|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
6th December 2012, 09:02 AM | #641 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
|
|
6th December 2012, 09:03 AM | #642 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
|
So few scientists are employed simply becasue very few people are scientists.
|
6th December 2012, 09:05 AM | #643 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
|
It is my opinion that if there were more scientists than say priests or looney radio hosts the world would have a chance of being a better place.
|
6th December 2012, 09:07 AM | #644 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
|
|
6th December 2012, 09:09 AM | #645 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
|
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze |
|
6th December 2012, 09:09 AM | #646 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
|
And Carl Sagan was a thorough scientist which would be proved by even a cursory reading of jsut some of his books....
oh wait justin has not read those.. |
6th December 2012, 09:09 AM | #647 |
Great Dalmuti
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
|
There's nothing quite as funny as using a global computer network as a medium to criticize scientists.
|
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm |
|
6th December 2012, 09:12 AM | #648 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
|
Especailly dead ones who cannot reply to the inane comments made about them
|
6th December 2012, 09:18 AM | #649 |
Troublesome Passenger
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
|
|
6th December 2012, 09:23 AM | #650 |
Dental Floss Tycoon
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
|
But never bothered to actually read any of his books. Doing quick Google searches in order to cherry pick phrases that you think will support your prejudicial opinion isn't research.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The fact that you think Sagan's approach was unreasonable says more about you than it does him.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone. |
|
6th December 2012, 09:29 AM | #651 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
|
No one has come forward with the same depth and referenceable material on Carl Sagan on this forum before me. I am not an expert on Carl Sagan. But I am a pioneer in seeking the truth behind the iconic skeptic Carl Sagan. You can challenge my claim by directing me to an OP where Carl Sagan was discussed at even greater length and depth on this forum before. All that is available are snippets of him and the largest OP discusses his religion. We know he claimed to be an agnostic.
My OP is drawing such interest that in just 3 days it has surpassed all other threads on Carl Sagan in views counted except on the subject of his religious beliefs. And that just reflects the real interest Skeptics have......RELIGION!!!! In fact all Skeptics sites suffer the same problem. It is Skeptics struggling with religion or the obsession with refuting religion. And in doing so are neglecting so many other areas of their development. I am the only one here highlighting these issues by using Carl Sagan as the best understood example of the dichotomy Skeptics suffer from. |
6th December 2012, 09:30 AM | #652 |
Dental Floss Tycoon
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
|
As Mashuna suggested, you should probably invest in a course on reading comprehension. It might have helped you to comprehend that, just because Sagan was best know to the general public for commenting on the possibility of extraterrestrial life, it doesn't follow that this was the focus of his career.
|
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone. |
|
6th December 2012, 09:30 AM | #653 |
Ovis ex Machina
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sir Ddinbych
Posts: 7,001
|
|
6th December 2012, 09:31 AM | #654 |
Troublesome Passenger
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
|
|
6th December 2012, 09:31 AM | #655 |
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,577
|
|
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon |
|
6th December 2012, 09:35 AM | #656 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 4,680
|
|
__________________
The Australian Family Association's John Morrissey was aghast when he learned Jessica Watson was bidding to become the youngest person to sail round the world alone, unaided and without stopping. |
|
6th December 2012, 09:35 AM | #657 |
Great Dalmuti
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,266
|
|
__________________
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." - aggle-rithm |
|
6th December 2012, 09:35 AM | #658 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
|
You have been given an extensive bibliography and you are no pioneer, you ahve chosoen to ignore it.
And again you present a FALSE dichotomy, Carl Sagan was a scientist, scientists deal with hypotheses which are then tested and become theories if any credible evidence is found to support the original hypothesis. THAT is waht Carl Sagan DID, all you ahve done is misrepresent him while openly declaring you know nothing about his work becasue you have openly stated you HAVE NOT read any of his books. |
6th December 2012, 09:43 AM | #659 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
|
A bit of a side track but the 30th Report wirtten on teh "WOW Signal"
http://www.bigear.org/Wow30th/wow30th.htm |
6th December 2012, 09:44 AM | #660 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
...you mean, no one has stooped to your level of innuendo, preferring, as is the wont of good thinkers, to use Dr. Sagan's own work to judge the man...contentious, second-hand sources do not constitute "depth". You really, really ought to read Dr. Sagan's own words.
Really? Or, as has been suggested repeatedly, you could read the majority of his corpus before you judge him on second-hand, contentious "analyses"... You could even consider litening to those who have, in fact, read Dr. Sagan's work. Of course, you are completely missing the groupo dynamic of the fascination with a train wreck. Consider the actions of T-cells... Evidence? Thank you for finally revealing your true agenda. Moderators, might we get these three threads merged, perhaps in R&P, perhaps elsewhere? |
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze |
|
6th December 2012, 09:47 AM | #661 |
Dental Floss Tycoon
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
|
Cherry picking search engine results on the fly hardly qualifies as a "depth of referenceable material".
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone. |
|
6th December 2012, 09:49 AM | #662 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
|
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze |
|
6th December 2012, 09:52 AM | #663 |
Dental Floss Tycoon
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
|
|
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone. |
|
6th December 2012, 09:52 AM | #664 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 213
|
Quote:
Ouch, I really hope that's not what he meant. Though either way it's dumb and dumber. |
__________________
"Karl Marx was right, socialism works, it is just that he had the wrong species" − E. O. Wilson |
|
6th December 2012, 09:53 AM | #665 |
Safely Ignored
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,392
|
You still appear to be confused.
See if you can't work it out for yourself. Why might Sagan have said SETI was a project looking for signs of "advanced civilizations"? Here's a clue: If he had said they were looking for radio transmissions from aliens more primitive than ourselves you might have a point in criticizing him. |
6th December 2012, 09:53 AM | #666 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,438
|
What's clear, having watched the video (it's from Cosmos), is that Justinian needs to learn to listen as well as learn to read.
|
6th December 2012, 09:55 AM | #667 |
Safely Ignored
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 16,392
|
********. When I asked you for your references you told me to Google him.
<edit> Regarding my opening remark, I hope it's not considered to be an evasion of the autocensor to recall that waggish people used to say of the Isle of Wight ferry that it is brown, it steams and it comes out of Cowes backwards. |
6th December 2012, 09:55 AM | #668 |
Dental Floss Tycoon
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
|
|
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone. |
|
6th December 2012, 09:58 AM | #669 |
Mostly harmless
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
|
It might be a good idea if you don't post here again until you have read this book. |
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky |
|
6th December 2012, 10:01 AM | #670 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
|
I am trying to be as analytically correct as possible and that is why I use definitions so there is little room for semantic errors.
I said I never met skeptics outside of Skeptic forums. I met and know many insecure people who are full of doubts, uncertain and generally fearful about security, appearance or social status. But they are not self declared skeptics and admit they are just insecure. Definition of insecure. A person who is not confident or assured; uncertain or anxious. You can see by definition not all insecure people are skeptics. So I applied that to the members of this forum claiming to be skeptics on a Skeptic Forum. That They might not be skeptics but just insecure individuals. Now having analyzed a sufficient number of skeptics on several Skeptic forums. I am of discovering that Skeptics are insecure too. So it is possible for one to be both a skeptic and insecure too. Because by definition a Skeptic is: One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions. So there is little doubt that Skeptics are insecure people. So what is Skepticism? http://skeptoid.com/skeptic.php |
6th December 2012, 10:03 AM | #671 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
|
so your research is analyzing internet forums.....tells me all I need to know.
Applies baloney Detection Kit.......Baloney detected. |
6th December 2012, 10:14 AM | #672 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
|
|
6th December 2012, 10:21 AM | #673 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
|
As the basis of your assertisons about other people is totally based on trawling internet forums I see no credible evidential base for your views and therefore and complete lack of a rational thought out research project.
|
6th December 2012, 10:37 AM | #674 |
Schrödinger's cat
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 16,140
|
In my experience people who are insecure tend to seek security by subscribing to beliefs (especially, but not excusively, religious beliefs) which claim to be able to offer certainties where none actually exist. It takes someone who is pretty secure in most areas of their life - emotionally, professionally etc - to accept that no such certainties are possible, that everything must be questioned, and to be all right with that.
|
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett |
|
6th December 2012, 10:37 AM | #675 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
|
|
6th December 2012, 10:56 AM | #676 |
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator, Russell's Antinomy Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
|
Sigh.
Using definitions, especially current definitions, is good--particularly when you provede accurate citations for those definitions, so that your presentation of a definition can be assessed for completeness and accuracy. Pretending that one definition in one general dictionary represents an accurate definition of the way a word is used in practice, particularly words that are jargon terms, is not so good (particularly when your error is pointed out to you). Charitably, this practice demonstrates a certain laziness; a certain disregard for reality. When it is continually and continuously repeated, this practice looks dishonest. So you have never met skeptics in TRW, yet you feel qualified to declare that "insecure people full of doubt" = "skeptics on this forum"? Fascinating. Odd, and incorrect, but fascinating. What is your citation for this "definition"? It has certain characteristics that make it suspect as an accurate quote. Be so kind as to provide for me its source... I will address "claiming to be skeptics" another time. In what way is your adversarial, dishonest, and contentious reaction with skeptics on this forum (not to mention other fora from which you have been banned) "analysis"? In what way is pointing out errors in your logic, discrepancies in your claims, inconsistencies in your "facts", and the pellucid paucity of your preparation a demonstration of "insecurity"? Where did you get your certification in Psychology? Be so good as to provide a citation for this "definition". I have offered you multiple actual definitions, with complete citations, from multiple sources, developed by skeptical thinkers, that refute your "definition". Be so kind as to explain why your contentious, adversarial, incorrect "definition" is supposed to be more accurate than actual definitions attested by actual skeptical thinkers. 1. Be so kind as to stop capitalizing "Skeptics" at least unless and until you answer my question about differences among "Skeptics", "skeptics", and "skeptical thinkers". 2. You may, in fact, have little doubt. You have done nothing to address the doubts of reasonable, rational, skeptical posters on this or any other forum. You are, quite simply, assuming your conclusion From your link: "The true meaning of the word skepticism has nothing to do with doubt, disbelief, or negativity. Skepticism is the process of applying reason and critical thinking to determine validity. It's the process of finding a supported conclusion, not the justification of a preconceived conclusion." and "Skepticism is, or should be, an extraordinarily powerful and positive influence on the world. Skepticism is not simply about "debunking" as is commonly charged. Skepticism is about redirecting attention, influence, and funding away from worthless superstitions and toward projects and ideas that are evidenced to be beneficial to humanity and to the world." and "The scientific method is central to skepticism. The scientific method requires evidence, preferably derived from validated testing. Anecdotal evidence and personal testimonies generally don't meet the qualifications for scientific evidence, and thus won't often be accepted by a responsible skeptic; which often explains why skeptics get such a bad rap for being negative or disbelieving people. They're simply following the scientific method." ...there seems to be very little* there about fear, or insecurity... This is why I always ask you for your sources. (*for sufficiently nonexistent values of "very little") |
__________________
"They want to make their molehills equal to the mountains by cutting the mountains down." -turingtest "The universe did not come from nothing, it came from 'We don't know'." -Dancing David "Cry, booga, booga, booga! and let slip the Hamsters of Silly!" -JFDHintze |
|
6th December 2012, 11:05 AM | #677 |
Troublesome Passenger
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
|
|
6th December 2012, 11:51 AM | #678 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 213
|
I don't get why you quoted me as you don't address any of my points. Why is your own insecurity worthier than the one you attribute to sceptics?
Highlighted part: if you don't see where the logic flaws are I recommend you take Logic 101 and then come back, for a regular discussion can't take place in such circumstances. |
__________________
"Karl Marx was right, socialism works, it is just that he had the wrong species" − E. O. Wilson |
|
6th December 2012, 11:56 AM | #679 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,302
|
One thing you can never accuse him of is struggling to be articulate. He was the most clear and concise science presenter of his generation. IMO, that mantle has now been handed over to Professor Brian Cox.
Please do not confuse the way Sagan speaks with "not knowing" or "not understanding", because these are the positions from which ALL science proceeds; we don't understand something, and we want to, so we postulate, theorise, research, study, experiment, reassess and conclude until we do understand. The problem in science is that often, when he get an answer, it raises many more questions. After reading the many posts you have posted here, and the many contradictions you have written, I have come to the conclusion that you are a LGM obsessed teenager with a poor grasp of language almost zero ability at comprehension and you have utterly no idea what you are talking about. |
__________________
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong. Its TRE45ON season... convict the F45CIST!! |
|
6th December 2012, 12:07 PM | #680 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,302
|
|
__________________
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong. Its TRE45ON season... convict the F45CIST!! |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|