[Megan]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Lol, do not be upset from mark, he comes from a different angle, that is all. If he had been born in a diferent time, he would have called Louis Pasteur superstitious for saying that milk has little invisible living things in it that can make it go bad.

Oh, not upset--just had to tease him about about the FSM.

Pseudoscience is not defendable, it is self-evident.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I will explain later what science has uncovered so far, but the key point to note is that what's unprovable or currently unproven in science is not necessarily false, but merely unprovable or currently unproven in science

That's what makes pseudoscience so annoying.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

And the reasons could be manifold - eg the sheer backwardness of science in a particular area; \u{the inherent non-replicability of a particular phenomenon} (eg no one else on the planet being able to think exactly like esther hicks. Or ALG. Or mark); the lack of scientists researching the matter or the difficulty of obtaining research funding.

Yeah, like do we really know all the variables? Not.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Key point to note is not to make the mistake of dismissing the non-scientific as false. Theories and concepts in economics, philosophy, law, business, architecture, art, religion, pedagogy, literature, design, psychology etc etc are all largely non-scientific.

This is true. Lots of them are crocks, too.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

As for LOA, well, it encompasses all of reality, which is why we can consider it from so many different angles - personal development, religion, psychology, physics, neuroscience etc. Each of these perspectives can potentially shed some light on LOA; none can describe it completely.

Quite so, my good Godot.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

If you think about it for a moment and consider how the scientific method works, you'll see that the statement:

"The law of attraction does not exist"

Is as unscientific as the statement:

"The law of attraction exists".

Yes, mark?

I agree. And just as unscientific as either of these:

"God does not exist"

Is as unscientific as the statement:

"God exists".

Gotta go, Godot, see you later.

Megan