<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Ockham&#8217;s Razor and the Spooks</title>
	<atom:link href="http://saintgasoline.com/2009/09/03/ockhams-razor-and-the-spooks/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://saintgasoline.com/2009/09/03/ockhams-razor-and-the-spooks/</link>
	<description>An exploration of skepticism, science, atheism, humor, and feces.</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 06 Sep 2010 22:48:44 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: anon</title>
		<link>http://saintgasoline.com/2009/09/03/ockhams-razor-and-the-spooks/comment-page-1/#comment-2693</link>
		<dc:creator>anon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jun 2010 05:30:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://saintgasoline.com/?p=340#comment-2693</guid>
		<description>One thing to add:

Just because something counts as "proven" it does not mean that it will always be true.
Everything is in constant change. What once was ''state of the art'' or cutting edge (not ockhams razor, though) is bound to fade.

Clinging to the belief that the described phenomenon is ultimately proven by science and does not need further observation and constant testing is just as ridiculous as assuming ''ghosts'' caused it. (At least judged by the status quo).

Other than the last part, the text was indeed informative.
The main flaw of the last part is that you put up a baseless assumption yourself.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One thing to add:</p>
<p>Just because something counts as &#8220;proven&#8221; it does not mean that it will always be true.<br />
Everything is in constant change. What once was &#8216;&#8217;state of the art&#8221; or cutting edge (not ockhams razor, though) is bound to fade.</p>
<p>Clinging to the belief that the described phenomenon is ultimately proven by science and does not need further observation and constant testing is just as ridiculous as assuming &#8221;ghosts&#8221; caused it. (At least judged by the status quo).</p>
<p>Other than the last part, the text was indeed informative.<br />
The main flaw of the last part is that you put up a baseless assumption yourself.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: anonymous</title>
		<link>http://saintgasoline.com/2009/09/03/ockhams-razor-and-the-spooks/comment-page-1/#comment-2006</link>
		<dc:creator>anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 22:57:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://saintgasoline.com/?p=340#comment-2006</guid>
		<description>Thank you for posting such an amusing (and informative) explanation of this.  Slicing off the extra (baseless) claims provides quite the mental imagery.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for posting such an amusing (and informative) explanation of this.  Slicing off the extra (baseless) claims provides quite the mental imagery.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
