Why do believers think that skeptics miss out? [Archive]

BillHoyt

31st October 2003, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
Its not genuine "skeptics" who miss out. Its those people who've never really looked into a subject, but whose minds are already firmly shut, who miss out.

People who won't even explore new things or wonder about them on their own...or try to understand why anyone -would- think something "odd" might have merit...people who accept the word of others that "its all bunk" and are perfectly content to look no farther themselves and yet still will arrogantly present themselves as authoritative debunkers of anyone who thinks otherwise.

Yes, I think those people, those who lack curiosity and a true spirit of inquiry, who would rather rely on the comfort of preconceived ideas and what "authorities" tell them...

The complacent...the ignorant....the uncurious...the smug...yes, I feel self proclaimed "skeptics" like those really do "miss out"....

Pure pap, Clancie. You ASSUME skeptics haven't looked into things. You IGNORE any and all attempts to show you critical thinking skills. You SMUGLY claim they are closed-minded.

Since when does "open minded" mean "anything goes?" It never has. We ask the credophiles, time and again, to show us the evidence. We ask the credophiles, time and again, to think logically and to keep foremost in mind why science has epistemological privilege. Please show us the evidence. Please support the claims.

Be our guest if you wish to return to the dark ages, but quit trying to blow out skeptic's candles. And don't expect us not to intervene when you try to drag someone out of the light.

hgc

31st October 2003, 07:25 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
Its not genuine "skeptics" who miss out. Its those people who've never really looked into a subject, but whose minds are already firmly shut, who miss out.

...I challenge you to name a single person on these boards (from the camp of "unbelievers") who exhibits these behaviors. I assume you'll accompany the claim with at least an argument as to why you think so, but don't feel that it's a requirement.

Jeff Corey

31st October 2003, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
Its not genuine "skeptics" who miss out. Its those people who've never really looked into a subject, but whose minds are already firmly shut, who miss out.

People who won't even explore new things or wonder about them on their own...or try to understand why anyone -would- think something "odd" might have merit...people who accept the word of others that "its all bunk" and are perfectly content to look no farther themselves and yet still will arrogantly present themselves as authoritative debunkers of anyone who thinks otherwise.

Yes, I think those people, those who lack curiosity and a true spirit of inquiry, who would rather rely on the comfort of preconceived ideas and what "authorities" tell them...those are the people who, imo, are not true skeptics.

The complacent...the ignorant....the uncurious...the smug...yes, I feel self proclaimed "skeptics" like those really do "miss out"....
I also don't see any skeptics here who conform to your caricature. It seems to me that the believers are the ones who fail to explore alternate explanations of their paranormal beliefs.
And, like Pam Buzzard and Steve Grenard, censor anyone who disagrees with them.

Dragonrock

31st October 2003, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
Its not genuine "skeptics" who miss out. Its those people who've never really looked into a subject, but whose minds are already firmly shut, who miss out.

People who won't even explore new things or wonder about them on their own...or try to understand why anyone -would- think something "odd" might have merit...people who accept the word of others that "its all bunk" and are perfectly content to look no farther themselves and yet still will arrogantly present themselves as authoritative debunkers of anyone who thinks otherwise.

Yes, I think those people, those who lack curiosity and a true spirit of inquiry, who would rather rely on the comfort of preconceived ideas and what "authorities" tell them...those are the people who, imo, are not true skeptics.

The complacent...the ignorant....the uncurious...the smug...yes, I feel self proclaimed "skeptics" like those really do "miss out"....

No one is completely open-minded, all people have their own ideas and prejudices. A skeptic is simply one who says "prove it" and absent that proof generally assumes the negative. What constitutes proof changes from invdividual to individual. What you accept as proof might be considered as little more than an uninteresting and unimpressive footnote. Perhaps some people here have higher scientific standards than you do.

CFLarsen

31st October 2003, 08:18 AM

Let's hear those names, Clancie. Who are you talking about?

hgc

31st October 2003, 08:25 AM

Clancie, Clancie, Clancie! I'm ringing the dinner bell. Serving up a large plate of crow if you don't name names.

Who's never really looked into a subject? Who's content to look no farther than themselves? Who lacks curiousity? Who relies on the comfort of preconceived ideas?

Oh, and what is the true spirit of inquiry? I smell a true Scotsman, and he's not had a bath since the first point of Aries was in Aries! Yech!

uneasy

31st October 2003, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by Suezoled
She asked me how I could live without mystique or mystery in my life.
I suppose I might ask why she doesn't find any mystique or mystery in anyone she meets. People are mysterious. What's going on their heads? Why do they do the things they do? Why do we find some of them so darned attractive? Why do we ourselves react in certain ways? Are we are the way we are through nature or nurture? etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Then maybe ask her to completely explain the human brain to you because she must have it all figured out.

BillHoyt

31st October 2003, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by hgc
I smell a true Scotsman, and he's not had a bath since the first point of Aries was in Aries! Yech!

Nay, Lad! No True Scotsman wouldda gone widdout a bat that long!

Cheers, lad,

Interesting Ian

31st October 2003, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by Zep
I'm not sure who said it (Carl Sagan?) but the real world that we know so far has far more exciting things on a far grander scale than the puny thoughts of some ascetic 3000-year-old desert nomads. The mystique is certainly there, and the questions are far more interesting than anything she might have considered: What is on the other side of that hill? Why does that object do that? How far away are those stars? How old is that rock?

Ummmm . .yeah lots of mystique and mystery thinking about how far away certain stars are and what lies beyond the hill! :eek: :rolleyes: Give me a break! All skeptics have is their science. And science, by means of theories, just describes the contents and patterns exhibited by our sensory perceptions. That is all it does. One must therefore conclude that if so called "skeptics" are correct in their interpretation of reality, I do not think that by any stretch of the imagination that the world could be deemed to be full of mystique and mystery! Indeed it is the most drab, bleak, vapid, boring interpretation of reality one could conceivably dream up. If that were not bad enough there is not even any particularly compelling reason to suppose it's true :confused:

Ratman_tf

31st October 2003, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Ummmm . .yeah lots of mystique and mystery thinking about how far away certain stars are and what lies beyond the hill! :eek: :rolleyes: Give me a break! All skeptics have is their science. And science, by means of theories, just describes the contents and patterns exhibited by our sensory perceptions. That is all it does. One must therefore conclude that if so called "skeptics" are correct in their interpretation of reality, I do not think that by any stretch of the imagination that the world could be deemed to be full of mystique and mystery! Indeed it is the most drab, bleak, vapid, boring interpretation of reality one could conceivably dream up. If that were not bad enough there is not even any particularly compelling reason to suppose it's true :confused:

"All we have to believe with is our senses, the tools we use to perceive the world: our sight, our touch, our memory. If they lie to us, then nothing can be trusted. And even if we do not believe, then still we cannot travel in any other way than the road our senses show us; and we must walk that road to the end."
-- Neil Gaiman, American Gods

You have my Pity, Ian.

patnray

31st October 2003, 08:50 AM

Suezoled: We know that they have it backwards, that they are masking the emptiness in their own lives by projecting it onto us. I turn it back to them. I say how sad that they are so disconnected from the hope and awe and wonder of the real world and human potential that they have to retreat to a world of fantasy and make believe to find meaning in their lives.

I usually just leave it at that, but if they persist, and I'm annoyed enough, I try to turn their world completely upside down. I tell them that they have such little faith in themselves and humanity that they probably interpret the parable of Adam and Eve eating from the fruit of the tree of knowledge as a failure and a fall from paradise rather than seeing it as the triumph and ascension to paradise it is....

BillHoyt

31st October 2003, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Ummmm . .yeah lots of mystique and mystery thinking about how far away certain stars are and what lies beyond the hill! :eek: :rolleyes: Give me a break! All skeptics have is their science. And science, by means of theories, just describes the contents and patterns exhibited by our sensory perceptions. That is all it does. One must therefore conclude that if so called "skeptics" are correct in their interpretation of reality, I do not think that by any stretch of the imagination that the world could be deemed to be full of mystique and mystery! Indeed it is the most drab, bleak, vapid, boring interpretation of reality one could conceivably dream up. If that were not bad enough there is not even any particularly compelling reason to suppose it's true :confused:

So, please, everybody, close your eyes. See, isn't that more beautiful? How can reality possibly be more beautiful than the fantasy your mind can create? Here, have some more soma...

Cheers,

Barkhorn1x

31st October 2003, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
Its not genuine "skeptics" who miss out. Its those people who've never really looked into a subject, but whose minds are already firmly shut, who miss out.

Yes, I think those people, those who lack curiosity and a true spirit of inquiry, who would rather rely on the comfort of preconceived ideas and what "authorities" tell them...those are the people who, imo, are not true skeptics.

Ooooh, Clancie, you are such a REBEL to believe in what you do. We are all so impressed by how BRAVE you are. :th:

Really, Clancie. After "looking into" the 50th JE transcript, the 20th failed JREF dowsing test, the 5 conflicting horoscopes cast for the same person or the last Intercessional Prayer experiment with negative results, do you really expect us to waste our time investigating EVERY claim?

Just find us a woo woo who can ACTUALLY do what they claim and show us some REAL proof - please. :hb:

Barkhorn.

SFB

31st October 2003, 09:54 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Give me a break! All skeptics have is their science. And science, by means of theories, just describes the contents and patterns exhibited by our sensory perceptions. That is all it does.

JesusGod, Man, just look around you and see what science brings you. The powers of science range from improved asphalt (versus brick roads - which were an improvement from gravel), to satellite radio. How can you deny what you know from your senses to be true? The results of Science are in your face and you deny science????

Yep, that's all we have. That's it.

You cannot deny improvements in daily life from 100 years ago, crap, 10 years ago. If not from science, from where?

You have proven to me your idiocy with the above post.

Barkhorn1x

31st October 2003, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
All skeptics have is their science. And science, by means of theories, just describes the contents and patterns exhibited by our sensory perceptions. That is all it does. One must therefore conclude that if so called "skeptics" are correct in their interpretation of reality, I do not think that by any stretch of the imagination that the world could be deemed to be full of mystique and mystery!

Ian - I'll be honest here. When I get to your posts and the point/counter-point that inevitably results from them - I just tune out.

So...for my edification., can you "bullet point" out your theory of reality so that an ignorant skeptic like myself can understand? I would appreciate it.

Barkhorn.

SFB

31st October 2003, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x
When I get to your posts and the point/counter-point that inevitably results from them - I just tune out.
Barkhorn.

Me too. But this one in particular bothers me. I don't expect a reply.

hgc

31st October 2003, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x

Ian - I'll be honest here. When I get to your posts and the point/counter-point that inevitably results from them - I just tune out.

So...for my edification., can you "bullet point" out your theory of reality so that an ignorant skeptic like myself can understand? I would appreciate it.

Barkhorn. It means all that you know about the world through observation is useless, and all that you dream up through introspection is golden. Cynical and solopsistic.

patnray

31st October 2003, 11:46 AM

Another way to put is that our knowledge of how the world really works makes us richer. It gives us a deeper and more profound appreciation for life and empowers us to make a better world. Magical beliefs have never improved our understanding nor have they ever been put to practical use in any way whatsoever. They enslave us and deny the very faculties that separate us from the animals.

Tricky

31st October 2003, 11:57 AM

It cannot be denied that there is a feeling you get when you think something magical is happening. Sometimes it is fear, like back when I used to believe in ghosts. Sometimes it is excitement, like back when I used to believe UFOs were aliens. Sometimes it is comfort, like back when I used to believe in God. But it is an interesting thing. I can still have those feelings even though I no longer believe in any of those things. It's like when a druggie discovers he really can be "high on life" and doesn't need the props any more.

But it is human nature to want to share you feelings with others and pity them if they can't have them for the same reason. (I saw earlier where somebody "pitied" Ian, and I thought, "that's the wrong thing to say." It infuriates me when somebody "pities" me because I can't find God or I don't believe in magick or trickle-down economics.) I'd like to share my love of skepticism with others too, just like they would like to share their magic with me. I admit it is harder to get people excited about skepticism (because it isn't "sexy") but I still try to turn people on to Randi, Sagan and others whenever I can. It is a wonderful thing watching a mind shake off the shackles of magical thinking and see the world as it really is for the first time.

Dragonrock

31st October 2003, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by Tricky
It cannot be denied that there is a feeling you get when you think something magical is happening. Sometimes it is fear, like back when I used to believe in ghosts. Sometimes it is excitement, like back when I used to believe UFOs were aliens. Sometimes it is comfort, like back when I used to believe in God. But it is an interesting thing. I can still have those feelings even though I no longer believe in any of those things. It's like when a druggie discovers he really can be "high on life" and doesn't need the props any more.

But it is human nature to want to share you feelings with others and pity them if they can't have them for the same reason. (I saw earlier where somebody "pitied" Ian, and I thought, "that's the wrong thing to say." It infuriates me when somebody "pities" me because I can't find God or I don't believe in magick or trickle-down economics.) I'd like to share my love of skepticism with others too, just like they would like to share their magic with me. I admit it is harder to get people excited about skepticism (because it isn't "sexy") but I still try to turn people on to Randi, Sagan and others whenever I can. It is a wonderful thing watching a mind shake off the shackles of magical thinking and see the world as it really is for the first time.

Tricky, I agree with this (except for the bit about trickle-down economics), skepticism isn't "sexy" but science is. Sagan and Asimov had a gift for making science exciting and their passion was (and still is) contagious. People need to realize the magic in learning why water expands when it freezes or why sodium and chlorine are deadly by themselves and essential for life when combined. Science IS magic, but it's magic that everyone can share in.

Clancie

31st October 2003, 01:06 PM

Posted by hgc

Clancie, Clancie, Clancie! I'm ringing the dinner bell. Serving up a large plate of crow if you don't name names.
Umm...hgc? Did I misunderstand the topic of this thread? :confused:

I thought the question was why believers feel skeptics miss out. Since I'm regarded as a so-called "believer" here, I explained what kind of skeptic I feel "misses out", and what "missing out" means to me in that context.

That's my answer to the question posed by this thread question. "Name names"???? hgc, what the heck? :confused: Are you saying that you think no self-professed skeptics like the ones I described actually exist?

