BEYOND THE BLOG

THERE ARE REASONS BEHIND REASON

Posted by anthonynorth on January 14, 2009

Including Totally Optional Prompts and Three Word Wednesday.
Have you had a go yet?

ghosts The sceptical assault against the paranormal is unrelenting. Just writing about the subject, even if you’re offering reasoned ideas, is enough for a tide of ridicule. This is done in the name of ‘reason’, but is increasingly being seen as unreasonable.
Why is there such a loathing for the paranormal from science? Well, I think it goes back to the purpose of knowledge. If we go back to religious knowledge, it is said to be unreasonable.

This is not the case.

mosesI’ve spoken to enough religious people to know that they consider their faith to be reasonable and reasoned, and they find evidence of the truth of their faith all around them.
The difference between religious knowledge and modern, scientific knowledge is that the scope of reason has shifted. It has changed from a holistic view of the world to a specialised and reductionist view.

Is this reasonable?

In one sense, certainly not. It is reasonable to summise that there is never a definite single way of thinking or doing things. If this is so, then the scientific mind-set makes the same mistake as the religious. It suggests only one way of thinking.
However, in order to get to grips with the reality of knowledge, I think we have to ask an important question. With all knowledge systems we must ask: is there a reason behind reason?

Consider the Big Bang.

‘Evidence’ suggests Big Bang is an increasing reality. Yet this ignores the argument that there is never just one definite answer. But it is enough to ridicule counter-theories such as Steady State.
What is the reason behind the reasoning? Steady State does not require a beginning and an end. Big Bang does. In other words, Big Bang better reflects our linear mind-set that things do not go in cycles, but advance or decline along a straight line from a beginning to an end.

beta-astronomerSome things are taboo.

It is against the scientific mind-set to consider anything that does not fall in line with an atheist, materialist, linear system of thought. The paranormal seems to break this, even though I’m not sure it does.
But it does demand a more holistic way of looking at the world. Indeed, fringe science is already going in this direction. Quantum and chaos theory, ecology and even relativity suggest the present view of science is coming to an end. And here lies the possible reason for such extreme scepticism and ridicule.
The present paradigm is approaching its fall. The same thing happened in the early years of the 20th century, and die-hard defenders of the old system went to their grave denying the new.
The same is happening today – and paranormal research is at the forefront of the assault. Hence, the more they squeal, the closer comes the time when a new mind-set is let loose to range over the beauty of knowledge.

© Anthony North, January 2009

NOTE: I’ve now linked to my speculative essays. You can access from Psycho-Man or The Unexplained and look for The ‘Y’ Files. These sub-domains are part of Beyond the Blog, and accessed from top of this site.

alpha-kid-angel

GOING BAD

I remember when I was good,
nothing wrong, never out for blood,
a perfect angel, I tell you not,
never out for what other’s had got;
Now I’m in a different world,
new thoughts constantly unfurl,
of vengeance, hurting others for fun,
never seeing the eternal pun;
I’ll howl and scream and bang about,
causing fear, there’s no doubt,
there’s no situation I won’t contrive,
I was never this bad when I was alive

(c) Anthony North, January 2009

delta-couple1

ENTWINED

Love, that greatest pursuit of man,
striking unexpectantly, destroying the plan,
of how you thought your life would be,
providing a wonderful destiny;
Love, two people, their lives entwine,
some things forfeit, others divine,
as one forever and a day,
by night, with them we always lay;
Love, the thing that can break your heart,
when one decides it’s time to depart,
unbearable, the longing deep inside,
a pathetic existence, no one to confide;
Love, a constant search to feel whole,
to bring the loved one back to the fold,
so now I’m approaching the ultimate tryst,
my suicide; I see her! It feels so nice

(c) Anthony North, January 2009

61 Responses to “THERE ARE REASONS BEHIND REASON”

  1. JPFife said

    In my eyes science is no different to religion in method. They both deny what they don’t ‘believe.’ Science is supposed to have a methodology to back what it says up but there are a lot of poor reports and studies out there, and a lot more whose results have been paid for by the originator of the reports. Science has as bad a name as religion as far as I’m concerned. Personally I don’t take either of them seriously.

  2. Hi JPFife,
    I tend to agree with you, to a point. Both have value. The problem comes, I think, in that they form two polarities with nothing in the middle.
    That middle ground used to be provided by philosophy, which kept them both in check. It is this area which concerns me. Bring back true philosophy and eventually the polarities may not be quite so extreme.

  3. ThomG said

    “Entwined” is darkly beautiful.

  4. Hi ThomG,
    Thanks for that. Very kind words.

  5. Twilight said

    “The more they squeal” — they do, don’t they? I used to find it frustrating and annoying, now I’m beginning to see the funny side. Methinks they do protest too much! There’ll be a new day dawning soon, AN! I think a breakthrough of some kind is coming. Once the first breakthrough arrives the door will open for more and better research. :-)

    So…. we meet a fallen angel in your poem today – nice one! ;-)

  6. Hi Twilight,
    Yes, it’s definitely going to come. And one thing I’ve noticed is that the more you place a reasoned argument into the esoteric, the more you’re likely to attract sceptics. They seem to ignore what they don’t feel is threatening. So I suppose when they have a go here, it’s really a compliment.
    I don’t think they get it yet, though ;-)

    Talking of fallen angels …

  7. Linda G said

    Hi Anthony,

    Your Entwined hit a little too closely to my own heart. But, lost love, whether by death or other departure, heals over time- sometimes a loooong time. It is the price one pays for giving fully of oneself. The heart is filled and then emptied… then hopefully filled again.

    Whereas I do not share your level of interest in the paranormal, I do share your views on religion & the sciences. Philosophy is such a pure form of thought & it was the foundation of science (probably religion too). It is reasoning at its best & overall is not inclusive nor exlcusive. It exists to understand our reality.

    I think the sciences are in a period of cocooning- satiated perhaps. How a theory like the Big Bang can gain such prominence- with so many open questions surrounding it- should be disturbing. I also put Global Warming (as defined by Big Science) in the same category.

    The questioning- the search- of science has been severely stifled. Why- I do not understand. It is rather arrogant.

  8. Hi Linda,
    It is the problem with creative writing that occasionally it can hit home. I do hope I caused no pain. And yes, to give fully of yourself is always to eventually pay a price. For my part, I think it is a price worh paying for the happiness before hand.
    On science, I’m not sure our present scientific establishment IS fully scientific. Rather, I think a natural mentality has occurred where they seem to be more the guardians of existing knowledge. The history of knowledge shows quite clearly that such a phase comes just before a blossoming of the new.
    They have dug the trenches, and are peering, tentatively, over the side, trying to defend themselves from what’s coming.

  9. If science and religion could move more to the middle (towards each other) some answers might be found. As with everything it seems each side are extreme opposites. That’s why nothing gets done and there is hardly ever any agreement on anything. Sounds like politics doesn’t it. Well, if the shoe fits.

    Have a terrific day Anthony. :)

  10. Hi Sandee,
    You describe the problem perfectly. Philosophy used to provide the middle ground, and must do so again.

  11. Linda G said

    Hi Anthony,
    Your poem did not cause pain- rather a smile when knowing that that type of feeling was so well presented.

    I like your last sentence in your reply to me. Let us hope we do not need another Dark Ages before a new Renaissance. I agree they are behaving as ferocious guardians- unable to see the forest for the trees.

  12. watermaid said

    I was trained in science and am only too aware of its limitations. It uses the scientific method of experimentation in order to test out hypotheses as to how the material world behaves. It is only as good as whatever models it happens to be using. Not all scientists, unlike a certain Richard Dawkins, are evangelical atheists ,and not all religious believers are closed-minded fundamentalists. Many physicists,for example, faced with the wonder and uncertainty inside the atom or the immensity of space, do believe that life is more than ‘a tale/told by an idiot’(MacBeth). One of the most reasonable books I have read is a collection of the sermons of Herbert McCabe, who was a Roman Catholic priest; apty titled Faith Within Reason. There is nothing there that I, a Christian agnostic (i.e. I’m drawn to the Christian ideals of love and justice but have areas of doubt) find difficult to accept. McCabe draws heavily on the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, and I think philosophy could and should occupy more of a prominent place in modern life. Science has taken over much of its former province, but is, as you say, just one way of looking at the world whereas philosophy can be applied to any discipline. I’m not drawn to the paranormal, although I did have a mild flirtation with it at one stage in my life. I’m prepared to recognise that ‘there are more things in heaven and earth that are dreamt of in [my] philosophy’ (Hamlet)or in religious parlance: ‘now we see through a mirror dimly’.

    Tony, thanks for your comment on my poem. I have amended in the light of what you said (I must still have been in character!).

  13. I really enjoy your viewpoints…the paranormal post was a very interesting read! The Entwined poem was heartbreakingly beautiful.

  14. Hi Linda,
    I’m pleased about that. And hopefully we have advanced far enough not to require another Dark Age – merely a paradigm shift.

    Hi Watermaid,
    Yes, I agree, not all scientists or religionists are opposed, nor fanatcial. It’s just that the minority who are tend to be the loudest :-)
    Aquinas could teach us a lot nowadays, particularly the dual system of ‘revealed’ and ‘natural’ philosophy he espoused. I think one problem science faces is that they are only human, and hold within themsleves prejudices etc. And this plays a major part in what models they apply, and what data is acceptable. This is where philosophy should still play a major part, scouting ahead of the scientist with imagination and inspiration.

  15. Hi Fledgling Poet,
    Many thanks for those kind words. They are much appreciated.

  16. “Going Bad” made me smile!

  17. Hi Sandy,
    That was my hope. Thanks for that :-)

  18. Norma said

    I really liked entwined poem–except the final line. This is especially nice
    “when one decides it’s time to depart,
    unbearable, the longing deep inside,
    a pathetic existence, no one to confide;”

  19. Linda G said

    Hi Anthony,

    Just read this piece & thought you might find it interesting & related to your recent blogs:

    http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/guest-column-a-new-kind-of-big-science/

  20. Rinkly Rimes said

    When I was young I thought it would all have been explained by now. But now that I’m approaching eighty I know I’m going to die without ‘knowing’ so I don’t waste too much time on it.

  21. Watching this wonderful presentation made by Neil deGrasse Tyson where he talks about many interesting things, it amazes me how in one part he’s quick to dismiss the validity of an alleged 6th sense because it hasn’t been found in the controlled environment of the lab; but on the other hand he admits that Scientists shouldn’t be so arrogant as to presume they know everything!

    He also admits hat we need a costly machine like the LHR because increasing the amount of energy in your experiments will inevitably cause you to discover something—anything, no matter if it wasn’t what you were looking for in the first place. Well, how about devising a LHR-like project to study the paranormal, then?

    I like Tyson; for a Pluto-phobe he’s a very sympathetic individual ;-) but he too can’t help displaying the same materialistic myopia that plagues the current Scientific paradigm.

  22. Chris said

    Hi Anthony,
    I agree with all of the concepts in your essay, and yes, I think that they are “peering, tentatively, over the side,”.
    I think that I took a slightly different slant on the “GOING BAD” poem. It seemed to me that the angel had determined that being the ‘good guy’ had not resulted in the required paradigm shift in humanity, therefore, he/she was going to get mad, rather than bad, to achieve the ‘objective’.
    “there’s no situation I won’t contrive,
    I was never this bad when I was alive”
    I really liked this one, thanks!

  23. Travis said

    I don’t understand those who must use ridicule to communicate their scepticism. It’s almost as though we’re not talking about real scepticism. Rather, people hide behind that word when what they should be called is intolerant of difference.

  24. Hi Norma,
    Thanks for that. Your comment is much appreciated and I’m pleased you liked it.

    Hi Linda,
    That link was interesting, and I can see the point about ‘big’ needed for collecting the data. The problem is, for me, ‘big’ always ends up counter-productive though.
    This is seen in the ‘citizen science’ discussed. They become patronised minions, needed for collecting the data, but ignored in terms of any intellectual input.
    What we need is a partial return to those dusty studies of the 19th century – not so much scientists as philosophers, throwing out ideas – and most importantly, listened to.

    Hi Rinkly Rimes,
    I suppose, in this, I’m the exact opposite. I’m fascinated by knowledge and don’t think I’ll ever stop searching. Yet, in saying this, I know no one will ever explain it all. I suspect what we can know is infinite. The value is in the search, not the conclusion.

    Hi Red,
    You raise a good point there. Indeed, I’ve said it many times before: any form of scientific research is based upon the prejudices of the consensus. Once that consensus is eaten away, science will suddenly see new possibilities.

    Hi Chris,
    Thanks for that. Yes, being the good guy usually leads to acceptance and falling in line with the system/paradigm. I guess that makes me very bad indeed ;-)

    Hi Travis,
    You’ve hit the nail on the head. True scepticism is a vital pursuit. Without it, we’d believe anything, be conned by anyone. In many ways the real term we should be using for the ridicule merchants is ‘denial’, but that has too much baggage attached to it. Taking a cue from them, I prefer to remove a letter for the extreme ones. They thus become ’septics’ :-)

  25. liked the poem “entwined” :) but then, m a poetry person so easily like that more than prose ;)

  26. Hi Pretty Prats,
    Thanks for that. This one seems to be going down quite well.

  27. Richard said

    divine intelligence, talking snakes, virgin birth, walking on water, ascensions into heaven, demon filled pigs stampeding cliffs; aura readings, past life regression, re-birthing; string theory, black holes, big bang, reverse aging at the speed of light; oh, Horatio…

  28. Hi Richard,
    And your point is … ;-)

  29. It seems that the answer is: there will be no answer. And people must do whatever it is that they do in light, or dark, of fact or supposition. Interesting read, as usual. Your poetry takes on a life of its own. Good work!

  30. The pain of “entwinted” is gripping.

  31. Richard said

    re: the paranormal. “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamed of in your philosophy,” Make up your own mind about what makes sense, but prepared for what my Aunt Therese said to me one fine morning, “People are going to laugh.”

  32. Hi Tumblewords,
    Thanks for that. And I think this is the point. I don’t think there will ever be an answer to anything in the long run. knowledge advances because it is most likely infinite – or a reflection of how we see ourselves. Which makes the journey the important thing.

    Hi Sandy,
    Many thanks. It seems to have had quite an effect.

    Hi Richard,
    Yes, I know the quote. It’s just that your intent wasn’t clear. Now I know, we must be careful we know what we’re laughing AT. For laughing without knowing the subject is similar to laughing at your own reflection ;-)

  33. Hi Anthony,
    Your top post’s topic is one I love to discuss.
    Your posts are always so rich with much to digest and the ensuing comment thread is drawing me in like honey. Can’t pen my thoughts here though because I’d need to edit them first so as not to be a long paper! My mind’s been a quiver with thoughts that relate to your “reason” post.

    Mr. once an angel, that was an endearing poem. Your love poem is full of much wisdom.

  34. Hi GeL,
    Many thanks for that kind comment. I’ve researched and written about esoteric subjects for a long time, and I’m convinced rational answers can be forthcoming if we could only get past ages old incredulity. What’s more, I’m sure that rational understanding can offer insights in many other areas of knowledge.

  35. angie said

    I love “Going Bad!”

    I plan to haunt each and every soul whose irritating presence I’ve had to suffer through in silence…in this life!!

  36. paisley said

    personally i think religion and the paranormal go hand in hand.. you cant believe in one set of ghosts without believing in the other….. i am so not into the god thing…..

  37. Hi Angie,
    Thanks for that. I think we all feel that way from time to time :-)

    Hi Paisley,
    I suppose I see it like this: if we can think of something, it has some form of existence, even if only in our mind. Which leads to two questions that fascinate me: how powerful IS that mind? And if we can think it, can realising what it is we think help us to understand ourselves?
    Hence, like you, I’m not in the ‘belief’ business. But rationalising it is something quite different.

  38. Hi Tony, What is the reason behind the reason? I’ll have to get back to you on that one!

    Love the going bad poem – ‘I was never this bad when I was alive’

    Oh yeah, back to that question – wasn’t it something to do with the earth being flat…?

  39. Hi Andy,
    Thanks for that. Now, it depends on how flat you think it is. There are three levels:

    Hysterically flat – well, that’s the belief.

    Moderately flat – this is how many flat earthers see it – an enduring symbol to have a little joke with scientists as a protest to their fundamentalism – and they’re usually too tunell-visioned to get it ;-)

    Fundamentally flat – well, any fundamental stance holds a high degree of probability of being wrong. As I say in the essay, there’s no definite single answer to anything (at least, not theoretically). After all, some people fundamentally believe the Earth is a perfect globe.
    Wrong.

  40. watermaid said

    I’ve come back to comment on ‘Goung Bad’. I enjoy your ditties, and if, as the illustration suggests, you are a bad angel, there must be plenty of those around.

    P.S. I think Richard was giving examples of paranormal phenomena.
    (‘There are more things in heaven and earth Horatio than are dreamt of in your philosophy’)

  41. Hi Watermaid,
    Thanks for that. Yes, there are certainly plenty of them :-)
    And yes, Richard and I may well be mis-understanding each other.

  42. Love the bad angel! Nice lighthearted take on the prompt!

  43. Hi Linda,
    Thanks for that. I’m afraid I couldn’t resist that one :-)

  44. pieceofpie said

    hi tony.. interesting post, you speak of reasonable… come let us reason together… not much reason around here… and amusing tidbits of timeless love..

  45. Hi Pieceofpie,
    Many thanks. Yep, there’s too much unreason around in the world today. I guess that’s the result of people thinking we’re reasonable nowadays ;-)

  46. Sue Hickey said

    lovely article and fine poems, too. I am reminded of something from my “babe,” the great Blaise Pascal: “the Heart has its reasons, of which Reason does not know.”
    I’m going to contemplate my 2-D printout of E8 now…ever read about that? If that doesn’t make you think about the mystical, wonderful universe, I don’t know what would. (BTW E-8 is a 248-dimensional geometric figure that was only realized and plotted recently. It means that it’s symmetrical on 248 sides!)

  47. Hi Sue,
    I haven’t come across E-8. Thanks for that. I’ll have to take a look. And I’m pleased you’re continuing to like my essays.

  48. [...] someone like Anthony North, there are reasons behind reasons—I suspect he’s a descendant of Sherlock [...]

  49. Ryan Cowling said

    “Steady State does not require a beginning and an end. Big Bang does. In other words, Big Bang better reflects our linear mind-set that things do not go in cycles, but advance or decline along a straight line from a beginning to an end.”

    I take umbrage at your statement Mr N. That linear mindset you refer to is not apparent in the astronomy books I’ve read that mention that the big bang could be part of a cyclic “big bang big crunch” cycle. Furthermore books on emergent properties by scientists (The Cosmic Blueprint by Paul Davies, published by Unwin paperbacks, 1987) openly talk about non linear systems being the norm as far as the universe is concerned.

  50. Hi Ryan,
    Please don’t take umbrage. I make statements to cause debate. Yes, Davies and a few more do marvellous work in extending such concepts, but do they reflect mainstream science? I’m not sure they do.
    The impulses I’m speaking of here are more of an unconscious nature. To a certain extend, the culture someone belongs to will inevitably have an effect on their psyche, making ideas that were not ‘normal’ in times past normal.
    The idea of the linear has slowly become entrenched in western consciousness beginning with the Judaeo-Christian tradition. This will obviously have an effect. And yes, there are always exceptions to the rule – hence the big bang big crunch idea – but this road will usually only be travelled once the linear mind-set fails to provide avenues. The linear, I’d argue, remains predominant.

  51. Chris said

    Hi Anthony,
    Why is it that so many people that lack the courage to try and understand reality dump their fears and misunderstandings on others?
    Just a question?

  52. Hi Chris,
    I suppose the worldview we come to accept can be seen, in one way, as a defence mechanism against non-understanding. As such, any threat has to come from outside the armour.
    This doesn’t include Ryan, above, by the way. We’re having an excellent discussion on many posts at the moment, jumping all over the place.

  53. Ryan Cowling said

    “Please don’t take umbrage. I make statements to cause debate. Yes, Davies and a few more do marvellous work in extending such concepts, but do they reflect mainstream science? I’m not sure they do.”

    Chris, I’m taking umbrage in a debate sort of way. I’m not going to go around to Mr N’s house and burn it down or anything remotely like that.

    “The impulses I’m speaking of here are more of an unconscious nature. To a certain extend, the culture someone belongs to will inevitably have an effect on their psyche, making ideas that were not ‘normal’ in times past normal.
    The idea of the linear has slowly become entrenched in western consciousness beginning with the Judaeo-Christian tradition.”

    The big bang theory is the fashion at the present moment. I think that at some point in the future data may come to light which will cause the big bang theory to be questioned. Then it may go out of fashion. I don’t think that scientists can rationally keep to their battlements if data comes in that shows a different interpretation. It is only a matter of time before conservative scientists have to cave in to a newly forming consensus that new theories, backed up by data, bring.

    “This will obviously have an effect. And yes, there are always exceptions to the rule – hence the big bang big crunch idea – but this road will usually only be travelled once the linear mind-set fails to provide avenues. The linear, I’d argue, remains predominant.”

    But the worms in the belly of the linear paradigm are chaos theory, quantum theory and emergent properties. And they are slowly gnawing away at the guts of the present predominant consensus. Time will tell, or does the whirligig of time have its revenges?

  54. Hi Ryan,
    Well, it’s certainly holding out. But, yes, so many areas are congregating, and in one way, the present intransigence could be a sign of a consensual change coming soon.
    Towards the end, battlements intensify. And in a way this is sad. If an extreme stance is taken, then it can only be knocked down by another extreme stance, and constantly battling like this means we are forever lumbered with an extreme consensus, which guarantees only half the knowledge availabe is accepted.

  55. Graham Priestley said

    “In my eyes science is no different to religion in method. They both deny what they don’t ‘believe.’ Science is supposed to have a methodology to back what it says up but there are a lot of poor reports and studies out there, and a lot more whose results have been paid for by the originator of the reports. Science has as bad a name as religion as far as I’m concerned. Personally I don’t take either of them seriously.”

    I’ve heard this canard so many times. Many detractors out there like to claim that science is just another religion. This is, of course, complete nonsense: Unlike religion, Science is an inherently self-correcting enterprise. When facts contradict theory, the theory is modified to fit the facts. Since experiments continuously generate new facts to deal with, our scientific knowledge is always changing and updating.

    Many theories, however, don’t need large overhauls to fit facts. The modern theory of evolution and the Big Bang are good examples of this: Most new facts revealed by experimentation fit in nicely. They aren’t held in high esteem because they’re dogma our worldview depends on: They’re held in high esteem because we’ve continuously failed in our best efforts to prove them wrong. They have no problems surviving our worst efforts, either.

    The quick and dirty way of science is this: 1) Form a falsifiable hypothesis. 2) Do everything you can think of to prove that hypothesis wrong. Whatever remains standing after all our attempts is probably true. There’s no certainty in science, so all such conclusions are tenative. This cannot be said for religion: They’ll typically ad hoc their hypotheses until they’re unfalsifiable, rather than admit to being wrong.

    Putting aside the disparity of science and religion, this “argument” is likely an attempt to lead people into a relativist fallacy. Even if the body of knowledge commonly referred to as “science” was religiously derived instead of scientifically discovered, science would still be a valid tool for learning, and it’s be able to debunk religiously derived dogma, just like reality did for Lysenko.

    Thankfully, unlike Lysenko, we probably don’t have to worry about reality raining on our parade: Our knowledge works, and the fact that you’re reading this post is one such anecdotal demonstration.

  56. Hi Graham,
    It would be helpful if you say who you’re quoting – not doing so gives the impression that, as author of the post, the words are mine.
    What you say is quite true, of a science that works how it should. Nothing in life does, though.

  57. Graham Priestley said

    “It would be helpful if you say who you’re quoting – not doing so gives the impression that, as author of the post, the words are mine.”

    Sorry Anthony. I’m quoting JP Fife’s words at the beginning of the replies.

    “What you say is quite true, of a science that works how it should. Nothing in life does, though.”

    I’m under no illusion that scientific methods work perfectly all of the time. But when someone compares it with religion I’d say that they need to take a deeper look at how scientific establishments function. Science is most likely the best approach to uncovering the mysteries of the cosmos. I can’t see any other method that is better, at the moment.

  58. Hi Graham,
    You’re right that it’s the best method, but it is imperfect, often relying too much on a conceptual view, not even attempting hypothesis for things that don’t fit the view. And without the hypothesis, there’s no way to interpret data, so the data can be ignored.
    This is where I thnk a rebirth of philosophy can be useful, throwing reason at science. Most times, it could well be wrong, but occasionally there could be a paradigm shift.

  59. Graham, that should read ‘consensual’ view, not conceptual. Cracking up today :-)

  60. Graham Priestley said

    I disagree with you Anthony. Science is not a consensus. If you check out scientific journals you will see much debate and disagreement.
    Ignoring data and not formulating a hypothesis sounds like the typical crystl chi quantum superparanormal magick unicorn purveyors.

  61. Hi Graham,
    I’m sure you won’t get it, but that last line just offered me further evidence of the consensus I speak of.
    Think about it.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>