Thread: Scientists prove existence of sixth sense as form of telepathy

Originally Posted by Replicon

Are you for real? "the ego ones?" Most brilliant scientists are ego ones, and that's precisely why they WILL reveal what they have. Nobel prize.
So you make a ridiculous claim due partially to shoddy journalism, and partially to your own bad thinking, and when people point out the obvious problems with your claim, you respond with conspiracy theories. Classy.

What else of an excuse you got for shoddy journalism? Gimme something better, other than conspiracy theories.
Not all scientists are egoistic. Please don't tell me it's because of shoddy journalists, that is a really lame answer because nowdays all journalists aren't doing good stories, and you know why, they are being controlled on what not to and how to make stories.
I think it's best for anyone who thinks i am dumb, better back off now, and accept my last post about the article with the dead horses.

Originally Posted by hathor28

What else of an excuse you got for shoddy journalism? Gimme something better, other than conspiracy theories.
Not all scientists are egoistic. Please don't tell me it's because of shoddy journalists, that is a really lame answer because nowdays all journalists aren't doing good stories, and you know why, they are being controlled on what not to and how to make stories.
I think it's best for anyone who thinks i am dumb, better back off now, and accept my last post about the article with the dead horses.

I apologize if I came off saying you're dumb. "Bad thinking" doesn't mean "stupid person" - it's just a bad process.

I'm not sure what you mean by the whole "what else of an excuse you got?" thing.

You specifically said earlier, "Why would media and scientists even put the name telepathy in this article?"

I don't recall a scientist putting the name "telepathy" into the article. That article was NOT written by a scientist. Very early in this thread, the "shoddy journalism" thing was covered, when Patrick pasted the abstract from the ACTUAL scientific paper, and explained how it had nothing to do with telepathy, and how scientists said nothing about telepathy in the paper.

So yes, taking a basic scientific paper about how the brain reacts to signals that are artificially sent in, by making new and useful neural pathways, and construing it as "proof of telepathy" is bad journalism. I don't necessarily blame the specific journalist, though. The news company needs to sell its product, and the editors are usually responsible for twisting everything around like that.

Please don't tell me it's because of shoddy journalists, that is a really lame answer

Again, I have no idea what the question is. Is this the same question about an excuse for something? Excuse for what?