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 4th December 2012, 09:40 AM   #281
GeeMack
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Not Bandiagara
Posts: 7,241
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
We already know why cheese turn green. It is the mold that causes it to turn green. If you knew that and was less of a Skeptic. You might have ended checking her out for suspect mold instead of being directed to a dead cow.

What makes the mold green? And why do you hate chlorophyll?

Quote:
Next time someone shows you a picture of udders, Be less skeptical.

Next time someone mentions a green cow, be more skeptical. And if you don't know how, you've come to the right place. Here at the JREF forums we specialize in teaching the uninformed, uneducated, skeptic haters. But of course it only works if they want it.
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 4th December 2012, 09:54 AM   #282
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: 5,934
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
We already know why cheese turn green. It is the mold that causes it to turn green. If you knew that and was less of a Skeptic. You might have ended checking her out for suspect mold instead of being directed to a dead cow.

Next time someone shows you a picture of udders, Be less skeptical.
Third request...

Be so kind as to explain:

"It may be no more than a careless mistake on your part (formatting can be tricky) but the source you appear to be providing for the quote above
(The Role of the Amygdala in Fear and Panic.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1749)
does not, in fact, contain the text you appear to be claiming that it does."
__________________
__________________
"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 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 4th December 2012, 10:13 AM   #283
justintime
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
Originally Posted by John Jones View Post
How many posts have you made in the last 3 years, Justitime?
I have been posting on Skeptic forums for little over a year starting (09/21/11).. I accidentally stumbled on one trying to locate a discussion on phenotypes ( Pink flamingos) to be exact . The link was pointed by someone who turned out to be a troll and I have been trying to rehabilitate him ever since.
I was on Dawkins early 2010. before I discovered the Skeptic forums. I am big on science.
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 4th December 2012, 10:18 AM   #284
StankApe
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,643
justintime, I think that you would discover that you are vastly out of your league here. Your attempts at short shifting and semantics might work when you are arguing with a bunch of boobs on the basementtroglodytes.com forum, but on here, many of the people you will talk with are pros in the science, education, medical and legal professions (and those of us who are just regular blowhards are still rather clever) so, you think you are making points and looking smart.


You aren't


All you have succeeded in doing is making yourself look uneducated, angry,biased and carrying a grudge about Sagan and the concept of skepticism so large as to cloud any fair judgement.

In other words, your argument is worthless and based on conjecture shrouded in a personal animosity that negates any rational point you may have been trying to make (if one ever existed)

Now, if you would like to discuss these things like a grown up, we are all ears.
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 4th December 2012, 10:31 AM   #285
jond
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,691
Originally Posted by rcfieldz View Post
ludicrous
A very succinct summary of your posting history.
jond is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 10:31 AM   #286
StankApe
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,643
what are your credentials? because it doesn't appear as though you have any earthly idea what you are talking about in regards to anything...
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 4th December 2012, 10:35 AM   #287
kerikiwi
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bay of Islands NZ
Posts: 6,114
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
I think looking at the dates Roswell 1947 and around 1951 Carl Sagan at 17 talking about flying saucers and aliens makes me feel he made that connection. He developed an early obsession and tried to fulfill it by searching for them for the rest of his life
You feel Sagan made the connection?
It is you who has made the connection.
I think it has been explained to you that simply repeating an assertion does not make it more real. The difference between what I think and what you think is that what I think is demonstrably true.
kerikiwi 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 4th December 2012, 10:42 AM   #288
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: 5,934
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
I have been posting on Skeptic forums for little over a year starting (09/21/11).. I accidentally stumbled on one trying to locate a discussion on phenotypes ( Pink flamingos) to be exact . The link was pointed by someone who turned out to be a troll and I have been trying to rehabilitate him ever since.
I was on Dawkins early 2010. before I discovered the Skeptic forums. I am big on science.
Fouurth request:

In post #66, you appear to be offering the following:

Originally Posted by justintime View Post
A skeptic forum is not the proper place to go to for facts. It is the place you go to when you have doubts about something and you are looking for other doubters. For example if you want to learn something about climate change or religion/god You go to a climate research/study site or a church to be with religious people.

Now having met more doubters that agree with you on a skeptic forum, you can either end your search and stop learning anything more about the subject or search for other doubts that doubters have to add to the list of doubts you have accumulated. You might then reach a saturation point full of only doubts and that is where the panic and fear creeps in.
Tragically, Skeptic brains 'emit fear signals that can disrupt attempts at rational thought'
...and appear to be offering the following cite as its source:

Originally Posted by justintime View Post
The Role of the Amygdala in Fear and Panic.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1749
It is possible that this merely represents no more than a careless mistake on your part (formatting can be tricky). However, that source does not, in fact, contain the text you appear to be claiming that it does.

I do not want a simple mistake to give you the appearance of intentional dishonesty on this forum.

Be so kind as to provide the actual source for the quote above.

Be so kind as to explain the purpose of the link above.

I eagerly anticipate your resolution of this issue.
__________________
"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; 4th December 2012 at 10:43 AM.
Slowvehicle 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 4th December 2012, 11:06 AM   #289
justintime
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
Fouurth request:

In post #66, you appear to be offering the following:



...and appear to be offering the following cite as its source:



It is possible that this merely represents no more than a careless mistake on your part (formatting can be tricky). However, that source does not, in fact, contain the text you appear to be claiming that it does.

I do not want a simple mistake to give you the appearance of intentional dishonesty on this forum.

Be so kind as to provide the actual source for the quote above.

Be so kind as to explain the purpose of the link above.

I eagerly anticipate your resolution of this issue.
You have to understand the link and the function of the amygdala. It is obvious you did not read the link but tried a word search for a direct match.

I was looking for what the troll had to say about phenotypes and followed through with the link he provided. That is how I discovered Skeptic Forums are not the place to look for information.

You have to apply logic and not jump to conclusions.
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 4th December 2012, 11:10 AM   #290
Craig B
Philosopher
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 8,093
Originally Posted by Jodie View Post
OMG, the skeptics remind me of the bigfoot community with one exception:

The plural of anecdote is the only data.
The plural of the Bigfoot community is the Bigfeet communities.
Craig B 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 4th December 2012, 11:15 AM   #291
Squeegee Beckenheim
Philosopher
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7,544
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
I am big on science.
Just not on the critical thinking skills on which science is based.
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 4th December 2012, 11:16 AM   #292
xjx388
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,687
I believe in the very real possibility that there is intelligent life in the Universe other than on Earth. If I were a scientist, I would definitely be an astronomer or astro-physicist, or whatever the the actual names are and I'm sure that I would have followed in Carl Sagan's mold -he's a hero of mine. He simply used the best science available to him to look for any real acceptable evidence that might be out there.

But this type of "belief" in the possibility of alien life doesn't mean that I think UFOs are aliens or that people have been abducted by aliens. When I was a kid, late teens early 20s, I may have believed that some of these stories were real. But as I grew up and got a little wiser and more mature, I began to see through them. There is no credible evidence available -and unexplained does not constitute evidence. Now that I understand the science a little better, I see that even if life does exist out there it's probably not going to be widespread or even anywhere close enough to us to make travel feasible given what we know about physics.

I understand the woos fascination with Sagan. If you have never read him or seen his show, Cosmos, then you might be fooled into thinking he was a mainstream scientist who believed in UFOs. Unfortunately for woodom, this is not the case.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 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 4th December 2012, 11:22 AM   #293
smartcooky
Master Poster
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 2,017
justintime

There is probably no doubt that Sagan believed UFO's were extraterrestrial in origin when he was a young man. Hell, I thought that as well as a teenager, Chariots of the Gods, The Bermuda Triangle, Flight 19, etc were all "evidence" that aliens were here on earth. This all changed gradually as I grew up, and came to the realisation that "speculation" is not "evidence".

If Sagan still believed this in his 40's and 50's, then he had a strange way of showing it. For just one example, in an episode of Cosmos (04:Heaven and Hell) he had a golden opportunity to advance that belief when talking about what might have caused the Tunguska event, yet what does he say?

Quote:
"Or maybe, other people have speculated, it was a spaceship of some unimaginably advanced extraterrestrial civilization in desperate mechanical trouble crashing in a remote region of an obscure planet. Well, if so, it's pretty startling that at the impact site there is not a piece, not the tiniest transistor of a crashed spacecraft."

If you have ever bothered to watch the series Cosmos all the way through from beginning to end (and somehow, I doubt it) you would pick up a theme which runs right through it, that science is about the evidence and the rigorous testing of theory with experimentation and research. He lambasts scientists who do not approach subjects with an open mind, e.g. the active suppression of the theories of Velikovsky, which while almost certainly wrong, were nevertheless his call to propose.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Unfortunately, CTs and woomeisters don't want close scrutiny and investigation by experiment, because they know that such investigation will reveal their beliefs and claims as a fraud. Its why, despite having a world full of people who claim psychic powers and abilities as mediums, NOT ONE has accepted the JREF Million Dollar challenge, because they know their fraud will be exposed... and they hate sceptics for that.
__________________
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

Last edited by smartcooky; 4th December 2012 at 11:24 AM.
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 4th December 2012, 11:23 AM   #294
KingMerv00
Penultimate Amazing
 
KingMerv00's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA...USA
Posts: 14,483
It's really simple, justintime. Being a skeptic isn't about what you believe or how much of your time you spend researching a particularly topic. It's about how you believe and how you spend your time researching a particular topic.

Carl Sagan believed that intelligent life probably exists out there somewhere but admitted that because of the immense size of the universe and our limited resources, no convincing physical evidence had been found during his lifetime.

He postulated a reasonable idea, explored it logically, and came to sound conclusions that weren't based on pseudoscience or fallacies. Therefore, he was a skeptic.
__________________
If man came from dust, why is there still dust?

Last edited by KingMerv00; 4th December 2012 at 11:25 AM.
KingMerv00 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 4th December 2012, 11:34 AM   #295
justintime
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I believe in the very real possibility that there is intelligent life in the Universe other than on Earth. If I were a scientist, I would definitely be an astronomer or astro-physicist, or whatever the the actual names are and I'm sure that I would have followed in Carl Sagan's mold -he's a hero of mine. He simply used the best science available to him to look for any real acceptable evidence that might be out there.

But this type of "belief" in the possibility of alien life doesn't mean that I think UFOs are aliens or that people have been abducted by aliens. When I was a kid, late teens early 20s, I may have believed that some of these stories were real. But as I grew up and got a little wiser and more mature, I began to see through them. There is no credible evidence available -and unexplained does not constitute evidence. Now that I understand the science a little better, I see that even if life does exist out there it's probably not going to be widespread or even anywhere close enough to us to make travel feasible given what we know about physics.

I understand the woos fascination with Sagan. If you have never read him or seen his show, Cosmos, then you might be fooled into thinking he was a mainstream scientist who believed in UFOs. Unfortunately for woodom, this is not the case.
I would have looked for ETI if I was a scientist in the trained field. But I would not have done so if I were skeptical of their existence(did not believe). Carl Sagan was a Skeptic he denounced irrational beliefs.
1. What can be more irrational than looking for aliens without a spacecraft that could reach them.
2. What could be more irrational than assuming aliens could be contacted using radio telescope.
Quote:
Sagan argued that thousands of technically advanced civilizations might be scattered across the galaxy. Some of these societies might be able to communicate with Earth via radio. The back-and-forth messaging might take centuries because of Albert Einstein’s speed limit on electromagnetic waves, but the participants felt the search for such signals was worthwhile anyway.
3, What can be more irrational than using a statistical probability equation with arbitrary assumptions to arrive at a probable number.
4. What could be more irrational than writing a book on alien contact when even the remotest possibility of finding any was never realized.
You have misplaced the woo.

Last edited by justintime; 4th December 2012 at 11:48 AM.
justintime is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 11:40 AM   #296
AdMan
Philosopher
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,913
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
You have to understand the link and the function of the amygdala. It is obvious you did not read the link but tried a word search for a direct match.

The article you linked to in no way supports your statement that "Skeptic brains 'emit fear signals that can disrupt attempts at rational thought'."

And you took that last bit from a book on climate change that is not referring to "skeptic brains":

Quote:
Author William Marsden explains in his recent book Fools Rule: Inside the failed politics of climate change (Alfred A. Knopf Canada) that the when the brain is confronted with tiny changes to familiar patterns, it “quickly emits fear signals that can disrupt attempts at rational thought”.
http://www.straight.com/article-6044...climate-change
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
- Carl Sagan
AdMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 11:46 AM   #297
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: 5,934
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
You have to understand the link and the function of the amygdala. It is obvious you did not read the link but tried a word search for a direct match.

I was looking for what the troll had to say about phenotypes and followed through with the link he provided. That is how I discovered Skeptic Forums are not the place to look for information.

You have to apply logic and not jump to conclusions.
I see. You are going to repeat your dodge of not standing behind what you post.

Follow:

Here is your original formatting, quoted directly form your post #66:

Originally Posted by justintime View Post
Quote:
A skeptic forum is not the proper place to go to for facts. It is the place you go to when you have doubts about something and you are looking for other doubters. For example if you want to learn something about climate change or religion/god You go to a climate research/study site or a church to be with religious people.

Now having met more doubters that agree with you on a skeptic forum, you can either end your search and stop learning anything more about the subject or search for other doubts that doubters have to add to the list of doubts you have accumulated. You might then reach a saturation point full of only doubts and that is where the panic and fear creeps in.
Tragically, Skeptic brains 'emit fear signals that can disrupt attempts at rational thought'

The Role of the Amygdala in Fear and Panic.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1749
It is a common convention of honest scholarship that, when one purports to quote material, one provides a source for the quote (to avoid, among other things: on the one hand, the charge of plagiarism, by demonstrating that the words quoted are, in fact, another's work; and on the other hand, the charge of quote-mining, that is, taking a snippet of text out of context in order to change the clear meaning intended by the actual offer).

Your formatting, above, appears to make the claim that the text from "A skeptic forum..." to "...rational thought." is, in fact, an actual direct, and unedited quote from "The Role of the Amygdala in Fear and Panic.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1749".

The truth is that "The Role of the Amygdala in Fear and Panic.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1749" does not, in fact, mention, even by colorable implication, "skeptic forums", the "agreement" among "doubters" on such fora, "accumulated doubt", "saturation points", or "fear signals" tragically emitted by "Skeptic brain' (sic)", that can "disrupt attempts at rational thought".

In fact, the article articulately discusses the role of the amygdala, with the rest of the limbic system, in conditioned rats in laboratory settings. There is an interesting, and useful, distinction suggested between the "feeling" of fear and the "emotion" of fear; there is also a brief paragraph on methods of "reducing fear and inhibiting the fear response".

In other words, the text you provided is not from the article you referenced.
The text you provided is not a description, precis, abstract, or development of the information in the article you cited.

Your pretense that I did not read, or understand, the citation is incorrect.
Your post, as formatted, looks dishonest.

Logically, there are several possibilities, among them being:
1. You made an honest formatting mistake, but tried to cover it up by pretending I was not applying "logic" (as per your habit of blaming the reader for reading what you say, not what you claim, you meant); or,
2. You posted a link to an article you did not understand, hoping that no one would check your source and notice that your quote is not, in fact, described, contained, reference, or implied, much less present verbatim, in the citation you provided; or,
3. You knowingly provided a citation to an article that does not in any way support the quote you presented as coming from that article.

I anticipate your explanation. Do be so good as to notice that simply repeating your accusation that I did not read, or understand, the article has been dealt with--the issue is not my comprehension, but your use or abuse of the way material is honestly and accurately quoted.
__________________
"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 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 4th December 2012, 11:50 AM   #298
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
I would have looked for ETI if I was a scientist in the trained field. But I would not have done so if I were skeptical of their existence(did not believe). Carl Sagan was a Skeptic he denounced irrational beliefs.
Yes, he denounced irrational beliefs. Believing that life on other planets is possible is not irrational.

Originally Posted by justintime View Post
1. What can be more irrational than looking for aliens without a spacecraft that could reach them.
What's irrational about that?

Originally Posted by justintime View Post
2. What could be more irrational than assuming aliens could be contacted using radio telescope.
How is that irrational?

Originally Posted by justintime View Post
3, What can be more irrational than using a statistical probability equation with arbitrary assumptions to arrive at a probable number.
Sagan didn't do that.

Originally Posted by justintime View Post
4. What could be more irrational than writing a book on alien contact when even the remotest possibility of finding any was never realized.
Everyone who writes science fiction is irrational?
__________________
"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 4th December 2012, 11:51 AM   #299
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge
Posts: 15,932
Justintime, please answer the following questions:

1. Why is it irrational to think that life may have evolved elsewhere in the universe?

2. Why is it irrational to investigate the possibility that some of that life might, like us, evolve to the point that it develops the technology to broadcast communications using radiation emissions?
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 11:58 AM   #300
Craig4
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 6,908
So, what is your belief that you feel we don't have the ability to test?
Craig4 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 4th December 2012, 12:04 PM   #301
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge
Posts: 15,932
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
I would have looked for ETI if I was a scientist in the trained field. But I would not have done so if I were skeptical of their existence(did not believe). Carl Sagan was a Skeptic he denounced irrational beliefs.
What a sadly simple-minded misconception. Skepticism is not a refusal to believe. It is a reservation of judgement pending solid evidence. SETI researchers didn't believe or disbelieve in the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations. They wondered if they might be detectable and made observations.


Quote:
1. What can be more irrational than looking for aliens without a spacecraft that could reach them.
Why is this irrational?

Quote:
2. What could be more irrational than assuming aliens could be contacted using radio telescope.
Why is this irrational?

Quote:
3, What can be more irrational than using a statistical probability equation with arbitrary assumptions to arrive at a probable number.
Why is speculation about what might exist irrational?

Quote:
4. What could be more irrational than writing a book on alien contact when even the remotest possibility of finding any was never realized.
You have misplaced the woo.
I can think of a whole hell of a lot of things, including the OP of this thread.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 12:13 PM   #302
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge
Posts: 15,932
Originally Posted by godless dave View Post
Sagan didn't do that.
The thing about the Drake Equation is that it primarily demonstrates that even if each of the values inserted is extremely low, the odds are pretty good that there have been/are/will be lots of civilizations that develop to the point, and survive long enough, to be able to broadcast for at least a little while.

Maybe such civilizations, if they exist, would be so rare that they would arise so far apart in time, and so separated by distance, that they have no chance of detecting the emissions of previous civilizations. But maybe they are much more common. Or maybe some are able to survive for a very long time, and thus are able to wait around until another infant civilization evolves and emits some artificial radiation that will eventually reach them and be recognized as a sigh of intelligent life.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 12:21 PM   #303
StankApe
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,643
and the odds are the distances are so extreme, that even if the moment you heard a transmission and pinpointed it's source ,AND had a near light speed rocket standing by, by the time you reached your destination, the civilization would have perished either by natural or self destructive means.
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 4th December 2012, 12:27 PM   #304
rwguinn
Philosopher
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 9,005
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
I would have looked for ETI if I was a scientist in the trained field. But I would not have done so if I were skeptical of their existence(did not believe). Carl Sagan was a Skeptic he denounced irrational beliefs.
there's your problem right there.
Being skeptical is not a belief. It is actually reserving judgement until evidence comes in.
If you don't search because you don't believe, then you're not a skeptic, you are a closed-minded believer
ETA:
The justintime argument is identical to the ones the Creationalsits use--"Since I don't believe in evolution, there is no point in searching for evidence of it, and since I don'tbelieve in it any way, any evidence for it is wrong"
Quote:
1. What can be more irrational than looking for aliens without a spacecraft that could reach them.
2. What could be more irrational than assuming aliens could be contacted using radio telescope.
What the hell is irational about knowing that a Radio Telescope can recieve Radio Transmissions?
Quote:
3, What can be more irrational than using a statistical probability equation with arbitrary assumptions to arrive at a probable number.
Intersetingly enough, 1.0x1099times 10-99=1.0
Quote:
4. What could be more irrational than writing a book on alien contact when even the remotest possibility of finding any was never realized.
You have misplaced the woo.
Even scientists and other skeptics like to suspend disbelief once in a while. Hell, read The Bad Astronomer's critique of Men In Black (the first one, not the sequels)
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275

Last edited by rwguinn; 4th December 2012 at 12:36 PM. Reason: fixed equation
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 12:48 PM   #305
justintime
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
Originally Posted by Slowvehicle View Post
I see. You are going to repeat your dodge of not standing behind what you post.

Follow:

Here is your original formatting, quoted directly form your post #66:



It is a common convention of honest scholarship that, when one purports to quote material, one provides a source for the quote (to avoid, among other things: on the one hand, the charge of plagiarism, by demonstrating that the words quoted are, in fact, another's work; and on the other hand, the charge of quote-mining, that is, taking a snippet of text out of context in order to change the clear meaning intended by the actual offer).

Your formatting, above, appears to make the claim that the text from "A skeptic forum..." to "...rational thought." is, in fact, an actual direct, and unedited quote from "The Role of the Amygdala in Fear and Panic.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1749".

The truth is that "The Role of the Amygdala in Fear and Panic.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/node/1749" does not, in fact, mention, even by colorable implication, "skeptic forums", the "agreement" among "doubters" on such fora, "accumulated doubt", "saturation points", or "fear signals" tragically emitted by "Skeptic brain' (sic)", that can "disrupt attempts at rational thought".

In fact, the article articulately discusses the role of the amygdala, with the rest of the limbic system, in conditioned rats in laboratory settings. There is an interesting, and useful, distinction suggested between the "feeling" of fear and the "emotion" of fear; there is also a brief paragraph on methods of "reducing fear and inhibiting the fear response".

In other words, the text you provided is not from the article you referenced.
The text you provided is not a description, precis, abstract, or development of the information in the article you cited.

Your pretense that I did not read, or understand, the citation is incorrect.
Your post, as formatted, looks dishonest.

Logically, there are several possibilities, among them being:
1. You made an honest formatting mistake, but tried to cover it up by pretending I was not applying "logic" (as per your habit of blaming the reader for reading what you say, not what you claim, you meant); or,
2. You posted a link to an article you did not understand, hoping that no one would check your source and notice that your quote is not, in fact, described, contained, reference, or implied, much less present verbatim, in the citation you provided; or,
3. You knowingly provided a citation to an article that does not in any way support the quote you presented as coming from that article.

I anticipate your explanation. Do be so good as to notice that simply repeating your accusation that I did not read, or understand, the article has been dealt with--the issue is not my comprehension, but your use or abuse of the way material is honestly and accurately quoted.
You are one confused person.
I made a statement explaining how the Skeptics accumulated doubts reach a saturation point then panic and fear creeps in.

