Philosophy Now Forum

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 6:45 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:01 am ROFL...Keep typing...I read the first and last sentence and got bored.

I might get irritated at most people treating such a small quantity of my delightful prose that way, but you can do so if you wish in the name of reciprocity. After all, the formulaic 'this and that are opposites but also the same' routine you are obsessed with, that got stale immediately and anyone who actually reads them is pretty dumb. You could print a murder confession in your average post and it would remain better buried than the male prostitute you murdered.

This hasn't been a discussion about whether or not pyramids, and angularity in general, cause actual nerve damage, or can solve the energy crisis. Those claims were categorically absurd from the off. It has been a quick and decreasingly interesting excavation of the geological layers of inadequacy that drive you to showboat in such a pathetic manner. There was no debate here for you to win a prize, your best move would have been to just realize and concede that your position was overambitious and silly.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:42 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:False the "natural philosophers" where around long before in aristotle and various presocratics as well as eastern buddhist thought (which observed many of the natural elements as having atomic ever changing qualities). Classification fault on your part.

Ignorance of the history of western Philosophy upon yours.

Aristotle studied nature....

Gave them to a neutral party...same result. Give you results? No...because you will interpret it however you which.

Don't tell me, they brought their own dowsing rods!

ROFL!!!! That would change the test parameters....

A loon would ignore the standard the pyramids where created by. ...

'were' and only a loon would say this.

A loon would argue dousing rods "only" is the correct measure. I am arguing neither...try again.

Nope, a loon would argue that dowsing rods are any measure at all without testing them first. Now who could that be?

False because in order to test them a test parameter has to be set up which in itself but be test to prove whether or not it is accurate and we are left with a "slippery slope". The most one can do is define the parameters and this makes the testing process a process of definition that is neither true nor false.

Give me a universally agreed upon definition of science as well as an example so I understand your perspective. Definition and example.

I doubt there's any 'universal' definition upon anything but here's a practical one with respect to experimental science.

So you claim I must "be scientific" but there is not universal definition...so what you are saying is truth is relative to whether you are convinced or not...that is subjective.

An experimental scientist is someone who tests hypotheses and observations and they do it by identifying the possible variables and then try to isolate them one by one to see what effect each one has.

That "isolation" is impossible. Observing rats in a city vs a field vs a wooden box changes the framework of testing. All science is just an observation of a framework...it is an interpretation...nothing more.


So in your example you claim that dowsing rods move when in the presence of a metal pyramid and hypothesise that they are detecting some kind of disturbance in an electro-magnetic field. The variables are the rods, the human holding them and the pyramid. As such a good first test would be to see if the rods are doing their job and not just being moved by the subconscious of the human holding them. The way to do this would be to isolate the rods by mounting them of a non-conductive frame and moving the pyramid around them, if the rods don't move then they are not detecting anything so back to the drawing-board. Get back to me once you have done this.

False because the dousing rods are defined historically as being held by practitioners. That is their historical use. They are no longer dousing rods as by there definition of usage they practioner and the rod are no longer seperate. It would be like me saying "test gun to see if it can shoot a clay pigeon out of the air" where the act of shooting the clay pigeon does not allow for a seperation being the subject and object.

Your argument is grounded in a seperation of subject and object which science cannot do precisely because the framework of testing is an extension of the observer.

Third...shut the fuck up about the dousing rods already...even I am claiming the interpretation of dousing rods alone is not enough.

No I am losing brain cells by arguing on this forum.

Be careful as it's becoming obvious that you have very few to spare.

Prove that scientifically please...don't be a hypocrite.

"I think"...don't stutter around now.

Who's stuttering?

ROFL!!!!

This conversation about gravity.

Feel that tin-foil hat on your head whilst conversing? That's gravity.
Ad hominum.

Not really.

No really, I have it on good German authority that the pyramids are really big Orgone energy collectors built by magical methods that have been supressed by the illuminati.
And I am not even talking about orgone...

What for saying the experiment is incomplete and dousing rods alone do not work as the only testing parameter...don't be unscientific now.

Nope, a loon for thinking that the rods are even a testing parameter.

And putting something in a box is the correct application? Isn't it a loon thing to say "science" "science" and say their is not universally agreed upon definition?

So it is all about money...science is determined by cash out put.

Nope, the Noble is just a reward of recognition by one's scientific peers and the Randi prize is a reward for proving the sceptics wrong. So off you go and test your rods in the manner I have described and at least win the Randi money and maybe even the Noble but don't forget to take your tin-foil hat with you.

So it is about group agreement and status then?

What...is that what you shove up your ass?

What've donkeys got to do with this?

We are not talking about your mother.

Don't tell me you are suffering from stockhold syndrome and can't get them off your mind.

Did I mention them in the first place?

Is this stockhold where you keep these asses?

Again stop talking about your mother.

You are jealous because we kicked your ass and you are now has beens....

Seriously, what have you got against donkeys?

Everything since your teeth have the same genetic heritage.


But if you are referring to your revolution then that'll be 'you' and the French Navy, the French munitions and artillery know-how and the French, Dutch and Spanish money and a whole load of ex-British army redcoats, oh! And a barking mad king on our side. Still, we have to thank you as is often the case the sceptic tanks word is not worth the paper it's written on(ask the Indians), as like the mercantile rabble you are you welshed on the French by not making trade deals with them but sticking with the British and saddled them with one billion livre of debt which severely hampered them later down the line in our war with them.

So the french owned you too...that is sad considering they lose all the time.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 5:57 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 6:45 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:01 am ROFL...Keep typing...I read the first and last sentence and got bored.

I might get irritated at most people treating such a small quantity of my delightful prose that way, but you can do so if you wish in the name of reciprocity. After all, the formulaic 'this and that are opposites but also the same' routine you are obsessed with, that got stale immediately and anyone who actually reads them is pretty dumb. You could print a murder confession in your average post and it would remain better buried than the male prostitute you murdered.

This hasn't been a discussion about whether or not pyramids, and angularity in general, cause actual nerve damage, or can solve the energy crisis. Those claims were categorically absurd from the off. It has been a quick and decreasingly interesting excavation of the geological layers of inadequacy that drive you to showboat in such a pathetic manner. There was no debate here for you to win a prize, your best move would have been to just realize and concede that your position was overambitious and silly.

Hahaha...you put all that time into a "deep response" I literally just read only the first 7-8 words for...ROFL!!!!

Eodnhoj7 wrote:Aristotle studied nature....

ROFL!!!! That would change the test parameters....

False because in order to test them a test parameter has to be set up which in itself but be test to prove whether or not it is accurate and we are left with a "slippery slope". The most one can do is define the parameters and this makes the testing process a process of definition that is neither true nor false.

So you claim I must "be scientific" but there is not universal definition...so what you are saying is truth is relative to whether you are convinced or not...that is subjective.

That "isolation" is impossible. Observing rats in a city vs a field vs a wooden box changes the framework of testing. All science is just an observation of a framework...it is an interpretation...nothing more.

False because the dousing rods are defined historically as being held by practitioners. That is their historical use. They are no longer dousing rods as by there definition of usage they practioner and the rod are no longer seperate. ...

It would be like me saying "test gun to see if it can shoot a clay pigeon out of the air" where the act of shooting the clay pigeon does not allow for a seperation being the subject and object. ...

Your argument is grounded in a seperation of subject and object which science cannot do precisely because the framework of testing is an extension of the observer. ...

Third...shut the fuck up about the dousing rods already...even I am claiming the interpretation of dousing rods alone is not enough.

Prove that scientifically please...don't be a hypocrite.

ROFL!!!!

Ad hominum.

And I am not even talking about orgone...

And putting something in a box is the correct application?

Isn't it a loon thing to say "science" "science" and say their is not universally agreed upon definition?

So it is about group agreement and status then?

We are not talking about your mother.

Again stop talking about your mother.

Everything since your teeth have the same genetic heritage.

So the french owned you too... that is sad considering they lose all the time.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 7:23 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 5:57 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 6:45 pm
I might get irritated at most people treating such a small quantity of my delightful prose that way, but you can do so if you wish in the name of reciprocity. After all, the formulaic 'this and that are opposites but also the same' routine you are obsessed with, that got stale immediately and anyone who actually reads them is pretty dumb. You could print a murder confession in your average post and it would remain better buried than the male prostitute you murdered.

