Jump to content

Recommended Posts

taper Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I am very happy to give the OP the assurance that

> there is no such thing as paranormal activity.


Eh.....how do you know? If people at one won point quite reasonably assumed the Earth was flat, the liklihood is you would have been one of them. And it seems it's not.

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> taper Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I am very happy to give the OP the assurance

> that

> > there is no such thing as paranormal activity.

>

> xxxxxx

>

> Evidence for your statement, please?


The burden of evidence is on you and yours. V difficult to prove a negative.

If it was just a question of how many people had died in any place, then all hospitals should be so full of ghosts that it would be difficult to walk through the corridors. Like wading in mystic soup (not that I'm sure this is a reliable comparison, I haven't actually tried it)

lynne

Get the wrong kind of psychic whistle and you'll be surrounded by the ghosts of a thousand dead dogs.


I don't think evidence is necessary - the faintly ethereal and slightly scatty are free to believe in ghosts just as the seriously deluded are to believe in god/gods etc.


Just as long as they don't start killing each other over the right approach to poltergeists and/or organise a fatwa against Ghostbusters for trivialising the issue.

taper Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> The burden of evidence is on you and yours. V

> difficult to prove a negative.


xxxxxx


Indeed. So better not to make statements which you can't prove :)


Some people are unable to distinguish between certain colours. Other people (I knew one) can only see things in shades of black and white.


No amount of others telling them they were "wrong" could convince them that colour "existed", if they had a mind to doubt it.


Some people are sensitive to psychic phenomena which others can't perceive. Telling them that they are talking bollocks just because you are not so sensitive is closed-minded.

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Popper and Kuhn must be cheering from on high at

> the standard of scientific debate on the EDF


xxxxxx


Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it Kuhn who wrote about paradigm shifts?


Quite relevant to the discussion if so, I would say.

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> Some people are sensitive to psychic phenomena

> which others can't perceive. Telling them that

> they are talking bollocks just because you are not

> so sensitive is closed-minded.


Maybe, but does a mad man always know he is mad?...

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ...er, and a big scientific paradigm shift was

> when people started believing in science not

> fairies/ghosts/goblins etc


xxxxxxx


"Believing" in science???


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift

red devil Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sue Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > Some people are sensitive to psychic phenomena

> > which others can't perceive. Telling them that

> > they are talking bollocks just because you are

> not

> > so sensitive is closed-minded.

>

> Maybe, but does a mad man always know he is

> mad?...


xxxxxx


I'm not talking about psychosis ....


ETA: Anyway, I'm not feeling well and I'm going to bed, so feel free to return to slagging off things you don't understand :)

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> taper Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> >

> > The burden of evidence is on you and yours. V

> > difficult to prove a negative.

>

> xxxxxx

>

> Indeed. So better not to make statements which you

> can't prove :)

>

> Some people are unable to distinguish between

> certain colours. Other people (I knew one) can

> only see things in shades of black and white.

>

> No amount of others telling them they were "wrong"

> could convince them that colour "existed", if they

> had a mind to doubt it.

>

> Some people are sensitive to psychic phenomena

> which others can't perceive. Telling them that

> they are talking bollocks just because you are not

> so sensitive is closed-minded.


And some people are sensitive to believing any old crap because they are feeble minded.

taper Wrote:


>

> And some people are sensitive to believing any old

> crap because they are feeble minded.


And you really do write 'any old crap'. Just because you don't know somwthing doesn't mean it doesn't exist and I'm talking about anything. For feeble minded read closed mind in your case.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I was surprised to learn that East Dulwich Picturehouse now only screens PG-rated films for their baby-friendly showings, unlike other Picturehouse branches. Apparently, this change happened after a complaint to the council about showing films above a PG rating to infants. Afaik, this policy only applies to this  branch. As a local parent, I find this frustrating. It limits our options, especially when many of us would love the chance to watch a wider range of films while caring for our little ones. For example, during Oscar Week, only one vintage film is being shown. Are we really expected to only consume toddler-focused content, like Cocomelon? I also worry about the precedent this sets. If other institutions, like the Tate or the National Portrait Gallery, applied similar restrictions, parents could be left with only child-oriented content. Babies under one don’t fully comprehend adult themes, so shouldn’t there be more flexibility? I’d love to hear what others think—should this policy be reconsidered?
    • I am a secondary teacher in the local area and totally agree that it’s so important for teenagers to be given a space to connect and learn skills. I think it’s lovely that they’ve been able to do this organically due to the carpark being derelict but it defeats the very concept of dynamic urban living to use this as a reason to block the development of the space into something that could benefit the whole community. I would really welcome an entrepreneur bringing a proposal forward that thinks about how we could best make the space work for everyone. I’d also love to see the council engage with the kids themselves on how and where to make the skate park permanent, perhaps in Dulwich Park itself. Give them some funding to make it nicer than a space by such a busy traffic route. I also agree we shouldn’t romanticise the skate park - they’re not principals in the Royal Ballet Company. I don’t think it’s hugely affecting the community, but let’s not pretend there isn’t some underage drinking and drug use going on there. But mainly the building itself is a waste of space and it’s often depressing to see the private security company vans parked out there late at night. Let’s use it as an opportunity to engage in conversations about what this part of Lordship Lane really needs. 
    • This kind of thing? https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/286379655798?  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...