How to debunk a skeptic.

[CasaRojo]

Definitely worth a looksee.--->http://www.debunkingskeptics.com

[Hokulele]

They might want to learn how to debug html and php, first.

[Foolmewunz]

Definitely worth a looksee.--->http://www.debunkingskeptics.com

If you report yourself maybe a nice Mod will change the spelling error in the thread title.


Ho hum. More Zammit. What a horrid cluttered website.

[CasaRojo]

They might want to learn how to debug html and php, first.

LOL! I noticed that. Wonder how long it'll take 'em?

[CasaRojo]

If you report yourself maybe a nice Mod will change the spelling error in the thread title.


Ho hum. More Zammit. What a horrid cluttered website.

I really gotta git new glasses. :-)

[shawmutt]

There are skeptic deer too? I know how to debuk them.

[CasaRojo]

There are skeptic deer too? I know how to debuk them.

Somebody's gonna call PETA to report your PETA collection. :D

[sadhatter]

Wow, that was....fun. Why is it that woo flinging people with 20 minutes of " how to make a website" think that just because they made another website with the same information that suddenly they have brought something new and exciting to the world?

This website says the same thing, in the same tone, that a million other websites say. And it all boils down to the people saying it, when they are not misquoting someone or something, simply do not have the training in the proper fields of study, or if they do, they are obviously cashing in -in some way shape or form on peoples need to believe in woo.

Wow Scepcop, your saying that with no formal training and little to no access to individual phenomena you claim as true you have just as much of an educated valid opinion as someone like Michael Shermer? No i havn't heard that same story from every woo flinger of every degree.

[George152]

How about we give them a price to do their webpage so it doesn't look such a dogs breakfast of code?

[jasonpatterson]

One of the five current SKEPCOP committee members calls itself Indigo Child. I went to its blog and found the following pearl of wisdom... (emphasis mine)

Pure being simply "IS" and thus it is existent, and because it is, there is an isn't, but which is insofar as a holographic projection of the "IS" The world is therefore like a dream of the pure being.
...
I caution the reader not to take this as solipsism or as idealism ... This is critical realism.

Wow, this could have been a Deep Thought, by Jack Handy.

[rjh01]

From the link in the OP
And that I might add is a very odd definition of a "skeptic" since they are only "skeptical" of certain things, yet unquestionably accept anything from the status quo as dogma. That's no objectivity at all, but pure bias.

This statement is rubbish. There are heaps of example where many people in this forum do not support the status quo. I am sure I can find heaps of post here that criticize current drug laws. And many of us do not support traditional religious beliefs.

I am sure you can find heaps of other statements that are questionable in the link. For example the post above this one.

[hokie]

The funniest part of that site to me was the million dollar challenge "One million dollars is offered to any skeptic who can rebut the evidence for the existence of the afterlife.".

NOTE CAREFULLY: The applicant is not required to 'prove the negative' as skeptical debunkers try to deliberately mislead readers: the evidence is positively expressly stated (as outlined in the subject book A LAWYER PRESENTS THE CASE FOR THE AFTERLIFE). Then the onus is on the applicant to demonstrate WHERE, WHEN, WHY, and HOW the expressly stated evidence is not valid.
:boggled:

[thatguywhojuggles]

The funniest part of that site to me was the million dollar challenge "One million dollars is offered to any skeptic who can rebut the evidence for the existence of the afterlife.".


:boggled:



NOTE CAREFULLY: The applicant is not required to 'prove the negative' as skeptical debunkers try to deliberately mislead readers: the evidence is positively expressly stated (as outlined in the subject book A LAWYER PRESENTS THE CASE FOR THE AFTERLIFE). Then the onus is on the applicant to demonstrate WHERE, WHEN, WHY, and HOW the expressly stated evidence is not valid.

Rose bushes have thorns, therefore there is an afterlife. Can you prove that rose bushes don't have thorns? Ha! You lose!

[tsig]

Rose bushes have thorns, therefore there is an afterlife. Can you prove that rose bushes don't have thorns? Ha! You lose!


Here:

http://www.wallararoses.com.au/thornless.html

Therefore there is a god, how else could we get such things?:)

[paperskater]

On the bottom of this page (http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/index.php#Vinstonas), is that the same Winston Wu that hangs out at the SGU forums?

[Wowbagger]

Scientists are the ones who are changing the world. Paranormalists are not.

If only they could figure out what is going wrong on their end...

[juryjone]

Busy forum. As you can imagine, the self-congratulatory pats on their own backs wears them out to the extent that they are unable to discuss any facts. What a shame.

[RichardR]

Definitely worth a looksee.--->http://www.debunkingskeptics.comNo, not worth a looksee at all. This is Winston Wu's drivel. I wrote about Winston Wu (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2008/11/winston-wu-woo-rebuttal.html?cid=6a00d83451df0c69e20115709a872397 0b) - note how he shows up in the comments (May 20), and note how he offers nothing of value and doesn't respond to anyone's criticisms.

[pfeenix]

from their first page:
They have an a priori belief that paranormal phenomena is impossible and therefore set out to debunk it

isn't that the point? i'm a self-proclaimed paranormal woo, and even I know that before any claims of paranormal can be deemed in any way valid, you must first determine what it is not--otherwise you results can't be trusted.

[Toke]

The Paranormal is one of the most exciting frontiers today. Research into Consciousness, Quantum Physics and Psychic Phenomena, etc. explores venues that is unlocking the mysteries of the universe and gateways to other dimensions or levels of reality and consciousness.

Quantum Physics is paranormal?

[dahduh]

On the SCEPCOP forums (http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=33):
Poll: Should Skeptics be allowed in this forum?
Yes: 25%
Yes, but limit to debating skeptics board: 50%
No: 25%
But with a sample size of only 4, this internet poll is even more bogus than usual (oops, gotta be careful about using 'bogus' these days...)

[jakesteele]

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/index.php

This is a test to see if this link brings the site up without messing it up.

edit:
Yes, this link works. Where did you get the messed up one at?

[Cavemonster]

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/index.php

This is a test to see if this link brings the site up without messing it up.

edit:
Yes, this link works. Where did you get the messed up one at?

I just clicked your link and got the same chunk of PHP errors. What are you talking about?

[CasaRojo]

No, not worth a looksee at all. This is Winston Wu's drivel. I wrote about Winston Wu (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2008/11/winston-wu-woo-rebuttal.html?cid=6a00d83451df0c69e20115709a872397 0b) - note how he shows up in the comments (May 20), and note how he offers nothing of value and doesn't respond to anyone's criticisms.

Just pointing out the site. I heard about it yesterday from the Skeptical Inquirer on Facebook. --->http://www.facebook.com/pages/Skeptical-Inquirer/55675557620?ref=nf

[thaiboxerken]

I was approved to be one of Victor Zammit's friends on Facebook. I posted a comment yesterday asking him when he's going to take James Randi's million dollars away. Post is still there today.

[Cleon]

Wow. Winston Wu ("Vinstonias?" WTF?) and Victor Zammit. What a combo.

[aggle-rithm]

Back in 2001, I was the first to write a book length treatise debunking 30 primary arguments of pseudo-skeptics against the paranormal and anything that challenged orthodoxy. Much needed at the time, it quickly became hailed in paranormal circles as a comprehensive masterpiece and the first of its kind.

Let's hope he didn't burst a blood vessel blowing his own horn.

[The Man]

How to debuk a skeptic.


Tip over the bunk beds, of course.

[jakesteele]

I just clicked your link and got the same chunk of PHP errors. What are you talking about?

Yeah, you're right. The first time I clicked after copy/paste it worked fine, but now it doesn't. Perhaps there's a ghost in their machine.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Definitely worth a looksee.--->http://www.debunkingskeptics.com:dl:

That's a crack up. Clearly they believe they are making a case. It's akin to god believers claiming science is just another religion. They don't seem to get the concept of the scientific process.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Typical sour grapes from being unable to present supporting evidence for a pet belief:They have an a priori belief that paranormal phenomena is impossible and therefore set out to debunk it, not investigate it.

Today's common definition of skeptic is someone who questions any belief that strays outside of the status quo, yet leaving the status quo itself completely unquestioned. Kind of a juvenile and intellectually lazy practice in my opinion."The Intelligent Design/Creationism crowd make the same false argument, it's not a lack of evidence it is rejection of evidence. That's absurd.

I would love to find evidence of some currently thought of supernatural thing. It would be fantastic. But wishful thinking is not what one bases scientific discovery upon.

[Skeptic Ginger]

They have a forum. Anyone know if they ban people they can't argue against?

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/index.php

They've posted a video describing Randi as "running away" from a Mr Kolodezy's attempt at the MDC by offering to prove he could live on water alone. In a separate thread they've posted Randi's answer:Mr. Kolodzey:

Don't treat us like children. We only respond to responsible claims.
Are you actually claiming that you have not consumed any food products except water, since the end of 1998? If this is what you are saying, did you think for one moment that we would believe it?

If this is actually your claim, you're a liar and a fraud. We are not interested in pursuing this further, nor will we exchange correspondence with you on the matter.

So the idiots running this web site not only expect that any and every ludicrous claim should be taken seriously, this is the example they post of how skeptics are too skeptical. :rolleyes:

Has anyone registered for the forum? I want to but I want to be sure it is safe to do so before I do. I need one of those sneakmail accounts first. I'd hate to get bombarded with more spam by some sleazy forum owner.

[Klimax]

I just clicked your link and got the same chunk of PHP errors. What are you talking about?

Those error apparently are too easy to make. I have sen thme commonly in BOINC-based projects...

[SezMe]

This page (http://www.naturalnews.com/025627.html) also has a discussion of the MDC. Is there a discussion of this challenge here?

[CasaRojo]

Tip over the bunk beds, of course.

Why are the woo seemingly always in need of money?

Because they always pass debuk.

parumpump


I miss debunk beds.

[shawmutt]

No one yet? OK, I'll do it:

http://home.comcast.net/~shawmutt/stupidburn.jpg

We obviously need to get on the ball and create a counter-counter-skeptic group.

[kookbreaker]

Wow. Winston Wu ("Vinstonias?" WTF?) and Victor Zammit. What a combo.

With John Benneth as well, its the woo trifecta.

Benneth is a would-be applicant who managed to tick off the homeopaths who were negotiating MDC protocols on his behalf.

[Safe-Keeper]

Debuke? Not rebuke?Dungeon Master: 'As your eyes accustom to the dark of the church, a flash suddenly shoots out from behind the altar, and you are rebuked by a Turn Atheist spell as cast by a Level 4 Catholic Priest. When you come to your senses, you have fled to outside the church. The heavy wooden doors through which you entered are now closed and locked. What do you do?'

[CasaRojo]

Debuke?

Ain't that in Idaho?

[Slimething]

Quantum Physics is paranormal?

I'm guessing they're referring to the Uncertainty Principle. Woos try to use it as an explanation as to why their claims can't be tested. By their logic, a skeptic in the room causes paranormal claims to fail. Sad. :(

[ihaunter]

Debuke? Not rebuke?Dungeon Master: 'As your eyes accustom to the dark of the church, a flash suddenly shoots out from behind the altar, and you are rebuked by a Turn Atheist spell as cast by a Level 4 Catholic Priest. When you come to your senses, you have fled to outside the church. The heavy wooden doors through which you entered are now closed and locked. What do you do?'
I magic missile the darkness!

Ain't that in Idaho?

Iowa (http://www.dubuquechamber.com/)

[CasaRojo]

Iowa[/URL]

Sometimes it's in Ohio--->http://www.truveo.com/Happy-Accidents-Clip-Dubuque-Iowa-or-Idaho/id/3898428


:D

[KingMerv00]

Debuke? Not rebuke?
Dungeon Master: 'As your eyes accustom to the dark of the church, a flash suddenly shoots out from behind the altar, and you are rebuked by a Turn Atheist spell as cast by a Level 4 Catholic Priest. When you come to your senses, you have fled to outside the church. The heavy wooden doors through which you entered are now closed and locked. What do you do?'


Thank the priest and take the rest of Sunday off?

[leo1000]

I am also a member on there, just want to say yes the claim is insane, but how does Randi distinguish in this view from let's say someone who claims he can walk on water from this particular claim?. Why aren't all of these claims on almost close ground from one another, if as Randi says the paranormal is bunk!.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I am also a member on there, just want to say yes the claim is insane, but how does Randi distinguish in this view from let's say someone who claims he can walk on water from this particular claim?. Why aren't all of these claims on almost close ground from one another, if as Randi says the paranormal is bunk!.I think if someone wants to make an absurd claim such as claiming they have been living off water and no food for several years, they should be able to provide some evidence before taking up the MDC. They could lock themselves up in a clear box with just water (like a David Blaine stunt) and provide something more than a ridiculous claim to enter the challenge. I mean, honestly.

It seems to me that one wouldn't need Randi or the MDC to prove they didn't need food. It is absurd and yes, some claims actually are absurd.

[Cuddles]

I'm guessing they're referring to the Uncertainty Principle.

But you're not certain?

[Georg]

This page (http://www.naturalnews.com/025627.html) also has a discussion of the MDC. Is there a discussion of this challenge here?


Yes. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=125709)

[FSM]

I think they are just precious.

No one could use so many pretty colors on a website and be wrong!

And isn't Zammit a LAWYER? Come ON? How can a LAWYER be wrong? Everyone knows lawyers are the last bastion for truthfulness in our corrupt, closed-minded, unimaginative sciency boring old world.

I propose that they start a counter-counter-counter skeptic website in response to our counter-counter website so that we can create an even more ingenious counter-counter-counter-counter website.

We shan't run out of colors before you do, dreaded SCEPCOPS!

[Mashuna]

Damnit, Zammit, he loves woo.

[FSM]

heh.

He's just a sweet damn scepcop...

[Mashuna]

:D

[beachnut]

Definitely worth a looksee.--->http://www.debunkingskeptics.com
The "Scientific Committee Exposing Pseudo-Skeptical Cynicism of the Paranormal"; the world's first organized counter-skeptic group.

That was funny stuff. They are proud to be against science. A web site full of irony; a tech school ad came up on the page where they slam science with, "Argument # 9: Science is the only reliable method." advertising for a Masters degree was kind of funny.

[leo1000]

The "Scientific Committee Exposing Pseudo-Skeptical Cynicism of the Paranormal"; the world's first organized counter-skeptic group.

That was funny stuff. They are proud to be against science. A web site full of irony; a tech school ad came up on the page where they slam science with, "Argument # 9: Science is the only reliable method." advertising for a Masters degree was kind of funny.

He wasn't slamming science, just pointing out that their are other ways to get evidence without the need for the scientific method. For example in police cases they rely on not just physical evidence but colloboration of multiple eye witnesses.

[Ashles]

I see they haven't got the first clue about 'anecdotal evidence' as per usual.

[Ashles]

He wasn't slamming science, just pointing out that their are other ways to get evidence without the need for the scientific method.
No there aren't.

Which is why no paranormal researchers have ever discovered anything that has told us anything new about reality.
Look at all the technology and real inventions the scientific method has brought us.

What has ever been discovered or invented based solely on anecdotal evidence?

For example in police cases they rely on not just physical evidence but colloboration of multiple eye witnesses.
And the mistake you are making (as have countless others before you) is in assuming that courtroom evidence is equivalent to scientific evidence.

It isn't.

If three people say they saw the accused kill the victim that could well swing a guilty vote.

If three people say they saw a paranormal event it is not adequate strength of evidence to be counted as actual evidence towards the claim actually being real.

It might provide a starting point for research but science deals in predictability, replicability and above all hard, non-subjective evidence.

[Almo]

On the SCEPCOP forums (http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=33):

But with a sample size of only 4, this internet poll is even more bogus than usual (oops, gotta be careful about using 'bogus' these days...)

N=5 now. :)

[Femke]

The Pseudo-Skeptic
"has a know-it-all-attitude, never asks questions about things they don't understand, never admits that they don't know something"

This remark irks me. If readers don't have any information to the contrary, they might believe it.
Would it be an idea to quote on their forum some, say 30 posts, from many different JREF threads and different posters with variations on 'Wow, I didn't know that, thank you', 'You learn something new every day', 'I stand corrected' etc?
This might confuse some skeptic-debunkers enough to go see for themselves over here, and maybe even engage in some lively discussion.

Femke

[rjh01]

I think these people have their wires crossed. When they are trying to describe skeptics they are actually describing themselves and the other way round.

[leo1000]

No there aren't.

Which is why no paranormal researchers have ever discovered anything that has told us anything new about reality.
Look at all the technology and real inventions the scientific method has brought us.

What has ever been discovered or invented based solely on anecdotal evidence?


And the mistake you are making (as have countless others before you) is in assuming that courtroom evidence is equivalent to scientific evidence.

It isn't.

If three people say they saw the accused kill the victim that could well swing a guilty vote.

If three people say they saw a paranormal event it is not adequate strength of evidence to be counted as actual evidence towards the claim actually being real.

It might provide a starting point for research but science deals in predictability, replicability and above all hard, non-subjective evidence.

Here you are making a "double standard", based on the fact paranormal phenomena is not just based on anecdotal evidence but also on physical evidence gathered. Their have been countless experiments in psychical research with mediums who got positive results demonstrating that they can communicate with the deceased.

[Toke]

Their have been countless experiments in psychical research with mediums who got positive results demonstrating that they can communicate with the deceased

Zero is countless, is that what you mean?

[rjh01]

Can you give us some evidence that the number is > 0 please?

[Skeptic Ginger]

He wasn't slamming science, just pointing out that their are other ways to get evidence without the need for the scientific method. For example in police cases they rely on not just physical evidence but colloboration of multiple eye witnesses.Ashles said: "I see they haven't got the first clue about 'anecdotal evidence' as per usual."

I think I would have worded that as "You don't seem to understand what is meant by the scientific method."

[Skeptic Ginger]

...

What has ever been discovered or invented based solely on anecdotal evidence?


...Aspirin.

Not that I am questioning your knowledge of science per se, but those of us in the medical field often need to explain how systematically collected anecdotal evidence especially when used with controls is indeed a reliable source of evidence for certain scientific studies.

When people say anecdotal evidence is useless, what they really should be saying is uncontrolled unsystematic personal observations are not reliable evidence, or something to that effect.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here you are making a "double standard", based on the fact paranormal phenomena is not just based on anecdotal evidence but also on physical evidence gathered. Their have been countless experiments in psychical research with mediums who got positive results demonstrating that they can communicate with the deceased.The problem with the physical evidence you speak of is the failure to establish one is actually measuring the thing they claim they are measuring.

The static on a recording device that sounds likes words of some kind.
Electromagnetic frequency measurements.
Unidentified light sources on developed film or on a video recording.

Things like this people claim are evidence have never been established to actually be recording anything paranormal. You can't just say static is a ghost talking to you. You have to demonstrate that the static is different than other static, that people hear the same words before being told what the words supposedly are, that nothing else is causing the static and so on.

When verification of what one is actually measuring is done, the phenomena turn out to be easily explained and not paranormal.

For example the "Rods" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_(cryptozoology)) caught on many video tapes turned out to be insects when captured on very high speed film:The optical illusion theory was validated by an experiment on an episode The History Channel series Monster Quest season 1, episode 11, first aired on January 9, 2008, includes footage where a "rod" is captured simultaneously by a traditional video camera and a high-speed camera. While the video recorded by the traditional camera showed a brightly-illuminated "rod" with multiple undulating wings, the high-speed video clearly showed a common moth flying across its field of view.

[Skeptic Ginger]

BTW, welcome to the forum leo1000.

[leo1000]

[QUOTE=skeptigirl;4797623]The problem with the physical evidence you speak of is the failure to establish one is actually measuring the thing they claim they are measuring.

The static on a recording device that sounds likes words of some kind.
Electromagnetic frequency measurements.
Unidentified light sources on developed film or on a video recording.

Things like this people claim are evidence have never been established to actually be recording anything paranormal. You can't just say static is a ghost talking to you. You have to demonstrate that the static is different than other static, that people hear the same words before being told what the words supposedly are, that nothing else is causing the static and so on.

When verification of what one is actually measuring is done, the phenomena turn out to be easily explained and not paranormal.




True and without doubt many people who claim to see ghosts etc, are misinterpreting, delusional, on drugs sometimes, bias. However as psychical research has learned not cases are like that.

[leo1000]

Thank you

[I Ratant]

...


True and without doubt many people who claim to see ghosts etc, are misinterpreting, delusional, on drugs sometimes, bias. However as psychical research has learned not [all] cases are like that.
.
Yes, the rest are misinterpreted, delusional and drugged up researchers. other than those who are just plain frauds.

[The Man]

I would have to say that you can pretty much debunk proclaimed skeptics if said skeptics are not actively trying to debunk themselves.

[Ashles]

True and without doubt many people who claim to see ghosts etc, are misinterpreting, delusional, on drugs sometimes, bias. However as psychical research has learned not cases are like that.

Could you link to some of this psychical research so we could, as with all research, ascertain the stringency of the experimentation?

[Ashles]

Aspirin.

Not that I am questioning your knowledge of science per se, but those of us in the medical field often need to explain how systematically collected anecdotal evidence especially when used with controls is indeed a reliable source of evidence for certain scientific studies.
I have a degree in Experimental Psychology so I understand reasonably well that when it comes to analysing people's responses to sensations/perceptions etc. then clearly they have to describe it to us and we have to believe what they say.

I think we have already discussed this ad nauseam elsewhere. Obviously where the effect being measured is entirely subjective to the person then the persons perceptions are what is being measured and by definition could only be anecdotal or subjective, but I think this is a misrepresentation of 'anecdotal evidence' and does nothing to clear up the misconceptions of paranormal claimants who claim that their interpretation of anecdotal evidence should be counted as actual evidence.

With drug testing placebo controls mean that there is a level objective testing in place.

There are thousands of things that anecdotal 'evidence' claims to reduce pain. And as I said anecdotal evidence can and often should be a starting point for research.
But only the actual methodical testing tells us the reality of the situation.

Paranormal claims though are pretty much not about how a person's own subjective sensations are affected, but about actual real world effects. And anecdotal evidence does not help us there.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I have a degree in Experimental Psychology so I understand reasonably well that when it comes to analysing people's responses to sensations/perceptions etc. then clearly they have to describe it to us and we have to believe what they say.

I think we have already discussed this ad nauseam elsewhere. Obviously where the effect being measured is entirely subjective to the person then the persons perceptions are what is being measured and by definition could only be anecdotal or subjective, but I think this is a misrepresentation of 'anecdotal evidence' and does nothing to clear up the misconceptions of paranormal claimants who claim that their interpretation of anecdotal evidence should be counted as actual evidence.

With drug testing placebo controls mean that there is a level objective testing in place.

There are thousands of things that anecdotal 'evidence' claims to reduce pain. And as I said anecdotal evidence can and often should be a starting point for research.
But only the actual methodical testing tells us the reality of the situation.

Paranormal claims though are pretty much not about how a person's own subjective sensations are affected, but about actual real world effects. And anecdotal evidence does not help us there.Asking patients to recall events such as past diet or supplement use is anecdotal history based evidence not related to subjective experiences.

You're preaching to the choir however if you are stating that recalled anecdotes are not evidence of the paranormal. The problem there is less the anecdote than it is the interpretation.

[oldhat]

I thoroughly amused by the conceit that skeptics are just people who defend the status quo.

What about Richard Feynman debunking the NASA administrators' ************ in the aftermath of the Challenger disaster? That's "defending the official story"? Does not compute.

One thing that continually irks me about the woo-woos is when they retreat to the "cynicism" angle. Pointing out that someone like John Edward or James Van Pragh is basically a con man using old carney tricks? That's "taking believers' hope away!" Cynical!

No, woo-woos, the very definition of cynicism is lying to grieving peoples' faces and fleecing their wallets while doing it.

[rjh01]

That forum is very small. I predict that it will remain small. No more than 10 people will post in any one week. The only way it will grow is if some of us goes over there, so can I recommend that people do not post there? If they want to debate any issues they can come over here.

[EHocking]

That forum is very small. I predict that it will remain small. No more than 10 people will post in any one week. The only way it will grow is if some of us goes over there, so can I recommend that people do not post there? If they want to debate any issues they can come over here.you won't get that, because they are "seeking truth, not debate.

"If it's for debate, then we should invite everyone of all sides in. But if it's for truth seeking, their presence isn't going to do any good of course" (http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=33)

Anyway,

"it would invite negative energy here."

furrfu. A forum moderated by WinstonWu? Dog help us...

[Ladewig]

I am also a member on there, just want to say yes the claim is insane, but how does Randi distinguish in this view from let's say someone who claims he can walk on water from this particular claim?. Why aren't all of these claims on almost close ground from one another, if as Randi says the paranormal is bunk!.

The claim that someone could live on only water for months on end differs from other claims in that the testing would put the person's life in jeopardy. That is the specific reason that Randi dismisses this claim as untenable. If someone claimed to walk on water then that ability would be eligible for the MDC.

[rjh01]

I can and have walked on water. That is easy. Just like Jesus did.

You can do it when you walk on a boat or a pier. Alternatively if the water is only a inch deep then it is easy

[rjh01]

If they are seeking Truth then this thread is in the wrong sub forum. Should be in the religion sub forum.

edit. n= 8 now (see post 56).

[Toke]

I can and have walked on water. That is easy. Just like Jesus did.

You can do it when you walk on a boat or a pier. Alternatively if the water is only a inch deep then it is easy

Or just wait till winter.:)

[Marduk]

from the forum
It is possible that Sitchin may be working for the Illuminati and the NWO.
is it just me that thinks its scary that someone can be that delusional and yet still be out and about in public

[dlorde]

In his debunking skeptics article, Winston Wu says "Paranormal investigators have even used geiger counters that detected electrical activity in a haunted area."

Were these paranormal geiger counters? What units were their displays calibrated in?

[rjh01]

dlorde. You forgot the link

www.happierabroad.com/Debunking_Skeptical_Arguments/Page2.htm
or for the full works (save $7)
www.psicounsel.com/wwudebunk.html

[dlorde]

dlorde. You forgot the link
Sorry, I was actually reading the SkepticReport rebuttal analysis of Wu's article (http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/analysiswu.pdf).

[The Man]

In his debunking skeptics article, Winston Wu says "Paranormal investigators have even used geiger counters that detected electrical activity in a haunted area."

Were these paranormal geiger counters? What units were their displays calibrated in?


mR/hr (mystical Rationalizations per hour)

[George152]

Radioactive ghosts?
Might account for the ghostly images on those 'haunted house' photos

[Danton]

In his debunking skeptics article, Winston Wu says "Paranormal investigators have even used geiger counters that detected electrical activity in a haunted area."

Were these paranormal geiger counters? What units were their displays calibrated in?

The problem is even more basic than their units of measure: geiger counters can't measure electrical activity. If Wu is using "electrical activity" as "ionizing radiation" (which could possibly work, as Gamma rays are electromagnetic radiation, but it would be a stretch), he is mistaken or betting on his audience's lack of knowledge.

[LinzeeBinzee]

Phew I'm glad there's a thread about this here! I have a blog and I made a post about SCEPCOP awhile back...they recently found it and a bunch of them have started making massive comments on it, so many LINKS!!! They even made a thread about me on their forum, which I was stupid enough to join...it's exhausting reading the threads there so I have no desire to go back.

Maybe you guys could help me out with something...they've been giving me all of this "evidence" and recommending books etc. but I have no inclination to read it. They've said that I'm not being skeptical because I haven't looked at their stuff and because I won't read the books...really it's because it bores me...but they say in order to be truly skeptical or whatever I have to look at everything, and I know that's not true, it's ridiculous that they would expect that of me, but how can I respond to this???

I think there are rules about posting links here, but the blog post in question is called something like "SCEPCOP...A Steaming Pile of Kookiness", so if you googled that it would probably come up...if you're curious...but the comments are a pain in the ass to read so you might want to just not lol

[rjh01]

http://struckbyenlightning.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/scepcop-a-steaming-pile-of-kookiness/
I looked at one or two of the links. Nothing but nonsense. Plus links to his own site. You can lose some IQ points for going there.

Edit. One link is about an alleged error made by Randi about 9 years ago. If they have to go back that far to find an error made by Randi he cannot make many mistakes! A load of these people think that to get legitimacy they must get past Randi. Yet there are many other alternatives, which they ignore. This shows how weak they are.

[Safe-Keeper]

Maybe you guys could help me out with something...they've been giving me all of this "evidence" and recommending books etc. but I have no inclination to read it. They've said that I'm not being skeptical because I haven't looked at their stuff and because I won't read the books...really it's because it bores me...but they say in order to be truly skeptical or whatever I have to look at everything, and I know that's not true, it's ridiculous that they would expect that of me, but how can I respond to this???Debate by verbosity. Throw an overwhelming amount of reading material at your opponent and demand he goes through it, because otherwise he doesn't understand the topic. Creationists do it by writing long (and I mean long) papers, other dubious individuals across the Web do it by spamming links and book titles.

Tell them to compress their points into a single post, which you can then address.

I magic missile the darkness!It is pitch-black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.

[LinzeeBinzee]

http://struckbyenlightning.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/scepcop-a-steaming-pile-of-kookiness/
I looked at one or two of the links. Nothing but nonsense. Plus links to his own site. You can lose some IQ points for going there.

lol that's more than I did...I had already lost enough IQ points by browsing his site

[LinzeeBinzee]

Tell them to compress their points into a single post, which you can then address.

I think that single post would be 10 pages long...maybe I should ask for a debate by Twitter...

[rjh01]

I think that single post would be 10 pages long...maybe I should ask for a debate by Twitter...

No, you actually WANT that 10 page response. It is playing into your hands. Remember his case and others like it are very weak, so the 10 pages will be full of weak arguments.

How to counter such posts
1. Find something that can be shown to be wrong.
2, Show that it is wrong.
3. For bonus points repeat steps 1 and 2.
4. Then put in a point about saying that you assume the rest of the post is of the same quality and not worth looking at. If they give you any more material ask if it is any better then the first post. Point out that you demolished the first one.

Lesson. Unless you are an expert and are giving a lecture keep your posts short and to the point. Otherwise someone else who knows the above tactic will use it. The weak points exposed could be the only weak points in the entire response. Hardly anyone reads a long post.

For en example of the above look at my previous post. Did I reassure you that his long posts were rubbish? I was using the above tactic or something very close to it.

You may also find that this is one of my longer posts in this forum.

[LinzeeBinzee]

No, you actually WANT that 10 page response. It is playing into your hands. Remember his case and others like it are very weak, so the 10 pages will be full of weak arguments.

How to counter such posts
1. Find something that can be shown to be wrong.
2, Show that it is wrong.
3. For bonus points repeat steps 1 and 2.
4. Then put in a point about saying that you assume the rest of the post is of the same quality and not worth looking at. If they give you any more material ask if it is any better then the first post. Point out that you demolished the first one.

Lesson. Unless you are an expert and are giving a lecture keep your posts short and to the point. Otherwise someone else who knows the above tactic will use it. The weak points exposed could be the only weak points in the entire response. Hardly anyone reads a long post.

For en example of the above look at my previous post. Did I reassure you that his long posts were rubbish? I was using the above tactic or something very close to it.

You may also find that this is one of my longer posts in this forum.

Good advice...there's just one problem...I'll actually have to read his 10 page post!

^^^see how short I kept it?

[rjh01]

Great. I forgot to say that if you have a short post, make sure it is right. You only need to skim the 10 page post, looking for something you know you can verify as false easily. Once found...

[leafman91]

To be quite honest, these people do have a point. Psuedo skepticism is something you need to remain vigilant for, as 'sensible skeptics'. Hopefully the stereotype they have stood against should start to wear thin and die down, for lack of actual pseudoskeptics.

[LinzeeBinzee]

To be quite honest, these people do have a point. Psuedo skepticism is something you need to remain vigilant for, as 'sensible skeptics'. Hopefully the stereotype they have stood against should start to wear thin and die down, for lack of actual pseudoskeptics.

Yeah but if you actually read what they say on their website about what a pseudoskeptic is, they're criticizing the wrong people.

Ok there's a thing blinking here saying I have a PM or a notification but I can't click on it...anyone know the problem?

[Rocko]

I think if someone wants to make an absurd claim such as claiming they have been living off water and no food for several years, they should be able to provide some evidence before taking up the MDC. They could lock themselves up in a clear box with just water (like a David Blaine stunt) and provide something more than a ridiculous claim to enter the challenge. I mean, honestly.

It seems to me that one wouldn't need Randi or the MDC to prove they didn't need food. It is absurd and yes, some claims actually are absurd.

I think the reason given for not getting involved in the water experiment was safety; going without water is such an obviously dangerous thing to do that testing the claim is quite potentially lethal.

[asmodean]

If you report yourself maybe a nice Mod will change the spelling error in the thread title.


Ho hum. More Zammit. What a horrid cluttered website.

Ahm, Victor Dammit (http://www.aaskolnick.com/dammit/) slår till igen...

[kookbreaker]

To be quite honest, these people do have a point. Psuedo skepticism is something you need to remain vigilant for, as 'sensible skeptics'. Hopefully the stereotype they have stood against should start to wear thin and die down, for lack of actual pseudoskeptics.

No. They do not really have a point. The accusation of 'pseudo-skepticism' to actual cases of PS ranks at about 1000 to 1. Believers, woos, and credophiles have been crying "pseudo-skeptic!!!!!" at every scrap of criticism leveled at them for ages. The credibility bank has been run dry by the overuse of the term.

Is there pseudo-skepticism in the world? Certainly! But it is rarely found where the believers think they have found it. PS is rarely seen in organized skeptic groups, or online skeptical forums. Its domain is usually elsewhere.

For this batch, the cry of pseudo-skepticism is nothing but the cry of ones whose arguments are found to be bankrupt and rather than admit any defeat on any grounds they simply try to find a way to demonize those who point out their failings.

[LightningStrike]

I just clicked your link and got the same chunk of PHP errors. What are you talking about?



It must be a paranormal page.

[rjh01]

I just got mentioned BY USERNAME in a post at that forum. It was by a person that was banned here some time ago. He still has the same writing style and as a result has received a one week ban (suspension). A few others have received final warnings.

The strange thing is I am only lurking there. He must remember me from when he was here.

Put your tin foil hat on.
Warning. Stand by to lose 20 IQ points.
This thread is bad.
It makes "makes no coherent sense." (Eteponge)
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=264&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=10

[KingMerv00]

I just got mentioned BY USERNAME in a post at that forum. It was by a person that was banned here some time ago. He still has the same writing style and as a result has received a one week ban (suspension). A few others have received final warnings.

The strange thing is I am only lurking there. He must remember me from when he was here.

Put your tin foil hat on.
Warning. Stand by to lose 20 IQ points.
This thread is bad.
It makes "makes no coherent sense." (Eteponge)
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=264&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=10





He tried to spam Swift with that link today. He got blocked or banned or whatever.

[NoZed Avenger]

To be quite honest, these people do have a point. Psuedo skepticism is something you need to remain vigilant for, as 'sensible skeptics'. Hopefully the stereotype they have stood against should start to wear thin and die down, for lack of actual pseudoskeptics.


Except they use a reasonable-sounding starting point to try and support points completely unrelated to it.

Wu started his screed on usenet; I saw his posts and links in sci.skeptic a bit. A number of people went over his list and the errors on them, but he would simply repeat the same talking points (cutting and pasting) without any real engagement. He got the term originally from Dan Kettler, IIRC, a psychic who wanted to criticize the Randi challenge (there were 2-3 psychics active and making similar argument, so I won't say it was DK for sure). Searches in usenet for their name should turn up any number of amusements.

[EHocking]

...Wu in sci.skeptic...Dan Kettler... Searches in usenet for their name should turn up any number of amusements.That's just pure evil to wish that on anybody.

I should report you for irresponsible posting that endangers JREF user's sanity...

[NoZed Avenger]

That's just pure evil to wish that on anybody.

I should report you for irresponsible posting that endangers JREF user's sanity...


Was it a secret before that I am an evil bastard?

[EHocking]

Was it a secret before that I am an evil bastard?ah, but are you an inglorious one with a poor spellchecker?

[rjh01]

Did Vinstonas Wu ever come here? I know he went to several other forums. Why not this one? Or did he get banned? But I cannot see his name in pubic notices.

[billydkid]

Typical crock of crap. Even paranormal as a concept makes no sense. It is meaningless.

[hokie]

I checked out the SCEPCOP site. It's a great site to l earn how not to lay out an argument. It mixes issues instead of separating them. The best has to be where their so-called rebuttals do not address the issues they are rebutting.