.

[CC1981]

like science is limited to only western european countries

Its foundations in the modern day are in western material philosophy, therefore, is termed 'western'.

1. gravitational levitation 2. spontaneous human compustion

I am open to their possibility as well.

3. you making a logical statement.

Your incomprehension is not my fault- as i said, lack of proof of existance does not imply non-existance by default but rather, the indeterminate. There is a middle ground between beleif and non-beleif, between existence and non-existence, between proof and refuation. Its called the indterminate, the 'i dont know- could be/could be not' stage. Western science has a difficulty thinking in this state.