Show me longitudinal studies that back up this statement.Originally Posted by Teacher Terry
Show me longitudinal studies that back up this statement.
Your personality type is showing......
So exactly what did you want from posting your personality test results? Maybe a nice opportunity to continue to be critical.
I thought it might give you all a laugh at my expense. Call me charitable.
Here is the distinction that you don't get, Zoe Girl. And it would behoove you to start getting it.
There is a difference between being a prick and being critical. Sure, one can do both at the same time. But one doesn't have to.
Me asking for some proof to back up a heavy-handed statement is purely critical. It is also legitimate.
If I told you I could flap my arms like wings and fly, would you say "show me" or would you just accept it to be true?
You ask for back up or proof or something a lot of the time. It sounds like she did this work professionally, and was speaking from her own experience. It is a very big difference to question a random comment for proof as compared to something spoken from years of professional experience. That is kinda being a prick.
If you were a flight engineer or astronaut or circus performer I would probably have some trust in what you said, Would be interesting to watch however
People read palms professionally, some do it for their entire career. That does not make it evidence-based.
What would make it evidence-based? Evidence. See how this works?
Now, since Terry is educated, a professional, and strongly supports these personality tests then I am sure she has no problem providing compelling evidence to support her claim. Stay tuned!
Evidence that supports whatever your opinion is, I bet.
Tbe expression "evidence-based" just makes me laugh. Whose evidence? Whose "facts?"
Again, this is science illiteracy.
I can explain to you, but really, it would be better to research this yourself. Though I doubt you will. Remaining ignorant to things often feels comfortable.
Let's look at something like penicillin. How do we have evidence that it works as an antibiotic?
Jane's viewpoint: "Some doctor had an opinion that it would destroy bacteria and cure diseases. So he gave it to people and by golly, it worked. Well, that was just his opinion anyway" There was no testing under lab conditions. They did not test it under field conditions. There were no experiments. And since their were no experiments the experiment was never repeated.
Reality (where things are evidence-based): Researchers made discoveries of penicillin and its antibiotic uses. They tested it in labs. They tested it in the field. They experimented. Experiments were repeated. Then because of all sorts of evidence that it worked as an antibiotic that cured disease we consider this to be a fact.
That is all in layman's terms and meant to illustrate how evidence works.
But you may poo-poo evidence, but when the rubber meets the road I bet you bow down to it.
Have you ever taken antibiotics?
You can now thank me for enlightening you.
I doubt I'm particularly scientifically illiterate--I studied various sciences both in high school and in college--there's some evidence for you. Do you require transcripts?
As I suggested, the quality of evidence is what matters, and whether it stands the test of time. I could present you with a two-volume book meticulously researched by Dr. Ian Stevenson, in which he painstakingly documented instance after instance of reincarnation, rife with footnotes. Convinced yet? I thought not.
Do his footnotes stand up to the rigor of the scientific method?
What makes you doubt Dr. Stevenson's book and evidence? My guess is that you doubt because the "evidence" has been debunked. But debunked how?
We'll get you there soon, Jane! You can do this.
Keep going.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote