Thread: Many Scientists are Convinced that Man Can See the Future

I don't really consider that a "problem." Not all findings that are true are peer-reviewed, just as not all peer reviewed findings turn out to be true.

There a difference between writing a paper for the scientific community and writing a paper to get headlines in a newspaper. Again, peer review is good as it filters out rubbish, like creationism.

They call it "making an observation." You may try to discredit the anecdotes now, since they threaten your bias, but - while not definitive - they should not be ignored

The difference is they then get empirical evidence and stop using anecdotes instead of making them there foundation of there reasoning.

Does the sources' not being cited mean it's complete BS? I don't believe it does - only that it warrants further inquiry - do you? If not, why bring it up?

No, however if you don't cite you're sources then you can be using false premises to reason with. I can claim pigs can fly, however I wouldn't have any sources to support me, however if I don't cite any then is that find with you?

THAT was pretty weak. Anything could "actually be explained using a conspiracy theory." Where were you going with this?

That if you base your evidence on ancedotes then you can reason anything.

"well, I have no interest in looking into anything about this, so I'm just going to say the evidence for my side outweighs the article's, and see where that gets me."

Actually the physical evidence from physics suggest heavily that you can't see the future. In A brief history of time by Stephen Hawking he explaines that the thermodynamics and entrophy won't allow the future to be perceived. Anyway, so unless you have evidence that thermodynamics is wrong or the article cites the sources, its safe to concluded that its wrong.

If you take a little time to dig into the topic of parapsychology, yourself, you'll see plenty of names (just as I have) of scientists who have had the same sorts of results as Radin.

I mean actual scientists not parapsychologist.

Now let me so something peer-reviewed!" It's called 'moving the goalposts,' and, amazingly enough, that's pretty much how you began your post.

Not really. Peer review is important, the only people who argue against it our creationist, however thats because they have no evidence but god did it to support them, which is not science.

I won't expect to see stories about reptilian overlords on Fox seeing as things that are so farfetch'd borderlining total bullshit will cause Fox and other major news/media syndicates/outlets to lose credibility ultimately falling into the ranks of media outlets such as "The National Enquirer". However...Fox chose to cover a similar story regarding man perceiving the future as well.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361623,00.html

wendy, I am not going to get into a debate with you. Sometimes I think your head is shoved so far up your ass you'd try to debate your prostate gland if you had one. Stephen Hawking is a brilliant individual, but just because he's come to the conclusion (which I haven't seen empirical evidence to support that he has anyway) that perceiving the future is impossible, doesn't deem it so. The man is smart but his logic isn't free from fallacies. Einstein's theory of relativity should be evidence enough for you that such things are at least minutely possible.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Not really. Peer review is important, the only people who argue against it our creationist, however thats because they have no evidence but god did it to support them, which is not science.

A lot of people argue against the current state of peer reviewal; its not just creationists. I suspect you are trying to set up a straw man to support your argument with that one.

For instance, you may have heard of a study done at princeton awhile back concerning the influence of thought on random number generators. Their evidence showed that a person's thoughts and intentions can have a statistically signifigant effect on the output of these machines. The reason why the study didn't get much attention was not because they were reviewed by their peers and were shown to be wrong, but rather because no one would review or print their results.

Do a google search on "arguments against Peer review" before you make silly claims.