XPost: alt.paranormal.reincarnation   
   From: ssake@goldthread.com   
      
   If research is bad research, you can show logically that it is bad research.   
   Victor is citing good research, and one would have to resort to sophistry to   
   try to show that it is not good research.   
   Steve S.   
      
      
      
   "Roger Ruffner"  wrote in message   
   news:10asknf7tk1un74@corp.supernews.com...   
   > Victor's joke is a better one than Randi's, and safer too!  It is   
   impossible   
   > to "disprove" anything!  This is a standard tenant of logic and science,   
   > that, once something has been postulated as existing it is impossible to   
   > prove that it DOES NOT exist. (A 'negative' cannot be proven.)   
   >   
   > It is easier (relativistically) to prove that something DOES exist. I can   
   > gather evidence to support my postulate. Basically this comes down to the   
   > realist view of the universe; if I can touch, see, taste, smell, and/or   
   hear   
   > something, or all of the former (and extend those senses with the use of   
   > tools), than the thing exists for me.  If the evidence can be acted upon   
   > independently by others and the postulate proved repeatably and reliably,   
   > then it exists for all of us unanimously (Flat Earthers excluded -   
   Ignorance   
   > is no excuse!).   
   >   
   > Randi may eventually lose his money, but Victor never will!   
   >   
   > Rog   
   >   
   >   
   > "Check out Victor Zammit's website, www.victorzammit.com, where he has   
   been   
   > offering one million dollars to anyone who can *disprove* the best   
   > parapsychological evidence"   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)