On 11/27/09 00:47, somebody wrote:
>> I fail to see how the hypothesis is irrational and non-scientific. At
>> least not any more than communicating via radio would have been to some
>> scientist 500 years ago.
>
> Just because one (*) thing that was beyond reason 500 years ago turned out
> to be true, anything that is beyond reason today has nonzero probability of
> being true one day. Right.

	Strawman. You're suggesting that I suggested that anything under this 
sun is worthy of investigating.

> Newton, they laughed at Einstein..." doesn't work. There are millions of
> "Bozo the Clowns" for each Newton or Einstein.

	The statement is irrelevant, unless you have a criterion for 
differentiating future Bozos from future Einsteins.

>>> built right on a diamond mine worth a "billions and billions" of
> dollars,
>>> which nobody knows about. Should I start digging?
>
>> You've set up a strawman.
>
> How so?

	Your diamond mine scenario is not even close to analogous with the one 
we're talking about.

	See comment at end of message.

>> Would that have been obvious to you 150 years ago?
>
> I was not alive 150 years ago. And even if I were, it wouldn't be relevant
> to what we are talking about today or a couple of decades ago. In fact, I
> might have been extremely stupid and gullible just last year, but that
> itself doesn't detract what I am saying right now, or excuse others,
> especially those in positions of power and influence, to act gullibly or
> stupidly.
>
>> You're suggesting that some decades ago, when numerous people continued
>> to make claims, at times with witnesses, that it wasn't worthy of
>> investigation?
>
> No. I don't even think that the number of people making claims has declined
> appreciably, or at all. It might have even increased. Number of outlandish
> claims in general, definitely has increased dramatically - just check your
> junk mail folder. Numbers mean absolutely nothing in this context,
> especially if certain motives are easily visible behind those numbers.
>
>>> cent wasted on such research is, well, wasted, and the only reasons for
> an
>>> intelligent human to bother  to do such research is employement and
>>> publishing.
>
>> It seems you're merely redefining "intelligent" to be someone who
>> doesn't "fall for x", where x is to your choosing.
>
> Could be. Or maybe you are jumping to conclusions.

	In all of your messages on the topic, you've not given a *single* 
reason why such research was ridiculous, beyond "outrageous", and 
"intelligent" people should know better. Which is just a sophisticated 
way of saying "because I said so".

	I _could_ expand further on my points, but since you don't seem to be 
willing to elaborate, I certainly won't. Come back when you actually 
want to have a discussion that's not supported by your feelings.

-- 
Q: What do you call a half-dozen Indians with Asian flu?
A: Six sick Sikhs (sic).

Post a reply to this message