[Noisebridge-discuss] [hackerspaces] lunar calendar recommendations?

[Gopiballava Flaherty]

On Dec 27, 2011, at 20:46, Frantisek Apfelbeck <algoldor at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Look I'm really sorry but I feel from your approach that you do want to ignore large part of spectrum and it is not a high morale but this feeling which is just telling me not to waste my time.

That is a very rude and insulting thing to suggest. I have deliberately decided I don't want to believe things that are true?

The only grain of truth in that is that I don't want to believe things that are false.

In my experience, I am frequently far more knowledgeable about the factual claims of false things than most of the people who believe them to be true. Perhaps I just waste too much time researching stuff, but accusing me of wanting to ignore is ridiculously off base. It is especially ironic given that there were aspects of lunar effects on people that, coming in to this discussion, I knew more about than you. 

> If you like to have an example from my life I do not think that you can explain for example various "levels/types of telepathy" based on todays knowledge.

Do you want human knowledge to progress? We frequently progress by seeing demonstrations of things we can't explain. 

Scientists love it when they have new things to investigate. That's how you win prizes and fame and fortune. 

> It is highly likely that you can not prove the existence of this

If you can actually describe what you can do, then you can test for it. You probably don't need any fancy gear. I've read through many test protocols for testing psychics and they were often very simple. 

Let me say that again: if you can clearly describe what you can do, then odds are that a simple test can be devised. I have personally witnessed tests of paranormal phenomena. It's much simpler than you think. 

(usually the hardest part is getting the person to actually describe what they can do. "I'm psychic" is not very specific.)

> phenomena and how it works, at least not based on what we know today or for example fifty years ago.

The way we will explain it is by seeing and testing. 

> If however the person doesn't want to believe on the telepathy on the first place, or doesn't have skill or determination why should you bother to convince the other person that telepathy exists and function

James Randi will give you $1m if you can demonstrate it without resorting to trickery. He's got the money in negotiable bonds. You will be world famous. 

"doesn't want to believe" is very pejorative language. You have been doing that a lot: people who disagree with you must have done so because they don't understand or didn't want to believe from the start or some similar reason. It is never the case that somebody has looked at the evidence with an open mind and decided that you are wrong.