Empirical evidence for moon shrimp

And you found common cause with a pack of hyenas. Tsk.

I take it these are moon hyenas that are living of the moon shrimp that EG is currently watching?

Berny
Markjo - fighting a losing battle

Evidence for solarshrimp:



The so-called "sunspots" are actually colonies of solarshrimp.

Evidence for solarshrimp:

Balls of Hydrogen

It's a silly question, anyway. If they're supposed to be "shrimp-like bacteria", why would they fall off? Are there no bacteria on ceilings? 

There's no such thing as a shrimp-like bacteria. Even brainwashed globularist NASA agents know that.

Markjo - fighting a losing battle

If you think that trying to get FE'ers to take FET seriously is a losing battle, then I'm beginning to agree.  *sigh*

Quote from: berny_74 on April 13, 2011, 02:49:26 PM

Markjo - fighting a losing battle

If you think that trying to get FE'ers to take FET seriously is a losing battle, then I'm beginning to agree.  *sigh*

Do not fear. Some younger blood is being injected into FET.

Quote from: markjo on April 13, 2011, 07:03:38 PM

Quote from: berny_74 on April 13, 2011, 02:49:26 PM

Markjo - fighting a losing battle

If you think that trying to get FE'ers to take FET seriously is a losing battle, then I'm beginning to agree.  *sigh*

Do not fear. Some younger blood is being injected into FET.

Some of that younger blood is what worries me.

I witnessed more evidence of the bio-luminescence just a matter of hours ago. Glorious, it was.

I am still waiting for this empirical evidence everyone seems to think they have.

this thread is tl;dr, has this 'empirical' evidence ever been supplied?

Quote from: General Disarray on January 11, 2011, 01:21:05 PM

I am still waiting for this empirical evidence everyone seems to think they have.

this thread is tl;dr, has this 'empirical' evidence ever been supplied?

Yes. Use the search function.

Quote from: karl on May 04, 2011, 10:14:47 AM

Quote from: General Disarray on January 11, 2011, 01:21:05 PM

I am still waiting for this empirical evidence everyone seems to think they have.

this thread is tl;dr, has this 'empirical' evidence ever been supplied?

Yes. Use the search function.

I can find numerous requests for empirical evidence that moonlight comes from moon shrimp and not some other form of bioluminescent organism, but I have yet to find any evidence supplied to support that claim.  Must be the search function is still broken. 

Instead I am waiting for an empirical evidence that you, FE's guys, are serious about this...

... this thread freaked me out...

THe surface of the moon varies from 123C to -233C. How do you expect any biological entity to survive?

Quote from: General Disarray on January 11, 2011, 01:21:05 PM

I am still waiting for this empirical evidence everyone seems to think they have.

this thread is tl;dr, has this 'empirical' evidence ever been supplied?

Yes it has. Read the topic.

Quote from: karl on May 04, 2011, 10:14:47 AM

Quote from: General Disarray on January 11, 2011, 01:21:05 PM

I am still waiting for this empirical evidence everyone seems to think they have.

this thread is tl;dr, has this 'empirical' evidence ever been supplied?

Yes it has. Read the topic.

Wrong. Alleging that empirical evidence exists is not the same as supplying empirical evidence.

I supplied empirical evidence. Read the topic.

I supplied empirical evidence. Read the topic.

You had a dream. However, that simply calls into question the use of "experience" and "observation" in quantifying empirical evidence. The observations and experiences of an irrational madman would be rejected by the majority, and rightly so.

Empirical evidence is by definition evidence derived from experience and/or observation. How can you possibly call into question the idea that experience and observation should be considered empirical evidence, when they are the only things which can be considered empirical evidence?

Because your dream cannot be replicated with any degree of accuracy, and because it cannot be observed by more than you. It is, therefore inadmissable. I once dreamt a giant squid chased me around my primary school. To dat, my primary school has had no incidents of giant squid invasion and was demolished 20 years ago, so is unlikely to ever experience them. Now, stop being pedantic and start proving FE theories.

Because your dream cannot be replicated with any degree of accuracy

Well, I've had such dreams several times.

and because it cannot be observed by more than you.

Irrelevant. No single experience can be observed by more than one person. All experience is inherently subjective.

Science is not interested in subjectivity. Qualitative and quantitative evidence only please.

And I'd speak to your psychiatrist about those dreams. Freud would be fascinated by the resemblance of your shrimp to a uterus....

Science is not interested in subjectivity. Qualitative and quantitative evidence only please.

And we are not interested in science. Zeteticism only please.

And I'd speak to your psychiatrist about those dreams. Freud would be fascinated by the resemblance of your shrimp to a uterus....

First of all, my psychiatrist is not Sigmund Freud. In point of fact, I do not have a psychiatrist. Secondly, Freud was wrong (most psychologists agree), and thirdly, pyschology is not science, so don't be such a hypocrite.

Quote from: Ali on May 05, 2011, 06:33:11 AM

Science is not interested in subjectivity. Qualitative and quantitative evidence only please.

And we are not interested in science. Zeteticism only please.

but even Zeteticism needs a scientific method.
If you all base your "science" all on your personal ans subjective observation, that is just poetry...

I'm not the one that linked science to psychology (as opposed to psychiatry, there's a difference) you are. As for zeteticism, you can't be skeptic in the face of scientific evidence that shows your theory to be nonsense because that ceases to be skepticism and becomes obstinateness, a far less worthy trait. And to present a contrary theory to conventionally held beliefs without any evidence to work towards a proof is skirting too close to religion.

Dreams do not constitute valid evidence. Please stop making low content posts in the upper forum, Lord Wilmore. It is setting a bad example.

To be perfectly honest the request was for empirical evidence not valid evidence. LW's dream fits the definition of empirical. So far two pieces of evidence have cropped up.

1. We can observe moon shrimp while experiencing a dream.
    (I have not yet observed moon shrimp during a dream but I have no reason to believe that it's impossible.)
2. Light can be observed when looking at the moon.
    (I have not seen a way to tell the difference between light that is organic in origin vs. other light sources     presented yet.)

pyschology is not science, so don't be such a hypocrite.

I find it odd that you don't believe psychology is science, yet you claim dreams are emperical evidence.

To be perfectly honest the request was for empirical evidence not valid evidence. LW's dream fits the definition of empirical. So far two pieces of evidence have cropped up.

1. We can observe moon shrimp while experiencing a dream.
    (I have not yet observed moon shrimp during a dream but I have no reason to believe that it's impossible.)
2. Light can be observed when looking at the moon.
    (I have not seen a way to tell the difference between light that is organic in origin vs. other light sources     presented yet.)

Dreams are not empirical evidence.

Sorry I should have been more clear. I don't consider dreams about moon shrimp  as evidence for their existence. I consider dreams about moon shrimp as evidence that we can dream about moon shrimp. I just wanted to list the only two pieces of evidence that FE have presented in 27 pages of posts.

Dreams are also not observation.

Empirical evidence is evidence gained in research that derives its data by means of direct observation or experiment, such research is used to answer a question or test a hypothesis.

Dreams are neither observation nor experiment.