DeletedUser
pseudoscience, i dont know how people buy into it.
nashy19
Nashy (as himself)
I think they latch onto it because it's simple to understand and interesting, and then continue to argue about it so it looks like they know what they're talking about (at least in their minds).
I think that explains irrational arguing, I don't know why people would choose to literally buy into it and lose their money though.
DeletedUser5046
or how many people including us are buying it while we are still thinking about it :/ and i (maybe you too) am waiting for the answer to this question:
btw.. sorry for the gender confusion Hilarion i always get a lot of it XD... well you see... hypnotism - some may not believe it but you see... not only when a certain person can hypnotize you when they look you in the eye and perform a certain uhm... act for their ritual, but also it can be done by simply asking things on you WHILE YOUR MIND IS OPEN HEARING ONLY what you are wanting to hear... its like a scam or something... business related cases imo.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
1. Whenever you desperately need an audience to believe your claim, just say it came from China. Germany, South Africa, and Peru just aren't as convincing...especially in the medical world
2. Your telling me that all the good feelings people have sent their relatives to get better just wasn't good enough all this time? All they had to do was the chanting in the video? Thats depressing...
3. These suckers knew this remedy since "ancient times" and didn't share it with us to benefit humanity until now!!?? Maybe they were waiting for internet video capabilities to share their secret...hmmm
4. Only a few people wear all black: pastors, steve jobs, and people that really want to sell you something!!
5. I respect Hellstromm's lengthy and detailed argument, but some people need a more watered down lesson in simple LOGIC!
2. Your telling me that all the good feelings people have sent their relatives to get better just wasn't good enough all this time? All they had to do was the chanting in the video? Thats depressing...
3. These suckers knew this remedy since "ancient times" and didn't share it with us to benefit humanity until now!!?? Maybe they were waiting for internet video capabilities to share their secret...hmmm
4. Only a few people wear all black: pastors, steve jobs, and people that really want to sell you something!!
5. I respect Hellstromm's lengthy and detailed argument, but some people need a more watered down lesson in simple LOGIC!
DeletedUser
Consider what was presented. A single instance of a purported phenomena is described, then the video concludes with the affirmation of an academic journal study backed by a presumably credible source (Nature, and the U.S. Airforce, respectively). A simple examination of the sources, however, indicate that what is referenced in the journal article is in fact drawn from the journal's 'correspondence' section - it was a letter of response commenting on a previous article. Furthermore, the individual writing the letter, E.W. Silvertooth does not make any claim of affirmation in his letter, but rather criticizes a result as unwarranted. He then suggests interest, but makes no definitive declarations (at least as I could understand the esoteric running commentary). Most peculiarly, he makes no claim to represent the U.S. Air Force in his letter. Now, what was the point of the article reference? The presenter wanted to 'prove' the existence of a medium in which energy (waves) passes, which is counter to an understanding of space as being vacuous. Why does he want to prove this? It is because he wants the evidence to 'prove' that energy can radiate (or pass in wave form) from the human body and so effect the surrounding environment. Nevertheless, how this can be purported to prove the earlier case sample simply cannot follow, as the logic, as buffalo pointed out, is nonsecutor - it does not follow. He attempts to impart that, because there is a proven medium, the human body necessarily has the ability to manipulate it. See how that does not logically follow? Now, if the presenter wants to claim the auspices of science, well we all know the golden rule - replicability. Can the effect be empirically replicated? Once case study falls short of this rule. If there are more cases, then document it, systematically. To do this you need to control for all variables - otherwise, how would one know what variable had caused the effect? All of the accoutrements of a systematic analysis are missing in his presentation. And in my view, he hurts his credentials when he hapazardly cites research which has questionable relevence to his point. Well, you can thank buffalowing for this response, as he couldn't wait to message me and tell me he got a thumbs up from the illustrious Hellstromm. Once I looked into it I got caught up and had to answer. And I can't help myself, but the word is 'sense' not sence, and likewise, 'pharmaceutical' and not farm...
DeletedUser
What a load of crock. I can't believe I just wasted eight minutes of my time watching half of that. Their chanting definitely has an effect on people; it just about made me sick.