Derek acorah was brilliant last night on his tv program ghost towns ,he proved it last night that he wasnt a fake ,he went to this house at random and gave this girl and her husband a phsycic message and he was spot on with everything he said i knew he wasnt a fake he is a genuine medium nothing will convince me any different now ,good on you derek your the best .DEANNA

deanna deanna deanna!!!!!

Dont be so trusting my friend, Tv is Tv. Derek is a complete and utter fake. The producers of the show, give him the information to spit out.

You want a medium you can put your faith in?

Gordon Smith
http://www.thepsychicbarber.co.uk/

Remember, Here all, trust nothing.

I would agree with Spitfire. Dereks credibility is at an all time low.

However, I believe that there are many genuine mediums.

Hi spitfire how are you ,i did used to doubt derek a little bit but after last night i changed my mind he was so good and gordon smith is a genuine medium as well i like gordon i did from the first time i saw him on most haunted.DEANNA

wrote on Feb 15^th, 2006 at 10:16am:

Hi spitfire how are you ,i did used to doubt derek a little bit but after last night i changed my mind he was so good and gordon smith is a genuine medium as well i like gordon i did from the first time i saw him on most haunted.DEANNA

Im good, you?

Tv, is made to get ratings - dont completely trust it, you would'nt want to watch most haunted, if they just sat in a dark room all night would you ? :)

I know what your saying about tv spitfire and you are right they are after all the ratings they can get but dereks doorstep divinations are at random thats why i believe it so much also i,ve had my own experiences with the paranormal ,have you ever had a paranormal experience spitfire because once you have one you will find it easier to believe but i promise you the afterlife definitley exists i watched dead famous one night and i could see a spirit of a man but they couldnt see him and also on most haunted i see things and hear things what the crew dont i truly believe their is no death all we do is exchange worlds .DEANNA

wrote on Feb 15^th, 2006 at 10:42am:

I know what your saying about tv spitfire and you are right they are after all the ratings they can get but dereks doorstep divinations are at random thats why i believe it so much also i,ve had my own experiences with the paranormal ,have you ever had a paranormal experience spitfire because once you have one you will find it easier to believe but i promise you the afterlife definitley exists i watched dead famous one night and i could see a spirit of a man but they couldnt see him and also on most haunted i see things and hear things what the crew dont i truly believe their is no death all we do is exchange worlds .DEANNA

Nope, ive never had a spiritual/paranormal experience. Are you sure, your mind was'nt playing tricks on you? if i said you were sleeping in a haunted room, would the possiblity be in the back of your mind, that you would be looking for a ghost?.

hi i read dereks   book of his life story . he fistr new he had this gift when he was a child .his grandmother was a medium and derek told her what he was seeing and hearing  and she told him it was nothing to be frightened of . she incouraged  him to accept that he was a medium .he went and sat in circle and gradually accepted what he was . he was helping people long before he went on tv .derek had to go round someones house because a young woman was possesed by an evil spirit  and he had to  order this evil spirit to leave her body which he did sucessfully and she is fine now . he said he was frightened when he was a little boy because he did not understand then what it was .  god bless juditha

wrote on Feb 15^th, 2006 at 11:26am:

hi i read dereks   book of his life story . he fistr new he had this gift when he was a child .his grandmother was a medium and derek told her what he was seeing and hearing  and she told him it was nothing to be frightened of . she incouraged  him to accept that he was a medium .he went and sat in circle and gradually accepted what he was . he was helping people long before he went on tv .derek had to go round someones house because a young woman was possesed by an evil spirit  and he had to  order this evil spirit to leave her body which he did sucessfully and she is fine now . he said he was frightened when he was a little boy because he did not understand then what it was .  god bless juditha

He wrote that book, so he aint gonna put he's a fraud in it :)

If you look deeper into his history, you will see he used to be a football player, and not a very good one at that, washed up and potloss after coming back from austrialia, is only when he start to practice his so called mediumship skills.

He says his spirit guide's name is sam, and he's an ethiopian from 1500 years ago, now i dont know many ethopians today who are called sam - neverless 1500 years ago.

He also does his fake possesion crap, "OMG IM BEING TAKEN OVER- SAM HIT THEM, GRAB THE BASEBALL BAT SAM!!"

Bogus,Bogus,Bogus. To bad, you cant chop a liars hand off anymore  :'(

wrote on Feb 15^th, 2006 at 11:38am:

Bogus,Bogus,Bogus. To bad, you cant chop a liars hand off anymore  :'(

Yeah! I would hate to see skeptics like James Randi, Michael Shermer and Dr Richard Wiseman with no hands!

Its a two way street  :P

wrote on Feb 15^th, 2006 at 11:45am:

Yeah! I would hate to see skeptics like James Randi, Michael Shermer and Dr Richard Wiseman with no hands! Its a two way street  :P

Except, medium skum who lie - suck peoples money from them, give them false hope - and lie/steal to earn a living.

Skeptics just lie to themselve, and spread it about. All they get out of it, is bad/good press and alot of stress.

wrote on Feb 15^th, 2006 at 11:59am:

Skeptics just lie to themselve, and spread it about. All they get out of it, is bad/good press and alot of stress.

Hard lined skeptics do much more than lie to "themselves and then spread it about" (How can you do both at the same time??).

They get good press and VERY LITTLE bad press, very very good press in fact. Good press for more or less saying "dont believe you". They dont have to have a very good counter argument and in fact they quite often dont.

They do suck money out of frontier scientific experiments and open minded studies. They are not afraid of using dishonest tactics. In my opinion that is nearly as insidous and devious as a fraudulant medium.

wrote on Feb 15^th, 2006 at 12:09pm:

Hard lined skeptics do much more than lie to "themselves and then spread it about" (How can you do both at the same time??). They get good press and VERY LITTLE bad press, very very good press in fact. Good press for more or less saying "dont believe you". They dont have to have a very good counter argument and in fact they quite often dont. They do suck money out of frontier scientific experiments and open minded studies. They are not afraid of using dishonest tactics. In my opinion that is nearly as insidous and devious as a fraudulant medium.

You cant do 2 things at once?
A super skeptic convinces themselves of a lie, and then he sends this lie out to others via different mediums, such as tv,newspapers etc.

They, do far less damage then mediums do - they may be a thorn in the side, and yes - they are usually negative, but at least they dont take your money for the privlidge.

Not to mention, they get rid of alot of crap mediums, who fanny around with taro cards and tea leaves.

wrote on Feb 15^th, 2006 at 2:27pm:

You cant do 2 things at once? A super skeptic convinces themselves of a lie, and then he sends this lie out to others via different mediums, such as tv,newspapers etc. They, do far less damage then mediums do - they may be a thorn in the side, and yes - they are usually negative, but at least they dont take your money for the privlidge. Not to mention, they get rid of alot of crap mediums, who fanny around with taro cards and tea leaves.

Then the skeptics have already won....

wrote on Feb 15^th, 2006 at 2:27pm:

You cant do 2 things at once? A super skeptic convinces themselves of a lie, and then he sends this lie out to others via different mediums, such as tv,newspapers etc. They, do far less damage then mediums do - they may be a thorn in the side, and yes - they are usually negative, but at least they dont take your money for the privlidge. Not to mention, they get rid of alot of crap mediums, who fanny around with taro cards and tea leaves.

Yes, but the fact remains that both groups are equally dishonest and devious. Dishonest people should not be given any credit or media time/space. Yet dishonest skeptics are given this.

wrote on Feb 15^th, 2006 at 3:36pm:

Yes, but the fact remains that both groups are equally dishonest and devious. Dishonest people should not be given any credit or media time/space. Yet dishonest skeptics are given this.

Mediums actually get more airtime then skeptics, because skeptics are depressing, who wants to hear that we are merely biological units, and when we die we just pop off?, i certainly dont.

But for every skeptic,theres 100 mediums, and while a skeptic can only do big damage if recognised, a medium can affect a greater market of regular folk, looking for some peace.

wrote on Feb 15^th, 2006 at 6:23pm:

Mediums actually get more airtime then skeptics, because skeptics are depressing, who wants to hear that we are merely biological units, and when we die we just pop off?, i certainly dont. But for every skeptic,theres 100 mediums, and while a skeptic can only do big damage if recognised, a medium can affect a greater market of regular folk, looking for some peace.

Sorry but that is incorrect in my opinion. Every time I hear of a scientist ever making even a "peri-normal" scientific claim you can always expect an article or news clip of a skeptic debunking it. The skeptic will get more coverage than the original guy/gal. The person making the claim could have taken 2-3 years conducting a study, the skeptic can spend 2-3 minutes debunking it WITHOUT looking at the source material!

Every news article always is rounded off with a skeptics opinion at the end of it if the article is based on a paranormal or perinormal theme.

A tv interview or tv show involving frontier science of paranormal topics will 90% of the time have a skeptic wheeled in AFTER the person who has made the claims to debunk the him/her.Often the person making the claims never gets a chance to come back on the skeptics points.

That is standard news article/ tv show format for this area. You will struggle to deny that surely?

That is fine. But if the skeptic is Randi or Wiseman or someone of that ilk, which it often is as they are the media skeptics as well as the hardline skeptics, then its completly pointless since these are proven liars and devious with there debunking.

Skeptics need proof all the time, if they get it they still dont believe it ,if a spirit dog bit them on the ass they would still not believe, you,ll never convince a skeptic no matter what you say or do and thats a fact.DEANNA

wrote on Feb 15^th, 2006 at 6:37pm:

Sorry but that is incorrect in my opinion. Every time I hear of a scientist ever making even a "peri-normal" scientific claim you can always expect an article or news clip of a skeptic debunking it. The skeptic will get more coverage than the original guy/gal. The person making the claim could have taken 2-3 years conducting a study, the skeptic can spend 2-3 minutes debunking it WITHOUT looking at the source material! Every news article always is rounded off with a skeptics opinion at the end of it if the article is based on a paranormal or perinormal theme. A tv interview or tv show involving frontier science of paranormal topics will 90% of the time have a skeptic wheeled in AFTER the person who has made the claims to debunk the him/her.Often the person making the claims never gets a chance to come back on the skeptics points. That is standard news article/ tv show format for this area. You will struggle to deny that surely? That is fine. But if the skeptic is Randi or Wiseman or someone of that ilk, which it often is as they are the media skeptics as well as the hardline skeptics, then its completly pointless since these are proven liars and devious with there debunking.

I dont know were you live, but in the uk, theres probley 10 medium shows for 1 skeptic 1.

Most haunted
Derek acorah
Haunted
Ghost Hauntings
castle ghosts
Horizon [the best usually]
John edwards
psychic crimes

Theres even a psychic interactive channel.

The only skeptical show i know, is the critical eye.

You are correct, about the comebacks however [which i why i like horizon] which goes back and forth between them.

Randi is a liar, true - but so are most mediums, the full area is bloated with scammers, just gotta navigate the crap and find the treasure.

I live in the UK also.

I do not mean those shows. I mean shows involving interviews or one off shows that try to tackle a subject.

The shows you mention on the whole are not discussion based shows.

What are you views on news articles containing perinormal or paranormal subjects?

They aint discussion ones true, but i was demonstrating that people like to hear about mediumship and the paranormal far more then they like hearing about skeptics.

Shows which contain both skeptics and mediums are quite rare, but skeptics often get more airtime, because they have more to say, a medium can only say a certain amount, for they generally have no idea how there powers work.

wrote on Feb 15^th, 2006 at 7:20pm:

They aint discussion ones true, but i was demonstrating that people like to hear about mediumship and the paranormal far more then they like hearing about skeptics. Shows which contain both skeptics and mediums are quite rare, but skeptics often get more airtime, because they have more to say, a medium can only say a certain amount, for they generally have no idea how there powers work.

I believe you are incorrect when you say people like to hear the skeptics less, otherwise there would be less newspaper and news article coverage when skeptics claim to have debunked someone. They would not be wheeled on the stage to debunk a paranormal claim in that tedius tv format either.

I also believe in my opinion that your statement that a skeptic gets more air time/news space because they have more to say is an assumption.
I also think it is an incorrect assumption since the medium/person putting forward a claim is rarely able to come back on the points the skeptics make.

This is like PM's questions where the opposition speaks first and then Tony Blair responds. The person who has the last word has the advantage. Skeptics always seem to be allowed to have the last word in a debate, in a news article or on a tv show.

Here is a good example where a skeptic claimed to be able to debunk a "paranormal claim" in 10 minutes even though he was given 30 minutes. This transcript of a GOOD AND FAIR debate between skeptic and the person putting forth his findings shows clearly that a skeptics argument implodes if a NORMAL debate is allowed to go on.

http://www.sheldrake.org/controversies/RSA_text.html

Please take a look at that debate or even listen to it here spitfire :-

http://www.sheldrake.org/controversies/telepathy_debate.html

Once you have either read the transcript or heard the audio, do you not agree that this is a MUCH fairer way to debate these issues?

Would you also agree that in this situation the skeptic ended up having very little to say for his critical review?

I believe you are incorrect when you say people like to hear the skeptics less, otherwise there would be less newspaper and news article coverage when skeptics claim to have debunked someone. They would not be wheeled on the stage to debunk a paranormal claim in that tedius tv format either.
Thats your oppinion, but the evidence clearly point's out mediums get far more programs done about them then skeptics ever get/or will get. They even have there own channel. you ask how many people want to believe we survive death, it will be a very high percentage, what do tv channels work off? current issues people are intrested in, thats why skeptics get less airtime. They dont want to be reminded of how mortal they are.

I also believe in my opinion that your statement that a skeptic gets more air time/news space because they have more to say is an assumption.I also think it is an incorrect assumption since the medium/person putting forward a claim is rarely able to come back on the points the skeptics make.

It's true it's an assumption, an assumption based upon a firm pattern of mediums, and how they describe there abilities. Also the fact, these popular skeptics often come from a background in writing either papers, or radio shows or as a proffession [such as univeristy lectures], gives them an edge over mediums, who ar'nt as experienced in this area.

Once you have either read the transcript or heard the audio, do you not agree that this is a MUCH fairer way to debate these issues?  
 
Would you also agree that in this situation the skeptic ended up having very little to say for his critical review?  

I'll read that tommorow, it's abit long - but rupert sheldrake - is a very experienced speaker/writer - and he's not a medium, he's a scientist, thus he has backed up his information in a way a psychic never has.

wrote on Feb 15^th, 2006 at 8:29pm:

I'll read that tommorow, it's abit long - but rupert sheldrake - is a very experienced speaker/writer - and he's not a medium, he's a scientist, thus he has backed up his information in a way a psychic never has.

He is a scientist who he putting forward views that go against the grain of the hardlined skeptics paradigm.

This is a fairer situation since a skeptic HAS to come up with logical and fair counters. Debunking a medium is sooooo easy with blanket statements of cold/ hot reading. A skeptic doesnt need to investigate the medium he/she only has to make that comment.

The only difference with Sheldrake and a genuine medium is that Sheldrake is harder to pound due to that fact that he is a biologist and conducts experiments.

The beauty of a skeptic debunking someone like Sheldrake is they are often forced to show their true colours. For example, Wiseman who was so very keen to tell every newspaper and tv show that the "Dog that knows when he's owner is coming home" experiment was a failure, FAILED to even plot his own results which turn out to give the SAME results as Sheldrakes. He was forced to insert this whimsical condition which he then set as a failure. He tried to imply that the dog went to the window for a long time because of passing cars and cats. Yet the graphs clearly show that this is not the case.

