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

This site needs to be renamed

Discuss General Topics.

Re: This site needs to be renamed

Postby leo100 » 21 Aug 2009, 08:45

NinjaPuppy

Yes i would say their are extremes. I would say James Randi is a pseudoskeptic because he seems so certain that all paranormal phenomenon don't exist.
leo100
 
Posts: 53
Joined: 21 May 2009, 23:22






Re: This site needs to be renamed

Postby NinjaPuppy » 21 Aug 2009, 09:13

leo100 wrote:NinjaPuppy

Yes i would say their are extremes. I would say James Randi is a pseudoskeptic because he seems so certain that all paranormal phenomenon don't exist.


OK. But since he doesn't post here, I don't think he cares about what we call this site. I must have missed something during this conversation pertaining to him in particular.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: This site needs to be renamed

Postby brett » 21 Aug 2009, 13:52

purple scissor opined : Brett.... We should make a rule on this forum: no allcaps. It looks like woo :P

er excuse me ?? - i use CAPS to emphasise things - and bold to denote really important things how in hell does that make my writing sound like woo ?? - don't forget i AM a woo according to most of the skeptical people on this site - so no biggie there :lol:

what is important is the CONTENT of a post ,not how it is written - I could be pedantic and comment on a lot of peoples spelling , but i am not so arrogant as to do so - so long as i can understand what they write - does it really matter ??

if you don't like the way I write - don't read my posts - simples eh ??

as we say here " I am like sooooooooooooo not bothered "" :roll:
LIFE - just filling the bits between birth, death and taxes
User avatar
brett
 
Posts: 436
Joined: 06 Aug 2009, 22:23
Location: Plymouth UK

Re: This site needs to be renamed

Postby Purple Scissor » 22 Aug 2009, 04:08

brett wrote:purple scissor opined : Brett.... We should make a rule on this forum: no allcaps. It looks like woo :P

er excuse me ?? - i use CAPS to emphasise things - and bold to denote really important things how in hell does that make my writing sound like woo ?? - don't forget i AM a woo according to most of the skeptical people on this site - so no biggie there :lol:

what is important is the CONTENT of a post ,not how it is written - I could be pedantic and comment on a lot of peoples spelling , but i am not so arrogant as to do so - so long as i can understand what they write - does it really matter ??

if you don't like the way I write - don't read my posts - simples eh ??

as we say here " I am like sooooooooooooo not bothered "" :roll:


I didn't hit a nerve, did I? :lol: Ever seen the Time Cube site? Extreme example. Crazy people often believe in woo, and tend to write in all caps. It tars everyone who is not an extreme skeptic. Cheers :)
Purple Scissor
 
Posts: 48
Joined: 12 Jun 2009, 10:15

Re: This site needs to be renamed

Postby brett » 22 Aug 2009, 04:22

Purple Scissor wrote:
brett wrote:purple scissor opined : Brett.... We should make a rule on this forum: no allcaps. It looks like woo :P

er excuse me ?? - i use CAPS to emphasise things - and bold to denote really important things how in hell does that make my writing sound like woo ?? - don't forget i AM a woo according to most of the skeptical people on this site - so no biggie there :lol:

what is important is the CONTENT of a post ,not how it is written - I could be pedantic and comment on a lot of peoples spelling , but i am not so arrogant as to do so - so long as i can understand what they write - does it really matter ??

if you don't like the way I write - don't read my posts - simples eh ??

as we say here " I am like sooooooooooooo not bothered "" :roll:


I didn't hit a nerve, did I? :lol: Ever seen the Time Cube site? Extreme example. Crazy people often believe in woo, and tend to write in all caps. It tars everyone who is not an extreme skeptic. Cheers :)


yea and some of us sane people believe in woo too yoo noo :shock: - nah you did not hit a nerve - just stating a fact - I DONT CARE !!

REGARDS FROM BRETT ( WOO IN RESIDENCE ) :lol: :lol:
LIFE - just filling the bits between birth, death and taxes
User avatar
brett
 
Posts: 436
Joined: 06 Aug 2009, 22:23
Location: Plymouth UK

Re: This site needs to be renamed

Postby Purple Scissor » 23 Aug 2009, 12:38

:lol: :lol:
Purple Scissor
 
Posts: 48
Joined: 12 Jun 2009, 10:15

Re: This site needs to be renamed

Postby Scepcop » 26 Aug 2009, 19:48

JonDonnis wrote:I think that calling this site "Debunking Skeptics" is wrong, you should call it "Debunking Pseudo-Skeptics"
I also have a problem with pseudoskeptics, but pigeon holing us all will only create anomosity.

The skeptical commnity will get behind a good honest mission to debunk the pseudoskeptics, but going after people like James Randi is pointless.

Remember the skeptical cumminty will always be first to out a pseudoskeptic.

When i have made a mistake on my site it is never the believers who point it out, it is always the skeptics.

Whatever your personal belief, you should always try to live your life with critical thinking, logic and common sense.


Well I wanted the URL to be easy to remember and catchy, not too long.

Maybe I should rename it to www.scepcop.org?

I have not seen an example of what you say, that skeptics will out a pseudo-skeptic. Can you provide specific examples? I have not seen any skeptic community attacking Randi or Shermer for example.

What I have seen is that ALL skeptics claiming to be true skeptics, yet most of them are merely defenders of the status quo and will resort to lying and rejecting data to do it, while only a small number are truly skeptical of all sides, including their own.

Remember, words are cheap. ANYONE can say ANYTHING. It's actions that matter. The actions of most skeptics that call themselves skeptics, fit this list:

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/characteristics.php
“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 site needs to be renamed

Postby ProfWag » 26 Aug 2009, 20:31

From what I've seen in this forum, anyone who doesn't believe in the paranormal or things unproven is a pseudo-skeptic. At least according to the forum's creator.
And why do I need to criticize Shermer, Randi, et. al? Do you criticize Gage, Radin, etc.?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: This site needs to be renamed

Postby quantumparanormal » 27 Aug 2009, 02:22

I agree with the name change. I consider myself a skeptic, although I do believe in some forms of paranormal phenomena. Being skeptical but capable of reviewing the data no matter where it leads (whether for or against a paranormal or non-paranormal conclusion) is the sign of a good skeptic. "Debunking skeptics" implies you are out to discredit any and all skepticism, something I don't agree with. Skepticism keeps us from jumping to irrational conclusions, ones not based on empirical research.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: This site needs to be renamed

Postby Purple Scissor » 27 Aug 2009, 11:36

ProfWag wrote:From what I've seen in this forum, anyone who doesn't believe in the paranormal or things unproven is a pseudo-skeptic. At least according to the forum's creator.
And why do I need to criticize Shermer, Randi, et. al? Do you criticize Gage, Radin, etc.?


Yes, for example Radin is being rather silly to think that quantum mechanics can explain psi. This is a man who claims to have bent a spoon. I think there is nothing in QM that would say a spoon can be bent. QM points toward an explanation of micro PK and telepathy, not the other stuff. But I never heard Radin acknowledge that.
Purple Scissor
 
Posts: 48
Joined: 12 Jun 2009, 10:15

Re: This site needs to be renamed

Postby quantumparanormal » 28 Aug 2009, 01:57

Purple Scissor wrote:Yes, for example Radin is being rather silly to think that quantum mechanics can explain psi.


If you've read his book, "Entanled Minds," you would've noticed that he proposes, as a theory, that quantum entanglement might help explain how or why psi phenomena might be possible (or at least be facilitated by it), but he admits it's a theory, not hard evidence or fact. And why would that be a silly proposal? It seems reasonable to me. I admit there's no hard evidence to prove this, but it's still a good theory.

In one experiment, two photons were "entangled," one was sent some considerable distance away (the latest experiment having them 144 Kilometers apart; http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=entangled-photons-quantum-spookiness), separated by nothing but "space," and when one was affected, the other was instantaneously affected. If psi is real, and empirical evidence surely suggests some forms are, then perhaps quantum entanglement is the process, or "medium," which either facilitates or makes possible such phenomena.

Hell, no one's ever seen marco-evolution take place (i.e., has anyone seen a fish turn into a mammal, a monkey turn into a human, etc?), but so many people presume macro-evolution is real, all via indirect, inferred evidence, so what's wrong with theorizing about macro-evolution? I don't judge people who do. It seems hypocritical to me that you would about QM, yet I admit I don't know what your beliefs are in terms of macro-evolution, but my point is one of a hypocritical nature.

Purple Scissor wrote:This is a man who claims to have bent a spoon.


It seems that you're spinning his words to make it seem as if he stated he attempted to make the spoon bend via psi. This is false. In fact, in his website article about the "spoon-bending party," he says,

Dean Radin wrote:"After 5 minutes of intently watching the woman attempting to bend a similar spoon, to my surprise my spoon started to bend! In accordance with previous claims I had read, the bowl momentary felt like putty, and I easily pinched the bowl over as shown. It immediately hardened up, and it felt cold throughout. I used a thumb and one finger to make this bend, with hardly any force. I immediately checked my fingers for noticeable marks after the bend, and there were none, confirming that I had not unconsciously forced the bowl to bend. All of my attempts to repeat this effect later, both with and without the use of force, failed."


If you read the entire article, you'll notice that he never states he, himself, attempted to bend the spoon via psi. Please read the entire article: http://www.deanradin.com/spoon.htm

Purple Scissor wrote:QM points toward an explanation of micro PK and telepathy, not the other stuff.


You've just contradicted yourself here, if I'm not mistaken. You say that "Radin is being rather silly to think that quantum mechanics can explain psi," yet you later say that "QM points toward an explanation of micro PK and telepathy." Which is it?

However, I do believe that quantum processes might be what makes various micro-psi phenomena possible (e.g., affecting RNGs/REGs at the quantum level), although recent experiments have demonstrated that entangled molecules can affect each other at considerable distances apart (http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0295-5075/64/2/260; http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/24285). So, macro-entanglement has some empirical support (i.e., entanglement between molecules versus entanglement between elementary particles, such as photons, electrons, etc, although this has nothing to do with psi, but physics), at least at the molecular level.

So, if molecular entanglement is possible, who knows what the other possibilities might be? Perhaps spoon bending is possible via macroscopic entanglement? It isn't pseudo-science that has demonstrated entanglement is real, but real, empirical science. I'd rather leave my mind open to the possibilities than to just dismiss them outright. That's neither skeptical nor scientific thinking. It's pseudo-skeptical thinking.

Purple Scissor wrote:But I never heard Radin acknowledge that.


And why would he acknowledge that, especially since new (i.e., past few years) research suggests that macroscopic entanglement can occur? He states this in his recent book, "Entangled Minds:"

Dean Radin wrote:Scientists are now finding that there are ways in which the effects of microscopic entanglements 'scale up' into our macroscopic world. Entangled connections between carefully prepared atomic-sized objects can persist over many miles. There are theoretical descriptions showing how tasks can be accomplished by entangled groups without the members of the group communicating with each other in any conventional way. Some scientists suggest that the remarkable degree of coherence displayed in living systems might depend in some fundamental way on quantum effects like entanglement. Others suggest that conscious awareness is caused or related in some important way to entangled particles in the brain. Some even propose that the entire universe is a single, self-entangled object. (http://www.deanradin.com/NewWeb/EMindex.html)


Before you go stating that he proposes the preceding three sentences as facts or empirically founded, please notice his very next paragraph:

Dean Radin wrote:What if these speculations are correct? What would human experience be like in such an interconnected universe? Would we occasionally have numinous feelings of connectedness with loved ones at a distance? Would such experiences evoke a feeling of awe that there's more to reality than common sense implies? Could "entangled minds" result in the experience of your hearing the telephone ring and somehow knowing - instantly - who's calling? If we did have such experiences, could they be due to real information that somehow bypassed the usual sensory channels, or are such reports mere delusions? Can psychic or "psi" experiences be studied by science, or are they beyond the reach of rational understanding?


Notice how he uses indefinite terms, such as "speculation" and "what if." In other words, he's not saying that quantum entanglement is, in fact, the reason why psi is possible. He's merely proposing it as a "what if," a theory, a hypothesis, etc.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: This site needs to be renamed

Postby Purple Scissor » 28 Aug 2009, 08:30

Ah, quantumparanormal, I can't respond to all of that, but unless you want two explanations of psi, one for telepathy and one spoon bending etc., I think QM is out of the picture.

So, if molecular entanglement is possible, who knows what the other possibilities might be?


That is a good point, but an analogy in science, while valuable, is not the thing itself. And entanglement has never been observed in any situation such as proposed. First, you have to entangle things, then you have to keep them isolated till the entanglement collapses. It does not just happen in current theory or experiment. There is nothing at all in current QM theory or mainstream experiments which predicts telepathy is possible, as far as I know.

But let us say that entanglement explains how telepathy and spoon bending work. It does not explain the other things, equally well supported, such as survival. If psi is real, QM is only the first level of explanation, and personally I do not see any evidence that it accounts for telepathy. At best, it is suggestive, and at worst it makes us speculate more than one mechanism for psi- for which we have no evidence. While it is suggestive in terms of making psi seem possible, it is not very good as an explanation.

I never intended to accuse Radin of stating anything as fact, or that he says he bent the spoon "himself". He does not. But, I simply have the feeling that he gives QM more than its due as an explanation. I doubt it is an explanation, only a suggestive result that tells us such things might be possible.

I think it is jumping the gun to try and relate psi to modern science. Science has not gotten there yet. Give it a hundred or more years, and we will see, one way or the other.
Purple Scissor
 
Posts: 48
Joined: 12 Jun 2009, 10:15

Re: This site needs to be renamed

Postby quantumparanormal » 28 Aug 2009, 10:15

Purple Scissor wrote:First, you have to entangle things, then you have to keep them isolated till the entanglement collapses. It does not just happen in current theory or experiment.


I don't have a lot of time to get into your other replies, but I will comment about the preceding, in short. You have much reading to do on the various outstanding research that's been done on various entanglement hypotheses, specifically as they pertain to human psi. I'd suggest reading McTaggert's "Intention Experiment." It's a non-academic, friendly read. In it is described how two people were put together in a room and "synchronously" meditated. This supposedly caused them to "entangle," however that was possible. One person was then sent into an EM-shielded, locked, distant room wherein he was hooked up to some electrical sensors (e.g., EEG, skin conductance sensors, etc.). In short, when a stimuli were applied to the the person left behind, the person in the shielded room registered physiological responses which coincided with those stimuli. Similar experiments seem to suggest this sort of phenomenon seems to occur more often when people are "entangled" versus not. This, of course, suggests some form of biological "entanglement" occurs. Bruce Lipton has also published entanglement-like research in regards to more smaller biological systems, such as between cells. So has Sheldrake. Let me know if you'd like references to these/this experiments/research.

Purple Scissor wrote:Give it a hundred or more years, and we will see, one way or the other.


Promissory materialism.

It's time to exercise..........
Last edited by quantumparanormal on 29 Aug 2009, 02:31, edited 1 time in total.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: This site needs to be renamed

Postby quantumparanormal » 29 Aug 2009, 02:23

In a recent article about quantum entanglement, Lorenzo Maccone at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology says,

When you observe any system, according to Maccone, you enter into a "quantum entanglement" with it. That is, you and the system are entangled and cannot properly be described separately.

The entanglement, Maccone says, is between your memory and the system. When you disentangle, "the disentangling operation will erase this entanglement, namely the observer's memory". His paper derives this conclusion mathematically.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/aug/26/entropy-time-arrow-quantum-mechanics

This is from a theoretical physicist at MIT!
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: This site needs to be renamed

Postby Scepcop » 02 Sep 2009, 18:47

quantumparanormal wrote:I agree with the name change. I consider myself a skeptic, although I do believe in some forms of paranormal phenomena. Being skeptical but capable of reviewing the data no matter where it leads (whether for or against a paranormal or non-paranormal conclusion) is the sign of a good skeptic. "Debunking skeptics" implies you are out to discredit any and all skepticism, something I don't agree with. Skepticism keeps us from jumping to irrational conclusions, ones not based on empirical research.


Well it depends on what kind of skepticism you refer to. This site wasn't intended to debunk true skepticism, only the kind that JREF and CSICOP do. Obviously that was what was meant. It's all explained on the home page.

How about we move this forum and site to www.scepcop.org?
“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

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron