|
|
#71
10-11-2007, 09:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Here\'s exactly why that article was stupid
Main Entry: en·er·gy
Pronunciation: 'en-&r-jE Function: noun Inflected Form: plural -gies 1 : the force driving and sustaining mental activity <in psychoanalytic theory the source of psychic energy is the id> 2 : the capacity for doing work Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc. Thoughts, speaking, writing are all forms of energy. |
|
#73
10-11-2007, 10:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Here\'s exactly why that article was stupid
Can anything be done before the thought of it being done?
|
|
#75
10-11-2007, 10:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Here\'s exactly why that article was stupid
LOL what about subconscious thoughts?
|
|
#76
10-11-2007, 10:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Here\'s exactly why that article was stupid
[img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]
I was seriously trying to answer your question. I've been doggedly following this thread, but I just dont understand what you're actually advocating. It seems to me you switch between different uses of the word energy (amongst others). What I mean is, the fact that energy has two definitions in the dictionary doesnt mean that those two concepts are the same thing. |
|
#77
10-12-2007, 12:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Here\'s exactly why that article was stupid
[ QUOTE ]
Can anything be done before the thought of it being done? [/ QUOTE ] it sort of looks like you're trying to argue that a thought is "the capacity for doing work" and therefore, a thought is energy. |
|
#78
10-12-2007, 03:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Here\'s exactly why that article was stupid
OP,
Stop me when this sounds familiar. [ QUOTE ] Pseudoscientists invent their own vocabulary in which many terms lack precise or unambiguous definitions, and some have no definition at all. Listeners are often forced to interpret the statements according to their own preconceptions. What, for for example, is "biocosmic energy?" Pseudoscientists often attempt to imitate the jargon of scientific and technical fields by spouting gibberish that sounds scientific and technical. Quack "healers" would be lost without the term "energy," but their use of the term has nothing whatsoever to do with the concept of energy used by physicists. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] How to Spot Pseudoscience 4. Is the claim based on the existence of an unknown form of "energy" or other paranormal phenomenon? Loose, meaningless usage of a scientific-sounding word like "energy" is one of the most common red flags you'll see on popular pseudoscience. Terms like energy fields, negative energy, chi, orgone, aura, psi, and trans-dimensional energy are utterly meaningless in any scientific context. Approach with extreme caution. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Phrases such as "energy vibrations" or "subtle energy fields" may sound impressive, but they are essentially meaningless. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The term "pseudoscience", as used here, defines an area of study that resembles science and uses scientific jargon (e.g. wave, energy, focus, alignment) but does not utilize the scientific method. Often, the area of study has underlying unprovable or provably fallacious foundations, which would proclude serious scientific study (i.e. bad science). This doesn't stop the credulous, of course. [/ QUOTE ] |
|
#79
10-12-2007, 03:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
You are mixing superstrings with philosophy.....
.... and spewing the most incredible nonsense. Please understand the physics of which you speak before attempting to derive meaning from it.
And DON'T mix it with philosophy and then claim to have the truth. That old trick has been used for ages, and is as wrong now as it has always been. |
|
#80
10-12-2007, 09:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Here\'s exactly why that article was stupid
[ QUOTE ]
OP, Stop me when this sounds familiar. [ QUOTE ] Pseudoscientists invent their own vocabulary in which many terms lack precise or unambiguous definitions, and some have no definition at all. Listeners are often forced to interpret the statements according to their own preconceptions. What, for for example, is "biocosmic energy?" Pseudoscientists often attempt to imitate the jargon of scientific and technical fields by spouting gibberish that sounds scientific and technical. Quack "healers" would be lost without the term "energy," but their use of the term has nothing whatsoever to do with the concept of energy used by physicists. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] How to Spot Pseudoscience 4. Is the claim based on the existence of an unknown form of "energy" or other paranormal phenomenon? Loose, meaningless usage of a scientific-sounding word like "energy" is one of the most common red flags you'll see on popular pseudoscience. Terms like energy fields, negative energy, chi, orgone, aura, psi, and trans-dimensional energy are utterly meaningless in any scientific context. Approach with extreme caution. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Phrases such as "energy vibrations" or "subtle energy fields" may sound impressive, but they are essentially meaningless. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The term "pseudoscience", as used here, defines an area of study that resembles science and uses scientific jargon (e.g. wave, energy, focus, alignment) but does not utilize the scientific method. Often, the area of study has underlying unprovable or provably fallacious foundations, which would proclude serious scientific study (i.e. bad science). This doesn't stop the credulous, of course. [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] A classic! I hope this gets copied/quoted many times in reply as those posts when obfuscation takes place! +++ |
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
