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

Us vs Them

Discuss PseudoSkeptics and their Fallacies. Share strategies for debating them.

Us vs Them

Postby NinjaPuppy » 14 Dec 2012, 22:28

Since many of the topics seem to be once again, going around and around in circles and going off topic with the 'Us vs Them' debate, this is where I'm going to direct y'all to bring the attitude to keep the topics 'on topic'.

Here's some examples from various topics:
-Trying to talk some sense into you is a waste of time.
-So now we have to start another conspiracy theory if the evidence doesn't point to what you believe. Ya know, everything that has ever happened can be modified if we continue to make up things to fit what doesn't follow our beliefs.
-haha, yep, yep, that must be what it is. Another attempt to discredit and distract via invalid means. Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for believable evidence


What gets me is that we are a small community here. It's not like I'm constantly chasing newbies around explaining or anything. I can see why Google has given SCEPCOP a hard time with this snippet from their warning:
GoogleBot Letter wrote:Your site should also provide a good user experience through clear navigation and organization. Users should be able to easily click through your pages and find the information they are seeking.

Most topics here wind up with the same ol', same ol' bottom line of a skeptic and a believer going around in circles about 'lack of evidence'.

Guys, I hate to break it to ya but THERE IS NO SOLID OR SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR ALMOST EVERY TOPIC HERE. That's why we discuss them. That's what makes them interesting to some of us.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44






Re: Us vs Them

Postby really? » 15 Dec 2012, 00:08

It is severely annoying and unproductive when syd or some like him doesn't even consider let alone acknowledge the known facts as valid. It's tiring too to be labeled constantly in a childish manner a pseudosceptic because we consider their take on the truth not to be the truth,but fabrications so they can retain their prior ideology. If ct'ers would actually bring compelling evidence then none of us would continually point out where they are wrong, especially where when it comes to the moon hoax and 9/11. Changing positions. An example of what I mean. Yesterday I read an article in Discover Magazine. The author was commenting that war may not be a natural state of humanity. My opinion has always been that it is according to history and personal experience, but the author through known facts presented a compelling argument to the contrary of what I believe. That now has caused me to rethink my position, war may not be a natural state of humanity. So if you want things to stop going round and round then those that believe in the extraordinary things written about on this forum then compelling evidence that stands up against what is known needs to be provided.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Us vs Them

Postby NinjaPuppy » 15 Dec 2012, 03:27

really? wrote:It is severely annoying and unproductive when syd or some like him doesn't even consider let alone acknowledge the known facts as valid. It's tiring too to be labeled constantly in a childish manner a pseudosceptic because we consider their take on the truth not to be the truth,but fabrications so they can retain their prior ideology. If ct'ers would actually bring compelling evidence then none of us would continually point out where they are wrong, especially where when it comes to the moon hoax and 9/11.

If anyone had compelling evidence, then the CTs wouldn't be CTs, they'd be actual proven conspiracies. Hence the word 'theory'. It's not scientific theory here, we're talking about a person or group of people's theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

really? wrote:Changing positions. An example of what I mean. Yesterday I read an article in Discover Magazine. The author was commenting that war may not be a natural state of humanity. My opinion has always been that it is according to history and personal experience, but the author through known facts presented a compelling argument to the contrary of what I believe. That now has caused me to rethink my position, war may not be a natural state of humanity. So if you want things to stop going round and round then those that believe in the extraordinary things written about on this forum then compelling evidence that stands up against what is known needs to be provided.

I do believe that every one of us here would love to find some compelling evidence about the topics. Granted, there is some evidence but not the type of evidence that science uses.

Syd is posting information about CTs that he is interested and obviously passionate about. The topic used to be Conspiracy Theories (CTs) but SCEPCOP edited the title to 'CONSPIRACIES AND COVER UPS'. Either way, Syd is on topic here and the information in his posts is also on topic. Granted, he can't prove (at this time) that what he links to or writes about is absolute fact but he is presenting his findings and throwing them in the mix.

Skeptics come along and present information from another side and that's great. Just like your thinking about war: natural state or not, you would not have gone down that path if not for reading the information in "Discovery Magazine". Perhaps we all need to try to do what was discussed in another one of your topics and attempt to see something from the other side first and see where that goes.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Us vs Them

Postby Arouet » 15 Dec 2012, 07:59

Hmmm, i think I've seen this message before: http://pleasureofdoubt.wordpress.com/20 ... s-vs-them/
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Us vs Them

Postby NinjaPuppy » 15 Dec 2012, 09:07

Arouet wrote:Hmmm, i think I've seen this message before: http://pleasureofdoubt.wordpress.com/20 ... s-vs-them/

Hey! I think that I know that guy. He's good and it's too bad he stopped blogging.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Us vs Them

Postby NinjaPuppy » 15 Dec 2012, 09:13

justintime wrote:Lets face it skeptics are not scientist and scientist are not tied to their theories nor are their theories cast in stone. They will change their positions as new discoveries challenge their old positions.

