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

Us vs Them

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

Re: Us vs Them

Postby Arouet » 20 Dec 2012, 10:41

SydneyPSIder wrote:
Arouet wrote:Right: skepticism is a method, not a worldview.

Correct. However, you and two or three others here are pseudosceptics, and that IS a worldview.


Ummmm, no. Even if I was a pseudoskeptic - being a pseudo-skeptic means using a flawed method. Still not a worldview.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Us vs Them

Postby Arouet » 05 Jan 2013, 05:01

Most of your post is offtopic. I don't think scientism is a worldview either.

Course, justin, you seem like the type who likes US vs. Them just fine!
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Us vs Them

Postby really? » 05 Jan 2013, 05:59

justintime wrote:Do skeptics have a worldview? If Skepticism is not a position, it is a process. It is hard to see how skeptics could form a worldview when their primary concern is processing others claims and not formulating any of their own. It is therefore quite accurate to say skeptics who advocate scientific skepticism is really promoting Scienticism. Rise of Scientism and the Pseudo-Skeptics http://culturespam.wordpress.com/2007/1 ... -skeptics/

Very little can be extracted from Carl Sagan in his advocacy of scientific skepticism. He was obsessed with flying saucers and aliens and was a marijuana smoking pothead who also pushed for the legalization of pot for recreational use. He could have easily found medical reasons for his use. Pot helped him enhance his taste for food, music, religion, sex and writing. It is quite obvious he had a medical condition, without pot he was a very dull, insecure individual.
http://azarius.net/news/306/Carl_Sagans ... _cannabis/

So how much can we attribute his scientific skepticism to pure scientific method and how much can be attributed to his psychosis brought about by his pot addiction.
Cannabis and psychosis
http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv ... _psychosis


Blah-blah-blah. You've become tedious with this let's beat a dead person to death rhetoric. You really need to get this bug out of your butt an argue something a bit more productive.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Us vs Them

Postby NinjaPuppy » 05 Jan 2013, 06:14

justintime wrote:Do skeptics have a worldview? If Skepticism is not a position, it is a process. It is hard to see how skeptics could form a worldview when their primary concern is processing others claims and not formulating any of their own. It is therefore quite accurate to say skeptics who advocate scientific skepticism is really promoting Scienticism. Rise of Scientism and the Pseudo-Skeptics http://culturespam.wordpress.com/2007/1 ... -skeptics/

Since I could find it on Wikipedia, I guess I should post this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

justintime wrote:Very little can be extracted from Carl Sagan in his advocacy of scientific skepticism. He was obsessed with flying saucers and aliens and was a marijuana smoking pothead who also pushed for the legalization of pot for recreational use. He could have easily found medical reasons for his use. Pot helped him enhance his taste for food, music, religion, sex and writing. It is quite obvious he had a medical condition, without pot he was a very dull, insecure individual.
http://azarius.net/news/306/Carl_Sagans ... _cannabis/

Since he's no longer around, I can't ask him to verify any of this.

justintime wrote:So how much can we attribute his scientific skepticism to pure scientific method and how much can be attributed to his psychosis brought about by his pot addiction.
Cannabis and psychosis
Pot addiction??? http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv ... _psychosis


Justin - If you'd like to discuss this Carl Sagan/pot/alien/dull person/ thing of yours, feel free to create a topic devoted to it.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Us vs Them

Postby Arouet » 26 Feb 2013, 23:53

As much as he demanded extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to satisfy his scientific skepticism. He also prepared an alibi for his own escape into the twilight zone with the conviction 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.' Who says you can't have it both ways. Not if you are a skeptic.


Can you articulate what you think the contradiction is?

(My prediction; you won't - but perhaps you'll surprise me!)
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Us vs Them

Postby SydneyPSIder » 27 Feb 2013, 08:19

Arouet wrote:
As much as he demanded extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to satisfy his scientific skepticism. He also prepared an alibi for his own escape into the twilight zone with the conviction 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.' Who says you can't have it both ways. Not if you are a skeptic.


Can you articulate what you think the contradiction is?

(My prediction; you won't - but perhaps you'll surprise me!)

Arou's right -- there's no logical contradiction there whatsoever. I agree with Carl Sagan's rational, self-consistent and empirical view also.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Us vs Them

Postby Arouet » 27 Feb 2013, 09:28

justintime wrote:Carl Sagan when asked if he believed in alien visitation said. There was no evidence they did (extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence). When asked if it was not a contradiction that he believed in extraterrestrial intelligent life existed (aliens) in distant planets he said the Drake equation favored that probability (even though there was no evidence extraterrestrial intelligent life existed) and for that there was another answer 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.'


You're missing a few things here. Sagan would have conisdered the Drake equation as evidence of the probability for intelligent life existing on other planets. Now, other people may challenge the assumptions behind it, but this is not a situation of absence of evidence. It is a case of circumstancial evidence. Also note that Sagan is referring to probabilities - he's talking about the odds.

Absence of evidence not being evidence of absence simply means that just because there is no evidence of something doesn't mean that that something doesn't exist- you just might not have found the evidence yet. Incidentally, there are times where absence of evidence IS evidence of absence- in the cases where if the something was there, X should have been observed. Not observing X is evidence that that something wasn't there.

He often contradicted himself by saying one thing but falling short of full committal.


Well, you'd have to provide an actual direct quote to see if there is a contradiction. Falling short of full committal is not a contradiction - it simply means one is not fully committed to the idea.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Us vs Them

Postby Arouet » 28 Feb 2013, 02:06

justintime wrote:The same absence of evidence is not evidence of absence applies to alien visitation. Plenty of sightings but an absence of evidence.


Well, sightings are evidence - just weak evidence. Applying the absence of evidence to the alien issue would be simply saying that just because there isn't strong evidence that aliens have visited earth doesn't mean that aliens have not visited earth - they may simply have kept themselves hidden.

In fact that builds a stronger case for alien visitation than extraterrestrial alien life where there is absolutely no evidence or sighting of even microbial life forms let alone intelligent advanced civilizations.


The only evidence that there is a chance there is other intelligent alien life out there is statistical- there are an awful lot of planets out there, many of them in a similar proximity to their stars as our planet is (as we're learning with the discovery of more planets in the 'Goldilocks Zone" than previously expected. As I said above- that is evidence - but again, it's not that strong. It doesn't do more than alert us to the possibility of intelligent aliien life- it is not evidence in favour of specific forms of alient life.

Here is a video of Carl Sagan on the subject of advanced civilizations where he calls it a contradiction that they should exist and not have visited earth, that they might even be in hiding. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOcfCkUBsdc


I think he phrased that line badly. I think he meant to say "doesn't it seem there is a contradiction here?" He clearly didn't think there was a contradiction given what he said next. But yes, I do agree it was poorly worded.

I wonder though, are you familiar with the term "hypothesis"? And how do you think that concept fits in to Sagan's search for alien life. Do you think Sagan had a hypothesis?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Us vs Them

Postby Arouet » 28 Feb 2013, 09:36

So you understand that Sagan was testing his hypothesis! Which makes many of your comments a bit bizarre in retrospect doesn't it?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Us vs Them

Postby Arouet » 01 Mar 2013, 02:36

justintime wrote:Just because it is proposed as a hypothesis does not make it legitimate. There were no scientific evidence to even justify scientific inquiry.


Ok, I thought you understood what a hypothesis was, but now I'm not so sure. What do you think the word "hypothesis" means?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Us vs Them

Postby Arouet » 01 Mar 2013, 10:03

justintime wrote:A simple definition of hypothesis. A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.


Ok, great start!

Note....1. on the basis of limited evidence (There was no evidence of extraterrestrial life even on a limited basis for Sagan to start further investigation).


Now: look up "evidence" and we might even get somewhere!
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Us vs Them

Postby Arouet » 02 Mar 2013, 02:05

justintime wrote:Evidence definition: The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

What was the available body of facts to support even a hypothesis? Carl Sagan used ancient alien mythologies as the basis for his belief in alien existence and wanted the scientific community to seriously investigate their possible existence.


Well, you quoted what Sagan claimed as his basis above- the Drake equation. We don't need to worry about whether the equation picked accurate numbers we can look at the facts we know behind it. That is: we are intelligent beings living on a planet in the universe. We know of certain conditions that make living on this planet amenable to such life. We know there are billions and billions (as Sagan would say) of other planets in the universe. It seems reasonable to hypothesise that out of such a large sample size there could be other planets out there with similar conditions to earth that would be amenable to life.

The above is evidence in favour the proposition. Sagan was testing that hypothesis.

Incidentally, the numerous reports of alien visitation ARE evidence as well- though particularly weak evidence. Even ancient reports are evidence - weak as they might be.

Personally, the bar with which a hypothesis isn't even worth investigating is pretty low. Weak, anecdotal evidence is actually a great basis for more research, in my opinion. Frankly, the bar you set risks slowing down scientific discovery. If you have to wait for a large body of evidence to start investigating, there are many ideas that would never get to that stage.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Us vs Them

Postby Arouet » 03 Mar 2013, 06:18

So you agree its a hypothesis worth testing then!
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Us vs Them

Postby Arouet » 04 Mar 2013, 00:21

justintime wrote:What I am saying is it did not even merit being called a hypothesis because the Drake equation was a statistical probability based on arbitrary numbers.
[/quote]

I agree with you that the Drake equation used arbitrary numbers and that we shouldn't rely on those stats.

Let's put aside Sagan and Drake for a minute though What do you thing about the following, and whether it merits the development of a hypothesis:

1) the planet earth has intelligent life on it
2) the planet earth is one planet among billions in the universe
3) if life is present on one planet in the universe it is reasonable to hypothesize that life is also present on other planets, some of which might also be advanced and have discovered radio waves and how to broadcast them
4) in order to determine whether there is life on other planets we need to investigate
5) one manner of investigation is to scan the space around us for radio signals broadcast from other planets

Does that seem like a reasonable basis for testing a hypothesis? If not, can you specify what you disagree with?
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Us vs Them

Postby Arouet » 04 Mar 2013, 01:36

1) you believe it has been established that the earth is the only planet in the universe capable of supporting life?
2) by "blue planet" you mean that has water on it? you believe it has been established that earth is the only planet in the universe with water?
3) scientific uncertainty is the basis of hypotheses, right?
4) what do ancient mythologies have to do with my 5 points? Also do you believe those topics you listed should be the only focus of science? What does government priorities have to do with what constitutes a valid hypothesis?
5) of course there is evidence of intelligent life using radio signals. Also, I didn't refer to sending messages to others. The idea is to see if we can pick up signals coming from other planets. For the purposes of the hypothesis, it doesn't matter if the signals are 200 years old or 2,000,000 years old.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

PreviousNext

Return to PseudoSkeptic Fallacies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests