Uneducated Guesses

One thing that always amazes me about woo-woos (and some skeptics who should know better) is their complete disrespect for the process of sitting in college and learning science.

This didn't begin on the Internet, but the Net sure helps it along. For instance, I have a fair amount of physics and maths, all the way up to a class in relativity (that I dropped :( ), but I would never dare to, for instance, argue with Stimpy. The reason is obvious to me: he simply knows a lot more.

Why does that not get through to some people? Why do so many people with just a smattering of science feel that they can argue about the Big Bang at all, much less with people who actually understand it?

I constantly get the image, especially here, of a precocious teenager with a shelf full of OMNI magazines and fantasy novels furiously typing an argument about string theory to a PhD with a shelf full of physics books and a wall full of degrees.

Why is that? Why do some people accept the basic premises of science, but then feel that they are entitled to hold opinions on things they simply haven't studied?

[scotth]

Originally posted by sundog
but then feel that they are entitled to hold opinions on things they simply haven't studied?

In a purely pedantic fashion, I would disagree with this.

The surely have the right to hold that opinion. Why they would think it should hold any weight or is of significant value is where I get lost.

Originally posted by scotth


In a purely pedantic fashion, I would disagree with this.

The surely have the right to hold that opinion. Why they would think it should hold any weight or is of significant value is where I get lost.

Well, here's one basic point of disagreement that is perhaps telling. I would hold that no, unless someone has done the math and understands the theories being discussed, a person does not have the right to an opinion. Science isn't a democracy.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by sundog
One thing that always amazes me about woo-woos (and some skeptics who should know better) is their complete disrespect for the process of sitting in college and learning science.

This didn't begin on the Internet, but the Net sure helps it along. For instance, I have a fair amount of physics and maths, all the way up to a class in relativity (that I dropped :( ), but I would never dare to, for instance, argue with Stimpy. The reason is obvious to me: he simply knows a lot more.

Why does that not get through to some people? Why do so many people with just a smattering of science feel that they can argue about the Big Bang at all, much less with people who actually understand it?

I constantly get the image, especially here, of a precocious teenager with a shelf full of OMNI magazines and fantasy novels furiously typing an argument about string theory to a PhD with a shelf full of physics books and a wall full of degrees.

Why is that? Why do some people accept the basic premises of science, but then feel that they are entitled to hold opinions on things they simply haven't studied?


You've got to admit, it can be entertaining...

Moreso than a bunch of PHD's talking to each other about a bunch of stuff I will never understand.


Plus, I do learn something from time to time, watching Dr. Stupid trying to explain something to an idiot..:)

Originally posted by Diogenes



You've got to admit, it can be entertaining...


LOL! There's no disputing that.

[scotth]

Originally posted by sundog


Well, here's one basic point of disagreement that is perhaps telling. I would hold that no, unless someone has done the math and understands the theories being discussed, a person does not have the right to an opinion. Science isn't a democracy.

I would have say that someone has the right to hold any doctrine they wish, even if it is demonstrably false.

I would rather they didn't. I will argue with them when they try to pass it on to others. But, I cannot bring myself to forbid them that right to hold any opinion.

But, if this is all we disagree about it. I can live with it.

Originally posted by scotth


I would have say that someone has the right to hold any doctrine they wish, even if it is demonstrably false.

I would rather they didn't. I will argue with them when they try to pass it on to others. But, I cannot bring myself to forbid them that right to hold any opinion.

But, if this is all we disagree about it. I can live with it.

So you would agree that "everyone has the right to their own stupid opinion." :D

I think we're batting around semantics here. We agree that an opinion can be worthless.

[Keneke]

But that's like the flipside of argumentum ad verecundiam (Appeal to Authority). Yes, the PhD's know what they are talking about, and so they should be able to back their stuff up in the debate in stead of merely calling on their experience to discredit the opponent. Yes, it is very laughable to see the non-educated try and debate, but I will not totally discount the uneducated through that aspect alone.

Besides, there are plenty of other reasons and methods to discount these people's theories.

A similar question, after reading Another Active Thread today:

What on Earth possesses educated people to suffer the arguments of fools at all?

Not all of us fools - I mean in particular nasty, abusive fools.

[Blue Monk]

Yes, an opinion can be worthless, as I've proven time and time again.

When people do read something of a scientific leaning and it is well enough written for them to understand that particular writers viewpoint then they embrace it as a layperson, not realizing that all good science should hold up to peer review.

Perhaps these individuals have read an article and then began parroting it to their friends who are mightily impressed. I know there have been times when I have be credited with the understanding of a situation that far exceeds my true understanding simply because I have had it explained to me by someone far more knowledgeable.

This shortcut to academic credibility can be quite enticing but though it may play well with the locals we have all seen how silly one came appear when they begin to debate someone who is truly knowledgeable on the subject.

It’s really too bad when one considers how many people here that are such a wealth of information. The sad fact is some people will remain stupid their entire live simply because they don’t know when to shut up and listen.

[scotth]

Originally posted by sundog


So you would agree that "everyone has the right to their own stupid opinion." :D

I think we're batting around semantics here. We agree that an opinion can be worthless.

Oh, I definitely agree that the opinion can be worthless. I would even go so far as to say of negative worth (detrimental).

I just wouldn't deny their right to hold it.

Edited to add:
A particular instance in which I would deny the person's right to voice would be as a school teacher.

Well, some of us learn from being slapped down. I have a smattering of this and that, and have put in my two cents wherever I've seen fit, and where I was wrong (much of the time) I have been pounded and the actual information has been brought to my attention. Got to get over being gun-shy if you want to learn how to aim true and fire correctly...

but it hasn't really worked on me, I still pontificate

Originally posted by Keneke
But that's like the flipside of argumentum ad verecundiam (Appeal to Authority). Yes, the PhD's know what they are talking about, and so they should be able to back their stuff up in the debate in stead of merely calling on their experience to discredit the opponent. Yes, it is very laughable to see the non-educated try and debate, but I will not totally discount the uneducated through that aspect alone.

Besides, there are plenty of other reasons and methods to discount these people's theories.

The flaw in this reasoning is that in order to fully "back up" what they say, they would have to transmit to you the entire mathematical and physical background for it. That's not possible.

Pretend you have a kid arguing about infinity with a mathematician. The mathematician CANNOT make clear what he's saying until he educates the kid up to the level of understanding the arguments.

We Americans especially are so used to believing that our opinion is as good as anyone else's that I don't think we always recognize situations where it's simply not true.

[scotth]

And don't overlook....

You don't necessarily have to know anything about a theory to discuss the likelyhood of it being true, only what it predicts.

If it doesn't predict anything testable, it is not a scientific theory.

If it does not preduce accurate predictions, it is obviously flawed without even examining the reasoning.

[SpaceLord]

Well, I have never taken Theoretical Physics courses, although my major in college for a year was Physics.

But I enjoy discussing these ideas immensely. And I like to think I am not too bad at discussing science.

Does one need a wall full of degrees to discuss the more abstract areas of knowledge?

Originally posted by SpaceLord
Well, I have never taken Theoretical Physics courses, although my major in college for a year was Physics.

But I enjoy discussing these ideas immensely. And I like to think I am not too bad at discussing science.

Does one need a wall full of degrees to discuss the more abstract areas of knowledge?

I would say, discuss, no. I enjoy discussing them too.

Disagree with, argue with? We're on shaky ground there.

[scotth]

Originally posted by SpaceLord

Does one need a wall full of degrees to discuss the more abstract areas of knowledge?

You may use abstract different than me, so I will start by saying that I would put Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity on the more abstract end of the scale.

I would not say that it requires degrees per say, but at the very least a very deliberate effort to learn it and a good bit of intelligence would be useful.

That is, if one wants to discuss it in a meaningful way.

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by SpaceLord
Does one need a wall full of degrees to discuss the more abstract areas of knowledge?

No, of course not.

But if you ever hear me discussing physics with Stephen Hawkings you are probably not going to hear me utter the phrase, "No, no, you are all wrong."

Another problem that I have been aware of since Randi pointed it out in his commentary is the fact that you can get at least one 'expert' with the appropriate degrees to go along with just about any kind of nonsense.

This really throws people. Only last night I was watching a local white supremacist program (Nationalist American) that featured a biologist with a PHD. He was spouting all sorts of nonsense that even I know to be untrue but his PHD gives him credibility. Since he was telling the audience what they wanted to hear there is little chance they will ever seek out the opinion of the Biological community that most certainly could destroy his arguments with ease.

Even though I know his spiel was nonsense I would be in a very difficult position to debate him. Why? I’m not a biologist. Although I know what others in the field have said on this subject I am simply not qualified to fully understand the whole process for coming to such conclusions.

The only effective way to disarm an ‘authority’ such as this is through direct criticism of his argument by his peers. Only those who have been properly educated in that field can call upon the necessary background studies to support their argument.

If you are not educated on a particular subject you are at a serious disadvantage when debating someone who is, even if that person is wrong.

If someone with a degree in Astronomy starts spouting off nonsense then I’m not going to get my butt chewed up and in the process strengthen his argument. I’m running like a 12 year old girl and try and find ‘The Bad Astronomer’ to beat him up for me.

[jimlintott]

I've always felt that, the more you know, the more you know you don't know. Some people just haven't learned enough to understand their own limits.

I've learned enough to realize just how ignorant I am. (I should probably shut up about now.)

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by jimlintott
I've always felt that, the more you know, the more you know you don't know. Some people just haven't learned enough to understand their own limits.

I've learned enough to realize just how ignorant I am. (I should probably shut up about now.)

Hehe, well put.

It should be apparant to all that I still have a looooooooot to learn. :)

[patnray]

I think some people "argue with authority" because they are sincerely trying to understand the concepts and don't want to accept an argument based solely on the authority of the presenter. Their questions are a request for clarification, and I have no problem with them challenging those who are more knowledgeable to back up their claims.

Then there are those who already have their minds made up and argue to convince the "experts" that they are wrong...

[Phaycops]

I would tend to agree with the original post. I think what others are saying is valid, too, though. So what's the solution? Never argue about anything, but listen to what others say? Hm, I guess not....

I think my biggest pet peeve is the people (no to mention any names, but the poster's initials are D-O-W-I-L-S-O-N) who come in asking specifically FOR expert advice, and when it's given to them, when someone tries to explain current scientific thought on a topic (not mentioning any topics by name :D), they then proceed to argue with them. How can you argue, for instance, global warming with a climatologist with NO background in it? OTOH, you're free to believe anything you want, just don't try to convince me to believe that you're right. I think this goes back to a conversation going on (it may be dead by now) in Banter regarding the "all opinions are equally valid" school of thought. Well, they're not, but that doesn't change the right of the individual to hold them. Am I even making any sense? Is it time for a nap? Tune in next week, when our heroes may very well be more well-rested!

----
I would never dare to, for instance, argue with Stimpy. The reason is obvious to me: he simply knows a lot more.
----


LOL.

So because Stimpy is authoritative you won't argue with him? That is silly. Yes, I know it is hard to believe, but Stimpy is probably off on a lot of issues.


----
Why do so many people with just a smattering of science feel that they can argue about the Big Bang at all, much less with people who actually understand it?
----


Because there are a lot of questions. Where did it all come from? How long ago? You know? Stimpy?

Hello?

Also just because one is a physicist doesn't necessarily mean that person knows jack diddly squat about cosmological theories.


----
Why is that? Why do some people accept the basic premises of science, but then feel that they are entitled to hold opinions on things they simply haven't studied?
----


Because that is the way opinions work.

Thanks Whodini, without really meaning to ridicule you I think you've provided us with a good example of what I'm talking about. It's this inherent disrespect for learning itself that we don't understand.

[fishbob]

Well, some of us learn from being slapped down. I have a smattering of this and that, and have put in my two cents wherever I've seen fit, and where I was wrong (much of the time) I have been pounded and the actual information has been brought to my attention. I refuse to believe you were ever wrong. :D

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by sundog
Thanks Whodini, without really meaning to ridicule you I think you've provided us with a good example of what I'm talking about. It's this inherent disrespect for learning itself that we don't understand.

:) Exhibit A.

Originally posted by sundog
Thanks Whodini, without really meaning to ridicule you I think you've provided us with a good example of what I'm talking about. It's this inherent disrespect for learning itself that we don't understand.


Right Sundog.

I've been in academia for a while. One doesn't get anywhere without asking lots of questions.

On an internet discussion forum, there are a lot of self-proclaimed experts. There are also a lot of genuine experts.

Both deserve to be questioned, ESPECIALLY if they make claims of their own.

Stimpy make claims, so I'll keep asking him questions. I don't care if he has 100 Ph.D's, because that is completely irrelevant info.

Originally posted by Whodini


Stimpy make claims, so I'll keep asking him questions. I don't care if he has 100 Ph.D's, because that is completely irrelevant info.

My point is that only someone with Stimpy's level of education, or close to it, is capable of taking him on in a meaningful way if he's indeed incorrect about things he is a recognized expert about.

For instance, to me the Big Bang is essentially magical because I cannot express a valid opinion about it either way. However, I know enough to know that people who study the Big Bang find the mathematics very convincing and internally consistent. Such considerations are not convincing to you and me; that doesn't mean they aren't valid. It means we haven't climbed high enough up the mountain to see clearly.

One must possess a certain minimum level of knowledge about a subject to challenge experts in the field. What surprises me, and many others, is that anyone could doubt the truth of this.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by sundog


It means we haven't climbed high enough up the mountain to see clearly.



You realize, you just sounded like Whodini ?

Originally posted by Diogenes


You realize, you just sounded like Whodini ?

Yikes! :)

His mountain is covered by clouds, I think.

[Dylab]

While I agree with the general opinion on the board I think blind guesses are smaller occurences in physical science then in other complexities like politics or economics. I think it can be just as or even more detrimental as making basic assumptions in Physics or Cosmology.

It is easy to think of a few examples. Many people argue that if their were dangerous weapons in Iraq we should have found them by now. But what do most people know about the ability of Iraq to hide weapons and our current ability to find them. Or if tax cuts will help the economy. Both sides use "common sense" arguments but try using that in Physics or Biology why do people think it is the same in Economics.

Hi Dylab and welcome! :)

Sundog,


I understand that Stimpson J. Cat may have to put up with a lot of us who are much lower in formal education.

I don't really see a way out of that for me. I've read a lot of books, journal articles, and have asked people questions, but still my mind fails to grasp many issues.

I don't see myself as challenging Stimpson J. Cat, nor could I, in knowledge and expertise in this area. In other areas, as is natural, he lacks knowledge.

However, because I lack knowledge, that doesn't mean that I will stop asking questions (questions that are often embarassing later).

Diogenes,


----
You realize, you just sounded like Whodini ?
----


Heh. :) :) :)

That actually made me laugh Dio! You have to quit that!

My day has been pretty crummy so far :( ...So more humor, please!

Maybe I'm getting soft and turning over a new leaf...


Sundog


----
His mountain is covered by clouds, I think.
----


Most mountains are, which is quite natural. If your mountain is not, that means it is awfully small. ;)

[rwald]

I agree with the general opinion of this thread. There are certain individuals (Stimpy among them) whom I consider to be experts in their fields, and whom I would only disagree if I thought I knew a whole lot about the subject at hand. I'm not basing who's an "expert" based on PhD's; I'm looking at what they've said. Sure, this method may not be foolproof, but I can generally tell when someone's really an expert, and when they're spouting high-sounding nonsense. When people I consider experts make arguments, I read them, and try to learn what they have to say. I know that they know more about the subject than I, so I endeavor to learn what I can for them.

What bothers me is people who truly know nothing about the matter at hand, and yet insist on debating with those that do. I'm reminded of Interesting Ian's debate on meta-analysis with Stimpy. By his own admission, Ian knows very little about parapsychology research. And yet he thinks he knows more than Stimpy? If you want to argue something, you should make sure you have a clue what you're arguing about first.

[Phaycops]

Rwald, that's sort of the point I was trying to make. You can argue with people about, oh, say, the actual methods of the science done, or about the falsifiability, and you can ask plenty of questions, but I find it absurd that someone with zero knowledge in cosmology would actually try to debate someone with multiple degrees in physics, astronomy, and mathematics. Yet we see these things happen over and over in this forum. It boggles the mind! Boggles!

[DrBenway]

You have to know a lot to realize what you don’t know.

I’ve noted that older physicians with more years under their belt tend to refer patients to specialists more often than younger doctors. I think the older docs know more (generally, but not always), and so have a better sense of what they don't know.

The other day I evaluated an autistic kid in a residential program who’d started peeing on the floor several times per day. Her teachers reported that she’d threaten to pee if not given something she wants. But she also peed a *lot* when she went; she really had to go.

The nurse practitioner following her interpreted the symptom as a sort of oppositional behavior. Maybe he’s right. But his note didn't indicate that he'd given any thought to other potential causes: diabetes mellitus? diabetes insipidus? psychogenic polydypsia? other endocrine issues? urinary tract infection? sexual abuse? repetitive, autistic, self-stimulating behavior? diminished bladder control due to CNS depressants?

When do you know if you’ve thought of everything that might account for the symptoms? You have to know a lot, first, before you can feel confident your list of potential diagnoses is fairly complete.

There’s a proposal in this state to grant psychologists prescribing privileges. I think that’s a very bad idea. Without the medical background, the psychologists don’t really know all the stuff they don’t know.

[PixyMisa]

Anyone who hasn't read Unskilled and Unaware of It (http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html) should do so now.

Abstract
People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Anyone who hasn't read Unskilled and Unaware of It (http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html) should do so now.
Oh definately, this report was awarded the 2000 IgNobel Award for Psychology.

sundog


One thing that always amazes me about woo-woos (and some skeptics who should know better) is their complete disrespect for the process of sitting in college and learning science.


This is largely true. But it also applies to other things, very notably philosophy. The same people who give great credence and respect to actually learning about science before making any grand pronouncements about it often don't seem to realise that exactly the same is true of just about every subject under the sun. A good example of this is PixyMisa who just posted :


Abstract

People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And yet unbelievably this is the same person who yesterday, with regard to a comment about actually studying philosophy before making grand judgements about things you know nothing about said THIS! :


quote (UCE) :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You continue to astonish me - how anyone can be quite so metaphysically/philosophically ignorant and quite so unashamedly arrogant at the same time almost defies belief.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pixy replied :

Being ignorant of a million falsehoods worries me not in the least.


quote: (UCE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Especially after that person ran away crying after trying to talk about consciousness with someone who has actually bothered to study philosophy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's not my fault that you chose to study philosophy, Mister Elephant.


Is it just me or is there something deeply bizarre about a person who can in the space of two days post both of these things? This person openly admits to knowing little or nothing about philosophy, spends a week in a philosophy forum making themselves look very stupid, is at the same time absolutely certain that their metaphysical beliefs are sound, and THEN makes the above post about uneducated people being unaware of just how ignorant they are? :eek:

Well done Pixy. I am speechless. :rolleyes:

:D

[PixyMisa]

Heh. I wondered how long it would take UCE to respond to this. Did he say anything new?

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Heh. I wondered how long it would take UCE to respond to this. Did he say anything new?
New? No.

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Heh. I wondered how long it would take UCE to respond to this. Did he say anything new?

Pixy,

I did actually say something though, which is more than can be said for you. You are amazing. Are you going to even try to explain how on Earth you can post this :

----------
People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it.
---------

and this :

-------
It's not my fault that you chose to study philosophy, Mister Elephant. Being ignorant of a million falsehoods worries me not in the least.
------

?

Iconoclast :

Are you actually condoning hypocrisy at this previously unachieved level, or are you still p*ss*d because you think I am anti-homosexual?

[metacristi]

sundog

For instance, I have a fair amount of physics and maths, all the way up to a class in relativity (that I dropped ), but I would never dare to, for instance, argue with Stimpy. The reason is obvious to me: he simply knows a lot more.


I agree with you in what 'tabula rasa' [or almost] people [easy to spot after all] are concerned but I profoundly disagree in the case of those who have something valuable to say.
Your reason is very shaky providing that you have enough knowledge and the ability [maybe natural not necessary educated] to avoid the pitfalls of fallacious reasoning.
Your renunciation seems to me very close to that of people who are so fascinated by some characters that they practically do not dare to contradict them;in time some of them arrive even to believe that what their 'expert=idol' says is always true.

The reality is that in science,especially at its 'borders',there is a lot of room at least for philosophical debates.Very often there is enough room for alternative scientific hypotheses that,in spite of being more complicated,are no inferior to the prevailing point of view,in what the power of explainig the observed reality is concerned.

The hard fact is that we need mavericks,nothing in science is set in stone.Discussing alternative hypotheses does not imply at all proclaiming them as being accepted scientific facts.But if the hypotheses do respect the requirements of the scientific method and have at least the same power of explanation as the current paradigm in science then we should consider them scientific hypotheses.Some of them could even prove to be the scientific paradigm of tomorrow.

The fact that someone has a PhD is not relevant in such cases and in fact the history of science [engineering included] is full with examples when non specialists [in the sense of not being 'experts',Phd and so on] proved to be more important than specialists in 'pushing ahead' the whole of science.Experts tend to become conservator,in fact Planck observed well once that new paradigms develop and become prevalent only when the previous generation of 'experts' become extinct.

In the engineering field [but not only] there are many firms that use the 'brainstorming' method with people [who know the the domain of study but not necessary PhD,'experts' and so on] in order to invent new things in the field exactly given their less 'indoctrination' with the currently accepted facts.

Even Einstein was in this situation.Asked once to explain how had he arrived at Relativity he,allegedly,said that 'we all know that some very old theories are always true only that from time to time there come some ignorants who haven't heard of that yet'.

By contradicting Stimpson J Cat you do not attack him as a person but only his ideas,notwithstanding that in many cases they happen to represent the accepted paradigm of physical science [with a lot of exceptions however] if in doing so you do not break the rules of logic and of the scientific method.
Given that,as far as I know,he admits that science itself is fallible I am sure he will not be upset at all.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Pixy,

...Are you going to even try to explain how on Earth you can post...

I believe Pixy has you on ignore, I doubt she'll be able to answer your questions if she doesn't read them.

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Iconoclast :

Are you actually condoning hypocrisy at this previously unachieved level, or are you still p*ss*d because you think I am anti-homosexual?
UCE, either you're thinking of a different Iconoclast, or you posted this just after a big toke on one of your Bob Marley's. We've never had a conversation about homosexuality, in fact I don't think I've had any discussions with you on these forums. While I don't have you (or anyone else) on ignore, I've learn to scroll past most of your posts since you usually just rehash what you've previously said using a slightly different font. I certainly wouldn't bother attempting to debate you on any subject.

I believe Pixy has you on ignore, I doubt she'll be able to answer your questions if she doesn't read them.


If she has me on ignore, then why doesn't she just ignore me?

She reads my posts. Don't you Pix? ;)



UCE, either you're thinking of a different Iconoclast, or you posted this just after a big toke on one of your Bob Marley's. We've never had a conversation about homosexuality, in fact I don't think I've had any discussions with you on these forums.


Really? Perhaps you are a different Iconoclast. Are you gay? :D


While I don't have you (or anyone else) on ignore, I've learn to scroll past most of your posts since you usually just rehash what you've previously said using a slightly different font.

Well, it isn't my fault if the same person who was yesterday making pronouncements about metaphysics with absolute certainty whilst claiming philosophy wasn't worth studying is now making posts about how the ignorant are incapable of comprehending the scale of their own ignorance. Anyone who can't see the grotesque hypocrisy of this isn't looking.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
If she has me on ignore, then why doesn't she just ignore me?

She reads my posts. Don't you Pix? ;)

From her earlier comment I would only assume she has you on ignore, but I have no idea whether she does or not.

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Really? Perhaps you are a different Iconoclast. Are you gay? :D

No, but I am willing to learn. I only know of one poster to these forums who openly admits to being gay, that may be who you're thinking of.

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Well, it isn't my fault if the same person who was yesterday making pronouncements about metaphysics with absolute certainty whilst claiming philosophy wasn't worth studying is now making posts about how the ignorant are incapable of comprehending the scale of their own ignorance. Anyone who can't see the grotesque hypocrisy of this isn't looking.
I'm not sure if the synopsis of the linked report she posted is her own words or those of a reviewer, but in any case I took that paragraph to be in reference to the conclusions reached by the authors of that report, I don't think that is necessarily her view on the subject. My 2 cents.

[PixyMisa]

Originally posted by Iconoclast
I'm not sure if the synopsis of the linked report she posted is her own words or those of a reviewer, but in any case I took that paragraph to be in reference to the conclusions reached by the authors of that report, I don't think that is necessarily her view on the subject. My 2 cents. The quoted paragraph is from the paper itself. And I agree with it entirely. And yes, I have UCE on ignore, which seems to be working now. I was having a problem with cookies earlier which made the forum lose my session.

Sorry about dragging you into the middle of this, Iconoclast.

<shot type=cheap>
Oh, and UCE, I'll ignore whatever you say anyway so I won't bother to respond to your latest tantrum.
</shot>

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by PixyMisa
Sorry about dragging you into the middle of this, Iconoclast.

No, no, I'm sorry for butting in Pixy. After I posted I realised it was rude of me to speak on your behalf.

UCE :

Anyone who can't see the grotesque hypocrisy of this isn't looking.

--------------------------------
Pixy :

Oh, and UCE, I'll ignore whatever you say anyway
---------------------------

You're class, Pixy. Absolute class. :)

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
..............., Pixy. ........................... :)
Once again UE, "In Space Or On Ignore, No One Can Hear You Scream".

Err, interesting, but can we get back on topic? :D

[scotth]

An on topic observation.

Generally, these challenges to people who know what they are talking about do not happen directly.

It seems that most or nearly all happen when someone stands up for their paranormal/metaphysical pet theory. When it is pointed out that the pet theory would contradict something known to be true, that is when the fur begins to fly. Instead of accepting that the pet theory just went way down in likelihood as soon as it came into direct conflict with known information, most of the time the known info is put on trial instead.

The problem of course is that the information had already been put on trial in as rigorous a fashion as possible before it was excepted by science.

On UFO sites, I often see articles or quotes from people who have that "wall of degrees." But what degree makes you an authority on UFOs?

There is one poster at a site I regularly go to, who has the very annoying habit of posting entire articles, with bibliographies attached, and a list of previous articles published by the author, and the author's "credentials" in support of psychics and mediums. Very annoying.

When someone with a PhD steps outside of their field of expertise, then I think they are fair game like the rest of us. But there is a part of me that feels they are due some respect for their intellectual abilities even though they are indeed outside their field.

But here is what annoys me more than everything that has been discussed so far in this topic. I hate it when a woo-woo attempts to hijack the hard work of real scientists and warp it into some kind of validation of their belief system.

QM is the latest fad. You should see the pathetic attempts to use QM to support psychic phenomenon.

[rwald]

Personally, I don't judge who is an "expert" based on their formal education (well, not in the context of this forum). I look at their posts, and see if what they say makes sense in the context of how science works. I look to see if they're using logical arguments, and if the information they have "makes sense." That works for me better than just saying PhD = Expert. Because, after all, any paranormal claim has more than a few PhD's as supporters.