EXACTLY!

For me it's like a good brainstorming session. You throw everything you have on the table and pick it apart. If you can't get people to feel comfortable with doing the throwing, you never get to see what another may think or know. It's the same with dating. You have to put up with a lot of crap before you can find someone tolerable. Meanwhile, you need to enjoy the company and the activities during the process. If you're just out to find faults, you'll find plenty.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Us vs Them

Postby really? » 15 Dec 2012, 12:10

really? wrote:It is severely annoying and unproductive when syd or some like him doesn't even consider let alone acknowledge the known facts as valid. It's tiring too to be labeled constantly in a childish manner a pseudosceptic because we consider their take on the truth not to be the truth,but fabrications so they can retain their prior ideology. If ct'ers would actually bring compelling evidence then none of us would continually point out where they are wrong, especially where when it comes to the moon hoax and 9/11.

NinjaPuppy wrote:If anyone had compelling evidence, then the CTs wouldn't be CTs, they'd be actual proven conspiracies. Hence the word 'theory'. It's not scientific theory here, we're talking about a person or group of people's theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Have you forgotten that syd by proxy of Jarrah is using supposedly scientific facts to prove we could not have gone to the Moon so it has to be a scientific theory.

really? wrote:Changing positions. An example of what I mean. Yesterday I read an article in Discover Magazine. The author was commenting that war may not be a natural state of humanity. My opinion has always been that it is according to history and personal experience, but the author through known facts presented a compelling argument to the contrary of what I believe. That now has caused me to rethink my position, war may not be a natural state of humanity. So if you want things to stop going round and round then those that believe in the extraordinary things written about on this forum then compelling evidence that stands up against what is known needs to be provided.

NinjaPuppy wrote:I do believe that every one of us here would love to find some compelling evidence about the topics. Granted, there is some evidence but not the type of evidence that science uses.

If there's another type of evidence not scientific that can empirically differentiate fact from fiction I'd like to see it ?

NinjaPuppy wrote:Syd is posting information about CTs that he is interested and obviously passionate about. The topic used to be Conspiracy Theories (CTs) but SCEPCOP edited the title to 'CONSPIRACIES AND COVER UPS'. Either way, Syd is on topic here and the information in his posts is also on topic. Granted, he can't prove (at this time) that what he links to or writes about is absolute fact but he is presenting his findings and throwing them in the mix.

Passion as no bearing on what is or is not true. No matter how much syd throws into the mix if it's garbage to begin with it's garbage in the end. He and his ilk will never prove what they believe because they are flat out wrong.

NinjaPuppy wrote:Skeptics come along and present information from another side and that's great. Just like your thinking about war: natural state or not, you would not have gone down that path if not for reading the information in "Discovery Magazine". Perhaps we all need to try to do what was discussed in another one of your topics and attempt to see something from the other side first and see where that goes.

The reason I considered the author's position tenable is because it was presented with known facts to back up the premise. Ct'ers to the contrary don't bring facts and aren't persuaded by facts unless those facts are in agreement with what they believe. And they are unlikely to admit they are wrong when prevented with facts. Don't expect syd to make any attempt to see the argument from the other side. As for Misha they seem to possess a reasonable disposition.

Remember I've posted a few articles here written by learned persons describing why Ct'ers view the world they way they do and it has little to do with truth seeking.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Us vs Them

Postby really? » 16 Dec 2012, 00:53

justintime wrote:
really? wrote:If there's another type of evidence not scientific that can empirically differentiate fact from fiction I'd like to see it ?



The problem with skeptics and those who place implicit faith in science are unaware of their own biases and gullibility. All knowledge are interpretations and creations of the human intellect. Religion, science, philosophy etc. etc. And scientist are human too and suffer the same frailties, ignorance and pathologies found common to man. They make fraudulent claims too and their discipline is fraught with corruption, charlatans and bad science.

Science publishing: The trouble with retractions
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111005/ ... 8026a.html


The following words describe what anti-science people don't know. Skeptics don't use the word faith as you are portraying we do. When we refer to having faith in science we mean trust that the science has met a certain level of precision. We also know all science is provisional, ( take what we hear with a grain of skepticism commensurate with the claim(s) being made).

All of what you've said is true. However, you did not show us another way to determine fact from fiction. Reply to the bold text. So far science has done an excellent job at helping us understand how nature works.
Last edited by really? on 16 Dec 2012, 04:47, edited 1 time in total.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Us vs Them

Postby Arouet » 16 Dec 2012, 02:47

Right: skepticism is a method, not a worldview.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Us vs Them

Postby NinjaPuppy » 16 Dec 2012, 19:34

I seem to have fallen behind here as I lost a day (or two) to real life commitments. We have wonderful points and rebuttal commentary here.

really? wrote:The reason I considered the author's position tenable is because it was presented with known facts to back up the premise. Ct'ers to the contrary don't bring facts and aren't persuaded by facts unless those facts are in agreement with what they believe. And they are unlikely to admit they are wrong when prevented with facts. Don't expect syd to make any attempt to see the argument from the other side. As for Misha they seem to possess a reasonable disposition.


I'm sure that believers can and do see the argument from the other side. In fact, I think that they take the time to find all viewpoints and not just the commonly accepted ones. And what about the facts that are in agreement with what they believe? If they are facts, then what makes those facts any less important?

I also got a chuckle from your typo (Freudian slip) here:
And they are unlikely to admit they are wrong when prevented with facts.

That about sums it up. :lol:
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Us vs Them

Postby NinjaPuppy » 16 Dec 2012, 20:35

How timely to come across this article: http://moreintelligentlife.com/content/ ... page=0%2C0
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Us vs Them

Postby really? » 16 Dec 2012, 21:07

NinjaPuppy wrote:I seem to have fallen behind here as I lost a day (or two) to real life commitments. We have wonderful points and rebuttal commentary here.


really? wrote:The reason I considered the author's position tenable is because it was presented with known facts to back up the premise. Ct'ers to the contrary don't bring facts and aren't persuaded by facts unless those facts are in agreement with what they believe. And they are unlikely to admit they are wrong when prevented with facts. Don't expect syd to make any attempt to see the argument from the other side. As for Misha they seem to possess a reasonable disposition.


NinjaPuppy wrote:I'm sure that believers can and do see the argument from the other side. In fact, I think that they take the time to find all viewpoints and not just the commonly accepted ones. And what about the facts that are in agreement with what they believe? If they are facts, then what makes those facts any less important?

Some believers do have the capacity to see the other position, but syd isn't one of them. Do you know what a fact is ? Evidently not. It can be summed up this way, "confirmed to the extent that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent". In this case concerning the events of 9/11 and the moon landings provisional can be excluded.
Facts created by ct'ers share the same characteristcs as so called facts created by creationists. And that's why they are not important enough for consideration. They are not facts.

NinjaPuppy wrote:I also got a chuckle from your typo (Freudian slip) here:

And they are unlikely to admit they are wrong when prevented with facts.
That about sums it up. :lol:

There's no slip there when you understand what a fact is. Now you do.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Us vs Them

Postby NinjaPuppy » 16 Dec 2012, 21:28

really? wrote:Do you know what a fact is ? Evidently not.

I know the Wikipedia definition of the word. ;) As a matter of fact, one fact that some people seem to forget is that this is a forum to "Evaluate Pseudo-Skeptical Criticism of the Paranormal".
Wikipedia wrote:Paranormal is a general term (coined ca. 1915–1920[1][2]) that designates experiences that lie outside "the range of normal experience or scientific explanation"[3] or that indicates phenomena understood to be outside of science's current ability to explain or measure.[1][4] Paranormal phenomena are distinct from certain hypothetical entities, such as dark matter and dark energy, only insofar as paranormal phenomena are inconsistent with the world as already understood through empirical observation coupled with scientific methodology.[5]

Thousands of stories relating to paranormal phenomena are found in popular culture, folklore, and the recollections of individual subjects.[6] In contrast, the scientific community, as referenced in statements made by organizations such as the United States National Science Foundation, maintains that scientific evidence does not support a variety of beliefs that have been characterized as paranormal.[7]

If it can be scientifically proven, then it ain't 'paranormal'.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Us vs Them

Postby really? » 17 Dec 2012, 04:14

NinjaPuppy wrote:
really? wrote:Do you know what a fact is ? Evidently not.

I know the Wikipedia definition of the word. ;) As a matter of fact, one fact that some people seem to forget is that this is a forum to "Evaluate Pseudo-Skeptical Criticism of the Paranormal".
Wikipedia wrote:Paranormal is a general term (coined ca. 1915–1920[1][2]) that designates experiences that lie outside "the range of normal experience or scientific explanation"[3] or that indicates phenomena understood to be outside of science's current ability to explain or measure.[1][4] Paranormal phenomena are distinct from certain hypothetical entities, such as dark matter and dark energy, only insofar as paranormal phenomena are inconsistent with the world as already understood through empirical observation coupled with scientific methodology.[5]

Thousands of stories relating to paranormal phenomena are found in popular culture, folklore, and the recollections of individual subjects.[6] In contrast, the scientific community, as referenced in statements made by organizations such as the United States National Science Foundation, maintains that scientific evidence does not support a variety of beliefs that have been characterized as paranormal.[7]

If it can be scientifically proven, then it ain't 'paranormal'.


Let's not get sidetracked. I am talking specifically about the Moon hoax and 9/11.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Us vs Them

Postby NinjaPuppy » 17 Dec 2012, 04:19

really? wrote:Let's not get sidetracked. I am talking specifically about the Moon hoax and 9/11.

OK then, let's go back to the definition of the word theory.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Next

Return to PseudoSkeptic Fallacies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests