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

Flying Pigasus/Stundie awards

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

Flying Pigasus/Stundie awards

Postby jakesteele » 28 Oct 2009, 03:47

I was inspired by reading on JREF about their Flying Pigasus and Stundie awards and I thought it would be a great to create our own to award to the most outrageous and scandalous attempts to use what I call Ocaam's Hammer - the simplest solution is not usually the best, it is always the best…no matter what." What I mean by that is this, a vid of Joe Nickell attempting to debunk human levitation on a History Channel special

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwvEPeGPxeU

Go to 1:10 and watch Shameless Joe Nickell employ what I call an "Implausible Plausible -

1. Trying to make something fit where it doesn’t fit. Every explanation MUST be a plausible and mundane one, even when it doesn’t fit.
2. It is better to be mundane and wrong than to be complex and right.
(See Ocamm’s Beard – the simplest solution isn’t always the right one)
3. Trying to fit a size 9 foot into a size 6 shoe.

I think it would be fun and it would give them their just comeuppance, hoist them by their own petards, as it were. I think we should think of some names like: The Bundy Award (as in Al Bundy), The Cyclops Award (get it, one eye = tunnel vision).
Debunkers think all UFO photos are fake,
especially the real ones.
jakesteele
 
Posts: 88
Joined: 29 May 2009, 11:47






Re: Flying Pigasus/Stundie awards

Postby ciscop » 28 Oct 2009, 04:21

jakesteele wrote:I was inspired by reading on JREF about their Flying Pigasus and Stundie awards and I thought it would be a great to create our own to award to the most outrageous and scandalous attempts to use what I call Ocaam's Hammer - the simplest solution is not usually the best, it is always the best…no matter what." What I mean by that is this, a vid of Joe Nickell attempting to debunk human levitation on a History Channel special

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwvEPeGPxeU

Go to 1:10 and watch Shameless Joe Nickell employ what I call an "Implausible Plausible -

1. Trying to make something fit where it doesn’t fit. Every explanation MUST be a plausible and mundane one, even when it doesn’t fit.
2. It is better to be mundane and wrong than to be complex and right.
(See Ocamm’s Beard – the simplest solution isn’t always the right one)
3. Trying to fit a size 9 foot into a size 6 shoe.

I think it would be fun and it would give them their just comeuppance, hoist them by their own petards, as it were. I think we should think of some names like: The Bundy Award (as in Al Bundy), The Cyclops Award (get it, one eye = tunnel vision).


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA !!!
I LOVED THE VIDEO
the believer at the end is amazing
¨rather than debunk the claim, lets assume it was real to open up the sea of human potential¨
WTF????

yes.. and we go at it, lets assume everything we have read in christian mythology is real
the earth is 6thousand years old, noe put all the animals of the world in a giant boat and jesus was born out of a virgin

yeah right

However, i like the proposition
i think believers should have their pigasus award
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: Flying Pigasus/Stundie awards

Postby jakesteele » 22 Apr 2010, 04:13

ciscop wrote:
jakesteele wrote:I was inspired by reading on JREF about their Flying Pigasus and Stundie awards and I thought it would be a great to create our own to award to the most outrageous and scandalous attempts to use what I call Ocaam's Hammer - the simplest solution is not usually the best, it is always the best…no matter what." What I mean by that is this, a vid of Joe Nickell attempting to debunk human levitation on a History Channel special

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwvEPeGPxeU

Go to 1:10 and watch Shameless Joe Nickell employ what I call an "Implausible Plausible -

1. Trying to make something fit where it doesn’t fit. Every explanation MUST be a plausible and mundane one, even when it doesn’t fit.
2. It is better to be mundane and wrong than to be complex and right.
(See Ocamm’s Beard – the simplest solution isn’t always the right one)
3. Trying to fit a size 9 foot into a size 6 shoe.

I think it would be fun and it would give them their just comeuppance, hoist them by their own petards, as it were. I think we should think of some names like: The Bundy Award (as in Al Bundy), The Cyclops Award (get it, one eye = tunnel vision).


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA !!!
I LOVED THE VIDEO
the believer at the end is amazing
¨rather than debunk the claim, lets assume it was real to open up the sea of human potential¨
WTF????

yes.. and we go at it, lets assume everything we have read in christian mythology is real
the earth is 6thousand years old, noe put all the animals of the world in a giant boat and jesus was born out of a virgin

yeah right

However, i like the proposition
i think believers should have their pigasus award


And you avoided addressing the point being made about the Debunker's Law of the Implausible Plausible:
1. Trying to make something fit where it doesn’t fit. Every explanation MUST be a plausible and mundane one, even when it doesn’t fit.
2. It is better to be mundane and wrong than to be complex and right.
(See Ocamm’s Beard – the simplest solution isn’t always the right one)
3. Trying to fit a size 9 foot into a size 6 shoe.

Tell me what you really think about Shameless Joe Nickel's explanation.
Debunkers think all UFO photos are fake,
especially the real ones.
jakesteele
 
Posts: 88
Joined: 29 May 2009, 11:47

Re: Flying Pigasus/Stundie awards

Postby ciscop » 22 Apr 2010, 14:14

first tell me what you think about a guy levitating in a Christian context???
did it happen?


do you use critical thinking at all or you refuse to think?
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: Flying Pigasus/Stundie awards

Postby NucleicAcid » 24 Apr 2010, 01:57

Clearly, you don't use critical thinking to a full enough extent if you think that just because levitation occurs in a Christian context, then all the rest of Christian Lore must be true. It's the ole silly fallback of skeptics, "Well, if X paranormal thing is real, then Santa Claus, faeries, unicorns, bigfoot, and aliens must also be true." And they accuse the "woo-woos" of jumps of logic.

Let's break it down.

You have multiple (hundreds) of reports of this guy levitating. The mechanism that seems to trigger these occurrences seems essentially identical to those described in Hindu, Muslim, and Buddhist accounts of levitation. People in those times were simple and uneducated, but that doesn't mean they were retarded. They would still know the difference between someone doing a somersault onto an alter, and straight up hovering above a crowd. Additionally, while sometimes transcendental states can lead to unusual physical activity, they are most often "spaced out," and the faculties to perform complex athletic activities would not have been there.

(On the note of these experiences being reported across cultures, it is unlikely that the mechanism is purely Christian in nature at all)

The only reason the athleticism argument holds any water is because (ostensibly) levitation is impossible. It is not an ontologically solid argument and is a far cry from explaining away the testimonials. (pseudo)Skeptics do this thing where as soon as they get a shred of evidence based on known principles that explains even the smallest fraction of the phenomenon, they use that to explain the whole thing away. It would be simple enough to test this. Bring a really advanced gymnast to an isolated tribe, and have them perform feats, then have a magician do a self-levitation six feet in the air, and see if they can tell the difference. "Simple peoples" often make up for their lack of advanced cognition with a very solid understanding of the few things they do know, such as physical motion.

He would have been much better off and avoided putting his foot in his mouth if he just chalked it up to a tall tale. At least that's more plausible. But he tried to confabulate his own silly mechanism that makes little sense, and for that, I think he deserves a Bundy Award.

I totally agree that if you investigate a phenomena and find that new information does not support the old assumption, you should overthrow the archaic idea in favor of the modern one. However, why should there be a double standard for materialists? If their explanations also fail to support their hypothesis, it fails to support the hypothesis! It's that easy.

In this situation, the skeptic fails handily to debunk the phenomena. However, since no scientists were there, we will never know if it were a real phenomenon. Nonetheless, it says firmly rooted in the "possible" category, rather than the "debunked" or "explained away category.

And I'm going to make an intuitive hunch and say that now ciscop is going to come up with some weak ridicule and pitiful, uncapitalized rhetoric of how foolish I am, all the while basing the whole of his argument on appeal to authority (Science, with a big S, as opposed to science) and belief and confirmation biases. Without any evidence to support his precariously cantilevered statements.
Hey, you there. Yes, you. Read more journal articles.

If what I say sounds like the teacher from Charlie Brown (Wah wahh woohh wuh waah), then you should try college. It's fun, and only costs you your soul and several tens of thousands of dollars. :)

“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven“ - Richard Wiseman

Let's make directional hypotheses, test them repeatedly, replicate experiments, and publish results! Yay, science!
User avatar
NucleicAcid
 
