10 Underhanded Tricks of Skeptics

[WWu777]

10 Stupid Tricks of Skeptics!

(http://www.discord.org/~lippard/stupid-skeptic-tricks.txt)

{snip}

_________________

When the pin is pulled, Mr. Grenade is no longer our friend.

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

edited to comply with forum copyright rules. If anyone cares to see the full text of the article, PM me.
link fixed with URL provided by BillHoyt.

[michaellee]

original posts by WWu777RAISING THE BAR (Or IMPOSSIBLE PERFECTION)demanding a new, higher and more difficult standard of evidence whenever it ]looks as if a skeptic's opponent is going to satisfy an old one. Often the skeptic doesn't make it clear exactly what the standards are in the first place.

The skeptic does not set any standards for evidence, nor does he have to raise the bar because 'an old one' standard of evidence has never yet been met.

SOCK 'EM WITH OCCAM
The Razor is a useful and even necessary principle, but it is largely useless if the facts themselves are not generally agreed upon in the first place.My reply is best described by Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity".


Extraordinary claims, says the skeptic, require extraordinary evidence.

No, one piece of, one glimmer of, one grain of sand's worth, or ANY evidence at all would be a great place for the believers to start.


STUPID, CRAZY LIARS
When Charles Honorton's Ganzfeld experiments produced impressive results in favor of the psi hypothesis, skeptics accused him of suppressing or not publishing the results of failed experiments.Ganzfeld's results were not impressive because of this omission, not because of skeptic's accusations.

THE SANTA CLAUS GAMBIT: This trick consists of lumping moderate claims or propositions together with extreme ones.So Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are extreme beliefs but talking to dead people, remote viewing, T.T, (and the list goes on) ARE NOT?

SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF EVIDENCE: The skeptic insists that he doesn't have to provide evidence and arguments to support his side of the argument because he isn't asserting a claim, he is merely denying or doubting yours. His mistake consists of assuming that a negative claim (asserting that something doesn't exist) is fundamentally different from a positive claim. It isn't. Any definite claim, positive or negative, requires definite support. Merely refuting or arguing against an opponent's position is not enough to establish one's own position.. In other words, you can't win by default.If "merely refuting" does not establish one's own position, pray tell, what does or ever will? Refute is defined as "To prove to be false or erroneous.
YOU CAN'T PROVE A NEGATIVE: The skeptic may insist that he is relieved of the burden of evidence and argument because "you can't prove a negative." But you most certainly can prove a negative! When we know one thing to be true, then we also know that whatever flatly contradicts it is untrue.I agree. We know we have no evidence for all of your woo-woo fantasies, this is true. Therefore, what then is flatly contradictory and untrue? That there is evidence.

THE BIG LIE: The skeptic knows that most people will not have the time or inclination to check every claim he makes,Skeptics do not make claims, woo-woos make the claims. Skeptics simply want to see evidence for the claims.

DOUBT CASTING: This trick consists of dwelling on minor or trivial flaws in the evidence, or presenting speculations as to how the evidence might be flawed as though mere speculation is somehow as damning as actual facts...In the real world, of course, the evidence for anything is seldom 100% flawless and foolproof.No, evidence is used to form a conclusion or judgment. Evidence then, at that time, is flawless and foolproof if accepted. If I ask you to provide evidence that it is raining outside, and you open my window to expose water droplets in the sky, then that is flawless and foolproof evidence for rain. If it was sprinkling so light I could not see the raindrops, I would ask you for further evidence to prove it is raining. This does not make it untrue that it is raining or not.


Instead of spending so much time worrying and writing about skeptics, maybe WWu777 and company can take a couple minutes out of their lives and provide any evidence of anything paranormal so we can all move on in the brave, new supernatural world.

[Hand Bent Spoon]

You cannot prove a negative. In the cat example, you maintain your cat is not in your room. So we go outside and you say, "There's my cat." I say, "That isn't your cat, but merely a cat that looks exactly like your cat. Your cat remains in your room."

We go into your room again, and not seeing your cat you say, "That cat outside must be my cat because my cat isn't here." But I say, "Oh, that cat out there is just another cat that looks exactly like your cat. Your cat is in here."

A careful search of the room reveals no cat. "My cat is not in here, we just searched everywhere and didn't find it." I say, "The cat could travel transdimentionally, and could be in this very room, but shifted slightly from our ability to perceive it. Or it could have the ability to shrink itself to just one micron in size so it can easily evade our search."

And how do you argue against any of that? You can't, really. In truth, you can never be truly 100% certain your cat is not in that room. Because you can't prove a negative.

And evidence is never flawless and foolproof. Every theory in existance is falsifiable. So it can prove to be flawed and is anything but foolproof. Evidence can only rise to the level of 'good enough'.

[bjornart]

Ooh! Ooh! Can I point out my favourite bit too?

Originally posted by WWu777
As arch-skeptic Carl Sagan himself said, absence of evidence is
not evidence of absence. If someone wants to rule out vistations
by extra-terrestrial aliens, it would not be enough to point out
that all the evidence presented so far is either seriously flawed
or not very strong. It would be necessary to state definite
reasons which would make ET visitations either impossible or
highly unlikely. (He might, for example, point out that our best
understanding of physics pretty much rules out any kind of
effective faster-than-light drive.)


I'd like to point out that our best understanding of physics and human physiology pretty much rules out any kind of effective psi powers. :p

[bjornart]

Originally posted by Hand Bent Spoon
You cannot prove a negative. In the cat example, you maintain your cat is not in your room. So we go outside and you say, "There's my cat." I say, "That isn't your cat, but merely a cat that looks exactly like your cat. Your cat remains in your room."

We go into your room again, and not seeing your cat you say, "That cat outside must be my cat because my cat isn't here." But I say, "Oh, that cat out there is just another cat that looks exactly like your cat. Your cat is in here."

A careful search of the room reveals no cat. "My cat is not in here, we just searched everywhere and didn't find it." I say, "The cat could travel transdimentionally, and could be in this very room, but shifted slightly from our ability to perceive it. Or it could have the ability to shrink itself to just one micron in size so it can easily evade our search."

And how do you argue against any of that? You can't, really. In truth, you can never be truly 100% certain your cat is not in that room. Because you can't prove a negative.

And evidence is never flawless and foolproof. Every theory in existance is falsifiable. So it can prove to be flawed and is anything but foolproof. Evidence can only rise to the level of 'good enough'.

Sorry mack, but you're wrong. If you start out with a different, but still negative statement, like "My cat, which is bound to our universe, is not invisible, can't travel through walls, etc. etc. is not in this room." This can be proven to any reasonable degree, by a search of the room.
A "universal" negative on the other hand can't be proven. If I say "I don't have a cat" this can't be proven. If I say "there are no pink bunnies" this can't be proven either. And if I say "there is no psi" it falls in the same category. A universal negative, which can't be proven.

[Upchurch]

WWu777,

You've been warned about the copyright rules of this board. Please do not continue to violate them.

Also, the link you provided to the source material is broken. Please provide a valid URL.

[Checkmite]

The "you can't prove a negative" argument applies to objects or concepts whose properties are not known.

An object whose properties are known, for example, would be a pen. Since we have the pen and can examine it, when can prove negatives - we can prove the pen is not round (it's hexagonal), we can prove the pen is not red, and etc.

When dealing with a force or object whose properties are not known for certain, we cannot prove a negative. You can't prove that a ghost can not cross over running water. You can't prove that all anal-probing extraterrestrials are not lunatics with a bizarre fetish. You can't prove that either of these entities do not exist. See?

[Ladewig]

How ironic. On a skeptic board, you list 10 underhanded skeptic tricks, yet on believer boards, if any doubt cast on the topic then the entire thread is often deleted. Yes, WWu, there are differences between the two.

[Quasi]

Winston,

At least stick around and defend the second hand stuff you post.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Upchurch
WWu777,

You've been warned about the copyright rules of this board. Please do not continue to violate them.

Also, the link you provided to the source material is broken. Please provide a valid URL.

http://www.discord.org/~lippard/stupid-skeptic-tricks.txt

[max]

Ladewig
this is not a sceptics' board

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Give us a link to a skeptics' board, Max.

~~ Paul

[TheBoyPaj]

Just stumbled across this...

http://pub50.bravenet.com/forum/4209721338

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by max
Ladewig
this is not a sceptics' board
Scroll the page up, max. See the "James Randi Educational Foundation" banner atop? It may have some bearing on the veracity of your assertion.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by max
Ladewig
this is not a sceptics' board

this particular forum is called "General Skepticism and the Paranormal". just in case you never noticed.

[Bottle or the Gun]

If it wasn't for all the negative vibes screwing up the tests it would be easy for believers to prove they are real. But isn't it amazing how someone with the power to see over the horizon, drill through time with their senses and influence world events is negated by disbelief?

To heck with nuclear power, a little skepticism seems to have the power to light a city!

[c0rbin]

The only mean thing skeptics do is ask too many questions!

Here is to the look on the opium junky's face when you turn on the light.

[WWu777]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
The "you can't prove a negative" argument applies to objects or concepts whose properties are not known.

An object whose properties are known, for example, would be a pen. Since we have the pen and can examine it, when can prove negatives - we can prove the pen is not round (it's hexagonal), we can prove the pen is not red, and etc.

When dealing with a force or object whose properties are not known for certain, we cannot prove a negative. You can't prove that a ghost can not cross over running water. You can't prove that all anal-probing extraterrestrials are not lunatics with a bizarre fetish. You can't prove that either of these entities do not exist. See?

W: I already dealt with that lame argument long ago. It's the invisible pink unicorn argument. The difference is that lots of people out there aren't claiming to have seen unicorns, but they have seen ghosts. Therefore, the two aren't in the same category, although skeptics try to put them together as part of their underhanded trick.

[WWu777]

So Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are extreme beliefs but talking to dead people, remote viewing, T.T, (and the list goes on) ARE NOT?


W: No, because many people who are credible and intelligent have experienced remote viewing, but they don't experience Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny for real. You guys don't seem to have the IQ to understand that.

Winston

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by WWu777


W: No, because many people who are credible and intelligent have experienced remote viewing, but they don't experience Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny for real. You guys don't seem to have the IQ to understand that.

Winston
Name two such credible people, Winston. Just two.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by WWu777

The difference is that lots of people out there aren't claiming to have seen unicorns, but they have seen ghosts. Therefore, the two aren't in the same category, although skeptics try to put them together as part of their underhanded trick.

But lots of people haven't seen ghosts, Wu! They think they see ghosts; but if we can't even define for certain what a "ghost" is, how do they know that what they've seen is a "ghost"? There could be dozens - hundreds - of completely seperate, independent, and unrelated phenomena that these people are witnessing, that we lump together under one name...by what authority do these people - let alone anybody else - decide that they've seen a ghost? How do we know they're not, in fact, really seeing those unicorns and simply misinterpreting them?

[Paladin]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


But lots of people haven't seen ghosts, Wu! They think they see ghosts; but if we can't even define for certain what a "ghost" is, how do they know that what they've seen is a "ghost"? There could be dozens - hundreds - of completely seperate, independent, and unrelated phenomena that these people are witnessing, that we lump together under one name...by what authority do these people - let alone anybody else - decide that they've seen a ghost? How do we know they're not, in fact, really seeing those unicorns and simply misinterpreting them?
You're wasting your time; Winston doesn't deal in rational thinking. I'm betting that he can't name even one credible person who has "seen a ghost".

[jj]

Originally posted by WWu777

The difference is that lots of people out there aren't claiming to have seen unicorns, but they have seen ghosts.

Really, then you can show me one sometime soon?

[jj]

Originally posted by Pyrrho

Name two such credible people, Winston. Just two.

How about even one, Pyrrho?

Methinks that Ian and Winston need to form their own "board for missing evidences". :p

[michaellee]

even I can come up with... Scooby Do!

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by max
Ladewig
this is not a sceptics' board

Everyone knows the real schkeptiks are the ones who believe anything and everything without question. :wink8:

[Marc]

Originally posted by WWu777


W: I already dealt with that lame argument long ago. It's the invisible pink unicorn argument. The difference is that lots of people out there aren't claiming to have seen unicorns, but they have seen ghosts. Therefore, the two aren't in the same category, although skeptics try to put them together as part of their underhanded trick.

That is exactly why the 'invisible pink unicorn', santa clause, and the easter bunny are used in examples. Because no adult actually believes in them (I hope). By showing that arguments used to defend paranormal claims just as easily defend these completely imaginary things demonstrates the arguments are invalid.

[DangerousBeliefs]

Originally posted by WWu777

You guys don't seem to have the IQ to understand that.

Winston


http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html

[shanek]

Originally posted by WWu777
As arch-skeptic Carl Sagan himself said, absence of evidence is
not evidence of absence.

This is a most dishonest out-of-context quote. Sagan used this phrase in his Baloney Detection Kit as a LOGICAL FALLACY (appeal to ignorance).

[Clancie]

Posted by Max

Ladewig,

This is not a skeptics' board.
Hi Max,

Well, apparently it is a "skeptics'" board now, despite Randi's introduction offering "intelligent discussions with skeptics and non-skeptics."

For example, I notice that "Community" has been annotated as follows:

"Engage in repartee with your fellow skeptics."

What's next? Hanging out a sign? You know one like, "Dogs, blacks, and believers post somewhere else." :rolleyes:

Apparently there are those who feel this is a skeptics' board now--and who don't mind in the least if people who don't share a certain (narrow) spectrum of acceptable ideas are made to feel unwelcome.

[note: "Skeptic" in this context meaning...."Post anything you like about anything or anyone (including making up quotes and falsely attributing them to other people)...you're still a fellow skeptic just as long as you don't seriously consider that anything 'paranormal' actually ever happens".]

:(

[TheBoyPaj]

Clancie, I hang out in a few believers boards where people will openly say "if you don't believe why are you here? Go and find a board of your own".

Nothing of that kind ever appears here. We're not the ones refusing to discuss the issues.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Clancie said:
Apparently there are those who feel this is a skeptics' board now--and who don't mind in the least if people who don't share a certain (narrow) spectrum of acceptable ideas are made to feel unwelcome.
You reach this radical conclusion based on the subtitle of one subforum? ("Engage in repartee with your fellow skeptics") I think you're overreacting just a bit.

~~ Paul

[Clancie]

Posted by the Boy Paj

I hang out in a few believers boards where people will openly say "if you don't believe why are you here? Go and find a board of your own".

Nothing of that kind ever appears here.

No? Well I beg to disagree with you. Just for a couple of examples, I think TLN's frequent demands from me to answer a rather belligerently phrased version of "Why are you here?"....and BillHoyt's thread in Moderation and Administration trying a "Call to Arms" to smack down the "woo flies"...are indicative of exactly that attitude. You can see some "skeptics" (often completely unprovoked) adopting a hostile tone toward "believers" at just about any thread where so called "believers" post.

Posted by Paul Anagnostopolous

You reach this radical conclusion based on the subtitle of one subforum? ("Engage in repartee with your fellow skeptics") I think you're overreacting just a bit.
Perhaps, Paul.

However, I think it's telling that it's the subtitle in, of all places, the one called Community.

[Pyrrho]

Subtitle removed.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
Subtitle removed.

Shucks...now, what do we talk about?? We could, of course, keep griping about it....

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Shucks...now, what do we talk about?? We could, of course, keep griping about it.... I just wanted to avoid arguments over who is or is not a skeptic. This way, the board is open to skeptics, sceptics, pseudoskeptics, true skeptics, cynics, epicureans, luddites, and Ohioans.

[Clancie]

Posted by Pyrrho

Subtitle removed
Then could someone delete my thread about it in "Community" since it no longer applies? Thank you.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie

Then could someone delete my thread about it in "Community" since it no longer applies? Thank you.

Moderators, I think this is a bad idea. This would mean that this issue was never debated or even existed.

It also shows that complaints - even from believers - are taken seriously, if they are considered valid.

I am most definitely against any removal of any threads, for any reason.

Edited to add:

It would also mean the destruction of other people's posts. I strongly object to that.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Moderators, I think this is a bad idea. This would mean that this issue was never debated or even existed.

It also shows that complaints - even from believers - are taken seriously, if they are considered valid.

I am most definitely against any removal of any threads, for any reason.
The thread will not be deleted.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
The thread will not be deleted.

Thank you.

[Clancie]

Posted by Pyrrho
The thread will not be deleted.
Well, as long as you feel it's not irrelevant and cluttering the threads over there...it's fine with me to leave it.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Pyrrho said:
I just wanted to avoid arguments over who is or is not a skeptic. This way, the board is open to skeptics, sceptics, pseudoskeptics, true skeptics, cynics, epicureans, luddites, and Ohioans.
You bigot! You did not mention skeptoids or randibots.

~~ Paul

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Clancie


No? Well I beg to disagree with you. Just for a couple of examples, I think TLN's frequent demands from me to answer a rather belligerently phrased version of "Why are you here?"....and BillHoyt's thread in Moderation and Administration trying a "Call to Arms" to smack down the "woo flies"...are indicative of exactly that attitude. You can see some "skeptics" (often completely unprovoked) adopting a hostile tone toward "believers" at just about any thread where so called "believers" post.

And I disagree back. I have not seen TLN's attacks on you (a link would be nice), and I think Bill's suggestion is not designed to dismiss all believers from the forum. His beef is with people who don't actually want to engage in debate. Wu and his kind just dump and run. They know their beliefs are unfounded, so they refuse to re-examine them. That goes against the very purpose of an Educational Foundation, and this forum.

Rejecting debate outright does not happen here. It does happen on places like the Most Haunted forum, and Paranormal Discussion board.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by WWu777


W: I already dealt with that lame argument long ago. It's the invisible pink unicorn argument. The difference is that lots of people out there aren't claiming to have seen unicorns, but they have seen ghosts. Therefore, the two aren't in the same category, although skeptics try to put them together as part of their underhanded trick.

This sort of makess sense as a counter argument.

The question I have is this.

I agree that people have an experience that they report as seeing a ghost.

The question: Can we hypothsise about the nature of that experience or must we assume from the start that what they have seen was a 'ghost' or immaterial spirit?



I think that this si where the break occurs for some of us, although other would set the bar sooner and deny even the experience.

I postulate that there experiences that people label as 'seeing a ghost' but that the entity of an immaterial spirit is not a nessecary coorelate of the event.

Is that too sceptical?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj


And I disagree back. I have not seen TLN's attacks on you (a link would be nice), and I think Bill's suggestion is not designed to dismiss all believers from the forum. His beef is with people who don't actually want to engage in debate. Wu and his kind just dump and run. They know their beliefs are unfounded, so they refuse to re-examine them. That goes against the very purpose of an Educational Foundation, and this forum.

Rejecting debate outright does not happen here. It does happen on places like the Most Haunted forum, and Paranormal Discussion board.

Well I certainly don't dump and run. I have over 8000 posts and am the 4th most prolific poster on this board. Also I have averaged over 200 posts a day. Click here. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=5843)

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Well I certainly don't dump and run. I have over 8000 posts and am the 4th most prolific poster on this board. Also I have averaged over 200 posts a day. Click here. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=5843)

That’s true, you don’t dump and run.


You just dump. ;)

Sorry, j/k. I never could resist a straight line.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

You bigot! You did not mention skeptoids or randibots.

~~ Paul ...or septics.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Well I certainly don't dump and run. I have over 8000 posts and am the 4th most prolific poster on this board. Also I have averaged over 200 posts a day. Click here. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=5843) Ian, at least you have the balls to stay and discuss. Winston doesn't - his priorities today seem to revolve around adolescent evaluation of the nubileness and possible f**kability of young Russian women.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
I think Bill's suggestion is not designed to dismiss all believers from the forum. His beef is with people who don't actually want to engage in debate. Wu and his kind just dump and run. They know their beliefs are unfounded, so they refuse to re-examine them. That goes against the very purpose of an Educational Foundation, and this forum.

Rejecting debate outright does not happen here. It does happen on places like the Most Haunted forum, and Paranormal Discussion board.
Right you are, Paj. I thought I made this clear in numerous posts. Some people seem to prefer their foregone conclusions, I guess.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

David said:
The question: Can we hypothsise about the nature of that experience or must we assume from the start that what they have seen was a 'ghost' or immaterial spirit?
Oh man, this gets to the heart of the matter. I often question people's core experience and immediately they assume I think they are liars, maniacs, or idiots. I can't possibly just think they are wrong.

~~ Paul

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Also I have averaged over 200 posts a day. Click here. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=5843)

Do you have a job!!:D

Seriously, how the hell do you have time to post 200 times a day? And you're not the only one.

[Clancie]

The Boy Paj: I think Bill's suggestion is not designed to dismiss all believers from the forum. His beef is with people who don't actually want to engage in debate.

BillHoyt: Right you are, Paj. I thought I made this clear in numerous posts. Some people seem to prefer their foregone conclusions, I guess.
An intriguing statement, Bill. It prompts the obvious follow-up....If I am mistaken (and you are not hostile toward all believers here) then I can't help but wonder which "believers" you feel make a positive contribution to this board?

Naturally, since you seem to have me on "Ignore", I do not expect to make the list. :) However, after all the hostile posts you have made to believers here, I'm sure it would be nice to know which ones -do- meet your high standards for this board, as from this comment it seems there may actually, surprisingly, be some after all. Is that correct, Bill?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Naturally, since you seem to have me on "Ignore", I do not expect to make the list. :) However, after all the hostile posts you have made to believers here, I'm sure it would be nice to know which ones -do- meet your high standards for this board, as from this comment it seems there may actually, surprisingly, be some after all. Is that correct, Bill?

Shouldn't you stop addressing Bill Hoyt, since he has you on ignore?

[max]

Well, if this is not a 'community' any more and just for sceptics I shall make this my last post here. This was an amazing place to post two years ago. There was real discussion then but it seems that a lot of immature posters have joined up.
Have a nice day.

[Garrette]

Interesting Ian:

Well I certainly don't dump and run. I have over 8000 posts and am the 4th most prolific poster on this board. Also I have averaged over 200 posts a day. Click here.

So you've only been here 40 days? What's up with that?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by KelvinG


Do you have a job!!:D

Seriously, how the hell do you have time to post 200 times a day? And you're not the only one.

LOL I haven't really made over 200 posts a day. The date I first registered is incorrectly stated (should be April 2002).

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Clancie

An intriguing statement, Bill. It prompts the obvious follow-up....If I am mistaken (and you are not hostile toward all believers here) then I can't help but wonder which "believers" you feel make a positive contribution to this board?

Naturally, since you seem to have me on "Ignore", I do not expect to make the list. :) However, after all the hostile posts you have made to believers here, I'm sure it would be nice to know which ones -do- meet your high standards for this board, as from this comment it seems there may actually, surprisingly, be some after all. Is that correct, Bill?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Clancie

An intriguing statement, Bill. It prompts the obvious follow-up....If I am mistaken (and you are not hostile toward all believers here) then I can't help but wonder which "believers" you feel make a positive contribution to this board?


Yes Bill, would you care to answer this question. Do I? Clancie? Towelie?

[Zep]

Originally posted by max
Well, if this is not a 'community' any more and just for sceptics I shall make this my last post here. This was an amazing place to post two years ago. There was real discussion then but it seems that a lot of immature posters have joined up.
Have a nice day. [semi-serious]
You sound JUST LIKE Karen Boesen, you know...
[/semi-serious]

[DangerousBeliefs]

Originally posted by max
Well, if this is not a 'community' any more and just for sceptics I shall make this my last post here. This was an amazing place to post two years ago. There was real discussion then but it seems that a lot of immature posters have joined up.
Have a nice day.

That's it! If max is leaving than I have no choice but to join him!

***slams door***



(On a side note... why do people always feel the need to make a dramatic exit? Do they think we'll all build a campfire and sing "Kum ba yah"? I've made it a point over the years to just stop posting because frankly, who the hell cares.)

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by max
Well, if this is not a 'community' any more and just for sceptics I shall make this my last post here. This was an amazing place to post two years ago. There was real discussion then but it seems that a lot of immature posters have joined up.
Have a nice day.
max,

This is a skeptics forum. That means it is owned and operated by a skeptical foundation. That foundation's mission is to educate the public so that members of the public learn to think critically. Its mission is to grow and nurture more skeptics.

This does not mean believers are unwelcome or disinvited. Quite the contrary: all are welcome here. It does mean, however, that believers must be prepared and to expect challenges to their avowed beliefs. For some, that may mean a level of intestinal fortitude they don't have or don't want to have to muster.

Randi made clear his expectations for these challenges. If a believer simply says "I believe God is a cabbage, that lives in Duluth and speaks French," he expects there will be questions or challenges from others. If the believer says "I can offer no evidence," Randi expects the issue to be dropped. If the believer, however, claims he has evidence for the assertion, he expects skeptics here to call for that evidence and to critically examine it on this forum.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


This does not mean believers are unwelcome or disinvited. Quite the contrary: all are welcome here. It does mean, however, that believers must be prepared and to expect challenges to their avowed beliefs.


And to invariably be disappointed in our expectations.

Instead we receive insults, non-sequiturs, ad hominens, begging of the argument, so called "humor" at our expense etc :rolleyes:

[Ed]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


And to invariably be disappointed in our expectations.

Instead we receive insults, non-sequiturs, ad hominens, begging of the argument, so called "humor" at our expense etc :rolleyes:

True. Then again when a poster sets himself up as a condescending know-it-all it is akin to wearing a "kick me" sign.

What about the toads, Ian?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ed


True. Then again when a poster sets himself up as a condescending know-it-all it is akin to wearing a "kick me" sign.

What about the toads, Ian?

You honestly think I come across as a "condescending know-it-all"???

That is actually the exact impression I get from a lot of people on this board.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian, you (a) are never wrong; (b) think everyone else is an idiot. That's more or less "condescending know-it-all," don't you think?

What about the toads?

~~ Paul

[Ed]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


You honestly think I come across as a "condescending know-it-all"???

Actually, yes. And unnecessarily rude to boot. You really do suffer from the true believer syndrome. That is, of course, my opinion. I really think that you are so convinced of your rightness that you dismiss any counter argument out of hand.

As you know, Frazer has literally thousands of "paranormal" behaviors documented in his book. While many might be different in some arcane way or other from the panoply of modern parnormal claims, they do not differ in substance. The reason why modern believers don't espouse toads or other forms of sympathetic magic or anything else contained therein perplexes me. The only reason that I can come up with is that grubby, half naked natives are less esthetically pleasing than a Bruce Lee lookalike in a saffron robe. RV? You buy that? Well, certain natives believe that killed animals can RV the disposition of their bones (over thousands of miles) and that if you do not treat them with respect you might starve to death. You buy that one? If not, why not? The list goes on. Some of it is social, I am sure.

I strongly suspect that talking up a chick by sounding informed about the I Ching is one hell of a lot more apt to produce success than if one talked about worshipping and subsequently beating toads. There is, however, no substantive difference between the two. Now, you might condescendingly explain the differences. I will agree. Will you explain away the next 2,000? All valid due to their antiquity, number of believer, and "results".

The history of the human race is the history of loony ideas. Anyone's "today" is defined by the current cut through the range of loony ideas. Believe me, Ian, two generations from now, the I Ching might very well be relegated to being performed by Chinese dudes and the rage with middle class white guys will be toad channeling. Would you take that bet?

That is actually the exact impression I get from a lot of people on this board.

Do you mean that is what they say about you or you about them?:D Inasmuch as it is your problem, I think that it comes from listening but not hearing.

[DangerousBeliefs]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


You honestly think I come across as a "condescending know-it-all"???

That is actually the exact impression I get from a lot of people on this board.

Maybe you should start a poll Ian... the question is:

When (ok, "if" if you like) the majority conclude you are a "condescending know-it-all", will you ignore the evidence? :D

By the way, this is not meant as an attack. I enjoy your posts (for their entertainment value).

[Andalyn]

Originally posted by max
Well, if this is not a 'community' any more and just for sceptics I shall make this my last post here. This was an amazing place to post two years ago. There was real discussion then but it seems that a lot of immature posters have joined up.
Have a nice day.

Whoever told you that is an idiot Max... This is not just a skeptic's board.

We are often reminded that this is Randi's board. So, I believe it is important to point out to EVERYONE that on the front page of Randi.org is states:

"Be part of the JREF web community by engaging in intelligent discussions with both skeptics and non-skeptics from around the globe. "

Those that lay claim of ideological ownership of this board are making the claim without authority.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Andalyn


Whoever told you that is an idiot Max... This is not just a skeptic's board.

We are often reminded that this is Randi's board. So, I believe it is important to point out to EVERYONE that on the front page of Randi.org is states:

"Be part of the JREF web community by engaging in intelligent discussions with both skeptics and non-skeptics from around the globe. "

Those that lay claim of ideological ownership of this board are making the claim without authority.
Nobody said it is "just a skeptic's board," Andalyn. It is a skeptics board. It is a board sponsored and run by a skeptical foundation with a specific skeptical mission. I stated that mission earlier in this thread, as I've stated it in the past. You can find that mission by going to the JREF home pages.

[Andalyn]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Nobody said it is "just a skeptic's board," Andalyn. It is a skeptics board. It is a board sponsored and run by a skeptical foundation with a specific skeptical mission. I stated that mission earlier in this thread, as I've stated it in the past. You can find that mission by going to the JREF home pages.

No kidding Billy. I happen to be a member of that foundation.

I am consoling Max, if you don't mind. :)

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


You honestly think I come across as a "condescending know-it-all"???


Yup.

[Dancing David]

Someones leaving the board
kumbayah
someones leaving the board
kumbayah
someones leaving the board
kumbayah
Theeeey'll come back
kumbayah

(PS Max, I hope we continue to see that furry little face!)

[Hand Bent Spoon]

Originally posted by bjornart

Sorry mack, but you're wrong...

Nope. I'm right. There are possibilities that cannot be eliminated because we have no way to test them. The cat is bound to this universe? That's nonfalsifiable. There's no way to show that. Cats could coexist in a secondary universe. We have no way of knowing for certain if this is not the case.

You cannot prove a negative, and lack of imagination for the possibilities does not excuse you from this.

Shall we change our courts so that defendants have to prove their innocence? After all, according to you, a negative can be proven.

[Hand Bent Spoon]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
The "you can't prove a negative" argument applies to objects or concepts whose properties are not known.

I don't buy that.

Will you admit the pen could coexist in a parallel universe, even if this is unlikely in the extreme? This is a nonfalsifiable claim.

Lack of imagination does not allow you to subvert logic.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Hand Bent Spoon


I don't buy that.

Will you admit the pen could coexist in a parallel universe, even if this is unlikely in the extreme? This is a nonfalsifiable claim.


No.

That an identical pen could exist in a parallel universe cannot be falsified, because it cannot be observed. However, we know that this particular pen does not, because the fact that it has a specific location in this universe is one of its known properties. "This particular pen does not exist in a parallel universe, because it is sitting right here in this universe."

Wooic phenomena is supposed to be observable - do not these sightings prove it? - and so the analogy does not work.

[sweetkb713]

"even I can come up with... Scooby Do!"


Actually, Scooby Doo never saw ghosts. The Scooby gang debunked the "ghosts" - restaurant owners, amusement park workers, rich heiresses, etc.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by sweetkb713
"even I can come up with... Scooby Do!"


Actually, Scooby Doo never saw ghosts. The Scooby gang debunked the "ghosts" - restaurant owners, amusement park workers, rich heiresses, etc.

For awhile. There's been a lot of Scooby Doo cartoons where the paranormal turns out to be real. I guess they either got tired of the same old 'I would have gotten away with it too!...' stories, or just wanted to try and cash in on the woo woo express.

[TheBoyPaj]

You mean, old man Heggarty was really a ghost pretending to be a curmudgeonly Shipyard owner?

Quick! Let's all dress up as barbers and confuse him by giving him a shave!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf


For awhile. There's been a lot of Scooby Doo cartoons where the paranormal turns out to be real.

Huh?? :confused: Not when I used to watch it. I used to absolutely love Scooby Doo, but that was the one thing I never liked about it (when I used to watch it from about 7-14).

[Bottle or the Gun]

10 Underhanded tricks of believers:

1) Take it on faith, even if really stupid.
"Hey everybody! I'm getting castrated today because our leader said the ufo-comet is coming soon!"

[Bottle or the Gun]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf


For awhile. There's been a lot of Scooby Doo cartoons where the paranormal turns out to be real. I guess they either got tired of the same old 'I would have gotten away with it too!...' stories, or just wanted to try and cash in on the woo woo express.

You kow who I blame for the format change? Those nosy kids!

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Criminy! What is it about people that the phrase "you can't prove a negative" somehow managed to become accepted as some kind of meaningful statement?

Of course negatives can be proven! Proving a positive is equivalent to proving a negative, and vice versa. It's all a matter of how the statement is worded.

How can someone claim to be a rational skeptic and keep putting such ludicrous nonsense in their posts?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Okay Wrath, from now on I'll be careful to say "you can't prove that negative." :p

~~ Paul

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Huh?? :confused: Not when I used to watch it. I used to absolutely love Scooby Doo, but that was the one thing I never liked about it (when I used to watch it from about 7-14).

Yes. I'm talking about recent Scooby Doo stuff. Not the old 70's/80's toons.

[Bottle or the Gun]

Original Scooby show rules. Original theme song rules. Everything that came after original run is crap.

[Temporal Renegade]

If someone claims (or, even just implies) that they have psychic abilites, and I want them to actually PROVE it to me, in a manner that eliminates any chance of cheating, either on purpose or accidentally, why is that wrong? If you make the claim, don't assume that I'm in the wrong in wanting some proof.

You can read minds? Then tell me who I'm thinking of.

You can levitate? Then do it out in an open field, where there's no chance of hidden wires.

You can speak to the dead? Then tell me what my Grandfather's middle name is, WITHOUT playing Twenty Questions with me.

You can bend a spoon with your mind? Then do it with MINIMAL touching--or better yet, none at all.

See where this is going? The burden of proof isn't on ME, it's on YOU. YOU make the claim, YOU show me it can be done. Yes, I really do want to believe that things like this are possible, believe it or not. I just want real proof, not wild claims and excuses. Don't tell me that it won't work 'on demand' because 'it can't be controlled like that', or because of 'negative vibes' or what have you preventing the Power from working properly. Either you can, or you can't.

And, no, I can't prove something doesn't exist--but, if you say that something does, you'd better be able to show me.