User:Samsbetter

Yep, I'm better now 😟

Truth exists independently of Wikipedia. Fair enough, 80% of Quickiepedia is roughly accurate - as far as accepted Western paradigms are concerned... but Wonkypedia is notoriously biased to exclude "pseudo-scientific" theories (translation: not measurable on devices); otherwise known as noumena (singular: noumenon)

For clarification, noumena means that which exists without apparent confirmation on a physical level. Because all science is based on collecting data from observed phenomena, there is an obvious void in the scientific world regarding noumenal knowledge.

Phenomena is therefore the hinge-pin of modern scientific analysis and theory. Can't measure it? It doesn't register then. Not "scientific". This is not actually the real definition of what it is that makes science 'science'.

Well it sort of is, and it isn't. Science should be verifiable, yes, but we shan't limit it to measuring machines. If it can be deduced by logic or reasoned by sane knowledge, it ought be reckoned as science - for after all, the etymological root of the word means 'to know'.

And how does one know?

My late uncle visited me in a dream on the night he died. Next day my sister rang me to inform me of his passing. The only surprise I had was the realisation that my dream was real.

Now, if you're gonna get all scientific on me and get out all your contraptions to measure that kind of shit, I'm afraid you'll come up with nought. That just illustrates the limits of your 'science', not that mine is invalid. The fact that I had the experience and it was verified by my sister on the phone the next say is all the proof that I need, darn your new-fangled machines!

Samsbetter (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2017 (UTC)