ravenest
I don't feel it is necessary, as it is not main topic of the thread. I was just saying, I repeat, you cannot claim others' views as false based on your references, which is also non universally verified truths.
But 'my references' were to an academic source, of qualified scientific interpretation.
You are still refusing to answer many questions and just making refuting statements. And claiming any explanation on your part would be off topic.
The work of Dr Wilson Van Dusen I referenced is titled ' The Presence Of Spirits In Madness - A Confirmation of Swedenborg in Recent Empirical Findings '.
.... 'empirical findings' ; Something that is observed from real-world observation or data, in contrast to something that is deduced from theory.
If you dont bother to read or at least just have a quick look at my references - to show what I write just is not my own wacky opinion - and make assumptions and then accuse the reference of not being scientifically verifiable .... ?
Claiming that psychology and psychiatric treatment that is proved successful , that an experiment with a method on a patient that gets success can be repeated with other patients IS 'science.
Stating that nothing is relevant that is not 'universally qualified truth' ( whatever that means ? ) seems to be clutching at straws.
Repeating multiple experiments the same way and getting the same result IS science, its the basis of science ... and in the field of his work and what Dr Wilson discovered, the laws and principles are the same ones we find in evocative magick.
universally verified truths ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criteria_of_truth
Can anyone please explain to me what ' universally verified truths' actually are ?