1) how many of you know how to work scientifically (is that a word?) aka how many of you are academics/working in scientific fields and not just readers of some academic work (or even pseudo-academic work)?
...
For my money, the most stringent and well-flowing arguments were made by anor (which is not to say that i agree with all his statments). Disclaimer: Not counting Madness here...he obviously works as an academic (i hope? at least you know how to build an argument and you have good structure in your posts). But he didn't contribute as much (post count wise) as others.
I claim my stake where and when I feel necessary.
My autobiography, however, remains, for now, shrouded in mystery
. But to answer your question, directly, I would not qualify, at the moment, as a practicing academic. I'm still a mature undergrad.
I should qualify my desire to cut linguistic funding out - linguistics related to education should be kept, but there are studies that seem to be based around satisfaction of curiosity. [Probably a host of studies we can cut in a variety of fields, not to mention we should also consider tax payer money going into public universities.]
What I'm really getting at is if the public at large is more interested in Psi than space, do government appointed experts have the right to say one is more valuable to us than the other? I suppose you can try and justify space programs by noting possibly colonization benefits?
Seems like research into urban farming, or this Soylent stuff, [or computer science], would be of more immediate use than learning about the cosmos or trying to pin down what miniscule amount of telekinetic power may exist. [In those cases experts can supersede public opinion, but deciding whether money goes to space or Psi might be better put to referendums of some sort.]
I'm definitely interested in what qualifies as constituent criteria, which is necessary to distinguish what (individually or collectively) counts as worthy research according to our subjective subjectives.
I agree with you there... But can you imagine, at least in America, letting the public decide what research is important and what is not? .... I shudder just thinking about it.
...
To me.... thats just insane. Why spend thousands of dollars sending some guy to vacation in Europe (sure he'll do some work, but you don't go backpacking around Europe just because of the research opportunities) rather than fund potentially groundbreaking studies into biofuel?
Vested interests
.
To me.... thats just insane. Why spend thousands of dollars sending some guy to vacation in Europe (sure he'll do some work, but you don't go backpacking around Europe just because of the research opportunities) rather than fund potentially groundbreaking studies into biofuel?
Oh, I have a huge problem with what I see as excessive funding for the humanities. Not exactly money down the drain but sometimes you have to wonder how much time is possibly wasted in the school curriculum that could be better spent.
But that seems like a particularly egregious example.
I am wondering. Specifically, what hits our bullet-points? And what are our bullet-points?
I am not to be taken very seriously in any way,since I don`t have the qualities you are looking for.Have not worked scientifically,nor am I an academic.Just having a conversation,that is all 
I missed the list of requirements you needed to participate.
I missed the list of requirements you needed to participate.
lol requirements. This is a place for doing just that, having conversations with people who have vastly different backgrounds and experiences to draw from. This is the TSA noosphere. There should be no in-group that denies the access to comments on any of these topics.
Kellais was probably just wondering if anyone actually knew what they where talking about 
This is the TSA noosphere. Nuff said. There are no requirements or restrictions.
All shall have voice on the slog. I am the rule.
It doesn't help us to decide anything, unless you plan to reevaluate your entire understanding of science and research on account of some person named Kellian on the internet.
Maybe I do...
lol...i'm sorry if i poked into a hornets nest here.
...
this is not meant as a "you guys can't" ... i know that i have too high a standard but after some years as a mathematician, i just...see...all that imprecision "ruling" our lives.
Another problem is the misrepresenting of points made by others...how many times does one poster "put words" into another posters mouth that this poster never "said" that way etc etc . It can get frustrating real fast (and somehow i guess we saw some of that in the discussion between Wilshire and anor).
Hrm...i think i come of way to snob-y...i'm sorry but i can't put it better into words (how imprecise of me, right?! 
) ... but english is not my mother tongue so at least i have an excuse Just kidding, all languages are imprecise tools (at least compared to math).
...
Suffice it to say (just to have something that is at least a bit on topic), i do think that this Mr. Sheldrake needs to proof his stuff (how did Madness put it - the onus is on him)...and not that he can come in, throw a theory in the room, and then just leave and say something like "Well, it was not disproved..." ... THAT is definitely not scientific work.
You've done nothing wrong. I stirred the pot by suggesting that 'Science' as a whole owes a debt of knowledge to the plebletariat, the unwashed masses, including disabusing contentions, like "paranormal phenomenon." Either the phenomenon is evident to be studied or 'Science' hasn't accurately discerned
what phenomenon it is they are trying to study in the first place. There are no "unstudiable" phenomenon, in my opinion.
I think demanding a high standard is not only fine but something I know I'd like to approach, but without something concrete to note it's hard to pin down what anyone means when they critique dialogue.
A noble aspiration. We are,
all of us, deceived.
Glad its all straightens out before Madness had to swoop in an scold us all
You know I'm lurking. Few instances so far have qualified, by my count, intervention as necessary. My hedonistic philosophies of communication will allow for a broad, if not unlimited, spectrum of perspective. The crux is to balance that with open, honest, and rigorous engagement.
