Indepth Review Of Richard Dawkins' "Enemies Of Reason" Film

[Scepcop]

Two great new blog posts by Eteponge!

http://eteponge.blogspot.com/2010/04/in ... wkins.html - Indepth Review Of Richard Dawkins' "Enemies Of Reason" Documentary

http://eteponge.blogspot.com/2010/04/re ... es-of.html - A Response To Derren Brown's Critiques Of Remote Viewing

[NinjaPuppy]

Kudos to you Eteponge!

[ciscop]

what?
you are referencing Gary Schwartz??
the same Gary Schwartz that was exposed as a CON MAN in Geraldo???

http://www.badpsychics.co.uk/thefraudfi ... toryid=555

who cares about double blind test when the tester is a fraudulent EVIL individual

(to take money out of the pocket of the grieving is just evil)

[NinjaPuppy]

Yeah, like Geraldo is some media guru of truth.

[ciscop]

im sorry you dont care about the father that was interviewed for the segment

i do care as i am human

[ProfWag]

I really like Eteponge and believe his heart is in the right place and a good deal of effort is placed in his blogs.
Having said that, I believe this critique contain less than solid information. Gary Schwartz' experiments on psychics/mediums are less than stellar and as of this date, hasn't even begun to persuade virtually any scientist (with the exception of Dean Radin) that there may be something to mediumship. A serious review of Schwartz' experiment is, unfortunately, laughable. Keeping it in context, back in the day, Eteponge used "Unsolved Mysteries" as a source document for the medium Dorothy Allison which would me like me using Penn & Teller's Bullsh!it as a source for there being no such thing as astrology which, as we all know, would be ridiculous.
Sorry Eteponge, but to criticize Dawkins' using Schwartz is, well, like criticizing Stephen Hawkings' "A Brief History of Time" using the Planet of the Apes.

[ciscop]

NICE!!!

[Eteponge]

[Eteponge]

[ciscop]

hahahahaha

so your source to rebut the claims
is THE CON MAN himself???

wow!!
well done

by the way telling something ¨calmly¨ doesnt mean ANYTHING but to believers that just shows you how lower the standard is for believers than it is for critical thinkers.

[Eteponge]

[ciscop]

[Eteponge]

[Eteponge]

Now I see why Proponents in these fields have such a hard time dealing with Skeptics, they just spam ad hominems and character assassinations and won't deal with the actual points being made. They won't tackle the actual data or points, they just spam, "He's a con man! And you're a fraud for believing him!" as a smokescreen for not having to deal with any of the actual points being discussed. It's silly, and I can't believe anyone would fall for this tactic. I'm out, I have better things to do with my time than schwabble with name calling.

[ciscop]

at the end of the day
all we got is a ¨he said, he said¨

nothing more

i guess this is where we cant go further

you know your ¨scientist¨ wouldnt do that
i know psychics is all they do

so not much progress there

still
schwartz has no scientific validation but from radin who is another quack
while dawkins is pretty much, THE MAN