Quote:
Originally Posted by Qiaozhi
I don't want to enter into this "discussion" ... but only to say that the burden of proof is on the person(s) who are claiming that signal lines exist, not on everyone else to disprove it. Someone waving a couple of sticks around in the air, and stating that they can feel the force, does not constitute proof.
Some time ago I used an analogy where I stated that there was a tea tray in orbit around the Earth, and challenged others to disprove it. If that sounds silly ... well, it is! But the same concept applies to signal lines. The most you could ever hope to prove is that someone claiming they can feel the signal line should be tested using doubled-blind methods. Even if the (inevitable) result shows that the person being tested cannot detect the lines, it does not prove their non-existence. It only proves that they were not detected.
This is why the burden of proof is on the claimant. Otherwise you could keep scanning Earth's orbit for the tea tray, only to be told, "Keep searching, it's definitely there. You're just not looking in the right place".
|
When you get down to the very basics, all proof at some level is a matter of faith. Faith in instrumentation, faith in yours or others test results, etc.
For example, saying I can feel the force or energies could very well be proof for me but obviously not for you. for myself - I am not interested in "proving" anything to anyone. I personally don't give a crap in your beliefs or what constitutes proof to you. If I or anyone else can find gold, treasure, or whatever methods or equipment they use to find it, GREAT, let them have at it. I don't operate in a mode that I have to justify any of my beliefs or existing operating methods as. My little world in not shook up by whatever someone else believes in so that I have to "disprove" them or their methods.
I also feel that if I have something that might help others I will pass it on. In my own researches I have been most grateful to some hint that someone passed to me that enabled me to operate in a better mode.
If someone wants to share some methodology they use I feel free to examine it, perhaps test it, and if useful, I'll incorporate it into my toolkit. If it doesn't seem worthwhile at any point I don't have to tear down the person or device.
So all these "proof" arguments. demands, etc. and critical bashing of someone else's methods is really a waste of time. Why don't we all just let whomever tell what methods, equipment, etc. they use and if interesting, get some details and quit all this bashing. It really wastes all our time to have to wade through a lot of BS to find a grain of truth. A simple "I tried it out and it doesn't work for me" is usually sufficient. You can't protect the morons. They have to learn it for themselves.
Goldifinder