Thread: Pyrokinesis: Possible or impossible?

Originally Posted by Xei

Of course, it's okay for you not to give sources, and tell people to be open minded, but when other people do it isn't evidence that they're being open minded, it's evidence that they're wrong. ._.

Your the one disputing what we're saying, you should've expected to give sources.

Originally Posted by Xei

Here you can read about some of the lies in that film:

What the Bleep Do We Know!? - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those were academic responses and claims they have made against the film, no proof against it. (Though I don't dispute that their claims are incorrect)

Originally Posted by Xei

You appear to have gotten a lot of your misinformation that you stick to, such as the 10% brain thing, from this source. Apparently having an open mind means 'having an open mind to stuff you want to hear'. You have clearly done zero research into the possibility that the information might be wrong. This is called 'confirmation bias', and their strict avoidance of this is what makes a scientist infinitely more open minded than you'll ever be.

There you go again with purposely targeting me. You dare use the word "infinite" when you tried to dispute that it exists earlier?
And I've already responded to the 10% myth, you'll have to go back a few posts. Quick question, do you think your using your full potential regardless of what the statistics say?
As I said, modern day scientists are the most close minded people in the world, quit looking at them through rose-tinted glasses. You think Einstein had it easy when he was introducing his theories to the world? No, scientists gave him crap for it and guess what? He was right. Don't talk to me about scientists being open minded.

Originally Posted by Xei

There's lots of stuff here that shows that Emoto's results were nonsense.

Masaru Emoto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He also sells water which is supposedly magical or whatever, so he's also a con-artist. A good person to learn from.

I never heard of that man in my life, and I don't know where you found him. Do you get all your info from Wikipedia by the way?

Originally Posted by Xei

By his own admission his results were nonsense. What he said he did was make people focus various emotions on water, then take pictures of the water, and then publish those pictures if they seemed to match the emotion and throwing out any that did not aesthetically match it. If you can't see how ridiculous this is then you are lost.

It was a minor sector of "What the Bleep Do We Know", I didn't pay attention to it nearly as much as everything else.

I'd appreciate if you all stop trying to do the personal attacks, trolling, and few worded posts just to offend anyone with a different opinion. It's not cool, and you only make yourself look immature. Don't quote my previous posts and say "Well, you were trolling", because I was only defending myself/case.