View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

This skeptic blogger girl has the wrong idea about this site

Discuss General Topics.

Re: This skeptic blogger girl has the wrong idea about this site

Postby ciscop » 11 Aug 2009, 11:13

Scepcop wrote:
ciscop wrote:scescop
also dont take it personally

but you are doing precisely what she is critizing of here
you just spread a lot of links and info
and if she doesnt wants to read them she is the one failing
try to share just ONE link at a time when arguing with skeptics
otherwise is just pointless
you just write and share and she isnt interested in reading it... whats the point?
there is no communication happening :p
the paranormal is a hugeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee field, try just one topic, one investigator at a time
way easier to discuss

so chose a topic and build from there :D


True but I told her that she could take her time and read one link every few days. There's no need to read it all immediately.

But alas she won't even watch a 10 minute video. I think she's just looking for excuses to not look at any evidence.

You know how people are right? You said you have traveled a lot.

I just love giving lots of evidence at once, so that they can't just say "that's all, just one piece of evidence, where's the rest?" or claim that it's too little. It eliminates such a copout :)


yeah but who´s got the time?
remember my first posts here?
i posted a link to a cite showing you that dave koenig was using a mentalist effect book
and you said it didnt appear to be a mentalist book (while it said on the info: IT IS A MENTALIST EFFECT)
so not even you had the time to check a link to a book
it was after eteponge saw the link too that you saw it was true

now imagine her.. having to go throught all those links.. quite extenuating, more if you are not into the stuff
i can read hours of ghost stories or stuff like that.. but i wouldnt want to spend that time listening to homeopathy (just water) i dont care what they have to said i dont believe water is magical and i know about the placebo effect and suggestion (i will tell an amusing experiment i did later on) but back to the point .. stick to one point with a skeptic.. way easier to discuss
if you see jref
skeptics critize that when somebody gives so many stuff.. is because after they debunk something then the believer can jump to another point and dismiss the previous..
either way i just feel there´s no communication happening
and i dont think you will get anything from her
she isnt interested in paranormal which is fair :-D
is not a topic for everybody
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04






Re: This skeptic blogger girl has the wrong idea about this site

Postby Scepcop » 11 Aug 2009, 11:29

ProfWag wrote:How do believers debate the findings of the National Academy of Science from 1988 that there has been "no scientific evidence" of parapsychology in the 130 years of research and there is no need for further research? The NAS, if you didn't know, is the congressionally chartered, governing body of science in the United States.
Just curious...


Um are you naive? You actually think that a group put together and controlled by a governing elite is going to be unbiased, objective and logical with no agenda or vested interest? lol That's what I call blind faith.

Anyone can just deny something. Even a child can. But to deny something for valid, logical, substantive reasons and facts is a different thing altogether. Can you demonstrate that the NAS has done the latter, logically and efficiently without bias or distortion, on all parapsychology research?
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: This skeptic blogger girl has the wrong idea about this site

Postby Scepcop » 11 Aug 2009, 11:37

ciscop wrote:yeah but who´s got the time?
remember my first posts here?
i posted a link to a cite showing you that dave koenig was using a mentalist effect book
and you said it didnt appear to be a mentalist book (while it said on the info: IT IS A MENTALIST EFFECT)
so not even you had the time to check a link to a book
it was after eteponge saw the link too that you saw it was true

now imagine her.. having to go throught all those links.. quite extenuating, more if you are not into the stuff
i can read hours of ghost stories or stuff like that.. but i wouldnt want to spend that time listening to homeopathy (just water) i dont care what they have to said i dont believe water is magical and i know about the placebo effect and suggestion (i will tell an amusing experiment i did later on) but back to the point .. stick to one point with a skeptic.. way easier to discuss
if you see jref
skeptics critize that when somebody gives so many stuff.. is because after they debunk something then the believer can jump to another point and dismiss the previous..
either way i just feel there´s no communication happening
and i dont think you will get anything from her
she isnt interested in paranormal which is fair :-D
is not a topic for everybody


Well at least we agree she's not interested in the paranormal. But if so, then why did she ask for evidence and also declare that there's no evidence when she's not even willing to look at the evidence? Isn't that highly illogical?

But alas, many pseudo-skeptics behave illogically and irrationally like that. It doesn't make sense, and what doesn't make sense irks me.

Don't you agree that it's illogical to ask something and then claim you're not interested in it?

Besides, just because I give someone 10 links doesn't mean she can't at least check out 1 or 2.

Sometimes, pseudoskeptics will give me links that do not even prove what they claim.

One time I asked them to prove their claim that memory is so bad that most of what we remember is false. They cited studies showing that memory is malleable and not a perfect record base, which had nothing to do with what I asked. None of their studies or links proved that more than half of what we remember is false.

Again, illogical. Does not compute.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: This skeptic blogger girl has the wrong idea about this site

Postby LinzeeBinzee » 11 Aug 2009, 12:06

Thanks ciscop :)

I think the problem started when, in the 9th comment on that post on my blog I said this: "I’m being completely sincere in asking if you could show me one piece of good evidence for it." I shouldn't have said that because there was nothing specific that we were talking about. I was saying there's no evidence for anything supernatural, UFOs, etc. but that's so vague. I can't just go and say show me evidence for whatever claim, because then I'll get exactly what I got: links to all kinds of things.

I don't believe in a lot of the things you believe in, but I'm not interested in it either. I haven't seen a reason to believe in psychics, UFOs, fairies, unicorns, gods, but I'm not looking for a reason to believe either. It just doesn't interest me. If I happen upon the evidence then fine, I'll change my mind. But I'm not interested in actively looking for it. If I were actually looking for it then I think I would have been wrong to ignore everything you posted. It was just sheer disinterest in the topic that stopped me from reading a lot of what you posted.

I started my blog to post about things I learn and get excited about, and things that I'm interested in. I also post about things I recognize as bullshit. I enjoy just posting about things as I notice them, I'm not an investigator or anything, and when I see something, like my posts about bigfoot,it gives me a chance to work on my critical thinking skills.

I don't pretend that my critical thinking skills are developed, and when I started asking for evidence without specifying what I was looking for evidence for, I screwed up. The truth is that I wasn't looking for evidence for anything at all, I was trying unsuccessfully to convince you that you were wrong about people you call pseudo-skeptics.

And now my idiotic ramblings are in your treatise. Fantastic.
LinzeeBinzee
 
Posts: 10
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 23:16

Re: This skeptic blogger girl has the wrong idea about this site

Postby ciscop » 11 Aug 2009, 13:37

personally i think that was awesome
i hope i screw it with winston sometime so i can be included too
hahahahaha i dont mind :D
maybe it should be called the ¨linzeebinzee syndrome¨
when the skeptic asks for information regardless if he/she cares for the information and has no desire of reading it
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

by the way eteponge
nice info you found there, i think we should start a thread about those
Last edited by ciscop on 11 Aug 2009, 13:57, edited 1 time in total.
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: This skeptic blogger girl has the wrong idea about this site

Postby Purple Scissor » 11 Aug 2009, 13:50

linzeebinzee, That is a great reply. Very honest, which is unusual. I think you aroused our ire because you said bad stuff without investigating. Certainly, you could not have investigated, because that would be years of work (or at least quite a bit, to get a layman's overview). Only those who are willing to give the subject a chance at convincing them will put a lot of time into studying it. Thus, you have a bunch of ignorant skeptics. But it is refreshing that you are willing to admit that you just are not interested.

P.S. I take it you are not going to criticize without investigating again (;
Purple Scissor
 
Posts: 48
Joined: 12 Jun 2009, 10:15

Re: This skeptic blogger girl has the wrong idea about this site

Postby Eteponge » 11 Aug 2009, 14:27

LinzeeBinzee wrote:I don't believe in a lot of the things you believe in, but I'm not interested in it either. I haven't seen a reason to believe in psychics, UFOs, fairies, unicorns, gods, but I'm not looking for a reason to believe either. It just doesn't interest me.

That pretty much sums up most "Skeptics". They already believe it's BS from the get go, and don't care to investigate claims beyond what quick access Skeptic Websites say about it, and that's it, case closed, end of story, when the skeptic has sung the thinking has been done.