This hasn't been a discussion about whether or not pyramids, and angularity in general, cause actual nerve damage, or can solve the energy crisis. Those claims were categorically absurd from the off. It has been a quick and decreasingly interesting excavation of the geological layers of inadequacy that drive you to showboat in such a pathetic manner. There was no debate here for you to win a prize, your best move would have been to just realize and concede that your position was overambitious and silly.

Hahaha...you put all that time into a "deep response" I literally just read only the first 7-8 words for...ROFL!!!!

Sure, I totally believe you.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Tue May 07, 2019 2:31 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:Aristotle studied nature....

And got a fair chunk of it wrong.

And some claim the same for Newton...physics is interpretation of empircal relations.

ROFL!!!! That would change the test parameters....

What 'test parameters'? Post them up so we can see what you and your chum did.

Uh I did.

False because in order to test them a test parameter has to be set up which in itself but be test to prove whether or not it is accurate and we are left with a "slippery slope". The most one can do is define the parameters and this makes the testing process a process of definition that is neither true nor false.

Anything to protect yourself from the realization that you are a loon.

False, your ad-hominum only proves a lack of argumentation on your part. The question of accuracy in test parameters is a constant rarely address in scientific methodology without some current underlying assumption.

In experimental science the parameters are to eliminate the possibility of extraneous external factors, say something like the subconscious mind moving the dowsing rods to fit their expectations They are also there so truly neutral actors can replicate the results to see if the claims were true or false but I understand why that would be something that you would fear.

The parameters are an extension of the subconscious mind...facepalm...considering the hypothesis is dependent upon a purely subjective mode of observation of reality which is highly relativisitic.

So you claim I must "be scientific" but there is not universal definition...so what you are saying is truth is relative to whether you are convinced or not...that is subjective.

Nope, what I'm saying is that you made an empirical claim about copper pyramids and electro-magnetic fields and out of interest we asked you how you did this and you replied that you used dowsing rods rather than EM field detectors to make the measurements, as such we have asked you to test the efficacy of your test instruments using pretty standard tests available from experimental science but for some reason you appear loathe to do this and instead write pages upon pages of waffle trying to displace the fact that you are a loon in a tin-foil hat.

And what I said is x factor relates to y factor and this is how the phenomenon is interpreted. It is an interpretation.

That "isolation" is impossible. Observing rats in a city vs a field vs a wooden box changes the framework of testing. All science is just an observation of a framework...it is an interpretation...nothing more.

Just more waffle from the loon. What you miss is the idea of a framework of interpretation that allows at least replicable results by neutral parties, it's what makes the difference between the experimental scientist and the loon.

False, now you are lying. The framework of interpretation is inseperable from the observer.

False because the dousing rods are defined historically as being held by practitioners. That is their historical use. They are no longer dousing rods as by there definition of usage they practioner and the rod are no longer seperate. ...

Then just do a double-blind test, put up about ten tents, find a truly neutral party to place your pyramid under one of them and see if you can find it, do about fifty runs moving the pyramid each time and see if you can find it more than the law of averages would predict.

And if it reaches the law of averages we are left with the question if certain people are more prone to finding it than others and have to explain why they are above the law of averages.

It would be like me saying "test gun to see if it can shoot a clay pigeon out of the air" where the act of shooting the clay pigeon does not allow for a seperation being the subject and object. ...

Nope, it would be like you mounting the gun at a fixed clay and firing it to see if it can hit and destroy the clay in the first place.

Yes and the distance between the gun and clay, ie the framework, is still and extension of the observer...this is not pure objectivity.

Your argument is grounded in a seperation of subject and object which science cannot do precisely because the framework of testing is an extension of the observer. ...

Which is why experimental science works on the principle of other subjects being able to replicate the results you loon.

And they are probabilisitic.

Third...shut the fuck up about the dousing rods already...even I am claiming the interpretation of dousing rods alone is not enough.

No stop waffling and please for gawds sake stop digging a bigger hole demonstrating your lunacy as your dowsing rods are not even a start, at least not until you test their efficacy.

I think if one tested your responses, emprically, for how many times you state "lunacy" in this thread one could empirically see you do not provide much of an argument.

Prove that scientifically please...don't be a hypocrite.

Well it's just a hypothesis so I'll just watch the increasing deterioration of your thought processes and grammar for more empirical evidence.

