The One and Only Climate Change thread...

[Paul Bonham]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Actually yes scientists have analyzed reincarnation and plenty of other pseudo-science claims and other garbage.
Here are some examples that show your delusion in it's true light,

Look up The Skeptic encyclopedia of pseudoscience By Dr. Michael Shermer(founding publisher of Skeptic Magazine)- it has a small bit in it about reincarnation, and another book of his is "why people believe weird thing" which focused on pseudoscience, superstitions and other general confusions.

Pseudoscience and Extraordinary Claims of the Paranormal: A Critical Thinker
By Dr. Jonathan C. Smith(university professor in psychology) talks about how to think critically about crazy claims.

Reincarnation: A critical examination by Dr. Paul Edwards, he goes over all the evidence for reincarnation and completely debunks it.
Read this book! It should completely free you from your delusion!

Look up some of the skeptical works by Joe Nickell, Ph.D., (Senior Research Fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI))

Just because I complete disagree with reincarnation and your beliefs and I'm backed by almost all scientists I automatically lose my reputation of being an objective logician, what ever you say. My ego is just the same as it started I don't take anything you say seriously(why should I?) so you really have no effect on my life at all, but I will uphold science against your pseudoscientific beliefs any day.

The only revelation that has been revealed is I can't stand pseudoscience, which could have probably been guessed because of my pro-science views.

You are right this is the internet age you should be careful what you say before you wind up in a psyche-ward.

I am content with all my posts, and if these posts follow me for the rest of my life I can't see them having any negative effects on my life. I am going to be a university professor in one of 4 subjects(pure/applied mathematics, biology or physics), I will immerse myself in academia where reincarnation and all of your other beliefs are pseudoscience at best.

I have presented the book, reincarnation: A critical examination by: Dr. Paul Edwards as a scientific investigation into the pseudoscience reincarnation. Please refute this book...and then I might give your beliefs some credibility this book really just slaughters all the evidence for reincarnation effectively and efficiently.

define devotion: commitment to some purpose(unless you have some alternative definition), you seem completely committed to Sylvia Browne's teaching and if you can't see that your posts support this there is clearly no way to help you.

John Edwards=Slyvia Browne(they are both frauds), if you watched Messiah by Derren Brown you would see how easy it is to be a psychic.

The scientific results are all on my side while you are left exactly where you started holding an empty sack, devoid of all logic, reasoning and evidence.

Not so fast, there, cowboy. In your previous post you claimed the NAS and the Royal Society have examined claims of reincarnation. I asked you to provide specific links, and all you come back with is a few books written by SKEPTICS. Where are the NAS and Royal Society investigations? Do they exist, or did you outright LIE?

Guess what? Skeptics of reincarnation are not going to write a book supporting reincarnation! Do you even think before you post? I shouldn't waste my time on such amateurs....

As to your most prized comeback, the one you bolded, Reincarnation: A critical examination by Dr. Paul Edwards, here's a review by someone who was PREDISPOSED to agree with Dr. Edwards. To show you that he was predisposed to agree with Dr. Edwards, here is the introduction of his book review:

"I have a disdain for the notion of reincarnation..." and "So I actually picked up Edwards's book as a member of the anti-reincarnation choir waiting to be preached to..."

Now here's the meat of his review:

"If it is intended as a scholarly work, it's a somewhat slipshod one. There are a number of occasions where the author is developing a line of thought and then breaks it off, promising to pick it up again in a later chapter.

Edwards's argument is largely an atheistic one against any sort of post-death survival whatsoever, relying largely upon what he sees as the inseparability of the mind and the body.

...

"But however persuasive his argument against ANY sort of survival might be from an empirical point of view, it seems to largely ignore stories of Near-Death-Experiences (NDE's) in which an unconscious patient was later able to give accurate descriptions of what was going on around him.

Maybe these stories would also lose their credibility upon being subjected to the same rigorous academic scrutiny that Edwards and others subject Ian Wilson's cases of spontaneous memories of past lives, but that has never been done to my satisfaction, in this book or in any other skeptical work.

...

"Edwards...often interrupts his empirical analysis to skewer a number of targets, including religious fundamentalism. His disparagement of the divine in general may yet prove to be correct, but it is an undercurrent that runs through this work and sometimes detracts from it. At one point, he borrows from Christian philosopher, C.S. Lewis, to inveigh against theocracy as "the worst of all governments".

Both Edwards and Lewis seem oblivious to the truism that atheism can be as much of a religion as theism, and the destruction wrought during the 20th century by atheistic governments in Germany and Soviet Russia suggest that it can be just as deadly.

Regardless of the state of evidence concerning survival in general and reincarnation in particular or of the existence of a divine being, a little less trenchant agnosticism and awe towards the Unknown might suit Edwards better as a human being and as an academic."

This is the book you say "slaughters all the evidence for reincarnation"? Obviously you are paraphrasing the opinion of a SKEPTIC, you posts are neither original nor thought-provoking. You are just searching the internet for articles that AGREE WITH YOU. Whereas, here I present to you a book review from a reincarnation skeptic that should have agreed with you and Dr. Edwards, but found your vaunted book sorely LACKING.

OUCH!

Sorry, Adam, I'm done with the likes of you. Have fun as a university professor (why am I not surprised this is your choice?). Hopefully the posts you have submitted here will eventually come back to haunt you when you try and get HIRED, a process you would probably know little to nothing about as of yet.

[Adam Cormier]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Not so fast, there, cowboy. In your previous post you claimed the NAS and the Royal Society have examined claims of reincarnation. I asked you to provide specific links, and all you come back with is a few books written by SKEPTICS. Where are the NAS and Royal Society investigations? Do they exist, or did you outright LIE?

Guess what? Skeptics of reincarnation are not going to write a book supporting reincarnation! Do you even think before you post? I shouldn't waste my time on such amateurs....

As to your most prized comeback, the one you bolded, Reincarnation: A critical examination by Dr. Paul Edwards, here's a review by someone who was PREDISPOSED to agree with Dr. Edwards. To show you that he was predisposed to agree with Dr. Edwards, here is the introduction of his book review:

"I have a disdain for the notion of reincarnation..." and "So I actually picked up Edwards's book as a member of the anti-reincarnation choir waiting to be preached to..."

Now here's the meat of his review:

"If it is intended as a scholarly work, it's a somewhat slipshod one. There are a number of occasions where the author is developing a line of thought and then breaks it off, promising to pick it up again in a later chapter.

Edwards's argument is largely an atheistic one against any sort of post-death survival whatsoever, relying largely upon what he sees as the inseparability of the mind and the body.

...

"But however persuasive his argument against ANY sort of survival might be from an empirical point of view, it seems to largely ignore stories of Near-Death-Experiences (NDE's) in which an unconscious patient was later able to give accurate descriptions of what was going on around him.

Maybe these stories would also lose their credibility upon being subjected to the same rigorous academic scrutiny that Edwards and others subject Ian Wilson's cases of spontaneous memories of past lives, but that has never been done to my satisfaction, in this book or in any other skeptical work.

...

"Edwards...often interrupts his empirical analysis to skewer a number of targets, including religious fundamentalism. His disparagement of the divine in general may yet prove to be correct, but it is an undercurrent that runs through this work and sometimes detracts from it. At one point, he borrows from Christian philosopher, C.S. Lewis, to inveigh against theocracy as "the worst of all governments".

Both Edwards and Lewis seem oblivious to the truism that atheism can be as much of a religion as theism, and the destruction wrought during the 20th century by atheistic governments in Germany and Soviet Russia suggest that it can be just as deadly.

Regardless of the state of evidence concerning survival in general and reincarnation in particular or of the existence of a divine being, a little less trenchant agnosticism and awe towards the Unknown might suit Edwards better as a human being and as an academic."

This is the book you say "slaughters all the evidence for reincarnation"? Obviously you are paraphrasing the opinion of a SKEPTIC, you posts are neither original nor thought-provoking. You are just searching the internet for articles that AGREE WITH YOU. Whereas, here I present to you a book review from a reincarnation skeptic that should have agreed with you and Dr. Edwards, but found your vaunted book sorely LACKING.

OUCH!

Sorry, Adam, I'm done with the likes of you. Have fun as a university professor (why am I not surprised this is your choice?). Hopefully the posts you have submitted here will eventually come back to haunt you when you try and get HIRED, a process you would probably know little to nothing about as of yet.

You are not the only one who can copy a book review,

BOOK REVIEW

Laurie Eddie

(Investigator 56, 1997 September)

Reincarnation: A Critical Examination, Paul Edwards, Prometheus Books, New York, 1996.

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy."
David Brooks, The Necessity of Atheism.

This book sets out to critically examine the various claims associated with the concept of Reincarnation. It appears to have achieved its objectives, although there is little doubt that no matter how much evidence to the contrary believers will continue to believe in the fanciful creations.

The concept of Reincarnation is quite ancient. It appears to have evolved out of that most ancient of beliefs, upon which all religions were established, the idea of the survival of the soul after death. It seems likely that reincarnation evolved from the idea that humans should have a second chance at rectifying sins committed during their time on Earth. With the original concept, of a single life and death, salvation was not possible. Its was widely practiced in Greece amongst certain cults, especially the Brotherhood of Pythagoras, where it was known as Transmigration.

It was to have its greatest influence in the Indian sub-continent, where it became an essential part of Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. Whereas the Greeks and the Gauls had conceived of several lifetimes before reaching the Isle of the Blessed, the Hindus originated the idea of an endless stream of births, and, as a result, a universe of infinite age, and future.

Edwards examines the "evidence" which is claimed to support Reincarnation in great depth, and concludes that they are lacking in substance. The many "classic" reports are found to be divergent in that there are serious discrepancies between the first time they are reported and when they are repeated years later. He also points out that many of the famous people in the past who are often touted as advocates of these philosophies, based upon statements they made apparently supporting these ideas, either never said what they are claimed to have said, or else, their statements were so ambiguous that they can be interpreted in any way that one desires.

Of special interest was his examination of the infamous Bridey Murphy where American housewife Virginia Tighe, born 1923, reported her former existence as an Irish woman in the 19th century. This case, which is still claimed by many believers in reincarnation to be one of the strongest pieces of evidence in support of their beliefs, features in almost even new book on the subject.

The author completely demolishes the claim that it was a genuine demonstration of the existence of reincarnation by referring to numerous articles which appeared soon after the initial claims were made. The various articles revealed that the details which Tighe provided concerning her former life were easily explained. Her ability to adopt an Irish brogue had probably more to do with the fact that her natural parents were part-Irish, while there were many discrepancies in her accounts, where she used modern American expressions.

The idea of reincarnation, especially in the context of the idea of a scheme of cosmic progression is extremely widespread, and finds expression in such diverse religious and quasireligious teachings as Hinduism, Mormonism, Scientology and in many of the New-Age teachings.

To be able therefore, to fully understand the arguments refuting the concept of reincarnation, one must first understand what is involved in the concept of reincarnation, for the fact is that reincarnation has quite different meanings to different groups.

While the basic premise of reincarnation is that after their physical death some inextinguishable portion of each human being leaves the Earth for a period of time, but that it always returns again to earth in the physical body of a new being, human or otherwise, where it once again lives its life, and upon its death once again repeats the same cycle of death and rebirth. Depending upon the particular belief system, this endless repetition of life and death may go on continuously, or according to some faiths, the endless cycle can eventually be broken.

The reincarnation myth is quite common it has emerged in various forms throughout the ages, emerging within a wide diversity of cultures and faiths. The origins of the myth go back a long time in history; among its earliest champions were the ancestors of the present-day Hindus, where for some inexplicable reason it emerged from within a faith which had formerly believed in the idea of a single life and death.

It emerged in the mystical teachings of the Hellenic races, reaching its peak amongst the followers of Pythagoras. Amongst the many mystical ideas of the Greek philosophers was the concept of a universe which was in a permanent state of balance. This idea is reflected in the theory of the four elements or humours. These four elements were believed to compose all the matter in the universe, including human beings, and it was believed that provided the four humours were in balance, nature and humans would remain in a condition of good health. If there was imbalance, sickness and disorder would result.

When the Greek philosophers looked at the world they saw disharmony, where the wealthy and powerful took advantage of the poor. On the Earth there was apparently no remedy for the poor; lacking power they were subject to the disorder of war and pillage inflicted upon them by the powerful warlords. It was natural to assume, then, that in a balanced universe those who suffered during their life-time must be compensated and those who caused suffering must be punished.

[Adam Cormier]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

continuation...

In a world where the pre-Christian concept of Heaven and Hell had not yet developed there evolved a belief in transmigration, the idea that after death the spirit would return in another body. Those who had been the victims in their previous life received human bodies, while those who had inflicted pain and suffering upon others came back as animals, of a type befitting their punishment. There appears to be a similar belief amongst the many believers in reincarnation, and this seems to have been the origins of the "law of Karma" that if humans are resurrected to another lifetime, their station in the new life must depend upon their the quality of their former life!

As the author points out quite clearly there is no such thing as a "Law" of Karma, unlike most natural, or scientific laws, it cannot be applied to predict possible eventualities. He compares it to the pseudo-scientific Social Darwinism. It is an empty theory which seems to be based more upon a human need for some form of eternal justice, a means whereby those who appear to have escaped punishment upon earth are subject to a higher form of justice. Such an idea is hardly exclusive to Eastern religions, indeed it is an integral part of most religions, past and present.

An important aspect of many forms of the reincarnation belief is the theory of advancement, the idea that each time a human soul returns to Earth, the physical individual into which it returns is given the opportunity to advance itself, so that like ascending the rungs of an infinitely high ladder, each life enables it to move one or two rungs higher towards its final goal.

This final goal for most of the believers in reincarnation is a release from the recurring cycle of birth and death; to the Buddhists it is Nirvana, a state of nothingness, while to the Mormons and the Scientologists, it is to reach the state of a god. The idea of a universe populated with numerous gods who were once human is not new, it found its origins in Gnosticism, and other mystical teachings of the past.

Realistically, such an idea, along with reincarnation itself, appears to be nothing more than a wish-fulfilment principle, essentially the idea that the universe was created to accommodate the wishes of individual humans. Unfortunately, the more we learn about the principles behind the operation of the universe the more we realize that it is not constrained by such puny motivations.

The author makes a convincing argument against the various claims for reincarnation, exposing them as nothing more than shams. Unfortunately, despite the fact that the so-called "evidence" in support of reincarnation has been debunked time-and-time again, one still hears those who refuse to disbelieve trotting out the same tired arguments in support of reincarnation. This book is useful as a source of material to point out to them that the material which they use as evidence, such as the Bridey Murphy story, has been exposed as nothing more than a sham.

If you are done with me shut up and leave, you are not converting anyone to your religious bullshit and views on reincarnation.

I found that review by Jack Maybrick his criticism began because in his mind the best arguments weren't used against reincarnation which you decided not to post, and the book as he points out is more for philosophical students rather then the political science major.

"If we were ordained to live many times over, the friendships and loving relationships that we experience in any given lifetime would be rendered worthless by an eschatological process that usually erases our memories clean of them and sends us back into the world to acquire new ones.

Moreover, if our parents, siblings and descendants in one lifetime might be related to us in a different manner in another lifetime, the whole process of rebirth becomes somewhat incestuous, notwithstanding the transposition of bodies and the absence of memories. If there is a Supreme Being, he's surely restored more divine order to universal chaos than would actually exist if we really were to live again".

you should have included that part...

Another criticism was his atheism so the reviewer is obviously religious and was angry/biased against Dr. Edwards. He was most likely Christian which is why he was against reincarnation at the beginning.

Your reviewer also claims NDEs are important which they aren't...

your reviewer rarely talks about the evidence Dr.Edwards provides just saying they are inferior arguments to his own. So he is obviously extremely egotistical.

And I'm not sure if you know this but NAS and the Royal Society don't do consensus' on pseudo-science, but the MEMBERS are free to investigate the claims on their own. I was talking about the members of the organizations not the organizations themselves.

[Gary Ruben]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Did you ever consider that maybe it's here and it's now and it's what you make of it?

Out of curiosity, if there is reincarnation, wth the population boom and ever increasing number of people, where do the spares come from? I mean if 100 pass away and 200 are born the spare 100 have to come from somewhere.

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Out of curiosity, if there is reincarnation, wth the population boom and ever increasing number of people, where do the spares come from? I mean if 100 pass away and 200 are born the spare 100 have to come from somewhere.

It would be a problem for Christianity, certainly, or at least the mainstream variants. Buddhism and Hinduism would have no difficulty since they both postulate an infinite number of worlds and that one may reincarnate on any of them.

I find the idea of reincarnation attractive, but there is no evidence whatsoever to support it, and I believe that if Science currently understands the laws of physics even remotely correctly, then one can rule it out. Either reincarnation is not possible or Science (and especially Physics) is seriously messed up.

[Adam Cormier]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Ed Seedhouse, Hawkings has a new book called, The Grand Design which i can't wait to read.

Paul Bonham, why don't you read the book yourself and make your own opinions, because it has both been rated 5 star and 1 star by several people, with independent reviews going both ways as well. Obviously this is a divisive topic. I will not be able to comment on your posts any further, I am going to start studying chess again now that the Brantford chess club is starting back up and my school year is starting so I have my grades to consider.

