Locked Sagan Thread

[Kevin Kane]

Can someone please explain why my thread about Carl Sagan was locked. It didn't break any rules, and I had a lot more to say about the subject. I don't like having to start new threads about every little thing as some other posters do. Is it the way I express my ideas? Because that's how I talk and express myself naturally.

And I didn't even begin to talk about his pot use.

Apparently, he smoked a lot more marijuana than we knew. Here's the whole essay.
http://www.marijuana-uses.com/essays/002.html

I can remember the night that I suddenly realized what it was like to be crazy, or nights when my feelings and perceptions were of a religious nature. I had a very accurate sense that these feelings and perceptions, written down casually, would not stand the usual critical scrutiny that is my stock in trade as a scientist. If I find in the morning a message from myself the night before informing me that there is a world around us which we barely sense, or that we can become one with the universe, or even that certain politicians are desperately frightened men, I may tend to disbelieve; but when I'm high I know about this disbelief. And so I have a tape in which I exhort myself to take such remarks seriously. I say 'Listen closely, you sonofabitch of the morning! This stuff is real!'


Interesting, huh?

[Nostradamus]

[Kevin Kane]

Why? Because I use satire and write satire and have a sense of humor? If a reader doesn't like it, read something else.

Those two statements are not inconsistent. An alien civilization would be able to decipher the pictures and audio on the golden Voyager record. Instructions are included to do so.

But the brainwaves will never be deciphered or "decrypted" because we don't even have that capability, did not include those instructions, and it's most likely that such a capability is not possible. The brainwaves are nothing but external effects, an audio picture of the physical brain, but not of the thoughts.

Back to Sagan.


Even Victor Zammit points out exactly what I was pointing out about Carl Sagan in the first thread.

http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/sagan.html

Here is a person, Sagan, who many people call a skeptic, yet he was entirely incapable of applying skeptical rules to himself. Carl Sagan was unrealistic, out of touch. He was a kook, a starry eyed dreamer who believed his own puffery and BS. He never lived to hear from extraterrestrials, his lifes work, he never lived to find answers about the big bang, about Mars explorations, he was a dreamer.

[Nostradamus]

[Nostradamus]

[NinjaPuppy]

Kevin - The other thread was locked because it was bought to my attention via the "Report a Post" button by a member. Upon review, all I saw was what looked like nonsense and gibberish with a somewhat revolting picture put up by none other than yourself. I'm getting tired of going rounds with you and your opinions of my moderation style, so I decided to leave it up and let others see how you debate an issue. Especially a Topic that you started that is relevant to what YOU consider worthy of this forum. You have certainly made your opinions clear of what does and doesn't belong on this forum and that locked topic should serve as a fine example of your comments.

[Kevin Kane]

So basically you were allowing skeptics to moderate a thread which was critical of a skeptic idol. Carl Sagan is worthy of ridicule, mockery and satire. I stand behind every word I said. I see no fault with mocking and satirizing Carl Sagans kookiness. Just because a member or moderator was incapable of understanding what I was saying is not an excuse for censorship.

The Mars tape is hysterical. First, he's talking to future martian explorers/colonists. Then he's bragging about his waterfall. I guess they don't have waterfalls on Mars. Then he's rambling and handing them some cosmic jive.

Get real.

[Kevin Kane]

I should also point out that Victor Zammit is a committe member of Debunking Skeptics, and Nostradamus was insulting a member of this forum.

[Kevin Kane]

[Nostradamus]

[Nostradamus]

[Nostradamus]

So why don't Kevin link to the article and try to explain what he thinks. I know this is not your forte - being able to explain, but I think we can try and see where this notion of yours comes from. I think it is possible that we can help you understand the issue.

I just scanned through a new article at

So what do you want to explain?

[Kevin Kane]

Let me explain something to Nostradamus. Debunking Skeptics is a forum for providing much needed criticism of skeptics or pseudo-skeptics such as James Randi or Carl Sagan.

I personally would not go to the JREF forums or the sciforums and insult or criticize James Randi and Carl Sagan on their turf. Because I'm not a tactless, cluess assknob. See what I'm saying? I am able to show tact and respect towards the person at their home.

If Nostradamus wants to insult Victor Zammit, a committee member of SCEPCOP/Debunking SKeptics, or the owner, Winston Wu, at THIS forum, I would suggest that he do it somewhere else .. or be forced to go somewhere. Again, I suggest banning Nostradamus.

[Nostradamus]

So Kevin it seems that you have no interest in your posts.

Let me try again. What is it that you need help in understanding in regards to Ann Druyan? What is not clear to you?

[Kevin Kane]

Did you even read what Zammit said about Sagan before you insulted him? Because his opinion is right on.

http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/sagan.html

In his channelling section, Carl Sagan again falls into the trap listed in his own baloney detection kit as observational selection when he picks on the less convincing and ignores the spectacular results.

Further baloney detected is Sagan’s 'argument from authority.' It seems we are to accept Sagan’s conclusions based on his credentials as a scientist. However, psychic matters fall entirely outside his purview as a scientist. He has no objective authority.

Begging the question. He says on what is being stated in channeling: “People pay attention to these puerile marvels mainly because they promise something like old-time religion, but especially life after death, even life eternal”. Here Sagan makes a denigrating statement and tries to give the answer for it. That is technically an inadmissible statement.

------


Dr Carl Sagan, the astronomer, scientist, fails in his ‘critical thinking’, in rebutting the paranormal/afterlife in many important respects – as shown above. He did not show he had the means to construct a reasoned argument against the validity of the empirical evidence for the paranormal. He built the ‘straw-man’ argument – concocting something fragile himself so that he could rebut it- to delude himself, to delude the skeptics, to delude the debunkers. He ignored high quality evidence and included the vexatious. He illegitimately tried to use his status as a scientist to rebut the empirical evidence of the paranormal which he does not understand, he did not research or he had ignored. He preached about critical thinking and violated every rule in the book.

Balanced against Sagan’s denigration of the public, describing them as being over-gullible, I submit that a greater proportion of people are searching for some meaning in life because of what they themselves have experienced and science cannot explain. They have legitimately argued that their history and tradition, their values and beliefs have failed them.

That is not being gullible, that is not being dogmatically indiscriminately superstitious - that is not being easily led. That is being intelligent. That is an attempt to reconcile their role in the universe with the given life on earth in a particular environment.

To impute that only Carl Sagan has the answers about what to accept or not to accept – or to state only scientists or the skeptics or the debunkers know what is going on- is to make a most erroneous statement fundamentally inconsistent with what we know about materialistic scientists, what we know about closed minded skeptics and debunkers. Many see these as losers, defeatists and over-sycophantic to those who hand out funding.

Accordingly, whereas Dr Carl Sagan might have been a good astronomer, he fails miserably in empirically showing why the objective, empirical evidence for paranormal and the afterlife should not be accepted.