Rationalwiki vows to take on SCEPCOP

[Purple Scissor]

"Hehe, "SCEPCOP is the world's first organized counter-skeptic group." What does that make them? Credulous idiots... ħuman sub 05:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC) "

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/RationalWi ... other_lode

Several editors from Rationalwiki showed up at WikiSynergy (and made some good helpful suggestions by the way). If they want to just have fun debunking SCEPCOP on Rationalwiki they will I am sure have a wonderful time by themselves. However, if 1) they were willing to abide by our rules and 2) SCEPCOP were willing to put up some material at WikiSynergy for them to debunk, then we might really get something going which would actually improve arguments on both sides.

Our rules which might be most relevant are here:
http://wikisynergy.com/~wikisyne/w/inde ... atmosphere

[antiskeptic]

You want to debate these people who are calling us "credulous idiots?" Count me out.

[Eteponge]

Actually, Winston's well known article on pseudo-skepticism and some of the other articles on the site and in threads posted on here that they (and other skeptics on the web) have pointed out as having logical fallacies actually *do* contain *some* logical fallacies that I feel should be revised and reworded for the sake of credibility. That just gives fuel for the debunkers, if you don't correct logical fallacies others point out in your material.

I definitely get Winston's point in his articles, what he is trying to convey, but I too can see where this and that part can easily be interpreted by Skeptics as a logical fallacy, and if reworded and revised a bit by Winston, could be made less criticized and more accepted.

I don't like how that "rational wiki" groups everyone involved here together as agreeing with everything posted on this website. I certainly don't. I have serious issues with *some* of the topics discussed here (like the 9/11 stuff and NWO stuff). I mainly stick to my own research and areas of interest. NDE / OBE oriented research, Dorothy Allison research, ADCs / DBVs research, Apparitions research, Etc. All in the context of Veridical Information in those types of cases, that suggest there may be more going on than the conventional explanations suggest.

[Purple Scissor]

[Purple Scissor]

[Scepcop]

[Scepcop]

BTW Eteponge, since you are on the SCEPCOP committee and do not agree with everything in the treatise or home page, I think then that I should put a disclaimer next to the committee profiles, something like this:

"The committee members do not necessarily agree or endorse with every statement on this site or with Vinstonas on every issue. They are here because they unanimously protest against the organized skeptics movements and feel that pseudo-skeptics are wrong about many things and commit fallacious reasoning on many issues."

Good idea?

[Eteponge]

[tmtoulouse]

[Purple Scissor]

Vinstonas, I think you may be defending yourself against fallacies we did not say you made. Anecdotal evidence is quite sound if checked properly; relative to what was observed, if not what actually happened in all cases. Who said there was a fallacy there?? You seem to have been criticized on this so often you assume that is what we mean.

"But, overall, it's more of a thing where, when I see the Skeptics criticizing this and that part as a logical fallacy, I could see where this and that portion could easily be read by a Skeptic as being a logical fallacy, that if reworded and revised, would clearly no longer be suggested to be that."

Yes, that is generally the case, it could be less easy to assail, and there are a few cases I think you get it wrong. I can look up at least one if you wish. That's all I was saying. But it is pretty much impossible to help with the treatise through these forums except if there are major flaws. If you want to have complete control of it, you'll be more or less on your own for correcting or combing out the things easily misunderstood.

[Scepcop]

Eteponge,
Yeah I get your point, but I think you are giving those skeptics more credit than they deserve. Even if I reworded things so that it would be more difficult to twist them into fallacies, they will STILL twist them into fallacies or make that charge. They will do that as long as you draw conclusions that they don't like.

As you know, words can easily be twisted or changed. They are too malleable. Anyone can twist another person's words if they want to. There is no irrefutable solid prevention of that. People will always see what they want to see, and find flaws if they want to find them, even if the flaws are in their own mind.

Thus I consider it unavoidable. Do you see my point?

Like I said, anyone can twist words, but providing facts, evidence and real life examples is the real bread and butter. And I challenge the pseudoskeptics to provide that instead of just accusing others of bogus fallacies.

[Scepcop]

tmtoulouse,
Yeah I've heard about those studies before. Of course memory is malleable and some of what we remember is false. I've even remembered certain scenes from TV shows, that when I watch again turned out to be different than the images in my memory. Again, no one denies that memory is not 100 percent accurate.

But that doesn't mean that all memory is invalid, nor does it prove that over 50 percent of our memories are false memories. Not at all. In fact, most of what I remember DOES check out.

You have to look at the situation and factors.

Most memories of insignificant details are soon forgotten.

But memories that have to do with traumatic events for example, will stand out and be remembered the same years from the time that they occur, as the day after. They are far more likely to be accurate. For example, do you remember where you were and what you were doing on 9/11 when you heard about the news? Do you remember who was with you at that time? If so, can you contact them to verify that you were where you remembered you were? If you do, you will probably find out that your memories concur, because they were vivid enough to make an imprint on your memory, even years after.

Same with the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster of 1985.

Likewise, paranormal events tend to be shocking, significant and unusual, therefore the brain will remember them more clearly than ordinary routine details. Agreed?

Therefore, they are more likely to be very accurate.

And besides, when I have a paranormal experience, I usually write it down the day after to make sure that my memory of it doesn't change over time. And when I do, sure enough what I wrote down MATCHES what I remember long after.

Does that make sense tmtoulouse?

[jakesteele]