It's a little thing called "confirmation bias" where you only read and accept material that agrees with you. (In this case, only Skeptic Sources.) It's not learning, it's stagnation. It's no different than in a religious context where a Christian is only interested in Christianity and auto-dismisses everything else as BS, and will only read Christian Sources and Creationist Websites on something.

I read many Skeptic Articles, Skeptic Websites, Skeptic Forums (which is how I stumbled upon your JREF post) I'll even load up some Skeptic Podcasts every now and again, and I'll write counter-argument articles every now and again. I like learning, I like knowing what the other side of the argument has to say about X and Y, I refuse to be a fluff bunny, and because I'm well read in both sides, I tend to have the upper hand over Skeptics who only read one side of the story and make their conclusions from that, not having examined the data and research for themselves.
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

Re: This skeptic blogger girl has the wrong idea about this site

Postby Eteponge » 11 Aug 2009, 14:31

Re: The Harvard ESP study, Dean Radin himself has also addressed this on his Blog ...

http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2007/12/j ... minds.html

I congratulate the authors of this paper because unlike many who hold strong opinions about this topic, they actually conducted an experiment. However, I disagree with their assertion that this single study resolves anything. Like any new experiment, all it really does is raise new questions.

There are so many points I could respond to in this paper that I was tempted to write a comprehensive reply. But then I remembered that I've already written one. It's called Entangled Minds, which apparently these authors have not read. Nevertheless, a few comments:

1) The authors overlooked four previously reported fMRI psi studies, all four of which reported significant results.

2) Compelling personal psi experiences are dismissed as fallacious beliefs due to cognitive biases. I fail to see how one or more of the known cognitive biases can conceivably explain even the example they provide of a crisis telepathy experience, to say nothing of thousands of similar experiences. Obviously if someone was constantly reporting such experiences, but only one in a thousand times the experience was verifiable, then such anecdotes wouldn't carry much evidential value. But that is not the case. These are often once in a lifetime experiences, and they shatter previously held beliefs. The irony here is that a case can be made that one of those experiences started the neurosciences!

3) The authors made a common mistake by asserting that independent ganzfeld meta-analyses failed to successfully replicate, citing Milton & Wiseman (1999). Unfortunately, that meta-analysis, which is often used to cast doubt on the repeatability of the ganzfeld results, was statistically flawed and underestimated the overall p-value. When corrected, in fact it did result in a significant overall hit rate.

4)One participant out of 16 showed significant fMRI differences consistent with the psi hypothesis. The authors examined three alternative explanations for this result, and concluded that idiosyncratic responses accounted for the significant results. Unfortunately, this explanation reveals a flaw in the underlying design of the entire experiment. If it is possible to dismiss one individual's results as an artifact, then there is no reason to have confidence that the rest of the data is artifact-free.

5) The experimental task is new, and complex. As far as I know, there is no precedence justifying why we think this procedure might work at all. This reminds me of a paper published in The Humanistic Psychologist a few years ago in which two skeptical psychologists reported a series of eight ganzfeld experiments, which overall produced a significant result. They did not like this outcome and so they conducted another study using a new, untested, ad hoc design, and it resulted in a significantly negative outcome. They then used that last study to dismiss the results of the first eight studies. In the present case, explaining away the one participant who showed a significant result also potentially explains away all other significant results, in which case why did they use this design in the first place?
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

Re: This skeptic blogger girl has the wrong idea about this site

Postby Scepcop » 11 Aug 2009, 15:29

Linzee, I congratulate your honesty too. But I wonder still, if you aren't interested in evidence then why did you ask for it? My theory is that when you asked for evidence, you believed that I could not give you any, so it was a sort of taunt. Then, if I was unable to point to any evidence, as you hoped, you would use that to support your case. That was your plan wasn't it? (or what you subconsciously planned)
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: This skeptic blogger girl has the wrong idea about this site

Postby Scepcop » 11 Aug 2009, 15:55

Eteponge,
By the way, I wrote DragonCon and the organizers said that the debate between skeptics and believers this year was cancelled cause no one from the paranormal side wanted to participate. They invited us to register as guests next year to participate in debating people like Michael Shermer or James Randi or whoever shows up on their side. Would you be interested in registering with me to debate them? I think you and I would make a "dream team" :)

Does anyone know where DragonCon is held exactly?
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: This skeptic blogger girl has the wrong idea about this site

Postby Eteponge » 11 Aug 2009, 20:05

Scepcop wrote:Eteponge,
By the way, I wrote DragonCon and the organizers said that the debate between skeptics and believers this year was cancelled cause no one from the paranormal side wanted to participate. They invited us to register as guests next year to participate in debating people like Michael Shermer or James Randi or whoever shows up on their side. Would you be interested in registering with me to debate them? I think you and I would make a "dream team" :)

I would definitely be interested in this. :D

I PMed you additional information.
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

Re: This skeptic blogger girl has the wrong idea about this site

Postby ProfWag » 11 Aug 2009, 20:47

Eteponge wrote:Give us the full scoop. What research studies / cases / data / evidence did they actually look at? What are their actual explanations for the findings, what are their actual reasons for rejection, Etc, details, details, details. If this is true, I'd like to know all of that information. To be able to fact check what they say versus what the data says.


Eteponge,
The entire study can be found at:
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=778#toc
It looks like you have to pay for the article on the main page, but if you scroll down a bit, you'll find the table of contents and be able to view it for free.
Yes, it's 20 years old. However, when the governing scientific body of the US says there's no need for further research, why would there be anything more current?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: This skeptic blogger girl has the wrong idea about this site

Postby LinzeeBinzee » 11 Aug 2009, 21:46

Scepcop wrote:Linzee, I congratulate your honesty too. But I wonder still, if you aren't interested in evidence then why did you ask for it? My theory is that when you asked for evidence, you believed that I could not give you any, so it was a sort of taunt. Then, if I was unable to point to any evidence, as you hoped, you would use that to support your case. That was your plan wasn't it? (or what you subconsciously planned)


I don't know why I was asking for evidence, because there was nothing specific I was asking for evidence for, so it was just useless rhetoric. I guess I was curious to see what you actually had, but it was a useless exercise because I wasn't investigating anything. Sorry for wasting your time.
LinzeeBinzee
 
Posts: 10
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 23:16

Re: This skeptic blogger girl has the wrong idea about this site

Postby ciscop » 12 Aug 2009, 00:02

LinzeeBinzee wrote:
Scepcop wrote:Linzee, I congratulate your honesty too. But I wonder still, if you aren't interested in evidence then why did you ask for it? My theory is that when you asked for evidence, you believed that I could not give you any, so it was a sort of taunt. Then, if I was unable to point to any evidence, as you hoped, you would use that to support your case. That was your plan wasn't it? (or what you subconsciously planned)


I don't know why I was asking for evidence, because there was nothing specific I was asking for evidence for, so it was just useless rhetoric. I guess I was curious to see what you actually had, but it was a useless exercise because I wasn't investigating anything. Sorry for wasting your time.


Its what is now known on the paranormalist sites
as the linzeebinzee syndrome wait for it to be added to wu´s paper
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


personally i believe linzee was hoping for you to provide a non paranormalist link or study, something from scientific america or some kind of journal, but if the links came from deanradin pretty sure linzee can found the opposite of that study in skepdic or randi.org... (just like you said jref is faith based, skeptics say dean radin is faith based).

And Wu and Eteponge! you have big balls if you go to dragoncon i applaud your bravery! you will enter the eagle´s nest!
thats quite awesome ask them in advance the topics you will debate, if you go as ¨paranormal¨ thats too broad they will hit you with hydrick, popoff, geller.. and already proven cheaters so better you be specific and read all you can about a topic.
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: This skeptic blogger girl has the wrong idea about this site

Postby LinzeeBinzee » 12 Aug 2009, 00:44

ciscop wrote:Its what is now known on the paranormalist sites
as the linzeebinzee syndrome wait for it to be added to wu´s paper
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


That would not be cool...I've admitted my mistake, and I'd rather just move past it. I can't stop you from doing that but I wouldn't be happy about it. Don't punish me for one slip.
LinzeeBinzee
 
Posts: 10
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 23:16

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests