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 10th February 2013, 08:00 AM   #2361
Dcdrac
Philosopher
 
Dcdrac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
and that Scientist Dr Carl Sagan actually acheived hard science goals while all you ahve done JiT is demonstrate ignorance and an inability to analyse.
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 10th February 2013, 08:55 AM   #2362
justintime
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
Originally Posted by Dcdrac View Post
and that Scientist Dr Carl Sagan actually acheived hard science goals while all you ahve done JiT is demonstrate ignorance and an inability to analyse.
That is like saying Lance Armstrong achieved hard cycling goals and the rest of the cyclist world demonstrated ignorance and an inability to pass the doping drug test which he was able to master. Fraud is fraud.

That is why Carl Sagan was refused tenure at the Harvard University and was unable to become a member of the National Science Academy. Just like Lance Armstrong was stripped of all his Tour De France titles. Famous but disgraced and rebuffed.

Last edited by justintime; 10th February 2013 at 08:56 AM. Reason: typo
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 10th February 2013, 09:16 AM   #2363
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Quote:
That's why the paranormal books sale by the millions (and billions) and are NYC Times best sellers. They kick butt.
Have you read any paranormal books? I mean, you wax eloquent about bodies of works you've never read.

Last edited by John Jones; 10th February 2013 at 09:17 AM.
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 10th February 2013, 09:35 AM   #2364
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
Independent review: This book sets out to debunk a lot of the crop-circle, ufo, faith-healer mythology that is out there in the world, and i picked it up for precisely this reason. But sagan’s scientific ego is large and unfortunately this causes him to stop short of going to the lengths he needs to in order to “prove? his arguments.

That's not how you do the fallacy of the excluded middle, but nice try.
__________________
"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
Mojo 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 10th February 2013, 09:36 AM   #2365
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
That is like saying Lance Armstrong achieved hard cycling goals and the rest of the cyclist world demonstrated ignorance and an inability to pass the doping drug test which he was able to master. Fraud is fraud.

That is why Carl Sagan was refused tenure at the Harvard University and was unable to become a member of the National Science Academy. Just like Lance Armstrong was stripped of all his Tour De France titles. Famous but disgraced and rebuffed.

Do you have any evidence that Sagan was refused tenure because of fraud, or that he was "disgraced and rebuffed"?
__________________
"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
Mojo 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 10th February 2013, 10:15 AM   #2366
Dcdrac
Philosopher
 
Dcdrac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
so you obviously no nothing about the effects of soft drugs to comparing them to the steroids that Lance Armstrong was taking how laughable
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 10th February 2013, 10:54 AM   #2367
justintime
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Do you have any evidence that Sagan was refused tenure because of fraud, or that he was "disgraced and rebuffed"?
Sagan was denied tenure because the Nobel Prize winner Harold Urey whose pioneering work on the chemical origins of life inspired Sagan's similar work correctly informed the relevant tenure committee that Sagan's scientific "achievements" were trivial and derivative.

Definition of disgrace and rebuffed.

Disgraced definition: Fall from favor or lose a position of power or honor.

Rebuffed definition: A blunt or abrupt repulse or refusal, as to an offer.

We know he was denied tenure and was unable to become a member of the National Academy of Sciences and we know the reason he was criticized by Nobel Laureate Harold Urey. His scientific achievements were trivial and derivative.

"1968 That same year, Harvard officials denied Sagan tenure, at least partly because Urey had written a harsh anti-Sagan letter to the university."

Why is it skeptics know so little about Carl Sagan? It is one thing for a skeptic to ask for evidence when the is a shortage of it. But Carl Sagan's denied tenure at Harvard and his subsequent refusal of membership into the National Academy of Sciences is well documented.

Is it any wonder a skeptic by definition is one who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions and now I have proven also generally known facts.
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 10th February 2013, 11:06 AM   #2368
calebprime
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,001
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
Sagan was denied tenure because the Nobel Prize winner Harold Urey whose pioneering work on the chemical origins of life inspired Sagan's similar work correctly informed the relevant tenure committee that Sagan's scientific "achievements" were trivial and derivative.

Definition of disgrace and rebuffed.

Disgraced definition: Fall from favor or lose a position of power or honor.

Rebuffed definition: A blunt or abrupt repulse or refusal, as to an offer.

We know he was denied tenure and was unable to become a member of the National Academy of Sciences and we know the reason he was criticized by Nobel Laureate Harold Urey. His scientific achievements were trivial and derivative.

"1968 That same year, Harvard officials denied Sagan tenure, at least partly because Urey had written a harsh anti-Sagan letter to the university."

Why is it skeptics know so little about Carl Sagan? It is one thing for a skeptic to ask for evidence when the is a shortage of it. But Carl Sagan's denied tenure at Harvard and his subsequent refusal of membership into the National Academy of Sciences is well documented.

Is it any wonder a skeptic by definition is one who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions and now I have proven also generally known facts.
The quote goes on to say: (Urey later apologized to Sagan.)

Until we can read the letter, we can't be sure what the issue was.
calebprime 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 10th February 2013, 11:22 AM   #2369
justintime
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
Originally Posted by Dcdrac View Post
so you obviously no nothing about the effects of soft drugs to comparing them to the steroids that Lance Armstrong was taking how laughable
The comparison was between two public famous figures. Both used drugs to enhance their careers. Of course the drugs are different.

Carl Sagan used drugs to enhance his writing by bringing about drug induced hallucination.

Lance Armstrong used very different type drugs (EPO and testosterone) than Carl Sagan's pot. His drugs were used to enhance endurance.

You even failed to recognize the two famous icons belonged to different professions?

One is a cyclist (Lance Armstrong) and the other a scientist (Carl Sagan).

It is not surprising for skeptics to appear deluded. Until evidence is produced skeptics doubt, question and are uncertain of even generally known facts.
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 10th February 2013, 11:30 AM   #2370
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 12,131
Urey had a change of heart about Sagan later in life.

Sagan is the 1994 recipient of the Public Welfare Medal, the highest award of the National Academy of Sciences for "distinguished contributions in the application of science to the public welfare"
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 10th February 2013, 11:32 AM   #2371
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
Sagan was denied tenure because the Nobel Prize winner Harold Urey whose pioneering work on the chemical origins of life inspired Sagan's similar work correctly informed the relevant tenure committee that Sagan's scientific "achievements" were trivial and derivative.

You claimed that he was denied tenure because of fraud. Do you have any evidence to support your claim?

Quote:
Definition of disgrace and rebuffed.

Disgraced definition: Fall from favor or lose a position of power or honor.

Rebuffed definition: A blunt or abrupt repulse or refusal, as to an offer.

We know he was denied tenure and was unable to become a member of the National Academy of Sciences...

Cutting and pasting definitions will not help you, because we also know that, far from being disgraced, he was able to move to Cornell where he became a full professor three years later, and we know that only two years after he was rejected for membership of the National Academy he was awarded the Academy's most prestigious award, the Public Welfare Medal.

Quote:
... and we know the reason he was criticized by Nobel Laureate Harold Urey. His scientific achievements were trivial and derivative.

Yes, but you claimed that Sagan was denied tenure because of fraud.

Quote:
"1968 That same year, Harvard officials denied Sagan tenure, at least partly because Urey had written a harsh anti-Sagan letter to the university."

Did you read the next sentence of your source for that quotation? It says, "Urey later apologized to Sagan."
__________________
"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
Mojo 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 10th February 2013, 11:34 AM   #2372
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
The comparison was between two public famous figures. Both used drugs to enhance their careers.

Do you have any evidence that Sagan used drugs to enhance his career?
__________________
"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
Mojo 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 10th February 2013, 11:41 AM   #2373
justintime
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
Originally Posted by calebprime View Post
The quote goes on to say: (Urey later apologized to Sagan.)

Until we can read the letter, we can't be sure what the issue was.
We know there is a letter from Harold Urey about Carl Sagan's scientific achievements or lack of.

We know that denied Carl Sagan tenure at Harvard.

We know Carl Sagan was refused a membership to the National Academy of Sciences.

What we know is the effect Ureys letter had.

What we don't know is what his apology to Carl Sagan was about because it did not change Carl Sagan's denied tenure at Harvard or refused membership to the National Academy of Sciences.

For all we know it may not have even happened or was over a totally different matter like accidentally spilling coffee on his trivial and derivative scientific papers.

Last edited by justintime; 10th February 2013 at 12:25 PM. Reason: word substitution
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 10th February 2013, 11:50 AM   #2374
justintime
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Do you have any evidence that Sagan used drugs to enhance his career?
His career was launched after his known addiction to pot. His 3rd wife Ann Druyan was also a pot smoker. They both started the Cosmos series which made him a household icon.

One can argue it was a combination of two pot smokers Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan and their collaborated efforts that made him successful. But that would be speculating.

We have Carl Sagan defending Cannabis use as early as 1969 much before he became famous.

Carl Sagan's essay on cannabis
http://azarius.net/news/306/Carl_Sag...y_on_cannabis/
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 10th February 2013, 11:51 AM   #2375
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
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
We know there is a letter from Harold Urey about Carl Sagan's scientific achievements or lack of.

We know that denied Carl Sagan tenure at Harvard.

We know Carl Sagan was refused a membership of the National Academy of Sciences.

What we know is the effect Ureys letter had.
...and that is how you perform the logical error of assuming your conclusion...

Originally Posted by justintime View Post
What we don't know is what his apology to Carl Sagan was about because it did not change Carl Sagan's denied tenure at Harvard or refused membership at the National Academy of Sciences.
...twice...

Originally Posted by justintime View Post
For all we know it may not have even happened or was over a totally different matter like accidentally spilling coffee on his trivial and derivative scientific papers.
...just missed the hat trick. Too bad...
__________________
"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 10th February 2013, 12:22 PM   #2376
justintime
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
That's not how you do the fallacy of the excluded middle, but nice try.
That is how you apply the fallacy of the excluded middle.

Carl Sagan had no middle ground between his denial of alien abduction and his embracement of extraterrestrial intelligent life.

Carl Sagan argued one did not stand up to scientific scrutiny and that was challenged. The independent review found he did not produce the scientific evidence to refute, debunk UFOs and other superstitions..

"This book sets out to debunk a lot of the crop-circle, ufo, faith-healer mythology that is out there in the world, and i picked it up for precisely this reason. But sagan’s scientific ego is large and unfortunately this causes him to stop short of going to the lengths he needs to in order to “prove? his arguments."

As for Carl Sagan's other extreme opposing view based on the principle of mediocrity which he embraced.

"The Principle of Mediocrity suggests that life on Earth is not exceptional, but rather that life is more than likely to be found on innumerable other worlds."

There is no evidence found to support this theory and yet Carl Sagan dedicated his whole life searching for ETI.

It is a contradiction and the Fermi paradox provides the rationale for it. But Carl Sagan is unable to see this contradiction and even denies it on NOVA.

"It seems to me there is a big difference between the two approaches to extraterrestrial intelligence, although I'm frequently written to [to] say how could I search for extraterrestrial intelligence and disbelieve that we're being visited. I don't see any contradiction at all. It's a wonderful prospect, but requires the most severe and rigorous standards of evidence."

And after 50 years of SETI. Where are they? Where has it satisfied the most severe and rigorous standards of evidence?

There is a skeptic self-help guide on "How not to argue". You will find that article on skepticblog.

Last edited by justintime; 10th February 2013 at 12:23 PM. Reason: typo
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 10th February 2013, 12:22 PM   #2377
Dcdrac
Philosopher
 
Dcdrac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
http://humanists.net/pdhutcheon/huma...20Humanism.htm
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 10th February 2013, 12:30 PM   #2378
JohnG
Pedantic Bore
 
JohnG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Abandon All Hope
Posts: 6,808
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Did you read the next sentence of your source for that quotation? It says, "Urey later apologized to Sagan."

JIT has demonstrated on numerous occasions that he can't/won't read more than a sentence or two of anything. I suspect that he has difficulty processing what he reads. His inability to distinguish middle names from last names and the fact that he believes Superman's alter ego is named "Kent Clark" hint at some sort of learning disability? As I've said before, that in itself is nothing to be ashamed of, but this condition, coupled with his dishonesty, a profound intellectual laziness and his unambiguous anti-reason agenda means that any form of debate with him is an exercise in futility.
__________________
Do not weep. Do not wax indignant. Understand. - Baruch Spinoza
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. - Harlan Ellison
JohnG 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 10th February 2013, 12:32 PM   #2379
justintime
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
Originally Posted by Dcdrac View Post
Skeptics have been arguing only what is written by Carl Sagan in his books should be considered acceptable.

Please point to where the link you provided is referenced in any of Carl Sagan's books, especially The Demon Haunted World because that was the book most skeptics here claim to have read.
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 10th February 2013, 12:34 PM   #2380
justintime
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
JIT has demonstrated on numerous occasions that he can't/won't read more than a sentence or two of anything. I suspect that he has difficulty processing what he reads. His inability to distinguish middle names from last names and the fact that he believes Superman's alter ego is named "Kent Clark" hint at some sort of learning disability? As I've said before, that in itself is nothing to be ashamed of, but this condition, coupled with his dishonesty, a profound intellectual laziness and his unambiguous anti-reason agenda means that any form of debate with him is an exercise in futility.
Did you not read I offered an explanation.

For all we know it may not have even happened or was over a totally different matter like accidentally spilling coffee on his trivial and derivative scientific papers
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 10th February 2013, 12:39 PM   #2381
calebprime
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,001
The clear implication was that the apology was for the letter. Otherwise, it would make no sense.

So, again, your reading is a strange one.
calebprime 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 10th February 2013, 01:23 PM   #2382
Dcdrac
Philosopher
 
Dcdrac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
I was just pointing to an interesting article with no comment with it.

Now have you read The Demon Haunted World yet or any of Dr Sagan's works?

If not stop writing unsubstantiated clap trap about it.
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 10th February 2013, 01:46 PM   #2383
justintime
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
Originally Posted by calebprime View Post
The clear implication was that the apology was for the letter. Otherwise, it would make no sense.

So, again, your reading is a strange one.
Some grammar rules.

Use parentheses [ ( ) ] to include material that you want to de-emphasize or that wouldn't normally fit into the flow of your text but you want to include nonetheless.

If the material is important enough, use some other means of including it within your text—even if it means writing another sentence. Note that parentheses tend to de-emphasize text whereas dashes tend to make material seem even more important.

From this whatever was included in the () was intended to be de-emphasized which is why I suggested it might have been as trivial as spilling coffee on Carl Sagan's trivial and derivative scientific papers by Urey.

The grammar rule also explains the use of parenthesis is when the material/text does not fit into the flow of the text but is included anyway. Therefore continuity cannot be assumed of the same material in the sentence but should be seen as some external event included to de-emphasize.

If the material was important enough the author as the rules of grammar dictates should have used some other means of including it withing his text---such as writing another sentence.

Was the apology made to Carl Sagan for losing his tenure or membership or was it for criticizing his scientific works as trivial and derivative? Considering the apology was made many years later. It might have been over a totally unrelated matter and that is why the author de-emphasized it in ().

But I suspect the two got together many years after all was done and said and Urey agreed to review those scientific papers he found trivial and derivative. He accidentally spilled coffee over them while he was reading it and apologized. An apology was made by Urey and there was some indirect connection. But the apology was not to redact or revoke the denial of tenure or membership loss or it would have been made sooner to correct an injustice.

There is no evidence Urey announced a redaction of his earlier assessment of Carl Sagan's scientific achievements which he found trivial and derivative.

I have apologized on this very site several times and to several people. But that is not because my position changed. Those apologies were for trivial infraction of civility and hardly related to the topics on hand.

Only a formal retraction and apology by Harold Urey to Carl Sagan should be considered as evidence.
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 10th February 2013, 02:06 PM   #2384
Dcdrac
Philosopher
 
Dcdrac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
I wander if JiT is scared of Professor Brian Cox too

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...articlephysics

Another populer scientist
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 10th February 2013, 03:08 PM   #2385
Dcdrac
Philosopher
 
Dcdrac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
Brian Cox has stated its likely there is other life ouyt in the universe too
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 10th February 2013, 03:15 PM   #2386
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
Did you not read I offered an explanation.

For all we know it may not have even happened or was over a totally different matter like accidentally spilling coffee on his trivial and derivative scientific papers
"Dr. Sagan I know I screwed up your career so I'd really like to apologize to you for spilling coffee on your papers."
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 10th February 2013, 03:19 PM   #2387
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
Some grammar rules.

Use parentheses [ ( ) ] to include material that you want to de-emphasize or that wouldn't normally fit into the flow of your text but you want to include nonetheless.

If the material is important enough, use some other means of including it within your text—even if it means writing another sentence. Note that parentheses tend to de-emphasize text whereas dashes tend to make material seem even more important.

From this whatever was included in the () was intended to be de-emphasized which is why I suggested it might have been as trivial as spilling coffee on Carl Sagan's trivial and derivative scientific papers by Urey.

The grammar rule also explains the use of parenthesis is when the material/text does not fit into the flow of the text but is included anyway. Therefore continuity cannot be assumed of the same material in the sentence but should be seen as some external event included to de-emphasize.

If the material was important enough the author as the rules of grammar dictates should have used some other means of including it withing his text---such as writing another sentence.

Was the apology made to Carl Sagan for losing his tenure or membership or was it for criticizing his scientific works as trivial and derivative? Considering the apology was made many years later. It might have been over a totally unrelated matter and that is why the author de-emphasized it in ().

But I suspect the two got together many years after all was done and said and Urey agreed to review those scientific papers he found trivial and derivative. He accidentally spilled coffee over them while he was reading it and apologized. An apology was made by Urey and there was some indirect connection. But the apology was not to redact or revoke the denial of tenure or membership loss or it would have been made sooner to correct an injustice.

There is no evidence Urey announced a redaction of his earlier assessment of Carl Sagan's scientific achievements which he found trivial and derivative.

I have apologized on this very site several times and to several people. But that is not because my position changed. Those apologies were for trivial infraction of civility and hardly related to the topics on hand.

Only a formal retraction and apology by Harold Urey to Carl Sagan should be considered as evidence.
All the evidence you'll ever need is on page 78 DHW.
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 10th February 2013, 03:30 PM   #2388
Dcdrac
Philosopher
 
Dcdrac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
http://www.csmonitor.com/1996/1224/1...scitech.2.html
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 10th February 2013, 06:18 PM   #2389
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 21,371
Justin has become inordinately fond of the 'hilite' function of late. It looks like he got a new puppy.
__________________
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 11th February 2013, 12:40 AM   #2390
Mashuna
Ovis ex Machina
 
Mashuna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sir Ddinbych
Posts: 7,001
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
Hmmmm. Maybe he is just (mostly) messing with us? I don't care how sincerely off-kilter someone's world view is, no one could write what I quoted above with a straight face.




Could they?
No, I don't think they could.
Mashuna 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 11th February 2013, 06:25 AM   #2391
calebprime
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,001
Originally Posted by JohnG View Post
Hmmmm. Maybe he is just (mostly) messing with us? I don't care how sincerely off-kilter someone's world view is, no one could write what I quoted above with a straight face.




Could they?
I'm right with you, JohnG. (Also enjoyed your Shanksville posts.)
calebprime 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 11th February 2013, 09:04 AM   #2392
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
 
Jeff Corey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 13,714
tl;dr
Jeff Corey 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 11th February 2013, 09:12 AM   #2393
Dcdrac
Philosopher
 
Dcdrac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,141
As Jit cannot be bothered to do a simple research activity like read a book as far as I am concerned his views are empty and vacuous and I shall not waste any more time on his feeble character assination attempt of a man who acheived so much.
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 11th February 2013, 11:28 AM   #2394
JohnG
Pedantic Bore
 
JohnG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Abandon All Hope
Posts: 6,808
Originally Posted by calebprime View Post
I'm right with you, JohnG. (Also enjoyed your Shanksville posts.)

Thank you very much, calebprime
__________________
Do not weep. Do not wax indignant. Understand. - Baruch Spinoza
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. - Harlan Ellison
JohnG 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 12th February 2013, 05:26 AM   #2395
justintime
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
Carl Sagan quote: "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.”

Carl Sagan quote: “My view is that if there is no evidence for it, then forget about it. An agnostic is somebody who doesn’t believe in something until there is evidence for it, so I’m agnostic.”

Carl Sagan alien abduction quote: "To be taken seriously, you need physical evidence that can be examined at leisure by skeptical scientists: "

Carl Sagan quote: “Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.”

Carl Sagan quote: “For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.”


So what is a skeptic to make of his contradictory statements?

Without evidence should we forget it or the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?

Does science contradict religion or is science the source of spirituality?

Do we accept the universe as it is or enhance our perception of it with drug induced hallucinations?

Delusions however satisfying and reassuring are bad only if they persist. Is the solution controlled pot smoking?

How does one call alien abduction reports just hallucinations and at the same time be captured by the notion of extraterrestrial intelligent life from childhood and even send space crafts looking for them? The answer lies between the drug induced hallucinations and the persons own state of mind.

Was Carl Sagan really a skeptic or he believed he was a skeptic because he held contradictory views?

What are other contradictory views held by skeptics?

Skepticism and Science are synonymous?
Beliefs are provisional?
Skeptical of a skeptic makes one a believer?
It is ok to believe something even when there is no evidence for it if critical thinking is applied?
But critical thinking is disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence: Where was the evidence for extraterrestrial intelligent life?
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 12th February 2013, 10:19 AM   #2396
justintime
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
Is the skeptical movement having some growing pains? Are skeptics struggling with the exact same identity crisis?

Steven Novella thinks both are true.

And there is more bad news for Skeptics.

"Skepticism is the rigorous application of science and reason to test the validity of any and all claims."

But new research challenges the skeptics reliance on science and scientific method to dispel woo.

"Andrew Ede recently argued that science education may do little to raise the level of rational thinking and may, in fact, actually deter it!"

"The notion that having a strong scientific knowledge base is not enough to insulate a person against irrational beliefs."

"In other words, there was no relationship between the level of science knowledge and skepticism regarding paranormal claims."

If skepticism and science are synonymous why don't we see that reflected in the study. On the contrary "a strong scientific knowledge base is not enough to insulate a person against irrational beliefs."

What more can skeptics educators do than merely debunk extraordinary claims, short of controlling what people can believe, when science is not the skeptic’s best friend?
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 12th February 2013, 10:31 AM   #2397
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
Carl Sagan quote: "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.”

Carl Sagan quote: “My view is that if there is no evidence for it, then forget about it. An agnostic is somebody who doesn’t believe in something until there is evidence for it, so I’m agnostic.”

Carl Sagan alien abduction quote: "To be taken seriously, you need physical evidence that can be examined at leisure by skeptical scientists: "

Carl Sagan quote: “Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.”

Carl Sagan quote: “For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.”


So what is a skeptic to make of his contradictory statements?

Without evidence should we forget it or the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?

Does science contradict religion or is science the source of spirituality?

Do we accept the universe as it is or enhance our perception of it with drug induced hallucinations?

Delusions however satisfying and reassuring are bad only if they persist. Is the solution controlled pot smoking?

How does one call alien abduction reports just hallucinations and at the same time be captured by the notion of extraterrestrial intelligent life from childhood and even send space crafts looking for them? The answer lies between the drug induced hallucinations and the persons own state of mind.

Was Carl Sagan really a skeptic or he believed he was a skeptic because he held contradictory views?

What are other contradictory views held by skeptics?

Skepticism and Science are synonymous?
Beliefs are provisional?
Skeptical of a skeptic makes one a believer?
It is ok to believe something even when there is no evidence for it if critical thinking is applied?
But critical thinking is disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence: Where was the evidence for extraterrestrial intelligent life?
I believe this where we came in.
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 12th February 2013, 11:48 AM   #2398
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
If skepticism and science are synonymous why don't we see that reflected in the study. On the contrary "a strong scientific knowledge base is not enough to insulate a person against irrational beliefs."

"A strong scientific knowledge base" is not the same thing as science. Science is the method, not the information that the method produces. Someone can rote-learn "scientific knowledge" without doing any science, and without applying any skepticism.

You really ought to try reading the whole article instead of quote-mining it.
__________________
"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
Mojo 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 12th February 2013, 01:40 PM   #2399
justintime
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
"A strong scientific knowledge base" is not the same thing as science. Science is the method, not the information that the method produces. Someone can rote-learn "scientific knowledge" without doing any science, and without applying any skepticism.

You really ought to try reading the whole article instead of quote-mining it.

Are you sure you fully understood the article?

Quote:
From The Nature of Scientific Knowledge: Science consists of a body of knowledge and the process by which that knowledge is developed.

The core of the process of science is generating testable explanations, and the methods and approaches to generating knowledge are shared publicly so that they can be evaluated by the community of scientists.

Scientists build on the work of others to create scientific knowledge.
So science is both the knowledge/information and the method/process by which that knowledge is developed.

Scientific knowledge is the accumulation of knowledge that was generated by science.

Skeptics assumed their efforts in advancing science education would reduce paranormal belief and pseudoscientific thinking. But what they are finding out is the opposite.

"Skeptics often use these findings to reinforce arguments for more science education. Their argument is based upon the largely untested assumption that increased science knowledge reduces the number of paranormal beliefs an individual holds. However, this assumption may not be valid."

"The research also found no relationship between the level of science knowledge and skepticism regarding paranormal claims which went against assumptions skepticism increases with more science education."

"It is possible for a student to accumulate a fairly sizable science knowledge base without learning how to properly distinguish between reputable science and pseudoscience."

In short the study of science and the increase of science knowledge does not reduce irrational beliefs which goes against assumptions skepticism increases with more science education.
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 12th February 2013, 05:54 PM   #2400
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
Are you sure you fully understood the article?

Are you sure you fully understood the article? It is not saying that science education cannot reduce irrational beliefs; it is saying that the way science is currently taught is not very good at reducing irrational beliefs.

The quotation you posted there comes from elsewhere, by the way.
__________________
"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
Mojo 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 11:13 PM.
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.