(June 10, 2009 at 5:02 pm)dagda Wrote: So, when science disagrees with you, it is bad science?No, when people claim something is science and yet provide no empirical evidence or experiments, it is bad science.
(June 10, 2009 at 5:02 pm)dagda Wrote: I could be making it up, but I am not, and to suggest so is rather insulting.If you take it as insulting that is your problem. We are skeptics at this site, we demand evidence of something before believing it. You provided a very nice story of something that purportedly happened, but you failed to give any references. Note that I never suggested you made it up, I said that without any references you could simply be making this all up. The fact that I asked for details alone should have revealed this.
(June 10, 2009 at 5:02 pm)dagda Wrote: Take the initiative and type his name into google.Sorry, but that's not how things work. You make a claim, you back it up. The burden of proof is on you, not me. I don't have the time to go hunting around the internet every time someone relates me a story and refuses to give evidence for it.
(June 10, 2009 at 5:02 pm)dagda Wrote: The experiments I will go into at a later date (probably Friday). At that time I may add in other case studies of ghosts/mediums. This is not a one off event/medium (although there are more frauds than the real deal).Then I will await your Friday post, where I expect some references as I have asked for.
You are quite right about one thing though; there are more frauds than the real deal (they represent 100% of the claimants).
