William Tanksley Google wrote:
>> You can reach your own conclusions.
>> About laundry balls? Good luck applying the scientific method to them.
What for? I won't buy any of this stuff ;-). If the people who sell them
can't explain how they work (and not just babbling pseudo-scientific
vocabulary), there can't be much behind it.
> Worse yet, about an active and intelligent deciever like Uri? The
> scientific method alone isn't even any good; he can think as fast as
> you can. He wasn't unmasked by a "mere" sceptic, after all, but by a
> professional deciever (magician).
This was quite perfect for the scientific method. After all, scientific is
to test a hypothesis. The hypothesis was that he just tricked people, and
to check this, you have to know a great deal about how to trick people. I'm
not sure if my skills would be sufficient; for the typical party magician
with their simple card tricks, it's sufficient.
> The whole point is finding things to belive which fit the real world.
In my book, belief is unasserted stuff, so if it fits the real world, it is
hardly belief any more.
And the "division of labor": There I completely agree with John Doty.
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"