Re: Good science versus ???
Posted by Jen on October 06, 2001 at 06:53:58:

Your comments lead one to believe that scientific theories are never based on speculation. How would you explain a theory such as String Theory and Superstrings with that viewpoint? On the other hand, the so-called sensitives on this and other boards have real documentable physical reactions which they suspect may be associated with seismic activity. Their theory is based on factual, documentable information. I have personally been keeping a log of when I hear these sounds, their tone range, the length of the tones and then the possible associated seismic activity. Interestingly, I live in central Arkansas and became interested in earthquake prediction beginning in February of this year due to a sudden increase in these tones. After about April/May of this year, the tones have decreased to a point where I hardly notice any. During this last geomagnetic storm, I noticed tones a couple of times that I was able to go back and correlate to peaks in the geomagnetic storm. However, I still have not had the strong tones that were experienced earlier this year. Interestingly, there were several larger earthquakes (for this area) within 50 miles radius of me back in the spring whereas now, there has been little of this nearby seismic activity. This leads me to wonder or speculate (based on documented real physical evidence) whether my ear tones are associated with seismic activity or possibly with the geomagnetic field or possibly with both and there is still yet the possibility that my ear tones are just some inner ear problem that I have personally. I can see where some of the 'so-called sensitives' can, based on some accurate predictions, develop an overly egocentric attitude, believing possibly that they have special powers beyond others. This type of egocentricity probably develops in the scientific community as well, where I'm sure that some, based on their vast accumulated knowledge, believe they have special brain power beyond others. It's possible that in both cases, they could be a little bit correct. I will remain humbly observant and continue to document my observations like a good layperson would do.


Follow Ups:
     ● The Only good science is PC science - Lowell  10:28:39 - 10/6/2001  (9794)  (1)
        ● Re: The Only good science is PC science - dib  16:39:16 - 10/6/2001  (9802)  (2)
           ● Re: The Only good science is PC science - Cathryn  17:55:08 - 10/6/2001  (9806)  (1)
              ● Re: The Only good science is PC science - dib  19:02:27 - 10/6/2001  (9808)  (2)
                 ● Re: The Only good science is PC science - Cathryn  10:56:34 - 10/7/2001  (9815)  (0)
                 ● Hats off to Cathryn - Jen  19:38:10 - 10/6/2001  (9809)  (1)
                    ● Re: Hats off to Cathryn - Cathryn  11:01:32 - 10/7/2001  (9816)  (0)
           ● Postmortem & Words That Haunt ... - 2cents  17:51:54 - 10/6/2001  (9805)  (2)
              ● Re: Postmortem & Words That Haunt ... - dib  23:32:47 - 10/6/2001  (9812)  (2)
                 ● Re: Postmortem & Words That Haunt ... - 2cents  06:22:42 - 10/8/2001  (9829)  (2)
                    ● Re: Postmortem & Words That Haunt ... - Cathryn  16:38:39 - 10/10/2001  (9899)  (1)
                       ● Re: Postmortem & Words That Haunt ... - dib  17:53:42 - 10/10/2001  (9900)  (0)
                    ● Re: Postmortem & Words That Haunt ... - dib  22:15:57 - 10/9/2001  (9875)  (0)
                 ● Re: Postmortem & Words That Haunt ... - Cathryn  11:21:06 - 10/7/2001  (9818)  (1)
                    ● Re: Postmortem & Words That Haunt ... - dib  22:32:26 - 10/9/2001  (9877)  (0)
              ● Re: Postmortem & Words That Haunt ... - Cathryn  18:04:54 - 10/6/2001  (9807)  (0)
     ● Re: Good science versus ??? - dib  08:58:52 - 10/6/2001  (9793)  (1)
        ● Re: Good science versus ??? - Jen  11:10:32 - 10/6/2001  (9795)  (1)
           ● Re: Good science versus ??? - dib  17:28:38 - 10/6/2001  (9804)  (1)
              ● Re: Good science versus ??? - Canie  09:03:33 - 10/7/2001  (9813)  (1)
                 ● Re: Good science versus ??? - dib  09:43:58 - 10/7/2001  (9814)  (1)
                    ● Re: Good science versus ??? - Cathryn  11:04:48 - 10/7/2001  (9817)  (1)
                       ● Re: Good science versus ??? - dib  22:19:00 - 10/9/2001  (9876)  (2)
                          ● Re: Good science versus ??? - dib  21:16:08 - 10/10/2001  (9914)  (0)
                          ● Re: Good science versus ??? - Cathryn  16:32:54 - 10/10/2001  (9898)  (1)
                             ● Re: Good science versus ??? - dib  18:50:50 - 10/10/2001  (9905)  (1)
                                ● Re: Good science versus ??? - Cathryn  19:35:08 - 10/10/2001  (9906)  (1)
                                   ● Re: Good science versus ??? - dib  20:27:20 - 10/10/2001  (9909)  (1)
                                      ● Re: Good science versus ??? - Cathryn  20:52:15 - 10/10/2001  (9910)  (0)