Posts: 169
Joined: 26 Mar 2010, 04:20

Re: Flying Pigasus/Stundie awards

Postby ciscop » 24 Apr 2010, 21:58

:D
wow you are such a scientist arent you nucleic?
a pen falls and is tk
you read christian mythology and you think is gotta be true

yes
people can fly
lets better think that
than to admit skeptics have it right

you are one of those guys that give strangers big hugs on the street arent you?
i envy your lack of thinking
is gotta be awesome reading harry potter and believing it could be true

do your dummy stunt of the psi wheel and get the million...
oh right.. you cant do that either.. there's no million.. you dont wanna make randi look silly.. who would want to do that right?..
nah.. lets better denial the million and write on the web.. yeah.. that will show those damn crithical thinkers

by the way as long as we are accepting religion claims, also hubbard wasnt a cocainomane and revive himself and joseph smith didnt want to "do" many women, he actually found jesus christ lost documents in the woods.... everything goes when you refuse to think
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: Flying Pigasus/Stundie awards

Postby NucleicAcid » 25 Apr 2010, 02:37

Oh man, I'm so dead on target I surprise myself

ciscop wrote::D
wow you are such a scientist arent you nucleic?

Sarcasm and ridicule.

a pen falls and is tk

Controlled conditions, multiple replications, strong correlation between intent and result. I've never said it's 100% telekinesis.

you read christian mythology and you think is gotta be true

Where do you come up with this stuff? Oh right, you make shit up. For the record, I think the bible is crock.

yes
people can fly
lets better think that
than to admit skeptics have it right

When the skeptics have no evidence and an armchair theory, it is outweighed by the position with more evidence and more robust theory. If the current assumption is that Model X is correct, and evidence for Model Y arises that contradicts Model X, then both models are called into question. The independent validity of this claim is not based on religious texts, and rather addresses the larger ontological ramifications for the existence of levitation in general, which is a cross-cultural phenomenon.

you are one of those guys that give strangers big hugs on the street arent you?

I'm actually a bit xenophobic. I love giving my friends hugs. Increases oxytocin levels. Do you know what xenophobia and oxytocin are?

i envy your lack of thinking

More insults and unfounded claims.

is gotta be awesome reading harry potter and believing it could be true


Making shit up. I think they're pretty nifty books, but the mechanism of spellwork in that universe is far different than any possible metaphysical mechanisms in this one.

do your dummy stunt of the psi wheel and get the million...
oh right.. you cant do that either.. there's no million.. you dont wanna make randi look silly.. who would want to do that right?..

I've already stated that I don't have the skill level to do that. Can you compete in a triathlon, right this second? How long would it take you to be ready for a triathlon?

nah.. lets better denial the million and write on the web.. yeah.. that will show those damn crithical thinkers

You can't spell "critical" correctly.

by the way as long as we are accepting religion claims, also hubbard wasnt a cocainomane and revive himself and joseph smith didnt want to "do" many women, he actually found jesus christ lost documents in the woods.... everything goes when you refuse to think


First of all, I have trouble understanding that because it's such shit English.

Second, didn't I already address this?
Clearly, you don't use critical thinking to a full enough extent if you think that just because levitation occurs in a Christian context, then all the rest of Christian Lore must be true. It's the ole silly fallback of skeptics, "Well, if X paranormal thing is real, then Santa Claus, faeries, unicorns, bigfoot, and aliens must also be true." And they accuse the "woo-woos" of jumps of logic.


Let me repeat that so you can read it again, since you clearly need help reading:

Clearly, you don't use critical thinking to a full enough extent if you think that just because levitation occurs in a Christian context, then all the rest of Christian Lore must be true. It's the ole silly fallback of skeptics, "Well, if X paranormal thing is real, then Santa Claus, faeries, unicorns, bigfoot, and aliens must also be true." And they accuse the "woo-woos" of jumps of logic.

One more time.

Clearly, you don't use critical thinking to a full enough extent if you think that just because levitation occurs in a Christian context, then all the rest of Christian Lore must be true. It's the ole silly fallback of skeptics, "Well, if X paranormal thing is real, then Santa Claus, faeries, unicorns, bigfoot, and aliens must also be true." And they accuse the "woo-woos" of jumps of logic.

How bout this:

(On the note of these experiences being reported across cultures, it is unlikely that the mechanism is purely Christian in nature at all)

Or this:

He would have been much better off and avoided putting his foot in his mouth if he just chalked it up to a tall tale. At least that's more plausible.

Put simply:

I don't believe everything I hear.
I am open minded, and make decisions based on facts and evidence, not opinions, whether they be mine, the scientific community's, or any other group or authority. I don't believe in Jesus at the Lord and Savior, aliens in UFOs, conspiracy theories, lizard NWOs, homeopathy, and many other things. I believe in things that have at least 100 years of scientific research under their belt.

Let's recap:

And I'm going to make an intuitive hunch and say that now ciscop is going to come up with some weak ridicule (check) and pitiful, uncapitalized rhetoric of how foolish I am (double check), all the while basing the whole of his argument on appeal to authority (Science, with a big S, as opposed to science) (didn't even invoke Science, or any evidence at all, just the assumption that levitation is impossible, which is exactly the point of question and the main focus of this discourse) and belief and confirmation biases (check and check). Without any evidence to support his precariously cantilevered statements (checko).

Presto, chango, you have the critical thinking skills of a mango.

Image

Oh wait, sorry, English isn't your primary language, is it? That makes sense why you can't read anything and your writing is abyssal. If that is the case, then no excuse. This is an English speaking forum. And if English is your primary, well, I don't know how to help you then. Clearly college didn't help. Go buy Rosetta Stone or something.

I think you are a foolish troll that has just gotten to settled here, and should have been banned a long time ago.
Hey, you there. Yes, you. Read more journal articles.

If what I say sounds like the teacher from Charlie Brown (Wah wahh woohh wuh waah), then you should try college. It's fun, and only costs you your soul and several tens of thousands of dollars. :)

“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven“ - Richard Wiseman

Let's make directional hypotheses, test them repeatedly, replicate experiments, and publish results! Yay, science!
User avatar
NucleicAcid
 
Posts: 169
Joined: 26 Mar 2010, 04:20

Re: Flying Pigasus/Stundie awards

Postby ciscop » 25 Apr 2010, 08:51

hahahahaha oh man.. so much hate from believers
and then they said randi is the hateful one

by the way i didnt meant to say you believe christian mythology i just said
you wanna ride that wave because it goes against skeptical thinking

i speak 4 languages
how many do you speak sir?
my toefl ibt was 115-120 by the way
:lol:

go and read radin
and eat some intentional chocolate
it will get you in a better mood :lol:
afterwards train with your psiwheel
i am pretty sure i can get into a maraton before you can start to move stuff with your mind
lets face, if it was possible, ill be in science books.. since the only ones doing are selfdeceived.. well.. it remains in the paranormal world (another word for.. NOT REAL or in your case just pure imagination)
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: Flying Pigasus/Stundie awards

Postby NucleicAcid » 25 Apr 2010, 23:58

Actually, ESP was mentioned in the psychology book that my statistics professor was proofreading. Parapsychology works its ways into lots of places, despite its lack of universal acceptance. That's what happens when you have good quality scientific data.

And nice score. I still think your posts are near impossible to read. :-P
Hey, you there. Yes, you. Read more journal articles.

If what I say sounds like the teacher from Charlie Brown (Wah wahh woohh wuh waah), then you should try college. It's fun, and only costs you your soul and several tens of thousands of dollars. :)

“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven“ - Richard Wiseman

Let's make directional hypotheses, test them repeatedly, replicate experiments, and publish results! Yay, science!
User avatar
NucleicAcid
 
Posts: 169
Joined: 26 Mar 2010, 04:20

Re: Flying Pigasus/Stundie awards

Postby ciscop » 26 Apr 2010, 23:20

hahahaha all right
i still can speak 4 languages while you can only speak 1

in the language field as in many others
i beat you
:lol:

dont make fun of people smarter than you
youll end up losing
it was kind of cute, thought.
:lol:
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: Flying Pigasus/Stundie awards

Postby NucleicAcid » 27 Apr 2010, 04:34

*laughs* :lol:

Everyone knows that there isn't one single axis to measure intelligence. Especially a psychologist.

Know more languages? Sure. Smarter, no. I don't have any use for knowing any other languages right now. If I did, I'd learn them.

I do know Latin, which, while a dead language, I can understand the basics and get by with essentially any Romance language, though more so with Italian because my family is from there and I've been there 4 times.

When I last got my IQ checked, which was about five years ago, I scored a 142 (WAIS-III I think?).

I'm pretty solidly rounded as well. Currently getting a dual major in Chemistry and Psychology. I can program in several programming languages, and I can learn new ones in about two weeks. I play saxophone, drums, piano, and I write digital music and DJ clubs on occasion. I like creating digital art, especially vector drawings and layout/poster design. I'm good with electronics and computers, and I can fix damn near everything. I read up on quantum physics in my free time.

I'm a black belt in Tae Kwon Do, and a yellow belt in Isshinryu Karate; I'm testing for Rokokyu (blue) on Wednesday. I could probably run a 6:30 mile right now and had a 5:15 mile in my peak.

And I capitalize my sentences.

I'm really blank smart, no matter how you cut it. You could argue that you're as smart as me, but there wouldn't be enough data to say that you're smarter than me by a statistically significant amount.

Don't make fun of people that are extremely intelligent. Especially when they know their shit.
Hey, you there. Yes, you. Read more journal articles.

If what I say sounds like the teacher from Charlie Brown (Wah wahh woohh wuh waah), then you should try college. It's fun, and only costs you your soul and several tens of thousands of dollars. :)

“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven“ - Richard Wiseman

Let's make directional hypotheses, test them repeatedly, replicate experiments, and publish results! Yay, science!
User avatar
NucleicAcid
 
Posts: 169
Joined: 26 Mar 2010, 04:20

Re: Flying Pigasus/Stundie awards

Postby ciscop » 27 Apr 2010, 07:21

hahahaha
i know that there are several intelligencies
i dont think i am smarter than you because i speak more languages than you
i just make reference to your intelligence because you believe you can move objects with your mind
that qualifies you as below the 70iq points on my test (and you know what that means)

congratulations on the WAIS :-)
i did better than you on the WAIS but then again.. i cheated,
i was interning since highschool checking and applying tests for a RH company
(my aunt owns it) so it wasnt a real test for me.. it was more a memory thing when i did it in university.
thing is.. i was taking a psychometry course.. and the professor always showed us how to apply the exam to people
and he asked me to do it.. so there i was.. kind of performing some mentalism stunt .. at the end
the professor told everybody i was the smartest person he has ever known... while i was.. trying to keep myself from laughing.. hahahaha it was kind of funny
Last edited by ciscop on 27 Apr 2010, 08:02, edited 1 time in total.
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: Flying Pigasus/Stundie awards

Postby rachelschmink » 27 Apr 2010, 07:53

...you believe you can move objects with your mind...


Do you really have that ability?
User avatar
rachelschmink
 
Posts: 18
Joined: 22 Apr 2010, 11:48
Location: NYC

Re: Flying Pigasus/Stundie awards

Postby ciscop » 27 Apr 2010, 08:04

yes.. :-)
ask him for his spectacular youtube videos

one of his friends even moved a pen!
an impressive stunt almost never heard about nor perform in the magic community..
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: Flying Pigasus/Stundie awards

Postby NucleicAcid » 27 Apr 2010, 09:54

I have studied telekinesis pretty extensively for about a decade, on and off. With practice, I believe I have more control over a psiwheel, which is basically a paper pinwheel on a tack, than could be afforded by chance alone. I have also seen numerous other objects, such as pens, dumbbells, geiger counters, magazines, and some other things move (or be forced to stay still) in ways that are inexplicable, after controlling for as many mundane variables as possible. I also have one pretty cool story of a chandelier spinning wildly, with a few hundred witnesses.

I strongly believe that telekinesis could be legitimate. I am not 100% convinced, as I am very scientifically minded, but I have seen and done things which are pretty incredible. It would take an incredible string of coincidences in order to account for every single experience I've had, and at this point it's just a matter of seeing if I can do it again after taking a bit of a break from it. I have already had some success, but I haven't gotten to the absolutely 100% telekinesis point (considering I've only practiced twice in the past two months and have both times gotten it to spin 720 degrees). For me, a good run is getting it to move from a dead start, be able to spin 3 times around continuously, in both directions, and be able to stop it when it is moving.

And I've thought of every variable you could possibly come up with, and several you haven't thought of.

Maybe I'll take another shot at it tonight.
Hey, you there. Yes, you. Read more journal articles.

If what I say sounds like the teacher from Charlie Brown (Wah wahh woohh wuh waah), then you should try college. It's fun, and only costs you your soul and several tens of thousands of dollars. :)

“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven“ - Richard Wiseman

Let's make directional hypotheses, test them repeatedly, replicate experiments, and publish results! Yay, science!
User avatar
NucleicAcid
 
Posts: 169
Joined: 26 Mar 2010, 04:20

Next

Return to PseudoSkeptic Fallacies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest