Peter Bros "The Real Skeptic"

[SkepticPunk]

therealskeptic.com/columns.html

I keep coming across people using this guy as a resource for trying to debunk modern science. Please pick an article and point out the fallacies and falsities.

[andyandy]

The empirical case against UFOs rests on the belief that the stars are so far apart that they are virtually unreachable. Because of our largely religious assumptions, we conclude that the closest star is so far away that we would never be able to journey there and therefore, with the universe ruled by our religions assumptions, if there is anyone living on planets orbiting other stars, it would be impossible for them to get here also.

The religious assumption, of course, is the same assumption that caused us to conclude that the Earth was the center of the universe. When we found that the Earth orbited the sun, and therefore couldn't be the center, we couldn't give up our belief that we were somehow unique in the eyes of a supreme being. If we weren't the center of the universe, then the universe had to be so far removed that there would be no reason to consider that we weren't unique.

The simple fact is, light diminishes with distance, and it does so at an alarming rate, inversely with the square of that distance. If we can see light from a star, or the combined light from a galaxy, then the source of that light is pretty darn close to us. When Voyager sent back pictures of our sun from the orbit of Neptune, the sun was barely discernible from the background stars.

Distance does matter when it comes to light, and, just as the lights of a plane blink out of existence with distance, so does the light of stars. If we can see a star, we can probably get there within a reasonable period of time. Just because empirical science makes up a bunch of stuff that claims something is impossible doesn't mean that made-up stuff limits the life that forms on other planets from reaching out fearlessly into space and visiting us.


http://www.therealskeptic.com/column15.html

well that's resolved then - all stars that we can see are "pretty darn close" - glad he cleared that up :)

[CFLarsen]

Because of our largely religious assumptions, we conclude that the closest star is so far away that we would never be able to journey there

Eh?

It's the exact opposite: It's because of our scientific discoveries that we conclude that the closest star is so far away we are able to reach it, but that it isn't a feasible project with the current technology.

Sheeesh....do we have to deal with morons like this one? Is that all we can get? Can't we at least get someone with real knowledge and sound arguments to debate?

[Gravy]

I guess this guy fancies himself a philosopher of science. He isn't. He's a garden-variety loon who ignores (or more probably, doesn't understand) scientific theory, and replaces it with meaningless pseudoscientific babble. From "Ignoring Force in the Production of Technology":

Without a mechanical description of what causes dropped objects to move, we work around the nonexplanation we have created, an explanation that tells us that gravity is a given in anything we do and there is nothing that we can do about it. As a result, when we go about creating our technology, when we produce pictures of reality that don't exist in reality in order to alter reality to our benefit, one of the parts of every picture of reality we produce is a static gravity that cannot be changed. We can use our recall to change everything else about reality, but we can't use our recall to change the most significant feature of reality, the source of the force that causes objects to drop, that gives objects weight, that is in every picture of reality we change.

We can change reality, but we can't change the one feature of our reality that is not a part of actual reality, the feature of actual reality we made up, our explanation for falling objects.He can't understand why we dummies don't know that a comet's tail consists of fire. He's apparently unaware of the fact that numerous spacecraft have visited comets, and some have returned samples to earth, much less being aware of the existence of the spectroscope. He thinks that working "overunity" motors have been patented. Oh, really? I thought I would have heard about it if the world's energy problems had been solved.

Ugh.

[Gravy]

http://www.therealskeptic.com/column15.html

well that's resolved then - all stars that we can see are "pretty darn close" - glad he cleared that up :)Uh, yeah. I've done a little amateur astronomy in my day, and I know there are some individual stars that are visible to the naked eye that are hundreds of light years away. I think the way to get there is to find out whatever Mr. Bros is smoking.

[ohp]

I tried to read some of the articles, but my brain started to hurt.