SkyHook: The problem *is* that the thing doesn't exist. If it existed, we'd find proper ways to describe it through scientific experimentation. If people *could* interact with this "medium," it would be verifiable.

The problem is that people are wonderful at finding explanations for what they want to believe. This is why peer review is so important to the scientific process. If results can't be replicated, then the original claim is suspect.

Example: I know a woman that says she can talk to trees--they want her to sing to them. She also has friends that say they can talk to plants. I suggested that she tell the tree something to tell the other person and then we can see if the other person gets the message. She just poo-pooed the idea because it proved that I didn't believe it was really happening.

But if it really *is* possible to communicate with plants, that would be a major major scientific breakthrough! Unfortunately, it's easier to believe that these people are hallucinating than it is to believe that plants are capable of communicating telepathically with people. It's also far more likely.

Actually, string theory has yet to produce a single testable hypothesis. Until this happens, string theory is no more science than is this new age talk of "energy."

"Dark Matter" is the term used to represent the mass in the universe that we have yet to explain. We see objects moving through space as if there were far more matter present than we're capable of seeing--according to our existing theory of gravity. Since we have no reason to believe the theory of gravity is incorrect, we deduce that there must be additional mass somewhere that we can't see. Its effects are measurable and precisely quantifiable. Other than this, we haven't actually found it, so we call it "dark matter." ;)

Oh, and the notion that we use less than 10% of our brains is a myth, too.

I believe the two *are* contradictory. However, I also think this is irrelevant. Even *if* reality were to turn out to be deterministic, this still wouldn't necessarily negate the illusion of free will. We should still live our lives as if we have a choice in the matter and to us, it would still seem as if we do.

Regardless, we have no reason to believe that quantum physics is deterministic. We do have reason to believe that it is not. This therefore implies that the determinism implied by classical mechanics is the illusion rather than the rule.