Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.
I think Winston is on the ball on a lot of things, and I broadly endorse his views -- and I think he's done an amazing thing putting a forum together to challenge pseudosceptics the world over. So it's birds of a feather, just as pseudosceptics like to post on Randi's website...
I've looked through a few of those links, and they're utter BS. Even if their nitpicking was accurate, which it isn't, they can't explain WTC7 collapsing, Silverstein's BS remarks that they decided to 'pull it' which is not possible to do without several months of planning and preparation, the USAF stand-down on the day (convenient to know, when you're planning these things from a cave halfway around the world), Rumsfeld changing protocols for hijack intercepts to go through his office a couple of months earlier, the insurance payouts on under-performing assets that needed $1bn in asbestos rectification, the frequent floor closures for weeks before in the towers, Cheney barking at an aide to do nothing about an incoming plane to the Pentagon and any other possible target site in Washington DC like the White House (what could he have known?), the FBI confiscating footage within 2 minutes and never releasing it to the public, the lack of plane parts or passengers or luggage at the Pentagon, the fact that the flights didn't exist until a couple of weeks before, the 'patsy' nature of the pilots who couldn't even fly a single-engined Cessna let alone manage a 757 cockpit, radar transponder or even see where they were going over the ground to hit a target, going hundreds of miles away on a flight to come hundreds of miles back, faked videos of ex-CIA asset bin Laden that were clearly another actor, invaded the wrong countries in revenge, PNAC reports, etc etc etc etc. Too many goof-ups, I'm afraid, their goose is cooked.
Last edited by SydneyPSIder on 04 Oct 2012, 21:01, edited 1 time in total.
Again, your definition of a pseudoskeptic appears to be "people who don't agree with me". Can you describe objective criteria for how you evaluate skepticsm vs. pseudoskepticism?
Already done the definitions on other threads, and they're all over this website, from the home page onwards. I don't think you need any more, do you? try doing a search on the forums, perhaps.
Wait a sec, here's a cut copy from the homepage index bar, maybe follow all the links? You do know how to get to the home page? Well done, roo...
I would probably add:
'Nit-picking and carping over nothing as a distracting technique' and
'Derailing threads and trolling to remove attention from the topic at hand' to the list...
Summary of PseudoSkeptic Fallacies:
Characteristics and Behaviors -- this is a good start, with two neat columns describing genuine sceptics and pseudosceptics such as yourself
New! Hijacking Skepticism to mean its opposite
Selective Skepticism / Establishment Defenders
Perpetual Denial of Evidence
Double Standards, Contradictions and Lies
Dismissing Anecdotal Evidence as Invalid
Overgeneralizations and Distortions
Cherry Picking of Evidence
Straw Man Arguments
Forcing Explanations That Don't Fit The Data
Invisible Pink Unicorn / Santa Claus Gambit
Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence
Fallacies of UFO Debunkers
Skeptics ignore facts about apparitions
Why You Should be Wary of Skeptical Sources
New! Treating Science as a Religion when it is not
Yeah, I've dissected some of Scepcop's musings on that before. But I'm not asking Scepcop - he thinks using primarily testimonials is a reliable was to figure out if medication is effection- I'm asking you. How would you define what is a skeptical approach to a problem?
that's too big a question to answer here succinctly, and I'm not going to waste time constructing a detailed answer to satisfy every request you make. I have other things to do in the day. I'm not sure why you're 'testing' me, I have a science degree and work in a scientific and logical field. I use the hypothetico-deductive method every day. Winston has posted up a good summary on the home page defining what sceptical enquiry really is, I'll copy-paste that also, but it just seems you want to badger and carp at other posters here rather than address real questions and evidence about the original topic. I don't know if it's a mark of your personality or whether you're an active participant in that particular cover-up.
Last time I'm indulging one of your frequent off-topic requests.
True Skeptics / Open-Minded Skeptics
Questions everything and takes nothing on faith, even from cherished established institutions.
Asks questions to try to understand new things and are open to learning about them.
Applies critical examination and inquiry to all sides, including their own.
Withholds judgment and does not jump to rash conclusions.
Seeks the truth and considers it the highest aim.
Thinks in terms of possibilities rather than in preserving fixed views.
Fairly and objectively weighs evidence on all sides.
Acknowledges valid convincing evidence rather than ignoring or denying it.
Possess solid sharp common sense and reason.
Are able to adapt their paradigms to new evidence and update their hypothesis to fit the data.
Accepts that there are mysteries and revels in trying to understand them.
Views science as a tool and methodology, not as a religion or authority to be obeyed. Understands the difference between the scientific process and the scientific establishment.
Acknowledges that the scientific establishment is subject to politics, corruption, control, censorship and suppression, as all human based institutions are - and therefore must be critically examined and scrutinized, rather than taken on faith, especially in the light of contrary evidence to their claims.
Will admit they are wrong when the evidence calls for it.
PseudoSkeptics / Closed-Minded Skeptics
Does not question anything from established non-religious institutions, but takes whatever they say on faith and demands that others do the same.
Does not ask questions to try to understand new things, but judges them by whether they fit into orthodoxy.
Applies "critical thinking" only to that which opposes orthodoxy or materialism, but never to the status quo itself.
Immediately judges as false and debunks anything that contradicts their paradigm.
Are not interested in truth, evidence or facts, only in defending their views.
Cannot think in terms of possibilities, but sees their paradigms as fixed and constant.
Are willing to lie and deceive to discredit their opponents.
Automatically dismisses and denies all data that contradicts materialism and orthodoxy.
Are judgmental and quick to draw conclusions about things they know little or nothing about.
Scoffs and ridicules what they oppose instead of using objective analysis and examination.
When faced with evidence or facts they can't refute, uses semantics, word games and denial to try to obfuscate the issue.
Unable to adapt their paradigms to new evidence, and denies data which doesn't fit into them.
Dislikes mystery and uncertainty, and insist that all unknown phenomena must have a mundane explanation.
Views the scientific establishment as a religion and authority to be taken on faith and never questioned or challenged. Does not understand the difference between the scientific process/methodology and the scientific establishment institution.
Assumes that the scientific establishment is objective and unbiased, and free of politics, corruption, control, censorship and suppression for no other reason than blind faith in authority.
Will never admit that they are wrong no matter what, regardless of evidence.
Yeah, sure, although it's already answered. Could go in General Discussion or Pseudoskeptic Fallacies, although there could arguably be a forum for a discussion of 'scientific method' or 'scientific thinking' which really the pseudoskeptic fallacies forum is making reference to.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest