Talk:God helmet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Infobox 2 mccready 3 See also? 4 quacks like a duck

[edit] Infobox

McReady suggested in his comment line that I ask why he reverted the infobox I stuck in, so I am.---CH 14:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought that Persinger's work was valid. Of course, I don't know for sure. Here are three links I found (among many), the third one says that his work was not replicated.

[1] [2] [3] Bubba73 (talk), 19:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

suggestion: put links into the article where all may benefit. Just because we provide a link doesn't mean wikipedia endorses the content. As always, it is up to the reader to decide. I have added these links. GangofOne 06:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mccready

it's mccready. the disputed science box could go on many many pages and doesn't help. How can a helmet be an idea??? Mccready 10:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See also?

I am puzzled why there is a link to Kevin Warwick here. On that page there is a link back here but on neither page do I find any information to justify the linking. Had there been such pertinent information which has subsequently been deleted since the links were first made?--65.113.254.234 20:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)]

• Hi, I added those reciprocal links between God helmet and Kevin Warwick on the basis that that both articles share a focus on experimental interfaces between technological hardware and human consciousness. Maybe that's a stretch and the connections need to be better spelt out or moved elsewhere. But that was the original rationale. Open to other views. Sincerely, James. Jtneill - Talk 07:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] quacks like a duck

If it walks like a duck, quaks like a duck and if it has "god", "-theology", "magnetic healing" and "placebo" written on it it is religion or Spirituality! If it wants to be a science but fails in verification it is also pseudoscience! --Ollj 20:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)