The essence of my point is that you first said that liers and dishonest people should have their hands chopped off. Since a skeptic favours science as a primary tool to debunk people a worthy challenge/test of a skeptics ability would be a scientist putting forward a concept that goes against the standard paradigm.

As the transcript shows, skeptics are often RUBBISH when faced with a fair fight.

I am all for false mediums metophorically having their hands chopped off yet many hard lined skeptics are equally fraudulent and so should suffer the same fate.

Derek Acorah has fake written all over him. Most people consider him fake yet a fake skeptic is never exposed!

wrote on Feb 16^th, 2006 at 7:20am:

He is a scientist who he putting forward views that go against the grain of the hardlined skeptics paradigm. This is a fairer situation since a skeptic HAS to come up with logical and fair counters. Debunking a medium is sooooo easy with blanket statements of cold/ hot reading. A skeptic doesnt need to investigate the medium he/she only has to make that comment. The only difference with Sheldrake and a genuine medium is that Sheldrake is harder to pound due to that fact that he is a biologist and conducts experiments. The beauty of a skeptic debunking someone like Sheldrake is they are often forced to show their true colours. For example, Wiseman who was so very keen to tell every newspaper and tv show that the "Dog that knows when he's owner is coming home" experiment was a failure, FAILED to even plot his own results which turn out to give the SAME results as Sheldrakes. He was forced to insert this whimsical condition which he then set as a failure. He tried to imply that the dog went to the window for a long time because of passing cars and cats. Yet the graphs clearly show that this is not the case. The essence of my point is that you first said that liers and dishonest people should have their hands chopped off. Since a skeptic favours science as a primary tool to debunk people a worthy challenge/test of a skeptics ability would be a scientist putting forward a concept that goes against the standard paradigm. As the transcript shows, skeptics are often RUBBISH when faced with a fair fight. I am all for false mediums metophorically having their hands chopped off yet many hard lined skeptics are equally fraudulent and so should suffer the same fate. Derek Acorah has fake written all over him. Most people consider him fake yet a fake skeptic is never exposed!

You see a 25 stone person, you dont think they are going to be running a marathon, you can generalise that almost all 25 stone people wont be running a marathon, skeptics do that with psychic powers, and end up thinking all claims are fake, yet they think that way for so long, they are extremely stuck in there ways.

Rupert sheldrake, is part of a small group - to which he's done scientific experiments, thus he can answer back, and counter alot of theory's because if he was confident in his results, he would never have published them.

Skeptics are extreme, it's true - so are alot of christians/muslims, psychics. We each fight for our own beliefs, this can blind us to the truth, if a medium/psychic wish's to put a skeptic in his place, they should do what sheldrake does, perform experiments to prove what they can do, put a skeptic in there place, but as i have said rupert is in the minority.

A "fake" [or not a very good] skeptic, is just a person who spouts off, you get them in ever area - from greenpeace to the reformed nazi party. Aslong as you can prove what you know, then it adds to the persons credability, thus he's listened to more etc.

I can watch a bad skeptic spout off, against things -but there just a loud mouth, and as the main point i was trying to prove, a medium messing with someones grief, is like shooting someone who's tied up, they just pray on the weakness of people at a bad time, and charge them for it - were as a skeptic is just a thorn in the side of society.

I agree with you, that skeptics who are crap - dont get the same pasting as a medium who is crap would, and unfortunatly we will just have to hope people can see that these people are just to extreme to listen to any reasonable peice of evidence, and judge them as such.

wrote on Feb 16^th, 2006 at 8:42am:

You see a 25 stone person, you dont think they are going to be running a marathon, you can generalise that almost all 25 stone people wont be running a marathon, skeptics do that with psychic powers, and end up thinking all claims are fake, yet they think that way for so long, they are extremely stuck in there ways.

Which makes the bulk of super sceptics incompetent as well as liers does it not?. If a doctor worked like that he would be sacked due to poor practice because he was making so many misdiagnoses.


Quote:

Rupert sheldrake, is part of a small group - to which he's done scientific experiments, thus he can answer back, and counter alot of theory's because if he was confident in his results, he would never have published them.

The only reason this group is so small is because scientists are shunned if they pursue paranormal areas of science. Sheldrakes work is never published by leading scientific journals yet as you say he is confident with his results and can counter most critical reviews. Yet a scientist can make a claim about multiple universes and is accepted by main stream science and scientific journals, a theory with less proof!

I would also still like your opinion on whether the debate format setup like the sheldrake/Wolpert is a fairer way to discuss a paranormal issue if the "claimant" feels he has evidence and proof of the claim?

Which makes the bulk of super sceptics incompetent as well as liers does it not?. If a doctor worked like that he would be sacked due to poor practice because he was making so many misdiagnoses.

Doctors do it all the time, it's all about generalising case's and best guess to lead them onto treatment.

Someone whos overweight goes to see a doctor complaining of breathlessness, the doctor immediately think's weight problem - because it's a common thing amongest people over a certain weight.

And most of them time he would be right, so he sends them for tests in that area - to prove his theory.

The only reason this group is so small is because scientists are shunned if they pursue paranormal areas of science. Sheldrakes work is never published by leading scientific journals yet as you say he is confident with his results and can counter most critical reviews. Yet a scientist can make a claim about multiple universes and is accepted by main stream science and scientific journals, a theory with less proof!

If they aint willing to pursue it due to peer pressure, then they are fools.

Im not a scientist, so i cannot say why they dont like his theory's, perhaps they could'nt recreate his results, or they dont deem it worthy of publication - at any rate, he seems to find plenty of audiences to speak to, and plenty of publishers to publish his works, so he has plenty of chances to change the way his peers view his work.

Yes that format is fair, and i think sheldrake is very good in his convictions to explain and stand by his work. But i still think mediums would have no idea how to answer those sort of questions.

Quote:

Someone whos overweight goes to see a doctor complaining of breathlessness, the doctor immediately think's weight problem - because it's a common thing amongest people over a certain weight. And most of them time he would be right, so he sends them for tests in that area - to prove his theory.

The fat man example is something a layman can diagnose. It is the paranormal equivalent of a stage magician ie, it is obvious.

The claims of a medium are closer to the doctors equilvalent of a cancer or another internal problem. If the doctor employed blanket diagnoses with those cases he would be out on his ear!!


Quote:

If they aint willing to pursue it due to peer pressure, then they are fools. Im not a scientist, so i cannot say why they dont like his theory's, perhaps they could'nt recreate his results, or they dont deem it worthy of publication - at any rate, he seems to find plenty of audiences to speak to, and plenty of publishers to publish his works, so he has plenty of chances to change the way his peers view his work.

If they want to make a living out of being a scientist then they have to be "fools". It is a known fact in the science world that peer pressure is the norm. No grant money for frontier science Im afraid.

His audiences are hardly plentiful as he is not even allowed to publish his work in leading scientific journals.

The fat man example is something a layman can diagnose. It is the paranormal equivalent of a stage magician ie, it is obvious.  

The claims of a medium are closer to the doctors equilvalent of a cancer or another internal problem. If the doctor employed blanket diagnoses with those cases he would be out on his ear!!

Yea, and a layman could spot a fake psychic just as easy, which was my point. But that 1 case were an overweight person goes in breathless, and has - lung cancer, the doctor would still say off the bat - i think it was down to him/her being overweight, until the evidence was presented that it was'nt.

If they want to make a living out of being a scientist then they have to be "fools". It is a known fact in the science world that peer pressure is the norm. No grant money for frontier science Im afraid.

His audiences are hardly plentiful as he is not even allowed to publish his work in leading scientific journals.

Theres always funding available, if you search hard enough - the monroe institute, manages to funding, along with VERITAS, and other afterlife/conscious programs.

Plentyful?, he has had 10 books published, and this from his own site.

"He has appeared in many TV programs in Britain and overseas, and was one of the participants (along with Stephen Jay Gould, Daniel Dennett, Oliver Sacks, Freeman Dyson and Stephen Toulmin) in a TV series called A Glorious Accident, shown on PBS channels throughout the US. He has often taken part in BBC and other radio programmes. He has written for newspapers such as the Guardian, where he had a regular monthly column, The Times, Sunday Telegraph, Daily Mirror, Daily Mail, Sunday Times, Times Educational Supplement, Times Higher Education Supplement and Times Literary Supplement, and has contributed to a variety of magazines, including Resurgence, the Ecologist and the Spectator. "

The guy, has reached a huge amount of people. The right kind of people, the public, public intrest = tv shows = funding for experiments in the area.

Quote:

Yea, and a layman could spot a fake psychic just as easy, which was my point. But that 1 case were an overweight person goes in breathless, and has - lung cancer, the doctor would still say off the bat - i think it was down to him/her being overweight, until the evidence was presented that it was'nt.

And I am saying that hard lined skeptics do not do this. A skeptic would diagnose the lung cancer patient by using the diagnosis of the fat man.



Quote:

Theres always funding available, if you search hard enough - the monroe institute, manages to funding, along with VERITAS, and other afterlife/conscious programs.

That is NOT scientific funding is it. I am also trying to say to you that the scientific world gets blinked by the scientific merits of Sheldrakes work because the work is not accepted by leading scientific journals. The fact that he has to mainly turn to tv show interviews and own books to put forward hes theories means he gets as much scientific merit as Derek Acorah!! Do you think that is a fair way to look at his work on its scientific merits?

And I am saying that hard lined skeptics do not do this. A skeptic would diagnose the lung cancer patient by using the diagnosis of the fat man.

Lung cancer = geniune medium.
Weight = fake medium.

I hope, that clears that up.

That is NOT scientific funding is it. I am also trying to say to you that the scientific world gets blinked by the scientific merits of Sheldrakes work because the work is not accepted by leading scientific journals. The fact that he has to mainly turn to tv show interviews and own books to put forward hes theories means he gets as much scientific merit as Derek Acorah!! Do you think that is a fair way to look at his work on its scientific merits?

Funding for a scientific experiment, = scientific funding. If you are talking about the goverment funding his work, then it needs some application, and needs to be proved that it has application, otherwise it's just an endulgance to them.

As i said, his fellow scientists will judge if his work is worthy, then he will get publication - if they dont allow it because they dont like the area of research then it sucks, but thats life - just gotta fight on until your heard.

wrote on Feb 16^th, 2006 at 12:06pm:

And I am saying that hard lined skeptics do not do this. A skeptic would diagnose the lung cancer patient by using the diagnosis of the fat man. Lung cancer = geniune medium. Weight = fake medium. I hope, that clears that up. That is NOT scientific funding is it. I am also trying to say to you that the scientific world gets blinked by the scientific merits of Sheldrakes work because the work is not accepted by leading scientific journals. The fact that he has to mainly turn to tv show interviews and own books to put forward hes theories means he gets as much scientific merit as Derek Acorah!! Do you think that is a fair way to look at his work on its scientific merits? Funding for a scientific experiment, = scientific funding. If you are talking about the goverment funding his work, then it needs some application, and needs to be proved that it has application, otherwise it's just an endulgance to them. As i said, his fellow scientists will judge if his work is worthy, then he will get publication - if they dont allow it because they dont like the area of research then it sucks, but thats life - just gotta fight on until your heard.

Im wrong, your right. The current system is just great. Skeptics are fair and open minded. You win.  ::)

wrote on Feb 16^th, 2006 at 12:15pm:

Im wrong, your right. The current system is just great. Skeptics are fair and open minded. You win.  ::)

Thank you for your co-operation.

I love your candle picture matt  its pretty .i love burning candles their something very spiritual about burning candles .DEANNA