Nor do I see why those I regard as -true- skeptics (those who pursue truth, wherever it leads, in the spirit of open-minded inquiry and with intellectual honesty and fairness) would be missing out on anything by not just "believing". As for the others...yes, I -do- feel they're missing out, most definitely......

CFLarsen

31st October 2003, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
I thought the question was why believers feel skeptics miss out. Since I'm regarded as a so-called "believer" here, I explained what kind of skeptic I feel "misses out", and what "missing out" means to me in that context.

Name them, please. Give examples.

Originally posted by Clancie
That's my answer to the question posed by this thread question. "Name names"???? hgc, what the heck? :confused: Are you saying that you think no self-professed skeptics like the ones I described actually exist?

You are trying to turn the tables here: Now, you want hgc to provide the evidence you should provide. You made the claim, you provide the evidence.

Originally posted by Clancie
Nor do I see why those I regard as -true- skeptics (those who pursue truth, wherever it leads, in the spirit of open-minded inquiry and with intellectual honesty and fairness) would be missing out on anything by not just "believing". As for the others...yes, I -do- feel they're missing out, most definitely......

Who are these people? Name them, please. Give examples.

TLN

31st October 2003, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Who are these people? Name them, please. Give examples.

Indeed.

Jeff Corey

31st October 2003, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by Clancie

Umm...hgc? Did I misunderstand the topic of this thread? :confused:

I thought the question was why believers feel skeptics miss out. Since I'm regarded as a so-called "believer" here, I explained what kind of skeptic I feel "misses out", and what "missing out" means to me in that context.

That's my answer to the question posed by this thread question. "Name names"???? hgc, what the heck? :confused: Are you saying that you think no self-professed skeptics like the ones I described actually exist?

As far as I can see, it's a null class.
But if you could specify at least one poster here who fits, it would falsify my hypothesis.
And please don't name Lucianacrhy or Insipid Ian.

hgc

31st October 2003, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by Clancie

Umm...hgc? Did I misunderstand the topic of this thread? :confused:I don't know. Let me quote it: Why to believers think that sceptics miss out?

Now, I'll tell you what it means to me -- I have often heard believers say things along the lines that sceptics, or unbelievers, or whatever you'll call them, are missing something of value in life. For instance, the example of my own sister who said to me that "[my] way ofters no hope."

Is that what the thread topic means to you?
I thought the question was why believers feel skeptics miss out. Since I'm regarded as a so-called "believer" here, I explained what kind of skeptic I feel "misses out", and what "missing out" means to me in that context.OK, so you're saying this about a certain kind of sceptic? So is it an attribute of scepticism at all? Or is it an attribute of people who just don't examine the world around them?That's my answer to the question posed by this thread question. "Name names"???? hgc, what the heck? :confused: Are you saying that you think no self-professed skeptics like the ones I described actually exist?I don't know if they exist. I certainly don't know of any around here, and was asking you to identify at least one that we know (to the extent we know people here) in common. When you say "self-professed" sceptic, well maybe, but then I don't want to tell you how you should define a sceptic. I don't begin and end with "self-professed."
Nor do I see why those I regard as -true- skeptics (those who pursue truth, wherever it leads, in the spirit of open-minded inquiry and with intellectual honesty and fairness) would be missing out on anything by not just "believing". As for the others...yes, I -do- feel they're missing out, most definitely...... Well, I guess we've fallen into a definitions problem. I'm truly not trying to dismiss your argument by redefining it, but you've described attributes of a certain type of person, and named that type "self-professed sceptic." First, I don't know of any self-professed sceptic who is like what you described. Second, I asked you for examples on the board, and I guess you don't have any. Can you describe example(s) from outside this forum?

This goes right to the heart of the topic. I know of believers who think we're missing out on something. Why do they think that? Your answer doesn't tell me anything, for the reasons I've just stated.

CFLarsen

31st October 2003, 02:17 PM

Clancie,

Just a recap of your own quotes:

"Spirit identification" is the key to mediumship (or to "cold reading demonstrations just like JE").

In the opinion of many here, JE is just a cold reader, too, like Neil. The point is, whether cold reading or not, if there is no spirit identified, nothing evidential presented to establish a specific "communicator", then it isn't mediumship (or fake mediumship).

Its not a question of style at all. It is the key difference between mediumship and a "psychic" reading/cold reading.

That's very clear. No communicator? Then it isn't mediumship.

So, what happens when JE does not communicate with spirits?

You analyzed four readings on LKL. You came to this conclusion:

My other observation is that these sample readings, imo, do not establish a spirit communicating with the callers.

No spirit communication. OK.

On JE’s side, I can only think of two possilities for this: (1) he may rely more on psychic abilities on LKL than we know, especially for the bad readings we all admit he gets in this format, and (2) perhaps I don’t understand his process and am wrong that he identifies a particular spirit to the sitter.

1) You have admitted that you cannot tell the difference between a psychic and a cold reader.

2) You have admitted that you do not know enough of the process.

How on Earth can you criticize skeptics for not knowing enough, when you don't either?

A few quotes from you, from TVTalkshows:

I never saw this nice thread. I have to say, skeptics or not, the tone here is just so incredibly refreshing after months of frequent JREF. A handful of nasty know-it-alls (especially some who are really -not- the least bit knowledgeable on the subject they are targeting) can really do you in!

...

Yes, probably definitely time (past time) for a break for me re: JREF. I started one a week or two ago and then the post from Ian Rowland of all unexpected people got me caught up in it again! I didn't think -anything- could do it, but that was the unexpected one!

Source (http://tvtalkshows.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=988688#post988688)

Why do you specifically refer to JREFers, when you seem most anxious not to refer to JREFers...on JREF?

Who did you refer to, when you mentioned the "nasty" people on JREF?

Who did you refer to, when you mentioned the "the least bit knowledgeable" people on JREF?

Who did you refer to, when you mentioned the people on JREF who "chased people off"?

CFLarsen

31st October 2003, 02:25 PM

Clancie,

Another of your posts from TVTalkshows:
And yet, after my time there, I think there -is- a handful (maybe almost two handfuls) of people who apparently would like nothing better than to run all the "woo-woos" off the board. Unfortunately, some of those people seem to post a lot more frequently--and a lot more belligerently--than the ones who sincerely want to argue the topics, and not just attack and discredit someone personally in any way they think they can do it, true

Who are you talking about?

uneasy

31st October 2003, 02:33 PM

blabbity blabbity blah
another thread shot to heck
putting them on my ignore list doesn't help
byeeee

Clancie

31st October 2003, 02:33 PM

I'm fascinated by people thinking there are -no- self proclaimed skeptics that fit my description. I find that, frankly...incredible!
Posted by hgc

Now, I'll tell you what it means to me -- I have often heard believers say things along the lines that sceptics, or unbelievers, or whatever you'll call them, are missing something of value in life. For instance, the example of my own sister who said to me that "[my] way ofters no hope."

I addressed that. I see a problem of "missing out" with the method (of some) skeptics, not their conclusions.
Posted by hgc

This goes right to the heart of the topic. I know of believers who think we're missing out on something. Why do they think that? Your answer doesn't tell me anything, for the reasons I've just stated.
I think I've made it clear in what areas I feel some people who say they are "skeptics" fall short of demonstrating the curiosity, intellectual honesty and desire to -search- for truth by becoming knowledgeable about the subject they criticize. For those people--those slavishly insisting on the truth of their preconceived ideas with no impulse to investigate and learn for themselves...yes, I feel they greatly "miss out".

So, yes, my view of the answer to this thread question seems to be quite different from your sister's.
Posted by hgc

First, I don't know of any self-professed sceptic who is like what you described. Second, I asked you for examples on the board, and I guess you don't have any. Can you describe example(s) from outside this forum?
Well, no, I don't think the thread topic requires people to "name names". But since there's so much demand for one, I guess I will (just so its clearly not, as Jeff mentioned, a null set....)

For my example, a public one, I offer....Leon Jaroff for his article in TIME magazine about JE. I feel that it is quite a good example of a pompous "skeptic" (and CSICOP founding member) who doesn't even bother to make an honest intellectual effort to research the subject he has chosen to debunk.

You asked for an example, and ....now you have it! :p

TLN

31st October 2003, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
For my example, a public one, I offer....Leon Jaroff for his article in TIME magazine about JE. I feel that it is quite a good example of a pompous "skeptic" (and CSICOP founding member) who doesn't even bother to make an honest intellectual effort to research the subject he has chosen to debunk.

How did you arrive at this conclusion? How do you know how much research he's done?

T'ai Chi

31st October 2003, 02:41 PM

Some believers think skeptics miss out, and some skeptics think believers miss out. It has more to do with people thinking others who don't share their beliefs miss out, than belief vs. skepticism.

Clancie

31st October 2003, 02:42 PM

Claus (momentarily off "Ignore")

...Interesting how you take a post from another board and chop it up into little pieces to make it look like different posts at different times (and leave out parts of it in the "chopping").

Is this how it's going here now? Will we visit renata's board and repost here any criticism of Hal...or other posters...or JREF...or...or...or???

Especially in "chopped" up formatting?

Nice touch from such a respected JREF "skeptic".....

Note to TLN:

Did you even -read- the article?

CFLarsen

31st October 2003, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
I'm fascinated by people thinking there are -no- self proclaimed skeptics that fit my description. I find that, frankly...incredible!

Well, you haven't named one single one on JREF, so how are we supposed to know who you are talking about?

Originally posted by Clancie
I addressed that. I see a problem of "missing out" with the method (of some) skeptics, not their conclusions.

But who are these skeptics on JREF? You expect people to argue from ignorance?

Originally posted by Clancie
I think I've made it clear in what areas I feel some people who say they are "skeptics" fall short of demonstrating the curiosity, intellectual honesty and desire to -search- for truth by becoming knowledgeable about the subject they criticize. For those people--those slavishly insisting on the truth of their preconceived ideas with no impulse to investigate and learn for themselves...yes, I feel they greatly "miss out".

But who are these skeptics on JREF?

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, no, I don't think the thread topic requires people to "name names". But since there's so much demand for one, I guess I will (just so its clearly not, as Jeff mentioned, a null set....)

For my example, a public one, I offer....Leon Jaroff for his article in TIME magazine about JE. I feel that it is quite a good example of a pompous "skeptic" (and CSICOP founding member) who doesn't even bother to make an honest intellectual effort to research the subject he has chosen to debunk.

You asked for an example, and ....now you have it! :p

No, no...you are evading the issue. You specifically singled out JREF on TVTalkshows. As far as I know, Jaroff does not post here. So, who on JREF do you think fits your description?

Originally posted by Clancie
Claus (momentarily off "Ignore")

Now, how did you know it was time to take me off ignore? You have accused me of having "cronies" on JREF who tip me off, but it seems you are the one with the cronies... :)

Originally posted by Clancie
...Interesting how you take a post from another board and chop it up into little pieces to make it look like different posts at different times (and leave out parts of it in the "chopping").

Is this how it's going here now? Will we visit renata's board and repost here any criticism of Hal...or other posters...or JREF...or...or...or???

Especially in "chopped" up formatting?

Nice touch for such a respected JREF "skeptic".....

You are free to point out how I have misrepresented your point.

TLN

31st October 2003, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
Note to TLN:

Did you even -read- the article? [/B]

Yes. Could you answer my question please?

Jeff Corey

31st October 2003, 03:11 PM

Clancie,
I don't really want to claus you, but I asked you, who on this board corresponds to your caricature.
Leon Jaroff doesn't count, unless he's the one who posts under the nick of Leo Firesign.
Threater

renata

31st October 2003, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
Claus (momentarily off "Ignore")

...Interesting how you take a post from another board and chop it up into little pieces to make it look like different posts at different times (and leave out parts of it in the "chopping").

Well, he did link to the thread, Clancie. I did not get the impression he deliberately attempt to make it look like different posts, he merely quoted the parts of 2 posts that he felt were relevant

Is this how it's going here now? Will we visit renata's board and repost here any criticism of Hal...or other posters...or JREF...or...or...or???

Well, Hal is a member of my board. I invited him when there was criticism of him there and some people were sending him out of context messages exaggerating the problem. He is perfectly aware of attitudes towards him there. Interestingly, I do not think you will find one person who posts both places who expresses a different opinion of Hal here and there. At mu.nu they are probably more likely to speak up, though. I believe all JREFers who have been criticized by name at mu.nu are members there, on 2 occasions when they have not been, I PMed them here and invited them over. I do not tolerate backstabbing and gossiping behind someone's back :). One person chose to join, one did not.

But if you think a post from my board would be relevant to this or any discussion, sure, you can repost it, as long as you link to the thread! Would be a welcome change from your past opinion, though :D

I think if someone claims one thing in one message board and claims something entirely different in another, then if it is topic relevant, it can be posted. It is the internet, after all. Had Claus posted your comments about utterly irrelevant topics, then I would agree with you. What, for example, does the opinion of some people at mu.nu about Hal have to do with this topic, I have no idea....

Yahweh

31st October 2003, 04:36 PM

Clancie, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the 5 or 6 people who responded to your post took your quote out of its context (if they read it at all).

To everybody who responded to Clancie's orginal post:

Clancie's original quotation that "upset" so many people was:
Its not genuine "skeptics" who miss out. Its those people who've never really looked into a subject, but whose minds are already firmly shut, who miss out.

I would agree. Why do I agree? Because this is what I got out of it: Clancie is saying "people who claim to be skeptics, but merely parrot what others say without doing any outside reading are the ones who 'miss out'".

That seems perfectly reasonable to me, I dont see why (or how) Clancie is suppose to support her inner personal opinion. However, I'm sure all of you could relate to a person who has never done any outside reading such as a person who claims "scientists have discovered that the dust on the moon is too thin".

Does that help at all?

People who won't even explore new things or wonder about them on their own...or try to understand why anyone -would- think something "odd" might have merit...people who accept the word of others that "its all bunk" and are perfectly content to look no farther themselves and yet still will arrogantly present themselves as authoritative debunkers of anyone who thinks otherwise.

This is extension of her last paragraph, I very much agree that arrogant "everything I think is right, everything you think is wrong" individuals are in fact a nuisance.

Yes, I think those people, those who lack curiosity and a true spirit of inquiry, who would rather rely on the comfort of preconceived ideas and what "authorities" tell them...those are the people who, imo, are not true skeptics.

I'm sure somebody saw the keywords "true skeptic" and tried to point out a "no true scotsman" fallacy, I dont think its necessary. Clancie is making reference to people who are closeminded (or even hostile) to ideas that differ from their own, and refuse to explore why the idea is valid or invalid.

The complacent...the ignorant....the uncurious...the smug...yes, I feel self proclaimed "skeptics" like those really do "miss out"....

I would agree.

I'm not sure everyone here is warranted in their choice to contribute to the unnecessary "Clancie bashing".

Yahweh

31st October 2003, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Some believers think skeptics miss out, and some skeptics think believers miss out. It has more to do with people thinking others who don't share their beliefs miss out, than belief vs. skepticism.

*CLINK*

Did you hear that? You just hit the nail right on the head :).

Interesting Ian

31st October 2003, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by SFB

JesusGod, Man, just look around you and see what science brings you. The powers of science range from improved asphalt (versus brick roads - which were an improvement from gravel), to satellite radio. How can you deny what you know from your senses to be true? The results of Science are [b]in your face and you deny science????

Err . . .no . . .looks like you've misunderstood me ;)

Yep, that's all we have. That's it.

You cannot deny improvements in daily life from 100 years ago, crap, 10 years ago. If not from science, from where?

You have proven to me your idiocy with the above post.

I absolutely agree with you that science is wonderful :)

Interesting Ian

31st October 2003, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by hgc
Originally posted by Barkhorn1x

Ian - I'll be honest here. When I get to your posts and the point/counter-point that inevitably results from them - I just tune out.

So...for my edification., can you "bullet point" out your theory of reality so that an ignorant skeptic like myself can understand? I would appreciate it.

Barkhorn.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It means all that you know about the world through observation is useless, and all that you dream up through introspection is golden. Cynical and solopsistic.

Err....no . . .I'm afraid not. How could we know about the external world if not through our observations?

thaiboxerken

31st October 2003, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by Yahweh

*CLINK*

Did you hear that? You just hit the nail right on the head :).

Not sure about that assessment though. I mean, some crack-heads think that non-drugged people are missing out on something wonderful. I'd rather just stick with reality than fantasy, drug induced or not. I'll watch and enjoy fiction, but not think that it's real.

69dodge

31st October 2003, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by MemeHacker
Maybe I'm an odd fellow but reading my science textbooks makes me feel . . . religious.I don't usually get that feeling, but I did when I read this wonderful description of electrical power generation in the Feynman Lectures on Physics (volume 2, section 16--4).When Faraday first made public his remarkable discovery that a changing magnetic flux produces an emf, he was asked (as anyone is asked when he discovers a new fact of nature), "What is the use of it?" All he had found was the oddity that a tiny current was produced when he moved a wire near a magnet. Of what possible "use" could that be? His answer was: "What is the use of a newborn baby?"

Yet think of the tremendous practical applications his discovery has led to.

[. . .]

[. . .] there is a long way to go from the basic principles to a practical and economic design. Yet it is just such careful engineering design that has made possible such a tremendous thing as Boulder Dam and all that goes with it.

What is Boulder Dam? A huge river is stopped by a concrete wall. But what a wall it is! Shaped with a perfect curve that is very carefully worked out so that the least possible amount of concrete will hold back a whole river. It thickens at the bottom in that wonderful shape that the artists like but that the engineers can appreciate because they know that such thickening is related to the increase of pressure with the depth of the water. But we are getting away from electricity.

Then the water of the river is diverted into a huge pipe. That's a nice engineering accomplishment in itself. The pipe feeds the water into a "waterwheel"---a huge turbine---and makes wheels turn. (Another engineering feat.) But why turn wheels? They are coupled to an exquisitely intricate mess of copper and iron, all twisted and interwoven. With two parts---one that turns and one that doesn't. All a complex intermixture of a few materials, mostly iron and copper but also some paper and shellac for insulation. A revolving monster thing. A generator. Somewhere out of the mess of copper and iron come a few special pieces of copper. The dam, the turbine, the iron, the copper, all put there to make something special happen to a few bars of copper---an emf. Then the copper bars go a little way and circle for several times around another piece of iron in a transformer; then their job is done.

But around that same pice of iron curls another cable of copper which has no direct connection whatsoever to the bars from the generator; they have just been influenced because they passed near it---to get their emf. The transformer converts the power from the relatively low voltages required for the efficient design of the generator to the very high voltages that are best for efficient transmission of electrical energy over long cables.

And everything must be enormously efficient---there can be no waste, no loss. Why? The power for a metropolis is going through. If a small fraction were lost---one or two percent---think of the energy left behind! If one percent of the power were left in the transformer, that energy would need to be taken out somehow. If it appeared as heat, it would quickly melt the whole thing. There is, of course, some small inefficiency, but all that is required are a few pumps which circulate some oil through a radiator to keep the transformer from heating up.

Out of the Boulder Dam come a few dozen rods of copper---long, long, long rods of copper perhaps the thickness of your wrist that go for hundreds of miles in all directions. Small rods of copper carrying the power of a giant river. Then the rods are split to make more rods . . . then to more transformers . . . sometimes to great generators which recreate the current in another form . . . sometimes to engines turning for big industrial purposes . . . to more transformers . . . then more splitting and spreading . . . until finally the river is spread throughout the whole city---turning motors, making heat, making light, working gadgetry. The miracle of hot lights from cold water over 600 miles away---all done with specially arranged pieces of copper and iron. Large motors for rolling steel, or tiny motors for a dentist's drill. Thousands of little wheels, turning in response to the turning of the big wheel at Boulder Dam. Stop the big wheel, and all the wheels stop; the lights go out. They really are connected.

Yet there is more. The same phenomena that take the tremendous power of the river and spread it through the countryside, until a few drops of the river are running the dentist's drill, come again into the building of extremely fine instruments . . . for the detection of incredibly small amounts of current . . . for the transmission of voices, music, and pictures . . . for computers . . . for automatic machines of fantastic precision.

All this is possible because of carefully designed arrangements of copper and iron---efficiently created magnetic fields . . . blocks of rotating iron six feet in diameter whirling with clearances of 1/16 of an inch . . . careful proportions of copper for the optimum efficiency . . . strange shapes all serving a purpose, like the curve of the dam.

If some future archaeologist uncovers Boulder Dam, we may guess that he would admire the beauty of its curves. But also the explorers from some great future civilizations will look at the generators and transformers and say: "Notice that every iron piece has a beautifully efficient shape. Think of the thought that has gone into every piece of copper!"

This is the power of engineering and the careful design of our electrical technology. There has been created in the generator something which exists nowhere else in nature. It is true that there are forces of induction in other places. Certainly in some places around the sun and stars there are effects of electromagnetic induction. Perhaps also (though it's not certain) the magnetic field of the earth is maintained by an analog of an electric generator that operates on circulating currents in the interior of the earth. But nowhere have there been pieces put together with moving parts to generate electrical power as is done in the generator---with great efficiency and regularity.

[ . . . ]

Modern electrical technology began with Faraday's discoveries. The useless baby developed into a prodigy and changed the face of the earth in ways its proud father could never have imagined.

CFLarsen

31st October 2003, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by Yahweh
Why do I agree? Because this is what I got out of it: Clancie is saying "people who claim to be skeptics, but merely parrot what others say without doing any outside reading are the ones who 'miss out'".

That seems perfectly reasonable to me, I dont see why (or how) Clancie is suppose to support her inner personal opinion. However, I'm sure all of you could relate to a person who has never done any outside reading such as a person who claims "scientists have discovered that the dust on the moon is too thin".

What does she base that opinion on? Can she exemplify? On TVTalkshows, she very explicitly pointed to JREF, but she did not point to anyone here, but to Jaroff, who is not on JREF (AFAIK).

When asked about Jaroff, she evaded again.

See a pattern here?

Originally posted by Yahweh
I'm not sure everyone here is warranted in their choice to contribute to the unnecessary "Clancie bashing".

Simply a question of clarifying what she means. It shouldn't be hard, yet Clancie evades the issue.

See a pattern here?

Yahweh

31st October 2003, 11:27 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What does she base that opinion on? Can she exemplify? On TVTalkshows, she very explicitly pointed to JREF, but she did not point to anyone here, but to Jaroff, who is not on JREF (AFAIK).

When asked about Jaroff, she evaded again.

See a pattern here?

I'd imagine she bases her opinion on what all opinions are based upon: Observation, experience, what she knows of the subject, and inner personal preference (I'm sure Clancie has said something along those lines before).

And if she "evades" a question, I see nothing wrong with it. Whether this is a skeptics board or not, I dont think she is under any kind of "contract" to answer a question if she doesnt feel the need to.

I'm pretty sure you dont have to look far to find a few skeptics on this board who are of the "everything I think is right, everything you think is wrong" type (think of the less mature members)... but its not nice to name names.

Simply a question of clarifying what she means. It shouldn't be hard, yet Clancie evades the issue.

See a pattern here?

Hey, if the way Clancie puts her opinions into words needs clarification (I'll do it for her if need be), that's fine, but its not cool to hound her about it..

Jeff Corey

31st October 2003, 11:35 PM

Oh Clancie,
Please, I beg you on my somewhat shattered knee, who are the skeptical people you carictacured here?

CFLarsen

31st October 2003, 11:53 PM

Yahweh,

Nobody is "hounding" anyone. Well, LK might think differently about how Clancie follows him around, but... :)

If Clancie is claiming that "people who claim to be skeptics, but merely parrot what others say without doing any outside reading are the ones who 'miss out'", then she should exemplify it. With people here, on JREF, because:

1) She made the claim here.
2) She made the same claim on TVTalkshows, this time specifically pointing to JREF.

Now, if Clancie does not want to give examples, then fine. She is just a troll, then. She can't be taken seriously.

SteveGrenard

1st November 2003, 12:23 AM

quote:Originally posted by Clancie
For my example, a public one, I offer....Leon Jaroff for his article in TIME magazine about JE. I feel that it is quite a good example of a pompous "skeptic" (and CSICOP founding member) who doesn't even bother to make an honest intellectual effort to research the subject he has chosen to debunk.

Larson Clone: How did you arrive at this conclusion? How do you know how much research he's done?

Clancie is correct in her characterization of Jaroff.

Leon Jaroff makes Jason Blair look like a Boy Scout. His article on JE was the biggest pile of pure crap ever to be published in TIME magazine and that's not easy since TIME publishes a lot of crap.

It was not researched, it was written for him by James Randi who also provided the mysterious source (the unfindabe M O'Neill) whose every statement was a contradiction or could be overturned by simple logic. It was a put up job to denigrate Edward the week his show was being rolled out in syndication. It was an attempted hatchet job that failed and embarassed Jaroff in the end. He tried to defend it on LKL and he came off looking like a doddering idiot. It's a good thing he's retired. Randi should've left him alone instead of use him this way.

Fact: Leon Jaroff "wrote" (I use the term loosely) this story in Boca Raton, Florida where he is retired. It's a few miles north of JREF. He never went to the show, never went to the studio and never interviewed anyone connected with the program for this article .... which was written for him by Randi anyway. He never had anyone from TIME whose NY editorial offices are within walking distance of JE's TV studio check any of his facts in person
yet he implies that he was there in person and makes all kinds of assertions to make it seem like he did. But if you read carefully you will see through the fabrications.

Sorry, Jaroff who used to be a half way decent science writer I respected has sold himself out on this .....for one last byline I guess.

CFLarsen

1st November 2003, 12:38 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Clancie is correct in her characterization of Jaroff.

Clancie was pointing to skeptics on JREF. Jaroff is not on JREF (AFAIK).

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Leon Jaroff makes Jason Blair look like a Boy Scout. His article on JE was the biggest pile of pure crap ever to be published in TIME magazine and that's not easy since TIME publishes a lot of crap.

Are you saying that Jaroff has lied? Where has Jaroff lied, Steve?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
It was not researched, it was written for him by James Randi

Please provide evidence of this.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
who also provided the mysterious source (the unfindabe M O'Neill) whose every statement was a contradiction or could be overturned by simple logic.

Michael O'Neill is just as "unfindable" as any other sitter on the show.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
It was a put up job to denigrate Edward the week his show was being rolled out in syndication. It was an attempted hatchet job that failed and embarassed Jaroff in the end. He tried to defend it on LKL and he came off looking like a doddering idiot. It's a good thing he's retired. Randi should've left him alone instead of use him this way.

Please point to the "embarrassment" that Jaroff has suffered.

Please point to the evidence that Randi used Jaroff.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Fact: Leon Jaroff "wrote" (I use the term loosely) this story in Boca Raton, Florida where he is retired. It's a few miles north of JREF.

So? Is it a crime to live in Florida? You live and work close to the TV studio, Steve, is that a problem, too?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
He never went to the show, never went to the studio and never interviewed anyone connected with the program for this article .... which was written for him by Randi anyway.

Again, please provide evidence that Randi wrote Jaroff's story.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
He never had anyone from TIME whose NY editorial offices are within walking distance of JE's TV studio check any of his facts in person

As we know, nobody critical of the show is allowed backstage.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
yet he implies that he was there in person and makes all kinds of assertions to make it seem like he did.

Please point to where Jaroff "implies" that he was there in person.

Please list all the "assertions" that Jaroff made.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
But if you read carefully you will see through the fabrications.

Please list all the fabrications.

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Sorry, Jaroff who used to be a half way decent science writer I respected has sold himself out on this .....for one last byline I guess.

Yes, that's nice.

Please answer the questions, Steve. (And let's not forget that Clancie pointed to skeptics here, on JREF...nice try of derailing the thread...)

Clancie

1st November 2003, 07:22 AM

Yahweh, thank you for reading and understanding what I posted.. I don't know why some people so routinely misinterpret and misrepresent what I write. Accidental? Intentional? Not bothering to actually read it? Just basing a response on their preconceived ideas of what 'believers' think? Maybe I need a simultaneous translator here? I wonder.

What I posted in this thread is in answer to the question that started thread. I don't see where it says "Skeptics' means JREF-ers. Do believers think we're missing out?" Maybe if people reread the question, my answer will be clearer. :rolleyes:

Steve,

Yes, Jaroff is a glaring example of exactly the kind of 'skepticism' I'm referring to. (As well as being a rather basic example of what I mean, that I imagine many people here are familiar with, or, if interested, could easily check out).

Jeff,
"Leon Jaroff" makes it not a null set. If you disagree...fine. But this is my opinion in answer to a question in the thread that asked for an opinion.

I get tired of the presumption that believers condescend to skeptics by saying things like "Oh you poor thing! No belief system like mine! How ever do you cope!"

I don't think that. That was my point.

....On the other hand, condescension works both ways, doesn't it? As in the oft-heard remark from skeptics to or about believers, "There's no point in discussing things with them anyway, since they are incapable of rational thought." Big presumption there, too....i.e. "I am right--I know it--and those who disagree do so on emotional, not intellectual grounds. I am just sooooo smart!" )

Now I'm waiting to see if people are actually going to say they've never known 'skeptics' with that attitude either..... :rolleyes:

Jeff Corey

1st November 2003, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
I get tired of the presumption that believers condescend to skeptics by saying things like "Oh you poor thing! No belief system like mine! How ever do you cope!"

I don't think that. That was my point.

I've heard many believers say words to that effect.

....On the other hand, condescension works both ways, doesn't it? As in the oft-heard remark from skeptics to or about believers, "There's no point in discussing things with them anyway, since they are incapable of rational thought." Big presumption there, too....i.e. "I am right--I know it--and those who disagree do so on emotional, not intellectual grounds. I am just sooooo smart!" )

Now I'm waiting to see if people are actually going to say they've never known 'skeptics' with that attitude either..... :rolleyes:
In my years with NYASk, I've never encountered that attitude from skeptics.

Ratman_tf

1st November 2003, 08:18 AM

Hm. Hm hm. Hrm. I'm going to have to back Clancie on this one. And I even think the point is valid, but I strongly believe it applies to skeptics and believers both. I think believers in general are of the 'you're just closed-minded' and 'your life must have no meaning or mystery' mindset much, much more than skeptics, but I can see it on both sides.

For those of you riding on Clancie, go re-read his/her (sorry, I didn't get which pronoun I should be using here.) post again.

thaiboxerken

1st November 2003, 08:29 AM

It's really bad coming from the believer side though. I told a friend that I don't believe in gods, spirits, souls or mediums and she replied that she pitied me for not having hope and having a sad outlook on life.

I told a cousin that I'm atheist, and he replied that I'm missing out on a wonderful afterlife because of it.

Clancie

1st November 2003, 08:34 AM

Posted by Jeff Corey

Clancie: I get tired of the presumption that believers condescend to skeptics by saying things like "Oh you poor thing! No belief system like mine! How ever do you cope!"

I don't think that. That was my point.

Jeff Corey: I've heard many believers say words to that effect.

Well, personally I've -read- comments like that myself, too. Nevertheless, my point is that, yes, -some- believers think and say that.....not by any means, all. I'm one who doesn't think that and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

In my years with NYASk, I've never encountered that attitude from skeptics [the attitude that believers are incapable of rational thought when it comes to their beliefs, that they are based on emotion, not intellect and reasoning].
Hmm....are you saying you have never known any skeptics who have that attitude? Or that, iyo, the ones at NYASk haven't ever expressed (don't have) those attitudes?

And would you seriously say you've never seen skeptics express that kind of opinion...ever?

edited to add: RatcompII, it's she. I first used my dog's name when I signed up here ("Clancy" is tough enough for this board), but didn't realize I was going to actually be posting. It wouldn't be my favorite screen name in the whole world, but...the "ie" ending is supposed to help).

thaiboxerken

1st November 2003, 08:40 AM

[the attitude that believers are incapable of rational thought when it comes to their beliefs, that they are based on emotion, not intellect and reasoning].

It's true, unless you can come up with valid and scientific evidence for such beliefs... it's irrational to believe in them. The reasoning behind such beliefs have always been fallicious and emotional. You can prove me wrong by providing a logical and objective reason to believe in such things.

Interesting Ian

1st November 2003, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
[the attitude that believers are incapable of rational thought when it comes to their beliefs, that they are based on emotion, not intellect and reasoning].

It's true, unless you can come up with valid and scientific evidence for such beliefs... it's irrational to believe in them. The reasoning behind such beliefs have always been fallicious and emotional. You can prove me wrong by providing a logical and objective reason to believe in such things.

Please demonstrate how my reasoning is fallacious and emotional. I'm actually genuinely interested in having this question answered.

MemeHacker

1st November 2003, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by 69dodge
I don't usually get that feeling, but I did when I read this wonderful description of electrical power generation in the Feynman Lectures on Physics (volume 2, section 16--4).
:) Yeah, that's exactly the kind of stuff that I was thinking of. Usually my texts aren't nearly as inspirational as the section you presented but I can get myself motivated to drudge through the more tedious aspects of subjects by imagining related scientific accomplishments in a similar grandiose manner.

thaiboxerken

1st November 2003, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Please demonstrate how my reasoning is fallacious and emotional. I'm actually genuinely interested in having this question answered.

Your arguments have been refuted more times than can be counted. But, for S&G's, let's try to answer a few questions.

1. Why do you believe in ghosts?
2. Why do you believe in an afterlife?
3. Why do you believe in souls?
4. Why do you believe you are intelligent?

T'ai Chi

1st November 2003, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

The reasoning behind such beliefs have always been fallicious and emotional. You can prove me wrong by providing a logical and objective reason to believe in such things.

Prove you wrong? We're all still waiting for you to prove yourself right first.

thaiboxerken

1st November 2003, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Prove you wrong? We're all still waiting for you to prove yourself right first.

No need to, just read the posts of the believers.. it's self-evident. If you can find ONE believer that believes in the paranormal because of the rational and objective evidence involved, let me know.

Interesting Ian

1st November 2003, 10:47 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Please demonstrate how my reasoning is fallacious and emotional. I'm actually genuinely interested in having this question answered.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your arguments have been refuted more times than can be counted. But, for S&G's, let's try to answer a few questions.

1. Why do you believe in ghosts?
2. Why do you believe in an afterlife?
3. Why do you believe in souls?
4. Why do you believe you are intelligent?

I'm afraid I must insist that you answer my question. Point to one place where my arguments, say on life after death, have been refuted.

Jeff Corey

1st November 2003, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Prove you wrong? We're all still waiting for you to prove yourself right first.
No we are not all still waiting. Maybe you are. If so, feel free to do so while the rest of us get on with more important things.

SteveGrenard

1st November 2003, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

No we are not all still waiting. Maybe you are. If so, feel free to do so while the rest of us get on with more important things.

The resources which give you the relevant evidence have been cited. So
no, we are waiting for the solid, scientific refutations you claim exist. If this is an impasse (learn to recognize impasse ... its a 4-way stop sign interesection in Minnesota) I suggest we all get on with more important things then.

There will always be divergence of thought, opinion, beliefs.

thaiboxerken

1st November 2003, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I'm afraid I must insist that you answer my question. Point to one place where my arguments, say on life after death, have been refuted.

Point to one argument that has not.

SteveGrenard

1st November 2003, 11:41 AM

Arguments don't cut it , the body of evidence does. Here are the resources once again for the positive evidence. There is NO solid, scientific evidence refuting the survival hypothesis or the ability of some persons to communicate with the conciousness of deceased or living persons via telepathy:

Parapsychological Association (an affiliate of the AAAS) at:

www.parapsych.org

Society of Psychical Research (UK)

www.spr.ac.uk

American Society of Psychical Research

www.aspr.com

University of Virginia-Div of Personality Sudies (new website address BTW) at:

http://www.healthsystem.virginia.ed...onalitystudies/

Jeff Corey

1st November 2003, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard

The resources which give you the relevant evidence have been cited. So
no, we are waiting for the solid, scientific refutations you claim exist. If this is an impasse (learn to recognize impasse ... its a 4-way stop sign interesection in Minnesota) I suggest we all get on with more important things then.

There will always be divergence of thought, opinion, beliefs.
It's not always about you, Grenard.
Not all posts are directed at you. That one was in response to T'ai Chi.
And show where I claim that "solid, scientific refutations" exist. You must be confused.

thaiboxerken

1st November 2003, 11:48 AM

Arguments don't cut it , the body of evidence does. Here are the resources once again for the positive evidence. There is NO solid, scientific evidence refuting the survival hypothesis or the ability of some persons to communicate with the conciousness of deceased or living persons via telepathy:[/QUOTE]

Yet again, the believers attempt to shift the burden of evidence to the skeptics. There is NO solid, scientific evidence supporting the survival hypothesis or the ability of some persons to communicate with the consciousness of the deceased or living persons via telepathy.

Your "body of evidence" doesn't exist.

SteveGrenard

1st November 2003, 11:48 AM

Corey:
It's always about you, Grenard.
Not all posts are directed at you.

Yeah, sorry. Learned this from Claus and Ed. You know them right? Anyway, thanks for acknowledging that there is no scientific refutation of what Ian claims. I assume that was what you were doing when you said you made no such claim that there was. Good, now your getting somewhere. Sorry for the interruption.

SteveGrenard

1st November 2003, 11:50 AM

Here is the body of evidence, or where it can be found, which does not exist:

Parapsychological Association (an affiliate of the AAAS) at:

www.parapsych.org

Society of Psychical Research (UK)

www.spr.ac.uk

American Society of Psychical Research

www.aspr.com

University of Virginia-Div of Personality Sudies (new website address BTW) at:

http://www.healthsystem.virginia.ed...onalitystudies/

thaiboxerken

1st November 2003, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Here is the body of evidence, or where it can be found, which does not exist:

Exactly, these journals don't have any credible evidence to support the claims made.

Jeff Corey

1st November 2003, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Anyway, thanks for acknowledging that there is no scientific refutation of what Ian claims. I assume that was what you were doing when you said you made no such claim that there was.
You make too many incorrect assumptions. That's one.

thaiboxerken

1st November 2003, 12:15 PM

Anyway, thanks for acknowledging that there is no scientific refutation of what Ian claims.

What Ian claims are not based on evidence or critical thinking.

T'ai Chi

1st November 2003, 12:25 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

No need to, just read the posts of the believers.. it's self-evident.

Nothing is self evident and skeptics aren't immune from defending their claims. You must provide evidence for your claims like anyone else.

thaiboxerken

1st November 2003, 12:28 PM

Nothing is self evident and skeptics aren't immune from defending their claims. You must provide evidence for your claims like anyone else.

No. The believers haven't given ONE rational argument for their beliefs or evidence, that's why the skeptics are still skeptical. Their beliefs are irrational by definition, that's why they are called "paranormal" beliefs. Feel fry to set me straight by providing one rational and valid argument by a believer coupled with evidence pertaining to the paranormal.

Interesting Ian

1st November 2003, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

I'm afraid I must insist that you answer my question. Point to one place where my arguments, say on life after death, have been refuted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Point to one argument that has not.

All of them.

T'ai Chi

1st November 2003, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Feel fry to set me straight by providing one rational and valid argument by a believer coupled with evidence pertaining to the paranormal.

You still haven't provided evidence for your claims. Yes, they have a burden, but so do you. You stated for others to prove you wrong which implies you believe you are right.

It sounds like your entire "evidence" consists of 'go read the posts of the believers', etc.

thaiboxerken

1st November 2003, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

You still haven't provided evidence for your claims. Yes, they have a burden, but so do you. You stated for others to prove you wrong which implies you believe you are right.

It sounds like your entire "evidence" consists of 'go read the posts of the believers', etc.

Still trying to shift the burden to me isn't going to work. The believers have the claim that they have some rational and logical reasons for believing in their particular flavors of paranormal BS. Yet, not ONE believer has provided a rational or logical reason to believe in their nonsense. My position is just one of doubt, the burden is upon the believers to provide their logical and rational reasons.

SteveGrenard

1st November 2003, 04:15 PM

http://www.c-far.org/docs/articles/djr_whitecrow.htm

"Gödel's theorem is often loosely paraphrased as meaning that 'there will always be some true things that can't be proven', and 'it's not possible to build intelligent machines'."

by D&J Rousseau and excerpted from the above website.

See also on same site "What is Proof?" in docs section of c-far.

thaiboxerken

1st November 2003, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
http://www.c-far.org/docs/articles/djr_whitecrow.htm

Goedel's Thorem. It is expalined in the above abstract.

I am simply awaiting the believers' "white crow". So far, all of their reasons for believing have been "black crows. "

Eos of the Eons

1st November 2003, 06:53 PM

Haven't read every dang post, so this may be some kind of repetition. I'm filled with tons of wonder about the universe and how it got here. I am daily amazed and awed about life as it is, and with how much we can't possibly know. I'm thrilled to speculate over new 'string theories' and such.

Just because I don't claim to know how we got here and am still open to this discovery in a non-religious context does not mean I'm missing out on anything just because I don't follow some god notions and fear bumps in the night from perceived ghosts and demons.

So I don't need to feel fathered by some god, or feel my destiny is pre-determined and there's nothing I can do about it. That would hugely suck IMO.

I like that I feel the future hasn't happened, and my choices affect my life's outcome. I like that I don't have some horrible god rapping my ass for thinking a 'sinful' thought. I like knowing that once I die that it's like before I was born. The end...my progeny is my legacy, my reward for living right and showing them the 'right path' so that they be just as successful at bringing healthy youngsters into the world who will carry on our genes to the future so that our progeny experience the future.

I'm overfull with fulfillment and happiness at my destiny.

Ratman_tf

1st November 2003, 09:40 PM

Originally posted by Clancie

edited to add: RatcompII, it's she. I first used my dog's name when I signed up here ("Clancy" is tough enough for this board), but didn't realize I was going to actually be posting. It wouldn't be my favorite screen name in the whole world, but...the "ie" ending is supposed to help).

Gotcha. :) I thought I'd seen you use the 'she' pronoun before, but couldn't remember when typing my reply.

CFLarsen

1st November 2003, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
Yahweh, thank you for reading and understanding what I posted.. I don't know why some people so routinely misinterpret and misrepresent what I write. Accidental? Intentional? Not bothering to actually read it? Just basing a response on their preconceived ideas of what 'believers' think? Maybe I need a simultaneous translator here? I wonder.

Maybe you need to express yourself more clearly. When one or two "misinterprets" you, you may still be right. When a lot "misinterprets" you, you may start wondering if you are not to blame.

Originally posted by Clancie
What I posted in this thread is in answer to the question that started thread. I don't see where it says "Skeptics' means JREF-ers. Do believers think we're missing out?" Maybe if people reread the question, my answer will be clearer. :rolleyes:

Here:
(Posting as Gryphon)
Gyphon 68.170.38.118 October 31st, 2003 04:11 AM

I never saw this nice thread. I have to say, skeptics or not, the tone here is just so incredibly refreshing after months of frequent JREF. A handful of nasty know-it-alls (especially some who are really -not- the least bit knowledgeable on the subject they are targeting) can really do you in!

(Lurker)

Regardless, I hope you keep posting over there. without you and clancie the Paranormal forum would be a drag.

(G2)

That is a really nice comment to read, Lurker. And I would think more people would feel that way, too, frankly. How much fun would it be to have a board full of people who all share exactly the same ideas you do, whatever they are?

And yet, after my time there, I think there -is- a handful (maybe almost two handfuls) of people who apparently would like nothing better than to run all the "woo-woos" off the board. Unfortunately, some of those people seem to post a lot more frequently--and a lot more belligerently--than the ones who sincerely want to argue the topics, and not just attack and discredit someone personally in any way they think they can do it, true or false, fairly or unfairly.

And then there are people...well, we know one, neo...who not only responds to each and every of my "Paranormal" posts (despite being on "Ignore"), but actually would follow me from forum to forum....If I say "No Schwartzenegger" this Claus person would arrive to contradict me....If I posted some advice to someone who asked about learning Chinese, Claus (who obviously doesn't know Chinese himself) arrived at that thread, too--not to offer advice of his own on the subject, but simply to accuse me of not even knowing that there is a difference between Mandarin and Cantonese! (duh) Then he apparently liked making that accusation so much that he continued to repeat it on other threads as well! As someone pointed out in my defense, to some people there, it doesn't matter WHAT a "believer" posts about, they MUST be attacked for it! It is a MISSION!

Reminds me of the old Irving Berlin song, "...I say potatoe, You say po-tah-toe; I say tomatoe, and you say "to-mah-toe"...." etc. What's the name of that song again?

Oh yes. "Let's Call the Whole Thing Off!"

Burnout at JREF, neo? Sorry for venting so much, but...yes, I definitely think so!
(Emphasis mine)

Hey, you asked for it, you got it....

....you are not saying that what you post on another board does not apply here? That, since you claim didn't post the claim here, you never made it at all? You were not referring to JREFers?

Originally posted by Clancie
Yes, Jaroff is a glaring example of exactly the kind of 'skepticism' I'm referring to. (As well as being a rather basic example of what I mean, that I imagine many people here are familiar with, or, if interested, could easily check out).

Why don't you make your own case, instead of asking people to do it for you?

Originally posted by Clancie
"Leon Jaroff" makes it not a null set. If you disagree...fine. But this is my opinion in answer to a question in the thread that asked for an opinion.

Ah, back to the old "opinion" vs. "fact" again. I figured it would degenerate into this.

Originally posted by Clancie
I get tired of the presumption that believers condescend to skeptics by saying things like "Oh you poor thing! No belief system like mine! How ever do you cope!"

I don't think that. That was my point.

No believers do this? (Yes, I am turning the tables on you here)

Originally posted by Clancie
....On the other hand, condescension works both ways, doesn't it? As in the oft-heard remark from skeptics to or about believers, "There's no point in discussing things with them anyway, since they are incapable of rational thought." Big presumption there, too....i.e. "I am right--I know it--and those who disagree do so on emotional, not intellectual grounds. I am just sooooo smart!" )

Now I'm waiting to see if people are actually going to say they've never known 'skeptics' with that attitude either..... :rolleyes:

We are still waiting to see if you can name those people you are referring to. It is very hard to address what you claim, if we don't know who you are talking about.

Yahweh

1st November 2003, 11:50 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Maybe you need to express yourself more clearly. When one or two "misinterprets" you, you may still be right. When a lot "misinterprets" you, you may start wondering if you are not to blame.

I understood the post just fine, I dont really think it bewildered the lot of people, I just saw it as another shallow attempt at "Clancie bashing" (which is not nice).

Why don't you make your own case, instead of asking people to do it for you?

I think Clancie is well within her rights to appreciate others if they can express opinions in more eloquent manner (example: I know Mercutio has recieved his fair share of praise for "being able to say what I wanted to say, only better").

Ah, back to the old "opinion" vs. "fact" again. I figured it would degenerate into this.

No comments...

No believers do this? (Yes, I am turning the tables on you here)

It has less to do with skepticism or belief, and a bit more to do with ego and arrogance.

We are still waiting to see if you can name those people you are referring to. It is very hard to address what you claim, if we don't know who you are talking about.
Its not nice to name names in a derogatory fashion.

CFLarsen

2nd November 2003, 01:32 AM

Originally posted by Yahweh
Its not nice to name names in a derogatory fashion.

So, you agree that Clancie's claim was meant to be derogatory? I cannot see why it is better to accuse unnamed people of something in order to support your own argument.

If she wants to criticize people (and she does know who they are), she should come out and say it. If she wants to make broad generalizations, well....how seriously can we take that?

Hand Bent Spoon

2nd November 2003, 02:40 AM

What's worse? Missing out on a fiction, or missing out on the true nature of the universe?

T'ai Chi

2nd November 2003, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Hand Bent Spoon
What's worse? Missing out on a fiction, or missing out on the true nature of the universe?

Gee, Hand Bent Spoon, you don't think you're assuming much by saying it that way? :D

The way you phrased things, it is heads, you win, tails, the other person loses.

LOL!!

Yes I know.. but you speak The Truth (tm). :rolleyes:

BillHoyt

3rd November 2003, 04:29 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Gee, Hand Bent Spoon, you don't think you're assuming much by saying it that way? :D

The way you phrased things, it is heads, you win, tails, the other person loses.

LOL!!

Yes I know.. but you speak The Truth (tm). :rolleyes:

Tr'oll,

Do you even acknowledge that there is a truth? Are you that PoMo, pup?

T'ai Chi

3rd November 2003, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Tr'oll,

Do you even acknowledge that there is a truth? Are you that PoMo, pup?

September Totle,

Can you define for me what you mean by 'truth'?

BillHoyt

4th November 2003, 04:12 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

September Totle,

Can you define for me what you mean by 'truth'?

Tr'oll,

The value assigned to an assertion.

RonSceptic

4th November 2003, 05:03 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Indeed it is the most drab, bleak, vapid, boring interpretation of reality one could conceivably dream up.

You have obviously never visited Corby.

RonSceptic

4th November 2003, 08:55 AM

I heard a quote on the radio last night. It is anonymous, but went something like...

"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. The difference between a theologian and a philosopher, is that the theologian finds the cat."

For theologian read 'believer'.

T'ai Chi

4th November 2003, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Tr'oll,

The value assigned to an assertion.

September Totle,

Could you define 'value'?

See where this is going? :)

Dragonrock

4th November 2003, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Could you define 'value'?

See where this is going? :)

Yes, next you're going to ask what the meaning of "is" is. :)

T'ai Chi

4th November 2003, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by Dragonrock

Yes, next you're going to ask what the meaning of "is" is. :)

Well, just that things are very hard to define- especially the Truth, the way the universe *really* is.

Yahweh

4th November 2003, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, you agree that Clancie's claim was meant to be derogatory?

Not at all.

I would see it as derogatory if Clancie chose to get her across by naming names.

I cannot see why it is better to accuse unnamed people of something in order to support your own argument.

Her original claim was:
The complacent...the ignorant....the uncurious...the smug...yes, I feel self proclaimed "skeptics" like those really do "miss out"....

I would see that as pretty much self-evident, I dont believe you could say that there is not a skeptic (or just to avoid a semantical debate, a "non-believer") who doesnt fit a few or all of the traits described above, it would be rude to say "This means you _[Name Here]_!"

If she wants to criticize people (and she does know who they are), she should come out and say it. If she wants to make broad generalizations, well....how seriously can we take that?

For the sanctity of respect for others (and to avoid shallowing insulting another or starting a pointless flame war), I would see Clancie's choice not to name various posters or people as an act of kindness (or minimally if you want to think negatively, to avoid conflict), and in actuality, it wouldnt be necessary to get her point across. I honestly dont see what your objection is.

Unas

4th November 2003, 07:28 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Indeed it is the most drab, bleak, vapid, boring interpretation of reality one could conceivably dream up.
Perhaps your error lies in your apparent belief that the scientific interpretation of reality was "dreamed up" -- rather than being constructed by means of careful observation, rational deduction, and testing of hypotheses against reality.

Unas

4th November 2003, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Leon Jaroff makes Jason Blair look like a Boy Scout. His article on JE was the biggest pile of pure crap ever to be published in TIME magazine and that's not easy since TIME publishes a lot of crap...But if you read carefully you will see through the fabrications.
Which specific statements made by Jaroff in the article under discussion are "fabrications" -- i.e., lies?

CFLarsen

4th November 2003, 09:23 PM

Yahweh,

It is not up to others to provide evidence of Clancie's claim. And I hardly call it "respect" to throw out an accusation like that.

I suppose you (together with Clancie) disagree with me on these points.

Ratman_tf

4th November 2003, 10:26 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Well, just that things are very hard to define- especially the Truth, the way the universe *really* is.

Another retreat into philosophy. *Sigh*

T'ai Chi

4th November 2003, 11:19 PM

Originally posted by Ratman_tf

Another retreat into philosophy. *Sigh*

I can't help it... I don't know the way the universe really is.

But...

...since you don't want to retreat, maybe you could define Truth for us, and tell us the way the universe *really* is?

Hannibal

5th November 2003, 01:05 AM

"truth is what is left when everything else is gone...." and so on...

Zen-isms aside, I think the inherent problem you are faced with is levels of proof. If i state I had beans on toast for dinner that would be taken as read because it is normal behaviour. If you wnated to be arsey you could ask me to prove it (Where are the photos of the beans? What makes you think they were beans and not peas? Could you have imagined the beans? Can we examine you faeces for traces of beans?) but it would not materially alter the fact that eating beans on toast in inherently likely and to ask for proof is unreasonable.

Now, if I claim I had eaten an engine from a sherman tank then there would be an element of proof required because the claim is so unlikely. In this case it is not unreasonable to ask for proof of the feat.

It is an oft-quoted statement but "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof".

"belief" and "skepticism" are diametrically opposed and you cannot simply say "prove it isn't paranormal" to a skeptic and expect that to suffice. Similarly, "proof" denies faith which is central to the philosophy of a believer and why they are reluctant to ever do so. In essence the debate can never be resolved.

The problem arises when people from either camp venture outside. This generally happens with Believers trying to "scientifically" prove their belief - or more frequently pseudo-science or half-science (e.g. incomplete method).

As this is a skeptical forum and org (the JREF) then the "believers" who come here and stake a claim should be prepared to prove their case NOT throw the burden of dis-proving back at the non-believers.

Right...I'm of to eat a Kit-Kat. Anybody NOT believe me?;)

thaiboxerken

5th November 2003, 07:33 AM

Tai Troll is using a classic bait "what is Truth" to start a slippery slope down the hill of ignorance. He asks such a broad and vague question that, if answered, he will simply ask "why" until you cannot give an answer. Once you have run out of answers, he will say something to the effect of "then how do you know mediums, ghosts, spirits, god, pixies..etc doesn't exist?".

This is classic to believers and those of the agnostic position. It's known that they have no evidence for their beliefs, so to justify their position, they have convinced themselves that they must show that skeptics/atheists have a faith or belief as well.

I suggest we just side-step the slippery slope and just refuse to answer Tai's loaded question.

Interesting Ian

5th November 2003, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by Unas

Indeed it is the most drab, bleak, vapid, boring interpretation of reality one could conceivably dream up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps your error lies in your apparent belief that the scientific interpretation of reality was "dreamed up" -- rather than being constructed by means of careful observation, rational deduction, and testing of hypotheses against reality.

I was referring to the skeptics interpretation of reality. There is no scientific interpretation of reality. Science merely describes utilizing theories.

thaiboxerken

5th November 2003, 09:42 AM

I was referring to the skeptics interpretation of reality. There is no scientific interpretation of reality. Science merely describes utilizing theories.

False, theories are a part of science. Science seeks to describe reality in an objective way. A "scientific interpretation" of reality is merely one that is objective and based on evidence.

BillHoyt

5th November 2003, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

September Totle,

Could you define 'value'?

See where this is going? :)

You don't know what "value" means for an assertion? And you want to argue? Fabulous. An assertion's value is binary: True or False.

But how about we stop playing equivocation games here, Tr'oll, and answer the question: Do you acknowledge that there is a truth value to an assertion?

Ratman_tf

5th November 2003, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

I can't help it... I don't know the way the universe really is.

But...

...since you don't want to retreat, maybe you could define Truth for us, and tell us the way the universe *really* is?

No. No one can know anything. We should all just give up and sit in the corner and contemplate our navels. And when the landlord comes for the rent, or we start starving to death from not eating, we can always wail that the universe is unknowable and there's nothing we can do about it!

Or we can get on with living. That's what I choose to do. Philosophy is fine and all that, but don't let it derail a topic so you don't have to deal with the issues at hand.

T'ai Chi

5th November 2003, 04:49 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Tai Troll is using a classic bait "what is Truth" to start a slippery slope down the hill of ignorance. He asks such a broad and vague question that, if answered, he will simply ask "why" until you cannot give an answer.

We'll never know Thaiboxerken-tucky Fried Chicken, because you refuse to answer, at the same time you expect and demand me to answer the question.

T'ai Chi

5th November 2003, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

You don't know what "value" means for an assertion? And you want to argue? Fabulous. An assertion's value is binary: True or False.

So you ask me if I think there is a truth, then you define truth as value, then you say that value has to do with if it is true or not. :rolleyes:

Isn't that a touch circular?

But how about we stop playing equivocation games here, Tr'oll, and answer the question: Do you acknowledge that there is a truth value to an assertion?

Nah Totle, I'd say these 'games' are quite relevant to my point. I can't answer your question because I'm not clear those words mean anything concrete. If Truth is circularly defined, I don't see how I can state that it exists or doesn't exist. You'll just have to accept an "I don't know".

thaiboxerken

5th November 2003, 05:16 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

We'll never know Thaiboxerken-tucky Fried Chicken, because you refuse to answer, at the same time you expect and demand me to answer the question. [/B]

The truth is an objective reality that does not care what your subjective views are.

Unas

5th November 2003, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I was referring to the skeptics interpretation of reality.
What is the "skeptics interpretation of reality"? You will, of course, be required to produce documentation to back up your answer, and to demonstrate that there is only one.
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
There is no scientific interpretation of reality. Science merely describes utilizing theories. Incorrect. The scientific method does much more than "merely describe". Accurate observation is essential, of course. However, observations are then used to help formulate a possible explanation (the theory). That theory is then used to formulate a prediction (the hypothesis) which is then tested by means of more observations.

What specific, testable, falsifiable hypothesis has ever been used to test the theory of conscious survival after death?

Jeff Corey

5th November 2003, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I was referring to the skeptics interpretation of reality. There is no scientific interpretation of reality. Science merely describes utilizing theories.
But, Shirely, you're wrong.
Science isn't "merely" anything. It's a whole bunch of different rigorous methods to collect data and then try to make sense out of them.
Not your immaterial world.
With the Choir Invisible.

Interesting Ian

5th November 2003, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by Unas
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I was referring to the skeptics interpretation of reality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is the "skeptics interpretation of reality"? You will, of course, be required to produce documentation to back up your answer, and to demonstrate that there is only one.

The materialist based metaphysic. Name 5 skeptics who do not subscribe to a materialist based metaphysic.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
There is no scientific interpretation of reality. Science merely describes utilizing theories.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Incorrect.

Nope I'm afraid not.

The scientific method does much more than "merely describe".

Nope I'm afraid not.

Accurate observation is essential, of course. However, observations are then used to help formulate a possible explanation (the theory).

"Explanation" in the sense that various aspects of reality are tied in utilizing the same mathematical formulae. As I said, a description utilizing theories.

What specific, testable, falsifiable hypothesis has ever been used to test the theory of conscious survival after death?

In common with seemingly all other skeptics, you fail to understand. And both you and all other skeptics fail to understand it no matter how many times I repeat myself. I'll say it just one more time.

The survival hypothesis is not a scientific hypothesis

It is a metaphysical hypothesis!!

{sweats}

Get it yet? Do you understand yet?? If you don't there is nothing I can do to help you (and the other skeptics on here).
Just please don't bother me with your inanities.

thaiboxerken

5th November 2003, 06:18 PM

The survival hypothesis is not a scientific hypothesis

Then it holds no value.

It is a metaphysical hypothesis!!

If one can't provide evidence of their beliefs, just call it "metaphysical" so you can still justify it. It's pathetic and dishonest. Your subjectively based hypothesis mean nothing in reality.

Eos of the Eons

5th November 2003, 06:18 PM

It is a metaphysical hypothesis!!

Yes yes, and thus is not quantifiable or provable or measurable. Definitely not scientific.

There is no interpretation of reality, just perception. I suppose people can try to interpret perception instead of just realizing hot is hot, cold is cold, and dead is dead.

Jeff Corey

5th November 2003, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

It is a metaphysical hypothesis!!

{sweats}

Get it yet? Do you understand yet?? If you don't there is nothing I can do to help you (and the other skeptics on here).
Just please don't bother me with your inanities.
Hope yer a bit less sudorifercious, mate, an' all, but the immaterial world doesn' t matter, cause it ain't matter

The Choir Invisible can be seen.
All it takes, Bretheren and Sistern,
Is Faith. Pure faith,
Blind Faith.
(cue the music)

Unas

5th November 2003, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The materialist based metaphysic.
Meaningless gabble -- you cannot even express this mythical "skeptics interpretation of reality" as a complete sentence. Try again.
Name 5 skeptics who do not subscribe to a materialist based metaphysic.Here we go again. I don't have to disprove your babblings, Ian. You are responsible for supporting them with evidence.

Do you understand the word "responsible"?
Nope I'm afraid not.
Yup, you've just proven your utter ignorance of the scientific method. I've done science, Ian. You clearly have never studied it in any but the most superficial manner, and prefer to remain ignorant of it.
"Explanation" in the sense that various aspects of reality are tied in utilizing the same mathematical formulae. As I said, a description utilizing theories.
As you just revealed, you don't even understand that not all scientific theories are necessarily based on "mathematical formulae". You continue to lecture us on a topic you do not comprehend.
In common with seemingly all other skeptics, you fail to understand.In common with your past behavior, you prefer evasion and ad hominem attacks to an actual discussion of your claims.
It is a metaphysical hypothesis!!
What is a "metaphysical hypothesis"? How is its validity tested and verified -- or rejected?

Making up a new phrase to describe your babblings doesn't make them any less spurious, Ian.
Just please don't bother me with your inanities.
I'll continue to bother you with whatever I choose, Ian. it may come as a shock to you -- but you are not in control of this discussion. If you continue to make claims that you cannot support with facts, then I and others will continue to point out the emptiness of your claims.

Eos of the Eons

5th November 2003, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

Hope yer a bit less sudorifercious, mate, an' all, but the immaterial world doesn' t matter, cause it ain't matter

The Choir Invisible can be seen.
All it takes, Bretheren and Sistern,
Is Faith. Pure faith,
Blind Faith.
(cue the music)

That was sig worthy! Thank you :)

T'ai Chi

5th November 2003, 10:33 PM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

..the immaterial world doesn' t matter, cause it ain't matter

Perhaps (I don't know).

Traditional cultures wordlviews held matter as manifestations of spirit, not spirit as manifestations of matter.

Eos of the Eons

5th November 2003, 10:38 PM

matter as manifestations of spirit

Ya okay, my mom dreamed me up her womb. That matter of the sperm and egg came after...:p

T'ai Chi

5th November 2003, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons

Ya okay, my mom dreamed me up her womb. That matter of the sperm and egg came after...:p

:D

I interpret (but don't necessarily agree with) it to mean that everything that is matter was created from spirit.

Eos of the Eons

5th November 2003, 11:25 PM

Yeah, and if that's the case, then all matter would still continue to be 'created' instead of being recycled by processes.

As we can see and study the water cycle, we can see all water is recycled. The same goes for more dense matter. When new matter is created it is from changing existing matter (eat food...our cells take in what they need, and the rest comes out along with the waste from our cells' processes).

Nothing is ever just appearing out of nowhere.

Course, then we are left, as always, trying to figure out the origin of all matter in the universe.

With our experiences on earth, it is hard to imagine such a crazed theory as it just always existing. All the matter in the universe with no original origin.

That is why there is the simple theory of some matterless being (god) somehow whipping matter out of nowhere into the universe that exists.

Still, then where did this god come from and what did he make all the stars, planets, etc out of? Can only gods simply exist with no origin? Why can't we then apply this theory to the matter in the universe?
All matter in the universe has always existed. We can see the same recycling going on when stars are 'born' and 'die'. We can see how planets are made. We also can't see the end of the universe or and end to the galaxies.

So, one can believe a god has just simply always existed, or say that matter has simply always existed - just in different forms.

thaiboxerken

6th November 2003, 03:10 AM

No fair using the laws of physics to debunk "traditional world views". LOL.

The world would be in extreme anarchy if thoughts/spirits made up matter. I mean, just think of all of the bad dreams people have at night, and all of the good dreams. We'd see monsters and fairies all over the place. I dreamt that I have superpowers, but I still don't when I wake up. Damn reality for keeping my fantasies fantasy.

Ratman_tf

6th November 2003, 03:49 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

:D

I interpret (but don't necessarily agree with) it to mean that everything that is matter was created from spirit.

You agree with nothing, T'ai Chi. You merely play the 'What's true? anh? ANH?!?!' game until people get tired of listening to you.

I swear, most of the threads where T'ai Chi and Ian participate get dragged into meaningless philisophical debate. You two should stick in the religion and philosophy section, where you belong, and debate if s**t smells or not. But since you won't, I'll have to make use of the 'ignore' feature. I hate to do it, but the sheer mindlessness of you two's posts are driving me batty!

CFLarsen

6th November 2003, 04:23 AM

Originally posted by Ratman_tf
I swear, most of the threads where T'ai Chi and Ian participate get dragged into meaningless philisophical debate. You two should stick in the religion and philosophy section, where you belong, and debate if s**t smells or not. But since you won't, I'll have to make use of the 'ignore' feature. I hate to do it, but the sheer mindlessness of you two's posts are driving me batty!

"Empty barrels make the most noise".
Danish proverb.

I don't have anyone on ignore. I find it fascinating - if also a bit tedious - to observe how devoid of content an argument can be.

Words should be used to dispel confusion, not create it. To people like T'ai Chi and Ian, they merely play with words so they think they look smart.

They are a welcome part of this board, since their tactics clarify just how little of substance they have to offer. It is very educational to observe how little impact their arguments have, when subjected to skeptical scrutiny.

Interesting Ian

6th November 2003, 05:25 AM

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons

II
[--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a metaphysical hypothesis!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eos
Yes yes, and thus is not quantifiable or provable or measurable. Definitely not scientific.

Yes this is correct, and neither is the extinction hypothesis.

There is no interpretation of reality, just perception.

Well this puts you at odds with most skeptics.

I suppose people can try to interpret perception instead of just realizing hot is hot, cold is cold, and dead is dead.

All our perceptions implicitly incorporate low level theory.

Interesting Ian

6th November 2003, 05:38 AM

Originally posted by Unas
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The materialist based metaphysic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Meaningless gabble -- you cannot even express this mythical "skeptics interpretation of reality" as a complete sentence. Try again.

If you cannot understand what elementary philosophical terms mean, then please don't waste my time in attempting to engage in a philosophical debate with me :rolleyes:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name 5 skeptics who do not subscribe to a materialist based metaphysic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here we go again. I don't have to disprove your babblings, Ian. You are responsible for supporting them with evidence.

If you cannot even name one, then I'm afraid I don't believe you, irrational as that may be of me :rolleyes:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope I'm afraid not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yup, you've just proven your utter ignorance of the scientific method. I've done science, Ian.

WE were not talking about the scientific method. We were talking about what science actually does ie does it characterise a putative reality per se, or does it merely describe etc. Please attempt to get a clue. BTW, yes I have never done science, but this is irrelevant to what we are discussing since we are discussing the philosophy of science.

You clearly have never studied it in any but the most superficial manner, and prefer to remain ignorant of it.

Yes indeed I do. But this is of course irrelevant to our discussion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Explanation" in the sense that various aspects of reality are tied in utilizing the same mathematical formulae. As I said, a description utilizing theories.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As you just revealed, you don't even understand that not all scientific theories are necessarily based on "mathematical formulae". You continue to lecture us on a topic you do not comprehend.

We were talking about the "scientific interpretation of reality". I therefore understood we were talking about physics as opposed to the soft sciences such as social science or whatever :rolleyes:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a metaphysical hypothesis!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is a "metaphysical hypothesis"? How is its validity tested and verified -- or rejected?

Principally by reasoning. Look, if you don't understand what the word metaphysics means, then please do not attempt to discuss metaphysics with me!

Interesting Ian

6th November 2003, 05:41 AM

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons

Tai
matter as manifestations of spirit

Eos
Ya okay, my mom dreamed me up her womb. That matter of the sperm and egg came after...:p

What is the point of discussing anything remotely philosophical with people on here if they cannot even understand anything beyond the small box they've enclosed themselves into :rolleyes:

Interesting Ian

6th November 2003, 05:44 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
[B]No fair using the laws of physics to debunk "traditional world views". LOL.

The world would be in extreme anarchy if thoughts/spirits made up matter.

"Made up matter"? What on earth is that supposed to mean? Care to explain it? :rolleyes:

Interesting Ian

6th November 2003, 05:54 AM

Originally posted by Ratman_tf

You agree with nothing, T'ai Chi. You merely play the 'What's true? anh? ANH?!?!' game until people get tired of listening to you.

I swear, most of the threads where T'ai Chi and Ian participate get dragged into meaningless philisophical debate. You two should stick in the religion and philosophy section, where you belong, and debate if s**t smells or not. But since you won't, I'll have to make use of the 'ignore' feature. I hate to do it, but the sheer mindlessness of you two's posts are driving me batty!

Wow! I thought you were one of the more reasonable skeptics :confused:

Interesting Ian

6th November 2003, 05:58 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

"Empty barrels make the most noise".
Danish proverb.

I don't have anyone on ignore. I find it fascinating - if also a bit tedious - to observe how devoid of content an argument can be.

Words should be used to dispel confusion, not create it. To people like T'ai Chi and Ian, they merely play with words so they think they look smart.

They are a welcome part of this board, since their tactics clarify just how little of substance they have to offer. It is very educational to observe how little impact their arguments have, when subjected to skeptical scrutiny.

You never know, perhaps our arguments would have little impact. But as a matter of fact we'll never know since they never are subjected to any "skeptical scrutiny". Indeed I'm starting to get the impression that the phrase "skeptical scrutiny" is an oxymoron.

CFLarsen

6th November 2003, 06:23 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You never know, perhaps our arguments would have little impact. But as a matter of fact we'll never know since they never are subjected to any "skeptical scrutiny". Indeed I'm starting to get the impression that the phrase "skeptical scrutiny" is an oxymoron.

Yes, that's nice, just claim that you haven't really been refuted..... :rolleyes:

Interesting Ian

6th November 2003, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Yes, that's nice, just claim that you haven't really been refuted..... :rolleyes:

Well yes I will . . unless anyone can point to anywhere where I have been refuted? No-one has succeeded in pointing to these mythical refutations so far :rolleyes:

CFLarsen

6th November 2003, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Well yes I will . . unless anyone can point to anywhere where I have been refuted? No-one has succeeded in pointing to these mythical refutations so far :rolleyes:

You are blind, Ian.

T'ai Chi

6th November 2003, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by Ratman_tf

You agree with nothing, T'ai Chi. You merely play the 'What's true? anh? ANH?!?!' game until people get tired of listening to you.

Huh? As far as I can see, I'm just bringing up various options and discussing them. All 'motives' are what you imagine.

I swear, most of the threads where T'ai Chi and Ian participate get dragged into meaningless philisophical debate. You two should stick in the religion and philosophy section, where you belong, and debate if s**t smells or not. But since you won't, I'll have to make use of the 'ignore' feature. I hate to do it, but the sheer mindlessness of you two's posts are driving me batty!

Um, first, you lump us together (even though we have many differing views). That probably makes it easier for you to 'handle'. I've also participated in many threads that are not philosophical. Also, threads have gotten philosophical way before I arrive in many cases. Second, where did you get the idea that philsophical discussions are meaningless? Ideas matter. Metaphysical discussions can certainly shed light on some issues.

As for me in this thread, I'm just saying "Hey, I don't know how to define Truth, so I cannot answer the question asked of me by Bill.", like I've already said. I don't see how that is me playing the What's True game, being meaningless, mindless, or purposefully dragging people in to it, derailing the thread, or any other of your accusations. Next time I won't be honest and I'll just say something I don't believe in, sheesh.

Religion and philosophy section.. "where you belong". Please don't tell me where I can and cannot post. I've started and participated in many a discussion in the Science and Mathematics section, for example. The last time I checked, this is an educational board for skeptics and believers alike, where differeing views are presented. I've presented differing views, ones which while I don't necessarily agree with them, I find interesting and thought provoking. If you aren't able to cope with differing views and/or the people who present them, then it is up to you to decide on using your Ignore feature. I, for one, value your input, so I hope you don't.

Eos of the Eons

6th November 2003, 06:14 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no interpretation of reality, just perception.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well this puts you at odds with most skeptics.

:

What do you think I meant? I'll try to clarify. You pick up a rock. It's hard. This is our perception.

What the heck is there to interpret?

Unas

6th November 2003, 06:30 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If you cannot understand what elementary philosophical terms mean, then please don't waste my time in attempting to engage in a philosophical debate with me.
Typical Ian tactic: First he fails to provide an answer to the question, and when this is pointed out, he accuses his questioner of being stupid.

Why do you waste your time with the same old, easily discredited tactics, Ian?
If you cannot even name one, then I'm afraid I don't believe you, irrational as that may be of me.
Believe what? I made no claims about the "skeptics interpretation of reality". You have -- but you cannot provide a complete explanation of what it is nor who specifically holds to it. What is irrational is your expectation that anyone is going to take your word for anything any more.
WE were not talking about the scientific method.
False. A review of the thread clearly shows that we were discussing the scientific method, and the fact that it is more than mere 'description'. You can't argue this point effectively, so now you are attempting to revise history and claim that the subject was other than what it was.
We were talking about what science actually does
Yes, Ian. That's called "the scientific method". That's what we have been discussing, despite your mendacious attempts to claim otherwise.
ie does it characterise a putative reality per se, or does it merely describe etc.
No, Ian. That's your puerile attempt to revise history so that you can claim a phantom victory in a debate you cannot "win" any other way.
Please attempt to get a clue.
Please stop casting your opponents as stupid when you find that your other rhetorical tricks aren't working. It gives the strong impression that you are incapable of conducting an honest discussion.
BTW, yes I have never done science, but this is irrelevant to what we are discussing since we are discussing the philosophy of science.
False. I am discussing the scientific method. You are desperate to avoid any discussion of that method.

Originally posted by Unas
Yup, you've just proven your utter ignorance of the scientific method. I've done science, Ian. You clearly have never studied it in any but the most superficial manner, and prefer to remain ignorant of it.
Yes indeed I do.
Let us be very clear on this: You are admitting that you prefer ignorance. Is that correct?
But this is of course irrelevant to our discussion. We were talking about the "scientific interpretation of reality".
No. We were discussing how science works. Stick to the subject, and drop your transparent attempts at revisionism.
I therefore understood we were talking about physics as opposed to the soft sciences such as social science or whatever .
Your conveniently post hoc 'understanding' is irrelevant. I did not mention physics at any previous point in this thread. If you are intenet upon deliberately making unbased assumptions, you're going to have to deal with the fallout when you are shown that you were wrong in doing so.
Principally by reasoning.
Facile nonsense. How do you know that your "reasoning" is valid?
Look, if you don't understand what the word metaphysics means, then please do not attempt to discuss metaphysics with me!
I haven't attempted to discuss metaphysics with you, Ian. You have attempted to recast the discussion as one of metaphysics, and I have exposed your trick for what it was. Oh, and you are once again using the cheap and transparent tactic of insinuating that your opponent is stupid. Do you really think that accomplishes anything but demonstrate how desperate you must be?

Now, answer the questions you were asked: What is a "metaphysical hypothesis"? How is its validity tested and verified -- or rejected?

6th November 2003, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by Unas

Now, answer the questions you were asked: What is a "metaphysical hypothesis"? How is its validity tested and verified -- or rejected?

For those of us largely watching, what is the difference between a metaphysical hypothesis and a metaphysical law or "truth". If there is a difference, how does one distinguish them?

Yahweh

6th November 2003, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If you cannot understand what elementary philosophical terms mean,

Rather than be smug, its a bit more helpful to define and describe those Philosophical terms if they arent being understood. How many times have I said "talking over the heads of others accomplishes absolutely nothing"?

then please don't waste my time in attempting to engage in a philosophical debate with me.
Answer me this:

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood? No fractions, I want decimal answers, please. [/satire]

Unas

6th November 2003, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by Yahweh
How much wood would a woodchuck chuck, if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
Ah, geez, that's such an easy one.

A woodchuck would chuck as much wood as a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood.

Now, try your hand at this one:

If a chicken and a half lays an egg and a half in a day and a half, how many pancakes does it take to cover a doghouse?

thaiboxerken

6th November 2003, 08:02 PM

Philosophy is subjective and based on axioms. When it comes to how the universe really is, let's stick with an objective measure.. let's stick with science.

T'ai Chi

6th November 2003, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Philosophy is subjective and based on axioms. When it comes to how the universe really is, let's stick with an objective measure...

Isn't 'objective' a philosophical concept?

Interesting Ian

7th November 2003, 04:24 AM

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Philosophy is subjective and based on axioms. When it comes to how the universe really is, let's stick with an objective measure.. let's stick with science.

TBK, what the Universe really is is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. It could only be a scientific one if we have already decided what philosophical position to adopt. This is why there is so much arguing at cross purposes because people on here don't understand that I don't share their philosophical framework.

PS Unas, I have read your responses in this and other threads this morning, and you have ignored my arguments. You are the very first person I have ever put on ignore. Dancing David came close, but you're the first ever. Congratulations.

thaiboxerken

7th November 2003, 05:21 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Isn't 'objective' a philosophical concept?

Nope, objective means philosophy doesn't matter.

TBK, what the Universe really is is a philosophical question, not a scientific one.

That's BS, it is a scientific question. Science is the only reliable method of determining facts and truth, the only reliable method of categorizing observations, test results and empirical data. There is no other method that comes close to being as successful and reliable as science. Science doesn't care what your philosophy or religion is, it shares this trait with reality. Both reality and science are objective.

thaiboxerken

7th November 2003, 05:24 AM

This is why there is so much arguing at cross purposes because people on here don't understand that I don't share their philosophical framework.

I think everyone here agrees that you have a different "philosophical" framework than the skeptics here. We just don't agree with your philosophy. Your philosophy has no value. Your philosophy is one of weakness, despair and fear. I'll stick with dealing with the real world, you can be a coward and live in your fantasy world.

Jeff Corey

7th November 2003, 06:23 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Perhaps (I don't know).

Traditional cultures wordlviews held matter as manifestations of spirit, not spirit as manifestations of matter. [/B]
Some traditional cultures' worldviews held that the world was held up by four elephants who were standing on the back of a huge turtle. So what?

smalltlalk_2k

7th November 2003, 06:24 AM

I don't need spiritualism to see the glory of the universe we live in. There are billions and billions of planets, and so much knowledge about the universe that we don't understand yet. Life is exciting for all of the grandiosity of the universe. It amazes me that people can waste their lives fighting over a piece of land in the middle east. I mean come on, they have been fighting over the middle eastern lands for over 3 thousand years. It's about time to call it a draw and get on to things that can make our species advance. Like Jesse the Body Ventura said Religion is a crutch to humanity. It holds us back. - too bad in the political pressure he renigged on his definition of crutch and redefined it as something that supports us and helps us along.

Humanity has so much potential. To bad its wasted on false and totally unfounded religions and not on discovering the truth of the universe. I still find it disturbing that people look for Truth in book(s) that are inconsistent with their own accounting of events that the book(s) say took place 3000 years ago.

Believers say that the Bible is the Truth. My response is yeah right. How can it be the truth when it can't even get the facts straight. It gives different accounts for the same event. They both can't be correct. So there is the proof that it isn't the truth.

Time for me to jump off the rant wagon, but I'm not going to quite yet. There are so many factions of Christianity that they shouldn't even use that word anymore. How many factions are there? I know that Baptists have many subfactions(Freewill, First...) and Baptists are themselves a subset of a another faction. And they all believe that the other factions are WRONG!!!

Someone should compile a list of all the major religions and break down them into Factions and all their sub-factions and sub-sub-factions and their sub-sub-sub-.... crap you get the point.

ok thats enough for now.

smalltlalk_2k

7th November 2003, 06:28 AM

from dictionary.com for philosophy.

5 entries found for philosophy.
phi·los·o·phy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (f-ls-f)
n. pl. phi·los·o·phies
Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.

T'ai Chi

7th November 2003, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

Some traditional cultures' worldviews held that the world was held up by four elephants who were standing on the back of a huge turtle. So what?

So we think that everything is made of strings...yet we don't have any evidence. :)

In any case, I was just presenting the idea that most traditional cultures had, not trying to support their view.

CFLarsen

7th November 2003, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
So we think that everything is made of strings...yet we don't have any evidence. :)

"We"? As I recall, the string theory is only one of a number of theories.

T'ai Chi

7th November 2003, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

"We"? As I recall, the string theory is only one of a number of theories.

Me saying "we" is not equivalent to me saying 'there is only one theory', Claus.

And yes, I have removed everyone from my ignore list. :D

Unas

7th November 2003, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Unas, I have read your responses in this and other threads this morning, and you have ignored my arguments.
False. What I have ignored are Ian's attempts to divert the argument away from questions he is afraid to answer. Ian likes to bully people into discussions that follow his rules. I refused to be bullied.
You are the very first person I have ever put on ignore.
Like any other bully, Ian cannot abide being confronted. He picks himself off the ground and runs home crying.
Dancing David came close, but you're the first ever. Congratulations.
Congartulations yourself, Ian -- you have once again proven that there is no end to your store of intellectual cowardice.

CFLarsen

17th April 2004, 08:38 AM

Bumped. Clancie never answered which skeptics on JREF she was talking about.

qII

17th April 2004, 10:15 PM

The problem is that most of the skeptics here are closed minded skeptics. The very last to finally admit that the earth is round.

epepke

17th April 2004, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by
Ummmm . .yeah lots of mystique and mystery thinking about how far away certain stars are and what lies beyond the hill! :eek: :rolleyes: Give me a break! All skeptics have is their science. And science, by means of theories, just describes the contents and patterns exhibited by our sensory perceptions. That is all it does. One must therefore conclude that if so called "skeptics" are correct in their interpretation of reality, I do not think that by any stretch of the imagination that the world could be deemed to be full of mystique and mystery! Indeed it is the most drab, bleak, vapid, boring interpretation of reality one could conceivably dream up. If that were not bad enough there is not even any particularly compelling reason to suppose it's true :confused:
:con2: You think that skeptics are impoverished. I think that you are impoverished. I get a sense of awe and the numinous walking through a universe feeling it as the interaction of quantum amplitudes. I doubt you'll experience that feeling. Not thåt it's of much import, as you seem to be fairly pleased with what you have. But I have noticed that you exceed even the most evangelical of skeptics in trying to put people down. You spend a great deal of time in a forum consisting mainly of skeptics doing little else.

BillHoyt

18th April 2004, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by olaf
The problem is that most of the skeptics here are closed minded skeptics. The very last to finally admit that the earth is round.
olaf,

I must have missed something here. Did you present solid evidence from peer-reviewed journals here and found skeptics dismissed it? I didn't see that happen. Can you cite some posts here so that I can catch up?

qII

18th April 2004, 09:19 AM

suezoled,

It is my guess that you are one of the most empty people on this forum. Why else would you spend so much time here?

Deny it all you want; I know it is true. Deep within you, you hunger for something to fill the void.

Interesting Ian

18th April 2004, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by epepke

Originally posted by
Ummmm . .yeah lots of mystique and mystery thinking about how far away certain stars are and what lies beyond the hill! Give me a break! All skeptics have is their science. And science, by means of theories, just describes the contents and patterns exhibited by our sensory perceptions. That is all it does. One must therefore conclude that if so called "skeptics" are correct in their interpretation of reality, I do not think that by any stretch of the imagination that the world could be deemed to be full of mystique and mystery! Indeed it is the most drab, bleak, vapid, boring interpretation of reality one could conceivably dream up. If that were not bad enough there is not even any particularly compelling reason to suppose it's true
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You think that skeptics are impoverished. I think that you are impoverished. I get a sense of awe and the numinous walking through a universe feeling it as the interaction of quantum amplitudes. I doubt you'll experience that feeling. Not thåt it's of much import, as you seem to be fairly pleased with what you have. But I have noticed that you exceed even the most evangelical of skeptics in trying to put people down. You spend a great deal of time in a forum consisting mainly of skeptics doing little else.

Wow, impressive stuff by the original poster! He seems like an incredibly intelligent person. Who is it?

Eos of the Eons

18th April 2004, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by olaf
The problem is that most of the skeptics here are closed minded skeptics. The very last to finally admit that the earth is round.

Time to feed a troll I guess, cause I'm ignoring somebody else.

Skeptics would be the first to find the earth is round, and deluded Homeos would be the last the admit the earth is not flat. The homeos would be going on how close minded skeptics just can't keep their minds open to the possibility that the earth is flat in spite of all the proof to the contrary. That is because the homeos would be scoffing science and whacky new technology, as they still do now.

The skeptics ask how water has memory, and the homeos call them close minded, but won't answer the question.

Yahweh

18th April 2004, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by olaf
The problem is that most of the skeptics here are closed minded skeptics. The very last to finally admit that the earth is round.
The Roman Catholic church, I presume?

AlienX

18th April 2004, 06:11 PM

I think the opposite is true - to believe in something with no evidence requires you to be closed minded.

You are unable to accept the possibility that your belief is incorrect and thus close you mind to all the scientific evidence that indicates your belief to be false. Thus any true believer by their own definition must be closed minded QED... quite ironic that woowoo's complain about something which applies to them the most.

I find that understanding how something works is far more magical that making stuff up about how it works.

AX

Mercutio

18th April 2004, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by olaf
suezoled,

It is my guess that you are one of the most empty people on this forum. Why else would you spend so much time here?

Deny it all you want; I know it is true. Deep within you, you hunger for something to fill the void. Wow, olaf...you are seeing a very different Suezoled than I am. I wonder who you are really looking at.

If you like, olaf, I could analyze your recent posts here. Trust me, you would not like the result. But, frankly, I do not think it necessary. I think you already know.

It's ok for you to be jealous of suezoled, though; I just hope you can find peace with yourself and admit it. "Deny it all you want; [you] know it is true."

Yahweh

18th April 2004, 06:40 PM

Originally posted by olaf
suezoled,

It is my guess that you are one of the most empty people on this forum. Why else would you spend so much time here?
Olaf,

I'll appreciate it if you dont talk about my momma like that.

Deny it all you want; I know it is true. Deep within you, you hunger for something to fill the void.
Please dont tell my momma what she thinks.

Suezoled

18th April 2004, 06:43 PM

Originally posted by olaf
suezoled,

It is my guess that you are one of the most empty people on this forum. Why else would you spend so much time here?

Deny it all you want; I know it is true. Deep within you, you hunger for something to fill the void.

Um, Olaf: just tell me how you can "guess I'm so empty" and yet you "know it's true." You make about as much sense as glow in the dark sunglasses. (At least those things have some novelty value, while you, Olaf, have none.) I don't know why you're projecting onto me the obvious fact that you hate your mother for ever having conceived you; I do agree that you are waste of genetic material. However, never fear, even your wasted brain cells will one day rot to nothing and feed the ground, or at least small wiggling fly larvae that will one day become disease carrying parasites themselves. But, that will be a step up from what you are now.

So take heart! The future will make use of what you yourself will not!

thaiboxerken

18th April 2004, 06:50 PM

Ouch!! I guess that's what Olaf gets for coming to a war of wits without any ammo.

qII

18th April 2004, 07:00 PM

Originally posted by Suezoled

Um, Olaf: just tell me how you can "guess I'm so empty" and yet you "know it's true." Because you are easy to figure out. I can read your words and feel your quiet desperation.

This has nothing to do with you thinking that an older woman (rolfe) is sexy.

Don't worry about it. It is not a big deal. there are others here who have the same feelings. (many skeptics have the same alienated thoughts and feelings)

qII

18th April 2004, 07:13 PM

You pathetic excuse for an adult. Go get a real hobby. Or are you too stupid to figure out how to collect stamps?

the above is a quote from Suezoled from 2 weeks ago.

nice person -- isn't she!

i wasn't even here 2 weeks ago but i could pick up on her deep seated anger and frustration right away.

She calls me and others "dog piss". that is very grown up and reflects a healthy adult. no I don't think so.

SZ,

you posted this topic to make it sound like you have everything together. Nothing could be further from the truth. you are very disturbed.

i should NOT be pointing this out on this thread because it detracts from the post in some ways.

it makes it look like i am attacking you but I am really showing you how pathetic your life really is. you are sick --girl!!!

Your "skepticism" is obviously not helping you. It may not be the cause of your problems. appearance is not everything you know. if men do not find you attractive then you can always try to find yourself a nice woman. i think you already on to that idea.

To sum it up, I think you need to rethink your thoughts concerning the topic you posted. consider that you are wrong.

Suezoled

18th April 2004, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by olaf
Because you are easy to figure out. I can read your words and feel your quiet desperation.

This has nothing to do with you thinking that an older woman (rolfe) is sexy.

Don't worry about it. It is not a big deal. there are others here who have the same feelings. (many skeptics have the same alienated thoughts and feelings)

Burn straw man burn! oh, wait, you can't set a straw man on fire if you're composed of piss.

Olaf, you are the new name for the same old yeast infection. You're not new news, you're not old news, you're a michael jackson tabloid: you're good for lining the litter box for the cat.

Olaf, you missed the fire hydrant, you mis-aimed dog piss you. No use crying over spilt urine. Pick yourself up and have some dignity. Oh, wait, piss has no spine. Nevermind.

ps: your homophobic comments might be taken poorly by the administration if you continue them. Just an FYI.

SquishyDave

18th April 2004, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by olaf
This has nothing to do with you thinking that an older woman (rolfe) is sexy.Hey Suezoled, Rolfe's a woman? And you think she's sexy? My whole world has been turned upside down, I thought Rolfe was a guy, Rolfe's a guy name isn't it? And I could have sworn you thought I was sexy. Or is it just both of us?

Well I guess that just proves that life is far from dull and empty without a skydaddy etc, all this new information about sexual preferences and guys turning out to be girls is all very interesting. Plus now I get to imagine two skepchics making out. ;)

Thanks olaf, you made my day.

Suezoled

18th April 2004, 07:23 PM

Hey Dog piss,
if you shouldn't post to this thread, then don't. Simple even for you, no?
oh, but I'm sick. Sick sick sick. Olaf can tell.
Healthy adult?
Okay hypocrite. the gloves are off.

Originally posted by olaf

the above is a quote from Suezoled from 2 weeks ago.

nice person -- isn't she!

i wasn't even here 2 weeks ago but i could pick up on her deep seated anger and frustration right away.

She calls me and others "dog piss". that is very grown up and reflects a healthy adult. no I don't think so.

SZ,

you posted this topic to make it sound like you have everything together. Nothing could be further from the truth. you are very disturbed.

i should NOT be pointing this out on this thread because it detracts from the post in some ways.

it makes it look like i am attacking you but I am really showing you how pathetic your life really is. you are sick --girl!!!

Your "skepticism" is obviously not helping you. It may not be the cause of your problems. appearance is not everything you know. if men do not find you attractive then you can always try to find yourself a nice woman. i think you already on to that idea.

To sum it up, I think you need to rethink your thoughts concerning the topic you posted. consider that you are wrong.

Yahweh

18th April 2004, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by olaf
Because you are easy to figure out. I can read your words and feel your quiet desperation.

This has nothing to do with you thinking that an older woman (rolfe) is sexy.

Don't worry about it. It is not a big deal. there are others here who have the same feelings. (many skeptics have the same alienated thoughts and feelings)
I'll try to deduce the obvious conclusion:
<blockquote>Me: I say Suez, my momma, is a terrific woman.

You claim she is "easy to figure out", and has a hidden agenda of "quiet desperation". If there was ever a demonstration that you (yes YOU!) may not be sharpest knife in the drawer, this is it.

<center>CONGRATULATIONS!
YOU'RE MEDIOCRE!</center>

You are obviously oblivious to intellectual integrity. Your cognitive dissonance toward the fact that homeopathy and acupuncture may not have any medical benefits more powerful than a placebo only mildly obscures your sexist hateful garbage posts about my momma and Rolfe.

You: Oh, I see. Will you still lick my--

Suez: *POW*

Me: Thank you, momma, no one hits a moron quite like you.

Olaf, you are an idiot.</blockquote>
QED, bitch.

P.S. You are ugly.

Interesting Ian

18th April 2004, 07:42 PM

Don't Yahwah,

I hate to scroll horizontally. I had my window on default size rather than maximised.

qII

18th April 2004, 07:46 PM

Suezoled quote (to another member):

You pathetic excuse for an adult. Go get a real hobby. Or are you too stupid to figure out how to collect stamps?

--and you wonder why you are alone?

Suezoled

18th April 2004, 07:52 PM

So it makes it okay to harass Claus...how?

You pathetic excuse for an adult. Go get a real hobby. Or are you too stupid to figure out how to collect stamps?

Cynical opened a flame thread about Claus. The quote was taken from Flame Wars. What was inappropriate about that, Dog Piss?

And no, I don't wonder why I'm alone, if I were indeed alone, but your concern touches me. Now I have to go wash my shoes. Dog piss touching me even in concern is still dog piss.

Yahweh

18th April 2004, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Don't Yahwah,

I hate to scroll horizontally. I had my window on default size rather than maximised.
Fixed.

qII

18th April 2004, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by Suezoled
She had such a puzzled look on her face, this one girl, and it seemed to epitomize all the puzzled looks I've gotten. I don't believe in God, in ghosts, spirits, demons, curses, witchcraft, possessed pickle jars, etc. She asked me how I could live without mystique or mystery in my life. What came to mind was the fascination for RNA research, Piezolectrics (which I know the rudiments of but little else), the tricks frauds use on their believers, the beauty of human motion in belly dance practices. But to her, my life seemed so empty and devoid of magic.

How do other people deal with this stuff?

Well sue (can I call you sue?), it seems we have something in common -- i also enjoy watching women who are half naked dance. :)

back to the topic, i'd have to agree with her that your life does seem so "empty and devoid". why else would you be so angry and vile?

Waiting on an answer.

Yahweh

18th April 2004, 07:59 PM

Originally posted by olaf
back to the topic, i'd have to agree with her that your life does seem so "empty and devoid".
Better life than cranium, good sir.

Hey Suez! Put your ear up to Olaf's head, you can hear the ocean in there!

Suezoled

18th April 2004, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by olaf

Well sue (can I call you sue?), it seems we have something in common -- i also enjoy watching women who are half naked dance. :)

back to the topic, i'd have to agree with her that your life does seem so "empty and devoid". why else would you be so angry and vile?

Waiting on an answer.

Half naked women dancing? Oh... the belly dancing class. that was classy; another homophobic statement. Just FYI: people wore street clothes. You perverted moron you. :)

Back to the topic? You derailed the topic. You assume; the anal fissures in your head have created cracks that should not be there. Stop assuming Dog Piss.

This is over. You may not call me "sue" and you have, in truth, been unworthy of any reply on this particular thread. Go dry up or sink into the ground, Dog Piss.

qII

18th April 2004, 08:11 PM

Why do you feel the need to defend your view of life? a fascination with RNA research. something tells me that RNA is not nearly enough to give you fulfillment otherwise you would not be so nasty.

i think you need to rethink your life. is it as "fascinating" as you say it is?

What good books have you read lately on RNA research that has you so excited. what is so exciting about piezo thingy.

qII

18th April 2004, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by Suezoled

Well, I know if I were an undead, immortal lord of the night Domino's Pizza is where I would work- Craig the Rampant Scottsman. Rar!

Huh?

epepke

18th April 2004, 10:24 PM

Originally posted by Suezoled
Um, Olaf: just tell me how you can "guess I'm so empty" and yet you "know it's true." You make about as much sense as glow in the dark sunglasses.

I find it kind of sad how so many people seem to need to come into skeptics' forums and spray condescending accusations at people.

I don't frequent churches or philosophy forums to knock other people down in order to build myself up.

It's amost as if they need an Enemy™ and some degree of hostilite engagement to prop up their self-image.

qII

19th April 2004, 02:49 PM

BillHoyt

19th April 2004, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by olaf
Why do you feel the need to defend your view of life? a fascination with RNA research. something tells me that RNA is not nearly enough to give you fulfillment otherwise you would not be so nasty.

i think you need to rethink your life. is it as "fascinating" as you say it is?

What good books have you read lately on RNA research that has you so excited. what is so exciting about piezo thingy.
Excuse me, sir, but you entered this forum, we didn't drag you in. Excuse me, sir, but you entered with a chip on your shoulder, thinking that you'd drive right over us. Excuse me, sir, but it didn't happen, and excuse me, sir, but we can't help that lame feeling you have that makes you lash out.

Excuse me, sir, but the truth fascinates me far more than any pap you've been serving up. The truth. Actually knowing something with a high degree of certainty, and knowing how I know that. And why I know that. Excuse me, sir, but the journey from ignorance to knowledge is far more fascinating than any voodoo talisman you wish to wave in front of us.

As for your RNA question, sir. The most fascinating book I read recently questions current scientific knowledge of the essential role of the DNA->RNA->protein information model. An Aussie researcher, by the name of Steele, wrote to popularize his very unpopular notion that there is a neo-Lamarckian inheritance mechanism afoot. After reading it, I found his arguments rather wanting, though interesting. I have a short list of major flaws, some of which he outlined, and some of which he either omitted altogether or missed altogether.

But there, sir, is one of the essential differences between a scientific mindset and whatever it is that is going on in your head. Steele presented his case, on evidence. He even outlined several of his failed experiments, describing them as failures. He was honest, sir. He made a concerted attempt to walk a line between advocating his position and probity.

He did a good job. I shook my head several times at some of the things he missed. I had to laugh at what seemed like some straw men he built up, and had to wonder at his failure to spin alternate hypotheses to explain some data, but he did a good job. And I learned about a few things I didn't previously know.

Yes, sir, I absolutely find the truth infinitely more fascinating than wild speculation. And, yes, sir, I enjoy the journey far more than popping another quarter into woo-woo coin ponies. But be my guest: put on your little cowboy hat, yee-haw and ride, boy, ride. Till the quarters run out.