JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF 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 3rd December 2012, 10:29 AM   #81
StankApe
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,643
I don't seem to recall the UFO's or alien spacecraft in Contact. I DO seem to recall that it was speculative fiction about HOW an actual contact with ETI MIGHT go down, if it ever occurred.

Plus, it was, as you said,FICTION
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 3rd December 2012, 10:32 AM   #82
Neutiquam Erro
mennil-toss flykune
 
Neutiquam Erro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 291
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
And he also wrote Contact which was all about UFOs, alien spacecraft and alien encounters. Here he is pandering to the so called irrational and trying to profit from it after he claimed to be a Skeptic of UFOs. It is hard to be a scientist and not indulge in some wild speculations or vicariously live in fiction, what the real world cannot provide, except in fantasy land.
Am I mistaken, or was Contact a work of fiction? I was unaware that only "believers" can create, or consume, such entertaining speculations.
Neutiquam Erro is online now   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 3rd December 2012, 10:33 AM   #83
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 24,985
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
I am not erecting a strawman. I am relating what Carl Sagan actually did.

No, you are not. You are grossly mischaracterising what he actually did.
__________________
"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 3rd December 2012, 10:35 AM   #84
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 24,985
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
And he also wrote Contact which was all about UFOs, alien spacecraft and alien encounters.

That's item 23 and 20 points.
__________________
"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

Last edited by Mojo; 3rd December 2012 at 10:36 AM.
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 3rd December 2012, 10:51 AM   #85
Gord_in_Toronto
Penultimate Amazing
 
Gord_in_Toronto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14,408
SOCK or TROLL or SOCROLL?

Just asking.
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick
Gord_in_Toronto 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 3rd December 2012, 11:01 AM   #86
justintime
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
No. Many skeptics are driven to seek knowledge. So much so that they are prone to ask "but what if this claim is wrong?" regarding a great many things. So skeptics simply hold claims to a higher standard of evidence than the more credulous.


Your analogy does not seem relevant. The whole idea behind innocence until proof of guilt is derived from the moral position that it is better that a guilty person go unpunished than an innocent person be punished. Thus, in legal systems that make such a moral judgement, skepticism is applied to the charges leveled against a defendant.


Examples?


That is where it belongs. If you claim that a '67 Dodge Dart is orbiting a star in the Andromeda galaxy, that your god has given you supernatural powers, or that the sparkly rocks that you sell for $500 will cure all forms of cancer, then the burden of proof lies with you.


Yes, it is a challenge to provide sound evidence of a claim. Many extraordinary claims have met that challenge: Heliocentricism, relativity, metric expansion of space, continental drift.

But you seem to be conflating this challenge with a mean-spirited aggression. Are you, perhaps, an exponent of some hypothesis or claim that has failed the challenge?


More often than not, those discussing any subject are not experts in the field being deliberated. This does not invalidate any consensus reached by those who are experts in the field.


That sounds an awful lot like an excuse to dismiss anyone who does not accept your ideas. Do you suggest seeking out the company of the credulous when attempting to deduce the truth of a claim?


Subject to what?


Ah, the 'poisoning the well' fallacy.
Too many points to deal with in one post. The point raise in the legal system was the play on the line "beyond a reasonable doubt." So Skeptics are entitled to their doubts but are they reasonable and what is their threshold for accepting evidence because it appears very subjective from one Skeptic to another.

Skeptics are about debunking claims. According to Brian Dunning Skeptics are also Ghost believers and many are deeply religious. So what have they debunked?

Skeptics are not experts in the field they criticize. This was a follow up to the notion that Skeptics are critical thinkers and evidence based directed. But critical thinking is a university level course often introduced in undergraduate courses and most Skeptics are not at that level of education on Skeptics forums (no offense intended). So much that is debated by Skeptics are really outside their scope.

Which brings us to extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence. How many Skeptics can even raise to the level of understanding extraordinary evidence when they are barley coping with ordinary problems. I cited an example of a skeptic scientist Richard Muller who rejected climate change results because he was skeptical of its results even though it was peer reviewed research. He conducted his own research and came to the same conclusion. His research was denied peer review but Richard Muller announced he was now a climate change believer based on his own research which was a peer rejected study versus a peer reviewed one that he earlier denounced.
So Skepticism is really a state of mind a psychological attribute of insecure individuals.
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 3rd December 2012, 11:03 AM   #87
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 24,985
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
Skeptics are not experts in the field they criticize.

A nice sweeping generalisation.
__________________
"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 3rd December 2012, 11:06 AM   #88
StankApe
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,643
driving a race car isn't hard because my grandmother drove a volkswagen to work every day and she had emphysema .

This is what you come at us with?

to dumb it down for you: "I have cherry picked two examples of some possible hypocrisy that I may have interpreted in the world of skeptics, and since you are all dumb stinky toot heads who never got out of kindergarten, you are in no way qualified to call my ridiculous woo that I love and cherish so very very much ridiculous. so neener!"


this is what you are saying, and it's wrong, and you either don't know what a skeptic is or are trolling due to getting the smack down put on you by a clever skeptic.

either way, you are just looking more and more foolish.
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 3rd December 2012, 11:13 AM   #89
smartcooky
Master Poster
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 2,018
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
Your logic is totally flawed.
1. If he did not think aliens were a threat why did he write to the Sectary of State concerned if they were prepared for an alien attack.
How do you kow he was concerned. He simply asked the question.

Quote:
3. It is dumb to say he was looking for the evidence of ETI but did not believe in them. In fact you got it backwards. He had to know what he was looking for. He had to tell people who were funding him what he was looking for and also convince them of the chance/probability of finding them after he convinced himself.
It would be even more dumb if you went looking for evidence of something you didn't believe in.

Surely, in ANY scientific endeavour you first must have an interest in the field, then you come up with a proposition, then you search for the evidence to support that proposition. IF extraordinary claims quire extraordinary evidence then you LOOK for that extraordinary evidence first

There is no conflict between believing intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe, while at the same time believing that UFOs/Flying Saucers have nothing whatever to do with that life. This is my belief and I would imagine that near 100% of the genuine sceptic posters on this forum would believe the same thing, and that is what Carl Sagan also believed.

IIRC, in an episode of Cosmos, he analysed Frank Drake's famous equation and came to two different conclusions; that intelligent civilisations might be teeming throughout our Galaxy, or, there may only be four, and our chances of finding them were remote. So the only thing to do was to get more accurate variables, and there are not many ways to do that other than searching for evidence that they exist, and that planets are not unique to us.

In Carl Sagan's time as a younger man, there had been no Voyager missions, or Mars rovers. There was no evidence of liquid water on any other planet than the Earth, but there was an abundance of the elements required for life (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen) observable throughout the universe no matter where we looked. The evidence that there that the OUGHT to be life. It is reasonable to assume that if the basic elements where everywhere then life was everywhere. Now, we know that there are other places in our very solar system that have liquid water, Mars, Callisto & Europa ate least, and there is now considered the possibility of life existing elsewhere in our solar system.

Also,at that time there had not been any extrasolar planets discovered. We now know of at least 750 extrasolar planets. If our theories about solar system formation are correct, then stars have planets as naturally as cats have kittens.

The search for extrasolar planets, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence are genuine, bona-fide scientific researches than will help to refine the Drake Equation and tell us, not IF there are intelligent civilisations throughout the Cosmos, but HOW MANY there are. There is no need to be obsessed with the idea in order to believe it is true.
__________________
OCCAMS Razor
9/11 was a terrorist attack by Muslim extremists who were organised by Osama Bin Laden.
The Apollo astronauts walked on the Moon
JFK was assassinated by a single gunmen, Lee Harvey Oswald, who acted alone
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 3rd December 2012, 11:18 AM   #90
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...not where I seemed, nor was calculated to be...but no-one need worry...
Posts: 5,970
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
Your logic is totally flawed.
As usual, I suspect, rather, it is your habitual carelessness with truth, which you have demonstrated on this very topic in other fora, which may be the problem.

Originally Posted by justintime View Post
1. If he did not think aliens were a threat why did he write to the Sectary of State concerned if they were prepared for an alien attack.
As I personally, and others, on other fora, have pointed out to you, Sagan was 17 years old when he wrote the letter to which you refer. As I poiinted out to you in post #18, above, and on another forum, the young Sagan did not claim that the fad of "UFO sightings" did, in fat, indicate a threat form "aliens". Rather, Sagan, perhaps brashly, asked Dean Acheson, the Secretary of State at the time, how the United Staes would respond if, in fact, "UFOs" actually did turn out to be of alien origin (a reasonable question). You really might want to read the actual letter, for comprehension.

Originally Posted by justintime View Post
In fact he is not alone in thinking aliens are threatening. Stephen Hawkins is another scientist who warns of making contact with aliens because they might not have altruistic intentions.
Dr. Hawking (you might want to get his name right) is, in fact, of the opinion that "interacting with" "intelligent alien life forms" might be "too risky", especailly extrapolating how the only intelligent life form we know has treated its own members in historic "first contact" situations. As a matter of fact, Dr. Hawking lists being attacked by intelligent alien life forms as "just one of the dismaying possibilities in the search for intelligent life beyond Earth".
Can you demonstrate that Dr. Hawking's speculation is, in fact, misplaced?

Originally Posted by justintime View Post
2. Nothing has been explained to me. You are the one asking the questions.
Your decision to ignore what has been said to you does not change the fact that I , personally have, and at least one other person to my knowledge has, explained this very issue about the young Sagan's letter in another forum.

Originally Posted by justintime View Post
3. It is dumb to say he was looking for the evidence of ETI but did not believe in them. In fact you got it backwards. He had to know what he was looking for. He had to tell people who were funding him what he was looking for and also convince them of the chance/probability of finding them after he convinced himself. He had to make them believe they exists. All this even before he started looking for them or as you like to say evidence of them. The evidence of ETI would go a long way to validate his beliefs and convictions of their existence. Just like the results of a scientific research can confirm or invalidate the hypothesis.
Your ad hom is noted. Your claim that Dr. Sagan " had to make them believe they exists" demonstrates that you really do not understand how science works (and are not overconcerned with accuracy, but that is another issue)
I am curious what you think scientists should look for, or study, if it is wrong to look for evidence of something for which evidence does has not (yet) been found.

But, by all means, continue to pretend that your personal disapproval of Dr, Sagan demonstrates something significant about skeptics.
__________________
"Anything that can be accepted into science gets accepted into science." -HighRiser
"And in science the default is that you're wrong. EVERYONE is wrong. You only can be not wrong if you have evidence to back up your claim." -Dinwar
"That is not my circus; those are not my monkeys." -Howard Tayler

Last edited by Slowvehicle; 3rd December 2012 at 12:00 PM. Reason: ETF formatting
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 3rd December 2012, 11:22 AM   #91
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 24,985
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
Which brings us to extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence. How many Skeptics can even raise to the level of understanding extraordinary evidence when they are barley coping with ordinary problems. I cited an example of a skeptic scientist Richard Muller who rejected climate change results because he was skeptical of its results even though it was peer reviewed research. He conducted his own research and came to the same conclusion. His research was denied peer review but Richard Muller announced he was now a climate change believer based on his own research which was a peer rejected study versus a peer reviewed one that he earlier denounced.
So Skepticism is really a state of mind a psychological attribute of insecure individuals.

He was skeptical about something, so he did his own research and concluded that it was correct.

And you think that's a problem for skepticism.

__________________
"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 3rd December 2012, 11:26 AM   #92
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 24,985
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
Which brings us to extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence. How many Skeptics can even raise to the level of understanding extraordinary evidence when they are barley coping with ordinary problems. I cited an example of a skeptic scientist Richard Muller who rejected climate change results because he was skeptical of its results even though it was peer reviewed research. He conducted his own research and came to the same conclusion. His research was denied peer review but Richard Muller announced he was now a climate change believer based on his own research which was a peer rejected study versus a peer reviewed one that he earlier denounced.
So Skepticism is really a state of mind a psychological attribute of insecure individuals.

By the way, you have now added a non-sequitur to your well poisoning.
__________________
"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 3rd December 2012, 11:31 AM   #93
justintime
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
Originally Posted by StankApe View Post
BTW, Sagan was 17 when he wrote that letter to the DOD about aliens. But you probably knew that and hoped we wouldn't....

He stated clearly that he found it very possible for ETI to exist, but he did not say that he "believed hey existed". He clearly states in one of his books that he thinks that UFO's were a construct of The Cold War, and that both sides used this fear as a tool of propaganda.


so, in other words, you have nothing but accusations, and no evidence to back it up. (except trying to wash over an esteemed scientists entire career with the fact that when he was 17 he was interested in UFOs enough to write a letter to the Gubbmint.)
But that is exactly the point. At 17 Carl Sagan believe in flying saucers and aliens. And took it seriously enough to write to the Sectary of State. Later he became a skeptic of UFOs as it is mentioned in his biographies. But he did not lose his obsession with aliens. He spend the rest of his life looking for extraterrestrial intelligent life or aliens. That is a super sized obsession.

Definition of Extraterrestrial: originating, existing, or occurring outside the earth or its atmosphere.
Aliens as everyone knows are extraterrestrial.
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 3rd December 2012, 11:31 AM   #94
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 24,985
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
Stephen Hawkins is another scientist who warns of making contact with aliens because they might not have altruistic intentions.

5 points.
__________________
"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 3rd December 2012, 11:34 AM   #95
ravdin
Illuminator
 
ravdin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 4,495
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
And he also wrote Contact which was all about UFOs, alien spacecraft and alien encounters. Here he is pandering to the so called irrational and trying to profit from it after he claimed to be a Skeptic of UFOs. It is hard to be a scientist and not indulge in some wild speculations or vicariously live in fiction, what the real world cannot provide, except in fantasy land.
Contact is a novel, and maybe you might want to read it before you claim it's pandering to the irrational. Since when are scientists not allowed to use their imaginations?
__________________
Take the risk of thinking for yourself. Much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way. -Christopher Hitchens

Believe what you're told. There would be chaos if everyone thought for themselves. -Top Dog slogan
ravdin 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 3rd December 2012, 11:34 AM   #96
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
Posts: 6,613
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
But that is exactly the point. At 17 Carl Sagan believe in flying saucers and aliens. And took it seriously enough to write to the Sectary of State. Later he became a skeptic of UFOs as it is mentioned in his biographies. But he did not lose his obsession with aliens. He spend the rest of his life looking for extraterrestrial intelligent life or aliens. That is a super sized obsession.
How is that an obsession?

Do you or do you not agree that looking for things is how you find out if things exist?
__________________
"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
godless dave 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 3rd December 2012, 11:49 AM   #97
SumDood
Muse
 
SumDood's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Alabama
Posts: 858
If I spend time researching whether there is nitrogen in the atmosphere of Mars does it mean that I believe nitrogen exists in the atmosphere of Mars?
__________________
All that is necessary for ignorance to triumph is for intelligent men to do nothing.
SumDood 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 3rd December 2012, 11:50 AM   #98
Loss Leader
Opinionated Jerk
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Posts: 14,531
I'm going to go on the record as stating that anything with Tom Skerritt in it is a documentary. Anything with Tom Skerritt and David Morse is literally and universally true in every social and moral framework.
__________________
Follow me on Twitter! @LossLeader
Loss Leader 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 3rd December 2012, 11:51 AM   #99
John Jones
Philosopher
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa, USA
Posts: 5,768
Originally Posted by SumDood View Post
If I spend time researching whether there is nitrogen in the atmosphere of Mars does it mean that I believe nitrogen exists in the atmosphere of Mars?
Apparently it does. It also means you have a super-sized obsession.
__________________
"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan

NOTE: Spelling errors are left intact for the benifit of those having no other rejoinder.
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 3rd December 2012, 11:52 AM   #100
Edx
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,427
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
Your logic is totally flawed.
1. If he did not think aliens were a threat why did he write to the Sectary of State concerned if they were prepared for an alien attack.
You know Steven Hawking has also spoken about aliens as well right and said that if we meet them it will most likely be bad and we might want to stop looking? No wait let me guess, he isnt a skeptic either.

Last edited by Edx; 3rd December 2012 at 11:54 AM.
Edx 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 3rd December 2012, 11:53 AM   #101
justintime
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
Originally Posted by StankApe View Post
I don't seem to recall the UFO's or alien spacecraft in Contact. I DO seem to recall that it was speculative fiction about HOW an actual contact with ETI MIGHT go down, if it ever occurred.

Plus, it was, as you said,FICTION
The information received contained the blueprint for a spacecraft. The spacecraft was built from that blueprint and used to contact the aliens.
Yes, it was a piece of fiction written and marketed at the same time he was also denouncing UFOs and alien encounters. Sounds hypocritical.
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 3rd December 2012, 11:54 AM   #102
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Not Bandiagara
Posts: 7,241
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
But that is exactly the point. At 17 Carl Sagan believe in considered the possibility that flying saucers and aliens exist. And took it seriously enough to write to the Sectary of State and ask a question about a hypothetical situation. Later he became a skeptic of UFOs as it is mentioned in his biographies. But he did not lose his obsession with interest in the possibility of aliens. He spend the rest of his life looking for evidence that extraterrestrial intelligent life or aliens exist. That is a super sized obsession an avid interest.

Fixed that for you.
GeeMack 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 3rd December 2012, 11:55 AM   #103
godless dave
Great Dalmuti
 
godless dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota
Posts: 6,613
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
The information received contained the blueprint for a spacecraft. The spacecraft was built from that blueprint and used to contact the aliens.
Yes, it was a piece of fiction written and marketed at the same time he was also denouncing UFOs and alien encounters. Sounds hypocritical.
How is that hypocritical?
__________________
"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
godless dave 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 3rd December 2012, 11:56 AM   #104
Edx
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,427
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
The information received contained the blueprint for a spacecraft. The spacecraft was built from that blueprint and used to contact the aliens.
Yes, it was a piece of fiction written and marketed at the same time he was also denouncing UFOs and alien encounters. Sounds hypocritical.
lol, how? Even if I don't believe in vampires I can still write a fictional story about vampires. Come on, this is just silly.

Last edited by Edx; 3rd December 2012 at 11:57 AM.
Edx 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 3rd December 2012, 11:57 AM   #105
justintime
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
How is that an obsession?

Do you or do you not agree that looking for things is how you find out if things exist?
Definition of Obsession: 1: a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often unreasonable idea or feeling.
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 3rd December 2012, 11:57 AM   #106
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Not Bandiagara
Posts: 7,241
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
The information received contained the blueprint for a spacecraft. The spacecraft was built from that blueprint and used to contact the aliens.
Yes, it was a piece of fiction written and marketed at the same time he was also denouncing UFOs and alien encounters. Sounds hypocritical.

Please notice those words you wrote. Yeah, the ones I made into big red words. Right there. Yes, those are the words. Do you see what they say? Do you know what they mean?
GeeMack 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 3rd December 2012, 11:58 AM   #107
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...not where I seemed, nor was calculated to be...but no-one need worry...
Posts: 5,970
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
And he also wrote Contact which was all about UFOs, alien spacecraft and alien encounters. Here he is pandering to the so called irrational and trying to profit from it after he claimed to be a Skeptic of UFOs. It is hard to be a scientist and not indulge in some wild speculations or vicariously live in fiction, what the real world cannot provide, except in fantasy land.
As I,and others, have pointed out to you in several threads on other fora, Contact is a novel. A novel of speculative fiction. A novel written for entertainment. But please, feel free continue to claim that writing the novel is somehow a failing of Dr. Sagan's. Evidence would be nice...
__________________
"Anything that can be accepted into science gets accepted into science." -HighRiser
"And in science the default is that you're wrong. EVERYONE is wrong. You only can be not wrong if you have evidence to back up your claim." -Dinwar
"That is not my circus; those are not my monkeys." -Howard Tayler
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 3rd December 2012, 12:02 PM   #108
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Not Bandiagara
Posts: 7,241
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
Definition of Obsession: 1: a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often unreasonable idea or feeling.

Like if someone had a persistent preoccupation with badmouthing skeptics and skepticism on various forums on the internet, disturbing to the extent that it manifests itself in expressing unreasonable ideas or feelings in a way that gets him banned from some of those forums? Like is that a fair description of an obsession?

No, Carl Sagan's interest was not an obsession.

Last edited by GeeMack; 3rd December 2012 at 12:03 PM. Reason: Grammar.
GeeMack 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 3rd December 2012, 12:13 PM   #109
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...not where I seemed, nor was calculated to be...but no-one need worry...
Posts: 5,970
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
Definition of Obsession: 1: a persistent disturbing preoccupation with an often unreasonable idea or feeling.
...You may have missed godless dave's question, so I am posting it again for you:
"Do you or do you not agree that looking for things is how you find out if things exist?"

I am also interested in your answer...
__________________
"Anything that can be accepted into science gets accepted into science." -HighRiser
"And in science the default is that you're wrong. EVERYONE is wrong. You only can be not wrong if you have evidence to back up your claim." -Dinwar
"That is not my circus; those are not my monkeys." -Howard Tayler
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 3rd December 2012, 12:20 PM   #110
Spektator
Dog Who Laughs
 
Spektator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,434
Wink

Evidently Sagan was so obsessed that he barely found time to earn two bachelor's degrees, a master's degree, and a doctorate; to write twenty best-selling works, some fiction but mostly nonfiction; to cowrite and host Cosmos, an extraordinarily popular award-winning TV series on the nature of science and the universe; to serve as a Professor of Astronomy at Cornell University and to direct the Laboratory for Planetary Studies there; to work as a consultant and advisor for NASA; to serve as a contributing editor/technology officer of the journal Icarus for more than a decade; to cofound the Planetary Society; to chair a division of the American Astronomical Society and become the President of the Planetologicy division of the American Geophysical Union; to marry (three times) and to father three children; to win thirty important awards, ranging from two Emmies to a Pulitzer Prize.

Sad that his consuming obsession prevented him from doing anything really worthwhile. Who knows what a brilliant career he might have had?
__________________
Even when you keep piling them up, lies never compress to become the truth.

Last edited by Spektator; 3rd December 2012 at 12:21 PM.
Spektator 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 3rd December 2012, 12:23 PM   #111
justintime
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
Clearly you take exception to the fact that many people here do not believe something you believe in. Would you care to share what it is that you believe in that you think we should? As you posted this in Religion and Philosophy I have a pretty good idea what it was but I won't put words in your mouth.
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.
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 3rd December 2012, 12:25 PM   #112
Spindrift
My little friend is back!
 
Spindrift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Right here!
Posts: 11,164
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
The information received contained the blueprint for a spacecraft. The spacecraft was built from that blueprint and used to contact the aliens.
Yes, it was a piece of fiction written and marketed at the same time he was also denouncing UFOs and alien encounters. Sounds hypocritical.
Was Walt Disney hypocritical because he knew mice can't talk and walk on two legs?
__________________
I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black.
Spindrift 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 3rd December 2012, 12:29 PM   #113
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
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.
One is by itself and many is a lot.
dafydd 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 3rd December 2012, 12:32 PM   #114
Noztradamus
Master Poster
 
Noztradamus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,104
Originally Posted by StankApe View Post
I don't seem to recall the UFO's or alien spacecraft in Contact. I DO seem to recall that it was speculative fiction about HOW an actual contact with ETI MIGHT go down, if it ever occurred.

Plus, it was, as you said,FICTION
As a First Contact story Contact was not a patch on Dragon's Egg, which was "all about UFOs, alien spacecraft and alien encounters"

scientists! why don't they stick to science (whatever that is) instead of writing FICTION (which is just an euphemism for "lies").
__________________
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.
Noztradamus 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 3rd December 2012, 12:34 PM   #115
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...not where I seemed, nor was calculated to be...but no-one need worry...
Posts: 5,970
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.
I hope you will take this as a friendly hint, "mate", but by starting your post with an erroneous, and argumentative, and incomplete, and adversarial, definition, you almost guaranteed the kind of response you are, in fact. getting.
If you want to discuss the "difference between scientific skepticism and classical Hume, Descartes, Pyrrho" and "address the problems of the One and Many", you might consider a post along these lines:

"I am hoping that someone here will be willing to frame for me the differences among what I shall call "scientific skepticism", Hume, Descartes, and Pyrrho; and, in addition, perhaps address the problems of the "One and Many"."

That way, it does not look as if you are simply pursuing an "obsession" with insulting and denigrating skeptics and skeptical thinkers into a new forum from which you have not been banned.

YMMV
__________________
"Anything that can be accepted into science gets accepted into science." -HighRiser
"And in science the default is that you're wrong. EVERYONE is wrong. You only can be not wrong if you have evidence to back up your claim." -Dinwar
"That is not my circus; those are not my monkeys." -Howard Tayler
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 3rd December 2012, 12:35 PM   #116
justintime
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
How is that hypocritical?
It is like I am denouncing pornography as a social evil and at the same time making a phonographic movie with fictitious characters. Of course it is a fiction. The characters are not real so where is the connection. How is that hypocrisy?
That is the problem with Skepticism. Skepticism is not a position (has no moral conviction), it is a process. The process is only as good as the person processing it.
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 3rd December 2012, 12:37 PM   #117
Squeegee Beckenheim
Philosopher
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7,562
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
Too many points to deal with in one post.
That's why God invented paragraphs.

Quote:
The point raise in the legal system was the play on the line "beyond a reasonable doubt." So Skeptics are entitled to their doubts but are they reasonable and what is their threshold for accepting evidence because it appears very subjective from one Skeptic to another.
As I said above, your courtroom comparison is invalid. It doesn't become more valid through repetition.

Quote:
Skeptics are about debunking claims.
Sceptics are about scepticism, critical thinking. Sometimes this involves debunking claims.

Quote:
According to Brian Dunning Skeptics are also Ghost believers and many are deeply religious. So what have they debunked?
I don't know who Brian Dunning is, nor do I know why I should care. What I do know is that Brian Dunning should speak for himself.

That's assuming that you're accurately reporting what he's said, that is. I'm a little sceptical of your claim.

Quote:
Skeptics are not experts in the field they criticize.
Which field is that? I'd love for you to tell me what I criticise.

Quote:
This was a follow up to the notion that Skeptics are critical thinkers and evidence based directed. But critical thinking is a university level course often introduced in undergraduate courses and most Skeptics are not at that level of education on Skeptics forums (no offense intended). So much that is debated by Skeptics are really outside their scope.
I wonder if you thought about that paragraph critically before posting it? My guess would be not, but I'm willing to be persuaded, if evidence comes to light.

Quote:
Which brings us to extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence. How many Skeptics can even raise to the level of understanding extraordinary evidence when they are barley coping with ordinary problems. I cited an example of a skeptic scientist Richard Muller who rejected climate change results because he was skeptical of its results even though it was peer reviewed research. He conducted his own research and came to the same conclusion. His research was denied peer review but Richard Muller announced he was now a climate change believer based on his own research which was a peer rejected study versus a peer reviewed one that he earlier denounced.
So Skepticism is really a state of mind a psychological attribute of insecure individuals.
Where and when did you cite this example, what's it supposed to be an example of, and what point do you think that it proves?
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 3rd December 2012, 12:37 PM   #118
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive
Co-Ordinator,
Russell's Antinomy
 
Slowvehicle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: ...not where I seemed, nor was calculated to be...but no-one need worry...
Posts: 5,970
Originally Posted by Noztradamus View Post
As a First Contact story Contact was not a patch on Dragon's Egg, which was "all about UFOs, alien spacecraft and alien encounters"

scientists! why don't they stick to science (whatever that is) instead of writing FICTION (which is just an euphemism for "lies").
Thank you for reminding me of Dragon's Egg. It's been too long...
__________________
"Anything that can be accepted into science gets accepted into science." -HighRiser
"And in science the default is that you're wrong. EVERYONE is wrong. You only can be not wrong if you have evidence to back up your claim." -Dinwar
"That is not my circus; those are not my monkeys." -Howard Tayler
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 3rd December 2012, 12:40 PM   #119
calebprime
Somewhat Elitist Parasite
 
calebprime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 8,537
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
It is like I am denouncing pornography as a social evil and at the same time making a phonographic movie with fictitious characters. Of course it is a fiction. The characters are not real so where is the connection. How is that hypocrisy?
That is the problem with Skepticism. Skepticism is not a position (has no moral conviction), it is a process. The process is only as good as the person processing it.
It's true! Vinyl is only as sexy as the lady wearing it.
__________________
Albert's Path is a strange and difficult 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 3rd December 2012, 12:43 PM   #120
justintime
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
Originally Posted by Noztradamus View Post
As a First Contact story Contact was not a patch on Dragon's Egg, which was "all about UFOs, alien spacecraft and alien encounters"

scientists! why don't they stick to science (whatever that is) instead of writing FICTION (which is just an euphemism for "lies").
Contact Movie: Plot summary:

Quote:
Wiki: A third message is discovered containing over 30,000 pages describing plans for a machine that appears to be a kind of highly advanced vehicle, with seats for five human beings.
Ultimately, a machine is successfully built and activated, transporting five passengers
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
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

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 04:34 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

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