ROFL!!!!

Muhahahahahaha suits you better.

True...never thought of it that way...MUHAHAHAHAHA!

Ad hominum.

Doesn't change the fact that the weight of that tin-foil hat is due to gravity acting during this conversation.

How unscientific of you.

And I am not even talking about orgone...

No, no, you really are as Orgone Energy is the absolute expression of the ONE and this electro-magnetism is just an appearance of the Orgone Energy from the ONE SOURCE which what you are detecting with your dowsing rods. Come-on, get with the TRUTH.

I am not arguing orgone energy...that is just a mode of interpretation.

And putting something in a box is the correct application?

I didn't ask you to put your rods in a box, I asked you to mount them on a frame and walk your pyramid around them to see if they detect anything. Of course you could do a double-blind test to see if you and your rods can actually detect a hidden pyramid, see above, but I seriously understand why you'd not wish to do this and maybe I shouldn't push this matter as it is keeping you safely away from the rest of the sane people.

And that changes the nature of the rods, dousing rods by definition are inseperable from the observer. And yes it is still a "box" as a contained framework.

Isn't it a loon thing to say "science" "science" and say their is not universally agreed upon definition?

Nope, the loon thing is to ignore experimental scientific methods to test their equipment and hypotheses, as is saying "science" "science".

Experiments are literally made up according to the observer.

So it is about group agreement and status then?

Nope, it's all about replicable experimental results.

The framework which determines what replicates and what does not is subjective and an extension of the observer. The results change according to the framework and the framework originates quite literally unscientifically because it originates with a subjective observer.

We are not talking about your mother.

Funny you've brought her up as I was just talking to her the other day and she told me that she'd spotted some weirdo in her orchard wafting about dowsing rods wearing a tin-foil hat, wasn't you was it?

You are right...I was in "her orchard" with "my dousing rod"...you caught me...does this make me your daddy now? I feel like we are having a father son argument at this point.

I asked her if she was worried but she said no as she's just brought a patented Russki home defence system, it consists of a load of copper pyramids that you setup around your perimeter and they are guaranteed to give any miscreants a severe case of the screaming heebie-jeebies and the wibbley-wobbleys. I did warn here tho' that the US tin-foil hat is a powerful juju but she appeared to put her faith in good old Russki knowhow.

Yes "Russki home defense system"... it zaps those pesky sperm cells before they reach their intended target...

Again stop talking about your mother.

Ewwww!... you been peeping at my mum? I told her those tin-foil hats may overcome that Russki pyramid defence system and the pervert might get through.

More like inside your mom...older women need love too...don't be so hard on her...or rather don't get a hard on over her...that would be awkward.

Everything since your teeth have the same genetic heritage.

What a pastiche of a sceptic tank you are, muslims, WWII, 'your' revolution, teeth, 'Yo Momma', donkeys, any more clichés on the way? It must be boring to be so unoriginal.

So the french owned you too... that is sad considering they lose all the time.

You really need to stop getting your History from Hollywood and Disney.


I know it is sad Micky Mouse has more power than the current British empire.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 6:24 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 7:23 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 5:57 pm

Hahaha...you put all that time into a "deep response" I literally just read only the first 7-8 words for...ROFL!!!!

Sure, I totally believe you.

I read that one.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 8:34 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 6:24 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon May 06, 2019 7:23 pm
Sure, I totally believe you.

I read that one.

I mostly believe you.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 8:38 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 8:34 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 6:24 pm

I read that one.

I mostly believe you.

I read that one too...short sentences suit you.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:And some claim the same for Newton...physics is interpretation of empircal relations.

Uh I did.

False, your ad-hominum only proves a lack of argumentation on your part. ...

The question of accuracy in test parameters is a constant rarely address in scientific methodology without some current underlying assumption.

The parameters are an extension of the subconscious mind...facepalm...considering the hypothesis is dependent upon a purely subjective mode of observation of reality which is highly relativisitic.

And what I said is x factor relates to y factor and this is how the phenomenon is interpreted. It is an interpretation.

False, now you are lying. The framework of interpretation is inseperable from the observer.

And if it reaches the law of averages we are left with the question if certain people are more prone to finding it than others and have to explain why they are above the law of averages.

Yes and the distance between the gun and clay, ie the framework, is still and extension of the observer...this is not pure objectivity.

And they are probabilisitic.

I think if one tested your responses, emprically, for how many times you state "lunacy" in this thread one could empirically see you do not provide much of an argument.

True...never thought of it that way...MUHAHAHAHAHA!

How unscientific of you.

I am not arguing orgone energy...that is just a mode of interpretation.

And that changes the nature of the rods, dousing rods by definition are inseperable from the observer. And yes it is still a "box" as a contained framework.

Experiments are literally made up according to the observer.

The framework which determines what replicates and what does not is subjective and an extension of the observer. The results change according to the framework and the framework originates quite literally unscientifically because it originates with a subjective observer.

You are right...I was in "her orchard" with "my dousing rod"...you caught me...does this make me your daddy now? I feel like we are having a father son argument at this point.

Yes "Russki home defense system"... it zaps those pesky sperm cells before they reach their intended target...

More like inside your mom...older women need love too...don't be so hard on her...or rather don't get a hard on over her...that would be awkward.

I know it is sad Micky Mouse has more power than the current British empire.

Jokes aside...

Give me an example of a pure subject/object dichotomy.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon May 13, 2019 1:42 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:And some claim the same for Newton...physics is interpretation of empircal relations.

Do they? You'd better tell the artillery boys then.

Uh I did.

Er!? No you didn't, you waffled something about not doing so as we might just well take the piss out of them. Go on, post up these latest tests, state your methodology.

False, your ad-hominum only proves a lack of argumentation on your part. ...

Not so, more a response to your refusal to carry out any of the standard experimental tests thereby proving your loon status.

The question of accuracy in test parameters is a constant rarely address in scientific methodology without some current underlying assumption.

Yeah! The underlying assumption that if you do these tests you'll discover whether your methodology has any merit, which is why you won't do them.

The parameters are an extension of the subconscious mind...facepalm...considering the hypothesis is dependent upon a purely subjective mode of observation of reality which is highly relativisitic.

Great! So we agree, your dowsing rods are moving due to your subconscious acting upon them to confirm to your hypothesis, in other words the experiments of the loon.

And what I said is x factor relates to y factor and this is how the phenomenon is interpreted. It is an interpretation.

And so the interpretation is that you want to believe what you've seen on the web about these pyramids and your dowsing rods are reflecting your subconscious desire by making micro-movements to tip an unstable equilibrium system over exactly where you wish the results to be.

False, now you are lying. The framework of interpretation is inseperable from the observer.

Which is why we have double-blind tests and tests for the equipment and experiments that can be replicated by a neutral party. All things that you refuse to do as if you did do them you may well find that you are a tin-foil hatted loon.

And if it reaches the law of averages we are left with the question if certain people are more prone to finding it than others and have to explain why they are above the law of averages.

Great! Go ahead and do the tests to see if you are one of these. If you find you aren't then it's all up with your 'experiments' is it not? But go ahead and actually do them rather than all this waffle to avoid doing them and if you are then I look forward to reading about you collecting Randi's million dollars. Post it up when you do but I won't be holding my breath.

Yes and the distance between the gun and clay, ie the framework, is still and extension of the observer...this is not pure objectivity.

What are you waffling about now, you claim there is no 'pure objectivity'? But what such a test is is one that confirms the efficacy of the instruments which would then allow one to go on and do the main experiment. But it is of no matter now as you have agreed that your dowsing rods detect nothing on their own, they are not detectors of any sort let alone of electro-magnetic fields.

And they are probabilisitic.

You loons love saying such things as you think it gives you a get out but Physics is probabilistic up to approximately .99999999 decimal places so go ahead and test your rods and pyramids to such a level, in fact just test to see if you can beat the law of averages. I'll give you a hint, not one dowser has ever beaten them.

I think if one tested your responses, emprically, for how many times you state "lunacy" in this thread one could empirically see you do not provide much of an argument.

Not so, your replies are more than enough empirical evidence to confirm my claim that you are a loon.

True...never thought of it that way...MUHAHAHAHAHA!

Told you, it suits you.

How unscientific of you.

Doesn't change the fact that you feeling that tin-foil hat on your head is due to gravity acting during this conversation.

I am not arguing orgone energy...that is just a mode of interpretation.

And I keep telling you that you are WRONG! ORGONE ENERGY is the SOURCE from which you are getting your mystical detecting powers. How CAN you BE so BLIND!!

And that changes the nature of the rods, dousing rods by definition are inseperable from the observer. And yes it is still a "box" as a contained framework.

And I agree with you, your dowsing rods are moving due to your subconscious making micro-movements to the rods to get the results you wish to see. That is why I suggest you do a double-blind test and get a truly neutral observer to put your pyramids under one of ten boxes and you do a few runs to see if you can beat the law of averages in detecting it. But I know you won't do this as then you'd have to admit you are a loon for believing such bollocks.

Experiments are literally made up according to the observer.

Well yours certainly are but the experimental scientists add things like double-blind tests to test their claims, only the loons ignore such things.

The framework which determines what replicates and what does not is subjective and an extension of the observer. The results change according to the framework and the framework originates quite literally unscientifically because it originates with a subjective observer.

Stop waffling about and get back to us when you actually have done the simple standard tests of experimental science otherwise you are just another loon in a tin-foil hat.

You are right...I was in "her orchard" with "my dousing rod"...you caught me...does this make me your daddy now? I feel like we are having a father son argument at this point.

Ooo! Did you get the heebie-jeebies and the wibblie-wobblies then?

Yes "Russki home defense system"... it zaps those pesky sperm cells before they reach their intended target...

I thought you said they induce the heebie-jeebies and the wibblie-wobblies?

More like inside your mom...older women need love too...don't be so hard on her...or rather don't get a hard on over her...that would be awkward.

Oh dear! Are you the premature ejaculator she mentioned, you owe her for the dry-cleaning bill. Maybe those pyramids of yours are having an effect, stay away from them.

I know it is sad Micky Mouse has more power than the current British empire.

Mickey Mouse, current British Empire? What decade are you in? Micky was dead, god bless Pixar for saving him.

Jokes aside...

Have you made any?

Give me an example of a pure subject/object dichotomy.

After you give me the results of the double-blind tests.
p.s.
I can't stand it anymore, it's "Dowse" not "Douse" as in "dowsing rods" not "dousing rods" as the latter would be a hosepipe.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sun May 12, 2019 9:35 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 8:38 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat May 11, 2019 8:34 pm

I mostly believe you.

I read that one too...short sentences suit you.

You've cheered up significantly. Did you sit on a pyramid and get a tickle in your heiny?

Eodnhoj7 wrote:..ROFL!!!! You repeat the same bullshit in the same loop...

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Wed Jun 05, 2019 2:29 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:..ROFL!!!! You repeat the same bullshit in the same loop...

I thought it was Muhahahaha!?

But lmfao that the above is all you could come up with after all this time, what's up! They only just let you back out?

So can I assume that you won't be testing if your dowsing rods can detect this EM field you claim your pyramid 'experiments' are based upon? I'll give you a clue - they can't. And you won't be testing if you are the incredible mystical dowser who can make these rods work by doing a randomised blind test and claiming Randi's million dollar prize - I'll save you the effort, you're not. But no worries as I understand why you won't do these things because you are a tin-foil hatted loon who believes himself an ignored genius despite being too incompetent to achive in academia and 'experiments' such as these and your interminable ramblings upon this forum let you sleep at night.

Sweet dreams cutie pie.
xxx

Eodnhoj7 wrote:No the truth is you just repeat the same bullshit about the dousing rods...when I argued for the millionth time that they are "a" testing parameter not "the" testing parameter. You argue this strictly being you have no other intellectual cards to play and this is the best you can do...and it is boring. ...

But then again I don't really know if you even brought the dousing rods up...I am just guessing because I did not even read the post. You have no objective standard for what constitutes "science" thus your base axiom of what is or is not scientific is subject to your own subjective belief. ...

You are a religious nut...that is it. ...

Take out "x" religion and place in science. You seem to have placed alot of belief in the ability to create a "test" as the sole measure of truth when the process of "testing" itself is subject to serious logical faults and contradictions. It would be like testing to see if God exists when many scriptures state God is not to be tested...thus if you prove God exists you prove the religion false, but it is the religion that states God exists to being with...and you are left with a regressive loop.