Re: The Chi FAQ section 2: Is Chi a Scientific Theory?

On Feb 29, 2:00 am, Renli <oliver.rich...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 29, 7:12 am, Mike <mkornecki2...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Feb 28, 10:19 am, Renli <oliver.rich...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I have done this "by the way" by providing a vehicle for sophisticated
methodological falsification -

You are knowingly using your own made up definitions.

No it's a quote actually. That's the point. It's real.

I have allowed for the possibility that
chi can be falsified within such a vehicle.

State it, don't just allow for it. State it.

Until you agree that it would logically constitute a scientific theory
should it exist I won't waste my time. Put up or shut up, Mike.

Falsifiability does not necessarily imply scientific validity. A
scientific theory does require falsifiability. The two statements are
not the same.

You have been told this many times.

You don't just have to *allow* for the possibility, you have to
actually have a criteria of falsification.

Any such vehicle has such a criteria worked in or it would not be what
it was.

Bull*** circle talk.

Yes, a scientific theory of CHI *could* exist. *If* is met the
criteria of a valid scientific theory. Unfortunately, you have not
shown that that is the case.

And what is such a criteria? Is such a process of falsification not
valid?

The criteria is that the data would refute the theory. Would prove it
false. It is obvious to everyone that you are running around in
circles in a poor attempt to pretend you know what you are talking
about.

What data (be specific) would refute your theory of CHI.

I can give you examples of data that would refute wave particle
duality.

You haven't really said anything. You've been asked like 5 times now.

You keep dodging the question.

I haven't dodged a single question. You keep running around like a ten
year old with a secret, trying to get someone to say that if something
can be proved false, it is scientific.

Despite the fact that you've been told many times that the argument
does not run both ways.

-Mike K.

.

Quantcast