"Debunking Skeptics" site

[Burning Beard]

Oh dear, I just stumbled across this "anti-pseudo-skeptic" site

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/

From their front page:

SCEPCOP is the 1st Coalition of Paranormal Researchers, Investigators, Writers and Intellectuals united to counter and expose the PseudoSkepticism movement for their fallacies, religious fanaticism, unscientific behavior, misinformation, denial, suppression, bigotry and ridicule toward all data, experience or science that challenges orthodoxy or does not fit into a materialistic reductionist paradigm. We do not support every quack claim out there, but advocate true skepticism, proper application of the Scientific Method, objectivity and unbiased open inquiry toward all paranormal and unconventional data, experience and science. We are the world's first counter-pseudoskeptic movement providing resources, articles, books, videos and an online community.

We support the true application of the Scientific Method, which involves the updating of one's hypothesis to the fit the data, rather than rejecting any and all data that doesn't fit into an "a priori" hypothesis, which the PseudoSkeptics do, which is totally unscientific and the antithesis of the Scientific Method.

Looks more pro-paranormal than anything - especially considering the woo-ey looking stuff they link to and sell.

[Pure Argent]

Oh... oh wow... just... wow...

And this site sells itself as a refuge for true skeptics? Jeez... just look at Scepcop's posts.

[Burning Beard]

Oh... oh wow... just... wow...

And this site sells itself as a refuge for true skeptics? Jeez... just look at Scepcop's posts.

Aaaand links to "Atlantis Rising" magazine... just a glance at the magazine cover and it looks like another Nexus clone.

Also a committee member named "Indigo Child"!!!

:boxedin:

[Pure Argent]

Hoo boy. So who volunteers for the 101st JREF Airborne - the "Debunker Debunkers"? This is a dangerous mission, so it's going to be nothing but volunteers here, people. You need a special kind of crazy for this.

[Pure Argent]

Oi... this just gets worse and worse.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=633

[RichardR]

This is Winston Wu (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2008/11/winston-wu-woo-rebuttal.html)'s site. His silly arguments have been debunked before. Also discussed before on JREF (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=19010).

[fuelair]

Oi... this just gets worse and worse.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=633

OTOH Nostradamus seems to be having Scepcop for lunch. Unless my command of the English language has dropped a lot in the last hour or two!!:D

[fromdownunder]

They do mention Quantum Physics on their Homepage. Doesn't that make it scientific? I mean (shouting) THEY MENTION QUANTUM PHYSICS!!!

Norm

[plumjam]

From the website:
And in fact, despite their worship of science, they do not even follow the Scientific Method, because they do not update their hypotheses to fit the data, but instead reject data that doesn't fit into their hypothesis, which is a direct violation of the Scientific Method of course. There are plenty of examples of this

The above is indeed the central contradiction and irony of JREF and its forum.

Pseudoskepticism is driven primarily by belief in the materialistic worldview. It tries to hijack the prestige of science to defend that worldview, but is forced into being positively anti-scientific when any scientific findings come up which contradict the worldview.

Thus evidence against a particular belief (materialism) doesn't count as evidence. And then they parade around ridiculing people for believing things and being unscientific.

It's an amusing spectacle. :D

[m_huber]

While there may be valid evidence that "materialism," or a naturalistic viewpoint of the universe, is invalid, I have never seen it. When I have seen "evidence," it has always been explained more completely by naturalistic means.

For instance, I once had a near-death experience. I was doing Judo and a 230 lb guy landed on my chest. I couldn't breath, and I passed out. I am unsure how long I was unconscious. During that time, everything got dark, and I saw a tunnel of light. I then heard a voice say, "Not yet," and I woke up. Later, I learned about similar experiences that were had by airplane pilots in centrifuges. My particular injury was not really life-threatening (I regained consciousness without any medical treatment, even though a paramedic was about to start doing CPR). It is fully reasonable that what I experienced was the effect of either my brain shutting down or starting back up after blood loss; in other words, a hallucination.

Further, if it were shown that we have a window into another dimension, and we have that window through our natural bodies, it would be shown that this other plane of reality is really just an extension of our natural world, and therefore not paranormal.

[Hokulele]

Pseudoskepticism is driven primarily by belief in the materialistic worldview. It tries to hijack the prestige of science to defend that worldview, but is forced into being positively anti-scientific when any scientific findings come up which contradict the worldview.


Care to provide any?

[fromdownunder]

Actually, this site is probably not as bad as it seems from the links already provided. (so to a degree I withdraw my earler post on this thread - which an honest person always does) From the Forums, I found the link listed below, where our own beloved The Professor and his "major sponsor" Jim Callaghan are turned into toast in a 29 page thread, with effectively towards the end absolutely no support for TP.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=154&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

And unlike The Magic Cafe, it appears that they do not vanish threads - they leave them alive for anybody who cares to, to judge the quality of the material, and to post dissenting opinions. This reminds me of some place, oh, that would be here.

Norm

[D'rok]

From the website:


The above is indeed the central contradiction and irony of JREF and its forum.

Pseudoskepticism is driven primarily by belief in the materialistic worldview. It tries to hijack the prestige of science to defend that worldview, but is forced into being positively anti-scientific when any scientific findings come up which contradict the worldview.

Thus evidence against a particular belief (materialism) doesn't count as evidence. And then they parade around ridiculing people for believing things and being unscientific.

It's an amusing spectacle. :D

How can "scientific findings" be both scientific and non-materialistic? Scientific enquiry necessarily assumes methodological naturalism; therefore, there is no contradiction in the sceptical point of view. It is, however, absurd to suggest that scientific enquiry can falsify itself.

[plumjam]

Care to provide any?
You mean so you can redefine it, using a variety of tired old tactics, as non-evidence in order to protect and preserve your worldview. I quit playing that game a long time back.

How can "scientific findings" be both scientific and non-materialistic? Scientific enquiry necessarily assumes methodological naturalism; therefore, there is no contradiction in the sceptical point of view. It is, however, absurd to suggest that scientific enquiry can falsify itself.
A worldview is a philosophical phenomenon, not a methodological one. So whichever methodological assumptions are made are (or should be) irrelevant to the worldview.
By equating all scientific findings as necessarily supporting the materialist worldview you have decided the whole question from the outset and rendered scientific findings powerless vis-a-vis any influence on philosophical outlook.
That's actually imposing an unnecessary limit on science in order not to upset your philosophical applecart.. borderline anti-scientific even.

It's a circular and closed approach to knowledge, and its perpetuation relies on sustained denial of the validity of any human experience which doesn't fit the circle. Hence debunking, denial and ridicule are the main rituals of this belief system; practiced here by the faithful.

Amen.

[Sherlock]

It's seems strangely odd that their site doesn't attempt to fully defend any specific psychics by name. It also appears they don't wish to use any base of historical data on a psychic and their corresponding claims --- but instead simply cite half-formed gas and visionary vapors. And one can almost smell those decaying vapors even through the internet.

[D'rok]

A worldview is a philosophical phenomenon, not a methodological one. So whichever methodological assumptions are made are (or should be) irrelevant to the worldview.
By equating all scientific findings as necessarily supporting the materialist worldview you have decided the whole question from the outset and rendered scientific findings powerless vis-a-vis any influence on philosophical outlook.
That's actually imposing an unnecessary limit on science in order not to upset your philosophical applecart.. borderline anti-scientific even.

It's a circular and closed approach to knowledge, and its perpetuation relies on sustained denial of the validity of any human experience which doesn't fit the circle. Hence debunking, denial and ridicule are the main rituals of this belief system; practiced here by the faithful.

Amen.

You didn't answer my question. Once again, how can "scientific findings" be both scientific and non-materialistic? I get that you think that scientific enquiry is not limited to the material. So, explain how this is so instead of just re-asserting your belief that it is so.

[PixyMisa]

You mean so you can redefine it, using a variety of tired old tactics, as non-evidence in order to protect and preserve your worldview. I quit playing that game a long time back.
No.

A worldview is a philosophical phenomenon, not a methodological one. So whichever methodological assumptions are made are (or should be) irrelevant to the worldview.
Yes.

By equating all scientific findings as necessarily supporting the materialist worldview you have decided the whole question from the outset and rendered scientific findings powerless vis-a-vis any influence on philosophical outlook.
Not at all. They just do. It's simply a statement of fact.

That's actually imposing an unnecessary limit on science in order not to upset your philosophical applecart.. borderline anti-scientific even.
No limits. Just a statement of fact.

Unless you have evidence to the contrary?

It's a circular and closed approach to knowledge
No.

and its perpetuation relies on sustained denial of the validity of any human experience which doesn't fit the circle.
No.

Hence debunking
No.

denial
No.

and ridicule
No.

are the main rituals
No.

of this belief system
No.

practiced here by the faithful.
No.

Now, do you have any evidence or not?

[PixyMisa]

How can "scientific findings" be both scientific and non-materialistic? Scientific enquiry necessarily assumes methodological naturalism; therefore, there is no contradiction in the sceptical point of view. It is, however, absurd to suggest that scientific enquiry can falsify itself.
I don't entirely agree. Science is an attempt to build ever more accurate and ever more general predictive descriptions of the natural world. That necessarily assumes that the natural world is self-consistent.

It might not be. In which case science wouldn't work.

Since science does work, we have no reason to think that this assumption is incorrect. In other words, it's not unfalsifiable, just unfalsified.

Of course, either way plumjam is hopelessly wrong.

[Twiler]

Plumjam, what do you mean by non-materialistic?

Are non-materialistic phenomena subject to causality?

Can non-materialistic entities interact with materialistic entities?

[Mashuna]

You mean so you can redefine it, using a variety of tired old tactics, as non-evidence in order to protect and preserve your worldview. I quit playing that game a long time back.


A worldview is a philosophical phenomenon, not a methodological one. So whichever methodological assumptions are made are (or should be) irrelevant to the worldview.
By equating all scientific findings as necessarily supporting the materialist worldview you have decided the whole question from the outset and rendered scientific findings powerless vis-a-vis any influence on philosophical outlook.
That's actually imposing an unnecessary limit on science in order not to upset your philosophical applecart.. borderline anti-scientific even.

It's a circular and closed approach to knowledge, and its perpetuation relies on sustained denial of the validity of any human experience which doesn't fit the circle. Hence debunking, denial and ridicule are the main rituals of this belief system; practiced here by the faithful.

Amen.

You'd fit right in at SCEPCOP, Plumjam. You can talk a good game, and can run away when asked to provide any actual evidence. On the few occasions you've actually come up with anything, it's been easily dispatched, forcing you to retreat to this tired old tactic of accusing other people of not being genuinely open to new evidence. Amusingly, the only things you don't accept seem to be the evidence for evolution and man-made climate change.

[D'rok]

I don't entirely agree. Science is an attempt to build ever more accurate and ever more general predictive descriptions of the natural world. That necessarily assumes that the natural world is self-consistent.

It might not be. In which case science wouldn't work.

Since science does work, we have no reason to think that this assumption is incorrect. In other words, it's not unfalsifiable, just unfalsified.

Of course, either way plumjam is hopelessly wrong.

The point I was trying to make is that any finding that it is "scientific" is necessarily materialistic/naturalistic. If it was found that science didn't work, would that be a scientific finding? I don't see how any successful scientific enquiry could ever falsify its own naturalistic assumptions.

As an aside, within certain limitations, I'm a little bit sympathetic to plumjam's worldview. We experience the world as narrative, not as matter in motion. The human experiential universe is made of stories. That they are, in the strictest sense, untrue stories doesn't mean they are unimportant or unnecessary for human flourishing.

The problem is that those who are committed to exploring that subjective, experiential universe often do so without a sense of perspective or irony about what they are doing. This is exacerbated by an apparent need to acquire the success and prestige of science; therefore, constructing and exploring narrative is re-branded "scientific" and presto! - materialism refuted!

And that, I think, is exactly what is happening here.

[Information Analyst]

Oi... this just gets worse and worse.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=633

"The sheer magnitude and complex web of deceit surrounding the individuals and organizations involved in this conspiracy is mind boggling, even for the most astute among us. Most people react with disbelief and skepticism towards the topic, unaware that they have been conditioned (brainwashed) to react with skepticism by institutional and media influences that were created by the Mother of All mind control organizations: The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London."

Top comedy. I'm reminded of a popular CT claim r.e. the 07/07/05 bombings that the bus was blown up "in front of/right outside" the Tavistock Institute in Tavistock Square as a "message." Naturally the faithful lapped that one up, none of them being able to work out that, a) the Tavistock Clinic, where the Institute had its origins, was actually based in the dialogonally-opposite corner of the Square, and b) both the Clinic and the Insitute moved to other parts of London decades previously.

[Jeff Corey]

This is Winston Wu (http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2008/11/winston-wu-woo-rebuttal.html)'s site. His silly arguments have been debunked before. Also discussed before on JREF (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=19010).

Isn't Victor Zammit involved in this? If so, this is relevant. http://www.aaskolnick.com/dammit/

[Pure Argent]

Wow. This thread made me sad inside.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=33

It really shows off the paranoia and unwillingness to actually listen to alternative viewpoints that permeates the site.

[H3LL]

Wow. This thread made me sad inside.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=33

It really shows off the paranoia and unwillingness to actually listen to alternative viewpoints that permeates the site.


Wheeeee! The Professor is there. :)

Re: Poll: Should Skeptics be allowed in this forum?
by The Professor on Wed Jul 22, 2009 2:13 am

Skeptics have threatened my family. No kidding! Some are twisted trolls. Some are not.
However, I am all for free speech!!!!

There are many people who have changed their minds after listening to the truth. I was one of them.

Just boot the ones who violate the rules and turn their information over to the Authorities if they threaten members.

THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSED TO TEST FOR A MILLION DOLLARS


My bold.

He's nothing if not tenacious.

It also seems the mods only did half a job on him. :D

.

[Pure Argent]

I don't think I was here during the Professor's days. What's he going on about?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

By equating all scientific findings as necessarily supporting the materialist worldview you have decided the whole question from the outset and rendered scientific findings powerless vis-a-vis any influence on philosophical outlook.
But D'rok didn't do that. He said that scientific inquiry assumes methodological naturalism, which is a set of epistemological assumptions. There have to be epistemological assumptions.

If you have a way to modify those assumptions so that additional evidence and theories can be admitted to science, please let us know how. The trick is that the new things introduced have to cooperate with the existing things. There can't simply be a magical connection, because, as we all know, there shall be no poofing in science.

I've asked this question of many "immaterialists," but not once have I received an answer.

~~ Paul

[TSR]

I don't think I was here during the Professor's days. What's he going on about?

.
He applied for the MDC, and insisted that his test could only be done on Halloween, requiring JREF to put other claim on hold to process his.

Except that after Halloween, he announced he'd be doing it a couple weeks later. (Which he never did.)

The Halloween schtick was because he was hoping to turn the test into a media circus.

He desperately wanted JREF to agree that if a certain scientist could not explain his trick on the spot, that this mean it was completely scientifically unexplainable and therefore paranormal and so would win the $1M (despite the fact that he was told several times and in no uncertain terms that he would have to test twice.)

He insisted that since some celebrities were taunted by the waiving of the preliminary testing, it was not "fair" that he should have to test twice.

He claimed to have a team of writers working on his protocol, although how science-fiction and fantasy authors were supposed to help with a valid protocol he never explained. This "team" reportedly shared Prof's by then often stated belief that the MDC was a scam, and yet neither they nor the Prof could say exactly why.

All of this, while never actually articulating a clear claim as to what he was going to do (but he was quite clear on the little "invocation" he planned to use to heighten the suspence for the viewers at home.)

Oh, and did I mention that all of this was to be done in a cemetary at midnight, where he would be trespassing?

After it became painfully apparent that he was never going to make a clear claim nor submit an even marginally workable protocal (by this point, on purpose, so he could claim JREF refused to test him) he began posting libelous slurs against several JREF staffers and Randi, finally threatening a member plausibly enough to get himself banned.

IOW, a pathetic blowhard trying to use the MDC for publicity, and instead getting a massive award of Fail.

.

[Pure Argent]

So a standard woo, then.

[D'rok]

But D'rok didn't do that. He said that scientific inquiry assumes methodological naturalism, which is a set of epistemological assumptions. There have to be epistemological assumptions.

If you have a way to modify those assumptions so that additional evidence and theories can be admitted to science, please let us know how. The trick is that the new things introduced have to cooperate with the existing things. There can't simply be a magical connection, because, as we all know, there shall be no poofing in science.

I've asked this question of many "immaterialists," but not once have I received an answer.

~~ Paul

Yeah. This is precisely what I am trying to ask. Well put.

[TSR]

So a standard woo, then.
.
No, a woo mostly has convinced themselves that the woo is real.

Prof knew very well that he is a third-rate trickster, he just really really wanted to be second-rate.
.

[Garrette]

So a standard woo, then.No. A knowledgeable woo, and a deceitful one. His deceit is in at least two forms:

He misrepresents the actions and arguments of skeptics when reporting to others, and he misrepresents his own actions and beliefs when "selling" himself.

He is a moderately successful magician/mentalist, is highly knowledgeable of magical/mental methods (including having created his own moderately successful Over-the-Radio mental effect), and is, by his own admission, a victim of ADD (ADHD?) and therefore subject to emotional outbursts.

His actions are driven, imo, by a mixture of attention-seeking, publicity-seeking, emotional indiscipline, and genuine belief, in descending order.

His full stage name is The Professor, Slim King. He doesn't hide his real name, but as I don't have permission to reveal it here, I won't (it has been revealed before, by him, I think).

This last bit I reveal as a pleasant curiosity and not as a swipe: His job outside of magic and mentalism is as a John Belushi impersonator (more accurately a John Belushi character impersonator) as one half of a Blues Brothers group that performs regularly at Disney World in Orlando.

[Pure Argent]

So he made these claims (without actually making any claims), not because he wanted to prove that the paranormal was real, but just to garner attention for himself?

[TSR]

He doesn't hide his real name, but as I don't have permission to reveal it here, I won't (it has been revealed before, by him, I think).

.
What permission is needed? That David Koenig applied for the MDC is a matter of public record, as are the negotiations regarding his protocol

Here is the main discussion thread, if you've a few hours to kill and enjoy a good laugh. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=121157&highlight=samurai)
.

[fuelair]

From the website:


The above is indeed the central contradiction and irony of JREF and its forum.

Pseudoskepticism is driven primarily by belief in the materialistic worldview. It tries to hijack the prestige of science to defend that worldview, but is forced into being positively anti-scientific when any scientific findings come up which contradict the worldview.

Thus evidence against a particular belief (materialism) doesn't count as evidence. And then they parade around ridiculing people for believing things and being unscientific.

It's an amusing spectacle. :D

First, one of the fundamental error assumptions about science is that most science is done in the order/way the "Scientific Method" is written out for Science texts - particularly those at or below undergraduate level. Most isn't.

@nd, yes, scientists and scientifically interested people do not tend to accept anything that cannot be proven in the material world (as opposed to being "proven" by words or anecdotes - philosophy and dinner conversation). And it takes strong evidence to make us change from one view to another (think Einstein not wanting to move from Newtonian ideas applied to physics to Quantum ideas being applied at very small scales) but real/verifiable, thoroughly tested evidence will ultimately bring about change.

The problem with those you speak of (not here-in the funny website) is they are willing - even eager- to overturn the proven for the unproven just because someone calls the unproven/unaccepted "just being covered up", " being hidden by the big[corporations, government, old scientists, military, NWO.....]" or just "the scientists won't pay attention because it can't be seen (except: on alternate Tuesdays in November of most leap years; in the house over on McDougal Street; right after a NASA launch -in the blast material; by my friend Bob whenever he is in his attic.....)".

[TSR]

So he made these claims (without actually making any claims), not because he wanted to prove that the paranormal was real, but just to garner attention for himself?

.
That's my take -- can't see any other reason for him to then make the accusations and threats (mostly passive aggressively) he did.
.

[Hindmost]

Seeing them quote Carl Sagan--out of context--made me sick.

I read through a couple of items...they got Einstein all wrong along with other items.

Unfortunately, some of the stuff is written with enough rhetoric to make it sound plausible to anyone without science skills.

The internet still isn't raising awareness...

glenn

[Paradox74]

Are any of these claims true?:

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

Here's my take:

Even IF James Randi did lie, that's not enough to prove that astrology is true, considering that others have provided their take on the subjest.
So I say: go ahead PSYCOP, disprove Randi's supposed cherry picking. See if I care. There's plenty of people out there that can disprove astrology.
BTW, here's a few:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/89334/debunking_astrology_myth_in_the_modern.html

http://daphne.palomar.edu/jgilardi/astrology%20debunk.htm

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/astrology.html

And my personal favorite:
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4173

[H3LL]

There's plenty of people out there that can disprove astrology.

Well not really, no one can disprove astrology. Not being able to prove a negative and all that.

The onus is on the astrologer to show their claims are true.

So far, none have in controlled tests as far as I'm aware.

Therefore there is no reliable evidence that claims made for astrology as true.

qWJTUAezxAI

[xXMoshtradamusXx]

Are any of these claims true?:

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

Here's my take:

Even IF James Randi did lie, that's not enough to prove that astrology is true, considering that others have provided their take on the subjest.
So I say: go ahead PSYCOP, disprove Randi's supposed cherry picking. See if I care. There's plenty of people out there that can disprove astrology.
BTW, here's a few:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/89334/debunking_astrology_myth_in_the_modern.html

http://daphne.palomar.edu/jgilardi/astrology%20debunk.htm

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/astrology.html

And my personal favorite:
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4173

So he complains about Cherry Picking but the has this?
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/join.php
Isn't that "Cherry Picking" your members? =/
I'm new here, young and wrong most of the time and this guy seems off the deep end even to me.

[FSM]

plumjam? Where'd you go, dude?

[Pure Argent]

plumjam? Where'd you go, dude?

Back into the fires of Mount Doom, from whence he was spawned.

[FSM]

Uh uh uh. Tossing out the trite and unsupported, "YOUSE guys are religious freaks, so there, rubber, glue, bleh bleh blehdy bleh..." and then running away...

plumjam is usually so funny that no matter what crap he spouts off about, I'm reading his posts with delight. But this, eh. I expect the funny to grow exponentially in relation to how ridiculous and unsupported the opinion is.

So, you owe me, plumjam. You owe me some funny.

[Minarvia]

I want Plumjam to come back, too. He says "tired old arguments" or some such. Well, he should know by now that when on this forum when he makes a claim or definitive statement he is expected to back it up. Either he doesn't understand that or he can't do it. He says he's "played that game" but I don't think so.

And the expectations may be old but if they are logical how can they be "tired?" He says that and then runs off. No fair! Come back, PJ!

And, yes, I posted this mainly to bring it back to page 1.

[Paradox74]

You mean so you can redefine it, using a variety of tired old tactics, as non-evidence in order to protect and preserve your worldview. I quit playing that game a long time back.


A worldview is a philosophical phenomenon, not a methodological one. So whichever methodological assumptions are made are (or should be) irrelevant to the worldview.
By equating all scientific findings as necessarily supporting the materialist worldview you have decided the whole question from the outset and rendered scientific findings powerless vis-a-vis any influence on philosophical outlook.
That's actually imposing an unnecessary limit on science in order not to upset your philosophical applecart.. borderline anti-scientific even.

It's a circular and closed approach to knowledge, and its perpetuation relies on sustained denial of the validity of any human experience which doesn't fit the circle. Hence debunking, denial and ridicule are the main rituals of this belief system; practiced here by the faithful.

Amen.


Does this guy sound like some kind of a postmodernist or a social-deconstructiveist(I'm not too sure if that is how its spelled) to anyone?




So I say: go ahead PSYCOP, disprove Randi's supposed cherry picking. See if I care. There's plenty of people out there that can disprove astrology.

Well not really, no one can disprove astrology. Not being able to prove a negative and all that.
The onus is on the astrologer to show their claims are true.
So far, none have in controlled tests as far as I'm aware.
Therefore there is no reliable evidence that claims made for astrology as true.



My mistake.

[Minarvia]

Does this guy sound like some kind of a postmodernist or a social-deconstructiveist(I'm not too sure if that is how its spelled) to anyone?


Well, I don't know about that, but he sounds like a "has no idea of what a skeptic site is and likes to paint people here with a broad brushist" type. And then posteth and runneth away when asked proper and should-be-expected questions.

Too bad, really. I usually enjoy his posts.

[m_huber]

Well not really, no one can disprove astrology. Not being able to prove a negative and all that.

The onus is on the astrologer to show their claims are true.

So far, none have in controlled tests as far as I'm aware.

Therefore there is no reliable evidence that claims made for astrology as true.



I'm not sure this is the same case as religion. Religions posit that God exists, but without evidence. Astrologers posit that the relative positions of the planets and the stars has some meaning. There is no question that the planets and the stars exist, but demonstrating the meaning is another matter altogether. Insofar as they make predictions or can be used practically, those are positive claims made by astrology which can be tested. If the tests fail (which they do), then the claims are disproven. If none of the claims passes a test, then the driving assumption behind the claims must also be false.

Anything that makes claims is testable. When religious people say "You can't disprove god," they are correct in a general sense, but not completely correct. You can disprove some gods. If the claim is that a certain god always appears when a certain incantation is recited, then recital of the incantation can demonstrate that the god does not exist. In the bible, Jesus says "where two or more are gathered in my name, I will be with them," in the OT, God says "bring me tithes... see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it." (Mal 3:10) These are positive, testable claims about christianity. And they fail. The only god who can survive rigorous scrutiny is one who has no interaction with the world, and in that case, there is nothing to worship.

[GanipGnop]

I like the article in the news and updates section of the home page titled, "New! Study says pathological skepticism conducive to illness". I laughed so hard I almost wet myself! I guess the next time I feel run down I'll know why.:D

I find it hilarious that the pseudoscience crowd has found the term pseudo so effective in bebunking their ludicrous claims that they are making a lame attempt to latch on to our success with the term. Don't they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. SCEPCOP must be madly in love with us if that's the case!

[Minarvia]

Just when skepticism and critical thinking gains a toehold on tv and in the media some group, whether religious, or conspiracy theorists, or whoever, manage to try and quash it again for the favor of total woo thinking (or non-thinking, actually).

On a pretty good podcast, the Paracast, they like to use the term "debunkers" as derogatory and love "skeptibunkers." They always use one foolish statement by Michael Shermer to paint all well-known skeptics (the one where he said that pilots are worse observers than the average Joe, or some such,) and claim that Randi is "Just a debunker and the problem with him is that he isn't interested in "the truth."

Other than that, a fine and fairly balanced show. But what can they or others expect from Randi? He only has so much time in life and hours in a day. His main goal is to promote critical thinking and help keep people from being duped. He'd have to live to about 500 to do all that PLUS search for the truth of everything that is thrown at him. Sigh...

So now a website has to promote "woo" thinking. Very sad. Really.

[adamwho]

I have seen this site used reference by psi believers. It is just embarrassing. I keeping asking myself; what is the point? They aren't claiming a religious belief, there is no heaven or hell for believers is psychic phenomena, the regular believers and not in a position to make money or otherwise defraud others.... what is the point?

[FSM]

To get us to pay attention to them....


because they luvvvvv us, they want to kiss us, they want to hold us...




ETA: And who can blame them, really?

[Audible Click]

I like the article in the news and updates section of the home page titled, "New! Study says pathological skepticism conducive to illness". I laughed so hard I almost wet myself! I guess the next time I feel run down I'll know why.:D

I find it hilarious that the pseudoscience crowd has found the term pseudo so effective in bebunking their ludicrous claims that they are making a lame attempt to latch on to our success with the term. Don't they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. SCEPCOP must be madly in love with us if that's the case!

Ahhh...so being a skeptic has given you bladder problems! ;)

[Minarvia]

I like the article in the news and updates section of the home page titled, "New! Study says pathological skepticism conducive to illness". I laughed so hard I almost wet myself!

I guess you are incontinent to woo! Or is that intolerant? Nope, must be incontinent! :D

[adamwho]

Well not really, no one can disprove astrology. Not being able to prove a negative and all that.

The onus is on the astrologer to show their claims are true.

So far, none have in controlled tests as far as I'm aware.

Therefore there is no reliable evidence that claims made for astrology as true.


Actually it is child's-play to prove astrology to be false.
1. You can use the time honored, change the horoscopes and months, hand them out and ask for correlations. You response will be the same no matter which horoscope goes to which person.
2. My method: Since there are only 4 fundamental forces in the universe, calculate force exerted by the planet/stars, the show that these forces cannot have any meaningful effect. In fact everyday items are more physically relevant.

[Gawdzilla]

OK, let's move on to the pseudoskeptic section. First let's see who Scepcop identifies as pseudo-sketpics:

* James Randi and his JREF crowd
* Michael Shermer
* CSICOP and their crowd
* Penn and Teller
* The Mythbusters
* Phil Plait and his "Bad Astronomy" folks

http://rationalia.com/z/090811lmfao.gif