I'm afraid the mess was yours. I made it very clear at the start that I have not witnessed a glass moving when not in contact with anybody. Yet again I'll say it. I have not witnessed this, and have no idea whether or not it can happen. I don't know how to put this more clearly. We seem to having an argument that is entirely unnecessary.Aether said:You seemed to claim at first that you had actually witnessed this, then said that no it wasn't you it was your brother. That required effort on my part to disentangle your mess and it has diverted this discussion..
No, no. Why are you so determined to have a battle? Thomas Kuhn wrote an extremely famous book proposing that science progresses by a process of paradigm shifts, often associated with the death of the generation of scientists who shared the previous paradigm. I wasn't criticising him I was agreeing with him..I don't know who that is, but you might try limiting your assault on "scientists" to Thomas Kuhn, and quoting some statements of his that you have a problem with.
This was not an alternative list. It was a simplified list. I stand by every claim I've made to date, not that I've made many. Nothing concerns me except persuading you that you there is no evidence yet showing that the i-effect explains the phenomenon in question. I would expect most scientists to agree unless there is some evidence of which I'm unaware.When you offered a second set of claims that is more limited and defensible than your first set of claims, then you explicitly established yourself what concerns you and what does not.
As I say, it's not a new list of claims but a summary. But do what you like, I'm utterly confused about what you're trying to achieve.With your consent, everything that you have claimed in this thread before post #22 is dismissed, and we're starting over with the new list of claims that you have made.
Pardon? Claim 3. was: "My experiences lead me to the view that the ideomotor effect does not explain this phenonenon." What's wrong with this? It's only what I've been saying all along. What is your problem here?Claim #3 seems to state otherwise. Please explain this.
You'll not make it far as a researcher if you don't start by admitting you don't know for all cases that people move the indicators and divining rods. In fact on your assumption doing any research would be pointless.I admit that I don't know why people sometimes move Quija board indicators and divining rods, and that is what we might hope to discover.
Well, you've made it extremely clear that you're prepared to make up your mind once and for all on the basis of insufficient evidence, so yes, this is what I would predict.I don't expect to, no. What is your point? Are you implying that I would ignore evidence to the contrary if I came across it?
It may have seemed that way to you, but you are ever so quick to make assumptions. If you read my posts you'll see that I never claimed at any point to have witnessed the glass move when not in contact with a human being. I'll stand by every claim I've made, but not for claims I did not make.You seemed to be claiming otherwise in your original post, so please take responsibility for that.
Hysterical laughter. Exit stage left.If there has been confusion and complication here, it is only a consequence of your careless statements.