I then posted a link to show The Role of the Amygdala in Fear and Panic.
The amygdala deals with fear and panic. It is the part of the brain that responds to fear.
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 4th December 2012, 12:52 PM   #306
AdMan
Philosopher
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 8,913
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
You are one confused person.

__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
- Carl Sagan
AdMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 01:19 PM   #307
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,648
Originally Posted by justintime
In short, only the professionals can apply scientific method.
Horseapples. I've got a few publications on my shelf right now written by firefighters, engineers, quarry workers, and other non-scientists. I once called a member of the juvenile justice system to get his opinion on a scientific question, because frankly he knew more than me about that topic. Scientific publications have been written by grade schoolers. In short, this idea is nonsensical and demonstrates that you have very little involvement with the scientific community.

Quote:
Only the professionals can tackle complex phenomena for verifiability.
What "complex phenomena"? What "verifiability"? I know a number of scientific questions that could be solved by five-year-olds under proper supervision--all that's needed is someone finding a fossil at the right location. An ameture adult could easily do so.

Science isn't all hugely expensive particle accelorators and multi-billion dollar labs. A lot of it is still a bunch of people walking around looking at stuff.

And none of that addresses how your average person-in-the-street is restricted from applying the scientific method. They do it all the time. Let's say your break lights are out. You realize that your headlights work. You also realize that your car starts. That rules out the electrical system, battery, alternator, etc. You look at the light, and it appears fine. Then you find the wire that's loose. That's the scientific method at work. You've formulated a few hypotheses, and tested them. Eventually, you got the right one. It's a simple version of the SM, but accurate none the less. And it's something everyone with a car problem has done.

As for skepticism, I'm astounded by your inconsistency, justintime. You say skepticism doubts everything, but you implicitely exhempt that doubt from doubt! Not all doubt is reasonable or rational. Some doubt is manufactured, and some is self-serving rationalizations. And a skeptic that doubts their own doubt must necessarily come to SOME conclusions.

Quote:
From the responses it is obvious none of the participants are philosophy majors and unfortunately Skeptics lack an understanding of Epistemology.
Considering your inability to look beyond dictionary definitions, this is funny. Seriously, anyone who uses a dictionary to define jargon has no business telling others they don't understand epistemology.
__________________
GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 01:26 PM   #308
justintime
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
Originally Posted by AdMan View Post
The article you linked to in no way supports your statement that "Skeptic brains 'emit fear signals that can disrupt attempts at rational thought'."

And you took that last bit from a book on climate change that is not referring to "skeptic brains":



http://www.straight.com/article-6044...climate-change
Yes that was the article I read but went further and located the actual seat of fear in the brain the amygdala. Author William Marsden was using climate change as one example. There are other reasons for Skeptic fears as well.
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 4th December 2012, 01:29 PM   #309
StankApe
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,643
ahh, but in that article, they aren't referring to skeptics are they? No they are referring to people who deny AGM based on political and/or ideological reasons (or claim that AGW is promoted for those reasons) NOT because they have evaluated the scientific evidence and come to that conclusion.

So your attempt to pigeonhole skeptics has been smited. care to try again?
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 4th December 2012, 01:36 PM   #310
smartcooky
Master Poster
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 2,017
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
The thing about the Drake Equation is that it primarily demonstrates that even if each of the values inserted is extremely low, the odds are pretty good that there have been/are/will be lots of civilizations that develop to the point, and survive long enough, to be able to broadcast for at least a little while.

Maybe such civilizations, if they exist, would be so rare that they would arise so far apart in time, and so separated by distance, that they have no chance of detecting the emissions of previous civilizations.
But maybe they are much more common. Or maybe some are able to survive for a very long time, and thus are able to wait around until another infant civilization evolves and emits some artificial radiation that will eventually reach them and be recognized as a sigh of intelligent life.
I agree. Of course, that doesn't mean that we should just not bother looking for them.

It is not irrational to believe that intelligent, technologically advanced life exists elsewhere in the galaxy, but while there is no direct evidence to support this, the building blocks of life do exist throughout the universe no matter where we look.

It is now thought that gravitationally captured planets outnumber stars in our galaxy by several to one. Even conservative estimates are that there are an average of four planets for every star, meaning that the are some 800 billion planets in the galaxy. Even if only, say one in 100,000 are the right composition and size and in the "Goldilocks" zone, that is still 8 million potentially life-bearing planets in the Galaxy. IMO it would be absurd to believe that we were the only ones to develop advanced technology.

Assuming that to be correct we can make a couple of scratchy calculations to show how close they might be. Ignoring depth, our galaxy has an "area" of about 8 billion square light years. With 8 million potential life bearing planets, that comes out to about 1000 square light years per planet, giving us about 18 light years between planets. The chances are reasonable that a technological civilisation might be quite close, and on that basis, it is not irrational to listen for them (note I said "listen for" not "communicate with") in order to find some direct evidence.
__________________
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 4th December 2012, 01:37 PM   #311
Squeegee Beckenheim
Philosopher
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 7,544
So, what we've established here isn't that justintime didn't cite his sources properly because he made an honest mistake or didn't know any better, rather that he didn't cite his sources properly because he was attempting to be dishonest about what they actually say. And that his dishonesty didn't work due to the critical thinking of some of the sceptics in this thread.
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 4th December 2012, 01:40 PM   #312
StankApe
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,643
*high fives everyone and sticks tongue out at the heathen!* lol
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 4th December 2012, 01:43 PM   #313
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge
Posts: 15,932
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
So, what we've established here isn't that justintime didn't cite his sources properly because he made an honest mistake or didn't know any better, rather that he didn't cite his sources properly because he was attempting to be dishonest about what they actually say. And that his dishonesty didn't work due to the critical thinking of some of the sceptics in this thread.
The amusing thing is the insinuation that we're somehow afraid of his intellectual prowess.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 01:47 PM   #314
Bram Kaandorp
Master Poster
 
Bram Kaandorp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 2,295
Originally Posted by Foster Zygote View Post
The amusing thing is the insinuation that we're somehow afraid of his intellectual prowess.
If you think that's funny, wait 'till you realise that we stop existing every time we turn off our computers.
__________________
If autism is a "living death", does that make me a zombie? If so, that'd be great. Just don't get your brain in my general vicinity.
Bram Kaandorp 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 4th December 2012, 01:49 PM   #315
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge
Posts: 15,932
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
I agree. Of course, that doesn't mean that we should just not bother looking for them.
Full agreement from me. But counter to justintime's baseless assertion that Sagan claimed to be certain of the existence of alien civilizations (or his fallacious assertion that a true skeptic is a disbeliever who would claim certainty that they don't exist and thus never conduct the search) is the fact that SETI researchers fully acknowledge the possibility that we won't be able to detect anything, for any number of reasons.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 01:56 PM   #316
justintime
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,260
Originally Posted by Dinwar View Post
Horseapples. I've got a few publications on my shelf right now written by firefighters, engineers, quarry workers, and other non-scientists. I once called a member of the juvenile justice system to get his opinion on a scientific question, because frankly he knew more than me about that topic. Scientific publications have been written by grade schoolers. In short, this idea is nonsensical and demonstrates that you have very little involvement with the scientific community.

What "complex phenomena"? What "verifiability"? I know a number of scientific questions that could be solved by five-year-olds under proper supervision--all that's needed is someone finding a fossil at the right location. An ameture adult could easily do so.

Science isn't all hugely expensive particle accelorators and multi-billion dollar labs. A lot of it is still a bunch of people walking around looking at stuff.

And none of that addresses how your average person-in-the-street is restricted from applying the scientific method. They do it all the time. Let's say your break lights are out. You realize that your headlights work. You also realize that your car starts. That rules out the electrical system, battery, alternator, etc. You look at the light, and it appears fine. Then you find the wire that's loose. That's the scientific method at work. You've formulated a few hypotheses, and tested them. Eventually, you got the right one. It's a simple version of the SM, but accurate none the less. And it's something everyone with a car problem has done.

As for skepticism, I'm astounded by your inconsistency, justintime. You say skepticism doubts everything, but you implicitely exhempt that doubt from doubt! Not all doubt is reasonable or rational. Some doubt is manufactured, and some is self-serving rationalizations. And a skeptic that doubts their own doubt must necessarily come to SOME conclusions.

Considering your inability to look beyond dictionary definitions, this is funny. Seriously, anyone who uses a dictionary to define jargon has no business telling others they don't understand epistemology.
The scientific method is primarily used in the natural sciences. The scientific method is subject to peer-review for possible mistakes before publication. Mechanics are not subject to scientific scrutiny. You are confusing a logical approach, the mechanics experience and other task with that of the strict discipline scientist are bound to to maintain the integrity of the scientific method.
I have never seen a mechanic apply scientific method. He knows what is wrong and without even thinking fixes it. He relies on his knowledge and experience. Unlike a scientist who has to build a hypothesis and verify with frequent test if his hypothesis is correct at the same time following some strict guidelines so the results can be repeated.
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 4th December 2012, 01:56 PM   #317
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge
Posts: 15,932
Justintime, could we have your thoughts on the following questions:

1. Why is it irrational to think that life may have evolved elsewhere in the universe?

2. Why is it irrational to investigate the possibility that some of that life might, like us, evolve to the point that it develops the technology to broadcast communications using radiation emissions?
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 02:05 PM   #318
Dinwar
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,648
Originally Posted by justintime
The scientific method is primarily used in the natural sciences.
True, in the same way that wrenches are primarily used by mechanics.

Quote:
The scientific method is subject to peer-review for possible mistakes before publication.
Not technically, no. The SM doesn't actually include peer review; that's another issue entirely.

Quote:
Mechanics are not subject to scientific scrutiny.
Well, since you've arbitrarily and improperly defined "scientific scrutiny" as "peer review", then yeah, I suppose that's true--but it's a cheap rhetorical trick, not a reflection of reality in any way.

Quote:
You are confusing a logical approach, the mechanics experience and other task with that of the strict discipline scientist are bound to to maintain the integrity of the scientific method.
No. You're arbitrarily limiting the scientific method by redefining it to fit your terms to make yourself right by definition.

Quote:
have never seen a mechanic apply scientific method.
I just described how they do, constantly. The reason you reject it is because you equivocate between the SM and peer review.

Quote:
He knows what is wrong and without even thinking fixes it.
Dear Lord, I hope I never use your mechanic! Your car must be a death trap!

Quote:
He relies on his knowledge and experience.
You know no scientists, I take it. Scientists relly HEAVILY on their knowledge and experience.

Quote:
Unlike a scientist who has to build a hypothesis and verify with frequent test if his hypothesis is correct at the same time following some strict guidelines so the results can be repeated.
You know no scientists, I take it. Scientists relly HEAVILY on their knowledge and experience.

It's amazing. Nearly every single sentence you've typed is wrong.
__________________
GENERATION 8: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
Dinwar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th December 2012, 02:07 PM   #319
StankApe
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,643
You don't seem to understand that the scientific method is exactly what a mechanic uses (and also peer review)

I shall demonstrate

Person A brings in a car that's making a wobbling noise, the mechanic asks questions to determine an initial system diagnosis (what part of the car can he eliminate from his "source" options) (this is akin to eliminating the possible variables in a science experiment)

He then fires up the car, drives it himself so as to familiarize himself to the "sound" the person has relayed to him. Then he uses his experience and knowledge to isolate and recognize the problem then make the repairs. (just like a scientist who wants to know why something is the way it is,isolate the 'something" study it's behavior, introduce a variable, observe the results)

He may also, consult other mechanics before making the repairs to verify that his diagnosis is accurate (peer review) and thus doesn't waste time chasing worthless data down the rabbit hole.

Then the customer returns, drives the car, notices the sound is gone. Is relayed the information of the cause (like a study is relayed in a journal) and happily pays and goes home.

The 2nd stage of review is the aftermath of the repair, if the "science" was practiced properly, the repair should solve the issue and the sound should not reoccur, if it does come back , then the initial stage can be said to have been "proven false" and further review of the information by the original mechanic is required. (this is like what happens when you publish a paper, the initial peer review merely states that the data was gathered in a verifiable and repeatable manner. The science community at large will get to work and give the final "grade" on the paper based on how often it is cited by others and also if any further papers are published refuting the original claim)

so mechanics use the scientific method. I use it everyday when doing baseball analysis. I'm not a 'pro scientist" but I MUST follow the scientific method if I want my statistical analysis to have any value.

Last edited by StankApe; 4th December 2012 at 02:08 PM.
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 4th December 2012, 02:11 PM   #320
Foster Zygote
Dental Floss Tycoon
 
Foster Zygote's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge
Posts: 15,932
Originally Posted by justintime View Post
I have never seen a mechanic apply scientific method. He knows what is wrong and without even thinking fixes it. He relies on his knowledge and experience. Unlike a scientist who has to build a hypothesis and verify with frequent test if his hypothesis is correct at the same time following some strict guidelines so the results can be repeated.
Wow! That is incredibly wrong. Unless your mechanic is psychic, he can't "just know" all the time. There are any number of presented problems that will require the application of the fundamentals of the scientific method. My cousin is an ASE Master Mechanic who works for a Volvo dealership. If a car gets towed in with the problem, "will not start", there are hundreds of possible causes. He uses his experience to know what the most likely causes are, but then he forms an hypothesis and tests it by making an alteration to the element that he thinks might be the cause. If it has no effect and the car still won't start, he moves on to another likely system.
__________________
Counterbalance in the little town of Ridgeview, Ohio. Two people permanently enslaved by the tyranny of fear and superstitution, facing the future with a kind of helpless dread. Two others facing the future with confidence - having escaped one of the darker places of the Twilight Zone.
Foster Zygote is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
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 05:49 AM.
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.