Discuss General Topics.
James (The Amazing) Randi changed his name, and made his career claiming to defend science without having a science degree, so it is a bit funny to get after you for self-promotion. Also, it seems to me that any flaws in your material should not be so significant if the whole is generally good. After all, Randi's material is full of holes and bad thinking and rhetorical overkill, and it never did him any damage.
As to negative energy, all publicity is good publicity. The more evil eye the skeptics send our way, the faster we grow. Think of yourself as a vegetable, not an animal. Veggies need bullshit. Just laugh at it, and go about the business of debunking pseudoscientific thinking. Hopefully, without getting carpal tunnel.
Sorry I did not know there was challenge to members to be tested. Where is test. Can I be a skeptic and post on forum. Can I look at new ideas and do both Skeptic and new ideas at once and post on forum?. Is there instuctions on website I am looking at?.
There is no need to worry, scepcop simply had the idea that irrational skeptics might disrupt the forum, and we might need a test to find out if the person was rational or not. So far, there is no test, and it has not been necessary.
scepcop - a saying i hold dear is " validity of ones ideas is in part measured by the resistance they meet " ( it could be argued that this appies to both sides of course ) - and this idea of "big is beautiful " ( and therefore right ?? ) - is a fallacy as small is cost effective and inevitably efficient in purpose
an analogy is the long held idea of inadequacy compensation of people who drive large cars ( or the -I have a small dick - so i drive a big car to compensate syndrome ) - now the sceptical will argue that there are many reasons WHY people drive large cars - comfort ( fair comment ) - safety ( all cars have to meet certain standards these days - and believe me ,as i have seen MANY times whilst cutting people out of wrecks in the fire service , a large car is NO guarantee of safety - depends what you hit ,or what hits you , and in fact have seen crashes where the fact that the driver WAS in a small car saved their life ) - or they have a requirement to carry many people ( again fair comment ) -
but what of the individual who drives a BIG car for status or sheer "look at my big car , its better than YOUR car because i am more important than everyone else on the road ( and of course can drive like a freaking idiot with no consideration for others ) types - that even the most hardened skeptic must admit they will have come across sometime in their lives ?? ( or have been extremely lucky if not )
here in the UK we have what we call "white van syndrome " - inevitably the drivers of these usually 1 tonne delivery or trade vehicles - driving standards are fairly bad BECAUSE they are driving a larger vehicle and harass drivers of other smaller vehicles because they have a dead line or because they can owing to the size of the vehicle they drive ( we have a term for the drivers too "white van man " )
so does small size equate to inadequacy ? - no of course it does not - but along with many other fallacious ideas - the big/ beautiful/ more important one does persist - we see it every where - business - buildings - leisure things like boats etc - all it boils down to is an individuals misguided extension of THEIR image of how "important" THEY are in the grand scheme of things - and its the same with websites - "i have a big flashy web site - so i must (a ) be important -( b ) be right - because i have the big flashy web site and put lots of ( usually ) irrelevant and "puffed " content on it -( C) - i have more visitors /members of my web site - so this somehow gives MY ideas more credibility
size means nothing - as they say the BEST gifts ,come in small packages and its NOT the size of the box - but whats IN it
LIFE - just filling the bits between birth, death and taxes
OK we are good with each other. No test.
Well, of course "Rational"Wiki is going to be biased. I'm not surprised.
RationalWiki misrepresents us once again in this other entry on their site:
“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
Seeing as how it is a direct quote I would love to know how it is a misrepresentation.
I disagree. I think the RationalWiki is neither good-natured nor honest.
This is not a correct representation of the incident in question. The page cites an early version of an essay which gives every indication that Wu never was in fact schizophrenic; every bit of fact suggests that Wu was misdiagnosed.
This is obviously an incident of malpractice and misdiagnosis, not an incident of actual schizophrenia. Anyone trying to show that Wu is or was schizophrenic would have to present a case that would stand up to cross-examination.
Psychiatry is often used as a means to silence dissent. RationalWiki is attempting to further that social repression. Ergo RationalWiki is either too stupid to realize that it is a tool for repression, or too unprincipled to have any ethical objection. Either way, RationalWiki is not good-natured.
Obviously SCEPCOP doesn't get frequent forum postings from all its registered users. I barely manage to read the new threads and I usually don't take the time to log in...
And looking over some of the various threads, I see that soldiergirl is either too stupid or too dishonest to do elementary fact-checking. She makes reference to the "successful schizophrenia" site to support an argument for a correct diagnosis. And yet she doesn't bother to note that her reference is an anti-psychiatric site that argues that many claims of schizophrenia are in fact mis-diagnoses.
It's one thing to have a home for discussions that are open to everyone, but if the standard of discussion is set so low as to allow soldiergirl to misrepresent matters, the responsible folks on this site will spend all their time cleaning up messes. Is that an efficient resource allocation?
All right, just as soon as you get licensed to practice psychiatry in *any* jurisdiction, then examine Winston Wu in that jurisdiction, you'll be able to back up your idiotic bloviations with an actual diagnosis.
If you had *any* grasp of the topic, you would know that psychologists and psychiatrists actually have to examine people in order to diagnose them.
Sheer speculations on the condition of persons you have not examined are not medicine.
You see, this is why I don't usually bother to log in to this forum - the "tolerate scoffers" policy attracts posters who are ignorant of even the most basic
I always thought RationalWiki was more like the CSICOP version of Encyclopedia Dramatica, just with better writing and no morgue photos. Also, am I wrong, or did James Randi come up with "woo" as a term for paranormal things? It sounds as dumb as when the New Atheists started calling themselves "brights". . . .when I think of woo, the phrase "pitching woo" comes to mind. Using demeaning terms for their debating partners just makes the skeptics look bad.
I agree that woo woo is rude, but no where near as dumb as the "brights". I try not to use the term woo too often, but sometimes it does fit. For example, while I wouldn't use it for parapsychology, I would use it for things like power bands, acupuncture, homeopathy, and the like. (I don't usually say it out loud but I do admit to using it in my head!)
While some of your posts here have been rather "weird" Mr. Mike, I can relate to what you're saying here if only by degree. Just recently I pointed out a flaw in all the puffing that's going on over the "13th Sign of the Zodiac" and all the hoopla over how the expanding universe makes astrology nothing but silliness. . . and understand, I'm not a huge advocate of astrology. . . yet, when I pointed out how ASTRONOMERS and NAVIGATIONAL SCIENCE still employ the very same markers and math-based factors that Astrologers have talked about since (at minimum) the days of Babylon's greatness (with proper adjustments made by the responsible "elders" when needed). . . well, I was made out as being an idiot not dealing with the "facts"
Placing the shoe on the other foot is a constant in their Universe. Like the Pious of Religion (or any CULT for that matter) everyone is wrong but them and their "perfect" and "only" TRUTH (another thing they tend to parrot from the Evangelists )
UNDERSTAND I am very much a skeptic when it comes to the miraculous (especially) and the "sublime" (i.e. most conspiracy theories, ghosts stories and claims of psychic/spiritual ability). I am NOT however, a "Cynic"... one that is unyielding and insists that ALL OF IT is bunk. In the majority of cases I will side with the views offered by those calling themselves "skeptics" but out of necessity I apply the same rule of measure to them as I would a given situation allied to the "fantastic" -- skepticism must be used in ALL matter of claim but tempered! Same goes with "belief" and the zeal it can instill in the heart & mind of the believer/advocate; if we are not humble in our "faith" and apply caution in what we have accepted, then we are no wiser than the mad-man in an asylum or more enlightened than the first monad. BALANCE is the only real key, the only ultimate truth.
I'd just like to know "weird" in what way?
And I didn't suggest hat you were an "idiot not dealing with the facts". I asserted that you portray yourself as being a proponent, but you're really not.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests