[ghthor]

This is how Stan starts the lecture. His research is the exact opposite of quackery.

> No one should believe what I’m saying. It’s not that I’m telling you anything that isn’t so it’s just that you really need to be skeptical about this sort of thing. This is work in progress; it’s an honest research. I speak quickly and I may say “is” when I mean, based on the models and based on the references, it is my best conjecture that this “is”. So I’m not saying “absolute truth” when I say “is”, I’m just trying to fit things into a short time period.

> This is very controversial materiel because of, in the words of a friendly scholar, “It cannot be so”. And what he means is that if “it is so” then there is a lot of readjustment to be made. And I try to explain to people that this really doesn’t say anything like, “I’m right and you all are all wrong.” It says rather that this is deeper level integrates a whole range of material. And it demonstrates that what the scholars have been saying and what the religious people have been saying, and what the different religious people have been saying; they’re all right, but in their own context and if you go deeper you find something more common.

[lern_too_spel]

So the lecture starts with quackery as well. At no point does he say that he is using the scientific method to verify any claims. Instead, he says that the religious people and scholars are right because of magic.

[ghthor]

You should really watch the lecture. He is very scientific in his methods, he is an extremely competent scientist.

[lern_too_spel]

He talks like a duck and walks like a duck. If these religious quacks had made their claims with science, they wouldn't have been ignored. Instead, they made their claims with magic and then retconned their claims to fit the actually believable results from science. It's always the same with these nuts.