05 Nov 2010, 07:05
05 Nov 2010, 07:14
05 Nov 2010, 07:54
05 Nov 2010, 11:16
Craig Browning wrote:While on one level I can consign and support the thought mood being offered by Arouet, I just likewise express my skepticism when it comes to gaining any kind of non-biased, pre-determined "conclusion" offered as the cold heard truth to it all, when the conclusions not only negate the experiential and auspices of "faith" when it comes to most all phenomena, these "rationalist" expressions tend to do so in a manner that can only be best explained as being arrogant, disrespectful of the faith factor and too, the sense of "Agenda" we find expressed by the various Skeptic's Fellowships, the majority embracing a zealot attitude of atheistic evangelism.
This is one of my biggest personal reasons for distrusting those that want to test everyone and everything, and the fact that every time someone complies to the parameters as to what they would call "proof" or a minimum, substantial influences to suggest this or that situation is "more" than hype & hoax...
the recent UFO thread and corresponding reports being a prime demonstration in which an overwhelming amount of visual record was collected from various locations, by different reporting parties, at different locations, dates, etc. Yet, the naysayers will go out of their way to "prove" all of said footage is faulty or that this or that other consistency exists; frequently mixing and muddling each separate report in ways that take information (perception) out of context and ultimately imply (at minimum) that everyone that believes in the UFO aspect to these stories is 100% off their nogg'n and of course, simply trying to grab some glory by inventing a tall tale. This of course, includes discrediting any individuals that hold some level of military, scientific and even political clout
Skeptics will NEVER be content with anything you hand them, even if they are right there when a given ability or phenomena is happening. There is absolutely no amount of evidence any of us can produce that would create the type of epiphany such closed minds require, and even at that, you must be able to jolt their mind sufficiently, so as to keep it ajar long enough to absorb the "new" perspectives said incident allows them to become aware of... a part of. The door to their own mind's eye must remain askew long enough to challenge their rationality and by their own processes, find that man can not offer a full, complete or adequate answer to it all.
Skepticism is required in and of us; it is the key that opens the doorway of intellect. Sadly, it is likewise a mind-set that bolsters our egos in ways that are not as honest and far more ego driven. This is a manifestation society cannot give full and complete embraced of less we loose our soul -- our humanity through the process.
05 Nov 2010, 20:24
Arouet wrote:Scepcop, you are greatly simplifying the concerns with these studies, it shows that you aren't really familiar with the critiques. Why don't you present a study you find particularly convincing, and we can look at it. I started a thread asking for suggestions and no one presented one.
So present a study, and tell us what you find convincing about it. Then we'll look at it.
05 Nov 2010, 20:44
05 Nov 2010, 21:53
05 Nov 2010, 23:46
Scepcop wrote:Why don't you anser my question in the OP first? What exactly will you accept as "evidence"? Be precise and clear.
06 Nov 2010, 04:46
09 Nov 2010, 04:46
12 Nov 2010, 07:50
Arouet wrote:So scepcop, you're a true skeptic, what scientific parapsychological study would you like us to discuss?
13 Nov 2010, 00:34
15 Nov 2010, 02:02
derrida wrote:i think he is done with this one
he will post 10 new topics before answering this
16 Nov 2010, 10:50
16 Nov 2010, 18:47
Arouet wrote:Scepcop, you're going to have to change the name of your committee if you don't ever want to discuss actual science!