"Tom"
comcast.net> wrote in message
news:wqGdnYDY-KZqXiTVnZ2dnUVZ_tTinZ2d@comcast.com...>
> "Bassos" wrote in message
> news:48b889ca$0$184$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>>
>> "Tom"
comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:4ZqdnQsUs_1YRCjVnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@comcast.com...>>>
>>> "Bassos" wrote in message
>>> news:48b585f3$0$196$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>>>>
>>>> Yes, so this means :
>>>> If astrology works
>>>> We need an oath.
>>>
>>> So you don't need an oath. You need to find out if astrology works.
>>
>> You complete and utter idiot.
>>
>> I am asking about an oath before i get significant data.
>
> But, you see, that's what makes *you* a complete and utter idiot. You're
> trying to count your chickens before you even know if you have any eggs to
> hatch in the first place.
Heh, Tom expresses his inability to understand science.
>> This is the scientific process, you noob.
>
> Writing some stupid oath for the practice of astrology is not a scientific
> process, you pinhead.
Complete and utter failure to understand what i wrote noted.
> Ity's not even part of a scientific process.
Bwuahahahahaa.
Another failure of Tom.
> Nor are you actually doing any research which could be seriously thought
> to be scientific.
What research do you think i am doing ?
> You're not competent to conduct a scientific research project. You don't
> know even know how to start designing one.
Well, actual science disagrees with you.
I'm quite sure this will not stop you.
>> Yes, you first need a theory, and only after the theory do you conduct
>> research.
>
> Wrong again, chuckles.
No, not wrong.
This is you being completely and utterly ignorent about what science
entails.
Hint : Using research to create theories is not science.
> First you generate a hypothesis that explains some
> observeable behavior.
So, i ask about the hypothesis, but you instead of adding content, only
whine.
Good show Tom.......
> In science, there is a difference between an hypothesis and a theory.
> Theories are hypotheses that have been strongly supported by experimental
> evidence and not yet refuted by any.
Even though you are mentioning stuff that is inherent in my stuff;
What kind of research has been done that gives any insight into what an
astrology oath should be like ?
(you complete and utter noob)
>> The reason why this particular bit of research gets obstructed is because
>> it is new.
>
> It's not obstructed at all.
Heh, mister oblivious makes another failure.
> The only reason *you're* not doing it is that you don't know how and
> you're too lazy to even find out how, let alone actually do the work. I
> have given you a list of citations of people who have done exactly the
> scientific research you claimed you want to do. You have not yet read
> these studies and have objected to the fact that I even brought them up.
Do you really want me to show why the references you posted have nothing to
do with an oath ?
(oh wait, i already did that, you are just whining)
Face up to it Tom,
You got pwned.
(by yourself, due to not reading what i post)
