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 LinzeeBinzee » 12 Aug 2009, 06:46

Purple Scissor wrote:The '''Linzeebinzee syndrome''' is the condition wherein a skeptic, having stated that [[|no evidence exists]] then requests evidence. When evidence is provided, the skeptic then makes it clear that they are not actually interested in the subject to begin with.


I would say it's where someone whose critical thinking skills aren't very developed makes a bad argument, later realizes it, and fesses up.

But I would really appreciate it if you didn't use it and just forgot about it altogether. Thanks, cheers :)
LinzeeBinzee
 
Posts: 10
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 23:16






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

Postby Eteponge » 12 Aug 2009, 07:37

Scepcop wrote:That is an excellent and accurate summary Eteponge. Do you mind if I use your paragraphs above in the treatise as a warning regarding skeptical literature?

Sure.
"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 The Warrigal » 12 Aug 2009, 10:50

I say give Linzee a break.

I didn't detect any malice towards SCEPCOP in either her Blog posts or at the JREF Forum and she has been polite in her posts here.

While I find it unfortunate that Linzee does not wish to join the sceptical contingent of debaters at SCEPCOP, she has told us that her interest in the paranormal just isn't strong enough for her to want to become involved in such discussion/debate.
The Warrigal
 
Posts: 119
Joined: 22 Jun 2009, 11:44

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

Postby Purple Scissor » 12 Aug 2009, 14:26

We have nothing against Lindsay. However, she said things like:

SCEPCOP – A Steaming Pile of Kookiness

As her headline. She deserves everything she got, just for the heading :lol:

She went on "If SCEPCOP wants to be taken seriously, all they need to do is present some evidence for the paranormal."

Again, a claim of no evidence. I have not read every word of these threads, but I bet if I did I would come out thinking that Lindsay deserved to have a steaming pile of pseudoskepticism dumped on her head. She can quote me on that for a laugh, I know the term gets turned around.

However, Lindsay has been honest and nice and engaged, and really a great person, I think.

P.S. I read Brian Dunning’s Who is Closed Minded, the Skeptic or the Believer? a while back, and I remember thinking it was very good. So we agree on that.
Purple Scissor
 
Posts: 48
Joined: 12 Jun 2009, 10:15

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

Postby Scepcop » 12 Aug 2009, 16:11

ProfWag wrote:You know what Scepcop, you're absolutely right! Why should anyone believe what the National Academy of Science? Shoot yea, they are totally illogical, unbiased, and objective. Instead, why don't we listen to those irrefutable sources such as Unsolved Mysteries, Charles Berlitz, and the "Is It Real?" series. They are far, far more reliable than these people who's charter includes: "The National Academies perform an unparalleled public service by bringing together committees of experts in all areas of scientific and technological endeavor. These experts serve pro bono to address critical national issues and give advice to the federal government and the public. Four organizations comprise the Academies: the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council."

So, am I naive or are you? I'm not sure so we'll have to let others decide that, but let me throw something out there for all to think about. The NAS is a "scientific committee." According to the title of your website, you are a "scientific committee." Now, let me ask, who would be the more reliable source of information, you or the NAS? If I'm grading your paper in my class and you used this website in an attempt to validate a topic, you would be sorely disappointed with a failing score.
Wag
P.S. Yes I can demonstrate that the NAS drew their conclusions using "valid, logical, substantive reasons and facts." I posted the entire results of their study in another post in your forum. Feel free to review. It's 700 pages so I doubt you will since all 700 pages go against everything you believe, but hey, have a go at it. Maybe you'll learn something about proper research to aid your "scientific committee."

P.S.S. I've seen you use the term "straw man" several times in this forum. Perhaps you should go back and look at your posts...


Total red herring.

You did not answer my questions about how you know they are unbiased and have no vested interest in saying anything. You don't need to give me 700 pages, just a few valid reasons will do.

As to scepcop, we have no vested interest and nothing to lose by telling the truth. But on the other hand, large organizations funded by powerful establishment interests DO have a vested interest. When you belong to large organizations tied to powerful establishments, you can get FIRED for telling the truth, if the truth is not in alignment with the vested interests of the organization. Any smart person knows this. Why don't you?! Why are you so naive?!

For example, studies showed that aspartame, the artificial sweetner in diet products, have eaten up the brains of laboratory rats. Yet the FDA approved it and ignored these studies. Is that total objectivity to you without vested interests? Look it up. Tons of websites out there have documented this.

You are naive cause you do not know how power and censorship and politics work in this world. You have a blind faith in the power of authority, which is apparent by your words.

If you want to talk about scientific credentials, I can list many scientists and MD's who have found evidence for the paranormal, like Dr. Bruce Greyson, Dr. Michael Sabom, or Dr. Sam Parnia, who presented the case for survival consciousness at the UN Symposium.
http://subversivethinking.blogspot.com/ ... bruce.html

But so what? That won't convince you cause you look for excuses to raise the bar.

If you have such a low opinion of scepcop, then why are you even here?

I'm still waiting for your proof that the NAS is purely objective, unbiased and without vested interests.

Do you also think the Warren Commission and the 9/11 Commission were purely unbiased without vested interests or agendas and only interested in the truth? LOL Do you even know who was appointed to head the 9/11 Commission and why people consider him to have a conflict of interest?

If authority is unbiased, then how come the 9/11 hero William Rodriguez had his testimony edited and censored out when he said that he heard a huge explosion that pushed everyone UPward that came from the BASEMENT of the WTC and happened BEFORE the plane hit? Why was that key fact censored out, since authority is all about truth and objectivity? DUH!

If the NTSB is authority, how come they can't explain what happened to the wings of Flight 77 after it broke off when it hit the Pentagon, according to their report? Anyone who calls the NTSB who asks this very simple question is met with deaf ears. Go ahead and try it, and see how open, unbiased and objective authority agencies really are.

Dude, in the real world, truth is often censored and spun or filtered. Rarely can anyone simply say the truth without consequences. This isn't an "anything goes" type of world. Grow up.
“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 » 12 Aug 2009, 16:34

ProfWag wrote:Scepcop, I would just like to verify something if I may. I searched the term "parapsychology" in the Nature journal you referenced and only found one article. It costs to read the entire article so I'm not spending my dime, but this was the abstract I found:

"The lab that asked the wrong questions
Lucy Odling-Smee

Top of pageAbstractClosure of parapsychology lab throws spotlight on scientific taboos.

A medley of random-event machines, including a kaleidoscopic crystal ball on a pendulum, a pipe spurting water and a motorized box straddled by a toy frog, came to the end of their working lives yesterday at the Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research (PEAR) laboratory in New Jersey.Only romantics — and some parapsychologists — are likely to lament the loss of this unique institution, which investigated whether people can alter the behaviour of machines using their thoughts."

Is this the scientific reference you are wishing to use to support your statement?


It wasn't what I had in mind. But I guess it's one of them. The one I was referring to in Nature was the one by Targ and Puthoff in the early 70's about their experiments with Uri Geller, which has never been debunked, contrary to what Randi will tell you. I talked to Puthoff about it long ago and he told me the real story about it, not the propaganda one that you believe.

The Physics journal I refer to is called The Foundation of Physics. I don't have the citation with me at the moment, but there was a study in it that backed up Psi.

If I find it later, I'll let you know.

But the bottom line is that my direct experiences do NOT need to be approved by a scientific journal for them to be real.

Nevertheless, here is an example of a controlled real scientific study.
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/index.html
“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 » 12 Aug 2009, 16:39

ciscop wrote:well to be fair
it is a study on parapsychology
the only thing.. is that the result they got was negative (again)
i think scescop, you shouldnt quote nature and physics.. when you said it, i thought they found something positive
turns out they didnt..

thanks prof! its awesome that you have that reserch capacity...


Ciscop, I'm disappointed in you. I thought you were more open minded than that. So ProfWag finds only one article from keywording "parapsychology" and you consider that the bottom line? LOL

What kind of a researcher are you? Dang. One that jumps to conclusions right away? I am beginning to see a bias in your posts. Do you deny it?

In the past, I quoted scientific journals anyway, but skeptics ignored them and raised the bar even higher. So what's the point?

Oh and ProfWag, by the way, listen to what Dr. Dean Radin has to say about why establishment science filters our psychic phenomena even though it's backed by robust results from controlled experiments.

For Christ's sake, please WATCH it! It's only 90 minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw_O9Qiwqew
“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 » 12 Aug 2009, 16:44

LinzeeBinzee wrote:
Purple Scissor wrote:linzeebinzee syndrome...... that is the kind of thing that I could write an article about, just for the Google. Would Lindsay really be mad? It would help her Google also.


Please don't. I don't need help on Google. My blog is for myself, I'm not out to get thousands of readers or anything. Please don't use my name, make up a different name for it, I'm sure you can think of something to attach "syndrome" too that actually has to do with the topic.


Hi Linzee,
Don't worry I didn't mention your name. I only referred to you as a "blogger" that's all. Here is what I wrote about you in the treatise. I hope it doesn't sound offensive to you in any way.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/evidence.php

Here is an interesting example of denial of evidence. I found this blog which misrepresented what SCEPCOP is about, labeling it "kooky" as well. So when I tried to clear up her misunderstanding, she replied that she just wanted to see evidence, that's all, insinuating that no one so far had been able to give her any evidence for any paranormal or psychic phenomena. She even wrote in her blog, "If SCEPCOP wants to be taken seriously, all they need to do is present some evidence for the paranormal." This requirement was a sinch, so to get her informed me and other SCEPCOP folks sent her a host of links, resources, books and videos with the evidence she asked for. In response she became overwhelmed and went to the JREF forum to ask how she can dismiss so much evidence being directed at her, thus demonstrating that her true agenda was not that of an open minded truth seeker, but of confirmation bias, seeking only that which supported her belief, or disbelief, in anything paranormal, regardless of facts or evidence. That was a bit deceptive of course, but it's typical behavior of pseudo-skeptics to claim one thing and do another.

Here are her exact words on the JREF forum, revealing her true agenda and mindset:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4977768&postcount=87
"Phew I'm glad there's a thread about this here! I have a blog and I made a post about SCEPCOP awhile back...they recently found it and a bunch of them have started making massive comments on it, so many LINKS!!! They even made a thread about me on their forum, which I was stupid enough to join...it's exhausting reading the threads there so I have no desire to go back.

Maybe you guys could help me out with something...they've been giving me all of this "evidence" and recommending books etc. but I have no inclination to read it. They've said that I'm not being skeptical because I haven't looked at their stuff and because I won't read the books...really it's because it bores me...but they say in order to be truly skeptical or whatever I have to look at everything, and I know that's not true, it's ridiculous that they would expect that of me, but how can I respond to this???"


She later admitted that she had no interest in examining the evidence after all, and so didn't feel like investing the time in it. So you might be wondering, why did she ask for evidence then if she wasn't interested in it? That makes no sense of course, is illogical and does not compute. But then again, pseudo-skeptics are not about logic or making sense, but about faith based disbelief and fanaticism.
“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 The Warrigal » 12 Aug 2009, 18:11

I do understand how Linzees's initial Blog posts may have raised some hackles.

Along with some of her comments, - (or more accurately some of the responses by others to her posts, )- at the JREF Forum.

I also appreciate how members here could be offended by her claim that the mere act of sullying her browser could have the supernatural ability to lower her IQ points. :?

However, there are many areas of disagreement between me and my fellow sceptics just as there are many bones of contention between myself and other researchers into matters mysterious.

Not least of which is the rather nasty resort to ridicule to which many of us have shown ourselves to be prone. :geek:

And I have seen this on both sides.

In defending Linzeebinzee here, I do so because I value every honestly presented point of view.

The only arguments with with I take issue are those of a sophist nature or those which set out to silence debate by recourse to ridicule.

I am on record here as having written that I have the strongest PERSONAL grounds for thinking that certain alleged forms of paranormal phenomena are objectively real NATURAL phenomena.

For me the $64,000,000 question/s are:

1/ How to investigate an elusive phenomena properly.

2/ How to establish in the eyes of the scientific community that it IS objectively real.

AND.

3/ How to explain the precise cause of that phenomena and explain where it fits within the natural sciences.

I am intererested in certain phenomena usually classified under the rather useless heading of "paranormal" because I have experienced it at first hand and later gone in search of similar cases.

Sometimes my time has been rewarded, - (at least in my opinion), - most of the time it has not.

I have also experimented with various means of making contact with "spirits beings" and have found that it is much easier than most "occultists" and mediums would have you believe.

However, when my natural laziness subsides as it occassionally does, I shall share what little I have in relation to poltergeist phenomena, hauntings and apparitions.

Well, those and one or two other things which will probably get me drummed out of the Regiment of Skeptics to the tune of the Rogues March.

And never again shall the the name The Warrigal ever be uttered in the Mess Hall again! :lol:
The Warrigal
 
Posts: 119
Joined: 22 Jun 2009, 11:44

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

Postby ProfWag » 12 Aug 2009, 21:00

Scepcop wrote:Total red herring.

You did not answer my questions about how you know they are unbiased and have no vested interest in saying anything. You don't need to give me 700 pages, just a few valid reasons will do.

As to scepcop, we have no vested interest and nothing to lose by telling the truth. But on the other hand, large organizations funded by powerful establishment interests DO have a vested interest. When you belong to large organizations tied to powerful establishments, you can get FIRED for telling the truth, if the truth is not in alignment with the vested interests of the organization. Any smart person knows this. Why don't you?! Why are you so naive?!
I'm still waiting for your proof that the NAS is purely objective, unbiased and without vested interests.
consequences. This isn't an "anything goes" type of world. Grow up.


I'm not going to go on and on about why the NAS is more reasonable to use for backing up claims than Unsolved Mysteries. So, this will be the last thing I say on them. These are the reasons that I know they have "no vested interest and nothing to lose by telling the truth:" To quote directly from their web site: "The reports of the National Academies are viewed as being valuable and credible because of the institution's reputation for providing independent, objective, and non-partisan advice with high standards of scientific and technical quality. Checks and balances are applied at every step in the process to protect the integrity of the reports and to maintain public confidence in them." Additionally, the scientists at NAS work "pro bono" (that means they don't get paid a penny for their work or their conclusions). For all of the reasons that they are considered to be THE scientific authority in the United States, you may view their process at http://www.nationalacademies.org/studyc ... rocess.pdf. But, you will either not read it or will want to continue to argue with reasonable logic. You would rather try to blow smoke and encourage irrational thoughts and spread incomplete messages across the world rather than look at solid evidence and sources.
A word of advice, if you want your message to be taken seriously by those people who are interested in discovering more information, then promoting objectivity and accepting solid evidence is in your best interest. Otherwise, your site will become laughable.
Wag
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 » 12 Aug 2009, 21:56

Hey guys,

I just want to say that despite the disagreements that we (some of us) have you're all a really nice bunch and it's really cool of you to let things go.

My original blog post was one of the earlier ones and I was, lets say, a little over-enthusiastic. I was making statements about SCEPCOP without backing them up, and I clearly don't have the skeptical chops yet to defend what I was saying, so I shouldn't be saying those things.

The Warrigal, you said "I also appreciate how members here could be offended by her claim that the mere act of sullying her browser could have the supernatural ability to lower her IQ points."

I looked over the original post I made and it didn't say that...I hope I didn't say that because I think the opposite is true, that there's a lot to learn from this site.

Anyways I just wanted to say thanks for being so cool, we can agree to disagree, and maybe when I've learned a lot more we can engage in debate again :)
LinzeeBinzee
 
Posts: 10
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 23:16

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

Postby ProfWag » 12 Aug 2009, 22:22

Scepcop wrote:
It wasn't what I had in mind. But I guess it's one of them. The one I was referring to in Nature was the one by Targ and Puthoff in the early 70's about their experiments with Uri Geller, which has never been debunked, contrary to what Randi will tell you. I talked to Puthoff about it long ago and he told me the real story about it, not the propaganda one that you believe.


Really? You really know Dr. Puthoff? Wow, am I impressed. When did you talk with him? Where did this meeting take place? I'm genuinlly interested.
Now, to provide an example of research, I would like to show that your statement that Targ and Put Off's studies with Geller HAVE been debunked. And, by someone other than Randi.
Please review: http://www-stat.stanford.edu/~cgates/PE ... rs/ESP.pdf
Have a great day!
Wag
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

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

Postby ProfWag » 12 Aug 2009, 22:32

Scepcop wrote:Oh and ProfWag, by the way, listen to what Dr. Dean Radin has to say about why establishment science filters our psychic phenomena even though it's backed by robust results from controlled experiments.

For Christ's sake, please WATCH it! It's only 90 minutes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw_O9Qiwqew

Mr. Wu, I am quite familiar with Dean Radin and his experiments. I have seen his videos and listened to his arguments for quite some time now. I have also studied the critiques (ref Bosque, et. al) and tend to disagree with Dr. Radin's findings. Simply put, it appears from this layman's eye that his experiments used selective data gathering on his positive results. Radin's anger about him being called out on this prompted him to become defensive and critical of the science establishment. Just my humble, but reasoned opinion from looking at both sides objectively. His experiments are one of the very few that believers ALWAYS use to support the possibility of parapsychology. Unless something a little more substantial than possibly a .02 statstically skewed anomoly comes across my screen, his story is one that needs little to no more debate.
ProfWag
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

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

Postby ProfWag » 12 Aug 2009, 22:47

Scepcop wrote:For example, studies showed that aspartame, the artificial sweetner in diet products, have eaten up the brains of laboratory rats. Yet the FDA approved it and ignored these studies. Is that total objectivity to you without vested interests? Look it up. Tons of websites out there have documented this.

If you have such a low opinion of scepcop, then why are you even here?



The first statement above is not true. The FDA did NOT ignore those studies. They studied aspartame for 16 years before approving its use. At this time, there is no scientific study that supports the argument that aspartame in commercial doses is harmful to humans.

As for your other statement. I don't have a low opinion of scepcop...yet. In fact, debating the paranormal is healthy and I encourage both sides to think critically. What I find distasteful is promoting claims that are only half-true, non-researched, one-sided and not using critical thinking. Psychics/mediums/astrologers etc. are dangerous and immoral to the betterment of my country in my opinion. I have seen nothing good come of them, however, I have seen many bad things. If they get supported anywhere by using incomplete data, I will call them out to clarify the facts so that if someone who is honestly researching data to form their opinions, they have solid facts and not references from TruTV.

Wag
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

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

Postby ciscop » 12 Aug 2009, 23:27

hahahaha
im sorry scescop
but being open minded about uri geller means letting my brains fall out
also professor wag offered a study in nature, i dont see you providing any links to a study in nature and what you propose is URI GELLER?
why dont you propose peter popoff or james hydrick? common

THAT GUY IS A FREAKING MAGICIAN
(an awesome one with great sleight of hand and a charming persona)

you dont understand
those guys WERENT prepared to analyze a magician!!
i do some of his tricks! people will swear i am a psychic but i do tell. IT IS A TRICK.. i do have ethics, that guy doesnt

now lets see the facts
1. Has been caught cheating many times in TV and Youtube (when he gets caught cheating he always demands that those links be removed)
2. Why would a psychic cheat?
3. Why would a psychic stop using psychic and now uses the term mystifier? he isnt a psychic anymore? he is also not saying if he was a psychic for the past 30 years.
4. Hangs around with MAGICIANS.. (my friends saw him in a magic fair in vegas)
5. Hates people debunking tricks of magicians (remember that david blaine article?)
6. The spoon bending is a trick thats way before he appears.. also.. do you know why a spoon or fork? why not a knife?,, THE KNIFE IS WAY TOO DIFFICULT TO BEND IN REAL LIFE, also dangerous.. TRY IT.. NOW TRY A SPOON.. WAY EASIER!..
7. When they were controls.. like the johnny carson show... HE FAILED MISERABLY
8. Theres many ways of doing what he does throught magic methods, a lot of the stuff he does comes from BEFORE he was known as a psychic (he didnt invent it).
9. Has been in the cover of Genii (only magicians appear in the cover of Genii magazine)

Uri geller is a magician
you want to believe THE PEOPLE that believe he is true
he isnt
sorry if you are so naive
but when that ships crashes and sinks
you will look like a fool for believing he is honest
just ask yourself
HAS URI CHEATED BEFORE? (YES!) and WHY WOULD A PSYCHIC CHEAT?

simple.. soo simple
the truth is there but you wont recognize it
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

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests