Most of this conversation has been turned into chemtrail discussion. Since the average life expectancy, IQ, etc have been steadily over the years, I'm not particularly concerned with the idea that there are evil government clouds out to get me.
What I'll focus on, which seems to summarize the original post, is this:
"isnt just a little too arrogant to assume you know better than someone else just because you hold a conflicting article against theirs-and then it becomes a battle of faiths, and then you"ll find that its the debunker who doesnt see the big picture, doesnt think for themselves but relies on the "truth" of someone else to win their fights." (combined with "this place is detrimental, you all have an agenda, etc)
The original poster seems to completely miss every aspect of what a "logical argument" is. It's fairly rare (though does happen) for two published articles to get completely opposite results. What's far more common in repeated experiments is that there is some sort of control flaw in the first, that flaw is taken into account by another research group in a later experiment, and (depending on the results) this shows that the first study's hypothesis doesn't explain their results, or that its still valid despite tighter controls.
To say that an experiment with bad controls is equally valid as an experiment taking flaws in the previous one into account, is wrong. It's not a matter of "pitting equal beliefs against one another", its a matter of experimental validity. If one sticks with believing in the claim of the first study, despite any valid criticism against the later one, or further experimentation as evidence against the later study... then I can objectively say, without any hint of egotism, that I know better than that person. At that points, their conclusions are based on what they want to believe, contrary to evidence.
Personally, I like this place. Although I have no interest in many of the subjects here... and although I'm opening myself up to all sorts of ad hominem by saying this... I am an "occultist", who is also (unrelated) finishing his degree in the physical sciences with a minor in nanotechology.
I'm really only here for the various "psi"/"intention" related threads. Not to push an agenda, or religiously convert people to my line of thinking... but rather the opposite. I'm here -because- people will disagree with me. That's the beauty of it. If these types of things should be held valid, they should stand up to any and all valid criticisms. This isn't something I can get from any sort of "occult forum", "online psionics community", or otherwise. I can say with reasonable certainty that the vast majority of these people, even despite calling myself an "occultist", are dumb. There's little way to sugar coat that. When criticizing their claims and theories, they offer little in the way of logical argument, and practically nothing in the way of experimental evidence.
The opposite is (largely) true here. Some people still make bad arguments, but they are sound enough that they can be discussed in a back and forth manner. I have yet to have anything devolve into a pissing contest of "You don't know me!" or "You always have to be right don't you?" here (well, aside from the poster of this thread, who doesn't seem to be a regular). Here, I get a level of intellectual debate that experience has shown to be largely impossible in other communities. I find this far more interesting than "you have your beliefs, and I have mine, lets agree to not think about this disconnect ever again."
