Summarizing For Interesting Ian [Archive]

Clancie

5th November 2003, 01:41 PM

I agree with you completely ShowMe2. Randi doesn't say it's a "skeptic's forum", though TLN asserts this regularly. In fact, as you accurately note, Randi points out that believers--and their beliefs--are welcome to participate in the discussions here.
Posted by TLN

Either prove yourself correct or quit wasting your time and ours posting a lot of worthless philosophy in a skeptics forum. Bring us science.
And I don't see why TLN demands that Ian "prove empirically" his ideas that consciousness survives death. (And posts like this kind of make you wonder how some of these people got through their college social science and philosophy classes, doesn't it?)

Obviously, such definitive proof is not available--that doesn't invalidate the ideas or that there is plenty of evidence to support speculations about existence that go beyond regarding "dead is dead, end of story" as a true and indisputable fact that all must agree to.
Posted by TLN

Oh, and constantly repeating the same tired drivel is hardly “interesting.” On the contrary, you’re a colossal bore.
Nothing is more boring than your unfounded insistence that this is a "skeptic's" board, your insistence on a narrow range of acceptable ideas, and demanding laboratory evidence where none so far exists.

If the boredom becomes too acute to bear, TLN, the "Ignore" feature works just fine (if you do it right, this place could read like the forum of your dreams...where everyone thinks exactly like you....:rolleyes: )....

TLN

5th November 2003, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
empirically" his ideas that consciousness survives death.

Because Ian insists that no one has refuted his ideas. I'm simply trying to point out to him that it doesn't work that way. He's trying to put the onus of proof on others to prove him wrong instead of proving himself correct.

And Clancie, skeptics board or no (and I make no claim one way or the other) skepticism is practiced here and it's why this board exists at all. If you don't like that, why come here?

I know, I know... "discussion."

TLN

5th November 2003, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
If the boredom becomes too acute to bear, TLN, the "Ignore" feature works just fine (if you do it right, this place could read like the forum of your dreams...where everyone thinks exactly like you....:rolleyes: )....

It must be very comforting to you to marginalize me in an attempt to ignore me. Make me into a villian all you want, it isn't true.

Claince, you don't know a damn thing about me.

Want to go to dinner sometime? On me...

Nyarlathotep

5th November 2003, 01:47 PM

Phil

5th November 2003, 01:48 PM

Whoops. I seem to have stumbled into a junior high school shoving match. My bad. Let me know when you're done calling each other booger heads. {wanders off in search of intelligent discussion}

TLN

5th November 2003, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
I don't think anyone seriously thinks that it is a skeptics forum from the point of view that only skeptics have a right to post here.

Exactly. I've never said only skeptics can post here. Clancie needs to make me into a big bad monster though so she can ignore me.

Interesting Ian

5th November 2003, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by TLN
[B]I’m tired of your drumbeat, always the same, never changing, completely ignoring all the words around you. Let’s summarize the key points for you:

You think consciousness survives death.

Either prove this empirically or be silent.

I can't prove it, and I have never ever claimed otherwise.

We’ve heard your mantra a hundred times. We know it, we’re familiar with it. Your constant repeating yourself is not necessary. We get it.

And for the record, here’s my stance and the stance of many skeptics which you willfully ignore and misrepresent to suit your purposes: We may survive death or we may not. I don’t know. And frankly, neither do you.

Yes that's right, as I've always admitted.

And that’s the whole point. I’m stick of your constant smug, sanctimonious posts proclaiming no one has proven you wrong.

Huh? I have said no such thing! People have been claiming they have comprehensively refuted my arguments. I have denied this. Slightly different from what you said I think :rolleyes:

That’s not how it works and you’ve been posting here too long not to know this. It’s not up to us to prove you wrong it’s up to you to prove yourself correct.

You don't have to prove it, just provide some arguments.

Either prove yourself correct or quit wasting your time and ours posting a lot of worthless philosophy in a skeptics forum. Bring us science.

Oh, and constantly repeating the same tired drivel is hardly “interesting.” On the contrary, you’re a colossal bore.

I'm a colossal bore? Surely it cannot be so! :eek: :cry:

Interesting Ian

5th November 2003, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by Suezoled
Interesting the way a dog that's been set on fire is interesting. The avatar, I mean.

But surely you prefer it to my old one? :eek: Don't you think she's incredibly gorgeous?

CFLarsen

5th November 2003, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
I agree with you completely ShowMe2. Randi doesn't say it's a "skeptic's forum", though TLN asserts this regularly. In fact, as you accurately note, Randi points out that believers--and their beliefs--are welcome to participate in the discussions here.

There is no conflict here, even though you would love if there were.

You see, skeptics welcome discussions with believers. That way, they can test their arguments against those of the believers. Skeptics are never afraid of being shown wrong. Are you?

This is a forum for skeptics. Here, we discuss skepticism. Here, we approach paranormal claims, using critical thinking and skepticism.

Since I am a skeptic, I invite - implore you to prove me wrong. With evidence, please.

Originally posted by Clancie
And I don't see why TLN demands that Ian "prove empirically" his ideas that consciousness survives death. (And posts like this kind of make you wonder how some of these people got through their college social science and philosophy classes, doesn't it?)

Obviously, such definitive proof is not available--that doesn't invalidate the ideas or that there is plenty of evidence to support speculations about existence that go beyond regarding "dead is dead, end of story" as a true and indisputable fact that all must agree to.

In which case, it is a belief, unsubstantiated by evidence. All fine, except that Ian should not then claim that he has not been refuted. He makes the claim, he provide the evidence.

You have yourself adhered to this idea, yet you only apply it when the onus is not on believers.

Originally posted by Clancie
Nothing is more boring than your unfounded insistence that this is a "skeptic's" board, your insistence on a narrow range of acceptable ideas, and demanding laboratory evidence where none so far exists.

Strawman. Where does TLN insist of a narrow range of acceptable ideas? Please point to that. Put up or shut up!

Originally posted by Clancie
If the boredom becomes too acute to bear, TLN, the "Ignore" feature works just fine (if you do it right, this place could read like the forum of your dreams...where everyone thinks exactly like you....:rolleyes: )....

Yes, we know how you handle critical voices: You blot them out. You don't want to listen to them. You think that they may go away, that they, in fact, don't even exist. Heck, you even believe that they don't.

Well, tough s**t, Clancie. They do. Here.

hgc

5th November 2003, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

But surely you prefer it to my old one? :eek: Don't you think she's incredibly gorgeous? Who is that tangle haired tart? I recognize the pic -- I just can't place it. I'll allow that the improvement is vast, beyond calculation.

Interesting Ian

5th November 2003, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
In which case, it is a belief, unsubstantiated by evidence. All fine, except that Ian should not then claim that he has not been refuted. He makes the claim, he provide the evidence.

The way you put it people will get the impression that I consider that I have given solid irrefutable reasons and/or evidence for an afterlife, and I have claimed that these arguments have not been refuted.

This is not so. Many skeptics are claiming that my arguments have been shot to pieces or have been comprehensively refuted. I have denied this. How my denial here amounts to what skeptics are claiming I have said is quite beyond me. Why is it all being twisted? Can no skeptic win an honest debate without misrepresenting his opponents position?? :mad:

TLN

5th November 2003, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Huh? I have said no such thing! People have been claiming they have comprehensively refuted my arguments. I have denied this. Slightly different from what you said I think :rolleyes:

All of which means... what? That you're right because no one's proved you wrong?

Thanz

5th November 2003, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by TLN

Exactly. I've never said only skeptics can post here. Clancie needs to make me into a big bad monster though so she can ignore me.
My personal impression, and give it whatever weight you like, is that you can be a little abrasive and gruff at times. That said, I don't put you in the same category as CFLarsen, BillHoyt or Thaiboxerken, who seem to revel in making fun of or harassing people they disagree with. The LarsenList. The Totles. Ugh.

You, on the other hand, seem to be more reasonable, although I think that you have a "weak spot" for Lucianarchy. I don't really read Luci's posts and I surely don't know all the history, but it sure seems that even seeing Luci post something gets under your skin a bit.

I don't want to come as holier than thou here. I know that I am far from perfect. I just think that the way you post sometimes gets interpreted as arrogance when perhaps you don't intend it. And on a completely irrational note, I think that I had a better impression of you when you used the Quy-Gon avatar. The current guy (who I just can't place) has an expression on his face that kind of screams "*********" to me. I am not proud of it, but there it is.

CFLarsen

5th November 2003, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The way you put it people will get the impression that I consider that I have given solid irrefutable reasons and/or evidence for an afterlife, and I have claimed that these arguments have not been refuted.

This is not so. Many skeptics are claiming that my arguments have been shot to pieces or have been comprehensively refuted. I have denied this. How my denial here amounts to what skeptics are claiming I have said is quite beyond me. Why is it all being twisted? Can no skeptic win an honest debate without misrepresenting his opponents position?? :mad:

Perhaps you should leave it to people themselves to get their own impressions, instead of claiming that you know what people's impressions will be.

I really think this is what your problem is. You really think you know what goes on in the minds of other people. How arrogant!

You never even stop to consider if you could be wrong. You are convinced that you know what other people think.

Get off your high horse, Ian.

TLN

5th November 2003, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by Thanz
My personal impression, and give it whatever weight you like, is that you can be a little abrasive and gruff at times.

Comes from being an Italian from New York. :)

I apologize.

Originally posted by Thanz
You, on the other hand, seem to be more reasonable, although I think that you have a "weak spot" for Lucianarchy.

Yes, him and bigots. Again, I'm sorry.

Originally posted by Thanz
I don't want to come as holier than thou here. I know that I am far from perfect. I just think that the way you post sometimes gets interpreted as arrogance when perhaps you don't intend it. And on a completely irrational note, I think that I had a better impression of you when you used the Quy-Gon avatar. The current guy (who I just can't place) has an expression on his face that kind of screams "*********" to me. I am not proud of it, but there it is.

Again, another failing of writing too quickly while trying to work.

As for the Avatar, it's Alton Brown, (http://www.altonbrown.com) and yeah, he looks a little smug. :)

I'll go find Qui-Gon again...

5th November 2003, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by showme2
It is a "CLAIM" in the lead post on the thread.

I shall therefore challenge it if I choose to do so.

End of story. I need nobody's permission - certainly not yours.

In other words, you state clearly that your suborned "claim" will be your attempt to derail this thread?

Troll!:coal:

Psi Baba

5th November 2003, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by Thanz
The current guy (who I just can't place) has an expression on his face that kind of screams "*********" to me. I am not proud of it, but there it is.
To me it looks like Matt Frewer, aka Max Headroom and Rasmussen from the ST-TNG episode "A Matter of Time." But I don't recall seeing Matt Frewer wielding an electric mixer as if it were a weapon. Ian's avatar looks like it could be from a porn site . . . I imagine . . . maybe

CFLarsen

5th November 2003, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by Thanz
That said, I don't put you in the same category as CFLarsen, BillHoyt or Thaiboxerken, who seem to revel in making fun of or harassing people they disagree with. The LarsenList.

You are most welcome to describe how else we are going to get some answers from those who make the claims.

They don't want to answer the questions that derive from their claims in the threads they have been posted.

Hence, the Larsen Lists. Just to keep record.

They don't want to answer the questions in the Larsen Lists, either.

Do tell me, Thanz: How do we get those answers?

Or, are those answers not important at all?

Nyarlathotep

5th November 2003, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by TLN

As for the Avatar, it's Alton Brown, (http://www.altonbrown.com) and yeah, he looks a little smug. :)

I'll go find Qui-Gon again...

All this time I have thought it was the guy who played Max Headroom.

Boy was I off.

Nyarlathotep

5th November 2003, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by Psi Baba

To me it looks like Matt Frewer, aka Max Headroom and Rasmussen from the ST-TNG episode "A Matter of Time." But I don't recall seeing Matt Frewer wielding an electric mixer as if it were a weapon. Ian's avatar looks like it could be from a porn site . . . I imagine . . . maybe

And I see I am not the only person to think that.

5th November 2003, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
I agree with you completely ShowMe2. Randi doesn't say it's a "skeptic's forum", though TLN asserts this regularly. In fact, as you accurately note, Randi points out that believers--and their beliefs--are welcome to participate in the discussions here.

Straw man, suborned from ShowMe2's suborning of the original article.

And I don't see why TLN demands that Ian "prove empirically" his ideas that consciousness survives death.

In other words, you think that anyone should be able to make any claim with impunity?

That's what you mean if you can't see why somebody might ask for empirical proof of an extraordinary claim lacking in evidence.

(And posts like this kind of make you wonder how some of these people got through their college social science and philosophy classes, doesn't it?)

I thought you didn't do personal attacks. That is a personal attack. You're defaming every one of your debating opponents, and accusing them of incompetence when you say that.

I trust that you have testable, verifiable, repeatable proof of that assertion? I trust that you can show it on demand?

SO SHOW IT OR RETRACT IT, Clancie.

Obviously, such definitive proof is not available--that doesn't invalidate the ideas or that there is plenty of evidence to support speculations about existence that go beyond regarding "dead is dead, end of story" as a true and indisputable fact that all must agree to.

There is no evidence, ergo your statement is false. Evidence does not mean "anecdote", Clancie. Evidence can be tested, verified, and repeated. You haven't any of that.

Nothing is more boring than your unfounded insistence that this is a "skeptic's" board, your insistence on a narrow range of acceptable ideas, and demanding laboratory evidence where none so far exists.

Suborned accusation, and you know it, as far as "skeptic..>".

As far as insisting on proof, that's exactly how the scientific method works. If you don't have any, go away and get some.

If that last sentence means you stipulate that there is no good evidence, so be it, I'll be glad to remind you that you've admitted that there is, then, no good evidence, by your own word, when you start claiming mystical foofraw again.

If the boredom becomes too acute to bear, TLN, the "Ignore" feature works just fine (if you do it right, this place could read like the forum of your dreams...where everyone thinks exactly like you....:rolleyes: )....
Oh, just look at this, Clancie, who tells others not to be rude, is stunningly, appallingly insulting and rude.

Hypocrite!

5th November 2003, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by TLN

Exactly. I've never said only skeptics can post here. Clancie needs to make me into a big bad monster though so she can ignore me.

A typical reaction, in my experience, from someone who has made a baseless claim, and who is beggared by the request for evidence.

CFLarsen

5th November 2003, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by Thanz
The current guy (who I just can't place) has an expression on his face that kind of screams "*********" to me. I am not proud of it, but there it is.

Just look it up. It would be so easy for you. Yet you don't.

5th November 2003, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

JJ demonstrating his complete lack of understanding of what the word evidence means said:

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

If you can't offer any proof, that's the same as admitting you haven't any evidence.

Ian, it is profoundly unethical of you to extract a comment from context as you have above, and represent it as a fair statement.

It is a fact that understanding what the word evidence means is a simple, fundamental part of my professional activities.

Retract immediately.

Chad Noles

5th November 2003, 02:47 PM

The current guy (who I just can't place) has an expression on his face that kind of screams "*********" to me.

Alton Brown of "Good Eats" on the food network.HTH

5th November 2003, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

The way you put it people will get the impression that I consider that I have given solid irrefutable reasons and/or evidence for an afterlife, and I have claimed that these arguments have not been refuted.

You have repeatedly referred to the existance of an afterlife as a done deal.

You have done so despite the lack of any evidence whatsoever.

You don't have that privilege.

Clancie

5th November 2003, 02:53 PM

Posted by jj

Oh, just look at this, Clancie, who tells others not to be rude, is stunningly, appallingly insulting and rude.

Hypocrite!
Dang, jj. I thought we'd been getting along so well lately (or, alternatively, that you had me on "Ignore" :) ).
A few comments:

Clancie:

In fact, as you accurately note, Randi points out that believers--and their beliefs--are welcome to participate in the discussions here.

jj:

Straw man, suborned from ShowMe2's suborning of the original article.

Clancie's response:

How so? ShowMe2 just quotes the home page introduction to this Forum (as I have before). Randi makes it clear, right on his home page, that skeptics and non skeptics are welcome here.....Nowhere does he say--as TLN does, repeatedly--that it is a "skeptics' forum".....

Clancie:

And I don't see why TLN demands that Ian "prove empirically" his ideas that consciousness survives death.

jj:

In other words, you think that anyone should be able to make any claim with impunity?

Clancie's response:

As a matter of fact, yes, I do. I think people can claim whatever...and then be challenged, ignored, refuted, etc, as warranted. It's educational. Why not?

Clancie:

(And posts like this kind of make you wonder how some of these people got through their college social science and philosophy classes, doesn't it?)

jj:

I thought you didn't do personal attacks. That is a personal attack. You're defaming every one of your debating opponents, and accusing them of incompetence when you say that.

Clancie's response:

Not imo. I just find the drumbeat about "science" sometimes so incessant here that I wonder if some people have ever ventured out of the science classes and into social sciences and philosophy? After all, there's scant "proof" offered in many non-science subjects, and yet...we still consider that some level of knowledge exists...and that there are many theories worth discussing without laboratory proof of them...and that the search for understanding and knowledge still continues with or without access to a laboratory....

jj:

I trust that you have testable, verifiable, repeatable proof of that assertion? I trust that you can show it on demand?

CLancie:

I don't even know what you're talking about. My point is that there are recognized fields of knowledge outside of science....where ideas are discussed without slavish adherence to passing the "bar of laboratory 'proof'" first. And, yes, I can -prove- such classes and fields -do- exist....(Check any college catalogue. In fact, its quite true that whole university departments thrive unfettered by requirements for "scientific proof")..

Thanz

5th November 2003, 02:57 PM

Mr. Larsen -

I do not think that you ask fair questions. I do not agree with many of your interpretations of other peoples posts. The way I see it, you misinterpret a post, and then ask questions about your interpretation which do not address the points actually made in the original post. They come off (to me, anyway) as having a "When did you stop beating your wife" flavour.

Asking these kind of questions are not conducive to a meaningful discussion. You always seem as if you are out to "get" someone, rather than just discussing ideas. I do not get the impression that you are genuinely interested in what some people have to say. We should be here for a discussion. You prefer an interrogation.

Thanz

5th November 2003, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Just look it up. It would be so easy for you. Yet you don't.
How exactly is it easy? Should I type "guy with mixmaster" into google? Besides, I don't care WHO he is - I was just commenting that he looks familiar but I can't place him. Has that ever happened to you? Do you feel an insatiable need to look it up every time it happens?

I was just commenting on the appearance of his avatar, but as usual, whenever I say that I don't know something you have to chime in and tell me to look it up. :rolleyes:

lifegazer

5th November 2003, 03:06 PM

Clancie

5th November 2003, 03:09 PM

Posted by TLN

Either prove this empirically or be silent.
How can people find nothing wrong with this statement and still claim that this is a "skeptics' forum"? (or even one espousing critical thinking and discussion?) :confused:

TLN

5th November 2003, 03:10 PM

Does this mean you don't want to go to dinner?

Clancie

5th November 2003, 03:15 PM

Lol, TLN.
You may be a great guy in person, but to be perfectly honest, in terms of this forum, you are one of the small handful of people who really gets on my nerves! :p (Plus...I don't know who Alton Brown is, but I completely agree with Thanz about the impression your avatar is giving--and he -does- look exactly :) like Matt Frewer!.).

TLN

5th November 2003, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
You may be a great guy in person, but to be perfectly honest, in terms of this forum...

So, is that a yes?

Romeo

5th November 2003, 04:10 PM

I don't think TLN's icon looks like Matt Frewer - just a sadistic skeptic preparing to interrogate a believer with a blender.

Fine pictorial representation of his posting style ;)

5th November 2003, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

If conciousness survives death then conciousness exists beyond the material realm - conciousness is not matter. Yet here you are asking for material/empirical proof that conciousness resides beyond the material domain.

I think I'll skip the rest of this thread.

Whoa, buddy, just a tad circular are we?

It doesn't matter if conciousness is material or not, you know, it obviously has material implications while you're alive, and there is no reason to suggest that it can't when you're dead.

There's no evidence it does, of course, and that's the real problem.

When you come up with evidence that it does, then maybe there will be some reason, any reason, to think that conciousness is anything more than mere biochemistry. Until then, there's no need for any supernatural element.

You can introduce all the ones you want, but you can't convince me they exist until you have evidence. I won't argue religion unless what it says is at odds with material science. If you find yourself in that state, you need to reconsider your premises.

TLN

5th November 2003, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by Romeo
I don't think TLN's icon looks like Matt Frewer - just a sadistic skeptic preparing to interrogate a believer with a blender.

Fine pictorial representation of his posting style ;)

Actually, Alton Brown described himself to me as both a skeptic and a cynic. :)

Unas

5th November 2003, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You don't have to prove it, just provide some arguments.
Unnecessary. You are required to provide evidence for your claims. No one else is required to provide arguments against them.
I'm a colossal bore? Surely it cannot be so!
You persist in substituting personal attack for rational discussion, even after your tactics have been exposed for what they are. Yes, that does constitute the behavior of a "colossal bore".

The Mighty Thor

5th November 2003, 11:14 PM

CLancie:I don't even know what you're talking about. My point is that there are recognized fields of knowledge outside of science....where ideas are discussed without slavish adherence to passing the "bar of laboratory 'proof'" first. And, yes, I can -prove- such classes and fields -do- exist....(Check any college catalogue. In fact, its quite true that whole university departments thrive unfettered by requirements for "scientific proof")..

Yes, Clancie, but after the 'discussion of the ideas', in most other areas of academia, the issues of 'proof' and 'evidence' will defer to the scientific method.

Since the phenomena proposed by paranormalists defy the rules of physics (as they stand today, even given the challenge of quantum mechanics) they demand 'hard' evidence of a scientific nature in order to be accepted.

You admit that you are not providing hard scientific evidence. You use the word 'evidence' to mean 'anecdotal or circumstantial' evidence, and if you used those terms precisely, I think you would not say you have 'hard scientific evidence' for any paranormal claim.

Where you differ from the skeptics is that you do not agree with the philosophical position of David Hume:

PERSON MAKES EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM.

PHILOSOPHER: Should I believe the extraordinary claim over believing that the claimant may be mad, fraudulant, mistaken, or deceived?

Given that these latter options are common traits in humans, I should disbelieve the extraordinary claim until I am offered some overwhelming evidence.

I think, like SG, you are a dogged 'straw clutcher'. You've looked into this with great enthusiam and dedication and have found massive holes in what you once believed. Now you are down to a few 'genuine' possibilities (no true Scotsman style) and are finding holes in these, too.

Yet you cling on -- hopeing.

But all is not lost. You don't have to stop hopeing!

You can hope for a day when gullible, grieving folk will not be conned by charlatans. You can hope for a world where worthy, decent, honest people will not be misjudged and vilified because of psuedoscientific methodology. You can hope for a world where sick people will not be given false hope, be distracted from conventional medicine, and be conned out of their hard-earned cash by quacks. You can hope for a world where illness and deformity will not be attributed to 'sin' 'evil spirits', or 'bad karma'.

You can hope for a whole lot more, too.

I think there is hope for you yet

;)

malc

CFLarsen

6th November 2003, 03:16 AM

Originally posted by Thanz
Mr. Larsen -

I do not think that you ask fair questions. I do not agree with many of your interpretations of other peoples posts. The way I see it, you misinterpret a post, and then ask questions about your interpretation which do not address the points actually made in the original post. They come off (to me, anyway) as having a "When did you stop beating your wife" flavour.

Asking these kind of questions are not conducive to a meaningful discussion. You always seem as if you are out to "get" someone, rather than just discussing ideas. I do not get the impression that you are genuinely interested in what some people have to say. We should be here for a discussion. You prefer an interrogation.

I prefer some answers.

You really think that a question like "How do we get answers from people who claim evidence of paranormal phenomena" is not "fair"?

Not fair??

We should be here for a discussion that leads somewhere. This is not a kaffee klatch. This is a board for critical thinking, skepticism and education.

How do you suggest we educate those who want to be able to tell the truth from the false?

Or is that not a fair question either?

Originally posted by Thanz
How exactly is it easy? Should I type "guy with mixmaster" into google? Besides, I don't care WHO he is - I was just commenting that he looks familiar but I can't place him. Has that ever happened to you? Do you feel an insatiable need to look it up every time it happens?

I was just commenting on the appearance of his avatar, but as usual, whenever I say that I don't know something you have to chime in and tell me to look it up. :rolleyes:

Say no more. I understand that it is not "fair" to ask you to look things up.

showme2

6th November 2003, 05:01 AM

"""How do you suggest we educate those who want to be able to tell the truth from the false?""" he says.

So CFL now has the temerity to imagine that he is capable of "educating" others.

Talk about supercilious !
It seems, however, to be a trait of most (not all) sceptics.

CFLarsen

6th November 2003, 05:26 AM

Originally posted by showme2
So CFL now has the temerity to imagine that he is capable of "educating" others.

Talk about supercilious !

SkepticReport. (http://www.skepticreport.com) That's my website. Quite a few other skeptics write articles for it, too.

So, yeah, I have the "temerity" to "imagine" that I am "capable" of "educating" others. What have you done yourself?

Originally posted by showme2
It seems, however, to be a trait of most (not all) sceptics.

This is an educational forum. If you don't feel you learn anything from being here, why are you here in the first place?

BillHoyt

6th November 2003, 05:28 AM

I just find the drumbeat about "science" sometimes so incessant here that I wonder if some people have ever ventured out of the science classes and into social sciences and philosophy? After all, there's scant "proof" offered in many non-science subjects, and yet...we still consider that some level of knowledge exists...and that there are many theories worth discussing without laboratory proof of them...and that the search for understanding and knowledge still continues with or without access to a laboratory...[/b]

You equivocate here on "knowledge." The "knowledge" you point to from other disciplines is not knowledge about the nature of the universe. The nature of the universe is firmly within the domain of science. If you wish to discuss esp or mediumship or elves or fairies, then you must deal with such claims via the rules of scientific evidence.

I don't even know what you're talking about. My point is that there are recognized fields of knowledge outside of science....where ideas are discussed without slavish adherence to passing the "bar of laboratory 'proof'" first. And, yes, I can -prove- such classes and fields -do- exist....(Check any college catalogue. In fact, its quite true that whole university departments thrive unfettered by requirements for "scientific proof")...
This, Clancie, is a thinly disguised argumentum ad populem. It is fallacious reasoning atop the fallacious equivocation on "knowledge."

BillHoyt

6th November 2003, 05:46 AM

Originally posted by Thanz

How exactly is it easy? Should I type "guy with mixmaster" into google? Besides, I don't care WHO he is - I was just commenting that he looks familiar but I can't place him. Has that ever happened to you? Do you feel an insatiable need to look it up every time it happens?

I was just commenting on the appearance of his avatar, but as usual, whenever I say that I don't know something you have to chime in and tell me to look it up. :rolleyes:
No, Thancie, you said:
The current guy (who I just can't place) has an expression on his face that kind of screams "*********" to me. I am not proud of it, but there it is.

His name is Matt Frewer, and he is a comedic actor.

Cheers,

Interesting Ian

6th November 2003, 05:59 AM

Originally posted by Unas

II
You don't have to prove it, just provide some arguments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unnecessary. You are required to provide evidence for your claims. No one else is required to provide arguments against them.

Unas,

Don't be so utterly absurd. If a person refuses to provide any arguments, reasons, or evidence for his position, then why on earth should we suppose his position is correct? I have given many many reasons and arguments for my position. Skeptics on the other hand are remarkably reluctant to provide any. Until they do so I will not be impressed, no matter how much you might whine about it.

Interesting Ian

6th November 2003, 06:17 AM

Originally posted by malcolmdl

Yes, Clancie, but after the 'discussion of the ideas', in most other areas of academia, the issues of 'proof' and 'evidence' will defer to the scientific method.

Not for metaphysical points of contention, and the notion of whether we survive our bodies or not, is a metaphysical issue, not a scientific one. But I get sick of repeating myself all the time.

Since the phenomena proposed by paranormalists defy the rules of physics (as they stand today, even given the challenge of quantum mechanics) they demand 'hard' evidence of a scientific nature in order to be accepted.

Right, now you need to list these physical laws which any paranormal phenomenon would contravene.

You admit that you are not providing hard scientific evidence. You use the word 'evidence' to mean 'anecdotal or circumstantial' evidence, and if you used those terms precisely, I think you would not say you have 'hard scientific evidence' for any paranormal claim.

You need to be more precise with your terminology. Parapsychology cannot be expected to generate the type of certainty obtained in physics because of the general lack of theory. Also you're dealing with human beings rather than elementary particles, with the inherent unpredictability this implies.

Where you differ from the skeptics is that you do not agree with the philosophical position of David Hume:

PERSON MAKES EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM.

What constitutes an "extraordinary" claim is in the eye of the beholder. In other words it depends on your background philosophical assumptions about the world. Clancie might well not share your philosophical assumptions.

PHILOSOPHER: Should I believe the extraordinary claim over believing that the claimant may be mad, fraudulant, mistaken, or deceived?

Given that these latter options are common traits in humans, I should disbelieve the extraordinary claim until I am offered some overwhelming evidence.

You might think it extraordinary, but please don't impose what you feel to be extraordinary on others.

CFLarsen

6th November 2003, 06:32 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Not for metaphysical points of contention, and the notion of whether we survive our bodies or not, is a metaphysical issue, not a scientific one. But I get sick of repeating myself all the time.

Then why don't you argue this in the "Religion and Philosophy" forum?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You might think it extraordinary, but please don't impose what you feel to be extraordinary on others.

But you are quite comfortable with imposing what you feel other people think and argue?

Thanz

6th November 2003, 06:52 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

No, Thancie, you said:
I knew you'd eventually get around to coming up with some sort of variation on my screen name in an attempt to mock me. I can't say that I'm particularly impressed by it, however. Is that the best you can do?

His name is Matt Frewer, and he is a comedic actor.
Incorrect. If you could read, you would have seen that the identity of the person in the avatar has been revealed by TLN and commented on by others, and it is certainly not Matt Frewer.

BillHoyt

6th November 2003, 06:55 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Not for metaphysical points of contention, and the notion of whether we survive our bodies or not, is a metaphysical issue, not a scientific one. But I get sick of repeating myself all the time.
As do we of hearing it repeated. The notion of survival is indeed metaphysical until you push that notion into the domain of science. If you wish to be bemused by this quaint notion, then be my guest. If you claim, however, evidence for this notion, you have entered science's turf, and must play by its rules of evidence. So the choice is yours: claim the existence of lame spirit thingies that can't punch their way into our universe or demonstrate with scientific evidence that they exist and pack such a punch.
Right, now you need to list these physical laws which any paranormal phenomenon would contravene.
This has been pointed out repeatedly, Ian.
You need to be more precise with your terminology. Parapsychology cannot be expected to generate the type of certainty obtained in physics because of the general lack of theory. Also you're dealing with human beings rather than elementary particles, with the inherent unpredictability this implies.
Balderdash. Theoretical frameworks are an achievement built up from countless small observations and experiments. What a wonderfully contrived straw man you've made here. And you make him walk, too! Kewl. You insist on this pap about theory-laden observation and then use it an a parapsychology apologetic.
What constitutes an "extraordinary" claim is in the eye of the beholder. In other words it depends on your background philosophical assumptions about the world. Clancie might well not share your philosophical assumptions.
There are no philosophical assumptions in science. There is a very small organon, and the mountain of hypothesis, experiment and observation from which we build our picture of the universe. What constitutes "extraordinary" is well-defined; it doesn't merely refute established scientific fact, it contravenes background principles as well.

Cheers,

Thanz

6th November 2003, 07:02 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I prefer some answers.

You really think that a question like "How do we get answers from people who claim evidence of paranormal phenomena" is not "fair"?

Not fair??
This is exactly the type of thing I was referring to. We were discussing the LarsenLists. My comments had to do with the questions on the LarsenLists. But no, you break out this one question and fixate on it. Yeah it was this question, this very question that sent me over the edge. :rolleyes:

We should be here for a discussion that leads somewhere.
And we could have one if you were not so fixated on interrogating believers in an attempt to get them to admit whatever it is you want them to admit. You just want to "win" each exchange with a believer. You can't just have a reasonable discussion.
This is not a kaffee klatch.
So you and Mr. Hoyt keep insisting. I don't think that it is up to you to decide what this board is or isn't.
This is a board for critical thinking, skepticism and education.
And those goals are better met through a reasonable discussion, not the interrogation techniques that you emply and the smug mocking of Mr. Hoyt. Take a look at Renata's posts - she is always polite and makes good rational arguments. Believers discuss things with her because she is reasonable.

How do you suggest we educate those who want to be able to tell the truth from the false?
How about acting in a reasonable manner and presenting your arguments in a reasonable manner? Ever thought of trying that instead of trying to interrogate people?

Say no more. I understand that it is not "fair" to ask you to look things up.
Blah, blah, blah. Again, the identity of the avatar was not material to me. Why would I look it up? And if you are so savvy, why don't you enlighten me as to how this could be accomplished? If I really wanted to know, wouldn't asking TLN be the easiest way to do it?

BillHoyt

6th November 2003, 07:04 AM

Originally posted by Thanz
Incorrect. If you could read, you would have seen that the identity of the person in the avatar has been revealed by TLN and commented on by others, and it is certainly not Matt Frewer.
He looks just like Frewer. He also has a website, where you can lodge any more three-year-old whines you have about how he looks and how evil and vile skeptics are. Or, you could choose to grow up and discuss reality.

BillHoyt

6th November 2003, 07:07 AM

Originally posted by Thanz
Blah, blah, blah.

Thanz

6th November 2003, 07:11 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

He looks just like Frewer. He also has a website, where you can lodge any more three-year-old whines you have about how he looks and how evil and vile skeptics are. Or, you could choose to grow up and discuss reality.
You really don't get it, do you? My comments on TLN's avatar were made in the interests of full disclosure. I was admitting a failure in myself - that my impressions of his avatar had coloured my impressions of the poster and the arguments he presented. That is why I said I wasn't proud of it. And I am not. But I have recognized the failing and am trying to correct it.

If you have any examples of "three year old whines" about "how evil and vile skeptics are", I ask you to post them. I have not said that skeptics are evil or vile - I have said that I dislike and disagree with the behaviour of certain posters - yourself included. That is a specific statement. Do not elevate it to the general. I have no quarrel with skeptics or skepticism on a general level.

BillHoyt

6th November 2003, 07:15 AM

Originally posted by Thanz
Blah, blah, blah.

Thanz

6th November 2003, 07:21 AM

Mr. Hoyt -

If you are having trouble with your posts (as is evidenced by your double posting which only contain a quote from me and no text of your own) you can use the "Preview Reply" button beside the "Submit Reply" button and it will show you your post. That way, you can avoid cluttering the board with posts that have no content.

Just a friendly tip.

Interesting Ian

6th November 2003, 07:21 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Not for metaphysical points of contention, and the notion of whether we survive our bodies or not, is a metaphysical issue, not a scientific one. But I get sick of repeating myself all the time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Billy
As do we of hearing it repeated. The notion of survival is indeed metaphysical until you push that notion into the domain of science.

Where did I do that?

If you wish to be bemused by this quaint notion, then be my guest. If you claim, however, evidence for this notion, you have entered science's turf,

Not at all. How do you work that out?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right, now you need to list these physical laws which any paranormal phenomenon would contravene.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This has been pointed out repeatedly, Ian.

I've never heard of any.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You need to be more precise with your terminology. Parapsychology cannot be expected to generate the type of certainty obtained in physics because of the general lack of theory. Also you're dealing with human beings rather than elementary particles, with the inherent unpredictability this implies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Balderdash. Theoretical frameworks are an achievement built up from countless small observations and experiments.

Yes, and those theories involving the voluntary behaviour of human beings don't have as much success as those theories in physics.

What a wonderfully contrived straw man you've made here. And you make him walk, too! Kewl. You insist on this pap about theory-laden observation and then use it an a parapsychology apologetic.

{sighs}

For once in your life will you please listen to me? Get a clue what informal logical fallacies mean. The same goes for the majority of skeptics on here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What constitutes an "extraordinary" claim is in the eye of the beholder. In other words it depends on your background philosophical assumptions about the world. Clancie might well not share your philosophical assumptions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are no philosophical assumptions in science.

That's right. So what legitimizes claiming some alleged phenomena are extraordinary? The only answer would be that it is in tension with existing knowledge rather than merely supplementing it. So what existing knowledge is it in tension with?

There is a very small organon, and the mountain of hypothesis, experiment and observation from which we build our picture of the universe. What constitutes "extraordinary" is well-defined; it doesn't merely refute established scientific fact, it contravenes background principles as well.

Well don't be shy. What scientific fact does it contradict (not refute incidentally) and what background principles does it contravene? The only background assumption it contravenes is naturalism, and naturalism is not necessary for science. Science need only be applicable to the external world, not that which is aware of this world.

CFLarsen

6th November 2003, 07:32 AM

Originally posted by Thanz
This is exactly the type of thing I was referring to. We were discussing the LarsenLists. My comments had to do with the questions on the LarsenLists. But no, you break out this one question and fixate on it. Yeah it was this question, this very question that sent me over the edge. :rolleyes:

So, if I list all the questions, that's bad. If I focus on just one question, that's bad, too! Gee, Thanz, that makes it pretty hard to get some answers, doesn't it?

Originally posted by Thanz
And we could have one if you were not so fixated on interrogating believers in an attempt to get them to admit whatever it is you want them to admit. You just want to "win" each exchange with a believer. You can't just have a reasonable discussion.

Sure I can. I just want to get to the bottom of things. I don't want to sit around the camp fire, telling stories, and say "Ooh" and "Aah". I want some answers. What's wrong with that?

Originally posted by Thanz
So you and Mr. Hoyt keep insisting. I don't think that it is up to you to decide what this board is or isn't.

I refer you to what Randi has said.

Originally posted by Thanz
And those goals are better met through a reasonable discussion, not the interrogation techniques that you emply and the smug mocking of Mr. Hoyt. Take a look at Renata's posts - she is always polite and makes good rational arguments. Believers discuss things with her because she is reasonable.

No, they don't. Clancie and neofight have avoided renata for a long time now.

Originally posted by Thanz
How about acting in a reasonable manner and presenting your arguments in a reasonable manner? Ever thought of trying that instead of trying to interrogate people?

I do not "interrogate" people, I ask them direct questions that try to get to the heart of the matter. I don't talk in circles, I am not interested in the camp fire scenario.

Originally posted by Thanz
Blah, blah, blah. Again, the identity of the avatar was not material to me. Why would I look it up? And if you are so savvy, why don't you enlighten me as to how this could be accomplished? If I really wanted to know, wouldn't asking TLN be the easiest way to do it?

"Blah, blah, blah"? Yeah, that's a real "reasonable" way of discussing things... :rolleyes:

BillHoyt

6th November 2003, 07:36 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Where did I do that?
Whenever you claim any effect upon the universe.
Not at all. How do you work that out?
See above.
I've never heard of any.
Then you evince a highly selective memory.
Yes, and those theories involving the voluntary behaviour of human beings don't have as much success as those theories in physics.
You've changed your claim. Your first claim: "Parapsychology cannot be expected to generate the type of certainty obtained in physics because of the general lack of theory." Lack of theory has nothing to do with certainty.
For once in your life will you please listen to me? Get a clue what informal logical fallacies mean. The same goes for the majority of skeptics on here.
It is a straw man, Ian. You attempt to assert that theory drives the hypothetico-deductive method and then apologize for parapsychology's lack of progress based on this straw premise.
That's right. So what legitimizes claiming some alleged phenomena are extraordinary? The only answer would be that it is in tension with existing knowledge rather than merely supplementing it. So what existing knowledge is it in tension with?
If you want specific answers to this, then please provide a specific psi claim.

Cheers,

Clancie

6th November 2003, 08:00 AM

Ian,

Don't you know? There is no metaphysics. There is only science. :rolleyes:

P.S. Your new avatar isn't (the remade) Paula Jones, is it? If so, I definitely cast my vote for bringing back the old one (not that you asked....:) )....

BillHoyt

6th November 2003, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
Don't you know? There is no metaphysics. There is only science. :rolleyes:
That is not what is being argued. Science makes no metaphysical assumptions. Science's domain is the universe, and any claims about the universe must meet science's rules of evidence.

Cheers,

Thanz

6th November 2003, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

So, if I list all the questions, that's bad. If I focus on just one question, that's bad, too! Gee, Thanz, that makes it pretty hard to get some answers, doesn't it?
You don't get it, do you? It is the constant parsing and misinterpretatoin of other people's posts that drives me crazy about you.

Sure I can.
Then why don't you?

I just want to get to the bottom of things. I don't want to sit around the camp fire, telling stories, and say "Ooh" and "Aah". I want some answers. What's wrong with that?
Nothing wrong with wanting answers. I have a problem with the way in which you go about it. I do not think that your methods are reasonable or effective.

I refer you to what Randi has said.
Others have referred you to the introduction to the board, which is also a statement by (or authorized by) Randi. But I guess it doesn't count.

No, they don't. Clancie and neofight have avoided renata for a long time now.
That's between them and renata, then. I have the impression that they respond more substantively to her than to you.

I do not "interrogate" people, I ask them direct questions that try to get to the heart of the matter. I don't talk in circles, I am not interested in the camp fire scenario.
You can go on believing that image of yourself if you like. I feel that you certainly do interrogate people.

"Blah, blah, blah"? Yeah, that's a real "reasonable" way of discussing things... :rolleyes:
You are correct - that is not a reasonable way of discussing things. I apologize.

Clancie

6th November 2003, 08:20 AM

Posted by malcolmd

I think, like SG, you are a dogged 'straw clutcher'. You've looked into this with great enthusiam and dedication and have found massive holes in what you once believed.
Well, malcolm, you're kind of right.

I looked into this with reluctance and smugness (as a lifelong atheist who was not interested in the paranormal) and found some holes in what I once believed (which was that "dead is dead; obvious end of story"). My position now is one of doubt, not certainty.

:)

Interesting Ian

6th November 2003, 08:28 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
Ian,

Don't you know? There is no metaphysics. There is only science. :rolleyes:

P.S. Your new avatar isn't (the remade) Paula Jones, is it? If so, I definitely cast my vote for bringing back the old one (not that you asked....:) )....

Ummm . .you'll have to forgive me for my appalling lack of general knowledge, but I don't know who Paula Jones is. I hardly ever watch TV you see or read newspapers :) But anyway, I just did a google search on images. She looks like a guy dressed up! :eek:

So . . . er . .no . . I hope not! LOL Anyway, it's not according to the name it says at the bottom of the full size pic on my hard drive. But I'd prefer not to say the name :) Mind you, I expect you prefer the old avatar anyway :). Just that I was sick of people complaining how awful my avatar is. Hell, the photo was taken just before I had an exam (18 months or so ago) so people can hardly expect me to have a huge grin on my face! :D LOL

CFLarsen

6th November 2003, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by Thanz
You don't get it, do you? It is the constant parsing and misinterpretatoin of other people's posts that drives me crazy about you.

Please point to where I constantly misinterpret people's posts. Don't just make that kind of accusation, show me!

Originally posted by Thanz
Nothing wrong with wanting answers. I have a problem with the way in which you go about it. I do not think that your methods are reasonable or effective.

Really? I find them very reasonable and very effective. They cut to the bone, straight away. The core issues are revealed, ready to be examined.

Originally posted by Thanz
Others have referred you to the introduction to the board, which is also a statement by (or authorized by) Randi. But I guess it doesn't count.

I am very familiar with that part, too. Contrary to you, I don't just select the part that corresponds with my ideas.

Originally posted by Thanz
That's between them and renata, then. I have the impression that they respond more substantively to her than to you.

That may be so. You were not, however, correct when you claimed that believers respond to renata.

Originally posted by Thanz
You can go on believing that image of yourself if you like. I feel that you certainly do interrogate people.

That is your feeling, then. You have made it very clear. That will not stop the questions from coming, though.

Originally posted by Thanz
You are correct - that is not a reasonable way of discussing things. I apologize.

Accepted. Now, could you address the point?

What do we do if a person does not respond to "reason" or to "my way" (since you insist that they are different)? How do you suggest we educate those who want to be able to tell the truth from the false?

Should we simply get up from the camp fire, and go our separate way? Crooks can go on cheating people, con men can take other people's money, people can live in darkness, away from reason and science?

I don't think so, Thanz.

CFLarsen

6th November 2003, 08:42 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
I looked into this with reluctance and smugness (as a lifelong atheist who was not interested in the paranormal) and found some holes in what I once believed (which was that "dead is dead; obvious end of story"). My position now is one of doubt, not certainty.

Did you not look into mediumship because you had lost a dear member of your family?

Thanz

6th November 2003, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Please point to where I constantly misinterpret people's posts. Don't just make that kind of accusation, show me!
I really don't want to get into a interpretation fight with you right now - I will offer my interpretation, and you will still insist that yours is correct, and we will be no further ahead. But, since you asked, I will give you a couple of examples.

In the "taken in by John Edward" thread (page 19) I stated that I would have to discount your posts accordingly. When I then agreed with you that the sky was blue, you said that I "do not practice what I preach" because I did not "discount" your statement about the sky.

More recently, in a LarsenList in the "weening a friend..." thread, you asked me "Why do you consider a call for evidence "jumping" on people?", which was not my assertion. It was your misinterpretation of my position.

Really? I find them very reasonable and very effective. They cut to the bone, straight away. The core issues are revealed, ready to be examined.
Effective? Really? How many LarsenLists do you have? How many have outstanding questions? In percentage terms, how many of your questions remain outstanding?

I am very familiar with that part, too. Contrary to you, I don't just select the part that corresponds with my ideas.

Huh? This is the whole text at the link on the home page:"Be part of the JREF web community by engaging in intelligent discussions with both skeptics and non-skeptics from around the globe. " I don't think that the people who quote this were being selective.

That may be so. You were not, however, correct when you claimed that believers respond to renata.
Again, I have my view and you have yours. Renata is the only one who can tell us if she feels that she gets responded to adequately - and I would stand by her judgment whatever it may be. I do think that she gets MORE substantive response than you, however.

That is your feeling, then. You have made it very clear. That will not stop the questions from coming, though.
I did not harbour any illusions that it would. I could no more force you to change your posting style than I could force you to eat your vegetables. Both would be good for you, however.

Accepted. Now, could you address the point?

What do we do if a person does not respond to "reason" or to "my way" (since you insist that they are different)? How do you suggest we educate those who want to be able to tell the truth from the false?
If a person does not respond to reason, or your way, or any other arguments that are presented, then those people may not be people who want to be educated to tell the truth from the false, at least on that particular issue. You present your arguments on an issue, and if they are not accepted by the other side, you let it be. You do not need to convince everyone that you argue with that you are correct. You can only present the best arguments for your position and hope that they agree.

On a board such as this, the process may be as important as the end result. I do not think that you will ever convince neofight that your view of JE is correct. If you argue with reason and logic, and behave in a reasonable manner, you may convince other people (not directly involved in the conversation) that you are correct.

On the other hand, when you use the tactics that I see you and Mr. Hoyt use, you look like a-hole bullies. That impression takes away from your argument. The focus goes from the substantive arguments to the way the arguments are made. Your tactics and positions on what is said by people look unreasonable. Calling Clancie and Neofight and whoever else "woo-woos" may make you feel better, but it does nothing to convince the people who do want to learn the difference between truth and falsehood.

I will give you an example from my own experience. You will never convince me that God does not exist, no matter how many rational arguments you use (and I know there are many). It is something that I take on faith and believe. If, however, we are in a discussion and you use those rational arguments, someone else who is perhaps "on the fence" may read them and agree with you. If, on the other hand you simply call me a fool and make sarcastic comments about "sky-daddy", that will not convince anyone of the truth of your position.

You and I probably agree more than we disagree on the substantive issues. It is your tactics and debate style that I find to be counter-productive. Not just non-productive, but counter-productive.

lifegazer

6th November 2003, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by jj
It doesn't matter if conciousness is material or not, you know, it obviously has material implications while you're alive, and there is no reason to suggest that it can't when you're dead.

There's no evidence it does, of course, and that's the real problem.

There's no evidence that anything outside of sensation or reasoning or emotion exists. None whatsoever. Everything exists in the mind's eye. That is our experience of existence, and 'matter' is just assumed to be existing outside our awareness of it.
No evidence of an external reality yet you worship it to your death.

voidx

6th November 2003, 10:17 AM

Posted by Interesting Ian
Parapsychology cannot be expected to generate the type of certainty obtained in physics because of the general lack of theory. Also you're dealing with human beings rather than elementary particles, with the inherent unpredictability this implies.

This is where you are making a fundamental error I believe. You say "Parapsychology cannot be expected". I would leave out the "be expected" so the statement read as follows:

"Parapsychology cannot generate the type of certainy obtained in physics because of its general lack of theory."

It doesn't mean it shouldn't be expected to generate it, rather it just simply cannot.

BillHoyt

6th November 2003, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer

There's no evidence that anything outside of sensation or reasoning or emotion exists. None whatsoever. Everything exists in the mind's eye. That is our experience of existence, and 'matter' is just assumed to be existing outside our awareness of it.
No evidence of an external reality yet you worship it to your death.
Hockeypuck, lg. There is no assumption about external reality; there is ample evidence of it. Each and every time we use our store of knowledge about reality to make predictions about the things we have not yet observed, we also accumulate evidence that this perceived external reality is real.

A very recent case in point is Voyager's hitting the predicted shock wave at the edge of our solar system. This shock wave was never before observed, but astrophysicists had predicted it existed where the solar wind collided with particles from outside our solar system. Last year, Voyager reported back to us extraordinarily high radiation levels that would be expected from such a shock wave.

If this Voyager evidence holds up, it is just one more example of a successful prediction of a phenomenon never before observed. Such predictions argue strongly for the hockeypuck nature of your claim.

Cheers,

BillHoyt

6th November 2003, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by voidx

This is where you are making a fundamental error I believe. You say "Parapsychology cannot be expected". I would leave out the "be expected" so the statement read as follows:

"Parapsychology cannot generate the type of certainy obtained in physics because of its general lack of theory."

It doesn't mean it shouldn't be expected to generate it, rather it just simply cannot.

As long as we are correcting the statement, let me suggest this version:

"Parapsychology cannot generate the type of certainty obtained in physics."

The failure has nothing to do with a lack of theoretical frameworks.

Cheers,

Interesting Ian

6th November 2003, 10:45 AM

ceptimus

6th November 2003, 10:46 AM

Ian recently bragged in Flame War, that he currently has two sock puppets, one of whom pretends to be a skeptic.

Interesting Ian

6th November 2003, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

That is not what is being argued. Science makes no metaphysical assumptions. Science's domain is the universe, and any claims about the universe must meet science's rules of evidence.

You're right in that science does not make metaphysical assumptions. Unfortunately the majority of scientists do.

II
That's right. So what legitimizes claiming some alleged phenomena are extraordinary? The only answer would be that it is in tension with existing knowledge rather than merely supplementing it. So what existing knowledge is it in tension with?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Billy
If you want specific answers to this, then please provide a specific psi claim.

You were claiming any allegedly paranormal phenomenon whatsoever. :rolleyes: But OK, what about the notion of survival?

TLN

6th November 2003, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But OK, what about the notion of survival?

What about it? There's no conclusive evidence one way or the other.

Please, just say that the above statement is either true or false in your estimation.

BillHoyt

6th November 2003, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You're right in that science does not make metaphysical assumptions. Unfortunately the majority of scientists do.
I think you misconstrue scientists and skeptics when they state materialist conclusions. Those are very different from metaphysical assumptions.

You were claiming any allegedly paranormal phenomenon whatsoever. :rolleyes: But OK, what about the notion of survival?
You misconstrue me again. I asked for specifics simply in order to answer your question. If by "notion of survival" you mean simply an afterlife, this is unfalsifiable. Based on your past utterances, however, I think you mean much more. So please expound so that I can answer.

Cheers,

lifegazer

6th November 2003, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt
A very recent case in point is Voyager's hitting the predicted shock wave at the edge of our solar system. This shock wave was never before observed, but astrophysicists had predicted it existed where the solar wind collided with particles from outside our solar system. Last year, Voyager reported back to us extraordinarily high radiation levels that would be expected from such a shock wave.

Science is the study of perceived existence. Knowledge is of perceived existence. And predictions relate to an existence which will, hopefully, be perceived.

CFLarsen

6th November 2003, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by Thanz
I really don't want to get into a interpretation fight with you right now - I will offer my interpretation, and you will still insist that yours is correct, and we will be no further ahead.

It's not interpretation. It's simply a question of you finding evidence of your claim.

Originally posted by Thanz
But, since you asked, I will give you a couple of examples.

Examples you should have come up with yourself, instead of me having to ask for them.

Originally posted by Thanz
In the "taken in by John Edward" thread (page 19) I stated that I would have to discount your posts accordingly. When I then agreed with you that the sky was blue, you said that I "do not practice what I preach" because I did not "discount" your statement about the sky.

Here's what you said:

If this is the level of intellectual rigour that you apply to evidence and arguments, I shall have to discount your future postings accordingly.

I made postings maintaining the same "level of intellectual rigour", but you did not discount them.

Originally posted by Thanz
More recently, in a LarsenList in the "weening a friend..." thread, you asked me "Why do you consider a call for evidence "jumping" on people?", which was not my assertion. It was your misinterpretation of my position.

Absolutely not.

Here's what you said:

You, BillHoyt and TLN all jumped on Clancie for inaccuracies in a joke. I would have thought it was funny if she simply made up the zodiac signs and they had no correlation to either you or Claus. It was a riff on how coincidences happen with things like astrology.

You pointed to the part of Clancie's post where she made a joke about me and her being incompatible. However, you deliberately left out the rest of the post, where she "seriously" argued that astrology could be used to classify the characteristics of people.

So, the two examples of my "constant misrepresentation" turns out to be not misrepresentations at all. Got examples that are actual misrepresentations? It must be easy finding them, since I am constantly making them.

Originally posted by Thanz
Effective? Really? How many LarsenLists do you have? How many have outstanding questions? In percentage terms, how many of your questions remain outstanding?

Right now, there are three:

"Questions Clancie does NOT want to answer" (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23764)
"Questions for neo" (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21305)
"Questions for Lucianarchy" (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21701)

I would say about less than 5% have been answered. Neither in the relevant threads or in the collated ones. Don't forget that.

Originally posted by Thanz
Huh? This is the whole text at the link on the home page:"Be part of the JREF web community by engaging in intelligent discussions with both skeptics and non-skeptics from around the globe. " I don't think that the people who quote this were being selective.

The purpose of this forum is to engage in intelligent discussions, but also strive to find answers. Claims should be challenged. That is why nobody is censored for asking for evidence.

You are on a skeptics' board, Thanz. Expect your claims to be challenged.

Originally posted by Thanz
Again, I have my view and you have yours. Renata is the only one who can tell us if she feels that she gets responded to adequately - and I would stand by her judgment whatever it may be. I do think that she gets MORE substantive response than you, however.

No, no, no...now you are shifting the burden of evidence onto renata. You claimed renata got better responses from the believers, you show the evidence.

Originally posted by Thanz
I did not harbour any illusions that it would. I could no more force you to change your posting style than I could force you to eat your vegetables. Both would be good for you, however.

A bit condescending, are we? That contradicts your point, doesn't it? You have quite many of those lapses for someone who preaches reason and civility.

Originally posted by Thanz
If a person does not respond to reason, or your way, or any other arguments that are presented, then those people may not be people who want to be educated to tell the truth from the false, at least on that particular issue. You present your arguments on an issue, and if they are not accepted by the other side, you let it be. You do not need to convince everyone that you argue with that you are correct. You can only present the best arguments for your position and hope that they agree.

On a board such as this, the process may be as important as the end result. I do not think that you will ever convince neofight that your view of JE is correct. If you argue with reason and logic, and behave in a reasonable manner, you may convince other people (not directly involved in the conversation) that you are correct.

On the other hand, when you use the tactics that I see you and Mr. Hoyt use, you look like a-hole bullies. That impression takes away from your argument. The focus goes from the substantive arguments to the way the arguments are made. Your tactics and positions on what is said by people look unreasonable. Calling Clancie and Neofight and whoever else "woo-woos" may make you feel better, but it does nothing to convince the people who do want to learn the difference between truth and falsehood.

Such is your opinion. Could you address what I ask you? Do you think that we should let the crooks continue to cheat people? That science should be hindered by false claims?

Originally posted by Thanz
I will give you an example from my own experience. You will never convince me that God does not exist, no matter how many rational arguments you use (and I know there are many). It is something that I take on faith and believe. If, however, we are in a discussion and you use those rational arguments, someone else who is perhaps "on the fence" may read them and agree with you. If, on the other hand you simply call me a fool and make sarcastic comments about "sky-daddy", that will not convince anyone of the truth of your position.

Your example is irrelevant. I have many times pointed to the difference between pure faith and faith based on evidence. If someone comes to me and says "I believe in God", then I will say "Have a nice life". But if someone says they have evidence of God, then it is a whole different matter. Then, we need to investigate that evidence.

Originally posted by Thanz
You and I probably agree more than we disagree on the substantive issues. It is your tactics and debate style that I find to be counter-productive. Not just non-productive, but counter-productive.

If you want to put style over substance, be my guest.

BillHoyt

6th November 2003, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Science is the study of perceived existence. Knowledge is of perceived existence. And predictions relate to an existence which will, hopefully, be perceived.
You're evading the point. You said: "There's no evidence that anything outside of sensation or reasoning or emotion exists." When we predict something we've never before seen and then see it, we have confirmed not only the thing perceived but the reality of the perception.

showme2

6th November 2003, 11:48 AM

We really do have to dispose of this "science is everything, and tells us everything" false hypothesis.

IF psychic phenomena are real (forget for the moment the argument about WHETHER they are or not) ....

IF there is such a thing as the human spirit, separate from conciousness produced by the brain ....

IF there is a possibility that the existence and identity of the individual persists after a change we call death (the fundamental principle of spiritualist philosophy) .....

... then self-evidently that reality will not necessarily comply with ANY of the laws that relate to physics or the material universe, because it will plainly operate outside laws governing matter.

WHY SHOULD IT comply with laws governing matter when it is not a material phenomenon ? We are in a different realm entirely where physical laws - as set down by the science of physics - do not, and cannot by definition, apply.

You might as well insist that the rules applying to Poker must apply equally to football !

THAT is the fact that you pseudo-sceptics (NOT sceptics, pseudo-sceptics -i.e. non-believers) totally fail to grasp, notwithstanding that it is obvious to anyone with any common sense.

And you fail to grasp it simply because it does not suit you to recognise it. (If you did, you would then have no pseudo-scientific basis on which to base your arguments, which is obviously unpalatable for you.)

The other germain factor is that science (physics in particular) is not as authoritative as you would present it as being.
It constantly changes its pronouncements when they have been demonstrated to be flawed and require "revision".
Therefore we do not know at any given time whether the "laws of physics" can be counted on or not.

It is therefore simply another "belief system" , with one exception .... it acknowledges that it constantly gets things wrong and has to revise its statements. Unlike most other belief systems, it is therefore not even consistent !

BillHoyt

6th November 2003, 11:51 AM

*sniff* *sniff* Anybody else smell dirty socks here?

TLN

6th November 2003, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by showme2
... then self-evidently that reality will not necessarily comply with ANY of the laws that relate to physics or the material universe, because it will plainly operate outside laws governing matter.

Completely baseless.

CFLarsen

6th November 2003, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by showme2
that you pseudo-sceptics (NOT sceptics, pseudo-sceptics -i.e. non-believers)

Who are the skeptics, then? Are you saying that no non-believer can be a skeptic? That a skeptic in fact have to be a believer?

lifegazer

6th November 2003, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

You're evading the point. You said: "There's no evidence that anything outside of sensation or reasoning or emotion exists." When we predict something we've never before seen and then see it, we have confirmed not only the thing perceived but the reality of the perception.
Actually, when we make predictions about reality, we are using reason to make predictions about a perceived reality that we will confirm with our sensations. Not only that, but we are founding these predictions upon realities already sensed.

All predictions about external reality are built using the internal mechanisms of sensation and reason, and are confirmed with future inner-sensations.
Science is the study of internal awareness.

voidx

6th November 2003, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by showme2
IF psychic phenomena are real (forget for the moment the argument about WHETHER they are or not) ....

IF there is such a thing as the human spirit, separate from conciousness produced by the brain ....

IF there is a possibility that the existence and identity of the individual persists after a change we call death (the fundamental principle of spiritualist philosophy) .....

... then self-evidently that reality will not necessarily comply with ANY of the laws that relate to physics or the material universe, because it will plainly operate outside laws governing matter.

Not necessarily, as you state comply with any laws of physics, but you do not know this for sure.

WHY SHOULD IT comply with laws governing matter when it is not a material phenomenon ? We are in a different realm entirely where physical laws - as set down by the science of physics - do not, and cannot by definition, apply.

the question of why shouldn't it comply is equally as valid. You assume for your position that it is not a material phenomenon, but how can you state that with such certainty? Its possible if the soul was seperate from the brain, that it still has some connection with the material and physical world, in perhaps a way we don't understand yet no?

It is therefore simply another "belief system" , with one exception .... it acknowledges that it constantly gets things wrong and has to revise its statements. Unlike most other belief systems, it is therefore not even consistent !
It intentionally tries to prove things wrong, so that the things it cannot prove wrong, it can therefore state with a far greater extent of certainty that they are probably true, more so than any other worldview out there. It admits its mistakes and its ignorances and can therefore account for them and correct them, unlike any other worldview. You take its strength, and try to twist it into its greatest weakness.

BillHoyt

6th November 2003, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Actually, when we make predictions about reality, we are using reason to make predictions about a perceived reality that we will confirm with our sensations. Not only that, but we are founding these predictions upon realities already sensed.
And the success of these predictions doesn't tell you something? And the fact that they are intersubjectively validated doesn't tell you something? Pity.

Suezoled

6th November 2003, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by showme2
We really do have to dispose of this "science is everything, and tells us everything" false hypothesis.

IF psychic phenomena are real (forget for the moment the argument about WHETHER they are or not) ....

IF there is such a thing as the human spirit, separate from conciousness produced by the brain ....

IF there is a possibility that the existence and identity of the individual persists after a change we call death (the fundamental principle of spiritualist philosophy) .....

... then self-evidently that reality will not necessarily comply with ANY of the laws that relate to physics or the material universe, because it will plainly operate outside laws governing matter.

WHY SHOULD IT comply with laws governing matter when it is not a material phenomenon ? We are in a different realm entirely where physical laws - as set down by the science of physics - do not, and cannot by definition, apply.

You might as well insist that the rules applying to Poker must apply equally to football !

THAT is the fact that you pseudo-sceptics (NOT sceptics, pseudo-sceptics -i.e. non-believers) totally fail to grasp, notwithstanding that it is obvious to anyone with any common sense.

And you fail to grasp it simply because it does not suit you to recognise it. (If you did, you would then have no pseudo-scientific basis on which to base your arguments, which is obviously unpalatable for you.)

The other germain factor is that science (physics in particular) is not as authoritative as you would present it as being.
It constantly changes its pronouncements when they have been demonstrated to be flawed and require "revision".
Therefore we do not know at any given time whether the "laws of physics" can be counted on or not.

It is therefore simply another "belief system" , with one exception .... it acknowledges that it constantly gets things wrong and has to revise its statements. Unlike most other belief systems, it is therefore not even consistent !

Ya know, Showme2 is lot like me, a nonskeptical me. Except I don't ask people to be nice and respectful to me. And I don't discount/accept a person's statement just because I do or do not like them. And I don't pull accusations or perceptions out of my ass (at least I don't think so.... correct me if I wrong) and snipe at people for being "stupid" if they don't behave the way I want them to. Okay, about the only thing I have in common with Showme2 is that I like to laugh at silly things.

I mean, IF psychic phenomena were real it wouldn't follow the rules of science (physics or chemistry, even things like theoretical mathemetics like string theory)? And this is known how? And since it affects and physics and/or chemistry, or influences mathematics, there should be some indication or trace to be measured, maybe? Of course, that is just as much assumption as saying:

... then self-evidently that reality will not necessarily comply with ANY of the laws that relate to physics or the material universe, because it will plainly operate outside laws governing matter.

although first of all, it's not even self-evident such things exist in the first place.

As I said before, cute like Mayflower is cute.

showme2

6th November 2003, 12:14 PM

Larsen
QUOTE : "Who are the skeptics, then? Are you saying that no non-believer can be a skeptic? That a skeptic in fact have to be a believer?"

No, I'm saying that a sceptic is one who says "No, I'm not convinced by the evidence currently available".

NOT someone who says (as the pseudo-sceptics do) "No, it's a load of crud, it doesn't exist, and it can't exist because it contravenes the laws of physics"

lifegazer

6th November 2003, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

And the success of these predictions doesn't tell you something? And the fact that they are intersubjectively validated doesn't tell you something? Pity.
The success is irrelevant. It is a successful internal (of awareness)study.

BillHoyt

6th November 2003, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

The success is irrelevant. It is a successful internal (of awareness)study.

The success is irrelevant? Really? I see, so the proposition before us is that there is no external reality and yet we can sometimes predict what this nothing will do. Not only that, but all the rest of us, who must necessarily also be nothings can perform the same no-test on the no-thing that's not out there and get the same non-result. For some bizarre reason, the no-ones don't publish these results so that you can't read all about them, even though you imagine them already and...

Whoa, let me catch my breath here...

And all of the imagined beings will all of these imagined results publish in these non-journals about the non-event they just didn't imagine. Or perceive. Oh, my, which is it?

And here I am not disagreeing with you, the fabdiffrous grand muppet-pastor.

Now take your medication and go away.

showme2

6th November 2003, 12:30 PM

Voidx

QUOTE:
"Not necessarily, as you state comply with any laws of physics, but you do not know this for sure.

Quote in relation to:
(WHY SHOULD IT comply with laws governing matter when it is not a material phenomenon ? We are in a different realm entirely where physical laws - as set down by the science of physics - do not, and cannot by definition, apply.)

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

Of COURSE I know this for sure ! It is self-evident to anyone with any common sense. Why should it comply with laws that clearly do not relate to it at all ?

QUOTE:
"The question of why shouldn't it comply is equally as valid. You assume for your position that it is not a material phenomenon, but how can you state that with such certainty? Its possible if the soul was seperate from the brain, that it still has some connection with the material and physical world, in perhaps a way we don't understand yet no?"

No, it isn't equally valid. Why should it comply with laws that do not relate to it at all ? To repeat my simplistic analogy, why should the rules of poker apply to football?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QUOTE:
"You take its strength, and try to twist it into its greatest weakness."

So it's greatest strength is that it admits to being constantly wrong, and needs to correct things it has previously presented as incontrovertible truths ????

If that is a strength, I'm sorry, but I fail to see it as one.
At WHAT POINT can I rely on the assumption that I am being presented with the truth on which I can base my judgments of everything else ? Now ... next week ...next month ... next year ... never ?
And, if there is no firm answer to that, why should I give it any credibility at all

showme2

6th November 2003, 12:38 PM

TLN

"Completely baseless"

Well done, TLN !

It is puerile comments like this (which address absolutely nothing and consist solely of unsupported assertion) which qualify those spouting them for membership of my "Ignore" list.

Congratulations ! You have just qualified to join the list.
(Probably overdue.)

lifegazer

6th November 2003, 12:40 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt
The success is irrelevant? Really?

The success is irrelevant to proving the existence of an external reality.

I see, so the proposition before us is that there is no external reality and yet we can sometimes predict what this nothing will do.

I've already explained that science actually makes predictions about future states of perceived reality (predictions about inner-perception). There is no prediction about external reality. Only predictions about what shall be sensed, internally.

Whoa, let me catch my breath here...

Try eating omega oils. I hear they're good for improving concentration and IQ.

CFLarsen

6th November 2003, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by showme2
Larsen
QUOTE : "Who are the skeptics, then? Are you saying that no non-believer can be a skeptic? That a skeptic in fact have to be a believer?"

No, I'm saying that a sceptic is one who says "No, I'm not convinced by the evidence currently available".

NOT someone who says (as the pseudo-sceptics do) "No, it's a load of crud, it doesn't exist, and it can't exist because it contravenes the laws of physics"

If we are to discover that a paranormal phenomenon "exists", then:

1) The laws of physics do not work as we thought they did. This doesn't just mean we have discovered something entirely new, it also means that the knowledge we have so far is wrong. All of it. The strength of a scientific explanation of the universe around us is that it all fits together.

or

2) The phenomenon does not even "register" when we apply the laws of physics. This, of course, means that we cannot detect it objectively. Not two people see it the same way. Which renders it impossible to categorize. We simply don't know what we have, or if it is the same phenomenon. Could be a fluke, could be different phenomena altogether.

So, the latter part "it contravenes the laws of physics" is very much connected to the former part "no evidence currently available". In short, you can't have one without the other.

Unless we apply the laws of the universe, we have to say it doesn't exist. Now, I am not saying that the laws of the universe can explain something like love, but you also have to remember that love is one thing to you, and another to me.

It is therefore a question of philosophy (or perhaps even religion), not a question of science.

Interesting Ian

6th November 2003, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

II
You're right in that science does not make metaphysical assumptions. Unfortunately the majority of scientists do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Billy
I think you misconstrue scientists and skeptics when they state materialist conclusions. Those are very different from metaphysical assumptions.

No, they are metaphysical assumptions. How can you conclude materialism from science?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You were claiming any allegedly paranormal phenomenon whatsoever. But OK, what about the notion of survival?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You misconstrue me again. I asked for specifics simply in order to answer your question. If by "notion of survival" you mean simply an afterlife, this is unfalsifiable. Based on your past utterances, however, I think you mean much more. So please expound so that I can answer.

Do I take it then that you agree that "life after death" is not at tension with background knowledge about the world? Answer yes or no please.

TLN

6th November 2003, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by TLN
What about it? There's no conclusive evidence one way or the other.

Please, just say that the above statement is either true or false in your estimation.

Whenever you're ready...

showme2

6th November 2003, 01:03 PM

Larsen

"It is therefore a question of philosophy (or perhaps even religion), not a question of science."

HOLY SMOKE, Batman ... we've found something we can AGREE about !!!

That was my whole point actually. Science (physics in particular) cannot be used as the SOLE arbiter of phenomena to which its materialistic laws do not, and cannot, apply.

You are OFF my "Ignore" list. (Not that I suppose you give a sh*t, so don't take that seriously !)

Interesting Ian

6th November 2003, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Your example is irrelevant. I have many times pointed to the difference between pure faith and faith based on evidence. If someone comes to me and says "I believe in God", then I will say "Have a nice life". But if someone says they have evidence of God, then it is a whole different matter. Then, we need to investigate that evidence.

I have evidence for a "God". The fact that the external world is describable by physical laws. So go and investigate it.

showme2

6th November 2003, 01:09 PM

TLN

"There's no conclusive evidence one way or the other."

I absolutely agree !
It all comes down to subjective judgment at the end of the day. And none of us is so clever that we can be 100% sure we have got it right.

(Good God, what's happening on this forum ? I'm agreeing with the views of so-called sceptics wholesale. That is TWO I have agreed with in 2 minutes !)

Interesting Ian

6th November 2003, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by Suezoled
[B]

And I don't pull accusations or perceptions out of my ass (at least I don't think so.... correct me if I wrong)

You're wrong. What about your accusation that I have been comprehensively refuted on numerous occasions in the past. Yet no one, including yourself, can point to one instance where I have been so refuted. What does that tell everybody?

showme2

6th November 2003, 01:16 PM

Come on BillHoyt, say something controversial ....

I can't KEEP on agreeing with sceptics here. It just ain't interesting.

I might even have to take Thaiboxerken off my "Ignore" list if this continues .....

(Respect to you all. I might disagree with you, but I recognise your right to believe what the hell you like ... even if you're wrong !)

Interesting Ian

6th November 2003, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

Try eating omega oils. I hear they're good for improving concentration and IQ. [/B]

Nah, Billy is a hopeless case.

TLN

6th November 2003, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You're wrong. What about your accusation that I have been comprehensively refuted on numerous occasions in the past. Yet no one, including yourself, can point to one instance where I have been so refuted. What does that tell everybody?

It tells me you're ignoring me.

Originally posted by TLN
What about it? There's no conclusive evidence one way or the other.

Please, just say that the above statement is either true or false in your estimation.

Still waiting. But keep that head in the sand Ian. It's the only way you can avoid this refutation you claim doesn't exist.

Interesting Ian

6th November 2003, 01:26 PM

Originally posted by TLN
[B]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by TLN
What about it? There's no conclusive evidence one way or the other.

Please, just say that the above statement is either true or false in your estimation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Still waiting. But keep that head in the sand Ian. It's the only way you can avoid this refutation you claim doesn't exist.

You're talking about life after death? Of course there is no conclusive evidence either way! Was it really necessary for me to respond? :eek:

TLN

6th November 2003, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You're talking about life after death? Of course there is no conclusive evidence either way! Was it really necessary for me to respond? :eek:

Then where does this ***** chip on your shoulder come from?!

Of course you've never been refuted; you offer nothing to refute!

Case closed. You can go away now.

Interesting Ian

6th November 2003, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by TLN

Of course you've never been refuted

Thank you! Congratulations. You're the first skeptic to admit this :)

Thanz

6th November 2003, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

It's not interpretation. It's simply a question of you finding evidence of your claim.
Of course it is interpretation. In order for me to say that you are misinterpreting something, I must have a different interpretation of the post than you. I point out that interpretation, and you disagree with it, insisting you are correct. And around and around we go.

Examples you should have come up with yourself, instead of me having to ask for them.
Why? Why come up with examples if no one interested in them? How long did it take you to come up with examples, after being asked, in the "Taken in" thread? As I have said before, you do not like to follow your own rules.

I made postings maintaining the same "level of intellectual rigour", but you did not discount them.
This is just compounding your misinterpretation. "Discount your postings accordingly" does not equal "take a contrary position to whatever you say". When you say the sky is blue, it does not matter if I put 100% faith in your statement or 0% faith in your statement - I am still going to say that the sky is blue. How that demonstrates that I did not discount them is beyond me.

Absolutely not.

Here's what you said:

You pointed to the part of Clancie's post where she made a joke about me and her being incompatible. However, you deliberately left out the rest of the post, where she "seriously" argued that astrology could be used to classify the characteristics of people.
Show me where I said that simple calls for evidence are jumping on people. If you cannot, it is a misinterpretation of my position.

So, the two examples of my "constant misrepresentation" turns out to be not misrepresentations at all. Got examples that are actual misrepresentations? It must be easy finding them, since I am constantly making them.
The two examples I gave are accurate examples of misinterpretations on your part. Of course, as I predicted, you are quibbling with my interpretations. This is exactly the type of argument I did not want to get into. I see no benefit in providing more examples to bicker over.

Right now, there are three:

"Questions Clancie does NOT want to answer" (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23764)
"Questions for neo" (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21305)
"Questions for Lucianarchy" (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21701)

I would say about less than 5% have been answered. Neither in the relevant threads or in the collated ones. Don't forget that.
And this is what you call "Effective"? Less than 5% is "Effective"? Strange definition of effective.

The purpose of this forum is to engage in intelligent discussions, but also strive to find answers. Claims should be challenged. That is why nobody is censored for asking for evidence.

You are on a skeptics' board, Thanz. Expect your claims to be challenged.
When did I ever claim that they shouldn't be challenged? Stop with this strawman argument. I did not claim that people cannot ask questions. I disagree with your bullying methods, as well as those of Mr. Hoyt.

No, no, no...now you are shifting the burden of evidence onto renata. You claimed renata got better responses from the believers, you show the evidence.
I am not shifting any burden of evidence. I am not about to get into a debate with you over the quality of some answers in some other thread - it would be as pointless as arguing over the interpretations above. I know that you will not agree with me. I will point out, however, that I cannot recall ever seeing Neo or Clancie declare renata to be on their ignore list. You, on hte other hand, have been on both.

A bit condescending, are we? That contradicts your point, doesn't it? You have quite many of those lapses for someone who preaches reason and civility.
I did not mean to be condescending. I was offering you my opinion and accepting the fact that oyu can take it or leave it.

Such is your opinion. Could you address what I ask you? Do you think that we should let the crooks continue to cheat people? That science should be hindered by false claims?
I never said that we should let crooks cheat people. I don't see what your posting style has to do with that however.

I also don't think that science is hindered by false claims. If science can prove the claims to be false, then we have learned something.

If you want to put style over substance, be my guest. I would say that you are putting style over substance. You have been criticised by more than 1 poster regarding your posting style. You could be much more effective, in my opinion, if you altered your approach. Yet you continue in your bullying ways. I am forced to ask why? Do you get a kick out of it? Why must you cling to a style that is ineffective (less than 5% of your questions answered) when a more subtle approach can be much better? Why are you putting style over substance?

TLN

6th November 2003, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Thank you! Congratulations. You're the first skeptic to admit this :)

Only because you offer nothing to refute. Don't leave that part out in typical Ian fashion, making a victory where none exists.

CFLarsen

6th November 2003, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by Thanz
Of course it is interpretation. In order for me to say that you are misinterpreting something, I must have a different interpretation of the post than you. I point out that interpretation, and you disagree with it, insisting you are correct. And around and around we go.

Wrong. It is not a question of interpretation but of logic and reason.

Originally posted by Thanz
Why? Why come up with examples if no one interested in them? How long did it take you to come up with examples, after being asked, in the "Taken in" thread? As I have said before, you do not like to follow your own rules.

Why? I'll tell you why: Because we have to seek answers to the questions, that's why. Do you equate importance with popularity?

Originally posted by Thanz
This is just compounding your misinterpretation. "Discount your postings accordingly" does not equal "take a contrary position to whatever you say". When you say the sky is blue, it does not matter if I put 100% faith in your statement or 0% faith in your statement - I am still going to say that the sky is blue. How that demonstrates that I did not discount them is beyond me.

You are completely ignoring my point: That I used the same methods, yet you did not ignore my posts.

Originally posted by Thanz
Show me where I said that simple calls for evidence are jumping on people. If you cannot, it is a misinterpretation of my position.

No, no, no....again, you are not being truthful. You claimed that Clancie made a joke. You completely ignored the part AFTER she said "seriously". Why won't you address this?

Originally posted by Thanz
The two examples I gave are accurate examples of misinterpretations on your part. Of course, as I predicted, you are quibbling with my interpretations. This is exactly the type of argument I did not want to get into. I see no benefit in providing more examples to bicker over.

Again, it is not a question of interpretation. It is a question of logic and reason.

Originally posted by Thanz
And this is what you call "Effective"? Less than 5% is "Effective"? Strange definition of effective.

Hey, don't blame me for the inability of the believers to answer the questions. You also seem to forget that most of these questions were only answered after many requests for them to be answered. They were only answered, because I was persistent enough to get an answer.

This, you ignore.

Originally posted by Thanz
When did I ever claim that they shouldn't be challenged? Stop with this strawman argument. I did not claim that people cannot ask questions. I disagree with your bullying methods, as well as those of Mr. Hoyt.

I know: Style over substance.

Originally posted by Thanz
I am not shifting any burden of evidence. I am not about to get into a debate with you over the quality of some answers in some other thread - it would be as pointless as arguing over the interpretations above. I know that you will not agree with me. I will point out, however, that I cannot recall ever seeing Neo or Clancie declare renata to be on their ignore list. You, on hte other hand, have been on both.

What difference does it make who is on Clancie's and neo's ignore lists, if they just walk away from the questions? The effect is exactly the same.

Originally posted by Thanz
I did not mean to be condescending. I was offering you my opinion and accepting the fact that oyu can take it or leave it.

Which I did.

Originally posted by Thanz
I never said that we should let crooks cheat people. I don't see what your posting style has to do with that however.

Then, if you do not think that we should let crooks cheat people, what do you think we should do about it? I have asked you this a number of times, yet you don't address it.

Originally posted by Thanz
I also don't think that science is hindered by false claims. If science can prove the claims to be false, then we have learned something.

You are naive in extremis. Look around you, Thanz. People go on believing false claims, often jeopardizing their lives. Science is thwarted by false claims: Money, scarce as it is, is being spent on projects that are based on false claims.

Originally posted by Thanz
I would say that you are putting style over substance. You have been criticised by more than 1 poster regarding your posting style. You could be much more effective, in my opinion, if you altered your approach. Yet you continue in your bullying ways. I am forced to ask why? Do you get a kick out of it? Why must you cling to a style that is ineffective (less than 5% of your questions answered) when a more subtle approach can be much better? Why are you putting style over substance?

I could be more effective? Please show me what results you have gotten, Thanz.

I am most definitely not putting style over substance - quite contrary, I focus tenaciously on substance.

6th November 2003, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer

The success is irrelevant. It is a successful internal (of awareness)study.

So, who are you, hammegk or Ian? :)

You just argued for insane solipcism.

If other people confirming results is "successful internal", you've just advocated ultimate solipcism, it's all in your head, so to speak,

and

it has to be insane, because you just argued it was all inside you, therefore I'm inside you, and I'm contradicting you at every step.

Thanz

6th November 2003, 02:18 PM

Mr. Larsen -

I am not going to waste any more bandwith on the equivalent of a schoolyard squabble. I have stated my opinion. You have rejected it. Let's just leave it at that.

showme2

6th November 2003, 02:34 PM

jj

WH-A-A-A T ??????????

Can we have a post in English ?

voidx

6th November 2003, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by showme2
Voidx

QUOTE:
"Not necessarily, as you state comply with any laws of physics, but you do not know this for sure.

Quote in relation to:
(WHY SHOULD IT comply with laws governing matter when it is not a material phenomenon ? We are in a different realm entirely where physical laws - as set down by the science of physics - do not, and cannot by definition, apply.)

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

Of COURSE I know this for sure ! It is self-evident to anyone with any common sense. Why should it comply with laws that clearly do not relate to it at all ?

So at first you say that that it does not "necessarily" comply with the laws of physics, implying that this is indeed not a certainty. Then when pressed later saying you can't know for sure these phenomenon don't perhaps comply with the laws of physics you switch to that of course your sure, completely that they do not comply. Have you considered the possiblility that we don't understand these phenomenon well enough to rule out the possibility that they may somehow comply with the rules of physics, so there's no way you can say with certainty that they do not.

"The question of why shouldn't it comply is equally as valid. You assume for your position that it is not a material phenomenon, but how can you state that with such certainty? Its possible if the soul was seperate from the brain, that it still has some connection with the material and physical world, in perhaps a way we don't understand yet no?"

No, it isn't equally valid. Why should it comply with laws that do not relate to it at all ? To repeat my simplistic analogy, why should the rules of poker apply to football?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However these phenomenon (if they exist) seem to have measurable effects on our perception of the physical, material world, so you can't say for certain that they do not comply in some yet unknown way to the materialistic/physical world with 100% certainty. I'm just curious is all as to why you are so utterly convinced in your worldview, regarding these topics, and so quick to dismiss ours?

"You take its strength, and try to twist it into its greatest weakness."

So it's greatest strength is that it admits to being constantly wrong, and needs to correct things it has previously presented as incontrovertible truths ????

I never said constantly, but thanks for applying that to me anyway. I also never said they were incontrovertible, and neither does the scientific method. If they pass the gauntlet of scrutiny then its very likely they work as science states them to work, with our current level of knowledge. Its always open to insightful and constructive revision as any good system should be. I find it disingenious how you admit on one hand neither position is clearly proven, and then fault science when it corrects itself with new data and understanding to further or revise what it knows about the universe. A tad hypocritical I would say. Do you have any doubts in your given worldview? Any logical holes? Have you ever had to revise a concept of your worldview upon further discussion? If so, then your "belief" suffers the same problem as science, whoopsie.

If that is a strength, I'm sorry, but I fail to see it as one.
At WHAT POINT can I rely on the assumption that I am being presented with the truth on which I can base my judgments of everything else ? Now ... next week ...next month ... next year ... never ?
And, if there is no firm answer to that, why should I give it any credibility at all
Sigh, it seems as though you just play intentionally ignorant of the method until someone points it out to you. The method states that this concept or theory has so far not been able to be disproven despite a barrage of tests, therefore according to our current level of knowledge it seems most likely to be true and right. This never precludes that something will not change in future, that our understanding of things will not advance, and this may be proven to either be correct, incorrect, or at least partly correct, at which point it can be revised. Its the only logical way to look at things knowing that we do not, and may not ever understand everything. It can be given credibility because it works on testable theories, evidences and the like, it can be shown and described and repeated and therefore begs credibility, with the caveat that at some point if it is proven wrong, or proven to be slightly different, the credibility must be ditched, or at least reassigned to the new revision. What I find startling in all this is that all the arguements of Science not knowing everything, therefore how can it be credible applies equally as well to any paranormal concepts, leaving them with the same problems and holes you accuse our worldview of having.

6th November 2003, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by showme2
jj

WH-A-A-A T ??????????

Can we have a post in English ?

It's the language I use.

It's also rather deceptive of you not to tell me WHAT it is that you don't understand.

So, if you're done playing games, and you're willing to actually ask what some or other simple english words mean, we can talk.

lifegazer

6th November 2003, 02:54 PM

Ian, what is your philosophy?

CFLarsen

6th November 2003, 02:57 PM

Originally posted by Thanz
Mr. Larsen -

I am not going to waste any more bandwith on the equivalent of a schoolyard squabble. I have stated my opinion. You have rejected it. Let's just leave it at that.

Yeah. Let's.

Let's forget about those who are cheated by charlatans. Let's forget about those who are conned into believing that a psychic can talk to their dead relatives, thereby prolonging the pain instead of healing it. Let's forget those whose lives are endangered - sometimes even terminated - by quacks who profit from ignorance and wishful thinking. Let's forget about the progress of humankind. Let's keep humankind in the dark dungeons of ignorance and prejudice.

Let's just pretend that this is all "opinion". Let's just reduce this to a schoolyard squabble. Let's just ignore reality.

It is much easier than facing it.

Know what? Let's not!

Interesting Ian

6th November 2003, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by lifegazer
Ian, what is your philosophy?

I agree with Berkeley's philosophy to a large extent.

Here (http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~ursa/philos/berkeley.htm) is a website which discusses his ideas.

Interesting Ian

6th November 2003, 02:59 PM

Suezoled

6th November 2003, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

You're wrong. What about your accusation that I have been comprehensively refuted on numerous occasions in the past. Yet no one, including yourself, can point to one instance where I have been so refuted. What does that tell everybody?

LOL! I think you just like to say "You're wrong" as often as you can. You have been disputed, several times, but your wonderful selective reading skills don't allow you to see that, it seems. You even try to twist TLN's post so that it sounds like a victory. If you are really indisputable, it's not because you're right.

Even Mayflower is cuter than you are, Ian.

lifegazer

6th November 2003, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I agree with Berkeley's philosophy to a large extent.

Here (http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~ursa/philos/berkeley.htm) is a website which discusses his ideas.
Thankyou Ian. Looks very interesting.
Btw, you're very attractive.

showme2

6th November 2003, 03:11 PM

voidx

"So at first you say that that it does not "necessarily" comply with the laws of physics, implying that this is indeed not a certainty. Then when pressed later saying you can't know for sure these phenomenon don't perhaps comply with the laws of physics you switch to that of course your sure, completely that they do not comply. Have you considered the possiblility that we don't understand these phenomenon well enough to rule out the possibility that they may somehow comply with the rules of physics, so there's no way you can say with certainty that they do not."

Yes, that's right. The phenomena do not NECESSARILY comply with the laws of physics. They MIGHT, but it would be coincidental.
So where do we disagree ?

"However these phenomenon (if they exist) seem to have measurable effects on our perception of the physical, material world, so you can't say for certain that they do not comply in some yet unknown way to the materialistic/physical world with 100% certainty. I'm just curious is all as to why you are so utterly convinced in your worldview, regarding these topics, and so quick to dismiss ours?"

I'm not dismissing ANYTHING. Merely saying that, IF psychic phenomena exist, they won't NECESSARILY comply with the laws of physics, because they do not relate to material phenomena.

You seem to accept that they won't - necessarily - although they might.

So, again, where are we in disagreement?

"I find it disingenious how you admit on one hand neither position is clearly proven, and then fault science when it corrects itself with new data and understanding to further or revise what it knows about the universe. A tad hypocritical I would say. Do you have any doubts in your given worldview? Any logical holes? Have you ever had to revise a concept of your worldview upon further discussion? If so, then your "belief" suffers the same problem as science, whoopsie."

Yes, of course I am dubious when "science" constantly has to revise what it has previously presented to us as unassailable truths.
At what point should I assume that it has finally got it right and that further "revision" is not required ?
At what point should I assume that I am not being fed the ephemeral conclusions of just another Belief System?

"What I find startling in all this is that all the arguements of Science not knowing everything, therefore how can it be credible applies equally as well to any paranormal concepts, leaving them with the same problems and holes you accuse our worldview of having."

Yes, sure. I agree!
Therefore science can claim no preeiminence in assessing the validity of paranormal phenomena which, when all is said and done, it totally outside its specialist field - i.e. physics - i.e the material world.

Thanz

6th November 2003, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Yeah. Let's.

Let's forget about those who are cheated by charlatans. Let's forget about those who are conned into believing that a psychic can talk to their dead relatives, thereby prolonging the pain instead of healing it. Let's forget those whose lives are endangered - sometimes even terminated - by quacks who profit from ignorance and wishful thinking. Let's forget about the progress of humankind. Let's keep humankind in the dark dungeons of ignorance and prejudice.

Let's just pretend that this is all "opinion". Let's just reduce this to a schoolyard squabble. Let's just ignore reality.

It is much easier than facing it.

Know what? Let's not!
Rally to the saviour Claus! All hail Larsen! Let's all bask in his skeptic glow, for now that Mr. Larsen is here Justice shall prevail! He's kicking the light of reason into the dark corners of belief! Now that Mr. Larsen is posting on this board, we can all throw down the shackles of ignorance and oppression!

Give me a break, Mr. Larsen. You are attributing attitudes to me that I do not have, nor do you have any basis for assuming that I do. I merely wanted to stop squabbling with you over your bullying style of posting. I believe that you can educate people without resorting to your kind of browbeating or Mr. Hoyt's smug mocking. In fact, I think that your method of posting is actually counter-productive to education, which only leads to more of the bad things you are railing against. Come down off your high horse.

6th November 2003, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by showme2
[BYes, of course I am dubious when "science" constantly has to revise what it has previously presented to us as unassailable truths. [/B]

Science can not present anything as "unassailable truth".

Your very wording shows the false nature of your claim.

Please do not malign science in this fashion again.

CFLarsen

6th November 2003, 04:20 PM

Originally posted by Thanz
Rally to the saviour Claus! All hail Larsen! Let's all bask in his skeptic glow, for now that Mr. Larsen is here Justice shall prevail! He's kicking the light of reason into the dark corners of belief! Now that Mr. Larsen is posting on this board, we can all throw down the shackles of ignorance and oppression!

Give me a break, Mr. Larsen. You are attributing attitudes to me that I do not have, nor do you have any basis for assuming that I do. I merely wanted to stop squabbling with you over your bullying style of posting. I believe that you can educate people without resorting to your kind of browbeating or Mr. Hoyt's smug mocking. In fact, I think that your method of posting is actually counter-productive to education, which only leads to more of the bad things you are railing against. Come down off your high horse.

What, in this, is not an appeal to emotion?

Hey, you want to attack my arguments, go ahead. If, on the other hand, you want to attack me on a more personal basis, be prepared to be met with scorn. Because that does not encourage knowledge.

Sorry, Thanz. You have not been able to back up your claims with anything that even remotely resembles evidence. All you can point to is emotions, opinions, beliefs.

It doesn't get us very far. It does not promote new knowledge. All it does is cement old prejudices, old beliefs. You can't even tell us what you think should be done about the crooks, the fakes, the charlatans.

You get off your high horse. You start realizing that your approach leaves us with nothing but ignorance. You start realizing that, when making a claim, you do not get away with vague references or appeals to popularity or any of the other logical fallacies.

This is a skeptics' board. It's a battlefield, drenched in the blood of false claims and bad arguments. Feel free to challenge that. In the meantime, be prepared to be challenged about your claims.

Thanz

6th November 2003, 04:44 PM

I just want to say that I love the juxtaposition of this:

Originally posted by CFLarsen

What, in this, is not an appeal to emotion?

With this:

This is a skeptics' board. It's a battlefield, drenched in the blood of false claims and bad arguments.
"A battlefield drenched in the blood of false claims and bad arguments." Good Lord... :rolleyes:

The sad thing is that you actually believe this whole battlefield, us vs. them thing. You are out to win a battle - at all costs. You don't seem to realize that your battle tactics divide your own troops. They are not even particularly effective. It is like you want to wade in there with your battle axe swinging, when it would be much better to calmly sit back and launch a smart bomb.

BTW, I have backed up the claims that I have actually made.

voidx

6th November 2003, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by showme2
voidx

"So at first you say that that it does not "necessarily" comply with the laws of physics, implying that this is indeed not a certainty. Then when pressed later saying you can't know for sure these phenomenon don't perhaps comply with the laws of physics you switch to that of course your sure, completely that they do not comply. Have you considered the possiblility that we don't understand these phenomenon well enough to rule out the possibility that they may somehow comply with the rules of physics, so there's no way you can say with certainty that they do not."

Yes, that's right. The phenomena do not NECESSARILY comply with the laws of physics. They MIGHT, but it would be coincidental.
So where do we disagree ?

I think we disagree because of this statement made by yourself (correct me if I'm wrong):
Posted by showme2
Of COURSE I know this for sure ! It is self-evident to anyone with any common sense. Why should it comply with laws that clearly do not relate to it at all ?

And above you then agree that you cannot necessarily say that this is certain, that its possible they do comply, however unlikely you may feel that is. I was just noting an inconsistency, and was attempting to clarify which you actually believe.

"However these phenomenon (if they exist) seem to have measurable effects on our perception of the physical, material world, so you can't say for certain that they do not comply in some yet unknown way to the materialistic/physical world with 100% certainty. I'm just curious is all as to why you are so utterly convinced in your worldview, regarding these topics, and so quick to dismiss ours?"

I'm not dismissing ANYTHING. Merely saying that, IF psychic phenomena exist, they won't NECESSARILY comply with the laws of physics, because they do not relate to material phenomena.

You seem to accept that they won't - necessarily - although they might.

So, again, where are we in disagreement?

Mostly I think its in the statement that they do not relate to material phenomena. Do you agree your assuming this on some level because its possible that they do indeed relate to material phenomena that we just perhaps do not understand at this point?

"I find it disingenious how you admit on one hand neither position is clearly proven, and then fault science when it corrects itself with new data and understanding to further or revise what it knows about the universe. A tad hypocritical I would say. Do you have any doubts in your given worldview? Any logical holes? Have you ever had to revise a concept of your worldview upon further discussion? If so, then your "belief" suffers the same problem as science, whoopsie."

Yes, of course I am dubious when "science" constantly has to revise what it has previously presented to us as unassailable truths.
At what point should I assume that it has finally got it right and that further "revision" is not required ?
At what point should I assume that I am not being fed the ephemeral conclusions of just another Belief System?

Ok you're dubious of science, I get that. Are you equally as dubious of your own worldview? At what point can you state without a shadow of a doubt that something is 100% certain I'm not sure, it would take someone smarter than myself to qualify that. All we can do is make the strongest possible assertion with the knowledge we have, and the testing methods available to us. This is the process that science gives us, that no other process or worldview offers in so complete a form. Again no one has claimed that scientific truths are unassailable. By their very nature they are meant to be assailed by all means possible to make as close as possible to sure they are correct at this point in time. Its easy to dismiss it knowing the fact that it could be wrong, or could need to be revised, but what does your worldview have as a replacement process? What better way of attempting to understand our universe do you propose then? In my opinion its the best possible process by which to test our ideas of the nature of the universe. What other worldview contains such a process?

"What I find startling in all this is that all the arguements of Science not knowing everything, therefore how can it be credible applies equally as well to any paranormal concepts, leaving them with the same problems and holes you accuse our worldview of having."

Yes, sure. I agree!
Therefore science can claim no preeiminence in assessing the validity of paranormal phenomena which, when all is said and done, it totally outside its specialist field - i.e. physics - i.e the material world.
I would argue it can claim preeminence because science has a long and tested background of ground rules for how it explains how things work, and that as of now, so far as we know, paranormal phenomena don't seem to make sense in regards to those ground rules. What other worldview has so solid and detailed a list of ground rules for how it is proposed to work? Again if science isn't the best option, what in your opinion is? And why?

Unas

6th November 2003, 05:58 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Don't be so utterly absurd.Don't try to break free of your habit of employing ad hominem attacks in place of rational debate. You clearly don't know how to behave in any other way.
If a person refuses to provide any arguments, reasons, or evidence for his position, then why on earth should we suppose his position is correct?
Good question. When do you plan to provide empirical evidence for the survival of consciousness after death? That's the challenge that's been put to you, and that's the challenge you are desperately trying to evade.
I have given many many reasons and arguments for my position. The word "evidence" is conspicuous by its omission.
Skeptics on the other hand are remarkably reluctant to provide any. No need. The skeptical position regarding your claim is that you have yet to provide evidence for it. That happens to be the truth -- there is no argument about it.

Unas

6th November 2003, 06:06 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Not for metaphysical points of contention, and the notion of whether we survive our bodies or not, is a metaphysical issue, not a scientific one.
Why? Aside from the fact that you wish it to be so, why should the concept of the survival of human consciousness after death be exempt from study via the scientific method?
But I get sick of repeating myself all the time.
Then don't. Stop repeating yourself, and start discussing the matter rationally.
Also you're dealing with human beings rather than elementary particles, with the inherent unpredictability this implies.
Humans are studied via the scientific method all the time. Such studies have been carried out for centuries. Why (again, aside from the fact that Interesting Ian desperately wants his favorite hobby horse to be free from the scrutiny of those nasty evidence-seeking scientists) should the concept of the survival of human consciousness after death be exempt from study via the scientific method?

Unas

6th November 2003, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You're right in that science does not make metaphysical assumptions. Unfortunately the majority of scientists do.
Cite the specific scientists whom you claim make metaphysical assumptions in their work. Document those metaphysical assumptions in their published papers.

Or... do what you normally do: hurl another ad hominem attack and leave yet another of your claims unsupported by any evidence.

Unas

6th November 2003, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by showme2
We really do have to dispose of this "science is everything, and tells us everything" false hypothesis.
CIte the specific individuals in this discussion, who make this claim -- or see it exposed for the straw man that it is.

Live up to your handle: Show Me!

Unas

6th November 2003, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by showme2
The other germain factor is that science (physics in particular) is not as authoritative as you would present it as being. It constantly changes its pronouncements when they have been demonstrated to be flawed and require "revision".
It would appear that you consider the self-correcting nature of the scientific method to be a fatal flaw.

Pray tell, what is the alternative? How does one build a body of knowledge about how the universe works without using some technique that allows for the recognition and correction of errors?

Show Me<SUP>TM</SUP>, please...

Unas

6th November 2003, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Originally posted by TLN
Of course you've never been refuted
Thank you! Congratulations. You're the first skeptic to admit this :)
Ian's intellectual dishonesty in deliberately truncating the quote from TLN's post surprises no one.

Interesting Ian

6th November 2003, 07:05 PM

{sighs}

Unas,

You need to try and understand that our beliefs in such things as "life after death" are not solely determined by "scientific evidence". Science allows us to describe the world, to predict the course of our sensory experiences and to manipulate the environment to our own ends. But it doesn't tell us what the world is. It doesn't tell us consciousness is identical to physical processes in the brain. It doesn't tell us we are merely electrochemical machines. It doesn't tell us that there is no life after death and that we live in a purposeless Universe.

No, it is a certain conception of reality which tells us this. A philosophical position labeled materialism which is compatible with science, but not implied by it. But science is perfectly compatible with other philosophical positions regarding the world. Philosophical positions which might deny that the self can be scientifically treated in the exact same way as the objects that the self perceptual experiences. But then they arguably have the advantage of not having to declare that something like love is the very same thing as the firing of neurons.

What determines our beliefs as to the philosophical position we should adopt is primarily reason. Reasoning on our experience to a certain extent, sure. But nevertheless it is primarily reasoning which does and should dictate the position we adopt on such philosophical questions.

Experience alone cannot show that materialism is correct. How can my perceptual experiences tell me that the self that has these perceptual experiences, is just an illusion, and that in fact the self is just further perceptual experiences? For this is what materialism implies. Think about it. But if you don't think about it, or you do think about it but don't understand what I am saying, then please do not respond any further to my posts, as then I truly will have absolutely nothing to say to you.

PS Why have you chosen such an ugly avatar, and what the hell is it?? :confused:

Unas

6th November 2003, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Experience alone cannot show that materialism is correct.
I haven't discussed, or even mentioned, materialism at any point in this thread. Your sudden interest in it appears to be nothing more than an attempt to divert the discussion away from questions you would rather not answer. It has failed.

You have claimed that the concept of the survival of consciousness after death is not a scientific issue. Aside from the fact that you wish it to be so, why should the concept of the survival of human consciousness after death be exempt from study via the scientific method?
Think about it. But if you don't think about it, or you do think about it but don't understand what I am saying, then please do not respond any further to my posts, as then I truly will have absolutely nothing to say to you.
That's right, Ian. Keep implying that someone who disagrees with you is unthinking and/or stupid. Why abandon such a simple and effortless tactic... especially when it has worked so well for you all this time?

6th November 2003, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
{sighs}

PS Why have you chosen such an ugly avatar, and what the hell is it?? :confused:

I believe that that is the "Swamp Thing" from the movie of the same name. This movie was noteworthy since it was the first time that Adrianne Barbeau exposed her breasts on-screen.

In this respect, if I am correct, it is a subtle call and raise to your avatar, Ian.

Unas

6th November 2003, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by Ed
I believe that that is the "Swamp Thing" from the movie of the same name.
Nope. Nice try, though.

Chad Noles

6th November 2003, 08:28 PM

If nothing else, "The Return of Swamp Thing" delivers one of the campiest lines in B-movie history. After eyeing the vines and goop hanging from him, Locklear says to Swamp Thing matter-of-factly: "You're a plant, aren't you?" :D

a great line but,wrong monster.

BillHoyt

7th November 2003, 05:25 AM

Interesting Ian

7th November 2003, 05:27 AM

Originally posted by Unas

I haven't discussed, or even mentioned, materialism at any point in this thread. Your sudden interest in it appears to be nothing more than an attempt to divert the discussion away from questions you would rather not answer. It has failed.

You have claimed that the concept of the survival of consciousness after death is not a scientific issue. Aside from the fact that you wish it to be so, why should the concept of the survival of human consciousness after death be exempt from study via the scientific method?

That's right, Ian. Keep implying that someone who disagrees with you is unthinking and/or stupid. Why abandon such a simple and effortless tactic... especially when it has worked so well for you all this time?

Unas,

You simply ignore all my points and continue to misunderstand all things. You're the very first person ever for me to put on ignore. Congratulations.

PS And besides, I can't stand your ugly avatar anyway.

Jeff Corey

7th November 2003, 06:52 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
{sighs}
...Philosophical positions which might deny that the self can be scientifically treated in the exact same way as the objects that the self perceptual experiences.
It's statements such as this one which convince me that your first language is not English, but Gibberish.

fsol

7th November 2003, 06:58 AM

PS Why have you chosen such an ugly avatar, and what the hell is it??

I think the clue is in his(?) username.

Interesting Ian

7th November 2003, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by fsol

I think the clue is in his(?) username.

Unas? Why, is that the name of the creature?

fsol

7th November 2003, 07:17 AM

I was going to write a big explanation about Stargate SG-1, ancient Egypt and parasitic alien "gods," but I think "yes" will suffice.

Google is your friend Ian. :)

Editted to add: I would hazard a guess that Unas's stated location has the same source.

note to self...you are in danger of becoming a sci-fi geek, suggest cutting back on amount of time watching said shows.

Ian: I think your avatar looks Presleyish.

CFLarsen

7th November 2003, 07:38 AM

Originally posted by Thanz
"A battlefield drenched in the blood of false claims and bad arguments." Good Lord... :rolleyes:

That, dear Thanz, is called a "metaphor". It is not an appeal to emotion.

Originally posted by Thanz
The sad thing is that you actually believe this whole battlefield, us vs. them thing. You are out to win a battle - at all costs. You don't seem to realize that your battle tactics divide your own troops. They are not even particularly effective. It is like you want to wade in there with your battle axe swinging, when it would be much better to calmly sit back and launch a smart bomb.

The sad thing is that you forget that this is a battlefield. People are seriously hurt from these false claims and beliefs, not just financially but also mentally and physically. Sometimes, they lose their lives. I don't think we should just lean back and let it go. I think we are damaged considerably by these false claims and beliefs.

Originally posted by Thanz
BTW, I have backed up the claims that I have actually made.

No, you have not. E.g. you have not been able to show that renata got better responses from the believers. You just tried to shift the burden. You also failed to show how I "constantly" misrepresent other people's posts.

Interesting Ian

7th November 2003, 07:59 AM

Originally posted by fsol

Ian: I think your avatar looks Presleyish.
Huh?? Looks like Elvis Presley? You saying I'm gay!? :mad:

Thanz

7th November 2003, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

The sad thing is that you forget that this is a battlefield. People are seriously hurt from these false claims and beliefs, not just financially but also mentally and physically. Sometimes, they lose their lives. I don't think we should just lean back and let it go. I think we are damaged considerably by these false claims and beliefs.
Do you seriously believe that acting like a bullying a-hole on this message board will have any positive effect on all of this? Do you think that you are changing peoples minds with your tactics? You will never convince the true believers, and I think that your tactics turn off the fence sitters as well. I am not saying that we ignore frauds and charlatans - I am saying that there are better ways to educate people about them. Reasoned polite arguments are better that your browbeating.

No, you have not. E.g. you have not been able to show that renata got better responses from the believers. You just tried to shift the burden. You also failed to show how I "constantly" misrepresent other people's posts.
That is your opinion. Obviously I feel differently. They are matters of interpretation - I have supported my assertions when they need support. They are also matters that are of little consequence when dealing with the larger issues that you claim to care about.

Thanz

7th November 2003, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

and yet, the bleat goes on...
You are correct. Just as I said that TLN seems to have a blind spot for Luci, I seem to have a blind spot for you two yahoos.

I'll work on it.

CFLarsen

7th November 2003, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Huh?? Looks like Elvis Presley? You saying I'm gay!? :mad:

Priscilla Presley, you dimwit.

CFLarsen

7th November 2003, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by Thanz
Do you seriously believe that acting like a bullying a-hole on this message board will have any positive effect on all of this? Do you think that you are changing peoples minds with your tactics? You will never convince the true believers, and I think that your tactics turn off the fence sitters as well. I am not saying that we ignore frauds and charlatans - I am saying that there are better ways to educate people about them. Reasoned polite arguments are better that your browbeating.

So you say. That's why I asked you several times what results you can show. Complete silence from you.

Originally posted by Thanz
That is your opinion. Obviously I feel differently. They are matters of interpretation - I have supported my assertions when they need support. They are also matters that are of little consequence when dealing with the larger issues that you claim to care about.

No, it is not a matter of interpretation. You always fall back on that, when you are in trouble. But you are correct when you say that they are of little consequence when dealing with the larger issues. Unfortunately, you don't do much of that either.

You bring up my baaaad behavior, you can't support your claims but have to admit they are interpretations, you back down.

No interpretation there.

Interesting Ian

7th November 2003, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Huh?? Looks like Elvis Presley? You saying I'm gay!?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Priscilla Presley, you dimwit.

I guessed you wouldn't get my humour. You're too intense. LOL

fsol

7th November 2003, 08:37 AM

Huh?? Looks like Elvis Presley? You saying I'm gay!?

Hmm...I'm sure there was an <strike>argument</strike> civilised discussion about the misinterpretation of posts going on around here somewhere. :)

The Mighty Thor

7th November 2003, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Priscilla Presley, you dimwit.

It's all immaterial to Ian :)

malc

CFLarsen

7th November 2003, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I guessed you wouldn't get my humour. You're too intense. LOL

Oh, I guess it must have been that "mad" smiley that gave me the wrong impression...:rolleyes:

Interesting Ian

7th November 2003, 08:51 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Oh, I guess it must have been that "mad" smiley that gave me the wrong impression...:rolleyes:

Yes it must have been, which makes it even more amusing! :D

The Mighty Thor

7th November 2003, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I guessed you wouldn't get my humour. You're too intense. LOL

The :mad: in your reply (which is conspicuously missing in your quote!) doesn't usually indicate humour.

You really don't like to admit to mistakes, do you?

malc

CFLarsen

7th November 2003, 09:26 AM

So, we should simply assume that you are joking, always, with no regard for whatever smiley you use?

You made a mistake, and now, instead of admitting to it, you try to pin the blame on others. Nice.

BillHoyt

7th November 2003, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by Thanz

You are correct. Just as I said that TLN seems to have a blind spot for Luci, I seem to have a blind spot for you two yahoos.

I'll work on it.

How about trying something novel here? Increase the substance and decrease the whining, bleating, cries of "foul" and "unfair"? Dropping the specious claim that this isn't a skeptic's board? Stop claiming browbeating when you see challenges. Cease the subject / motive shift? Stick with the topic?

The topics here center around specious claims. The claimants will be challenged and, sometimes, vigorously. Randi made quite clear his view about the distinction between browbeating / harassment and challenges. He said:

o If the claimant says he believes something without evidence, leave it go,
o If the claimant says he has the evidence, continue to call for it unless and until:
- he marshalls said evidence
- withdraws the claim
- states he refuses to marshall the evidence

I suggest we stick to the topics, follow Randi's guidance and improve the signal-to-noise ratio.

Interesting Ian

7th November 2003, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by malcolmdl

The :mad: in your reply (which is conspicuously missing in your quote!) doesn't usually indicate humour.

You really don't like to admit to mistakes, do you?

malc

Don't be absurd! LOL It should be obvious to anyone with a sense of humour that it was a joke! I put the "mad" in so that people would actually realise this, not to convey the opposite impression. Dear me. I do get bad tempered with people sometimes on here, but I would never use a smilie, even a not even a "mad" smilie on here to convey my annoyance.

And BTW, where have I missed the :mad: in any quote of mine?

Interesting Ian

7th November 2003, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, we should simply assume that you are joking, always, with no regard for whatever smiley you use?

You made a mistake, and now, instead of admitting to it, you try to pin the blame on others. Nice.

Oh don't be so ridiculous. I suspect about 90% of people on here will have realised it was simply levity on my part. Dear me!

Apparently surveys reveal that 90% of people have an above average sense of humour. Which means that the other 10% must be right miserable sods. Looks like you're one of them.

(and BTW there is some humour in there as well. See if you can spot it! LOL)

CFLarsen

7th November 2003, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And BTW, where have I missed the :mad: in any quote of mine? It was Larsen who missed it out, trying to dishonestly convey I was being serious!

Are you completely crazy? Leaving a mad smiley out (I don't know why it wasn't replicated), and that means I am dishonestely trying to convey you were serious??

Stop trying to shift the focus here, Ian. YOU posted a mad smiley. YOU later claimed it was a joke.

Man, you really are something.... :hb:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Oh don't be so ridiculous. I suspect about 90% of people on here will have realised it was simply levity on my part. Dear me!

You "suspect"? Sorry, Ian, you are simply angling for imaginary support here.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Apparently surveys reveal that 90% of people have an above average sense of humour. Which means that the other 10% must be right miserable sods. Looks like you're one of them.

Oh, I have an excellent sense of humour. What you did was not humour, it was a mistake.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
(and BTW there is some humour in there as well. See if you can spot it! LOL)

Yeah, you are one big joke. That is not hard to spot.

Interesting Ian

7th November 2003, 10:03 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Are you completely crazy? Leaving a mad smiley out (I don't know why it wasn't replicated), and that means I am dishonestely trying to convey you were serious??

Stop trying to shift the focus here, Ian. YOU posted a mad smiley. YOU later claimed it was a joke.

Man, you really are something.... :hb:

You "suspect"? Sorry, Ian, you are simply angling for imaginary support here.

Oh, I have an excellent sense of humour. What you did was not humour, it was a mistake.

Yeah, you are one big joke. That is not hard to spot.

Right, I'm going to post a poll in JREF Forum Community to see what people think. I am actually genuinely interested whether people will think I was being serious or using levity. I of course realise that some people think I was being serious, but that the people who know me will realise I was employing levity. But if scarcely anyone realises I was simply being humorous then I guess I'll have to make my humour more obvious! LOL

Interesting Ian

7th November 2003, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Oh, I have an excellent sense of humour. What you did was not humour, it was a mistake.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
(and BTW there is some humour in there as well. See if you can spot it! LOL)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, you are one big joke. That is not hard to spot.

Forgive me but I'm mildly interested. Do you "get" the humour or not? Here is what I said:

Apparently surveys reveal that 90% of people have an above average sense of humour. Which means that the other 10% must be right miserable sods. Looks like you're one of them.

Explain what the humour is.

Thanks

ceptimus

7th November 2003, 11:04 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
[b]Apparently surveys reveal that 90% of people have an above average sense of humour. Which means that the other 10% must be right miserable sods.
It doesn't have to be humerous. Mathematically, this is quite possible. And there need be hardly any difference between the most humerous, and most miserable people, for it to be true.

Consider 100 people. 99 of them earn $3000/month. 1 earns $3001/month. 99% of these people earn below the average.

TLN

7th November 2003, 11:10 AM

Ian, as usual, you ignore the central issue. Let me put it alone in isolated text so maybe you can see it this time:

You offer nothing to refute. Nothing.

Get it? Stop strutting around like some peacock lording your manufactured victories over us; they're imaginary.

CFLarsen

7th November 2003, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Forgive me but I'm mildly interested. Do you "get" the humour or not? Here is what I said:

Apparently surveys reveal that 90% of people have an above average sense of humour. Which means that the other 10% must be right miserable sods. Looks like you're one of them.

Explain what the humour is.

Thanks

You.

I could be wrong, of course. That, I think, is not my problem, though. You have made it clear that your posts should be considered a joke.

:run:

(What, you don't understand the smiley? It means "Ha, it was a joke!")

Interesting Ian

7th November 2003, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by ceptimus

It doesn't have to be humerous. Mathematically, this is quite possible. And there need be hardly any difference between the most humerous, and most miserable people, for it to be true.

Consider 100 people. 99 of them earn $3000/month. 1 earns $3001/month. 99% of these people earn below the average.

Obviously I know that it is mathematically possible. And the fact that you don't realise that I realise that, suggests that you too don't see the humour LOL

The point here is that the person earning above the average is earning 99 times!! more above the average than anyone below the average is earning. I would scarcely describe that as hardly any difference.

So I still say that on average the 10% of people with a below average sense of humour are miserable sods.
And I still say it is humorous! :mad: ;)

CFLarsen

7th November 2003, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And I still say it is humorous! :mad: ;)

So, how should we interpret this, Ian?

You say it is a joke. OK.

You then use the :mad: smiley, which you claim is used when you make a joke. OK.

So, you made a joke out of making a joke. OK.

But then, you put a ;) after that, indicating that the joke was meant as a joke, which in return was meant as a joke.

I'm sorry, I'm confused. Could you please explain - without the use of smileys, and no tongue-in-cheek, or anything else either, but just factual, down-to-earth:

What. Do. You. Mean?

BillHoyt

7th November 2003, 11:29 AM

Interesting Ian

7th November 2003, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The point here is that the person earning above the average is earning 99 times!! more above the average than anyone below the average is earning. I would scarcely describe that as hardly any difference.

BillHoyt
http://www.baltobluegrass.com/bbggraph/monkey.gif

OK Billy me boy, let us know what figure you think it is then.

TLN

7th November 2003, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by TLN
Ian, as usual, you ignore the central issue. Let me put it alone in isolated text so maybe you can see it this time:

You offer nothing to refute. Nothing.

Get it? Stop strutting around like some peacock lording your manufactured victories over us; they're imaginary.

Ready when you are Ian. Or, you can continue to ignore that which you cannot address.

CFLarsen

7th November 2003, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
OK Billy me boy, let us know what figure you think it is then.

What, you cannot figure it out for yourself??? You don't get the joke?? You don't see the humour?

Does this mean that you accept that it can be very hard to determine what people actually mean, especially when they use conflicting signals?

Forgive me but I'm mildly interested.

Nyarlathotep

7th November 2003, 11:45 AM

Is anyone familiar with Godwins Law? The law that states that as soon as someone uses the word 'Nazi' in a usenet (or, I presume an internet forum) discussion, all intelligent discussion on a subject has ended and the conversation should be terminated.

I propose an addenedum to Godwins law, I will call it 'Nyarlathotep's Corrolary': As soon as a conversation has devolved into an argument over minutia (i.e. whether an irrelevant statement was a joke or not), the conversation shall be treated as if someone had used the word 'Nazi'.

Interesting Ian

7th November 2003, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Is anyone familiar with Godwins Law? The law that states that as soon as someone uses the word 'Nazi' in a usenet (or, I presume an internet forum) discussion, all intelligent discussion on a subject has ended and the conversation should be terminated.

I propose an addenedum to Godwins law, I will call it 'Nyarlathotep's Corrolary': As soon as a conversation has devolved into an argument over minutia (i.e. whether an irrelevant statement was a joke or not), the conversation shall be treated as if someone had used the word 'Nazi'.

Oh its all just a bit of fun Ny :) Don't be so serious all the time. It makes a change from the normal arguments doesn't it?

fsol

7th November 2003, 12:09 PM

I propose an addenedum to Godwins law, I will call it 'Nyarlathotep's Corrolary': As soon as a conversation has devolved into an argument over minutia (i.e. whether an irrelevant statement was a joke or not), the conversation shall be treated as if someone had used the word 'Nazi'.

Seconded.

It is the petty squabbling that while initially entertaining does tend to destract from the topic at hand. It is why whilst I understand Claus's approach, my sympathies tend to lie with Thanz. All the mud slinging gets in the way. To me the interesting thing is why Clancie thinks JE isn't cold reading not whether she has read a 90+ Mb file or not.

TLN is correct when he talks about Ian giving nothing to refute. "I agree with Berkley on most things" Which things exactly? Why do you agree with certain bits and not others? That is what is interesting, not whether someone has misinterpreted a joke or not. I know Ian will say "well I have explained to my satisfaction my beliefs," but it seems that either everyone else *is* stupid or he hasn't done a very good job of it.

Nyarlathotep

7th November 2003, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Oh its all just a bit of fun Ny :) Don't be so serious all the time. It makes a change from the normal arguments doesn't it?

True enough.

Am I serious all the time? I have never thought about it.

TLN

7th November 2003, 12:15 PM

Later, you'll tell everyone how you've never been refuted.

Way to go Ian; you're now officially a troll.

7th November 2003, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

JJ demonstrating his complete lack of understanding of what the word evidence means said:

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

If you can't offer any proof, that's the same as admitting you haven't any evidence.

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

Ian, once again you are reminded that you shall remove this quote, which you have maliciously and unethically removed from context, from your signature immediately.

Interesting Ian

7th November 2003, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by jj

Ian, once again you are reminded that you shall remove this quote, which you have maliciously and unethically removed from context, from your signature immediately.

jj you are reminded that I shall not. Not until you agree that the concepts of evidence and ptoof do not mean the same, not by a long chalk.

Admit it, or it stays.

Interesting Ian

7th November 2003, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by TLN
Later, you'll tell everyone how you've never been refuted.

Way to go Ian; you're now officially a troll.

Why shouldn't I since I haven't? :rolleyes:

TLN

7th November 2003, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Why shouldn't I since I haven't? :rolleyes:

See above.

You offer nothing refutable!

Address this comment if you can.

BillHoyt

7th November 2003, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

OK Billy me boy, let us know what figure you think it is then.

I charge $100/hour for remedial math. To save money, I suggest you dust off and grease up your abacus.

Cheers,

7th November 2003, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

jj you are reminded that I shall not. Not until you agree that the concepts of evidence and ptoof do not mean the same, not by a long chalk.

Admit it, or it stays.

I require you to not only remove that quote, but to admit that you have intentionally misrepresented my position by removing the sentences directly preceeding it.

Now, Ian, NOW.

TLN

7th November 2003, 02:34 PM

T'ai Chi

7th November 2003, 02:43 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

I charge $100/hour for remedial math. To save money, I suggest you dust off and grease up your abacus.

Sir, do you offer a money back guarantee? ;)

Cheers,

Interesting Ian

7th November 2003, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by TLN

See above.

You offer nothing refutable!

Address this comment if you can.

Yes my arguments are not refutable, but that is because they are solid! :D

TLN

7th November 2003, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Yes my arguments are not refutable, but that is because they are solid! :D

Wrong. The fact is you offer nothing testable and nothing that can be falsified. Then you declare victory.

You see the problem here?

Interesting Ian

7th November 2003, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by jj

I require you to not only remove that quote, but to admit that you have intentionally misrepresented my position by removing the sentences directly preceeding it.

Now, Ian, NOW.

Your preceding sentences do not alter the meaning of your sentence. The sentence is pretty well self contained. But, as I have said, if you're so anxious for me to get rid of it, then presumably you no longer agree with it? Is that correct? So publicly concede this, and I shall get rid of it.

Interesting Ian

7th November 2003, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Originally posted by Interesting Ian

OK Billy me boy, let us know what figure you think it is then.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I charge $100/hour for remedial math. To save money, I suggest you dust off and grease up your abacus.
[/B]

Billy, you are wrong in this as you are for so many other things.

TLN

7th November 2003, 03:02 PM

Keep plugging away at those irrelevant posts instead of facing your defeat Ian. It's what makes you such a delightful zealot.

7th November 2003, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Your preceding sentences do not alter the meaning of your sentence. The sentence is pretty well self contained. But, as I have said, if you're so anxious for me to get rid of it, then presumably you no longer agree with it? Is that correct? So publicly concede this, and I shall get rid of it.

I am offended by the way that you've changed its meaning.

I am in no way retracting or suggesting that what I said, in context, is in any way improper, and I require you to ADMIT that you have conciously, willfully misrepresented my position.

NOW, Ian, not tomorrow, not next week, but NOW.

hgc

7th November 2003, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by jj

I am offended by the way that you've changed its meaning.

I am in no way retracting or suggesting that what I said, in context, is in any way improper, and I require you to ADMIT that you have conciously, willfully misrepresented my position.

NOW, Ian, not tomorrow, not next week, but NOW. I can't find the rest of the quote. Can you supply it? How about putting it into your sig for now?

!Xx+-Rational-+xX!

7th November 2003, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

I charge $100/hour for remedial math. To save money, I suggest you dust off and grease up your abacus.

Cheers,

Perhaps you should spend that money on goat rancher magazine!???????!@

http://www.student.smsu.edu/s/san232s/hardfunnypics/goatranchermagazine.jpg

Interesting Ian

7th November 2003, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by TLN
Keep plugging away at those irrelevant posts instead of facing your defeat Ian. It's what makes you such a delightful zealot.

Forgive my lack of intelligence TLN, but I wonder if you could kindly inform me where I have been defeated? ;)

Interesting Ian

7th November 2003, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by jj
[B]

I am offended by the way that you've changed its meaning.

Well jj, I emphatically deny that I have changed its meaning. But perhaps you could explain what you actually meant? ;)

I am in no way retracting or suggesting that what I said, in context, is in any way improper, and I require you to ADMIT that you have conciously, willfully misrepresented my position.

In what way have I misrepresented your position?

NOW, Ian, not tomorrow, not next week, but NOW.

Request denied until you admit that you are unambigiously wrong in what you said.

Interesting Ian

7th November 2003, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by hgc
I can't find the rest of the quote. Can you supply it? How about putting it into your sig for now?

Here it is:

II
As it is I cannot prove it. As I keep saying over and over and over to people, the evidence is merely highly suggestive that there is a life after death.

jj
Well, then you haven't any evidence?

If you have evidence you can offer "proof to a reasonable standard" (since there is no "absolute proof" and I'm not asking for that, and you know that). If you don't, you can't. If you can't offer any proof, that's the same as admitting you haven't any evidence.

And there is no evidence you've offered that suggests any such thing as life after death, yet. So, where is this mythical evidence? Out with it, Ian, out with it.

Unas

7th November 2003, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You simply ignore all my points and continue to misunderstand all things.
False. I refused to allow Ian to change the topic of the discussion. Ian has discovered that there are people in this world who will not kowtow to his bullying tactics.
You're the very first person ever for me to put on ignore.
And like all bullies, when he is directly confronted. he runs away crying.
And besides, I can't stand your ugly avatar anyway.
He's also too ignorant to realize that he has the option to turn off the display of avatars.

TLN

8th November 2003, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Forgive my lack of intelligence TLN, but I wonder if you could kindly inform me where I have been defeated? ;)

You offer nothing falsifiable, therefore there’s nothing to defeat. There never was. Get it?

Please say yes.

CFLarsen

8th November 2003, 01:49 AM

Originally posted by TLN
You offer nothing falsifiable, therefore there’s nothing to defeat. There never was. Get it?

Please say yes.

Ian has painted himself into a corner.

Ian will not say yes. He cannot. He has to claim that there was something falsifiable. Then, he will have to show how it was falsifiable. He cannot.

The only thing he can do is to redefine the rules, so he "wins". E.g. claiming that falsification is not the issue. That we are all to stupid to understand him. Or, simply to ignore all this, start new threads, post frantically in other threads.

It's the same old, tired procedure we see all the time. It's very predictable.

Interesting Ian

8th November 2003, 05:50 AM

Originally posted by TLN

You offer nothing falsifiable, therefore there’s nothing to defeat. There never was. Get it?

Please say yes.

"Falsifiability" is a term introduced by Popper in his philosophy of science. You do not falsify arguments, you refute them. Are you saying that in over 5000 posts I have never argued about anything? Come TLN, let's not be silly ;)

Clancie

8th November 2003, 06:27 AM

Posted by Thanz to CFL

Do you seriously believe that acting like a bullying a-hole on this message board will have any positive effect on all of this? Do you think that you are changing peoples minds with your tactics? You will never convince the true believers, and I think that your tactics turn off the fence sitters as well.

I am not saying that we ignore frauds and charlatans - I am saying that there are better ways to educate people about them. Reasoned polite arguments are better that your browbeating.
Just to interject

Thanz is right. I have found discussion with many non-believers at this board quite interesting...and, although I have not rejected the possibility of mediumship, (and of course continue to resent the presumption of a few people here that they have a lock on the truth and are imparting it, like missionaries of yore, to foolish, self-deluded people who think otherwise), various discussions and examples here have -definitely- influenced and changed some of my own ideas about mediumship and JE. ersby's and renata's threads are two recent examples, on the subject of cold reading.

And, Thanz, of course you're right about CFL's tactics being counter-productive with believers--as evidenced by the fact that both Steve and I have him on "Ignore" and I think neo's gotten tired of the relentless squabbling and badgering and has gone elsewhere. How effective is that?

As for influencing lurkers and fence-sitters....well, I don't know if
he does or doesn't...but imo, while he makes a good observation from time to time...the invective, and antagonism, and relentlessly demeaning style--including, as you pointed out, blatant misrepresentation of someone's posts just in order to discredit them in any way possible (my comments in the astrology thread being one recent case in point)...as well as his determination to always get the "last word"....well, Claus is a fanatic in his pursuit of "believers".

And, like all fanatics, he often buries whatever good points he has at his disposal underneath all the bile and invective. That other methods would be more effective ways to influence people, would seem to be a hard conclusion to dispute.....

ceptimus

8th November 2003, 07:10 AM

Hey Ian. Parts of this image appear to rotate. I suppose you think they really are rotating? :D

http://www.cbr600fs2.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rotsnake.gif

CFLarsen

8th November 2003, 07:11 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Ian has painted himself into a corner.

Ian will not say yes. He cannot. He has to claim that there was something falsifiable. Then, he will have to show how it was falsifiable. He cannot.

The only thing he can do is to redefine the rules, so he "wins". E.g. claiming that falsification is not the issue. That we are all to stupid to understand him. Or, simply to ignore all this, start new threads, post frantically in other threads.

It's the same old, tired procedure we see all the time. It's very predictable.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
"Falsifiability" is a term introduced by Popper in his philosophy of science. You do not falsify arguments, you refute them. Are you saying that in over 5000 posts I have never argued about anything? Come TLN, let's not be silly ;)

Like I said, very predictable.

CFLarsen

8th November 2003, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
Just to interject

Thanz is right. I have found discussion with many non-believers at this board quite interesting...and, although I have not rejected the possibility of mediumship, (and of course continue to resent the presumption of a few people here that they have a lock on the truth and are imparting it, like missionaries of yore, to foolish, self-deluded people who think otherwise), various discussions and examples here have -definitely- influenced and changed some of my own ideas about mediumship and JE. ersby's and renata's threads are two recent examples, on the subject of cold reading.

How have your ideas about mediumship and JE changed?

Originally posted by Clancie
And, Thanz, of course you're right about CFL's tactics being counter-productive with believers--as evidenced by the fact that both Steve and I have him on "Ignore" and I think neo's gotten tired of the relentless squabbling and badgering and has gone elsewhere. How effective is that?

Ah, back at making the odd stab at me. Are you hounding me, Clancie? :)

Why do you think those lists of questions came about? Do you think it was because

a) They were answered in the relevant threads?

or

b) They were not answered in the relevant threads?

Originally posted by Clancie
As for influencing lurkers and fence-sitters....well, I don't know if he does or doesn't...but imo, while he makes a good observation from time to time...the invective, and antagonism, and relentlessly demeaning style--including, as you pointed out, blatant misrepresentation of someone's posts just in order to discredit them in any way possible (my comments in the astrology thread being one recent case in point)...as well as his determination to always get the "last word"....well, Claus is a fanatic in his pursuit of "believers".

Sorry, I have to insist: Where are those "misrepresentations" I made that are so pivotal to your complaint about me? You keep pointing to them, I ask you for examples again and again, but you never show them. You just repeat that they are there, until the mere repetition has created the impression that they really exist.

Originally posted by Clancie
And, like all fanatics, he often buries whatever good points he has at his disposal underneath all the bile and invective. That other methods would be more effective ways to influence people, would seem to be a hard conclusion to dispute.....

We all have our styles, Clancie. I confront the problems, head-on. You run away from them (as we can see with several of renata's points). I have asked what results Thanz has gotten with his style. He has not answered it.

CFLarsen

8th November 2003, 07:20 AM

ceptimus,

That is AWESOME!!! http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/smilies/smhair.gif

BillHoyt

8th November 2003, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by Clancie

Just to interject

Thanz is right. I have found discussion with many non-believers at this board quite interesting...and, although I have not rejected the possibility of mediumship, (and of course continue to resent the presumption of a few people here that they have a lock on the truth and are imparting it, like missionaries of yore, to foolish, self-deluded people who think otherwise), various discussions and examples here have -definitely- influenced and changed some of my own ideas about mediumship and JE. ersby's and renata's threads are two recent examples, on the subject of cold reading.

And, Thanz, of course you're right about CFL's tactics being counter-productive with believers--as evidenced by the fact that both Steve and I have him on "Ignore" and I think neo's gotten tired of the relentless squabbling and badgering and has gone elsewhere. How effective is that?

As for influencing lurkers and fence-sitters....well, I don't know if
he does or doesn't...but imo, while he makes a good observation from time to time...the invective, and antagonism, and relentlessly demeaning style--including, as you pointed out, blatant misrepresentation of someone's posts just in order to discredit them in any way possible (my comments in the astrology thread being one recent case in point)...as well as his determination to always get the "last word"....well, Claus is a fanatic in his pursuit of "believers".

And, like all fanatics, he often buries whatever good points he has at his disposal underneath all the bile and invective. That other methods would be more effective ways to influence people, would seem to be a hard conclusion to dispute.....

Clancie,

The facts of the matter are these:
o there is truth and there is fiction
o science has epistemological privilege regarding the truth about how the universe works
o when skeptics claim to know the truth about something, that is not arrogance; they are simply stating the scientific facts of the matter.

So you can whine all you want, but this ain't a kaffee klatch. Claims will be subjected to rational inquiry. Claimants will be challenged, and vigorously. This isn't fanaticism except in the eyes of those, who, like you, have not yet built a good baloney detection kit. This is rational inquiry. This is critical thinking. And it is an attempt to ferret out the lack of same in the credulous who gather about this board.

It takes some audacity to come onto a skeptic board, sponsored by a skeptic foundation and to complain when you actually encounter skeptics!

Clancie

8th November 2003, 09:51 AM

Posted by Bill Hoyt

When skeptics claim to know the truth about something, that is not arrogance; they are simply stating the scientific facts of the matter
Really, Bill? We can be confident that someone is "always stating the scientific facts of a matter" just as long as he identifies himself as a "skeptic claiming to know the truth about something"? Does that assertion really make sense to you, Bill?

So you can whine all you want, but this ain't a kaffee klatch.
Critical thinking from people you disagree with is always marginalized by you as "whining", Bill. An ugly tactic.

Not a "kaffee klatch" to you. But others are free to make of it what they will.

Claims will be subjected to rational inquiry.
Don't flatter yourself, Bill. Most of your posts subject people's "claims" (even their opinions that you disagree with) to ridicule, mocking, and belittling, much more often than they ever do to "rational inquiry". And, when faced with the flaws of your own arguments, I have yet to see you acknowledge them. You stubbornly and irrationally adhere to them...or simply withdraw and say, in effect, "I'm not going to play any more...."

It takes some audacity to come onto a skeptic board, sponsored by a skeptic foundation and to complain when you actually encounter skeptics!
No one is saying people shouldn't be skeptical, Bill. But it takes some audacity on your part to insist on confusing philosophy and methodology. Despite what you, Claus, TBK, and TLN seem to feel, there is nothing in skepticism as a philosophy that necessitates rudeness, misrepresentation and ridicule as the approved methodology for making a point....

Interesting Ian

8th November 2003, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by ceptimus
Hey Ian. Parts of this image appear to rotate. I suppose you think they really are rotating? :D

http://www.cbr600fs2.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rotsnake.gif

And if they were really rotating, would they really be rotating? Or would it just be certain pixels going dark on your monitor and others lighting up?

We only ever see through the lens of experience. Asking what is really happening is kinda ambigious.

And why are you so hostile to me recently?

CFLarsen

8th November 2003, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And if they were really rotating, would they really be rotating? Or would it just be certain pixels going dark on your monitor and others lighting up?

We only ever see through the lens of experience. Asking what is really happening is kinda ambigious.

Do you see them as rotating, yes or no?

Interesting Ian

8th November 2003, 10:43 AM

Unas, I've put you on ignore for a reason, and I don't want you to circumvent this by sending me insulting pm's.

Interesting Ian

8th November 2003, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Do you see them as rotating, yes or no?

They appear to be rotating except when you look directly at them. Can't imagine that what I see will be much different from what anyone else sees.

Interesting Ian

8th November 2003, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by ceptimus

It doesn't have to be humerous. Mathematically, this is quite possible. And there need be hardly any difference between the most humerous, and most miserable people, for it to be true.

Consider 100 people. 99 of them earn $3000/month. 1 earns $3001/month. 99% of these people earn below the average.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II
Obviously I know that it is mathematically possible. And the fact that you don't realise that I realise that, suggests that you too don't see the humour LOL

The point here is that the person earning above the average is earning 99 times!! more above the average than anyone below the average is earning. I would scarcely describe that as hardly any difference.

So I still say that on average the 10% of people with a below average sense of humour are miserable sods.
And I still say it is humorous! :mad: ;) [/B]

Ceptimus you've neglected to respond to this.

Billy, you say my figure of 99 times is incorrect. What figure do you think it is?

CFLarsen

8th November 2003, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
They appear to be rotating except when you look directly at them. Can't imagine that what I see will be much different from what anyone else sees.

Thank you.

Now, are they really rotating, yes or no?

(And don't answer "We don't know the answer", because we do know the answer)

ceptimus

8th November 2003, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The point here is that the person earning above the average is earning 99 times!! more above the average than anyone below the average is earning. I would scarcely describe that as hardly any difference.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ceptimus you've neglected to respond to this.

Billy, you say my figure of 99 times is incorrect. What figure do you think it is?
Ian, your wording was slightly clumsy, but I basically agree that you are correct. The avearge (mean) wage of the 100 people is $3000.01. One person earns 99 cents more than the mean, the other 99 people earn 1 cent less than the mean. I think what you should have said was:

The point here is that the person earning above the average is earning 99 times!! more above the average than everyone else is earning below the average.

As to being hostile, I don't mean to be. I don't like posters operating sock puppets (unless they're out in the open like AP's), and I was just trying to make other posters aware that your sock puppets might be at large.

Interesting Ian

8th November 2003, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Thank you.

Now, are they really rotating, yes or no?

(And don't answer "We don't know the answer", because we do know the answer)

I told you. The question really doesn't make sense in the context of a 2 dimensional image. You would need to define what is meant by "rotating" where only vision is involved. If there were no anomalies associated with the vision of the apparently rotating circles, would you still define them as not rotating? If so then why?

Now, on the other hand, if we consider it as a 2 dimensional representation of a 3D object, then presumably we would say it is not rotating. This is due to certain anomalies in our vision of the object eg for a kick off the circles do not appear to be rotating when looked at straight on.

Thus if this were an actual object, and we had these particular visual qualia when looking directly at it, then due to these anomalies we might imagine that if we were to approach the circles, and reached out to touch them, we would experience no tactile qualia which we associate with rotating objects. Since tactile qualia have precedence over visual qualia, we would therefore suppose the circles as not rotating. We could show the circles are indeed not rotating by an investigation of the physical effects, or in this case lack of physical effects associated with the non-rotating circles.

Indeed, even if they were no anomalies associated with the visual appearance of apparently rotating circles, and we received a tactile impression of non-rotation, then we would be more liable to suppose they are not rotating. As I said, tactile qualia have precedence over visual qualia.

Note that this situation is dissimilar to that where only vision is involved.

Interesting Ian

8th November 2003, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by ceptimus

As to being hostile, I don't mean to be. I don't like posters operating sock puppets (unless they're out in the open like AP's), and I was just trying to make other posters aware that your sock puppets might be at large. [/B]

But one of them, "The One called Neo", is not really a sock puppet since everyone knows about it. The other sock puppet I am using to argue for materialism and skepticism (and doing it much better than the real materialists and skeptics btw). Given that I am using my only true sock puppet to argue for the opposite position to what I really hold, I really don't see why you should object.

CFLarsen

8th November 2003, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I told you. The question really doesn't make sense in the context of a 2 dimensional image. You would need to define what is meant by "rotating" where only vision is involved. If there were no anomalies associated with the vision of the apparently rotating circles, would you still define them as not rotating? If so then why?

Now, on the other hand, if we consider it as a 2 dimensional representation of a 3D object, then presumably we would say it is not rotating. This is due to certain anomalies in our vision of the object eg for a kick off the circles do not appear to be rotating when looked at straight on.

Thus if this were an actual object, and we had these particular visual qualia when looking directly at it, then due to these anomalies we might imagine that if we were to approach the circles, and reached out to touch them, we would experience no tactile qualia which we associate with rotating objects. Since tactile qualia have precedence over visual qualia, we would therefore suppose the circles as not rotating. We could show the circles are indeed not rotating by an investigation of the physical effects, or in this case lack of physical effects associated with the non-rotating circles.

Indeed, even if they were no anomalies associated with the visual appearance of apparently rotating circles, and we received a tactile impression of non-rotation, then we would be more liable to suppose they are not rotating. As I said, tactile qualia have precedence over visual qualia.

Note that this situation is dissimilar to that where only vision is involved.

Stop talking around the issue. You don't need to redefine concepts here. A 2D image can move as well. "Rotate" does not require 3D.

Is the image really rotating or not? Yes or no?

BillHoyt

8th November 2003, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Stop talking around the issue. You don't need to redefine concepts here. A 2D image can move as well. "Rotate" does not require 3D.

Is the image really rotating or not? Yes or no?

Ah, Claus, y'aint seen nuttin' yet. I don't think you participated in the last optical illusion round with Ian. A chessboard illusion was presented some of whose squares were miscued to appear to be a different shade than the others. Ian said the squares were not the same color. At least three different ways of proving it for himself were posted. He continued his stolid argumentation. I asked him if he had tried any of the ways suggested. He said no, he didn't have to.

Ian is the reincarnation of the Bishops at Galileo's trial. He will not look through the telescope. Get the handcuffs, chains and neck brace.

BillHoyt

8th November 2003, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by Clancie

Really, Bill? We can be confident that someone is "always stating the scientific facts of a matter" just as long as he identifies himself as a "skeptic claiming to know the truth about something"? Does that assertion really make sense to you, Bill?

Critical thinking from people you disagree with is always marginalized by you as "whining", Bill. An ugly tactic.

Not a "kaffee klatch" to you. But others are free to make of it what they will.

Don't flatter yourself, Bill. Most of your posts subject people's "claims" (even their opinions that you disagree with) to ridicule, mocking, and belittling, much more often than they ever do to "rational inquiry". And, when faced with the flaws of your own arguments, I have yet to see you acknowledge them. You stubbornly and irrationally adhere to them...or simply withdraw and say, in effect, "I'm not going to play any more...."

No one is saying people shouldn't be skeptical, Bill. But it takes some audacity on your part to insist on confusing philosophy and methodology. Despite what you, Claus, TBK, and TLN seem to feel, there is nothing in skepticism as a philosophy that necessitates rudeness, misrepresentation and ridicule as the approved methodology for making a point....

Clancie,

When you have a point of substance, I will engage. I don't have time to teach the retarded.