I'm Skeptical of Skepticism

[Shadow]

Have we really considered the consequence of absolute denial without proof?
Does this seem silly? Well prepare to think otherwise.

What makes something proven? Reliable data not connected with the human element? Well doesn't the human element forge the tools of reliable data? How often has a simple oversight or mistake ruined reality? If you are aware of “Rods” they are mythical flying beasts which travel so fast they can only be seen with video camera’s… a simple belief developed by the oversight that camera’s are infallible. Under scientific scrutiny the rods we’re nothing more than actual flying beasts which had left trails of afterimage as the camera compensated for focusing. A prime example of how the assumption of an instrument’s credibility produced absurd reasoning.

Accepting "authoritative fact" on the basis that someone or something is the "authority" is ignorance. MythBusters has evolved into a scheme of capitalism, experimenting in the debauchery of “truth”. With myths "Busted" under a rueful staff of human “authority” my moral conscious is left starving “What has gone wrong?!” Every myth becoming a conversation with my Television, "Why didn't they do it this way to achieve more accurate and controlled results?" My response “Buy this consumer product of interest!” A plateau of enlightenment, the show is not designed for scientific results and the search for truth it is broadcast on the fundamentals of media; money, ratings and appealing to your audience. An audience of skeptics doesn't want to see "fact" they want to see "busted" because anything woo-ish is an attack on the skeptic’s “faith”. The answer is an inept SFX crew with the “power of the discovery channel” to mangle the scientific method and sell it as fact.

However this perversion is no isolated, incompetence & bigotry seems to be the dogma for the Skeptical Priory. Like an owl howling "Woo! Woo! Woo!" They chant to hypnotize the public, baptize disciples and animate zealots. At its zenith organized skepticism is as good as organized religion. A realpolitik for atheists, the “Enlightened”, to denounce freethinking scientific research and academics under their authority of “righteousness”, how typical of western religion and how ironic. I guess you can take an atheist out of the church but you can’t take the church out of an atheist.

[Fitter]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Have we really considered the consequence of absolute denial without proof? <snip>
Absolute denial without proof is not skepticism.

[triadboy]

Absolute denial without proof is not skepticism.

I totally agree with you.

[Skeptical Greg]

Under scientific scrutiny the rods we’re nothing more than actual flying beasts which had left trails of afterimage as the camera compensated for focusing.
I would really like to hear more about this ...

On second thought, where is pillory when we really need him ?

[Loss Leader]

Has the September award for nonsense been handed out yet? If not, knife drawer moonbeam pants watermelon postage meter.

[rocketdodger]

Most educated people agree that the Mythbusters are morons with money -- but the show is still fun to watch. Perhaps that is why it is fun to watch...

[Lonewulf]

Morons? I don't think that. Seriously, "morons"?

Anyways, I'm skeptical of people that are skeptical of skepticism. Beat that.

[technoextreme]

Most educated people agree that the Mythbusters are morons with money -- but the show is still fun to watch. Perhaps that is why it is fun to watch...
Actually, the more I learn the more they really get close to how the science works. What the op seems to be complaining about is the fact that no one cares about the mathematical reasoning as to why hitting something with a hammer gives insight into the characteristics of the device. (Except for me). In fact the op's original post is vapid and completely void of any examples for good debate.

I would really like to hear more about this ...

On second thought, where is pillory when we really need him ?
Camera auto focuses on bugs.
Bugs end up blurry on camera.
People think something supernatural is happening.
I don't know why the word flying beast was used.
Morons? I don't think that. Seriously, "morons"?
I would guess that every single one of them is smarter than you are.

[bokonon]

I'm skeptical of people that are skeptical of skepticism. Beat that.
I will not tolerate the intolerance of those who are skeptical of people who are skeptical of skepticism. I must ask you to leave.

[Wowbagger]

The "Proper Skeptical Stance" is to start off neutral, on any claim. Then, investigate which lines of evidence yeild the strongest results.

I agree that, to have "absolute denial without proof", is a really bad way to live. And, as you see, almost all the skpetics here also agree with those sentiments.

If skepticism appears to be "dogmatic" in denying everything, it might only be because we failed to communicate the science behind our findings properly, to you. There are reasons behind our rationale. All you have to do is ask for the details.

[grayman]

Most educated people agree that the Mythbusters are morons with money...

And your evidence for this statement is...?

[Vox Humana]

Anyways, I'm skeptical of people that are skeptical of skepticism.


Evidence?

[Lonewulf]

Evidence?
Evidence that you need evidence?

[Vox Humana]

Evidence that you need evidence?


Don't move the goalposts.

[Wowbagger]

Most educated people agree that the Mythbusters are morons with money...I could be that I am simply not "educated enough" to agree with you. Perhaps you can teach me why you say that?

[Lonewulf]

Don't move the goalposts.

Evidence of the goalposts?

I don't see no goalposts. Are we playing soccer now? I'm confused.

I need more coffee.

[Vox Humana]

I don't see no goalposts.


Ah, argument from ignorance. I expected no better.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Have we really considered the consequence of absolute denial without proof?
Does this seem silly? Well prepare to think otherwise.

First you have to consider what is absolute denial without proof and is that skepticism? Skepticism by its very nature is not absolute denial without proof should that be the case than you’ve contradicted yourself in your own title. If skepticism is absolute denial without proof than what you’ve done is absolutely deny absolute denial without proof with zero proof of your own to back up your own absolute denial. That’s not to say you cannot absolutely deny absolute denial without proof but you need proof to absolutely deny absolute denial without proof. Or can you? We can’t have absolute certainty so can we logically have absolute denial? Sorry I trailed off there a bit. Now given that such a thing is logically contradictory there must be another objective definition for skepticism. Answers.com (http://www.answers.com/topic/skepticism) defines skepticism as being as a doubting or questioning state of mind, one of three philosophies, or doubt or disbelief in religious tenets. Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/skepticism) gives very similar definitions. And the free online dictionary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/skepticism) gives the exact same definitions as Answers.com. So then we can conclude within reason that these are the definitions most would adhere when discussing skepticism. There may be individuals who call themselves skeptics but are not skeptical but that doesn’t prove the entire doctrine false the same as if a man were to call himself Christian but believed in the prophet Mohammed doesn’t prove the entire Christian faith wrong.

So then we’ve concluded that true skepticism is not absolute denial so then what is absolute denial? In this case it’s the act of stating something that is alleged is to be true is false. The question then becomes how do we differ between certainty and denial? Creationists are certain they are correct in their denial of evolution and those who acknowledge the reality of evolution are certain they are correct in their denial of creationism. Members of both groups may claim absolute certainty or denial in their claims and likewise both groups may claim that their certainty or denial is not absolute. I would argue that any serious skeptic only would assert absolute certainty in one’s own consciousness and would not make the hubris statement of asserting that their knowledge is absolute and impossible to contradict. Ironic the only thing that can be proven to exist absolutely is your own ego, something which is purely subjective. We can’t even be 100% certain we’re having the same conversation let alone if one or the other really exists. This form of skepticism I’d think is widely noted as impossible to prove one way or another and I do consider it a form of useless and unproductive skepticism. Not even the most hardcore Solipsists I’ve met were willing to claim their beliefs was absolute and beyond question.

But I digress; what are the consequences of absolute denial? I suppose that’s much the same as asking what are the consequences of absolute certainty? Unless you’re making the claim that skeptics simply go around denying everything, a claim that is patently false. Asking what the consequences of absolute denial and absolute certainty is much the same as asking what are the consequences of religious fundamentalism or other forms of extremism.

”What makes something proven?”

A good deal of human knowledge can only be proven to such a degree that it would be obscene to reject it. Evolution for example has been proven extensively and using several different fields of science to such an extent that it is obscene to suggest that genetics are static and unchanging. But other than that this question is so nebulous as to not even warrant a sufficient response let alone is the question capable of raising any sort of debate. What constitutes proof largely depends on what you want proved each field works in a separate paradigm requiring different sorts of evidence to prove it. Astrophysics and Biochemistry for instance both require different kinds of evidence as they work in different fields to prove claims made in either of them.

Reliable data not connected with the human element? Well doesn't the human element forge the tools of reliable data? How often has a simple oversight or mistake ruined reality? If you are aware of “Rods” they are mythical flying beasts which travel so fast they can only be seen with video camera’s… a simple belief developed by the oversight that camera’s are infallible. Under scientific scrutiny the rods we’re nothing more than actual flying beasts which had left trails of afterimage as the camera compensated for focusing. A prime example of how the assumption of an instrument’s credibility produced absurd reasoning.

Actually that’s the fault of unscientific individuals using equipment for purposes other than what it was intended to do; human error sure but hardly an indictment against the entire process of human knowledge. Abuse of equipment to produce results it isn’t intended for is common. In this case it’s used to capture images of paranormal, occasionally alleged multidimensional, beings. And ironic that since this is supposed to be an anti-skepticism rant that you actually provided an example of the practical use of skepticism when debunking frivolous and irrational claims. It doesn’t take much to produce ridiculous conclusions by using equipment in ways other than what it was intended for. Go kick some dust him and snap a few photos and you’ve got ghosts.

Accepting "authoritative fact" on the basis that someone or something is the "authority" is ignorancedict.

True but then again you’ll find a wealth of healthy debate on this forum. You’ll notice that in another thread it was claimed by a supposed authority that atheism necessarily leads to belief in the supernatural and good natured skepticism is showing otherwise. Not only that but I’d argue that many of the JREF’s members know full well what the appeal to authority fallacy is.

MythBusters has evolved into a scheme of capitalism, experimenting in the debauchery of “truth”. With myths "Busted" under a rueful staff of human “authority” my moral conscious is left starving “What has gone wrong?!” Every myth becoming a conversation with my Television, "Why didn't they do it this way to achieve more accurate and controlled results?" My response “Buy this consumer product of interest!” A plateau of enlightenment, the show is not designed for scientific results and the search for truth it is broadcast on the fundamentals of media; money, ratings and appealing to your audience. An audience of skeptics doesn't want to see "fact" they want to see "busted" because anything woo-ish is an attack on the skeptic’s “faith”. The answer is an inept SFX crew with the “power of the discovery channel” to mangle the scientific method and sell it as fact.

I have no idea what on earth it is that you’re going on about. I’ve watched Mythbusters frequently and I have yet to see them pushing new products. When making large spurious claims it’s probably best to actually, you know, post some evidence of what you’re talking about. Their videos are all over youtube and if you’re half as intelligent as you make yourself out to be then debunking their results shouldn’t be a problem. Any real skeptic would be more than interested to see and review your arguments.

However this perversion is no isolated, incompetencedict & bigotrydict seems to be the dogma for the Skeptical Priory. Like an owl howling "Woo! Woo! Woo!" They chant to hypnotize the public, baptize disciples and animate zealots. At its zenith organized skepticism is as good as organized religion. A realpolitikdict for atheists, the “Enlightened”, to denounce freethinking scientific research and academics under their authority of “righteousness”, how typical of western religion and how ironic. I guess you can take an atheist out of the church but you can’t take the church out of an atheist.

Incompetence and bigotry eh? You’d make a great successor to Hovind or a new disciple for Vox Day I must admit that much. Firstly, not every atheist is a skeptic and not every skeptic is an atheist that just seems like common knowledge in fact all I have to do to disprove this claim is point to one skeptic who isn’t an atheist. From that statement alone however I've concluded that this isn't about skepticism it's about atheism. So feel free to edit your title to say "I'm skeptical of atheism". I’ve seen numerous claims come and go purporting that atheism is a religious movement and none of these are particularly convincing all of them hinge off of strawman arguments and whenever I push for more information suddenly the claimant becomes quiet about these theistic atheists. But please; when you feel like making an argument rant that isn’t fuzzy and nebulous I’d be more than willing to listen.

[Ron_Tomkins]

I protest this thread.

[CFLarsen]

Michael Shermer has this to say about being skeptical of skepticism:
But skepticism as a way of thinking has a long historical tradition that can be traced back at least 2,500 years. The foremost historian of skepticism, Richard Popkin, tells us (1979, p. xiii): “Academic scepticism, so-called because it was formulated in the Platonic Academy in the third century, B.C., developed from the Socratic observation, ‘All I know is that I know nothing.’” Two of the popular received meanings of the word by many people today are that a skeptic believes nothing, or is closed minded to certain beliefs. There is good reason for the perception of the first meaning. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) gives this common usage for the word skeptic:

One who, like Pyrrho and his followers in Greek antiquity, doubts the possibility of real knowledge of any kind; one who holds that there are no adequate grounds for certainty as to the truth of any proposition whatever (Vol. 2, p. 2663).

Since this position is sterile and unproductive and held by virtually no one (except a few confused solipsists who doubt even their own existence), it is no wonder that so many find skepticism disturbing. A more productive meaning of the word skeptic is the second usage given by the OED:

One who doubts the validity of what claims to be knowledge in some particular department of inquiry; one who maintains a doubting attitude with reference to some particular question or statement.
Source (http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/manifesto.html)

The pertinent question is: What is better than science to unveil reality?

[Twiler]

Isn't being skeptical about skepticism pointless? Either it is a valid method of thought, or it is not. If it is valid, challenging it is incorrect. If it is invalid, applying it is incorrect.

So, you acheive nothing.

Could it be that this OP is actually meant to be an attack on the skeptic community? That seems to be the most likely conclusion!

[Hokulele]

Have we really considered the consequence of absolute denial without proof?


Absolutely not.

[Shadow]

One who, like Pyrrho and his followers in Greek antiquity, doubts the possibility of real knowledge of any kind; one who holds that there are no adequate grounds for certainty as to the truth of any proposition whatever



Would be my understanding.


Since this position is sterile and unproductive...


Why? Do I need to believe that I can think in order to think?



...unscientific individuals using equipment for purposes other than what it was intended to do; human error sure but hardly an indictment against the entire process of human knowledge.

Allow me to indict:

...Abuse of equipment to produce results it isn’t intended for is common.


When is common abuse of equipment to produce results not pernicious to an entire process of human knowledge?


...And ironic that since this is supposed to be an anti-skepticism rant that you actually provided an example of the practical use of skepticism when debunking frivolous and irrational claims. It doesn’t take much to produce ridiculous conclusions by using equipment in ways other than what it was intended for...

Is this an anti-skepticism rant?

Firstly, not every atheist is a skeptic and not every skeptic is an atheist that just seems like common knowledge in fact all I have to do to disprove this claim is point to one skeptic who isn’t an atheist. From that statement alone however I've concluded that this isn't about skepticism it's about atheism.

First, point I'm intrigued...secondly

A realpolitik for atheists, the “Enlightened”, to denounce freethinking scientific research and academics under their authority of “righteousness”, how typical of western religion and how ironic.


Perhaps I have been ethereal… Let me manifest.
I am accusing proselyte atheists as perfidious "skeptics" immortalizing the Christian canon of bigotry as "skepticism" nescient to their “righteous” skepticism.
There are skeptics and then there are the sectary skeptics. The later are enlisted under the mantra of “Woo! Woo! Woo! The bible isn’t true!” Enlightened to reality that what they believe could be a fatuous lie they reform ravenously to “the truth”. Yet, they are a scourge of hypocrites indoctrinated with Christian ethos. Vehement votaries to those that proclaim skepticism. They act as a drunken mob cheering, laughing and booing at the appropriate moments. They vomit asinine comments of banal thought. They are inane of individuality and recite “skeptical scripture” under the guidance of a preacher whether “Skeptical” or Religious… (to continue on would be an enormity to those blissfully oblivious of their worship and would lead to name calling…) (pun intended)

Perhaps I have provided a lucid rant?

In this nuclear fallout I ask clemency.

Some questions:
Can everything be proven with enough evidence (regardless of existence), passion and influence?

Is something only true when you believe it?

[Shadow]

...So feel free to edit your title to say "I'm skeptical of atheism".

How about the new title above?

[Marquis de Carabas]

However this perversion is no isolated, incompetence & bigotry seems to be the dogma for the Skeptical Priory.
I am offended. I assure you I am quite competent with my bigotry.

[CFLarsen]

One of the most important things to remember about science (and skepticism) is that we never get certainty - as in "no doubt whatsoever, for now and all eternity". What we get is provisional knowledge: We look at the evidence, see which hypothesis is the best supported, and if the scientific consensus agrees, then we have the scientific explanation. If new evidence comes along that topples the explanation, time for a new one.

My favorite example of how a scientific explanation changes is the atomic model: It went from the Greek idea of the unsplittable atom, over Dalton's atomic model, then Thomson/Rutherford's, then Bohr's, and then the subsequent refinements of Bohr's model that we use today.

It is the evidence that leads us to the scientific answers, which are provisional. If we want certainty, we have to believe.

Skeptics are not necessarily atheists. Skepticism does not inevitably lead to atheism.

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

When is common abuse of equipment to produce results not pernicious to an entire process of human knowledge?
Using equipment in ways that it was clearly not meant to be used (I.E. abused) to produce results that would otherwise not have been reached by using the equipment in its intended manner is always destructive to the process of human knowledge. You’ll notice that I never claimed otherwise; in fact what I specifically stated was “the entire process of human knowledge” not a specific process of human knowledge as denoted by your use of the word an. Bare in mind that I also made the argument that you were attempting to indict all human understanding when we, and by we I mean the majority of the JREF, were still apparently working under the delusion that this was an anti-skepticism rant.
Is this an anti-skepticism rant?

You know; a cynic might argue that you’re attempting to switch the goalposts here.

Perhaps I have been ethereal… Let me manifest.

You’ve been far more than ethereal, vapid, nebulous, and any number of descriptive words denoting a state of being unclear. Ethereal simply states that you weren’t being very clear your OP was damned right misleading!

I am accusing proselyte atheists as perfidious "skeptics" immortalizing the Christian canon of bigotry as "skepticism" nescient to their “righteous” skepticism.
There are skeptics and then there are the sectary skeptics. The later are enlisted under the mantra of “Woo! Woo! Woo! The bible isn’t true!” Enlightened to reality that what they believe could be a fatuous lie they reform ravenously to “the truth”. Yet, they are a scourge of hypocrites indoctrinated with Christian ethos. Vehement votaries to those that proclaim skepticismdict. They act as a drunken mob cheering, laughing and booing at the appropriate moments. They vomit asinine comments of banal thought. They are inane of individuality and recite “skeptical scripture” under the guidance of a preacher whether “Skeptical” or Religious… (to continue on would be an enormity to those blissfully oblivious of their worship and would lead to name calling…) (pun intended)

This post is more coherent and actually capable of debating when compared to your original post which consisted of a lot of incoherent ranting that could easily be interpreted as an anti-atheist rant. This is still by-and-large a rant it just so happens that this time you’ve actually given a more accurate definition of what it is you’re angry about. Which is something that no person here would necessarily disagree with; I’m certain many individuals here would criticize others for simply parroting the beliefs of others without having any real knowledge about what it is they’re talking about and more-so if these individuals were professing themselves to be skeptics. However, that’s not what you said the first time around it sounded like an attempt to indict skepticism and atheism as a whole rather than some newcomers to the ideas of skepticism and atheism who still harbor a kind of religious fervor and blind devotion to any and all skepticism legitimate or otherwise.

Some questions:
Can everything be proven with enough evidence (regardless of existence), passion and influence?

Proven no but with enough passion, influence, and what may appear to be evidence you can convince people of anything. There’s a book out there about how the Earth is flat, others that deny the Holocaust, claim UFOs abducted Jesus, and another that says the world was created in 6 days and that the stars are small enough to fall to Earth without incinerating it and that there was water enough to drown the whole planet…a best seller if I’m correct.

Is something only true when you believe it?

I’d say that people believe a lot of things that aren’t true.

A question of my own now; we clearly know now what it is that you’re angry at what exactly do you propose the “truly enlightened” skeptics and atheists do about it?

[plumjam]

The pertinent question is: What is better than science to unveil reality?

Depends very much which aspects of reality you are attempting to unveil.

[rocketdodger]

In fact the op's original post is vapid and completely void of any examples for good debate.

Yes.

I would guess that every single one of them is smarter than you are.

I would guess that most of us here are smarter than all of them.

[Big Les]

I protest the Mythbusters being called morons too. Maybe Rocketdodger meant that the exigencies of TV production meant that the show was necessarily non-rigorous in its application of the scientific method? :)

[rocketdodger]

And your evidence for this statement is...?

"Most educated people" == "me, trying to sound authorative."

duh

[technoextreme]

Maybe Rocketdodger meant that the exigencies of TV production meant that the show was necessarily non-rigorous in its application of the scientific method? :)
That's a kind of an obtuse point. How do you apply the scientific method to an engineering problem?
"Most educated people" == "me, trying to sound authorative."

duh
Ahhh you mean "Most educated people" == someone who bases his opinion on fantasy. I mean come on. The one guy is an electrical engineer who wrote a book before he ever appeared on television.

[rocketdodger]

I could be that I am simply not "educated enough" to agree with you. Perhaps you can teach me why you say that?

Because they consistently give up on otherwise plausible myths after their lack of knowledge on the issue leads them to a few failures.

Futhermore, I find their methods of measurement and simulation to be extremely wanting. They don't seem to use any computer modeling and as far as I can tell they have nothing but a zillion high-speed cameras, since that seems to be all they ever use.

Finally, I will never forgive them for completely failing to account 'cutting action' on the katana episode. The idea that anyone who claims to thoroughly "research" a topic missing the most important aspect of katana use is incredible -- as in, it greatly lowered their credibility in my eyes.

[technoextreme]

Because they consistently give up on otherwise plausible myths after their lack of knowledge on the issue leads them to a few failures.

Which ones so I could knock you in the head with a reality hammer?
Finally, I will never forgive them for completely failing to account 'cutting action' on the katana episode. The idea that anyone who claims to thoroughly "research" a topic missing the most important aspect of katana use is incredible -- as in, it greatly lowered their credibility in my eyes.
OOoo your one of those people. I don't know if the reality hammer will work for you.

[rocketdodger]

That's a kind of an obtuse point. How do you apply the scientific method to an engineering problem?

I would be happy if they applied engineering to their engineering problems.

What they apply instead is basic tinkering, a male intern who belongs at a gash station washing windows, an asian intern who might actually do some good if he bothered to use google, and some moderately attractive girl that seems to serve no purpose other than bringing in more adolescent male viewers.

I mean, don't get me wrong -- I like the show, and watch it every chance I get. Its just that half the time they conclude "busted" I am thinking to myself about a dozen other things they could have done differently that might have affected the outcome.

[technoextreme]

You know what all I hearing from you rocket is some woo (The katana argument is pure bunk) and absolutely no examples.

[rocketdodger]

Which ones so I could knock you in the head with a reality hammer?

How about riding the inflatable slide out of a plane, like in Temple of Doom? They had a clear success and they still called the myth busted. I will never understand that...

OOoo your one of those people. I don't know if the reality hammer will work for you.

Don't assume I think a katana can cut a rifle barrel, because I never said anything of the sort. I am just pointing out that any bit of research one does will lead them to the knowledge that cutting action is the primary reason katana's ..err... cut... so why would one ignore that?

[rocketdodger]

You know what all I hearing from you rocket is some woo (The katana argument is pure bunk) and absolutely no examples.

Wait.. you are claiming that it is "bunk" to assert that failing to realize that cutting action is essential to the working of a katana is either lazy or ignorant?

[technoextreme]

How about riding the inflatable slide out of a plane, like in Temple of Doom? They had a clear success and they still called the myth busted. I will never understand that...

Because they used it as a parachute. There is no way that you are going to be able to rig an airplane slide as a parachute while you are jumping out of a plane. I'll admit that this is probably a memory issue because I forgot their rational also. It makes perfect sense though.
Wait.. you are claiming that it is "bunk" to assert that failing to realize that cutting action is essential to the working of a katana is either lazy or ignorant?
It's ignorant. The Katana isn't a saw.

[grayman]

"Most educated people" == "me, trying to sound authorative."

duh

:)

[lupus_in_fabula]

Depends very much which aspects of reality you are attempting to unveil.

The observer independent, of course. :D

[rocketdodger]

Because they used it as a parachute. There is no way that you are going to be able to rig an airplane slide as a parachute while you are jumping out of a plane. I'll admit that this is probably a memory issue because I forgot their rational also. It makes perfect sense though.

No, there was one rep where they dummy was on the top of the slide for the entire fall, and landed on the top as well -- just like in the movie. I believe they discounted that rep because it was so unlikely, but... who cares? The fact that they observed it means it was plausible.

It's ignorant. The Katana isn't a saw.

I know. It is a knife. You have used those before, right?

[technoextreme]

I know. It is a knife. You have used those before, right?
Yeah but it just confirms my opinion that you have no clue what you are talking about. You are thinking that bananas and oranges fall under one category called apple.
No, there was one rep where they dummy was on the top of the slide for the entire fall, and landed on the top as well -- just like in the movie. I believe they discounted that rep because it was so unlikely, but... who cares?
It was so unlikely because they literally lashed the dummy to the raft.

[Wowbagger]

Would someone please start a Mythbusters thread, before this one gets split?

I don't think the Katana myth called for "cutting action", it was a myth that claimed slicing action. If the Katana failed, the myth could be debunked because the claim implied slicing instead of cutting.

But, I could be wrong. I am also working off of memory, as well.

[technoextreme]

Would someone please start a Mythbusters thread, before this one gets split?

Why would it get split? It's not like the op didn't start that part of the argument.

[rocketdodger]

Would someone please start a Mythbusters thread, before this one gets split?

I don't think the Katana myth called for "cutting action", it was a myth that claimed slicing action. If the Katana failed, the myth could be debunked because the claim implied slicing instead of cutting.

But, I could be wrong. I am also working off of memory, as well.

No, slicing and cutting are the same thing. Mythbusters simply used "chopping," or no lateral movement at all. Anyone familiar with bladed weapons knows that slicing/cutting is essential form them to work as intended.

Furthermore, the OP of this thread was nonsense so why not hijack it?

[rocketdodger]

Yeah but it just confirms my opinion that you have no clue what you are talking about. You are thinking that bananas and oranges fall under one category called apple.

No, I think you don't know what I am talking about.

So let us get it straight.

I am saying that if one claims to do adequate research, and then proceeds to test the cutting ability of a katana without using a cutting/slicing movement, they are either lazy or ignorant, because any research at all would have exposed the fact that a bladed weapon depends on a cutting/slicing movement to function properly.

Do you dispute that? What do you dispute? I don't see what you could possibly dispute about the above statement.

So the rest of the argument I present is as follows -- you probably disagree with something here.

1) Do the mythbusters claim to do adequate research? They don't explicitly say so, but I think it is implied.

2) Did the mythbusters test the cutting ability of a katana by fabricating a sword-swinging machine? Yes.

3) Did that machine feature any sort of a lateral cutting/slicing movement? No. It was purely a chopping movement.

So at this point we know, at least in the context of this one experiment, that they were either lazy or ignorant.

4) Did they mention that they could have added a cutting/slicing movement, but didn't, because they felt the results would not differ? No.

So we know they were probably not lazy, or at least, did not admit to being lazy (which they frequently do). So the only conclusion is that they were ignorant.

Furthermore, so were the akidoka idiots who they had on premises to "consult" over swordsmanship, because they obviously didn't explain to the mythbusters how important the cutting/slicing movement really is.

[ponderingturtle]

Most educated people agree that the Mythbusters are morons with money -- but the show is still fun to watch. Perhaps that is why it is fun to watch...

Well they don't have the time or money for being highly rigorous, but they are often more rigorous than gets onto the TV.

And like good scientists they are perfectly willing to try to reconfirm experiments and change the conclusions they have reached.

They seem to have some problems with the nature of the format that the show has evolved into though.

[Shadow]

...Furthermore, the OP of this thread was nonsense so why not hijack it?


Actually, dispute was my intent...

MythBusters is a sensitive subject because sectary “skeptics" think they are skeptics. I am skeptical of “MythBusters” (not to be confused with MythFinders)


Jamie Hyneman, Co-Host

Hailing from Indiana farm country, Jamie Hyneman is a multifaceted man: wilderness survival expert, boat captain, diver, linguist, animal wrangler, machinist and cook, to name a few. His career has been equally diverse: Jamie earned a degree in Russian language and ran a sailing/diving charter business in the Caribbean for several years before he moved over to the visual-effects industry.

Once he had joined that field and had worked for several special-effects companies, Jamie found his way to Colossal Pictures' model shop, where he managed the production of models and special effects for hundreds of commercials and movies. Then, 16 years ago, Jamie took over the shop and created M5 Industries Inc.

Jamie has worked on over 800 commercials for major automobile manufacturers, soft-drink companies (including 7-UP), athletic shoe companies (including Nike), and numerous other products. In the midst of all this activity, Jamie's company has diversified into toy prototyping and research and development in a variety of other areas as well.

The holder of several patents and the winner of numerous industry awards, Jamie is also a long-standing Screen Actors Guild member.

Today, while MythBusters occupies the majority of Jamie's professional activity, M5 is active mainly with developing cutting-edge technologies for a variety of industries.

Adam Savage, Co-Host

Adam Savage has spent his life gathering skills that allow him to take what's in his brain and make it real. He's built everything from ancient Buddhas to futuristic weapons, from spaceships to dancing vegetables, from fine art sculptures to animated chocolate — and just about anything else you can think of.

The son of a filmmaker/painter and psychotherapist, Adam has been making his own toys since he was allowed to hold scissors. Having held positions as a projectionist, animator, graphic designer, carpenter, interior and stage designer, toy designer, welder, and scenic painter, he's worked with every material and process he could get his hands on — metal, paper, glass, plastic, rubber, foam, plaster, pneumatics, hydraulics, animatronics, neon, glassblowing, mold making and injection molding, to name just a few.

Since 1993, Adam has concentrated on the special-effects industry, honing his skills through more than 100 television commercials and a dozen feature films, including Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace and Episode II: Attack of the Clones, Galaxy Quest, Terminator 3, A.I. and the Matrix sequels. He's also designed props and sets for Coca-Cola, Hershey's, Lexus and a host of New York and San Francisco theater companies.

Not only has he worked and consulted in the research and development division for toy companies and made several short films, but Adam has also acted in several films and commercials — including a Charmin ad, in which he played Mr. Whipple's stock boy, and a Billy Joel music video, "Second Wind," in which he drowns.

Today, in addition to co-hosting Discovery Channel's MythBusters, Adam teaches advanced model making, most recently in the industrial design department at the San Francisco Academy of Art. Somehow he also finds time to devote to his own art — his sculptures have been showcased in over 40 shows in San Francisco, New York and Charleston, W.Va.


Maybe they can build the transformer I’ve always wanted; a 7-Up can that transforms into a pair of Nike’s!!!


Tory Belleci
Ever since he was little kid, Tory Belleci knew he would work in the film industry. In 1994, after graduating from San Francisco State University's film school, he started working with Jamie Hyneman at a small production company. Tory worked as a stage manager, but quickly moved up the ranks.

A few years later Tory started work at Industrial Light and Magic, building models for films including Star Wars: Episode 1 - The Phantom Menace and Star Wars: Episode 2 - Attack of the Clones. Some of his models include the pod racers and Federation battleships. Tory worked for ILM for eight years as a model builder, sculptor and painter. Other movies that you can see his work in include Starship Troopers, Galaxy Quest, T3, The Matrix, The Matrix Reloaded and Van Helsing.

Tory also has written and directed his own short films including the 1999 short Sand Trooper, which played at the Slamdance Film Festival and also aired on the Sci-Fi Channel.

Tory began work on Discovery Channel's MythBusters in 2003, doing work behind the scenes and in the second season was featured as part of the show's build team.
Grant Imahara
Electronics and radio-control specialist Grant Imahara is a former animatronics engineer and model maker for George Lucas' Industrial Light & Magic, the special-effects shop where he worked on such movies as The Lost World: Jurassic Park, Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace, Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, A.I.: Artificial Intelligence and Van Helsing. Grant also worked on The Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions.

In addition to operating R2-D2 (one of only a handful of official operators), Grant has another claim to beloved-character fame: developing a custom circuit to cycle the Energizer Bunny's arm beats and ears at a constant rate. In fact, he's responsible for all the electronics installation and radio programming on the current generation of bunnies, even serving as the bunny's driver and crew supervisor on numerous commercials.

A native of Los Angeles, Calif., Grant earned a bachelor of science in electrical engineering from the University of Southern California. He's also the author of the book Kickin' Bot: An Illustrated Guide to Building Combat Robots. His own machine, "Deadblow," is a former BattleBots champion.
Kari Byron
Without forethought, Kari Byron has trained to be a MythBuster since she was a kid. By the age of 5 she was setting up experiments to test on her sister and using dolls as crash test dummies. Luckily for her parents, they always caught her right before little sister took a ride down a laundry chute or was the subject of an "around-the-world" attempt on the playground swings.
After graduating from San Francisco State and traveling the world, Kari began her career as an artist, working in sculpture and painting and holding successful exhibitions at some of San Francisco's leading galleries. "Artist" was only one of many hats she wore while searching for her place in the world. Her sculpting skills and love for odd jobs soon led her into the field of model-making and toy-prototyping, which led to a job with Jamie Hyneman at M5 Industries. It was at M5 that Kari got her first big break with the MythBusters team.
During the "vacuum toilet" segment of one of the first episodes (which examined whether a person could get sucked into an airplane toilet), Jamie needed a 3-D scan of a person's backside, and Kari had the right ... well, you know. Basically, she was in the right place at the right time. The rest is history, although we'd be remiss if we overlooked Kari's former job experience as a secret martini shopper, rose delivery driver and store mannequin to foil shoplifters — just to name a few. Who knew that a degree in film and sculpture would actually be applicable to a real-life career one day?
Now Kari works with the MythBusters team, using science and Yankee ingenuity to solve the mysteries of today's most compelling urban legends.


Well at there is one engineer. He “assembled” the energizer bunny army.

I won’t debate their ability to build enough Deathstars to exterminate opposition. I just desire a sole surviving mechanical engineer to enlighten us.

http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/meet/meet_main.html

[technoextreme]

No, I think you don't know what I am talking about.

Yeah I do. I'm saying your partially confused about the cutting action. It's not that hard to understand if you read wikipedia. The cutting action is more important in something serrated like a bread knife. You can get all the cutting action from just drawing the blade back and forth. A katana is not serrated hence it gets all of it's penetrating force in the same way a nail does. The reason why you draw the blade across is to cause as much damage as possible. It makes perfect sense in that manner though it does not help in any way to cut through the sword. The Mythbusters did that myth 100% correctly.

[rocketdodger]

Yeah I do. I'm saying your partially confused about the cutting action. It's not that hard to understand if you read wikipedia. The cutting action is more important in something serrated like a bread knife. You can get all the cutting action from just drawing the blade back and forth. A katana is not serrated hence it gets all of it's penetrating force in the same way a nail does. The reason why you draw the blade across is to cause as much damage as possible. It makes perfect sense in that manner though it does not help in any way to cut through the sword. The Mythbusters did that myth 100% correctly.

Well, we are at an impasse then.

If you can find any swordsmen, or even any people who know about swords, or even any people who know about knives, or hell even dudes that know about sharp stuff, that agree with your theory, be sure to let me know.

[Shadow]

The cutting action is more important in something serrated like a bread knife.


I used to work for Cutco...its still very significant in regular knives.


A katana is not serrated hence it gets all of it's penetrating force in the same way a nail does.


Apples and oranges.


The reason why you draw the blade across is to cause as much damage as possible.

Correct but it causes more damage because in order to penetrate deeper into an object the matter in front of it must be removed. Moving matter out of the way allows for deeper cuts. A nail works on the principle of driving matter away from its point in 360 degrees. A blade move matter away from its cut in 180 degrees. To help assist in effective use blades are pulled utilizing friction to drag matter out of the cut and heat the material creating a more malleable substance. All blades have minor imperfections and act as serrated blades.

Understand? or do you need documentaion?

[CFLarsen]

You don't need to have a degree in science to do science.

[technoextreme]

Understand? or do you need documentaion?
Yes but I think it still is a case of horrendously over thinking the problem. I mean horribly horrendously badly over thinking the issue. To the level that I butchered the English language in the previous sentence bad. What is more important is the material the knife is made out of.

[GreyICE]

I don't really care if the mythbusters screwed up a few myths. They're human, its a TV show, what the heck do you think might happen?

They encourage people, when they hear a claim to think "I wonder if that's really true." They encourage people, when they see an improbable idea, to ask "I wonder if that really works." They've repeatedly tested all manners of woo devices, and shown how all of them are fakes (making fun of them copiously). Skeptics are fallible - anyone who trusts another skeptics judgment 100% is not a skeptic. They encourage people to think about things in a critical manner, and that's a hell of a lot more important than if they accounted for the cutting action in a Katana swing.

[Elizabeth I]

Most educated people agree that the Mythbusters are morons with money

They are such morons that they are making quite good money while apparently having a hell of a lot of fun.

@Shadow: what the hell does "sectary" mean in this context?

[rocketdodger]

Yes but I think it still is a case of horrendously over thinking the problem. I mean horribly horrendously badly over thinking the issue. To the level that I butchered the English language in the previous sentence bad. What is more important is the material the knife is made out of.

It is over thinking the problem if the problem is cutting a machine gun barrel with a katana.

It is not over thinking if it were cutting, say, a small tree or a human torso with a katana.

[Tricky]

(Sigh) Yet another person comes here saying "I'm skeptical of skepticism" as if they had just said the most clever thing in the world. This is generally followed by some sort of straw man of skepticism and/or atheism that further cements their identity as a person who hasn't got a clue about what skepticism is or why their statement is nonsensical.

So I'll break it down for Shadow, and perhaps any others out there who think that they have stumbled on some sort of koan of significance

Skepticism = <not believing without evidence>

So "Skeptical of skepticism" means
<not believing without evidence> that <not believing without evidence> is a useful philosophy.

You are asking for useful evidence that evidence is useful. You might as well say "Everything I say is a lie, including this statement." Both are internally circular and devoid of meaning. So think before you try out a sound byte that seems like it is brilliant, but which exposes you as a person who either doesn't understand the meaning of words or doesn't understand logic or both.

And please don't flatter yourself that you have thought of this all by yourself. So have dozens of other people who have posted here. So has my wife, for that matter. To her credit, she finally learned and understood her error. Let's hope Shadow learns too. After all, this is the James Randi Educational Foundation.

[boojum]

Please see http://xkcd.com/397/

[technoextreme]

It is not over thinking if it were cutting, say, a small tree or a human torso with a katana.

True. I think we may be reaching an agreement here though I think we may differ on whether it matters if we are trying to cut a sword.

[Silentknight]

(Sigh) Yet another person comes here saying "I'm skeptical of skepticism" as if they had just said the most clever thing in the world. This is generally followed by some sort of straw man of skepticism and/or atheism that further cements their identity as a person who hasn't got a clue about what skepticism is or why their statement is nonsensical.

I have to wonder. Is being skeptical of skepticism like being cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs?

[slingblade]

Kind of, but without the sweet, chocolatey goodness.

[Ron_Tomkins]

I'm skeptical of people who are skeptical of skepticism.

There, how's that? See how this silly game leads nowhere?
Good.

[GreyICE]

I'm skeptical of people who are skeptical of skepticism.

There, how's that? See how this silly game leads nowhere?
Good.
I'm skeptical about the idea that it leads nowhere.

[rocketdodger]

True. I think we may be reaching an agreement here though I think we may differ on whether it matters if we are trying to cut a sword.

I just think it might matter. And frankly my biggest beef in this whole charade is the simple fact that they spent all this time building a stupid machine and never bothered to ask an expert to just try it themselves.

I really enjoy the show when they do that. They found an expert archer and used him, they find expert marksmen and use them, they find all kinds of experts. But no... for the katana episode, they went down to the local black belt factory and got some wannabes who did nothing but get their sword stuck in ballistics gel. Pffft.

[Ron_Tomkins]

I'm skeptical about the idea that it leads nowhere.

I'm not, unless evidence backs that one up.