Khazar-khum Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rick Baudé Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Byrd Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Anthony Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > But one cannot dismiss true
> incidents of
> > psi,
> > > or
> > > > the statistical anomalies of
> certain
> > tested
> > > > phenomena.
> > >
> > > Having been both the researcher AND the
> > psychic, I
> > > can say that the incidents of psi are
> not
> > > replicable (even by the same person)
> and
> > that
> >
> > If it can't be replicated by the same person
> then
> > it fails the first step of science, that it
> has to
> > be replicable otherwise it's just a random
> event.
>
> Not necessarily. Consider the biological sciences.
> If a flock of birds makes a formation that looks
> like a perfect square, does it need to be
> replicated?

You're confusing experimental science for observational science. I can't replicate a super-nova but that doesn't change the fact that it took place. On the other hand if I said that mixing sugar and water can create butterflies, and everybody that tried the experiment failed to replicate it, then you can safely say that my experiment was anomalous or hopelessly flawed, or it never happened, see "cold fusion".