If you could define "pink unicorn" in a scientifically rigorous sense, then investigating its existence would indeed make sense. But you can't.
Similarly, if a given "psychic phenomenon" were defined rigorously, it should rightly be investigated also. Problem is, psychic phenomena have been investigated rigorously, and have always failed, in the sense that even though individual experiments may have shown some interesting results, the overall confidence level remains marginal at best.
The whole phrase "Near Death Experience" makes as much sense as "Near Pregnant Experience".
You're either pregnant or you aren't, and you're either dead or you aren't. If you're alive now, then you were never dead.
It has nothing to do with whether your heart stopped beating. "Death" == "Brain Dead", and there is no coming back from that.
You need to learn about another logical fallacy: the Straw Man argument. This is where someone argues vigorously against something that no one has argued in favor of.
Specifically the statement "Not all questions are resolvable by empiricism and scientific method". Can you cite a reference to any scientist who claims that they can be?
But logic suggests that the higher the IQ, the easier it is to be objective, to evaluate complex rational argument. The lower the IQ, the more difficult that becomes.
Logic doesn't suggest anything.
It can be used to support an argument, or demolish it when specified in detail.
The use of "logic" as synonym for "gut feeling" is a classic sign of rigid thinking. Richard Dawkins is notorious for making this mistake.
Men with conditions that predispose them to erections lasting more than four hours. These conditions include sickle cell anemia, multiple myeloma, and leukemia
How do you contract one of those diseases?
Not that I'm planning to, mind you.
Yes, and if an American is caught installing a bug in someone's hotel room in Paris, they can be arrested by French authorities. However, the computer hacking of an other country's data probably takes place at Fr. Meade, so there is no jurisdiction.
Tell that to the thousands of people involved in printing, distributing and selling her books. Or, making, distributing and showing the movies from her books. Or making and selling Harry Potter toys, etc. etc.
And none of this matters. Anymore than the invalidity of many patent claims by patent trolls matter. In the end, it all comes down to: can you afford to fight it? If not, they win, no matter how sleazy or illegal their activities are. And, the credit reporting agencies who spread false information cannot be held liable as long as they "have reason to believe that the information is correct".
Slashdot Mirror
If you could define "pink unicorn" in a scientifically rigorous sense, then investigating its existence would indeed make sense. But you can't.
Similarly, if a given "psychic phenomenon" were defined rigorously, it should rightly be investigated also.
Problem is, psychic phenomena have been investigated rigorously, and have always failed,
in the sense that even though individual experiments may have shown some interesting results,
the overall confidence level remains marginal at best.
Easy: he didn't. Randi proved that Geller was performing rudimentary slight-of-hand tricks.
The whole phrase "Near Death Experience" makes as much sense as "Near Pregnant Experience".
You're either pregnant or you aren't, and you're either dead or you aren't.
If you're alive now, then you were never dead.
It has nothing to do with whether your heart stopped beating.
"Death" == "Brain Dead", and there is no coming back from that.
"Peer reviewed" means nothing unless you know who the "peers" are.
By definition, the peers of an idiot are themselves idiots.
You need to learn about another logical fallacy: the Straw Man argument.
This is where someone argues vigorously against something that no one has argued in favor of.
Specifically the statement "Not all questions are resolvable by empiricism and scientific method".
Can you cite a reference to any scientist who claims that they can be?
I wasn't expecting that.
So why the fuck is this semi-literate clown given so much /. space?
That was satire, wasn't it?
Logic doesn't suggest anything.
It can be used to support an argument, or demolish it when specified in detail.
The use of "logic" as synonym for "gut feeling" is a classic sign of rigid thinking. Richard Dawkins is notorious for making this mistake.
Why does it seem that way to you? Empirical evidence does not support that.
Translate that into English?
How do you contract one of those diseases?
Not that I'm planning to, mind you.
Where "X" == infinity+1
Yes, and if an American is caught installing a bug in someone's hotel room in Paris, they can be arrested by French authorities.
However, the computer hacking of an other country's data probably takes place at Fr. Meade, so there is no jurisdiction.
"Business regulating itself" == "Business granting itself the right to do whatever it damn well pleases"
Criticizing the government.
...
It strongly suggests that you might be a friend or relative of
a terrorist!
Pink?
Tell that to the thousands of people involved in printing, distributing and selling her books.
Or, making, distributing and showing the movies from her books.
Or making and selling Harry Potter toys, etc. etc.
Or Uranus.
And none of this matters.
Anymore than the invalidity of many patent claims by patent trolls matter. In the end, it all comes down to: can you afford to fight it?
If not, they win, no matter how sleazy or illegal their activities are.
And, the credit reporting agencies who spread false information cannot be held liable as long as they "have reason to believe that the information is correct".
The Right in America is happy to give anyone the right to massacre as many people as they feel like, including a school full of 5 year-olds.
Yes.
As long the analyst has a gun.
Yes, general anesthesia. But I don't suppose that would be legal.
No, but they sure are good at fooling people into believing that they can. People like you.
+5 troll, indeed.