Yeah, you're Ghandi with a sack of doorknobs. Or perhaps you're just an angry Toby Radloff with a keyboard.
Either way, there's nothing in your messages that doesn't boil down to just how great you think you are, and what a service you think you're doing for the world. In that, at least, you are a debating tool.
Let's put it this way: either in the realm of scientific phenomena, or that of psychological phenomena, betwixt which lies your coveted "beltism," there exists a common thread related to the existence of either.
First, the phenomenon must be observable. Once that is established, the observer creates an hypothesis regarding the existence of said phenomenon, usually drawing a relationship to that which is known. Next, the phenomena can be used to predict the results of subsequent observations, or interactions of the phenomena with other known elements. Lastly, the hypothesis is tested in a way that can easily identify if it is incorrect, by multiple independent parties. And, of course, they do one other thing - they document their findings.
I'm sure you know this, delius. It's the scientific method. And believe it or not, the finest minds in our world (which I'm sure you consider equals) use this to disprove hypotheses to great success the world over. It works for any observable phenomena.
For all of your rhetoric here about the validity of your supposed findings, you have yet to show even a single instance where these hypotheses have been tested by independent sources, or even documented in an objective manner. All you've offered is circuitous reasoning why these methods don't suit your precious, exotic phenomena, and therefore any disproving done with them cannot be trusted.
One of the things Carl Sagan had said in his life that struck me was this:
In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.
A lot of people have made very good arguements in opposition to you, delius, whether or not you actually acknowledge it. But of course you won't; you simply keep on saying the same things over and over again, and ignore what doesn't suit you.
Yeah, yeah, go ahead - we're the ones who ignore the facts. Which, of course, so far amount to taking your word for it, in between fits of provocative name-calling.
Let me put it to you succinctly: enlighten us as to the belt hypotheses, and the testing he's done (or you've done) to validate them, and then have these tests run by multiple independent experimenters to the same conclusions, and I'll buy into beltism. I'll even buy the damned cream.
Previous Topic
Index
