12-28-2012, 02:43 PM
I find the rejections based on being "scientific" hilarious. Scientific would approach it with neither assumption of success nor failure, but an "I don't know, let's see what happens" point of view. And then they'd let it prove itself, or disprove itself. This "scientific" stuff is "I'm afraid this might take away my free will, and this excuse sounds good so I don't lose face." Or, "I'm afraid this might actually work, and if it does, then what else might I have been wrong about? And then I have to re-assess all my beliefs, and that just scares me too much, so I'll give you this face saving excuse instead."
Subliminal Audio Specialist & Administrator
The scientist has a question to find an answer for. The pseudo-scientist has an answer to find a question for. ~ "Failure is the path of least persistence." - Chinese Fortune Cookie ~ Logic left. Emotion right. But thinking, straight ahead. ~ Sperate supra omnia in valorem. (The value of trust is above all else.) ~ Meowsomeness!
The scientist has a question to find an answer for. The pseudo-scientist has an answer to find a question for. ~ "Failure is the path of least persistence." - Chinese Fortune Cookie ~ Logic left. Emotion right. But thinking, straight ahead. ~ Sperate supra omnia in valorem. (The value of trust is above all else.) ~ Meowsomeness!