That's interesting - page 11
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
There is something that sometimes falls outside the scope of research. Many ignore it (because it can't be) and some build a new theory on it.
Then you are completely out of touch. Because hundreds or thousands of experiments have been conducted over decades. And the experiments have also been conducted by people independent of Schnoll and respected in their fields of science.
One of the rules states that the results of experiments must be repeatable. In independent research.
They should be repeatable, but you can't claim that they won't "stray".
They should be repeatable, but you wouldn't claim that they won't "walk".
Lying.
Schnoll gives the experiments themselves, the names of the people who carried them out and the dates of the experiments. The people who carried out the experiments include not only Russian scientists, but also scientists from Western scientific schools.
There is always a chance that Schnoll is lying. But it is quite small, as revelations would not be long in coming.
In that sense, Petrick's situation is much more precarious...
What are you writing about now? About in general or about this particular case?
About the specific case, of course. But it's a little bit obscure. Every theory has its exceptions, which it cannot explain. But that doesn't mean they don't exist.
We are taught the basics, forgetting the exceptions.
More often than not, this shows that the theory is incomplete.
Unfortunately, such flaws can be found in any theory.
In order to state this or that, you have to do a lot of experiments yourself and not discard the results that you are not happy with. Better still, you should try to explain them. Sometimes the explanation will be trivial, sometimes not.
And sometimes they will be impossible to explain.
But most people cannot accept what they believe (not knowledge) is not possible because it contradicts what they know. Only they don't know that they don't know everything.
Of course there will be, but this very "walking around" will be strictly justified. So that the results can be accepted or rejected.
I have read 2 of his lectures (from the links in this thread). It seems to me that in them he was talking about straying results.
I have read 2 of his lectures (from the links in this thread). It seems to me that in them he was talking about straying results.
About the specific case of course. But it's a little bit too well-worn. Every theory has its exceptions that it cannot explain. But that doesn't mean they don't exist.
We are taught the basics, forgetting the exceptions.
More often than not, this shows that the theory is incomplete.
Unfortunately, such flaws can be found in any theory.
In order to state this or that, you have to do a lot of experiments yourself and not discard the results that you are not satisfied with. Better still, you should try to explain them. Sometimes the explanation will be trivial, sometimes not.
And sometimes they will be impossible to explain.
But most people cannot accept what they believe (not knowledge) is not possible because it contradicts what they know. Only they do not know that they do not know everything.
Yes, it's all great, etc. But what does this have to do with Schnoll? Are you sure everything you write can be attributed to Schnoll?
I'm not referring to Schnoll, just perception. Someone is very critical of everything.