>theoretical biologist
Reminder;
Sebastian Russell
Jacob Cook
arxiv.org
Your second paper is utter pseudoscience garbage which only a deranged person could take seriously.
Evan Hernandez
the second link is from 1965, yes
doesn't make it wrong. calculus is hundreds of years old and we still use it
Eli Bailey
not an argument
einstein was a theoretical physicist
a theoretical scientist is someone who can do more than just count beans
also not an argument. make a substantive claim, if you can. it's extensively sourced. you obviously haven't even begun to read it.
if it's bullshit why does the FCC have it on its website? why did the Ford Motor company commission it? why did a University of Michigan professor (PhD) agree to edit it? etc.
>deranged
no u
Ian Rogers
>also not an argument. make a substantive claim, if you can
Hmmm? I read your link, yet you won't read mine.
>if it's bullshit why does the FCC have it on its website?
What exactly is the connection between the two?
>why did the Ford Motor company commission it? why did a University of Michigan professor (PhD) agree to edit it?
Because such paranormal "research" was in vogue during the 60s.
Yes, you are clearly deranged if you think the paper is reputable.
Jayden Thompson
>I read your link
I thought you were quoting; you didn't say anything about the first link. didn't even click on it. I will read it
the only criticism you made personally was about the second link, and you've still yet to make a single substantive argument
but you'd like us to believe you know better than the numerous sources cited in the paper, the Univ. of Michigan PhD who edited the paper, the Ford Motor Company, and the US Government (FCC). kek, moron
Andrew Ramirez
so far all I can find on your author are articles promoting atheism
dis gun be gud
Jace Cooper
Where is your argument? You just posted a link but demand that others do more than post a link thoroughly debunking what you posted.
Sorry, but I clearly do know better than the delusional individuals who believed the scam artist who wrote this pseudo scientific nonsense. Such scams are well documents and were very prevalent during the 50s and 60s, when government agencies and various institutions would fund just about anything. Sorry, but your tiny group of EM quacks with PhDs masturbating each other does not make reputability.
Nolan Martinez
reading the paper now...
Brandon Phillips
There's no experiment in the first paper. It barely counts as a paper. It's basically an opinion piece. Make a reproducible experiment like all the rest of the good scientists and come back with some substance. I'm not going to humor this faggot's shitposting
The second paper is just pop science bullshit
>measuring skin resistances of different people
>WOW they're different!
>figures of divining rods
>mentions of hypnosis
>90% of the paper is cobbling together 110 different studies
Very reputable