Critical look at zetetics

[ABC2019]

I distinguish between the two and both have their value.
You deny your inner compass, you are not "complete" and you are lost on certain subjects.
Mad people are very rational.

I am not lost on any subject, it's just you who are blocking and can no longer follow me. My compass is working fine, thank you.

Ah ba no you say only bet on reason and as you are contradictory, even your reason fails.
doubly lost

except that I did not say that, I said that it is not necessary to confuse science and faith, and to pass for "scientific" what were only beliefs (for example the paranormal). But hey you also say that we should not confuse them, so we agree.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

As if the quantum phenomena to which science has no answer weren't paranormal ...

[Janic]

abcon

except that I did not say that, I said that it is not necessary to confuse science and faith, and to pass for "scientific" what were only beliefs (for example the paranormal). But hey you also say that we should not confuse them, so we agree.

entirely false, there is no science without faith or any human activity for that matter! So you are the first to say and repeat: "I believe that"" or its inverse "I do not think that"

[ABC2019]

As if the quantum phenomena to which science has no answer weren't paranormal ...

it is a very good example, precisely. No, things not yet explained are not "paranormal". Everything the scientists studied were not "explained" at the start: radioactivity for example, nobody knew what it was, we did not know the atomic nucleus. But she was observed . The study becomes scientific when things are attested by serious and controlled experiments: this is obviously the case for quantum phenomena, which are observed with very fine experiments, complicated to do, but which we have made sure that they were well valid and reproducible, like the Aspect experiments

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expérience_d%27Aspect

if these experiments did not exist, quantum mechanics would not exist, and there would be no mystery. So the condition to be scientific is not "to explain" things, but simply to make sure that they really exist and not in the imagination of yououtubers.

In addition, the existence of Méca Q proves precisely that scientists have no problem in questioning their beliefs and accepting new data, even incomprehensible - contrary to what they are accused of. No system of thought has evolved more and faster than science, much more than religions. The argument that we refuse facts contrary to our beliefs therefore falls flat, it is exactly the opposite, science accepts EVERYTHING, but on one condition: that it is proven by reliable experiments. That's all.

[humus]

I said that we should not confuse science and faith, .. But hey you also say that we should not confuse them, so we agree.

On this point yes.

which were only beliefs (for example the paranormal).

On this point, NO.
The paranormal in the video has a real existence.
and what is also true is that I could never inform myself in your place.

By fleeing the paranormal you are unscientific, you are irrational, you are in belief.

[ABC2019]

I said that we should not confuse science and faith, .. But hey you also say that we should not confuse them, so we agree.

On this point yes.

which were only beliefs (for example the paranormal).

On this point, NO.
The paranormal in the video has a real existence.

if the argument is correct that it is said in a video, and that you do not have scientific references to give, with experiments published, reproduced, wiki pages explaining them etc ..., the probability that it is real is extremely low, and in practice almost nil. It must be understood that if a result contradicts existing physical laws, it needs EXTREMELY convincing evidence, which the Anglo-Saxons express by "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

The mere existence of a video on youtube is obviously not an "extraordinary proof", the probability of a hoax and special effects is much higher than that of phenomena violating the known laws.

[ABC2019]

By fleeing the paranormal you are unscientific, you are irrational, you are in belief.

Insofar as, as I said, the scientific process consists in requiring proof of which the quality is at the level of the affirmation, I am on the contrary perfectly scientific.


The idea is that you have to be convinced that the probability that the evidence is tampered with is judged to be much lower than the probability that the effect exists, which is clearly not the case here.

[Janic]

abcon

In addition, the existence of Méca Q proves precisely that scientists have no problem in questioning their beliefs and accepting new data, even incomprehensible - contrary to what they are accused of.

excellent bad reasoning, by wanting to make believe in the superiority of a stammering "science" over the intrinsic reality of things which are experience and intuition.

No thought system has evolved more and faster than science, much more than religions. [*]

There again you confuse LA science consisting of the bringing together of all knowledge, with scientists who try to understand already existing phenomena before they even look at them. So once again DES scientists and not LA science, have and always will have lots of late metro. As Klein points out: "the interest of knowledge is to perceive the extent of our unknown" and he doesn't mistakenly use that word science hackneyed by operetta scientists like your dear AFIS.
So the pseudo scientists, or rather scientists, a little humility!

The argument that we refuse facts contrary to our beliefs therefore falls flat, it is exactly the opposite, science accepts EVERYTHING, but on one condition: that this is proven by reliable experiments. That's all.

and bouzo who boasts of his sectarian pseudo-scientific fantasies.
It is not enough to want to prove, it is also necessary to have the means, material (which only come under existing technology), and mental, to be able to do so.
So, according to your speech, where is YOUR scientific evidence regarding the unproven efficacy of vaccines for over a century!but on one condition: that it is proven by experiments reliable. That's all.

[*] you have become, in addition, an expert in theology !? Vanity of vanities!

[humus]

if the argument is correct that it is said in a video, and that you do not have scientific references to give, with published experiments, reproduced, wiki pages explaining them etc ...

Good go, go to bed or rather I will go to bed, (elsewhere!)

[izentrop]

Humus, it's easy, success every time ...