"Tom"
comcast.net> wrote in message
news:W7SdnalKv95oaFzVnZ2dnUVZ_tHinZ2d@comcast.com...>
> "Bassos" wrote in message
> news:48c19de6$0$194$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>>
>> "Tom"
comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:Q9mdnWRhTIbM6SbVnZ2dnUVZ_sninZ2d@comcast.com...>>>
>>> Would you like to explain to me what part of scientific research
>>> includes an oath? I'd be fascinated to know just what it is you think
>>> "science" is.
>>
>> Note, even after i explained it, Tom stil does not get it.
>
> So you're answer is, "No".
Inability to read noted.
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> "Actual science" is not some person who can disagree with me.
>>
>> Indeed, it is a set of practices and methods, which you seem to be
>> completely unclear about.
>
> Whether you think I'm clear about it or not, it's not a person who can
> disagree with my evaluation of your ignorance.
You call yourself an it ?
Nice look into your selfimage..
> I'm still waiting for you to explain how an oath has anything to do with
> the methods and practices of science.
I already did that.
You did not understand it.
Then i tolld you that you did not understand it.
> You seem reluctant to offer one.
You seem reluctant to accept one.
>Would you like me to explain how a review of existing scientific reports of
>experiments addressing your theory is part of that method?
Well, if you had actually posted research into my theory it might have been
interesting.
This is you weasling.
>> Formulate theory first.
>> Then test it.
>
> Have you tested your theory that astrological charts can predict results
> of personality tests?
Irrelevant nooby.
If you formulate ethics/morals after a problem is found, you are bound to
misuse it.
I wrote this already, but you where too busy ignoring it.
Ethics/Morals before a problem occurs.
>> Mate, i gave plenty of references already about why this is not
>> straightforward.
>
> You gave references? I think you did not. Perhaps you only imagined
> them. I gave *you* a list of references, though. You didn't like that one
> bit.
Nice snippage of your list of references being a complete bit of failure as
relating to an astrology oath.
That you would even find the hubris to go back to it.
Insanity.
(unless, you ofcourse indeed do not understand what i write, like Erwin does
not understand me)
>> When a neuron is born, it follows it path from that moment.
>> So if you place said born neuron in an older organism (monkey) it still
>> does it's thing.
>> (wooot astrology has a neuronal bit of evidence)
>
> I don't follow what passes for your "logic" here.
This is because you need more education, and less grinding habit in
alt.magick.
I tolld you this before.
> What does the arrangement of planets in the sky have to do with that
> factoid about neuronal function?
Failure to think analogically noted.
Change dude, change alot, soon, or your thinking will remain automatic.
(there is the possibility to restructure your brain, but you have to work at
it, not just conclude the easy path)
Chances are high you will not understand this either.
(added so you think twice)
