[Moderated] [Merged] What is a "skeptic"?/Was Carl Sagan a skeptic? - Page 32

Foster Zygote · 13th December 2012, 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Again, could you explain why you feel it is irrational to speculate that life might exist elsewhere in the universe, and why it is irrational to spend a small fraction of one's professional career wondering if it might be possible to detect it, should any of it have long ago reached the same technological level that we achieved in only a few thousand years of civilization?

I want to see if you are even capable of having this discussion.

The link that Dcdrac provided to the rationalskepticism.org thread has given me my answer. Justin simply is not capable of having an intelligent discussion regarding any of the issues that he has raised. He deals with the frustration that this causes him by behaving like an obstreperous child.

There are two ways one can confront one's own ignorance: Face it head on and recognize it as an opportunity to learn something new, or succumb to one's ego and deny it out of a belief that admitting it would be an admission of weakness. Some who engage in the latter prefer to project the insecurity that they feel regarding their own inabilities onto others. This is clearly what is happening here.

justintime · 13th December 2012, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

yes but Frank Drake and Carl sagan DID NBOT work together until VEY MUCH LATER and also Carl Sagans main work unlike Frnalk Drakes WAS NOT SETI

He pioneered exobiology and promoted the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI).

http://www.seti.org/carlsagancenter

Carl Sagan with his Cosmos TV series and visible promotion of SETI overshadowed Frank Drake whose Drake Equations was the basis for calculating the probability of finding extraterrestrial life on distant planets. There is a video of Carl Sagan talking about the Drake Equation.

You can say Frank Drake was Carl Sagan's mentor. But Frank Drake was never obsessed with flying saucers and aliens.

Spindrift · 13th December 2012, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by justintime

You can say Frank Drake was Carl Sagan's mentor. But Frank Drake was never obsessed with flying saucers and aliens.

Maybe you can say that but you can't say this:

Originally Posted by justintime

SETI was co-founded by Carl Sagan and Frank Drake in 1960

Oh and Sagan like Drake was never obsessed with flying saucers and aliens.

kerikiwi · 13th December 2012, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by justintime

~~But~~Like Carl Sagan, Frank Drake was never obsessed with flying saucers and aliens.

There, that's better, isn't it?

Dinwar · 13th December 2012, 01:07 PM

Exobiology is a legitimate field. Peter Ward toyed with it in a rigorous way. The idea isn't to figure out what aliens ARE, but rather what they COULD BE. There are limits to what we can define as life, after all--the fact that we can define the term at all means there are limits (with admitedly fuzzy edges). Exobiology is interested in figuring out what those limits are.

I don't expect justintime to learn anything, but hopefully some posters/lurkers that are actually serious about this sort of thing look into Ward's works. The most relevant is "Life as We Do Not Know It",which is both a facinating read and perhaps the most absurd title ever (n terms of which letters to capitalize (I keep meaning to send it to an English professor for a profesional opinion on the matter).

godless dave · 13th December 2012, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by justintime

Carl Sagan with his Cosmos TV series and visible promotion of SETI overshadowed Frank Drake whose Drake Equations was the basis for calculating the probability of finding extraterrestrial life on distant planets.

How many Cosmos episodes do you think talked about the possbility of extraterrestrial life?

godless dave · 13th December 2012, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by justintime

Definition of obsession: An idea or thought that continually preoccupies or intrudes Sagan created the titles "Contact" and "Cosmos" to say we're not alone in this vast universeon a person's mind.

"Cosmos" devoted very little time to the possibility of extraterrestrial life.

"Contact" was a work of fiction. Do you understand that? Do you understand that the book "Pet Semetary" does not depict actual events, and that Stephen King does not believe it depicts actual events?

Slowvehicle · 13th December 2012, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by justintime

Definition of obsession: An idea or thought that continually preoccupies or intrudes Sagan created the titles "Contact" and "Cosmos" to say we're not alone in this vast universeon a person's mind.

As usual, you completely fail to identify the source from which you stole this definition...and, I might say, stole it badly. I know where it came from.

BTW, in the original, it does not contain the words beginning between "Sagan" and "..a person's mind", but your careless presentation makes it look as if you are trying to pretend that Dr. Sagan's name is part of the "definition" you stole.

RHWUD2 defines "obsession" as "1. the domination of one's thoughts or feelings by a persistent idea, image, desire, etc." (p. 1338, so you can find it).

Despite your clumsy attempts at calumny, Dr. Sagan's "thoughts or feelings" were not "dominated" by "UFOs" or "Aliens". Certainly not in the way your thoughts are dominated with lying about him.

How much of Cosmos was about LGM "aliens"? How much of Cosmos was about "UFOs"? What percentage of Dr. Sagan's life work does Cosmos represent? So much for demonstrating an "obsession"...

How much of Contact (a work of fiction) was about LGM "aliens"? How much of Contact (a work of fiction) was about "UFOs"? What percentage of Dr. Sagan's work does Contact represent? So much for demonstrating an "obsession"...

Originally Posted by justintime

Carl Sagan started out believing in flying saucers and aliens. Everyone around him claimed he took aliens seriously.
His show Cosmos claims.

Telling outright lies does not bother you at all. does it? Just as when you tried to claim that you know me, and know who I am, and know where I live...did you learn nothing?

It has been demonstrated to you, multiple times, that Dr. Sagan did not "believe" in" "flying saucers". He mentions "flying saucers" to debunk them, to demonstrate that claims of "flying saucers" and "UFOs", without evidence, are spurious. He compares reports of "UFOs" and "alien visitations" to historical reports of seeing angles, and fairies, and of being visited by saints. You really ought to consider making true statements.

Originally Posted by justintime

Sagan created the titles "Contact" and "Cosmos" to say we're not alone in this vast universe

This statement is not original. It is stolen without attribution, from a source you did not provide. Why must you continually act dishonestly? Plagiarism is wrong, and it makes you seem even more untrustworthy...

Originally Posted by justintime

Sagan’s “Cosmos” Episode 13: “Who Speaks for Earth” drops the bomb about alien life

This statement is not original. It is stolen without attribution, from a source you did not provide. Why must you continually act dishonestly? Plagiarism is wrong, and it makes you seem even more untrustworthy...

Originally Posted by justintime

UFO sightings prompted Carl Sagan to insist on cyanide pills for first contact

http://www.huliq.com/10282/ufo-sight...-first-contact

As has been pointed out to you, this link (which you might consider reading) says that the DVD of Contact "features a commentary by “Contact” movie producers Robert Zemeckis and Steve Starkey, revealing how Carl Sagan 'insisted that NASA give out cyanide pills to its astronauts.' "

I hope you realize this is not "evidence", and it is dishonest of you to claim that it is. There is no other record of Dr. Sagan insisting on this. Given the rest of the tone of the article (note the aspersions cast on the time and method of Dr. Sagan's death), it would be unwise to use the article as "evidence" of anything other than the perfidy of the writer. You really ought to consider the quality of sources, before you claim that anything has been "proved"...

Originally Posted by justintime

His project SETI searched for extraterrestrial intelligent life (aliens) for 50 years. If this is not obsession with aliens. Skeptics are in denial.

What percentage of Dr. Sagan's work does the time he spent with, and on, SETI, represent? What source do you provide for this information?
Dr. Sagan spent a far smaller portion of his time on SETI than the portion of your time you spend telling lies about Dr. Sagan.

Your false dichotomy notwithstanding, SETI was not an "obsession" of Dr. Sagan's. And, since you continue to confuse and conflate "Skeptic", skeptic", and "skeptical thinking", your claim that "Skeptics are in denial" is fundamentally false in its construction, and demonstrably false in its presumed conclusion.

JohnG · 13th December 2012, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by GeneMachine

On that huliq.com article... Let me quote it quoting Sagan:

“There are billions of inhabited world in the Milky Way Galaxy, perhaps there will be a few populated by the sinker, floaters and hunters (alien life forms that could threaten Earth)...

I'm skeptical that Sagan ever said that "sinkers", "floaters" and "hunters" (theoretical life forms that could exist on gas giants such as Jupiter or Saturn) could "threaten Earth".

Loss Leader · 13th December 2012, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by justintime

What it shows is Skeptic Forums are not created equal but Skeptics are. Skeptics quite accurately fit the definition: One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.

I find JREF is fortunate to have some very mature skeptics. From the number of posts and the long years of dedicated participation they recognize the value in contributions that reflect thinking outside the box.

What better lifeline than one from the outside tossed to those trapped for years on the inside.

I am sure many are reading my posts not because they want to know what a Skeptic is. Most here are as I said mature skeptics. They just want to know how to get out of the trapped box.

Inundated with the same trash topics there is no escaping the drowning feeling under the never ending doubts, uncertainty and insecurity.

Now I have to lie down for a couple hours.

Mojo · 13th December 2012, 11:59 PM

Originally Posted by justintime

I am sure many are reading my posts not because they want to know what a Skeptic is.

People who want to know what a skeptic (or even a Skeptic) is not, on the other hand, would be well advised to read your posts.

Dcdrac · 14th December 2012, 01:44 AM

And to correct JT once again Doctor Carl Sagan was not obsessed with flying asucers and aliens.

No amount of repeating that mantra will change that fact.

And Frank Drake and Carl sagan were never in competition with each other they were colleagues and freinds, with Frank Drake leading the way in SETI, and in Doctor Drakes case it was not his entire work either, it remained one and JUST one area of interest for Doctor Carl Sagan.

You seem incapable of accepting that scientists can be interested in many fields.

Dcdrac · 14th December 2012, 02:16 AM

My current favourite science populeriser is Jim Al-Khalili

http://www.jimal-khalili.com/

Mojo · 14th December 2012, 03:39 AM

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

And to correct JT once again Doctor Carl Sagan was not obsessed with flying asucers and aliens.

No amount of repeating that mantra will change that fact.

And Frank Drake and Carl sagan were never in competition with each other they were colleagues and freinds, with Frank Drake leading the way in SETI, and in Doctor Drakes case it was not his entire work either, it remained one and JUST one area of interest for Doctor Carl Sagan.

You seem incapable of accepting that scientists can be interested in many fields.

You know, JT looks very much like:

Originally Posted by justintime

One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.

Pixel42 · 14th December 2012, 06:24 AM

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

My current favourite science populeriser is Jim Al-Khalili

http://www.jimal-khalili.com/

Who just became President of the British Humanist Association.

Top chap. I saw him speak at the Cheltenham Science Festival a few years ago; he explained the double slit experiment so well that I actually heard someone near me gasp as he got it.

Dcdrac · 14th December 2012, 10:42 AM

And this one of the greatest TV prgamees EVER Cosmoss

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z2AnfStRSM

Dcdrac · 14th December 2012, 12:07 PM

Civlisation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNGzoJFj9g8

justintime · 17th December 2012, 08:14 AM

I noticed my absence has slowed the momentum this thread was building. Without the intellectual input it is only expected interest would decline. <snip> But optimism is the better part of valor.

Continuing with my theory on Skeptics/Skepticism and Rationalism. Not only have I defined what is a skeptic. I am advancing the theory to show how skeptics are produced.

Quote:

Skeptics are produced in childhood. The formula was discovered in a surprising situation. Surprise Discovery on how skeptics are produced.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=1ezEukr0zuo#!

Edited by Tricky:

Edited for Rule 0. Please be polite to other members.

Slowvehicle · 17th December 2012, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by justintime

I noticed my absence has slowed the momentum this thread was building. Without the intellectual input it is only expected interest would decline. <snip> But optimism is the better part of valor.

Continuing with my theory on Skeptics/Skepticism and Rationalism. Not only have I defined what is a skeptic. I am advancing the theory to show how skeptics are produced.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=1ezEukr0zuo#!

Edited by Tricky:

Edited for Rule 0. Please be polite to other members.

Is there a source with the transcript for the video?
I hoped for some substance.

ETA:
I found kimbo99's other videos (http://www.youtube.com/user/kimbo99?feature=watch) and his own website (http://www.truebluehealer.com/), but no transcripts. I choose not to spend 13 1/2 minutes on a video about producing "pseudoskeptics", when you claim to have defined, and be presenting information about, "Skeptics" (or "skeptics", depending on the post).

Did you ever provide a source for "your" "definition"?

Resume · 17th December 2012, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by justintime

I noticed my absence has slowed the momentum this thread was building. Without the intellectual input it is only expected interest would decline.

When might that start?

Loss Leader · 17th December 2012, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle

Is there a source with the transcript for the video?

I only watched about a minute and a half. After an introduction, it's a news clip of a primary school in Australia that has a magician come in to teach the children ... lessons in stage magic. Occasionally, the author of the video puts words up on the screen that aren't demonstrated in the video.

For example, the magician says it's important to smile. The video's author (not the news station that originally aired the segment) writes on the screen something like, "These Dysfunctional Kids need Formal Lessons on how to operate their emotions" and "Magic tricks engages (sic) the attention of attention deficit kids."

Other comments: "Underfunctioning children respond positively to a MAGICIAN," "MAGICIAN has a TRANSFORMATIONAL effect on underfunctioning angry children," and "James Randi appears a strong male figure to underfuctioning angry pseudoskeptics."

The comments of the video's author are all complete nonsense that in no way follow from the news segment. Don't bother watching.

Slowvehicle · 17th December 2012, 08:55 AM

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

I only watched about a minute and a half. After an introduction, it's a news clip of a primary school in Australia that has a magician come in to teach the children ... lessons in stage magic. Occasionally, the author of the video puts words up on the screen that aren't demonstrated in the video.

For example, the magician says it's important to smile. The video's author (not the news station that originally aired the segment) writes on the screen something like, "These Dysfunctional Kids need Formal Lessons on how to operate their emotions" and "Magic tricks engages (sic) the attention of attention deficit kids."

The comments of the video's author are all complete nonsense that in no way follow from the video. Don't bother watching.

How can you say such spiteful things about Mireille Mathieu, discoverer of "Lay Gnosis", and perpetrator of http://www.truebluehealer.com/ ?

justintime · 17th December 2012, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

I only watched about a minute and a half. After an introduction, it's a news clip of a primary school in Australia that has a magician come in to teach the children ... lessons in stage magic. Occasionally, the author of the video puts words up on the screen that aren't demonstrated in the video.

For example, the magician says it's important to smile. The video's author (not the news station that originally aired the segment) writes on the screen something like, "These Dysfunctional Kids need Formal Lessons on how to operate their emotions" and "Magic tricks engages (sic) the attention of attention deficit kids."

Other comments: "Underfunctioning children respond positively to a MAGICIAN," "MAGICIAN has a TRANSFORMATIONAL effect on underfunctioning angry children," and "James Randi appears a strong male figure to underfuctioning angry pseudoskeptics."

The comments of the video's author are all complete nonsense that in no way follow from the news segment. Don't bother watching.

I should have mentioned the video gets to my point around the 10 minute mark. But the entire video builds a case for stunted curiosity and enthusiasm which later surfaces in skeptics.

And thank you for editing my earlier post. You can see I was a bit rusty in the charms department.

Slowvehicle · 17th December 2012, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by justintime

I should have mentioned the video gets to my point around the 10 minute mark. But the entire video builds a case for stunted curiosity and enthusiasm which later surfaces in skeptics.

And thank you for editing my earlier post. You can see I was a bit rusty in the charms department.

Justin, you are doing it again. The video purports to discuss how "pesudoskeptics" are "produced". You claim to be making a point about "Skeptics" (or "skeptics", depending upon which post).

Are you actually saying that a "Skeptic", a "skeptic", and a "pseudoskeptic" are the same thing?
Are you claiming that what kimbo99 says about "producing" "pseudoskeptics" applies to every skeptical thinker?

Spindrift · 17th December 2012, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by justintime

I noticed my absence has slowed the momentum this thread was building.

Troll threads always slow done when there is no troll to feed.

dafydd · 17th December 2012, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by Spindrift

Troll threads always slow done when there is no troll to feed.

Casting your bread on the waters is pointless when there are no ducks around.

justintime · 17th December 2012, 03:18 PM

I realize it is important to know what is a skeptic. It helps to identify a few famous skeptics like Carl Sagan. It also helps to understand how skeptics are produced. But it is rather shocking a Skeptic forum does not try to protect its members by helping them to identify pseudo skeptics that might be in their midst.

I have provided a link that ask skeptics if they know where they stand. I have pointed out repeatedly that is a difficult question to ask a skeptic if they know where they stand because "Skepticism is not a position, it is a process." (Dr Shermer).

So can we then infer a skeptic who has a position/stand and has an agenda is not a skeptic but a pseudo skeptic.

Pseudoskeptics revelaed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_YYtF_2Hno

Loss Leader · 17th December 2012, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by justintime

But it is rather shocking a Skeptic forum does not try to protect its members by helping them to identify pseudo skeptics that might be in their midst.

That's like saying it's rather shocking that grass doesn't alert gazelles that zebras are nearby.

dafydd · 17th December 2012, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by justintime

I. But it is rather shocking a Skeptic forum does not try to protect its members by helping them to identify pseudo skeptics that might be in their midst.

We don't do witch hunts here, and your definition of ''pseudo-skeptics'' leaves a lot to be desired. There are varying degrees of skepticism. The only reason I can see for pretending to be a skeptic would be getting paid for it. My main area of skepticism involves religion and the paranormal. What are you skeptical about? You keep avoiding that question.

Acleron · 17th December 2012, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by justintime

I should have mentioned the video gets to my point around the 10 minute mark. But the entire video builds a case for stunted curiosity and enthusiasm which later surfaces in skeptics.
...

Ah, the stunted curiosity must explain the tremendous popularity of the Science and Maths sub-fora.

dafydd · 17th December 2012, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by Acleron

Ah, the stunted curiosity must explain the tremendous popularity of the Science and Maths sub-fora.

And also why many posters there spent years studying their field and have such high qualifications.

dafydd · 17th December 2012, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by justintime

I realize it is important to know what is a skeptic. It helps to identify a few famous skeptics like Carl Sagan. It also helps to understand how skeptics are produced. But it is rather shocking a Skeptic forum does not try to protect its members by helping them to identify pseudo skeptics that might be in their midst.

I have provided a link that ask skeptics if they know where they stand. I have pointed out repeatedly that is a difficult question to ask a skeptic if they know where they stand because "Skepticism is not a position, it is a process." (Dr Shermer).

So can we then infer a skeptic who has a position/stand and has an agenda is not a skeptic but a pseudo skeptic.

Pseudoskeptics revelaed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_YYtF_2Hno

There is no such thing as a pseudo skeptic. Are you skeptical about that statement?

eerok · 17th December 2012, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by justintime

I noticed my absence has slowed the momentum this thread was building. Without the intellectual input it is only expected interest would decline.

A train wreck isn't interesting without the train. The fact that there was nothing to say when you weren't here shows clearly enough that your mentations as you've presented them here have no substance.

Slowvehicle · 17th December 2012, 05:40 PM

Justin:

In thread #1258, you make the following claim:

Originally Posted by justintime

Continuing with my theory on Skeptics/Skepticism and Rationalism. Not only have I defined what is a skeptic. I am advancing the theory to show how skeptics are produced.

As I pointed out to you in the very next post, the video you linked to does not, in fact mention how "skeptics are produced" Instead, it, like most of "kimbo99's" other videos, pretends to be making a point about "pseudoskeptics". Loss leader has pointed out the the points "made" in the voice-over and addenda are NOT the points made by what happens in the video, at all. Not to mention, you have yet to define "what is a skeptic"--not in any intelligible way. You have delivered yourself of voluminous opinions, and revealed multiple agenda, but have been less than forthcoming with actual, documented, definitions.

Given that, it is disingenuous, at best, to say the following:

Originally Posted by justintime

I realize it is important to know what is a skeptic. It helps to identify a few famous skeptics like Carl Sagan. It also helps to understand how skeptics are produced. But it is rather shocking a Skeptic forum does not try to protect its members by helping them to identify pseudo skeptics that might be in their midst.

First, it is, in fact, important to know what you mean when you say, "Skeptic", or "skeptic", or"pseudoskeptic"--important enough that an un-documented, plagiarized "definition" is not adequate. You are free, of course, to use any egregious, inappositive "definition" you choose--but you should have the honesty to present your sources, or make sure that the "definitions" are, in fact, unique to you.

I have asked you before, many times, to define what you mean by "Skeptic", and what you mean by "skeptic" (and now, what you mean by "pseudoskeptic"). Stealing the same badly-copied, ungrammatical explanation will not do. Be so kind as to explain whether the three terms mean the same thing to you, or different things; and if they do, in fact, mean different things, what, in your mind, is the distinction?

Second, you appear to be claiming, here, that Dr. Sagan is, in fact, a "skeptic"--even a "famous skeptic". What changed your mind?

Third, I ask again: How does a video purporting to explain how "pseudoskeptics" are "produced" say anything at all useful about skeptical thinkers? Unless you truly are claiming that "skeptics" and "pseudoskeptics" are the same thing, your video does not "advance a theory to show how skeptics are produced".

Fourth, please demonstrate where you picked up the...odd...idea that JREF needs to "protect" its members? What makes you say that the members need help identifying the "pseudo-" among us?

You go on to say the following:

Originally Posted by justintime

I have provided a link that ask skeptics if they know where they stand. I have pointed out repeatedly that is a difficult question to ask a skeptic if they know where they stand because "Skepticism is not a position, it is a process." (Dr Shermer).

Your assumption that there is a "stand" that identifies "skeptics" makes it clear that you do not understand Dr. Shermer's quote. You need to understand that skeptical thinkers may disagree, and on a range of topics. The thing that identifies a skeptical thinker, or a critical thinker, is not what is believed, but how what is believed is reached, as a belief. In other words, according to Dr, Shermer, skeptical thinkers are not identified by a position they all hold, but by the kind of processes by which, and through which, they reach the positions each holds.

I would suggest you go back and read Dr. Shermer's article. Understanding that skeptical thinking is a set of disciplines, a group of processes, a family of methods of reaching conclusions; sharing the characteristic of being evidence-driven and evidence-based, would help you not make the following mistake:

Originally Posted by justintime

So can we then infer a skeptic who has a position/stand and has an agenda is not a skeptic but a pseudo skeptic.

Most skeptical thinkers with whom I have had any dealings tend to hold strong opinions--given the fact that their opinions are derived,not received, this should not be surprising. To pretend otherwise is to err.

Further, until you explain exactly what you mean by "pseudoskeptic", or "pseudo skeptic", or "Skeptic" or "skeptic", pretending they are contradistinct from each other is meaningless.

If you are implying that no one with an agenda can be trusted, where does that leave you? Not to put too fine a point on it, what agenda are you pursuing, with this video?

Originally Posted by justintime

Pseudoskeptics revelaed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_YYtF_2Hno

Be so kind as to address these issues.

AdMan · 17th December 2012, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by Spindrift

Originally Posted by justintime

I noticed my absence has slowed the momentum this thread was building.

Troll threads always slow done when there is no troll to feed.

This.

booNyzarC · 17th December 2012, 08:48 PM

Sometimes good things can come from negative things. As a result of this thread I was inspired to watch Cosmos again in its entirety for the first time in over 30 years. I started last Thursday and I just now finished episode 13. Fantastic show, as good today as it was back when it first aired!

So thank you JiT, for inspiring me to enrich myself once again with this viewing. May I suggest that you give it a watch as well and hopefully learn a bit more about who Sagan was and what he stood for? He was a great man without question, and deserving of far more respect and admiration than you've given him in these merged threads.

Cheers.

JohnG · 17th December 2012, 11:47 PM

Originally Posted by booNyzarC

Sometimes good things can come from negative things. As a result of this thread I was inspired to watch Cosmos again in its entirety for the first time in over 30 years. I started last Thursday and I just now finished episode 13. Fantastic show, as good today as it was back when it first aired!

So thank you JiT, for inspiring me to enrich myself once again with this viewing. May I suggest that you give it a watch as well and hopefully learn a bit more about who Sagan was and what he stood for? He was a great man without question, and deserving of far more respect and admiration than you've given him in these merged threads.

Cheers.

Agreed. I just finished watching the "Encyclopedia Galactica" episode, which is especially pertinent to JIT's claims of Sagan's supposed obsession with extraterrestrial life.

Mojo · 18th December 2012, 12:29 AM

Originally Posted by justintime

But it is rather shocking a Skeptic forum does not try to protect its members by helping them to identify pseudo skeptics that might be in their midst.

Don't worry; we've identified you.

Pixel42 · 18th December 2012, 12:38 AM

Originally Posted by Mojo

Don't worry; we've identified you.

Indeed. Real sceptics have no difficulty identifying pseudosceptics, we need no help from the forum (and what form would such help take anyway?

)

pakeha · 18th December 2012, 02:42 AM

Originally Posted by Slowvehicle

How can you say such spiteful things about Mireille Mathieu, discoverer of "Lay Gnosis", and perpetrator of http://www.truebluehealer.com/ ?

Oh, myy[/Takei]
I think a keyboard warning would have been appropriate with that link, Sv.

13th December 2012, 12:01 PM	#1241
Foster Zygote Dental Floss Tycoon Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge Posts: 14,407	Originally Posted by Foster Zygote Again, could you explain why you feel it is irrational to speculate that life might exist elsewhere in the universe, and why it is irrational to spend a small fraction of one's professional career wondering if it might be possible to detect it, should any of it have long ago reached the same technological level that we achieved in only a few thousand years of civilization? I want to see if you are even capable of having this discussion. The link that Dcdrac provided to the rationalskepticism.org thread has given me my answer. Justin simply is not capable of having an intelligent discussion regarding any of the issues that he has raised. He deals with the frustration that this causes him by behaving like an obstreperous child. There are two ways one can confront one's own ignorance: Face it head on and recognize it as an opportunity to learn something new, or succumb to one's ego and deny it out of a belief that admitting it would be an admission of weakness. Some who engage in the latter prefer to project the insecurity that they feel regarding their own inabilities onto others. This is clearly what is happening here.
	__________________ It looks just like a Telefunken U47... You'll love it.

