Thread: My Ghost Story
View Single Post
Old 21st November 2015, 09:51 AM   #590
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
Then where did the theories come from, handwaving by select physicists?
Handwaving by people desiring to use the general opacity of higher physics as a veneer of credibility over their completely unscientific beliefs

Quote:
I've stated that this is speculation since the beginning of the discussion.
Asked and answered. Since the beginning of the discussion you've tried to show that your theory has some chimeric status somewhere between speculation and science. This has been shown to you many times, with examples.

Quote:
For some reason you insist that I'm stating it as fact
No. What I claim is that when your critics treat your theory as the speculation it is, you get all butthurt and make personal attacks against them for not "considering" it or otherwise treating it favorably. You're trying to shame your critics away from disagreeing with you, and it's fairly obvious.

Quote:
You can disagree with me but you have no evidence to support your stance since nothing I've stated has been tested or can be tested at this time.
Asked and answered. Your theories do not follow from the sources you say they're based upon. I need no external evidence to show that your hypothesis is a non sequitur. As to whether your theory might be provable on other grounds, you freely admit you have no proof and suggest that your critics should have the responsibility to disprove you. Even now you're still trying to shift the burden of proof.

Since your hypothesis is your affirmative claim, your inability to test it (for whatever reason) means your affirmative claim fails. That's not the same as asserting it is false. But it fails as any sort of proposition that lay claim to a scientific basis.

Quote:
What you call taking to task is mediocrity masking as superiority.
Your critics' mediocrity and your own superiority is entirely a product of your imagination.

Quote:
I've berated you because you have cherry picked what data you would like to accept, just as I have...
No. Applying the methods of science is not "cherry picking." You get upset when your critics won't let you soften science to the point where your theory can squeak by. All fringe theorists do this. They propose what they think is a great "scientific" theory, then whine that science is mean for not accepting it.

Quote:
Who is Motte and Bailey?
I'll just let this particular example of ignorance speak for itself.

Quote:
I understand perfectly. You need to understand how the brain works here first before you can understand what evidence to look for in how it might work as a receiver for thoughts, ideas, feelings that might come from some other you in another dimension.
No. The difference between phenomenology and mechanism has been discussed at length. You can't even show phenomenology in favor of your theory. You've put the cart before the horse and argued inferentially based on your speculation of mechanism.

Quote:
What else does the word dimension describe if not space?
I covered this at length in my summary of linear algebra. And let me just say that if you have to ask this question in this way, then you cannot possibly have any sort of workable understanding of quantum field theory.

Quote:
I saw your previous posts but they don't have anything to do with what Tegmark stated in his paper regarding consciousness as a state of matter.
Then you understand neither Tegmark nor my posts.

Quote:
I think my critics reject my prophetic dream based on other reasons which vary in degree on rationality.
Nonsense. You berate your critics because they will not accept your particular brand of irrationality that explains and justifies your interpretation of your dream.

Your dream story is identical to a well-understood prosaic phenomenon. Parsimony demands we consider that phenomenon the likely explanation. But in order to throw a stick in the spokes of parsimony, you introduce an inexplicable element -- the prophecy. Since what is seen in a dream generally cannot be proven or rebutted, you think you have the lynchpin in your claim. And the record shows your argument relies heavily on the "But you can't prove me wrong!" rhetoric.

This whole foray into higher physics is just a red herring.

You seem to think your critics are stuck trying to explain away your ghost story because it's untestable. You say you can't provide evidence so you won't, just as a good lawyer keeps from calling his guilty client to the stand, where he would be undone upon cross-examination. But as one of your critics points out, you've shied away from every single form of affirmative argumentation you could make. And you've reminded us over and over that your claim can't be tested, from which you insinuate it can't be refuted.

Wrong.

You're perhaps hunting for an affirmative rebuttal. But your critics are not so limited. In lieu of any affirmative argument, they're free to explain the "prophecy" as a false memory or as something you just made up in order to get attention or perhaps to enable a mainstream-bashing tirade. I'm sure your critics made their minds up long ago. And I'm sure your habit of personalizing the argument and attributing to your critics all manner of intellectual and emotional infirmity has swayed their choice.

To sum up. Your ghost story fails because it is not substantiated. Your irrelevant physics claims fail because you don't know what you're talking about. This is a skeptics forum. This is the kind of discussion you're going to get here, and these are the kinds of conclusions that will be drawn here. Begging it to be different will not avail you.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top