This film does not exist.

a)If this was entirely subjective you wouldnt have any evidence at all so how you then do a complete U-turn and present Dean Radin once again is beyond me.

Though I believe ive been through this before, I didnt simply discount him because of any degree of like or dislike. I discounted him because,
i) http://skepdic.com/essays/radin.html , http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:zLp_A-QlEyAJ:www.skepticreport.com/psychics/radin2002.htm+dean+radin&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=3 No doubt biassed in places, however some unavoidable and fairly serious problems are quite clearly there.
ii) He freely admits that there isnt particularly solid evidence and pertains to the typical yet horribly broken idea that you have to try it yourself.
iii) Please take a look at his actual research. A large portion of his most significant work is based in meta-analysis. Which while being the only real promising source of proof for any mental capabilities are simply not good enough to be used as firm evidence.
iv) He has pretty much no qualifications in quantum physics and indeed just about all of his work has nothing to do with quantum physics. Probably the largest flaw with trying to use him given that my main point revolves around... quantum physics.

Oh and finally, the only other point I made was about the opposition of science and belief systems. Dean Radin as far as I am aware has produced no documents in connection to this. I dont think he has so much as spoken at length about it on or offline...

If that is the sum total of your evidence then I dont think it unreasonable to consider it sorely lacking.

b)Weve been through this before in the other thread. You seemed to want me to prove that the words subjective and objective mean subjective and objective. I suggest you look in a reputable dictionary.

c)No it isnt. I don't believe in the scientific method. It simply is the best way until a better one supercedes it. An assumption is _not_ a belief. Of course our logic could be flawed that is besides the point. Even if the method is later proven entirely incorrect it still doesnt make it a belief to utilise it, because we have evidence backing its success.

The very last thing it depends on is subjective belief.
Subjective can not be utilised outside yourself because it is your own perspective and no one elses. (It is why we have double blind testing etc to cut out your personal point of view and get to the objective nature of things.)
Belief is unproven or it literally wouldn't be a belief. (It is why we run experiments so that we dont merely believe that gravity is a force we have the papers and the proof for it and as a result can make progress as Einstein did after Newton.)

With the exception of faith, belief and subjectivity are about as far away from science as you can possibly get.

'The biggest point that most people miss in this movie is that it is a very short movie, a few hours to explain some vast concepts, and like you said they didn’t even get to the good ones.'
So you are telling me they started with the bad ones first? They either purposefully represented the theory they wished you to take on board or they started with by far the least probable theory we currently have. Either way you look at it that is a silly thing to do.

'So saying that there wrong and they don’t know what there talking about is stupid'
I haven't said either of those things. It is still a valid idea regardless of how little evidence there is to support it. What is wrong is how it was presented. I.e. it was the only thoery presented, alternative were not only omitted they weren't even mentioned, it led people to believe that the 'observer' is a human which heavily confuses the whole issue, suggesting that quantum super position effects occur in the macro universe etc.

Indeed I suspect it would take someone who knows exactly what they are talking about to so effectively put out such a misleading presentation of quantum physics.

'that’s just like me telling you "my computer has the capability of producing sound" (pretending that computers cant in our day and age) and than saying that that’s wrong because I didn’t explain it all the way and I didn’t give my own list of evidence. '
Not really. Its more like you giving a presentation of how your computer could produce sound. While ignoring the research and theories for a sound card your presentation concentrates on using finely tuned, tied together, mice. You present it to an audience who is unlikely to have the first clue about the technology, and you present it in such a way as to suggest the mice are essentially the way its going to happen.

In case thats too much of an exageration. (Though I honestly dont think it is.) Even assuming you had a more reasonable theory than mice it still would not be right to present it above the most likely explanations that are available.

"Science itself depends on subjective BELIEF in the system itself for it to work."

Now, this is what we call sophistry (or a lot of ...).

Hang in there Tieburn. Everybody can believe whatever they like, but scientist will only believe when what they believe can be proven, and others, non scientists can be shown it works. Again and again and again.

At the same time I say that language (expressed thought) doesn't describe the world; it creates it (see Lakoff-Johnson: Metaphors we live by). Because everyday reality is largely subjective, the way we think influences the way we experience. That's why it's so hard for secular people to relate to people of faith. They believe, so they KNOW they are right!