In a message dated 1/11/2006 5:05:20 PM Pacific Standard Time, writes:

}: 1) First of all, the biggest problem with this  argument is that what
}people actually experience is NOT the same thing as what  a skeptic deliberately
}makes up for satirical purposes!

How do you know?  How can you tell the difference between a legitimate
belief and a deliberately concocted fantasy, if both are supported by
the same kind of evidence (read "anecdotal evidence")?

W:  You'll have to give some examples, as I would answer that it's a case by case basis.  Of course, a lot of it is common sense too.  But obviously, pseudoskeptics like you have none of them. 


IN fact, pseudoskeptics like you can't even remember their Ebay user ID, hence you are all about word games and semantics.  Heck, why don't I reveal the Ebay user ID you gave me, since it was a fake one anyway??????

}To compare the two is  ludicrous and illogical.

Ludicrous is a matter of opinion.  They can certainly be compared
logically, if one knows how to do so.

W:  And tha'ts what you do.  Yuo play with semantics to compare them.  For example, you can compare a red car and a red apple and put them in the same category, simply cause they are red.  That's the kind of game you play.  Well I don't wish to play such a dishonest game and waste my time.

}Since the skeptic using this argument hasn't really  experienced invisible
}pink unicorns himself,

How do you know that they haven't?  If anecdotal evidence is going to
be considered good evidence, then why isn't one person's anecdote as
good as another's?

W:  There aren't people out tehre claiming to have experienced invisible pink unicorns.  Show me a paranormal program that says otherwise!  Of course, you Dr H can just make it up, but then again, you are playing games again.

}everyone knows that he is  deliberately making up
}something fictitious to put down something he doesn't  believe in while the
}experiencer or claimant is not.

How does "everyone know" this?  Are you saying that everyone is reading
everyone else's mind?

W:  Stop playing games and pretending to be butthead on purpose.  Do I have to explain what 2+2 is to you too?

}Comparing them would be like comparing my real life experience of visiting a
}foreign country to any fictitious story you can find such as Peter Pan or The
}Wizard of Oz.

Not so:  a visit to a real foreign country can be corroborated by real
physical evidence, if necessary.  A claim of a visit to Never-Neverland
cannot.  They are therefore easily compared, and the bogus claim exposed.

W:  What if I provide you with no physical evidence?  Do you put my experiences into the fiction category?

If someone claims to believe in Odin, but has no physical evidence to
show that such a being as Odin exists, their claim is no stronger --
and no weaker -- than a person who claims to believe they've experienced
and invisible pink unicorn, but has no physical evidence to back up their
claim.  The available evidence in both cases is equivalent -- hearsay.

W:  True, but I've been to Russia, and if I give you no physical evidence for it, do you put it in the same category as the belief in Odin?

}That simply makes no sense, even if misperception was involved
}on my part in my experience. Not only would that be nonsensical, but also
downgrading and insensitive.

Both of those statements are nothing more than your personal opinion.
You need to learn to leave out the more emotionally charged language if
you ever hope to be able to present a strong logical argument. 

W:  You are the one playing word games, and you yourself know that you are wrong.  No one with your beliefs could function in society.

}W:  This example has nothing to do with the fallacy of comparing  something
}that a skeptic makes up out of thin air with an ACTUAL REAL experience  that
}someone has.  To do so is to simply play word games and deny  reality.  Let me
you how philosophical skeptics work in an "Ebay feud"  I had with one of
}the best of them, which revealed their true colors.  I  will paste what
}happened at the very bottom for your review.

Your comments show that you continue to misunderstand the meaning of
_ad hominem_.  You are committing ad hominem yourself in the above
paragraph and you obviously don't even know it.

W:  You are merely defining it the way you want to.  Pinning labels on what I say does not alter or change the truth or reality.

Rather than address the legitimate points the person has made in their
very valid analogy, you introduce a completely irrelevant reference to
someone not even involved in the discussion as somehow indicative of
the "true colors" of the person who presented the argument.

W:  But the point was irrelevant.  You and that critic of my article both use semantics to your advantage.  I'd get more entertainment out of a game of Scrabble, than in playing your word games.

You have in fact committed two logical fallacies here:  you attacked the
person rather than the argument, and you changed the subject.

W:  That person never even stuck to my original subject in the first place!

}Not W: Moreover, the IPU parodies the situation in which the inherently 
}is granted a de facto truth-value. I'll deal with the reasons  why experiences
}are no proof later.
}W:  Experiences are not proof to others, but they are proof to the 

No they are not.  There are *experiences* to the experiencer, and they
are anecdotal reports to anyone who is not the experiencer.

W:  Faith has written thousands of posts about direct proof already.  If you don't get it still, then there's no hope for you.

}W: You are denying common sense here.

Common sense in rarely logical, and frequently wrong.

W:  Yet it is real and useful, even though you lack it obviously.

}W: If I go to the supermarket and ask where the peanut butter is, and a clerk
}there tells me aisle 9, that does not prove that it's on aisle, but most of
}the time it will be.

You don't know that "most of the time it will be".  You are asserting
a fact not in evidence.

W:  Go to the grocery store and test it out.  No excuses!

Note that I am not saying that your statement is incorrect or correct;
simply that you have given no evidence to support your assertion.

W:  I can go to the store and test it out, but I dont' need to cause I have before.

}W: I could give countless similar examples, and so could
}you.  You know your theory fails in the mundane world, so why deny it?

Individual examples are pretty meaningless -- I can give YOU many
examples of situations in which I asked the location of a product in
a store and it was NOT where the clerk told me it would be. 

W:  So can I.  But most the time it would be.  WOuld you pit your random guesses against their knowledge of the store? LOL

If you conduct a scientifically constructed poll and report the results
that would be stronger evidence.

W:  If you need a scientific poll for something as simple as that, then you are lost, or you are a liar.

}W:  If everything unprovable is the same,..

Who said they were the same?

W:  You did, that is the basis of your argument and the basis of the invisible pink unicorn argument.

}W: ...then you are obligated not to believe anything anybody says unless you
}see it yourself.

You are not -obligated- to believe -anything-, not even if you do see it
for yourself.

W:  Speak for yourself.  I live in reality.  YOu live in your own weird world.

}W: Saying that two unprovables are exactly the same is like saying that a red 
}car and a red apple are the same things simply because they are red.   Please

No one has said that, other than you.  Strawman fallacy and false analogy.

W:  That's exactly how you think though.

}W: If you truly believed that two unprovables are the same, then you ought to 
}go to your local public library and tell the librarian that the books in the 
}fiction section should be combined with the nonfiction section, since they both
} contain mostly unprovable stories.  You know you wouldn't cause you'd  look
}like an idiot to everyone including yourself if you did so.

Yet more strawman arguments, coupled with yet more ad hominem.

W:  They are not strawmans.  They get to the crux of the issue.

}W: Your Argument
}: 2) Second, what someone sincerely believes is NOT the  same as what someone
}knowingly makes up.

That could be argued, but the salient point is "how do you -know- whether
someone's claim is sincere or a deliberate fabrication, if the only
evidence for that claim is that person's declaration?"

W:  It depend so the situation.  Common sense is usually sufficient for most things, and reliable as well.


Most things I check out from reliable people, even ordinary people, check out.

}W: Since the skeptic who uses this  argument don't believe
}in invisible pink unicorns himself, it is pointless...

As pointed out above, you don't know that to be true.  As the other
"opponent" (Not W:) pointed out, it doesn't matter whether they belive
in it or not.  The logical principles remain the same.

W:  We know skeptics don't believe in pink unicorns cause they are not arguing for their existence, but using them as a point to prove that they are false.  Stop denying the obvious.

}W:  ... as  well as inconsiderate
}to compare that to what people genuinely believe and  experience, such as God,
}spirits, or ESP. Of course, just because someone  genuinely believes something
}doesn't make it true, but to compare an honest  person to a deliberate fraud
}is not a valid comparison.

Ad hominem.  You haven't addressed the argument.  All you've done is call
the person who made the argument names ("inconsiderate," "fraud").

W:  What is there to address?  That person never really addressed my original argument, so it's a moot point.  I addressed it by pointing out its flaws and irrelevancy.  Only a game player like you would continue debating this.

}(Not W:)  Opponent
}: Once again, revisiting the ad hominem by circumstance. If  belief does not
}impart a truth-value to its argument in and of itself, and (as  demonstrated
}previously) unbelief does not impart a negative truth-value in  and of itself,
}the difference between honestly believed and satirically  contrived is
}logically  immaterial.

Exactly as I noted, above.

}W:  To you, not to reality.

No, to a properly constructed logical argument.  Thinly veiled ad hominem.

W:  You mean in your insular logic.  Logic is not an objective thing.

}W:  Belief itself may not create reality  directly,
}but it depends on the credibility and quality of what's at stake  here.  You
making broad over generalizations.  Again, if I  asked every supermarket
}manager which aisle the peanut butter was located  without him checking, most of
}the time, he would point to the right aisle, at  least a lot more often than
}asking a skeptic to guess aisles randomly!

False analogy, and asserting facts not in evidence.

W:  Do you agree with the sueprmarket analogy?  Do you admit that the store clerk would guess correctly the aisle of each product, at a more accurate rate than YOU would?

How do you determine "credibility" other than by comparing claims (anecdotes)
to physical reality (hard evidence) and observing whether the two

W:  Cause me and every ordinary (which you are not) person in the world has tested such mundane claims.

We can easily test your store-clerk/peanut-butter claim by conducting
actual surveys of actual physical events and objects.  We cannot test
someone's belief in God that way, anymore than we can test someone's
belief in an invisible pink unicorn that way, because neither God nor
the invisible pink unicorn are in evidence.  All we have in either case
is equivalent anecdotal reports.

W:  Belief in God has nothing to do with anecdotal evidence of paranormal experiences.  Another false analogy on your part.


}: Argument from numbers. I needn't expound on it  here.
:  There is nothing wrong with argument from numbers.

In fact, there is.  It's the fallacy of the 'appeal to popularity'.

W:  So?  No one is claiming that mos tpeople are always right.  But popularity is evidence nevertheless.

A majority of people once believed that earth was the center of
the universe, fire required phlogestron, and maggots arose spontaneously
from rotting meat.  They were all wrong. 

W:  Beliefs and experiences/anecdotes are not the same thing.  Stop using desperate tactics.


A lot of people beliving in
something which is incorrect does not render it correct.  It simply
means that -a lot- of people are wrong.

W:  No, but a lot of people experiencing something, is something.  Give some examples of that, not the flat earth analogy.

}W: Sure lots  of people can be wrong, but in most cases they are usually

Asserting a fact not in evidence.

W:  If I stayed indoors and ten people all told me it was raining outside, do I assume ther eis no evidence that it is raining?

}W: Again,  you ignore reality and play word games.

Ad hominem.

}W: If 5 normal people told me that there was a water fountain in the park,
}without checking it out, I could safely assume that they are correct.  Of
, they could all be lying, but why assume that?  In reality, most of
time it would be true.  Even children understand this.  Only pseudo
}skeptics don't.

Of course you could "safely" assume they were correct.  There are no
consequences if they are incorrect. 

W:  Forget the consequences.  Accuracy is the issue here, not consequences.  Again, you are desperate to try to change the subject, cause your stance is baseless, and you know it.

}(Not W: ) Moreover, honesty demands that an individual not assume from whence
}experience came. For even if we grant that experiences are a cause, and not an 
, of observed neural anomalies, it still does not *logically* follow  that
}they are caused by the entity to whom the experiencer would like to 
}attribute it.
}W:  No of course not.  Nor do we assume that they must be  hallucinating and
}that supernatural entities aren't possible,...

No one has, here.  You are changing the subject yet again.

W:  But you seek to undermine their credibility.

}W: ... as many pseudo skeptics do.  It's up in the air then.  Either way, the
still stands that millions are not out there claiming to have
}experienced invisible pink unicorns, or any other thing that skeptics make

As previously noted, that is irrelvant to the logic involved in the
argument.  "Opponent" is presenting his argument /without/ logical

W:  Only in your deluded book, not in reality.  You totally ignore the fallacies I am pointing out here.

You are suggesting that his argument would only be valid
-if- he commited the logical fallacy of appeal to popularity.

W:  No, I am merely resorting to common sense and reality.

}Beispiel: A devout Catholic finds an icon of Mary in the way the snow  fell
}on her roof. This is an experience, of course. However, any of the  following
}could be a *reasonable* cause for the experience:
}    *   God 
}    *   Mary 
}    *   Satan 
}    *   Some other god, demon, or spirit
} Without the ability to determine just what caused the experience, the
}experience loses its evidentiary value when arguing for existence of a
}particular agent.

}W:  Again, that doesn't make it the same as whatever you make  up.  Red cars
the same as red apples.

His analogy is logically equivalent.

W:  Whatever caused the icon of Mary to fall on the roof is another issue.  The point is that the icon was there.  It was a real experience with a real thing, not like an invisible pink unicorn.

}Your Argument: 5) Fifth, just because something is  unprovable does not
}automatically put it in the same category as everything  else that is unprovable.
}For example, I can't prove what I ate last night for  dinner or what I thought
}about. Without witnesses, I can't prove what I saw on  TV or how high I scored
}in a video game either. But that doesn't mean that  these things are in the
}same category as every story in the fiction section of  the library.
}: Actually, in many cases, such things *can* be proven, or at  the least
}W:  Even if they could, it would be inconvenient to do so, so would  you
}assume that everything everyone says is false then?  Please come back  to reality,
}and use some discernment.  Have you ever gotten lost and had to  ask for
}directions?  If so, why did you bother, since every direction you  received from
}others, even if they were long time residents of the area, were  all unprovable
}to you anyway?

Convenience and inconvenience have nothing to do with the value of evidence.
If an anecdotal report -can- be corroborated by physical evidence, then
the evidence for claims made by the report is stronger than that for a
report which it is impossible to obtain physical evidence for.

W:  You didn't answer the questions above about getting lost and asking for directions.  Please answer them.

}W: If you lived like this, you could not function in life, and you know  it. 
}If you got lost, you'd never trust anyone's directions, not even from  the most
}credible well-meaning people.

Completely irrelevant to the logic of the argument at hand.  Changing
the subject, yet again.

W:  Just answer the questions.  Or else this is hopeless.  I don't dodge your questions, so that means you obviously have something to hide.  A red flag of your integrity.

}W: Again, everything unproven is not in the same category.

No one has asserted that.

W:  You have by asserting all paranormal experiences (not beliefs) with invisible pink unicorns.  There are many programs about UFO's and Alien Abductions.  Show me some programs about invisible pink unicorns.

}W:  Do you consider random guesses to be of the same reliability as
}directions given to you by knowledgeable people of the area?

It doesn't matter what one consideres, what matters is whether statements
given can be corroborated with other evidence, or not.

W:  ANSWER the question above!

}Not W:  One's dietary habits are VERY easy; we can prove from fossilised s*** 
}dinosaurs ate, or actually perform autopsies on frozen neanderthals and 
}mammoths to get a peek at their diets.
}W:  But I ain't letting you examine the contents of my stomach, so 
}technically everything I said is unproven right, just like the fairy  godmother?

We could accost you and pump your stomach.
Not a very pleasant prospect; I advise you to cooperate.  :-)

W:  See, like I said, this is all a word game to you, not an honest search for the truth.  I know what you're all about now.

}Not W: Simple interrogation can prove what one saw on TV the night before; 
}about the programmes may prove sufficient, or perhaps a VCR or Tivo  may be
}employed. Certainly, with the auto-save functions on many modern video  games,
}high scores might be recorded; this is especially true of online games. 
}W:  But what if I didn't save them?  Do you assume all my claims  are false
}by default?  Is that how you go about your life? lol

By default, without corroboration, I would assume them to be unproven.

W:  Then you are deluded, and if you ever got lost and had to ask for directions, you'd never follow the directions cause they would all be unproven, hence you'd never get anywhere.  Yeah right.  Are you a fool or deliberate liar?

}Not W: Or, again, if you really felt you had to prove something to the video 
}game world, you could tape-record a session.
}Not W: As such, these things are not *inherently* unprovable. Gods,
-Egg-Laying chicken-voiced bunnies (or vorpal bunnies with nasty sharp
}pointy teeth,) Dreaded Black Beasts of Ahgggggggggh, Santa Claus and IPU's
}fall under the realm of *inherently* unprovable.

Hmm... I might have some discussion about this one.  Whether or not something
is inherently unprovable depends to some extent on the definition employed
for the thing requiring proof.  If one defines "god" in any of the ways
most theologists and philosophers have for millennia -- as being the first
cause, and therefore causeless, standing outside all that is cause or
causal, etc. -- then yes, "god" is inherently unprovable, because "god"
stands outside the system employed to construct proofs.

OTOH, if one defined "god" as "a grey-suited republican from Texas with
big ears" the existence of -that- sort of god falls well within the
bounds of the system, and hence one -could- amass evidence supporting
its existence.  That is a trivial solution, of course -- one could as
well define "invisible pink unicorns" as small four-footed canines with
brown heads, long ears, and a white tip on their tail.

Now /that/ would be playing "word games."  ;-)

W:  No one is defining God as a man from Texas though.  You are using straw mans again.  If we are talking about a first cause, how can you prove that without using a time machine to go back in time to witness the first cause?

}Not W: Just an aside, would it help any if the parody argument involved 
}that is, or was and no longer generally, believed in, such as  leprechauns or
}W:  It would really depend.  I still wouldn't put leprechauns in  the same
}category as the invisible pink unicorn, if real people had experienced  them
}before.  At least leprechauns are a cultural icon, unlike your  invisible pink

Invisible pink unicorns have been a cherished icon in MY culture,
for generations.  Don't be a bigot.

W:  LOL you see, this is not a serious discussion for you at all.

}Now here is the  Ebay example that shows the skeptics' true colors:

[snip, eBay stuff, of which I am the subject.]

Already dealt with in another post.

W:  Uh huh, you dealt with it and lost badly.  Got your ass burned too.  You promised to give me your Ebay user name, gave me a fake one instead, and refuse to explain or correct it.  Very careless of you.  You lied about the whole thing and YOU KNOW IT!

But hey, Winston, who's the skeptic you have listed here as "opponent"?
Why don't you invite him/her to the list.  Since you scared away Gen and
Pierre we're short on skeptics.  There's just me and Susan left.

W:  I have no idea.  This skeptic or "opponent" as you call him/her, was forwarded to me by someone else, as part of a discussion on another board.  I don't have contact with that "opponent" directly.  But the intermediary may forward this to that skeptic to get his/her response.



In a message dated 2/22/2006 12:30:39 AM Pacific Standard Time, writes:


}and that you lied in your Ebay profile,

Maybe; maybe not.  You can't know for sure, Which is my point.

W:  Oh I can know for sure.  You lied cause that's not your account.  It has zero feedback and is from Michigan, and I sent an Ebay message from my user ID to yours, and you have yet to respond to me from your Ebay user name.  There is no escape Dr H. 


You are dishonest and will not even be clear about this whole Ebay thing.  So objective and honest you are. lol


If you are not a liar, I challenge you to email my Ebay box from your User ID name.  Go ahead.  You can do it.


By the way Dr H, if you do not write me from the Ebay user ID you gave me, I will be forced to reveal to the list, the Ebay user name you gave me, so they can verify the results.  After all, since you gave me a false Ebay user name, I have a right to break my promise and reveal the false one you gave me, since it isn't even your real Ebay user account!


Either way, you are checkmated and proven to have committed a fabrication.  This is also going on my debunking skeptics site too.

}and it also means that you  have ZERO FEEDBACK


W:  Want me to prove it by copying and pasting your Ebay user name that you gave me, so anyone can verify it on Ebay?

}...which means you don't know SH** about Ebay and are disqualified to talk
the reliability of users on their based on their feedback.

Even if it were true (which it isn't) that I had no feedback, it would
be idiotic to draw that conclusion.
  Our discussion was whether *I*
thought that eBay feedback had any value when *I* went to make a
purchase.  I didn't, and I still don't.  Whether people decide to give
me feedback or not is a matter of supreme indifference to me -- it's
their choice to do so, not mine.

W:  No it wasn't.  It was that you have no qualifications to discuss whether feedback has any value or not, cause you have zero feedback and probably no experience on EbayYOu are full of it and trying to weasel your way around it.  It is obvious to everyone, even to the other skeptics.  Stop BSing around.  Reality has caught up with you.



Geez, man, go back on your meds.

W:  Stop trying to change the subject.  There is no COVER OR ESCAPING THE FACT THAT YOU LIED!  LIED LIED LIED!!!!!!!!!!


}}W:  Ok find me one experienced user on Ebay who agrees that  feedback  on
}}Ebay is worthless evidence.
}This argument is  pointless.  It's been going on for months now, nothing
}has been proven  one way or the other; nothing CAN be proven because the
}premise is  irrelevant anyway; nothing WILL be proven by further beating
}on this dead  horse.
}W:  It is only pointless cause you won't provide the evidence you  claim you
}have, namely that you have some experience on Ebay!  You keep  refusing to,
}even after months!  RED FLAG!!!!!!!!   DISHONESTY!!!!!!!  You have something to
no doubt.

<snort> This for a person who keeps posting every wacko religious kook,
urban legend, and nazi revisionist and asking "is there anything to this"?

W:  Classic cop out by trying to change the subject.  Only those who are desperately in a losing situation would resort to such ad hominem attacks.

}Hey wait, I have another idea.  Why don't I send a message to the Ebay  user
}ID name you gave me, and if it's yours, you will be able to respond to my 
}Ebay ID (WWu777) directly.  That will settle once and for all the issue of 
that was your Ebay ID or not.  You game or chicken?

Yee haw.     Message received.

W:  If so, then send me a message to my Ebay account from yours!  Do it.  Or else you will have proven yourself to have lied again!  TWO LIES NOW?!  This means that you will have NO FRICKIN CREDIBILITY, not even among other skeptics!

}Right now, I am going to send a message to your alleged Ebay ID user  name. 
}If you are unable to reply from it, it will prove 200 percent that  you lied,
}which is much more than enough.

Nah.  I could prove that eBay's security isn't all that you think it is.
Or it could prove that you're not as experienced as you would have us

W:  Stop blabbering, send me a fricking MESSAGE from your Ebay account to mine!  My user ID is "WWu777".  NOW DO IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

}}Second, you had two eBayers who said that eBay feedback is   basically
}}worthless:  myself and Gen.  I'm sure you could  find  others if you really
}}wanted to.
}}W:  You have not  proven that you have used Ebay before.  And  neither has
}I don't have to prove anything to you about my eBay use.  I have  three
}zithers which I purchased over eBay about this time last year.   As long
}as I get what I pay for from the people I choose to deal with, it  matters
}not a whit to me whether you believe me on this point or  not.
}W:  Can you log into your account and tell me how many feedback  comments you
}have in your profile?  Is that too hard for you?
}}Both of you are known liars.
}*That*, however, matters  to me.  You are committing libel, and you
}are coming perilously close  to pissing me off.
}W:  Yet it is the truth 200 percent.
}I  suggest you retract that statement, and refrain from making any
}further  comments of that kind.
}W:  Even though it's 200 percent true?

That's it, boss.

I will not discuss this issue further until you retract your
statement that I am a "liar".

W:  I will retract the statement when you send me a message through Ebay from your account to mine.  That's the only condition I will retract it.  The ball is in your court.  Will you prove yourself to be a liar again a third time???????


This is all going to be linked from my debunking skeptics site by the way, to show people the way paranormal debunkers like you operate!

If you piss me off any further (and STOP sending me those
damned multi-megabyte photo-posts!) I may dump you in a killfile
for a while.

W:  The photo posts have nothing to do with your dishonesty about Ebay!

Winston, you *really* don't want to start slandering me in a
semi-public forum.  You won't like the result.  Trust me on this.

W:  I only tell the cold hard factual truth, which apparently is too much for you to handle.  Another red flag of guilt on your part.  There is no escape Dr H.  No escape.

Dr H

::::::::::::: shaking my head that Dr H is now a confirmed liar and that he cannot deny it :::::::::::::


:::::::::::::: waiting for Dr H to email me from his Ebay account ::::::::::::::::





Back to Table of Contents


Back to Index Page