IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


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.
Reply
Old 6th December 2012, 04:33 PM   #721
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,438
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
The Black Knight always triumphs.


<edit> OK, so I should have checked to see that nobody else already made the above obvious and thoroughly deserved retort hours before I did. But frankly it bear repeating.
I fart in your general direction!
jond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2012, 04:37 PM   #722
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
Originally Posted by jond View Post
I fart in your general direction!
Excuse me, are you French?
__________________
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.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2012, 04:43 PM   #723
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 25,302
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
No, he didn't think that the aliens would save us. He did hope that if we learned that we are not alone in the universe, it might give us hope that we could avoid destroying ourselves, because we would know that others had avoided destroying themselves..
I agree. He more or less said that in the final episode of Cosmos. In talking about signal from space, he said...

"The beacon signal alone would be profoundly significant. It would mean that someone has learned to survive technological adolescence, that self-destruction is not inevitable; that we also, may have a future."

"Such knowledge, it seems to me, might be worth a great price. Very likely, some new Champollion would go on to decode the main message using our interstellar Rosetta Stone, the common language of science and mathematics"

"The receipt of an interstellar message would be one of the major events in human history, and the beginning of the deprovincialisation of our planet"

This is not about Aliens saving us, this is about us saving ourselves, before its too late!
__________________
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!!
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2012, 04:50 PM   #724
Dcdrac
Philosopher
 
Dcdrac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
JT once again you need correcting the CORE of Sagan's work WAS NOT the search for ETI.

IT WAS Space Exploration using probes, telescopes both radio and optical.

What part of that do you not grasp?

http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/people/p...ve&Code=SaganC

In his role as a visiting scientist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, Calif., Carl helped design and manage the Mariner 2 mission to Venus, the Mariner 9 and Viking 1 and Viking 2 trips to Mars, the Voyager 1 and Voyager 2 missions to the outer solar system and the Galileo mission to Jupiter. Carl's research helped to solve the mysteries of the high temperature of Venus (a massive greenhouse effect), the seasonal changes on Mars (windblown dust) and the reddish haze of Titan (complex organic molecules).

Last edited by Dcdrac; 6th December 2012 at 04:52 PM.
Dcdrac is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2012, 05:07 PM   #725
Dcdrac
Philosopher
 
Dcdrac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
For those who actually want to know Carl Sagan here is the CSICOP Carl Sagan essay collection

http://www.csicop.org/specialcollect...an_collection/
Dcdrac is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2012, 05:16 PM   #726
Dcdrac
Philosopher
 
Dcdrac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
This was intersting as well:

http://humanists.net/pdhutcheon/huma...20Humanism.htm

Carl Sagan was one of the greatest humanists who ever lived, although he seldom, if ever, used the term. He devoted his life to educating the public about science -- and to educating scientists about their responsibility for how scientific knowledge is used -- in an age when both were considered by the academic community to be inappropriate pursuits. He fought a long-term battle against the pseudoscience and anti-science that are spreading like a rot in modern culture. And, through his success in organizing physicists to communicate the message about the nature of the nuclear winter that would predictably result from the deployment of hydrogen bombs, Carl Sagan, more than any other one person, may have been responsible for the avoidance of nuclear war in our lifetime.
Dcdrac is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2012, 05:28 PM   #727
StankApe
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,628
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
I have never lost a debate on any forum. I have been censured by moderators because of the inordinate amount of complaints made by my detractors who lack the education or rhetorical skills and would rather have the moderator assist them, which is cowardly and despicable. It is not a perfect world.

So it is of little surprise I am generating so much traffic. My posts draw strong emotions and is a better substitute than mind expanding drugs. But I always caution. If the headache persist........that is as expanded as it gets.
You HAVE lost. your arguments are being made fun of in a thread where we nominate people for the dumbest posts of the month.(and you ave 3 there already)

Dude, if you were any more clueless you wouldn't be able to walk!!



You science is poor, your arguments convoluted and silly, your citations are false and your conclusions unmerited. You are a poor debater Mr Justintime.

Remarkably poor.... (at least the other guy gave us lesbian death squads t laugh about)
StankApe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2012, 05:48 PM   #728
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...1888 miles from home by the shortest route without tolls...
Posts: 17,348
Justin:

I know that you neither be so careless as to miss an honest question, nor so insecure as to dismiss the same, but you appear to have omitted an answer.

In your post #427, you somehow mis-stated yourself, and failed to edit, because you said:
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
Try to explain why so few scientists are employed.

Quote:
(February 2012) Scientists and engineers make up only about 5 percent of the U.S. labor force.

This is part of a series of PRB articles about the science and engineering workforce in the United States, funded by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. Data for this article are based on the Population Reference Bureau's analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey.
Which in addition to being an undocumented, un-cited, unsupported quote, unfortunately makes it seem as if you have said some thing appallingly ignorant, as well as being incorrect.

In my post #433, I asked,

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Do you realize the fundamental difference between the statement "Scientists and engineers make up only 5% of the labor force". and the statement, "Only 5% of scientists and engineers are employed"?

I am truly curious...
...hoping to give you the opportunity to realize that you had, possibly, mis-spoken, and that your words did not, in fact, express your opinion (as has, charitably, occasionally been the case).

Unfortunately, you must have missed my question, because I do not see where you answered it. Be so kind as to address the issue, if you would--do you actually think that the statistic you quoted means that only 5% of scientists can find employment? Is it, instead, that you realize the statistic you quoted means that, out of all the jobs in the US at this time, only 5% of them are actually jobs in what would be called, by the compiler of the statistics, jobs in science and/or engineering?

I interestedly await your reply.
__________________
"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
Slowvehicle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2012, 06:00 PM   #729
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Smile

double post.

Bad!

Last edited by John Jones; 6th December 2012 at 06:08 PM.
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2012, 06:07 PM   #730
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
I have never lost a debate on any forum. [...]
Really? Never? Not on any forum? Can I be your understudy?
John Jones is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2012, 06:09 PM   #731
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,098
Engaging with a proven liar and ego maniac is a waste of time
Bye, J-I-T...
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2012, 07:01 PM   #732
Jim_MDP
Philosopher
 
Jim_MDP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: N.Cal/S.Or
Posts: 9,580
Originally Posted by StankApe View Post
Yes, the method written on it was something like, examine,diagnose,treat, prognosis.

Kind of a rudimentary scientific method as applied to medicine.
Yet still better than Hahnemann three thousand years later.

__________________
----------------------
Anything goes in the Goblin hut... anything.

"Suggesting spurious explanations isn't relevant to my work." -- WTC Dust.
"Both cannot be simultaneously true, and so one may conclude neither is true, and if neither is true, then Apollo is fraudulent." -- Patrick1000.
Jim_MDP is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2012, 08:07 PM   #733
Irony
Muse
 
Irony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 932
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
Once more, I need to point out that this thread doesn't really seem to have anything to do with religion or philosophy. Perhaps a move is in order?
Scientific skepticism and rationalism are both philosophies, and dollars to pesos says the underlying reason for this is religious.
Irony is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2012, 08:53 PM   #734
booNyzarC
Scholar
 
booNyzarC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 65
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
I hope to be more diligent and provide more specificity to bring home my message. Why you might not be a Skeptic but a very insecure individual.

*snipped an awful lot of bunk*
Good luck to you. I'll probably not be wasting much more of my valuable time discussing things with you, but my hat is off to those who have the patience and energy to point out your numerous fallacies. I'll check in from time to time in the hopes that you'll eventually acknowledge how blatantly wrong you are about Sagan and skepticism in general, but I'm certainly not going to hold my breath.

Take care of yourself and try not to get banned.

Cheers.
booNyzarC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 12:20 AM   #735
AdMan
Penultimate Amazing
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,293
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
I have never lost a debate on any forum. I have been censured by moderators because of the inordinate amount of complaints made by my detractors who lack the education or rhetorical skills and would rather have the moderator assist them, which is cowardly and despicable. It is not a perfect world.

So it is of little surprise I am generating so much traffic. My posts draw strong emotions and is a better substitute than mind expanding drugs. But I always caution. If the headache persist........that is as expanded as it gets.

No, you are generating some "traffic" because you are an obvious troll. You are spouting mostly nonsense, and refuse to seriously address any arguments against it.

You do not want to engage in any kind of serious discussion, because you are unable to, as you have proven again and again.

Why don't you tell us more about your claim that UFOs visited the Mayans?
__________________
As long as people believe in absurdities they will continue to commit atrocities.
- Voltaire.

Last edited by AdMan; 7th December 2012 at 12:27 AM.
AdMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 01:24 AM   #736
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 32,124
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
I have never lost a debate on any forum.
Have you ever heard of Danth’s Law?
Squeegee Beckenheim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 01:27 AM   #737
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
 
Andy_Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 47,040
Originally Posted by StankApe View Post


You science is poor, your arguments convoluted and silly, your citations are false and your conclusions unmerited. You are a poor debater Mr Justintime.

Remarkably poor.... (at least the other guy gave us lesbian death squads t laugh about)
So, apart from that no problems then?
Andy_Ross is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 01:34 AM   #738
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
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
I specialize in analyzing people over the net and in forums and I can state without fear of contradiction that those who postulate insecurity in others, especially in people they have never met, are, in fact, very insecure individuals themselves.

Q. E. D.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 01:39 AM   #739
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
I have never lost a debate on any forum. I have been censured by moderators because of the inordinate amount of complaints made by my detractors who lack the education or rhetorical skills and would rather have the moderator assist them, which is cowardly and despicable. It is not a perfect world.

So it is of little surprise I am generating so much traffic. My posts draw strong emotions and is a better substitute than mind expanding drugs. But I always caution. If the headache persist........that is as expanded as it gets.

Have you ever engaged in any debate because you sure aren't debating here.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 01:42 AM   #740
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Sledge View Post
You'd be amazed how many people just like you have posted here over the years.
I'm sure he's never lost a debate in the same way I've never lost a nude bathing beauty contest. (female)
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 01:48 AM   #741
StankApe
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,628
Originally Posted by tsig View Post
I'm sure he's never lost a debate in the same way I've never lost a nude bathing beauty contest. (female)
have you lost a few male ones?








P.S. sorry ,couldn't help myself.... trust me I'm giggling like a schoolgirl as I hit the send button!
StankApe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 02:33 AM   #742
pakeha
Penultimate Amazing
 
pakeha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,331
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself..."

http://calteches.library.caltech.edu.../CargoCult.pdf
Thanks for the link!

Originally Posted by justintime View Post
I was hoping that by posting my OP in the philosophy section someone could frame the difference between scientific skepticism and classical Hume, Descartes, Pyrrho and address the problems of the One and Many.
Just out of curiosity, are you writing a paper/thesis on the subject and arerecruiting research chimps?

Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I'd add that I think actually most people intuitively grasp scepticism when it doesn't conflict with delusional BS they want to believe even if they have to declare reality itself false. Only then does the "oh, well, maybe scepticism isn't all that" BS come out. But otherwise, everyone is surprisingly sceptical. ...
Only up to a point.
Have you ever heard of the wash-wash scam?
pakeha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 04:26 AM   #743
jond
Illuminator
 
jond's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,438
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
Excuse me, are you French?
Of course! Why do you think I speak with this outrageous accent,you silly king!
jond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 05:18 AM   #744
Sledge
Grammaton Cleric
 
Sledge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 7,114
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
That is why I only used what he actually said and not all the stuff he passed off as fiction.
You haven't read what he actually said, remember? Do try and keep your story straight.
__________________
"The perfect haiku would have just two syllables: Airwolf" ~ Ernest Cline

"Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop" ~ Dara O'Briain.
Sledge is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 05:36 AM   #745
Dcdrac
Philosopher
 
Dcdrac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
JT you have not read anything he wrote by your own admission so you know nothing about his written works and are therefore totally unqualified to comment on them.
Dcdrac is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 07:22 AM   #746
justintime
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
Justintime's Theories on Skepticism

I think these non-scientist upcoming skeptics should be allowed to speak at skeptic conferences. They provide fresh insights not bound by the rigors of scientific discipline and allows the introduction of some creative thought to compliment their critical thinking.

Are they effective? In the grand scheme of things they are not even relevant. No science skeptic will convince the scientific community to abandon their research because of a skeptics skepticism. It has not worked with the god skeptics. People still continue to believe in their gods and follow their religion and in some regions of the world are actually increasing.

Would it have helped if RW was scientifically literate? I ask the same question of skeptics on Skeptic Forums.

The problem with skepticism is, it is not a position, it is a process (Dr Shermer). It appears the skeptics task is to dismantle claims not build them. That extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
For example Climate Change are extraordinary claims and the scientist have provided extraordinary evidence collected over a long period. So all the skeptic can do is deny it.

Another example. Carl Sagan a scientist spent his entire life looking for extraterrestrial intelligent life. He had a scientific background/discipline and was applauded by the scientific community
A non-scientist would have a problem speaking against his irrational belief that ETI could be found when every UFO and alien encounters have been discredited. 50 years later ETI has yet to be found. But ironically skeptics today believe Sagan was justified in his search and his reasons for searching for them were scientifically credible. In fact they even believe his claim he was a skeptic.

Skeptics in the grand scheme of things are hardly relevant. No science skeptic will convince the scientific community to abandon their research because of a skeptics skepticism. Carl Sagan proved that to himself and to others.

Last edited by justintime; 7th December 2012 at 07:26 AM.
justintime is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 07:39 AM   #747
Dcdrac
Philosopher
 
Dcdrac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
That is factually incorrect Carl sagan DID NOT spend his entire working life looking for aliens.

For those that prefer to know the reality of Carl Sagan's life and work please read here:

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/carl_s...er_and_skeptic

And skeptism tends to employ scientific method any attempt to state that some how science based skeptics and scientists in general miss great insights is laughable.

Last edited by Dcdrac; 7th December 2012 at 07:45 AM.
Dcdrac is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 07:50 AM   #748
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 15,112
justintime:

You have three other threads for your theories; they are off-topic here. Your post has been reported.
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 08:01 AM   #749
justintime
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
What is and isn't a scientific debate?

Skeptics debating science is not a scientific debate. Skeptics claim their skepticism is a process to arrive at the truth/fact. But scientist also follow a process to arrive at facts. And that process has been used by the scientific community. It is called the scientific method.

So unless skeptics are challenging the scientist's scientific method. It is hard to substantiate their claims against science based on their own methodology. Now skeptics such as Carl Sagan advocated scientific skepticism which is the scientific method. Then skeptics are challenging scientist over a methodology they themselves accept. Is it the skeptics goal to undetermined the very methodology they recognize as scientifically sound?

Scientist say it is dangerous for religion to explain science. So too would be the converse where science tries to explain religion. This has been the classical struggle between creationist and evolutionist. But the barriers have fallen. There are scientist who are religious and there are religious people who are scientist. So the debates between religious academics and scientist are scientific debates.

Is there a role for skeptics? They belong on Skeptic Forums debating both science and religion without the intensity or knowledge of either.
justintime is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 08:05 AM   #750
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
Is there a role for skeptics? They belong on Skeptic Forums debating both science and religion without the intensity or knowledge of either.
Being as you're the poster fella for lack of scientific knowledge, I believe you've just depleted the JREF's irony meter inventory.

Nice going.
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 08:11 AM   #751
justintime
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
Originally Posted by Dcdrac View Post
That is factually incorrect Carl sagan DID NOT spend his entire working life looking for aliens.

For those that prefer to know the reality of Carl Sagan's life and work please read here:

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/carl_s...er_and_skeptic

And skeptism tends to employ scientific method any attempt to state that some how science based skeptics and scientists in general miss great insights is laughable.
I covered the process in What is and isn't scientific debate?
justintime is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 08:17 AM   #752
Resume
Troublesome Passenger
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
I covered the process in What is and isn't scientific debate?
No, you didn't. You just took a piss.
Resume is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 08:17 AM   #753
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by justintime
So unless skeptics are challenging the scientist's scientific method. It is hard to substantiate their claims against science based on their own methodology.
You REALLY don't know anything about science, do you? Science as an enterprise can be viewed as a metaexperiment to determine whether the scientific method works. The data are so overwhelmingly in favor of it that to withhold judgement or to conclude it doesn't work are both intellectually dishonest positions.

Skepticism does not mean forever refusing to draw any conclusions. It means waiting for the data. Once there IS data, conclusions can be drawn.

Plus, we've already demonstrated in another thread that you don't actually know what the scientific method is. So there's that.

Quote:
Scientist say it is dangerous for religion to explain science. So too would be the converse where science tries to explain religion.
Wrong on both counts. Religious people discuss science all the time--there was a Jesuit priest involved in paleoanthropology for a long time, for example. The issue is when religious dogma attempts to side-step the scientific method, which is a serious problem that KILLS PEOPLE. Conversely, the mere act of saying "That's religion" in no way proves it. Okay, maybe science can't say anything about gods--I'm willing to grant that ad arguendum. As soon as that god does anything that impacts the universe, science can discuss it. Religion is left with those things that have no impact on the universe in any measurable way--and at that point, in what sense can those things be said to exist?

Quote:
But the barriers have fallen. There are scientist who are religious and there are religious people who are scientist.
You're entirely ignorant of history as well. Barriers haven't fallen--it has ALWAYS been the case that some scientists were religious and some religious people were scientists. Mendel was a monk. Owens was a zealot. It's only in modern times that it's become possible to not be a theist, in fact, so really barriers have RISEN, not fallen.

Quote:
So the debates between religious academics and scientist are scientific debates.
Not even a little. It's disingenuous to the extreme to call a debate "scientific" when one group steadfastly refuses to examine data and insists on being permitted to make ad hoc alterations to the rules of the debate to favor themselves. There are rules in science, and theology doesn't follow them.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 08:42 AM   #754
nudger1964
Scholar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 62
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
The problem with skepticism is, it is not a position, it is a process (Dr Shermer). It appears the skeptics task is to dismantle claims not build them. That extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
For example Climate Change are extraordinary claims and the scientist have provided extraordinary evidence collected over a long period. So all the skeptic can do is deny it.

.
you are exactly right that skepticism is not a position.
I dont agree it is a skeptics task to dismantle claims though - it is their job to verify or refute claims (as being accurately presented in an argument).
If you want to use climate change as an example, just look at what Peter Hadfield has done on his youtube channel, Potholer54.
Thats skepticism right there.

ETA-
an example of how a non scientist skeptic can have importance and relevance in the communication of just what science says - its not their place to argue the actual science
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...nge-scepticism

Last edited by nudger1964; 7th December 2012 at 09:40 AM.
nudger1964 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 08:45 AM   #755
justintime
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Except do we really want people representing the skeptic community who demonstrate a lack of critical thinking skills, regardless of the venue?
The answer should be a resounding NO. But giving what is there to pick from, the skeptic community is limited in their choices. The Skeptic Community is not an institution of academia. So it is a long way from any recognition or respectability. And such miss-steps by RW just raises criticism and not critical thinking.
justintime is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 09:07 AM   #756
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
justintime, please read the following, paying particular attention to the second section (on systematic doubt).

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/...or%20Today.HTM

Were I you, I would be embarrassed to find that a Medieval monk had a better handle on skepticism than me. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that everything is open to doubts except the doubts themselves. That is false. Doubts are conclusions, and conclusions can be wrong--so the doubts can be wrong. What you are suggesting is a dishonest caricature of skepticism. And I say that as someone who has stated repeatedly that I'm not a skeptic.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 11:47 AM   #757
swright777
Muse
 
swright777's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 897
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
...
Millions? you really don't have a clue how big the universe is, do you? The nearest star to Sol is around 25 trillion miles away.
...
Well, that is 25,000,000 million so he was right. /crazy-talk
swright777 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 11:49 AM   #758
justintime
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
justintime, please read the following, paying particular attention to the second section (on systematic doubt).

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/...or%20Today.HTM

Were I you, I would be embarrassed to find that a Medieval monk had a better handle on skepticism than me. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that everything is open to doubts except the doubts themselves. That is false. Doubts are conclusions, and conclusions can be wrong--so the doubts can be wrong. What you are suggesting is a dishonest caricature of skepticism. And I say that as someone who has stated repeatedly that I'm not a skeptic.
Empiricism: One who believes knowledge is gained through experience.
Rationalism: One who believes in reason to attain knowledge.
Skeptic: One who denies all concepts of knowledge and reason, especially when there is no actual evidence.
Skepticism: 1. A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety synonyms with uncertainty.

In the past when knowledge of the physical world was limited one had to contend with many explanations. Man was ignorant of the world. It was important to separate the truth from ignorance. Philosophers argued how do we know what the truth is, how can we determine if what we know is true. That is why we have several theories about the very nature of knowledge. I have defined them above. Your link basically relies on logic as the truth determiner. You should go to What is a skeptic? You will find it in this same section.
justintime is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 12:02 PM   #759
justintime
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
You REALLY don't know anything about science, do you? Science as an enterprise can be viewed as a metaexperiment to determine whether the scientific method works. The data are so overwhelmingly in favor of it that to withhold judgement or to conclude it doesn't work are both intellectually dishonest positions.

Skepticism does not mean forever refusing to draw any conclusions. It means waiting for the data. Once there IS data, conclusions can be drawn.

Plus, we've already demonstrated in another thread that you don't actually know what the scientific method is. So there's that.

Wrong on both counts. Religious people discuss science all the time--there was a Jesuit priest involved in paleoanthropology for a long time, for example. The issue is when religious dogma attempts to side-step the scientific method, which is a serious problem that KILLS PEOPLE. Conversely, the mere act of saying "That's religion" in no way proves it. Okay, maybe science can't say anything about gods--I'm willing to grant that ad arguendum. As soon as that god does anything that impacts the universe, science can discuss it. Religion is left with those things that have no impact on the universe in any measurable way--and at that point, in what sense can those things be said to exist?

You're entirely ignorant of history as well. Barriers haven't fallen--it has ALWAYS been the case that some scientists were religious and some religious people were scientists. Mendel was a monk. Owens was a zealot. It's only in modern times that it's become possible to not be a theist, in fact, so really barriers have RISEN, not fallen.

Not even a little. It's disingenuous to the extreme to call a debate "scientific" when one group steadfastly refuses to examine data and insists on being permitted to make ad hoc alterations to the rules of the debate to favor themselves. There are rules in science, and theology doesn't follow them.
List of scientist who believe in god.
Scientists and Their Beliefs in God
http://www.biblequery.org/Science/Scientists.htm

Theistic evolution. Also provides list of Christians who believe in evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

When you search for scientist who are skeptics. Only climate change skeptics are listed.
justintime is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2012, 12:07 PM   #760
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 16,668
Originally Posted by justintime
List of scientist who believe in god.
Scientists and Their Beliefs in God
http://www.biblequery.org/Science/Scientists.htm

Theistic evolution. Also provides list of Christians who believe in evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution

When you search for scientist who are skeptics. Only climate change skeptics are listed.
Yet again, you're demonstrating that you are incapable of understanding how communication works. The fact that someone doesn't stand up with a sign on them saying "I AM A SKEPTIC!!!!!!" and shouting it through a megaphone doesn't mean they aren't one. If they agree with the philosophy of skepticism, they are a skeptic. You have to do a tad more research than a simple Google search to find that out, though.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:13 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.