13th December 2012, 12:24 PM	#1242
justintime Suspended Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 756	Originally Posted by Dcdrac yes but Frank Drake and Carl sagan DID NBOT work together until VEY MUCH LATER and also Carl Sagans main work unlike Frnalk Drakes WAS NOT SETI He pioneered exobiology and promoted the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI). http://www.seti.org/carlsagancenter Carl Sagan with his Cosmos TV series and visible promotion of SETI overshadowed Frank Drake whose Drake Equations was the basis for calculating the probability of finding extraterrestrial life on distant planets. There is a video of Carl Sagan talking about the Drake Equation. You can say Frank Drake was Carl Sagan's mentor. But Frank Drake was never obsessed with flying saucers and aliens.
justintime Suspended Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 756

13th December 2012, 12:52 PM	#1243
Spindrift Enturbulator Extraordinaire Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Right here! Posts: 8,461	Originally Posted by justintime You can say Frank Drake was Carl Sagan's mentor. But Frank Drake was never obsessed with flying saucers and aliens. Maybe you can say that but you can't say this: Originally Posted by justintime SETI was co-founded by Carl Sagan and Frank Drake in 1960 Oh and Sagan like Drake was never obsessed with flying saucers and aliens.
	__________________ 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.

13th December 2012, 01:07 PM	#1245
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,979	Exobiology is a legitimate field. Peter Ward toyed with it in a rigorous way. The idea isn't to figure out what aliens ARE, but rather what they COULD BE. There are limits to what we can define as life, after all--the fact that we can define the term at all means there are limits (with admitedly fuzzy edges). Exobiology is interested in figuring out what those limits are. I don't expect justintime to learn anything, but hopefully some posters/lurkers that are actually serious about this sort of thing look into Ward's works. The most relevant is "Life as We Do Not Know It",which is both a facinating read and perhaps the most absurd title ever (n terms of which letters to capitalize (I keep meaning to send it to an English professor for a profesional opinion on the matter).
Dinwar Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8,979	__________________ GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment. Ein krieg ohne feinde.

13th December 2012, 01:15 PM	#1246
godless dave Great Dalmuti Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: St. Paul, Minnesota Posts: 6,131	Originally Posted by justintime Carl Sagan with his Cosmos TV series and visible promotion of SETI overshadowed Frank Drake whose Drake Equations was the basis for calculating the probability of finding extraterrestrial life on distant planets. How many Cosmos episodes do you think talked about the possbility of extraterrestrial life?
	__________________ "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

13th December 2012, 12:59 PM	#1244
kerikiwi Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Bay of Islands NZ Posts: 5,847	Originally Posted by justintime ~~But~~Like Carl Sagan, Frank Drake was never obsessed with flying saucers and aliens. There, that's better, isn't it?

13th December 2012, 01:17 PM	#1247
godless dave Great Dalmuti Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: St. Paul, Minnesota Posts: 6,131	Originally Posted by justintime Definition of obsession: An idea or thought that continually preoccupies or intrudes Sagan created the titles "Contact" and "Cosmos" to say we're not alone in this vast universeon a person's mind. "Cosmos" devoted very little time to the possibility of extraterrestrial life. "Contact" was a work of fiction. Do you understand that? Do you understand that the book "Pet Semetary" does not depict actual events, and that Stephen King does not believe it depicts actual events?
	__________________ "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

13th December 2012, 03:05 PM	#1248
Slowvehicle Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: ...not where I seemed, nor was calculated to be...but no-one need worry... Posts: 2,199	Originally Posted by justintime Definition of obsession: An idea or thought that continually preoccupies or intrudes Sagan created the titles "Contact" and "Cosmos" to say we're not alone in this vast universeon a person's mind. As usual, you completely fail to identify the source from which you stole this definition...and, I might say, stole it badly. I know where it came from. BTW, in the original, it does not contain the words beginning between "Sagan" and "..a person's mind", but your careless presentation makes it look as if you are trying to pretend that Dr. Sagan's name is part of the "definition" you stole. RHWUD2 defines "obsession" as "1. the domination of one's thoughts or feelings by a persistent idea, image, desire, etc." (p. 1338, so you can find it). Despite your clumsy attempts at calumny, Dr. Sagan's "thoughts or feelings" were not "dominated" by "UFOs" or "Aliens". Certainly not in the way your thoughts are dominated with lying about him. How much of Cosmos was about LGM "aliens"? How much of Cosmos was about "UFOs"? What percentage of Dr. Sagan's life work does Cosmos represent? So much for demonstrating an "obsession"... How much of Contact (a work of fiction) was about LGM "aliens"? How much of Contact (a work of fiction) was about "UFOs"? What percentage of Dr. Sagan's work does Contact represent? So much for demonstrating an "obsession"... Originally Posted by justintime Carl Sagan started out believing in flying saucers and aliens. Everyone around him claimed he took aliens seriously. His show Cosmos claims. Telling outright lies does not bother you at all. does it? Just as when you tried to claim that you know me, and know who I am, and know where I live...did you learn nothing? It has been demonstrated to you, multiple times, that Dr. Sagan did not "believe" in" "flying saucers". He mentions "flying saucers" to debunk them, to demonstrate that claims of "flying saucers" and "UFOs", without evidence, are spurious. He compares reports of "UFOs" and "alien visitations" to historical reports of seeing angles, and fairies, and of being visited by saints. You really ought to consider making true statements. Originally Posted by justintime Sagan created the titles "Contact" and "Cosmos" to say we're not alone in this vast universe This statement is not original. It is stolen without attribution, from a source you did not provide. Why must you continually act dishonestly? Plagiarism is wrong, and it makes you seem even more untrustworthy... Originally Posted by justintime Sagan’s “Cosmos” Episode 13: “Who Speaks for Earth” drops the bomb about alien life This statement is not original. It is stolen without attribution, from a source you did not provide. Why must you continually act dishonestly? Plagiarism is wrong, and it makes you seem even more untrustworthy... Originally Posted by justintime UFO sightings prompted Carl Sagan to insist on cyanide pills for first contact http://www.huliq.com/10282/ufo-sight...-first-contact As has been pointed out to you, this link (which you might consider reading) says that the DVD of Contact "features a commentary by “Contact” movie producers Robert Zemeckis and Steve Starkey, revealing how Carl Sagan 'insisted that NASA give out cyanide pills to its astronauts.' " I hope you realize this is not "evidence", and it is dishonest of you to claim that it is. There is no other record of Dr. Sagan insisting on this. Given the rest of the tone of the article (note the aspersions cast on the time and method of Dr. Sagan's death), it would be unwise to use the article as "evidence" of anything other than the perfidy of the writer. You really ought to consider the quality of sources, before you claim that anything has been "proved"... Originally Posted by justintime His project SETI searched for extraterrestrial intelligent life (aliens) for 50 years. If this is not obsession with aliens. Skeptics are in denial. What percentage of Dr. Sagan's work does the time he spent with, and on, SETI, represent? What source do you provide for this information? Dr. Sagan spent a far smaller portion of his time on SETI than the portion of your time you spend telling lies about Dr. Sagan. Your false dichotomy notwithstanding, SETI was not an "obsession" of Dr. Sagan's. And, since you continue to confuse and conflate "Skeptic", skeptic", and "skeptical thinking", your claim that "Skeptics are in denial" is fundamentally false in its construction, and demonstrably false in its presumed conclusion.
	__________________ "Science is a wall against which we crash all of our ideas. The ones that survive are the ones we keep, but they are still subjected to periodic crash tests." -Foster Zygote "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

13th December 2012, 05:30 PM	#1249
JohnG Pedantic Bore Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Abandon All Hope Posts: 4,398	Originally Posted by GeneMachine On that huliq.com article... Let me quote it quoting Sagan: “There are billions of inhabited world in the Milky Way Galaxy, perhaps there will be a few populated by the sinker, floaters and hunters (alien life forms that could threaten Earth)... I'm skeptical that Sagan ever said that "sinkers", "floaters" and "hunters" (theoretical life forms that could exist on gas giants such as Jupiter or Saturn) could "threaten Earth".
	__________________ 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

13th December 2012, 07:19 PM	#1250
Loss Leader Opinionated Jerk Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: New York Posts: 11,885	Originally Posted by justintime What it shows is Skeptic Forums are not created equal but Skeptics are. Skeptics quite accurately fit the definition: One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions. I find JREF is fortunate to have some very mature skeptics. From the number of posts and the long years of dedicated participation they recognize the value in contributions that reflect thinking outside the box. What better lifeline than one from the outside tossed to those trapped for years on the inside. I am sure many are reading my posts not because they want to know what a Skeptic is. Most here are as I said mature skeptics. They just want to know how to get out of the trapped box. Inundated with the same trash topics there is no escaping the drowning feeling under the never ending doubts, uncertainty and insecurity. Now I have to lie down for a couple hours.
	__________________ Follow me on Twitter! @LossLeader This force is receiving all the right to vote through the use of magic. - Miernik Wieslaw <NEW> VOTE FOR ME JUST BECAUSE <NEW>

13th December 2012, 11:59 PM	#1251
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,105	Originally Posted by justintime I am sure many are reading my posts not because they want to know what a Skeptic is. People who want to know what a skeptic (or even a Skeptic) is not, on the other hand, would be well advised to read your posts.
	__________________ "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

14th December 2012, 01:44 AM	#1252
Dcdrac Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,685	And to correct JT once again Doctor Carl Sagan was not obsessed with flying asucers and aliens. No amount of repeating that mantra will change that fact. And Frank Drake and Carl sagan were never in competition with each other they were colleagues and freinds, with Frank Drake leading the way in SETI, and in Doctor Drakes case it was not his entire work either, it remained one and JUST one area of interest for Doctor Carl Sagan. You seem incapable of accepting that scientists can be interested in many fields.
Dcdrac Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,685	Last edited by Dcdrac; 14th December 2012 at 02:01 AM.

14th December 2012, 02:16 AM	#1253
Dcdrac Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,685	My current favourite science populeriser is Jim Al-Khalili http://www.jimal-khalili.com/
Dcdrac Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,685

14th December 2012, 03:39 AM	#1254
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 22,105	Originally Posted by Dcdrac And to correct JT once again Doctor Carl Sagan was not obsessed with flying asucers and aliens. No amount of repeating that mantra will change that fact. And Frank Drake and Carl sagan were never in competition with each other they were colleagues and freinds, with Frank Drake leading the way in SETI, and in Doctor Drakes case it was not his entire work either, it remained one and JUST one area of interest for Doctor Carl Sagan. You seem incapable of accepting that scientists can be interested in many fields. You know, JT looks very much like: Originally Posted by justintime One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
	__________________ "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

14th December 2012, 06:24 AM	#1255
Pixel42 Schrödinger's cat Join Date: May 2004 Location: Wiltshire, UK Posts: 4,241	Originally Posted by Dcdrac My current favourite science populeriser is Jim Al-Khalili http://www.jimal-khalili.com/ Who just became President of the British Humanist Association. Top chap. I saw him speak at the Cheltenham Science Festival a few years ago; he explained the double slit experiment so well that I actually heard someone near me gasp as he got it.
	__________________ "The correct scientific response to anything that is not understood is always to look harder for the explanation, not give up and assume a supernatural cause". David Attenborough. Last edited by Pixel42; 14th December 2012 at 06:26 AM.

14th December 2012, 10:42 AM	#1256
Dcdrac Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,685	And this one of the greatest TV prgamees EVER Cosmoss http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z2AnfStRSM
Dcdrac Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,685	Last edited by Dcdrac; 14th December 2012 at 10:57 AM.

14th December 2012, 12:07 PM	#1257
Dcdrac Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,685	Civlisation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNGzoJFj9g8
Dcdrac Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,685

17th December 2012, 08:42 AM	#1260
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,039	Originally Posted by justintime I noticed my absence has slowed the momentum this thread was building. Without the intellectual input it is only expected interest would decline. When might that start?
Resume Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 8,039

17th December 2012, 08:52 AM	#1261
Loss Leader Opinionated Jerk Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: New York Posts: 11,885	Originally Posted by Slowvehicle Is there a source with the transcript for the video? I only watched about a minute and a half. After an introduction, it's a news clip of a primary school in Australia that has a magician come in to teach the children ... lessons in stage magic. Occasionally, the author of the video puts words up on the screen that aren't demonstrated in the video. For example, the magician says it's important to smile. The video's author (not the news station that originally aired the segment) writes on the screen something like, "These Dysfunctional Kids need Formal Lessons on how to operate their emotions" and "Magic tricks engages (sic) the attention of attention deficit kids." Other comments: "Underfunctioning children respond positively to a MAGICIAN," "MAGICIAN has a TRANSFORMATIONAL effect on underfunctioning angry children," and "James Randi appears a strong male figure to underfuctioning angry pseudoskeptics." The comments of the video's author are all complete nonsense that in no way follow from the news segment. Don't bother watching.
	__________________ Follow me on Twitter! @LossLeader This force is receiving all the right to vote through the use of magic. - Miernik Wieslaw <NEW> VOTE FOR ME JUST BECAUSE <NEW> Last edited by Loss Leader; 17th December 2012 at 08:56 AM.

17th December 2012, 08:55 AM	#1262
Slowvehicle Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: ...not where I seemed, nor was calculated to be...but no-one need worry... Posts: 2,199	Originally Posted by Loss Leader I only watched about a minute and a half. After an introduction, it's a news clip of a primary school in Australia that has a magician come in to teach the children ... lessons in stage magic. Occasionally, the author of the video puts words up on the screen that aren't demonstrated in the video. For example, the magician says it's important to smile. The video's author (not the news station that originally aired the segment) writes on the screen something like, "These Dysfunctional Kids need Formal Lessons on how to operate their emotions" and "Magic tricks engages (sic) the attention of attention deficit kids." The comments of the video's author are all complete nonsense that in no way follow from the video. Don't bother watching. How can you say such spiteful things about Mireille Mathieu, discoverer of "Lay Gnosis", and perpetrator of http://www.truebluehealer.com/ ?
	__________________ "Science is a wall against which we crash all of our ideas. The ones that survive are the ones we keep, but they are still subjected to periodic crash tests." -Foster Zygote "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

17th December 2012, 09:11 AM	#1263
justintime Suspended Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 756	Originally Posted by Loss Leader I only watched about a minute and a half. After an introduction, it's a news clip of a primary school in Australia that has a magician come in to teach the children ... lessons in stage magic. Occasionally, the author of the video puts words up on the screen that aren't demonstrated in the video. For example, the magician says it's important to smile. The video's author (not the news station that originally aired the segment) writes on the screen something like, "These Dysfunctional Kids need Formal Lessons on how to operate their emotions" and "Magic tricks engages (sic) the attention of attention deficit kids." Other comments: "Underfunctioning children respond positively to a MAGICIAN," "MAGICIAN has a TRANSFORMATIONAL effect on underfunctioning angry children," and "James Randi appears a strong male figure to underfuctioning angry pseudoskeptics." The comments of the video's author are all complete nonsense that in no way follow from the news segment. Don't bother watching. I should have mentioned the video gets to my point around the 10 minute mark. But the entire video builds a case for stunted curiosity and enthusiasm which later surfaces in skeptics. And thank you for editing my earlier post. You can see I was a bit rusty in the charms department.
justintime Suspended Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 756

17th December 2012, 09:21 AM	#1264
Slowvehicle Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: ...not where I seemed, nor was calculated to be...but no-one need worry... Posts: 2,199	Originally Posted by justintime I should have mentioned the video gets to my point around the 10 minute mark. But the entire video builds a case for stunted curiosity and enthusiasm which later surfaces in skeptics. And thank you for editing my earlier post. You can see I was a bit rusty in the charms department. Justin, you are doing it again. The video purports to discuss how "pesudoskeptics" are "produced". You claim to be making a point about "Skeptics" (or "skeptics", depending upon which post). Are you actually saying that a "Skeptic", a "skeptic", and a "pseudoskeptic" are the same thing? Are you claiming that what kimbo99 says about "producing" "pseudoskeptics" applies to every skeptical thinker?
	__________________ "Science is a wall against which we crash all of our ideas. The ones that survive are the ones we keep, but they are still subjected to periodic crash tests." -Foster Zygote "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; 17th December 2012 at 10:43 AM.

17th December 2012, 11:23 AM	#1265
Spindrift Enturbulator Extraordinaire Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Right here! Posts: 8,461	Originally Posted by justintime I noticed my absence has slowed the momentum this thread was building. Troll threads always slow done when there is no troll to feed.
	__________________ 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.

17th December 2012, 12:02 PM	#1266
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,484	Originally Posted by Spindrift Troll threads always slow done when there is no troll to feed. Casting your bread on the waters is pointless when there are no ducks around.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

17th December 2012, 03:18 PM	#1267
justintime Suspended Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 756	I realize it is important to know what is a skeptic. It helps to identify a few famous skeptics like Carl Sagan. It also helps to understand how skeptics are produced. But it is rather shocking a Skeptic forum does not try to protect its members by helping them to identify pseudo skeptics that might be in their midst. I have provided a link that ask skeptics if they know where they stand. I have pointed out repeatedly that is a difficult question to ask a skeptic if they know where they stand because "Skepticism is not a position, it is a process." (Dr Shermer). So can we then infer a skeptic who has a position/stand and has an agenda is not a skeptic but a pseudo skeptic. Pseudoskeptics revelaed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_YYtF_2Hno
justintime Suspended Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 756

17th December 2012, 03:29 PM	#1268
Loss Leader Opinionated Jerk Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: New York Posts: 11,885	Originally Posted by justintime But it is rather shocking a Skeptic forum does not try to protect its members by helping them to identify pseudo skeptics that might be in their midst. That's like saying it's rather shocking that grass doesn't alert gazelles that zebras are nearby.
	__________________ Follow me on Twitter! @LossLeader This force is receiving all the right to vote through the use of magic. - Miernik Wieslaw <NEW> VOTE FOR ME JUST BECAUSE <NEW>

17th December 2012, 03:31 PM	#1269
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,484	Originally Posted by justintime I. But it is rather shocking a Skeptic forum does not try to protect its members by helping them to identify pseudo skeptics that might be in their midst. We don't do witch hunts here, and your definition of ''pseudo-skeptics'' leaves a lot to be desired. There are varying degrees of skepticism. The only reason I can see for pretending to be a skeptic would be getting paid for it. My main area of skepticism involves religion and the paranormal. What are you skeptical about? You keep avoiding that question.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away. Last edited by dafydd; 17th December 2012 at 03:33 PM.

17th December 2012, 03:31 PM	#1270
Acleron Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: In a beautifully understandable universe Posts: 1,933	Originally Posted by justintime I should have mentioned the video gets to my point around the 10 minute mark. But the entire video builds a case for stunted curiosity and enthusiasm which later surfaces in skeptics. ... Ah, the stunted curiosity must explain the tremendous popularity of the Science and Maths sub-fora.

17th December 2012, 03:35 PM	#1271
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,484	Originally Posted by Acleron Ah, the stunted curiosity must explain the tremendous popularity of the Science and Maths sub-fora. And also why many posters there spent years studying their field and have such high qualifications.
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

17th December 2012, 03:38 PM	#1272
dafydd Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Belgium (Flatland) Posts: 31,484	Originally Posted by justintime I realize it is important to know what is a skeptic. It helps to identify a few famous skeptics like Carl Sagan. It also helps to understand how skeptics are produced. But it is rather shocking a Skeptic forum does not try to protect its members by helping them to identify pseudo skeptics that might be in their midst. I have provided a link that ask skeptics if they know where they stand. I have pointed out repeatedly that is a difficult question to ask a skeptic if they know where they stand because "Skepticism is not a position, it is a process." (Dr Shermer). So can we then infer a skeptic who has a position/stand and has an agenda is not a skeptic but a pseudo skeptic. Pseudoskeptics revelaed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_YYtF_2Hno There is no such thing as a pseudo skeptic. Are you skeptical about that statement?
	__________________ Yesterday upon the stairs I met a man who wasn't there He wasn't there again today I wish that he would go away.

17th December 2012, 04:42 PM	#1273
eerok Quixoticist Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 449	Originally Posted by justintime I noticed my absence has slowed the momentum this thread was building. Without the intellectual input it is only expected interest would decline. A train wreck isn't interesting without the train. The fact that there was nothing to say when you weren't here shows clearly enough that your mentations as you've presented them here have no substance.
eerok Quixoticist Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 449	__________________ "Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde

17th December 2012, 05:40 PM	#1274
Slowvehicle Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: ...not where I seemed, nor was calculated to be...but no-one need worry... Posts: 2,199	Justin: In thread #1258, you make the following claim: Originally Posted by justintime Continuing with my theory on Skeptics/Skepticism and Rationalism. Not only have I defined what is a skeptic. I am advancing the theory to show how skeptics are produced. As I pointed out to you in the very next post, the video you linked to does not, in fact mention how "skeptics are produced" Instead, it, like most of "kimbo99's" other videos, pretends to be making a point about "pseudoskeptics". Loss leader has pointed out the the points "made" in the voice-over and addenda are NOT the points made by what happens in the video, at all. Not to mention, you have yet to define "what is a skeptic"--not in any intelligible way. You have delivered yourself of voluminous opinions, and revealed multiple agenda, but have been less than forthcoming with actual, documented, definitions. Given that, it is disingenuous, at best, to say the following: Originally Posted by justintime I realize it is important to know what is a skeptic. It helps to identify a few famous skeptics like Carl Sagan. It also helps to understand how skeptics are produced. But it is rather shocking a Skeptic forum does not try to protect its members by helping them to identify pseudo skeptics that might be in their midst. First, it is, in fact, important to know what you mean when you say, "Skeptic", or "skeptic", or"pseudoskeptic"--important enough that an un-documented, plagiarized "definition" is not adequate. You are free, of course, to use any egregious, inappositive "definition" you choose--but you should have the honesty to present your sources, or make sure that the "definitions" are, in fact, unique to you. I have asked you before, many times, to define what you mean by "Skeptic", and what you mean by "skeptic" (and now, what you mean by "pseudoskeptic"). Stealing the same badly-copied, ungrammatical explanation will not do. Be so kind as to explain whether the three terms mean the same thing to you, or different things; and if they do, in fact, mean different things, what, in your mind, is the distinction? Second, you appear to be claiming, here, that Dr. Sagan is, in fact, a "skeptic"--even a "famous skeptic". What changed your mind? Third, I ask again: How does a video purporting to explain how "pseudoskeptics" are "produced" say anything at all useful about skeptical thinkers? Unless you truly are claiming that "skeptics" and "pseudoskeptics" are the same thing, your video does not "advance a theory to show how skeptics are produced". Fourth, please demonstrate where you picked up the...odd...idea that JREF needs to "protect" its members? What makes you say that the members need help identifying the "pseudo-" among us? You go on to say the following: Originally Posted by justintime I have provided a link that ask skeptics if they know where they stand. I have pointed out repeatedly that is a difficult question to ask a skeptic if they know where they stand because "Skepticism is not a position, it is a process." (Dr Shermer). Your assumption that there is a "stand" that identifies "skeptics" makes it clear that you do not understand Dr. Shermer's quote. You need to understand that skeptical thinkers may disagree, and on a range of topics. The thing that identifies a skeptical thinker, or a critical thinker, is not what is believed, but how what is believed is reached, as a belief. In other words, according to Dr, Shermer, skeptical thinkers are not identified by a position they all hold, but by the kind of processes by which, and through which, they reach the positions each holds. I would suggest you go back and read Dr. Shermer's article. Understanding that skeptical thinking is a set of disciplines, a group of processes, a family of methods of reaching conclusions; sharing the characteristic of being evidence-driven and evidence-based, would help you not make the following mistake: Originally Posted by justintime So can we then infer a skeptic who has a position/stand and has an agenda is not a skeptic but a pseudo skeptic. Most skeptical thinkers with whom I have had any dealings tend to hold strong opinions--given the fact that their opinions are derived,not received, this should not be surprising. To pretend otherwise is to err. Further, until you explain exactly what you mean by "pseudoskeptic", or "pseudo skeptic", or "Skeptic" or "skeptic", pretending they are contradistinct from each other is meaningless. If you are implying that no one with an agenda can be trusted, where does that leave you? Not to put too fine a point on it, what agenda are you pursuing, with this video? Originally Posted by justintime Pseudoskeptics revelaed. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_YYtF_2Hno Be so kind as to address these issues.
	__________________ "Science is a wall against which we crash all of our ideas. The ones that survive are the ones we keep, but they are still subjected to periodic crash tests." -Foster Zygote "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; 17th December 2012 at 06:07 PM. Reason: Clarifying format

17th December 2012, 06:45 PM	#1275
AdMan Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 7,197	Originally Posted by Spindrift Originally Posted by justintime I noticed my absence has slowed the momentum this thread was building. Troll threads always slow done when there is no troll to feed. This.
AdMan Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 7,197	__________________ It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan

17th December 2012, 08:48 PM	#1276
booNyzarC Scholar Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 54	Sometimes good things can come from negative things. As a result of this thread I was inspired to watch Cosmos again in its entirety for the first time in over 30 years. I started last Thursday and I just now finished episode 13. Fantastic show, as good today as it was back when it first aired! So thank you JiT, for inspiring me to enrich myself once again with this viewing. May I suggest that you give it a watch as well and hopefully learn a bit more about who Sagan was and what he stood for? He was a great man without question, and deserving of far more respect and admiration than you've given him in these merged threads. Cheers.
booNyzarC Scholar Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 54

17th December 2012, 11:47 PM	#1277
JohnG Pedantic Bore Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Abandon All Hope Posts: 4,398	Originally Posted by booNyzarC Sometimes good things can come from negative things. As a result of this thread I was inspired to watch Cosmos again in its entirety for the first time in over 30 years. I started last Thursday and I just now finished episode 13. Fantastic show, as good today as it was back when it first aired! So thank you JiT, for inspiring me to enrich myself once again with this viewing. May I suggest that you give it a watch as well and hopefully learn a bit more about who Sagan was and what he stood for? He was a great man without question, and deserving of far more respect and admiration than you've given him in these merged threads. Cheers. Agreed. I just finished watching the "Encyclopedia Galactica" episode, which is especially pertinent to JIT's claims of Sagan's supposed obsession with extraterrestrial life.
	__________________ 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