It’s a really good documentary because a lot of them actually want to be scientific about it.
But instead of following the scientific process of test->observe->draw a conclusion, they start with the conclusion and look for a way to prove it. And when the prof isn’t there, they simply say the test was flawed, and move on to the next test that will prove it.
It’s sad in a way. I don’t think, most of them anyway, are con man. They’re just misguided.
I will say, starting with a conclusion/theory is fine, but the next step is to do everything you can to disprove it. The more you and other fail, the stronger it becomes
It’s a really good documentary because a lot of them actually want to be scientific about it.
But instead of following the scientific process of test->observe->draw a conclusion, they start with the conclusion and look for a way to prove it. And when the prof isn’t there, they simply say the test was flawed, and move on to the next test that will prove it.
It’s sad in a way. I don’t think, most of them anyway, are con man. They’re just misguided.
I will say, starting with a conclusion/theory is fine, but the next step is to do everything you can to disprove it. The more you and other fail, the stronger it becomes