Quote:
You can't write it off as just being different, falsifiability is a key component of a hypothesis and the scientific method, that's an example of how LoA does not adhere to a proper scientific process. It being pseudoscience has nothing to do with whether I like it or not.
But your grounds for falsification are baseless and basically the same as saying you don't like it. Yes, actually LoA does adhere to the scientific process. For fuck's sake, just because you say you should get to have whatever attitude you want, the freedom for the observer to hold whatever attitude he/she wanted is not implied by the scientific method. That's just you being stubborn and contorting the scientific method to support your own bigotry. The fact is, if science did have some sort of implication, that would make science limited in its ability, it would not make LoA impossible.
Quote:
I have no problem with reading, but this isn't casual reading. It would take time and research for me to properly understand what is going on in this experiment, but I did skim over it a bit to see what it was about. Since you understand it so well I did find a few points confusing, since this is supposedly an example of empirical and measurable data (again required for a proper scientific process) I found these points questionable and lacking in conclusive nature:
"For instance, such was the case in the Scole experiment, in which physical manifestation mediums ostensibly communicated with the deceased. Various markings, including drawings and writing in a variety of languages, were found on unopened rolls of photographic film that had been brought to the sessions by independent investigators (Keen, Ellison, and Fontana, 1999)."
How is this a measurable result of experiment? Where are the pictures of this photographic film roll? are they not documenting their evidence? How do we know these rolls were unopened, is this the part where I just put faith in these scientists? If they have been documenting their evidence have they submitted it to a scientific board for review of authenticity?
"In another case, Ted Owens, whom Jeffrey Mishlove investigated over the course of a decade, successfully produced or predicted anomalous events at least 75 times that had less than one percent probability of occurrence. For example, Owens could apparently direct lightning strikes to locations requested by others (Mishlove, 2000)."
Where did they get this percentage from? Since they were experimenting I'd hope they took video documentation of a man being able to direct lighting strikes with his mind.
"Contextuality refers to the idea that the values measured for observables would differ depending upon which other observables were also being measured (Kochen & Specker, 1967). Quantum theory itself does not appear to determine the selection of observables, so that there is room for human intention to act in choosing which of them is to be measured. Henry Stapp, without reference to the Kochen-Specker theorem, uses this as the insertion point for volition in his quantum mind theory (Stapp, 2004, 2007, 2009). Another strategy has been to suppose that intention affects stochastic processes, thereby, in effect, removing actual randomness. Variations of this can be found in the work of Jean Burns (2002), Evan Harris-Walker (1970, 1977, 2000), and Amit Goswami (Goswami, Reed and Goswami, 1993)."
Why are other questionable theories being used to explain a phenomena that is supposedly law? Even if your intentions/thoughts can manifest at a quantum level how does this rule out the potential of a sporadic or "stochastic" event? It seems like they are just speculating that your intentions/thoughts can be used to divert a sporadic events, where is the empirical data supporting this claim?
"There are, of course, many unanswered questions. One is the relation of the flicker rate to changeable rates of observational acts and the consequent timing of intention. My guess would be that intention, at the level of deep consciousness, persists across iterations of the universe, but that changes in intention could be registered within a single Planck time between instances of manifestation."
Persists across iterations of the universe? "My guess...?" damn straight there are many unanswered questions. This all seems extremely speculative and lacking in any hard evidence or data, which once again, is required for a proper scientific process.
Good job, you have read the speculative introduction so you can understand where people's heads are regarding what is still very a speculative science. I never said LoA was scientifically proven so stop using that strawman, please. I said you refused to debate this topic on a scientific level and this is the first time I've seen you do so. Glad you're starting to think like a scientist though.