Re: Pseudo-science
Posted by Canie on March 09, 2001 at 08:35:48:

Let me first say that I enjoy studying the science of geology, especially in its respect to earthquakes and volcanos.

You seem to be most concerned with what you call nonsense science or pseudo-science. I don't recall anyone here really calling the study of any possible psychic phenomena a science of any sort. It must be the ear-tone thing that you object to the most. I'm not sure anyone called the study of ear-tones a science either. Just a possible phenomena that may relate to quakes.

As my dictionary defines it Science is the Knowledge of facts, phenomena, laws and proximate causes, gained and verified by exact observation, organized experiment and correct thinking; also the sum of universal knowledge.

It is probably just a semantics thing but no scientific claims are being made by anyone on this board so please don't infer that we are.

This is a place for the sharing of ideas and conversations of any sort that may further the understanding of nature's processes and maybe even lead to earthquake predictions someday.

My personal feelings about things is how can you even begin to try to predict an earthquake if you don't know a thing about geology and how our planet got to where it is today. Maybe the quake prediction thing will be cracked wide open by pure scientific research - maybe it will require a psychic connection of some sort - I don't know. But I do know that there are people that have abilities that I lack. Governments and scientists do research these capabilities - there is a real factor involved with them.

There are many who claim to be sensitive to earthquakes and there are only a couple that I will listen to when they say something is coming. It has taken some time to discern just who might be onto something and who isn't. Unfortunately most of the ones that seem to be onto something do not post to these boards. They aren't trying to prove anything.

But this started as a science discussion and you are right - but we're not claiming ANY scientific claims here so don't accuse us of pseudo-science please.

Canie


Follow Ups:
     ● evidence is not evidence of absence - lynette  13:01:07 - 3/9/2001  (5872)  (1)
        ● messed up didn't I!? - lynette  13:04:19 - 3/9/2001  (5873)  (1)
           ● Re: messed up didn't I!? - dib  21:13:41 - 3/9/2001  (5892)  (2)
              ● Re: messed up didn't I!? - Roger Hunter  05:25:17 - 3/10/2001  (5903)  (1)
                 ● Re: messed up didn't I!? - dib  10:28:36 - 3/10/2001  (5908)  (0)
              ● book review you might find interesting - lynette  23:54:18 - 3/9/2001  (5896)  (2)
                 ● Re: book review you might find interesting - dib  10:37:27 - 3/10/2001  (5909)  (0)
                 ● sigh, here's the link - lynette  23:56:17 - 3/9/2001  (5897)  (0)