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

The True Masters of the Pseudo-Skeptics

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

The True Masters of the Pseudo-Skeptics

Postby Scepcop » 03 Feb 2010, 01:17

Most people are conformists and followers, not independent free thinkers. They were conditioned to believe that "authority = truth" and is therefore never to be questioned. In school, they were raised in a behavioral conditioning environment where following and doing what one was told led to reward and merit, while defiance and non-compliance led to punishment and ridicule. (Such a system's purpose is to condition the population to become efficient slaves and producers) In this system, they found purpose and meaning in aligning their interests with that of established interests. Hence anything that challenges orthodoxy makes them uncomfortable. They've developed a psychological block against it. That's what makes them tick.

In school, you are taught that "critical thinking" means to refute and ridicule anything that opposes the establishment or status quo, but never the status quo itself. A true skeptic can rise above that and apply skepticism and critical thought toward established orthodoxy, but a pseudo-skeptic cannot. Instead, the pseudo-skeptic follows the school system's form of "critical thinking", applying it only to those who oppose orthodoxy in defense of the status quo.

In that sense, they are in reality "establishment defenders" rather than true skeptics. That is why they NEVER challenge, criticize or scrutinize their government or any part of the establishment, including the pharmaceutical companies, CIA or FBI, even if logic, facts, evidence or moral cause dictates that they should.

To these establishment defenders, authority = truth, and as such is always blameless in their eyes. That is their religion, so hence, all their skills, talents and knowledge is used to serve their true God - orthodoxy establishment. In their view, establishment authority can do no wrong, even if they murder, traffick drugs, steal, lie, stage terrorist attacks, start wars by funding both sides, etc.

What this means is that these pseudo-skeptics or establishment defenders, which are commonly featured in the mainstream media, do not serve truth as their master. As such, they cannot see the truth or do what's right, but in fact, are even willing to lie and deceive to serve their establishment masters (there are so many documented cases of this). Thus they are not "free" in any sense of the word, nor honest, which is sad.

This is why not only are they closed minded against anything to do with paranormal phenomena, but are vehemently opposed to all claims of government conspiracies as well, no matter how well supported, for it offends their "true master" (which is not truth).

Examples of famous pseudo-skeptics and establishment defenders: (Check them all out and you will see that their actions fit the above description)

- James Randi and his JREF crowd
- Michael Shermer
- CSICOP and their crowd
- Penn and Teller and their "Bullshit" show (pun intended) which is an insult to one's intelligence
- The Mythbusters
- Phil Plait and his "Bad Astronomy" folks
“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
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29






Re: The True Masters of the Pseudo-Skeptics

Postby NinjaPuppy » 03 Feb 2010, 01:20

I can't stand the sheeple mentality.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: The True Masters of the Pseudo-Skeptics

Postby ProfWag » 03 Feb 2010, 01:29

For the record, I totally disagree with your assessment. One of these days, when I have energy, I'll explain why.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: The True Masters of the Pseudo-Skeptics

Postby ProfWag » 03 Feb 2010, 03:48

Scepcop wrote:Most people are conformists and followers, not independent free thinkers. They were conditioned to believe that "authority = truth" and is therefore never to be questioned. In school, they were raised in a behavioral conditioning environment where following and doing what one was told led to reward and merit, while defiance and non-compliance led to punishment and ridicule. (Such a system's purpose is to condition the population to become efficient slaves and producers) In this system, they found purpose and meaning in aligning their interests with that of established interests. Hence anything that challenges orthodoxy makes them uncomfortable. They've developed a psychological block against it. That's what makes them tick.

First, what source or evidence are you using that most people are not free thinkers? Personally, I find that an insult to the human race. Following and doing what one was told in school is considered discipline. If you had joined the military, you would have learned that. There is a difference between learning what is right and wrong and defying what is right and wrong because it challenged orthodoxy.
Scepcop wrote:In school, you are taught that "critical thinking" means to refute and ridicule anything that opposes the establishment or status quo, but never the status quo itself. A true skeptic can rise above that and apply skepticism and critical thought toward established orthodoxy, but a pseudo-skeptic cannot. Instead, the pseudo-skeptic follows the school system's form of "critical thinking", applying it only to those who oppose orthodoxy in defense of the status quo.

You obviously never went to graduate school where critical thinking is taught. It does NOT mean to refute and ridicule anything that opposes the status quo. It has nothing to do with that at all. In fact, it means that although there is a status quo, that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be questioned. It should. Critical thinking also looks at credibility. Is the source of the information credible? If there is doubt, that doesn’t mean that it is rejected, but it does mean that one should be more cautious when looking at the evidence presented.
If you receive an e-mail from Nigeria that says you can claim a $35 million dollar inheritance just by sending them $250, do you believe it? If not and you want proof, then you are applying critical thinking. If someone knocks on your door and says they can recite the serial numbers to all of the dollar bills in your picket, do you believe them? If not and you desire proof, then you are applying critical thinking. If your car is stolen and the police tell you it was the tooth fairy who did it, do you believe them? If not and you want proof, you are applying critical thinking. All of these things makes one skeptical. If John Doe tells you he saw a ghost, do you believe him or do you desire proof? If you don’t believe him outright, then you probably are a critical thinker.

Scepcop wrote:In that sense, they are in reality "establishment defenders" rather than true skeptics. That is why they NEVER challenge, criticize or scrutinize their government or any part of the establishment, including the pharmaceutical companies, CIA or FBI, even if logic, facts, evidence or moral cause dictates that they should.


Just where in the hell did you come up with “establishment defenders?” Who says they “NEVER challenge...their government?” In fact, they probably challenge it much more often than you or any other “non-skeptic.” The difference is that skeptics also know there are things that “outsiders” have no right to know. Do we want secret CIA documents released? Sure, but NOT, and I mean NOT at the expense of national security. Those of you who demand records be released are not applying critical thinking. There are reasons behind the non-release of many documents that go far beyond anything you can imagine. We ask for FOIA documents often and get pissed when they come with black lines all though it, but being on the side of where we cross those lines out, I can assure you that it is none of your business what is under those lines. Myself, and I would assume most other responsible skeptics, I often write to my Senators voicing my opinion and criticizing their decisions. Most recently, my Senator and I had an e-mail exchange whereby I criticized her for following the “status quo” in her political party and for NOT using critical thinking in the health care bill. To me, that’s a hell of a lot more important than wasting time on silly moon hoax movies.

Scepcop wrote:To these establishment defenders, authority = truth, and as such is always blameless in their eyes. That is their religion, so hence, all their skills, talents and knowledge is used to serve their true God - orthodoxy establishment. In their view, establishment authority can do no wrong, even if they murder, traffick drugs, steal, lie, stage terrorist attacks, start wars by funding both sides, etc.


Being a skeptic and a critical thinker, I believe you pulled this paragraph out from you-know-where and was an emotional statement rather than one based on fact. Please show us one example of a skeptic or critical thinker who supports murder, drug trafficking , terrorist attacks, etc. Please, show me one. (That’s not too many to ask for, is it?)

Scepcop wrote:What this means is that these pseudo-skeptics or establishment defenders, which are commonly featured in the mainstream media, do not serve truth as their master. As such, they cannot see the truth or do what's right, but in fact, are even willing to lie and deceive to serve their establishment masters (there are so many documented cases of this). Thus they are not "free" in any sense of the word, nor honest, which is sad.


Again, please give us ONE documented case where a skeptic (or pseudo-skeptic as you refer to below) has lied or deceived to serve their “establishment masters.”

Scepcop wrote:This is why not only are they closed minded against anything to do with paranormal phenomena, but are vehemently opposed to all claims of government conspiracies as well, no matter how well supported, for it offends their "true master" (which is not truth).


No, we are not closed minded against anything paranormal. We have looked carefully at the evidence, and none of it to date has shown legitimacy. We (they) have used critical thinking and came to this conclusion. There is only so much re-hacking of old stories one can stand before we start brushing off the same old evidence. Bring us something new for us to look at and we’ll look at it, I guarantee it.

Scepcop wrote:Examples of famous pseudo-skeptics and establishment defenders: (Check them all out and you will see that their actions fit the above description)

- James Randi and his JREF crowd
- Michael Shermer
- CSICOP and their crowd
- Penn and Teller and their "Bullshit" show (pun intended) which is an insult to one's intelligence
- The Mythbusters
- Phil Plait and his "Bad Astronomy" folks


Being a skeptic, isn’t about belief. It’s a method (as Mr. Shermer puts it). It’s a method of critical thinking. One is presented with evidence and then that evidence is scrutinized. If it’s shown to have merit, we embrace it. If there are more holes in it that a dart board, then it’s rejected. THAT, Mr. Wu, is what critical thinking and skepticism is about. It’s not about watching some guy on a youtube video and them spreading the word about how fantastic the information was without looking at the video from a critical thinking perspective. Skeptics want just a little bit more than that. And so should you and all of your readers.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: The True Masters of the Pseudo-Skeptics

Postby NinjaPuppy » 03 Feb 2010, 04:26

Yes, but many skeptics throw the baby out with the bath water. Are not some things worthy of further thought and experimentation? Just because one guy couldn't find the answers doesn't mean they don't exist.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: The True Masters of the Pseudo-Skeptics

Postby ciscop » 03 Feb 2010, 04:34

ProfWag wrote:
Scepcop wrote:Most people are conformists and followers, not independent free thinkers. They were conditioned to believe that "authority = truth" and is therefore never to be questioned. In school, they were raised in a behavioral conditioning environment where following and doing what one was told led to reward and merit, while defiance and non-compliance led to punishment and ridicule. (Such a system's purpose is to condition the population to become efficient slaves and producers) In this system, they found purpose and meaning in aligning their interests with that of established interests. Hence anything that challenges orthodoxy makes them uncomfortable. They've developed a psychological block against it. That's what makes them tick.

First, what source or evidence are you using that most people are not free thinkers? Personally, I find that an insult to the human race. Following and doing what one was told in school is considered discipline. If you had joined the military, you would have learned that. There is a difference between learning what is right and wrong and defying what is right and wrong because it challenged orthodoxy.
Scepcop wrote:In school, you are taught that "critical thinking" means to refute and ridicule anything that opposes the establishment or status quo, but never the status quo itself. A true skeptic can rise above that and apply skepticism and critical thought toward established orthodoxy, but a pseudo-skeptic cannot. Instead, the pseudo-skeptic follows the school system's form of "critical thinking", applying it only to those who oppose orthodoxy in defense of the status quo.

You obviously never went to graduate school where critical thinking is taught. It does NOT mean to refute and ridicule anything that opposes the status quo. It has nothing to do with that at all. In fact, it means that although there is a status quo, that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be questioned. It should. Critical thinking also looks at credibility. Is the source of the information credible? If there is doubt, that doesn’t mean that it is rejected, but it does mean that one should be more cautious when looking at the evidence presented.
If you receive an e-mail from Nigeria that says you can claim a $35 million dollar inheritance just by sending them $250, do you believe it? If not and you want proof, then you are applying critical thinking. If someone knocks on your door and says they can recite the serial numbers to all of the dollar bills in your picket, do you believe them? If not and you desire proof, then you are applying critical thinking. If your car is stolen and the police tell you it was the tooth fairy who did it, do you believe them? If not and you want proof, you are applying critical thinking. All of these things makes one skeptical. If John Doe tells you he saw a ghost, do you believe him or do you desire proof? If you don’t believe him outright, then you probably are a critical thinker.

Scepcop wrote:In that sense, they are in reality "establishment defenders" rather than true skeptics. That is why they NEVER challenge, criticize or scrutinize their government or any part of the establishment, including the pharmaceutical companies, CIA or FBI, even if logic, facts, evidence or moral cause dictates that they should.


Just where in the hell did you come up with “establishment defenders?” Who says they “NEVER challenge...their government?” In fact, they probably challenge it much more often than you or any other “non-skeptic.” The difference is that skeptics also know there are things that “outsiders” have no right to know. Do we want secret CIA documents released? Sure, but NOT, and I mean NOT at the expense of national security. Those of you who demand records be released are not applying critical thinking. There are reasons behind the non-release of many documents that go far beyond anything you can imagine. We ask for FOIA documents often and get pissed when they come with black lines all though it, but being on the side of where we cross those lines out, I can assure you that it is none of your business what is under those lines. Myself, and I would assume most other responsible skeptics, I often write to my Senators voicing my opinion and criticizing their decisions. Most recently, my Senator and I had an e-mail exchange whereby I criticized her for following the “status quo” in her political party and for NOT using critical thinking in the health care bill. To me, that’s a hell of a lot more important than wasting time on silly moon hoax movies.

Scepcop wrote:To these establishment defenders, authority = truth, and as such is always blameless in their eyes. That is their religion, so hence, all their skills, talents and knowledge is used to serve their true God - orthodoxy establishment. In their view, establishment authority can do no wrong, even if they murder, traffick drugs, steal, lie, stage terrorist attacks, start wars by funding both sides, etc.


Being a skeptic and a critical thinker, I believe you pulled this paragraph out from you-know-where and was an emotional statement rather than one based on fact. Please show us one example of a skeptic or critical thinker who supports murder, drug trafficking , terrorist attacks, etc. Please, show me one. (That’s not too many to ask for, is it?)

Scepcop wrote:What this means is that these pseudo-skeptics or establishment defenders, which are commonly featured in the mainstream media, do not serve truth as their master. As such, they cannot see the truth or do what's right, but in fact, are even willing to lie and deceive to serve their establishment masters (there are so many documented cases of this). Thus they are not "free" in any sense of the word, nor honest, which is sad.


Again, please give us ONE documented case where a skeptic (or pseudo-skeptic as you refer to below) has lied or deceived to serve their “establishment masters.”

Scepcop wrote:This is why not only are they closed minded against anything to do with paranormal phenomena, but are vehemently opposed to all claims of government conspiracies as well, no matter how well supported, for it offends their "true master" (which is not truth).


No, we are not closed minded against anything paranormal. We have looked carefully at the evidence, and none of it to date has shown legitimacy. We (they) have used critical thinking and came to this conclusion. There is only so much re-hacking of old stories one can stand before we start brushing off the same old evidence. Bring us something new for us to look at and we’ll look at it, I guarantee it.

Scepcop wrote:Examples of famous pseudo-skeptics and establishment defenders: (Check them all out and you will see that their actions fit the above description)

- James Randi and his JREF crowd
- Michael Shermer
- CSICOP and their crowd
- Penn and Teller and their "Bullshit" show (pun intended) which is an insult to one's intelligence
- The Mythbusters
- Phil Plait and his "Bad Astronomy" folks


Being a skeptic, isn’t about belief. It’s a method (as Mr. Shermer puts it). It’s a method of critical thinking. One is presented with evidence and then that evidence is scrutinized. If it’s shown to have merit, we embrace it. If there are more holes in it that a dart board, then it’s rejected. THAT, Mr. Wu, is what critical thinking and skepticism is about. It’s not about watching some guy on a youtube video and them spreading the word about how fantastic the information was without looking at the video from a critical thinking perspective. Skeptics want just a little bit more than that. And so should you and all of your readers.



Always a delight reading your rebuttals
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: The True Masters of the Pseudo-Skeptics

Postby ProfWag » 03 Feb 2010, 05:42

NinjaPuppy wrote:... Are not some things worthy of further thought and experimentation?...

No!
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: The True Masters of the Pseudo-Skeptics

Postby ProfWag » 03 Feb 2010, 05:45

NinjaPuppy wrote:Yes, but many skeptics throw the baby out with the bath water. Are not some things worthy of further thought and experimentation? Just because one guy couldn't find the answers doesn't mean they don't exist.

Just kidding on that last post. Yes, some things, if not most things, ARE worthy of further study. Who said they shouldn't continue these experiments? If you have a person who has verifiable ESP abilities, he should be further tested. If you have a person who can talk to dead people, he should be further tested. Do you know anybody like that?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: The True Masters of the Pseudo-Skeptics

Postby ProfWag » 03 Feb 2010, 05:45

ciscop wrote:
ProfWag wrote:
Scepcop wrote:Most people are conformists and followers, not independent free thinkers. They were conditioned to believe that "authority = truth" and is therefore never to be questioned. In school, they were raised in a behavioral conditioning environment where following and doing what one was told led to reward and merit, while defiance and non-compliance led to punishment and ridicule. (Such a system's purpose is to condition the population to become efficient slaves and producers) In this system, they found purpose and meaning in aligning their interests with that of established interests. Hence anything that challenges orthodoxy makes them uncomfortable. They've developed a psychological block against it. That's what makes them tick.

First, what source or evidence are you using that most people are not free thinkers? Personally, I find that an insult to the human race. Following and doing what one was told in school is considered discipline. If you had joined the military, you would have learned that. There is a difference between learning what is right and wrong and defying what is right and wrong because it challenged orthodoxy.
Scepcop wrote:In school, you are taught that "critical thinking" means to refute and ridicule anything that opposes the establishment or status quo, but never the status quo itself. A true skeptic can rise above that and apply skepticism and critical thought toward established orthodoxy, but a pseudo-skeptic cannot. Instead, the pseudo-skeptic follows the school system's form of "critical thinking", applying it only to those who oppose orthodoxy in defense of the status quo.

You obviously never went to graduate school where critical thinking is taught. It does NOT mean to refute and ridicule anything that opposes the status quo. It has nothing to do with that at all. In fact, it means that although there is a status quo, that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be questioned. It should. Critical thinking also looks at credibility. Is the source of the information credible? If there is doubt, that doesn’t mean that it is rejected, but it does mean that one should be more cautious when looking at the evidence presented.
If you receive an e-mail from Nigeria that says you can claim a $35 million dollar inheritance just by sending them $250, do you believe it? If not and you want proof, then you are applying critical thinking. If someone knocks on your door and says they can recite the serial numbers to all of the dollar bills in your picket, do you believe them? If not and you desire proof, then you are applying critical thinking. If your car is stolen and the police tell you it was the tooth fairy who did it, do you believe them? If not and you want proof, you are applying critical thinking. All of these things makes one skeptical. If John Doe tells you he saw a ghost, do you believe him or do you desire proof? If you don’t believe him outright, then you probably are a critical thinker.

Scepcop wrote:In that sense, they are in reality "establishment defenders" rather than true skeptics. That is why they NEVER challenge, criticize or scrutinize their government or any part of the establishment, including the pharmaceutical companies, CIA or FBI, even if logic, facts, evidence or moral cause dictates that they should.


Just where in the hell did you come up with “establishment defenders?” Who says they “NEVER challenge...their government?” In fact, they probably challenge it much more often than you or any other “non-skeptic.” The difference is that skeptics also know there are things that “outsiders” have no right to know. Do we want secret CIA documents released? Sure, but NOT, and I mean NOT at the expense of national security. Those of you who demand records be released are not applying critical thinking. There are reasons behind the non-release of many documents that go far beyond anything you can imagine. We ask for FOIA documents often and get pissed when they come with black lines all though it, but being on the side of where we cross those lines out, I can assure you that it is none of your business what is under those lines. Myself, and I would assume most other responsible skeptics, I often write to my Senators voicing my opinion and criticizing their decisions. Most recently, my Senator and I had an e-mail exchange whereby I criticized her for following the “status quo” in her political party and for NOT using critical thinking in the health care bill. To me, that’s a hell of a lot more important than wasting time on silly moon hoax movies.

Scepcop wrote:To these establishment defenders, authority = truth, and as such is always blameless in their eyes. That is their religion, so hence, all their skills, talents and knowledge is used to serve their true God - orthodoxy establishment. In their view, establishment authority can do no wrong, even if they murder, traffick drugs, steal, lie, stage terrorist attacks, start wars by funding both sides, etc.


Being a skeptic and a critical thinker, I believe you pulled this paragraph out from you-know-where and was an emotional statement rather than one based on fact. Please show us one example of a skeptic or critical thinker who supports murder, drug trafficking , terrorist attacks, etc. Please, show me one. (That’s not too many to ask for, is it?)

Scepcop wrote:What this means is that these pseudo-skeptics or establishment defenders, which are commonly featured in the mainstream media, do not serve truth as their master. As such, they cannot see the truth or do what's right, but in fact, are even willing to lie and deceive to serve their establishment masters (there are so many documented cases of this). Thus they are not "free" in any sense of the word, nor honest, which is sad.


Again, please give us ONE documented case where a skeptic (or pseudo-skeptic as you refer to below) has lied or deceived to serve their “establishment masters.”

Scepcop wrote:This is why not only are they closed minded against anything to do with paranormal phenomena, but are vehemently opposed to all claims of government conspiracies as well, no matter how well supported, for it offends their "true master" (which is not truth).


No, we are not closed minded against anything paranormal. We have looked carefully at the evidence, and none of it to date has shown legitimacy. We (they) have used critical thinking and came to this conclusion. There is only so much re-hacking of old stories one can stand before we start brushing off the same old evidence. Bring us something new for us to look at and we’ll look at it, I guarantee it.

Scepcop wrote:Examples of famous pseudo-skeptics and establishment defenders: (Check them all out and you will see that their actions fit the above description)

- James Randi and his JREF crowd
- Michael Shermer
- CSICOP and their crowd
- Penn and Teller and their "Bullshit" show (pun intended) which is an insult to one's intelligence
- The Mythbusters
- Phil Plait and his "Bad Astronomy" folks


Being a skeptic, isn’t about belief. It’s a method (as Mr. Shermer puts it). It’s a method of critical thinking. One is presented with evidence and then that evidence is scrutinized. If it’s shown to have merit, we embrace it. If there are more holes in it that a dart board, then it’s rejected. THAT, Mr. Wu, is what critical thinking and skepticism is about. It’s not about watching some guy on a youtube video and them spreading the word about how fantastic the information was without looking at the video from a critical thinking perspective. Skeptics want just a little bit more than that. And so should you and all of your readers.



Always a delight reading your rebuttals

Thanks. I try to make them reasonable. Sometimes I fall off the mark though and expect healthy criticism.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: The True Masters of the Pseudo-Skeptics

Postby NinjaPuppy » 03 Feb 2010, 06:53

ProfWag wrote:Just kidding on that last post. Yes, some things, if not most things, ARE worthy of further study. Who said they shouldn't continue these experiments? If you have a person who has verifiable ESP abilities, he should be further tested. If you have a person who can talk to dead people, he should be further tested. Do you know anybody like that?

I know of plenty of people who claim to have abilities such as that.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: The True Masters of the Pseudo-Skeptics

Postby ProfWag » 03 Feb 2010, 07:55

NinjaPuppy wrote:
ProfWag wrote:Just kidding on that last post. Yes, some things, if not most things, ARE worthy of further study. Who said they shouldn't continue these experiments? If you have a person who has verifiable ESP abilities, he should be further tested. If you have a person who can talk to dead people, he should be further tested. Do you know anybody like that?

I know of plenty of people who claim to have abilities such as that.

I know men who claim to have 12" penis', but that doesn't mean they really do... ;-)
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: The True Masters of the Pseudo-Skeptics

Postby ciscop » 03 Feb 2010, 10:22

ProfWag wrote:
NinjaPuppy wrote:
ProfWag wrote:Just kidding on that last post. Yes, some things, if not most things, ARE worthy of further study. Who said they shouldn't continue these experiments? If you have a person who has verifiable ESP abilities, he should be further tested. If you have a person who can talk to dead people, he should be further tested. Do you know anybody like that?

I know of plenty of people who claim to have abilities such as that.

I know men who claim to have 12" penis', but that doesn't mean they really do... ;-)


did somebody dissapointed you?


... sorry couldnt resist..
:oops:
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: The True Masters of the Pseudo-Skeptics

Postby Scepcop » 28 Feb 2010, 02:08

Prof,
I've answered those silly points and provided examples many times in the past. Yet you refuse to listen to reason and reality. There is no logical reason to expect that if I gave you examples one more time, that anything would change. So why waste my time again?

You and Nostradamus (wherever he is) won't even admit that there's squibs in the WTC collapse, when many videos clearly show the squibs, which you can see on YouTube, and which I've posted many times. Yet you deny that they exist. Same with the WTC explosions. It's like you stand in front of a mountain and continue to deny that it exists. A reasonable person eventually gives up on you, as there's no point in arguing with a fool, lest he becomes one too.

Your points are just excuses. They do not support the facts or actions. Comparing facts to tooth fairies is a stupid non-sequitor and a cheap attempt to demean someone. No one here is arguing for the tooth fairy. You just make that up to ridicule others.

One more time: This speaks for itself.

Consider this: Have you ever seen Randi, Shermer or CSICOP ever criticize anything of the establishment, including crimes, murders, lies, conspiracies, evil plots, etc?

Nope. Never.

Consider the following documented facts:

Do they ever speak out against the senseless killings in the Iraq War for power and profit?

Nope.

Do they ever publicly declare that the US Navy was wrong to fake the Gulf of Tonkin Incident in 1964 (which has now been uncovered) which resulted in the deaths of 60,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese, making the war and their deaths a FRAUD?

Nope.

Are they outraged with the fact that the CIA has been involved in drug trafficking, which even some in the mainstream media have reported? Or the CIA assassinations of foreign leaders who refused to abide by US policy?

Nope.

Are they outraged that the EPA lied after 9/11 that the air was safe to breathe, which caused thousands of First Responders to develop cancer from the toxic air and slowly die?

Nope.

Are they outraged that upper levels of government have concocted secret plots to sacrifice innocent lives to stage terrorist activities and blame it on others to start wars, such as Operation Northwoods and Operation Dirty Trick? (google them for more info)

Nope.

Do they speak out against the thousands of people that die from pharmaceutical drugs every year?

Nope.

But will they go ballistic if ONE person allegedly dies from alternative treatment such as homeopathy?

You betcha!

Enough said. Point proven.

If I am wrong, you will show me articles from Randi or Shermer where they've criticized the above.

Of course no one will say "I support murder". DUH! But the fact that they can never condemn authority tells you that they are biased and have an allegiance, and are not objective free thinkers. My God. DUH!

Arguing with you is like arguing with a child.
“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
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: The True Masters of the Pseudo-Skeptics

Postby Nostradamus » 28 Feb 2010, 11:57

Obviously the first post is based on ignorance. It was written by someone that has never been to a scientific meeting. It was written by someone that has not been to graduate school.

Challenging the current scientific thought is mandatory. It is not an option. A scientific theory cannot qualify as a theory unless it is falsifiable. There must be tests that can disprove the theory that can be dreamed up and performed.

In at least 3 instances it has been discovered that Nobel prizes were awarded to results that were later overturned. This is stuff that is so-called establishment status quo whatever you want to call it. Yet, the results were not overturned because 3 times someone looked and luckily these were 3 mistakes. It happened because everyone questions the so-called status quo.

Here's a good example: Cold fusion.
If we were to believe the nonsense claim here we would be chanting "The 2 guys were wrong. They were stupid. They challenged the status quo. Quick defend. Close your eyes. Oooo OOoo ... "

In fact there has been continued research in the field.
http://www.physorg.com/news131101595.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7959183.stm
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/10/highlights-of-15th-cold-fusion.html

What is happening here is not so much the claim that a particular process occurs, but rather investigations into what does happen. The investigations are done because the results are not understood.

From Prof CLose mentioned in one of the articles:
"If I come up with a weird phenomenon and call it cold fusion, I know that reporters will be interested. Convincing the scientific community is another matter entirely."
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: The True Masters of the Pseudo-Skeptics

Postby Nostradamus » 28 Feb 2010, 12:02

You and Nostradamus (wherever he is) won't even admit that there's squibs in the WTC collapse, when many videos clearly show the squibs, which you can see on YouTube, and which I've posted many times. Yet you deny that they exist. Same with the WTC explosions. It's like you stand in front of a mountain and continue to deny that it exists. A reasonable person eventually gives up on you, as there's no point in arguing with a fool, lest he becomes one too.


I'm sorry, but these are plain bone headed comments that are so ludicrous that it is tiring to respond to these.

What you refer to as squibs are not squibs. They are simply dense fluids pouring out of windows. They do not look like squibs. They do not act like squibs. The sounds of explosions are not recorded on the numerous videos. Loud sounds are not explosions. The sharp report of a CD is not heard once during the collapse and the nut cases claim every floor was wired meaning hundreds if not a thousand sharp reports should have been recorded and not one was.

It's like you stand in front of a mountain and claim it is an ocean and continue to insist it is flat. "A reasonable person eventually gives up on you, as there's no point in arguing with a fool, lest he becomes one too."
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Next

Return to PseudoSkeptic Fallacies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests