I wasnÂ’t going to respond to this obvious personal attack but since you try to portray yourself as some kind of scientific genius in which some people could be fooled into believing your misrepresentation of science I had to respond so they would not be fooled.
Of course, you realize the hypocracy of such a "personal attack" (experession of an opinion of who I am and how I portray myself unrelated to the topis at hand) which includes an "I'm a victim" claim of personal attack?
What I meant was that science (hypothesis) belief is no more right than superstitious belief when it comes to fact. They both believe in a “thing” that cannot be proven.
Dealing with mythology created to explain observed fact, there is some overlap, certainly. Though the similarity ends there. When one has a hypothesis, it's not "believed" until it can be strongly supported. The process which turns a hypothesis into a theorum contains all the things missing from supersition, cirtical review, an attempt to falsify, a search for testable and untestable predictions, demonstrative, repeatable testing of those predicions. This is why the scientific method has advanced us where superstition has not.
It ties in because you said that science can explain everything and that there is nothing magic or mysterious in the universe that science hasnÂ’t found an answer to and that is just plain garbage.
I did not say that there was nothing that people had not found an answer to. That's simply a lie on your part. Nor did I claim that there was nothing mysterious, that's another lie.
What I believe in science are those things that they have proven, not those things that they assert are correct because a formula and ten of there colleges say so.
You would have to be far more clear for this to be usedful to the discussion at hand. You present a self conflicting statement (I believe in things proven, not things proven) by what I presume is the act of picking and choosing which proofs you accept. That said, I suspect highly that you believe a good number of things which fail your own, unspoken, standards of proof... but you are being very nebulious.
I think science can be a wonderful thing until people start believing it to be “The be all & end all” of knowledge and understanding in the universe.
What do you believe is the "end and and be all"? On what basis do your form this belief? On what basis do you reject scientific method as a proper and comprehensive mechanism to knowledge?
Tangible if they CAN make a Keris appear out of thin air not if they only theorize or formulate how it can be done.
Yuo don't know what "forumalte" and "theorize" mean do you? But yes, I was referring to the ability to actually produce said kris out of thin air as "tangeable proof".
“I’m harder to move” is only subjective if I say it and it is not tested but if one tries and cannot move me then its proven fact!
Not a control condition. My cat pushes on me and I move. Later my cat pushes on me and I choose not to. The though that I've become "harder" to move is relative to the observer here... I've performed no "magic", just made a different decision.
Similarly, most "immoveable body" acts occur through a change in root. At the most basic level, rooting removes the "tension levers" that allow someone pushing you to get a control point on your center of gravity. It's far easier to push a bookshelf over from the top than from the bottom, and rooting offers a rough analogy of this fact.
Now, if you can stand on a scale and make a maintainable weight vary... you have something more objective.
According to WebsterÂ’s Dictionary itÂ’s abundantly clear that you have no scientific background!
Webster's is not a scientific source. The logical fallacy you are using is the "equivocation fallacy". You have chosen the definition that suites yuo, rather than the one appropriate for the scientific commuity. The one in Webster most accurate is:
a body of
theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <
theory of equations>
Some sites addressing "sceintific theory" more precisely.
Oh so sorry your Royal Highness that you are unaware! A pathologist and Martial Artist researched for 10 years on cadavers in search of (chi meridians) electrical pathways of Eastern teachings but could not find them. Then he got the opportunity to search within a comatose patient whose family took them off life support and they were dying. He found what he was looking for, electrical pathways similar to veins only clear and 100 times smaller! After the patient died the pathways collapsed (no more electrical current) and could not be detected even by the best microscope.
A "a guy somewhere once asked for unicorns to bring him a soda and they did". If you were still posting, I'd challenge you to actually cite a source instead of offer some vague claim.
No itÂ’s showing that science is not infallible and to look at the facts when they prove something right or wrong but it must be proved and not a hypothesis of why they are right or wrong
The scientific methos is not infallable, no. All conclusions rely on presuppositions, which are prone to being wrong. (for example, the belief in phlotzgen)
What I call magic is something that can be done, seen, felt, etc. but science cannot prove how this is or can be.
I don't believe there is anything which cannot be proven / explaind. There are things for which the proofs / explanations are currently unknown.
My original message was that most things in the martial arts are not magic at all but based on superstitious explanations that can be explained through modern scientific understanding that a person could relate and understand without all the mumbo jumbo confusion.
But your post didn't support your message. It was full of pseudo-scientific jargon and fallacy... though I've already addressed that in my first response.