Let me finish with this, you have your religious beliefs, I don't accept them...end of story. If anything our argument gave further emphasis to the incompatibility of religion and science. I'm sure there are some topics we could agree on(the lunacy of Scientology possibly?)

Another good book by Paul Edwards is Immortality, this is more of a general outlook book, meant to show the opinions of famous philosophers throughout the ages...

[Paul Bonham]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

continuation... blah blah blah biased book review stuff...

LOL! I show you how pathetic it is to use book reviews as any kind of "evidence" for anything, and what do you come back with? Another book review! Of course, it is written by a totally biased author, which makes any claims of reincarnation being a "sham" or being "completely demolished" nothing more than hyperbole. The entire review makes mention of only one piece of "evidence", a "Bridey Murphy" account, and the evidence that supposedly "demolishes" this account? Quote: "There were many discrepancies in her accounts".

One account that had discrepencies is supposed to demolish a whole body of evidence? Guess what, sucker? AGW just became demolished!!!!

Can you say "Email scandal"????? Can you say "corrupted data"?????

HA HA HA HA HA!!!! You talk out of one side of your mouth about empirical evidence, and out of the other side of your mouth you spout biased book reviews! And when I show you the error of your ways, you come back with more of the same!

If you are done with me shut up and leave, you are not converting anyone to your religious bullshit and views on reincarnation.

No, you shutup about AGW. I'm not trying to convert anyone to anything, but you most definitely are (as your reply to Brad Thompson amply demonstrated).

Your reviewer also claims NDEs are important which they aren't...

Ok, then I'm going to say AGW isn't important, and voila, I have made it so!

And I'm not sure if you know this but NAS and the Royal Society don't do consensus' on pseudo-science, but the MEMBERS are free to investigate the claims on their own. I was talking about the members of the organizations not the organizations themselves.

So you did lie. Your exact statement was: "NAS did investigate the claim by the few researchers who support reincarnation". Now it's not the NAS, it's just one or more members, who probably have also written book reviews. :D

You seem to really have a problem with words, you even wrongly accused Ed Seedhouse. Many of your posts here have begun with "What I meant to say was... blah blah blah".

Better take some grammar and logic courses, there, kiddo. Actually, don't even waste anyone's time. Just keep on the way you are. Intelligent people will be able to look you up, to find out from even these posts how biased you are, and will be able to apply the quote "There are none so blind as those who will not see".

Oh, one last thing: a book review :D of "Life Before Life" by Jim B. Tucker, M.D., who took over from Ian Stevenson the research into reincarnation, still ongoing at the University of Virginia.

"What strikes me about Tucker, a medical doctor, is that he never, ever, ever leaves behind the scientific method or spirit. The scientific method is have a hypothesis, then gather hard facts and from them develop a theory to explain them — and provide other scientists with your methods and data and a means to do their own experiments to verify or disprove your findings…..

The book is anything but dogmatic — or full of New-Age-y flower-power assertions. The reason why the founder of Xerox Corporation (inventor of the photocopy machine) funded Ian Stevenson, MD and then Jim Tucker, MD at the University of Virginia was their rigorous scientific work."

Gee, you'd think if reincarnation were a total sham, nobody would be funding research into it, much less a very respectable university with funding from a very prominent businessman who ADMIRES THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD!!!!!

Busted again. (Sigh, this is just too easy, I should stop picking on children and get back to some productive work).

[Adam Cormier]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Now I realize why Dawkins doesn't debate fundamentalists, they are so utterly infuriating..

I promised I would stop but you brought up Jim Tucker so i will talk about him for a second, first of all he has a crude, pseudoscientifc interpretation of quantum mechanics and this is how he makes his theories work, but they are based on illogical interpretations and are irrelevant. Jim Tucker doesn't admire the scientific method he is a man who is manipulating the method to suit his own desires(not sure about the other guy you mentioned the founder). It is really a sly scheme if his initial premise on quantum mechanics turned out to be correct(which it's not) then reincarnation would actually have credible scientific evidence(it would be a start). But alas it is all false.

Now enough about reincarnation...lets just stop and get back onto the main subject AGW.

Paul Bonham you actually said that one of the topics Mr.Seedhouse was interesting and possibly credible evidence for AGW, have you changed your opinion on that or are you still open to that topic?

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Now enough about reincarnation...lets just stop and get back onto the main subject AGW.

Actually the main subject is chess. That's much more interesting than all this AGW nonsense. Even reincarnation is more interesting than AGW even though I don't personally believe in it though I do understand how some people can get the idea that reincarnation occurs. There are even one or two biblical scriptures which could give you the idea that reincarnation is a possibility.

We can experience reincarnation through chess play in a sense.

[Vlad Drkulec]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

One account that had discrepencies is supposed to demolish a whole body of evidence? Guess what, sucker? AGW just became demolished!!!!

Can you say "Email scandal"????? Can you say "corrupted data"?????

Shhhhhh! They are hoping that will go away. They had two full blown whitewashes,... er,.. investigations that found nothing wrong though they didn't look too hard and avoided calling any witnesses that could have presented real evidence and they didn't want to be too hard on Jones because he was so fragile at the time.

[Adam Cormier]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Actually the main subject is chess. That's much more interesting than all this AGW nonsense. Even reincarnation is more interesting than AGW even though I don't personally believe in it though I do understand how some people can get the idea that reincarnation occurs. There are even one or two biblical scriptures which could give you the idea that reincarnation is a possibility.

We can experience reincarnation through chess play in a sense.

I just picked up these quotes from a spirituality website...

"Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment" (Hebrews 9:27). If you believe the Bible is important then this would put you against reincarnation.

'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us'" (Luke 16: 25-26).

You can't cross back over apparently...

and...Finally the Bible teaches that we are all sinners. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). And the penalty for sin is death, not reincarnation. "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." This verse from Romans 6:23 is the best argument against reincarnation. For Jesus died for our sins that we might have eternal life in heaven, not eternal reincarnation.

so Christianity and reincarnation are conflicting beliefs(of course there are most likely contradictions to these since the bible is full of contradictions)

It doesn't matter if God exists or not, or any other religious beliefs,is correct or not...

"Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones." - Marcus Aurelius

pretty simple way to live one's life, eh?

but anyways this thread is supposed to be about AGW, while chess is the most interesting topic, this thread is supposed to be about AGW.

[Erik Malmsten]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

IF... IF... IF!!!!!
A very plausible theory for reincarnation effects is that the observed effect isn't a soul living beyond death, it is INFORMATION TRANSFER.

I beleived in reincarnation in a past life. If Paul Morphy was reincarnated and playing chess today, would his intuition bring out King Gambits?

The passing of information is an interesting idea. I think I have some biological/genetic attraction to food and interests of my parents and grandparents (that I wasn't taught as a kid), but not language or dreams/stories.

Science is still very young and hasn't been able to develop the tools yet to understand everything about brains (and life). Some people do experience psychic connections, such as picking up the phone before the first ring. A close friend felt his grandmother die. Back in the 1970s a psychic was able to tell me about a relative's old injury that I never knew about, which I was able to confirm later. But I've also been to Penn and Teller shows and they totally swindle me.

The scientific process can't solve everything as we are still bumbling along with our limited technology and biased by/emotionally invested in ancient ideas of who we are. Real life has many unknown changing variables than labatory test tube results. Perhaps in a few decades computers tablebases will solve chess to 16 pieces and radically alter our understanding of the game. Perhaps in a few decades there will a nutrious diet that works for all body types. Perhaps in a few decades there will be enough data to confirm global warming and the end of the world as we know it.

[Ed Seedhouse]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

The scientific process can't solve everything as we are still bumbling along with our limited technology and biased by/emotionally invested in ancient ideas of who we are.

But Science is the only discipline that will tell you what they don't know. And the only one that uses evidence to make up it's mind.

The instances you cited are not evidence, they are anecdotes, and the fact that you seem to think they are evidence is not going to inspire confidence in a rational person.

Meanwhile you post on a forum that is only possible because of the advances in physics beginning in the early twentieth century.

Ed

[Gary Ruben]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Material for 16,000 Nuclear Warheads has now been eliminated by the Megatons to Megawatts program.

Here's the article.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Materi....html?x=0&.v=1

[Adam Cormier]

Re: The One and Only Climate Change thread...

Material for 16,000 Nuclear Warheads has now been eliminated by the Megatons to Megawatts program.

Here's the article.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Materi....html?x=0&.v=1

that's fantastic, I hope they keep their goal of eliminating 500 metric tonnes of weapons-grade uranium by 2013.