Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This is exactly the reason he uses big words and conflates scientific terms with his own ideas -- to sow confusion and hopefully be passed off on the benefit of the doubt. It's all just "chicken feed" and you've fallen hook line and sinker for it. Adding some mind reading in (Chopra's, and mine) for some bonus points now? Will you be demonstrating more of your supernatural abilities? > There is zero academic or scie…
>I do not believe that you have actually reviewed all of Chopra's work. >I don't really know much about him, That you can write those two completely contradictory statements in the same post shows that you're just as full of it as Deepak. And that's really saying something, although you admittedly don't know enough about Deepak yourself to fully grasp what that means. But I do know something about him.
a) Can you explain how it is a fact that these two statements are completely contradictory?
b) For the sake of argument, if we assume that you are correct, can you explain how it follows that I am just as full of it as Deepak?
> And that's really saying something, although you admittedly don't know enough about Deepak yourself to fully grasp what that means.
Do you believe yourself to be fully informed on Deepak? It seems quite unlikely, so how would you be able to fully grasp what your claim means?
One interesting trick I recommend in these sorts of situations: consider whether you have ever gotten an answer wrong on a test in the past.