Earls wrote:
There are numerous methods to expanding one's personal knowledge - this is not the issue. It's about being taken seriously.
The first sentence is exactly my point and exactly what you were are denying in your continued denigration of Kevin, and myself. The second sentence is ridiculous. What has knowledge got to do with being taken seriously. The guys who run this website are not taken seriously by the scientific community which you defer to, yet they have stuck by their convictions nevertheless.
Only other cooks who "feel" the same way.
There you go again with the weasel words. I listen to what Kevin says because, as I have stated several times elsewhere, I see similarities with what I read in such 'cooks' as Pythagoras, Plato and Aristotle, to name but three. (None of whom had a Ph.D.)
The scientific method is an established, international standard of investigation.
Slavery used to be an established international standard too. In fact there were scientific theories which proved that whites were superior to blacks, reds and yellows. Warfare has established international standards too. There is also an army of scientists ready, able and willing to produce such wonders as nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.
If you wish to gain support for your mysticism agenda among the majority, then you will communicate with their language.
Once more with the weasel words. I have no agenda, mystical or otherwise. And as for being concerned with what the majority think of me or anything else - if I thought that my level of understanding was at the level of the majority I would top myself. I gain my understanding from reading Philosophy and contemplation, and observing the natural world, including people-watching.
It's not IMPOSSIBLE explain the unknown with the Grey Cloud Method, but it's certainly improbable that you'll convince the majority you know what you're talking about when you can't adhere to a few simple rules of gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence.
I do not have a method other than the one outlined above. Surely the purpose of science is to explain the unknown, or more correctly make the unknown known. Does science generally or the EU, gather observable, empirical and measurable evidence for the formation of the Universe, for example? Wahy are you obsessed with the opinion of the majority? From your reasoning, scientific 'fact' would be decided by a show of hands.
Being held accountable for your claims is just "out of your comfort zone."
There are numerous methods to expanding one's personal knowledge - this is not the issue. It's about being taken seriously.
When your evidence is subjective "feelings" - I feel there's something spooky near crops circles... I feel there's a force fields emanating from the earth... I see auras surrounding trees... Who's going to take you seriously? Only other cooks who "feel" the same way.
The scientific method is an established, international standard of investigation. An accountable, dependable baseline that the majority uses for scientific advancement. If you wish to gain support for your mysticism agenda among the majority, then you will communicate with their language. It's not IMPOSSIBLE explain the unknown with the Grey Cloud Method, but it's certainly improbable that you'll convince the majority you know what you're talking about when you can't adhere to a few simple rules of gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence. In the case of gaining support and acceptable for your ideas, IT IS the best way.
But whatever, this is absolutely futile. Being held accountable for your claims is just "out of your comfort zone."
Held accountable by who? The majority again?
)but one could perhaps take the existence of an orderly, coherent and comprehensible Universe as physical evidence (and the fact that an apple tree grows from a pip, or a butterfly from a caterpillar, or, or...).
