A Quote by Richard Wiseman

I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven. — © Richard Wiseman
I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven.
The idea that Area 51 was this test facility working to move science and technology faster and further than any other nation is true and is one of the great hallmarks of Area 51. There are other areas of the base that are controversial - but they both exist simultaneously - out there in the desert.
I don't settle in any other area of my life when it comes to excellence, so why should I lower my standards when it comes to boys?
...neither is it possible to discover the more remote and deeper parts of any science, if you stand but upon the level of the same science, and ascend not to a higher science.
The ultrasound that has application not only in space for a long mission or for a mission to the Moon or Mars, but also in remote areas on the Earth. Not even just - I'm not even talking about expeditions like to the Antarctic, but just a remote area, a small town somewhere. The local doctor is not going to know everything, and so if that person can link in with a diagnostic ultrasound to the hospital in New York City through the internet, then they can do a very quick diagnosis of something that's wrong with someone that's in this remote area.
Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that will revolutionise the world, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions. Right now we don't have that evidence.
Any true revival can be proven by the fact that it changed the moral climate of an area or nation.
To far too many, science is a four-letter word, and under the modern media's false equivalency standards, a handful of skeptics are viewed as counterweights to the vast majority of scientists who acknowledge mankind's proven role in global warming.
I've proven I'm courageous. I'm gutsier than anybody; I've got a better imagination than anybody; I'm essentially more creative than any other actor I know, and I've proven I take risks. I don't think I need to prove anything to myself any more.
But concerning vision alone is a separate science formed among philosophers, namely, optics, and not concerning any other sense ... It is possible that some other science may be more useful, but no other science has so much sweetness and beauty of utility. Therefore it is the flower of the whole of philosophy and through it, and not without it, can the other sciences be known.
In any area of the UN we ... have to agree on certain language that can represent the same spirit, but that can be accepted by everyone.
In any area of the U.N. we... have to agree on certain language that can represent the same spirit, but that can be accepted by everyone.
Life itself, however, flows and is sequential and punishes those who try to compartmentalize it. Thus if, for any reason whatsoever, moral standards are conspicuously and unprecedentedly breached in one area of society, such as the political, it will follow as the night the day that those standards will start collapsing all down the line-in sports, entertainment, education, the armed forces, business and government.
Even if a majority of scientists agree on something, they know that if they don't agree on it they're not going to get their funding anymore, they won't have jobs. If it could be proven that there is no man made global warming, Heidi Cullen might be out of a job.
Science is science. Science is what is. After discovery, tests, trial, if a consensus of scientists today said that the sun orbits around the earth, would we say that they're right simply because there is a consensus? No. Because we know the earth orbits around the sun just as if there were a consensus that the earth is flat would we agree with them? No. So there can't be a consensus on something that hasn't been proven. This is a political movement. This whole global warming thing is a political movement.
If there is something in nature you don't understand, odds are it makes sense in a deeper way that is beyond your understanding. So there is a logic to natural things that is much superior to our own. Just as there is a dichotomy in law: 'innocent until proven guilty' as opposed to 'guilty until proven innocent', let me express my rule as follows: what Mother Nature does is rigorous until proven otherwise; what humans and science do is flawed until proven otherwise.
Maybe the standards should be higher to be an officer. People will say there area high standards, but clearly they're not high enough.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!