Discuss PseudoSkeptics and their Fallacies. Share strategies for debating them.
3 posts • Page 1 of 1
Recently, a Skeptic Panel of three or four people from the website "The Skeptic's Guide To The Universe" discussed my Debunking Pseudo-Skeptical Arguments treatise on their radio show. They received a fan letter from a skeptic stating that he was stumped by some of the arguments in my treatise and didn't know how to respond. So they went over two of my chapters and discussed it for around 20 minutes. You can listen to it here at this link on their site:
http://www.theskepticsguide.org/skeptic ... sp?pid=141
Just click the link entitled "Download this episode here" to listen to the "skepticast" on your browser, or right click and select "Save Link As" to download the show as an MP3 file. The part where they start talking about me begins just after the middle of the show, about 60 percent of the way through. So try to fast forward it to around there (easier if you download it as an MP3 file).
When they first mention my name, it's funny that they hesitate in uttering it out, as if they are ashamed to utter it, or as if it were a big surprise. I don't know why. They go over my refutations of the skeptical argument "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and "Anecdotal evidence is invalid". Basically, they argue that my arguments are mostly straw mans that do not truly represent the skeptic's positions. However, they are not straw mans because I've been debating pseudo-skeptics for years and know what they say and I have presented what they say accurately. Every statement that I attributed to them HAS been uttered by at least SOME pseudo-skeptics I've corresponded with and read. I definitely do not use the tactic of using straw mans. No way. I am a truth seeker who is accurate and efficient. I pointed this out to them and made other counter points in their message board, which you can get to from the link above. (Do a search for my user name "WWu777" there to find my posts)
Also, the female member of the panel at one point sarcastically jeered "Ok Winston Wu, you win!" while reading what I wrote in the treatise. It was funny. But it's rare for the skeptics to have a female member among them.
Anyhow, the panel seem like well meaning honest folks. It's just that they are brainwashed by the tactics of the deniers, rather than being truth seekers.
“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
I can't say that I agree with that. These people have used very bad reasoning before. So bad that I sometimes think that they know better. One example is that they responded to a Jim Carrey editorial in the Huffington Post and didn't even seem to have read it. They argued that he was wrong while not even mentioning the main point that Carrey was trying to make in the article, which led me to believe that they never even read it. Oh, and they have Randi regularly contribute. I do not believe that they are honest or well-meaning.
No one knows how old the human race is exactly, but we can all agree that we should be old enough to know better.
Totally agree Winston, it's funny because i know the female on there's name is Rebecca Watts and she said before on their that " Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". They had Dr. Marilyn Schlitz on there before, basically laughing at her view that quantum entanglement has something to do with ESP. Dr. Steven Novella said that quantum entanglement is just to weak, well that claim doesn't appear to be true. Of course rather or not Esp has anything to do with entanglement i can't say one way or another. But the claim that entanglement is weak is not true anymore.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 ... ected.html
3 posts • Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests