The Girl with "X-ray" vision

[Kilik]

Did anyone see that show a few nights ago on the TLC channel about her?

Under totally controlled tests done by the skeptical CSICOP organization, they had stated if she could identify 5 out of 7 unknown illnesses, with the people totally blind to what she was doing, they would have to admit her ability to see inside people was real. They said the odds would be 250 to 1 I think.

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1370018.html?menu=
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1434

Quote:

First of all this girl has just been cheated in the USA by Wiseman and Hyman.......... they fraudulently changed the experiment minutes before her test to one she has never done before.

Once again Wiseman cheated by moving the goal posts....... and even then this girl scored 4 out of 7 and odds were 50 to 1....... did they conduct more test, did they treat her fairly not a chance they did. SCICOP are debunkers and will never be fair open and honest to a psychic

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/comments/483/

If she had gotten 1 more correct one of the worst most skeptical organizations would have bowed down to her. Of course, that is why they changed it at the last minute and threw in some very odd subjects and things.

Some Qigong masters in China can do the same thing and more.

I saw that show last night. She was one point away from having CSICOP admit she had powers. But, CSICOP is too smart, they know to f*** with the test.

She thought the other two would be hard and said that before hand, the shortened esophagus, because different people might have different esophagus lengths naturally.

Think about it, the one she got wrong, and had she got it right she would have proven her abiltiy beyond a doubt, and that one she got wrong was not an internal organ. Remember, her claim was that she could see internal organs and if they aren't functioning well, and nothing else really. But the dishonset CSICOP knew to add some confusing ones in there, throwing in a patient with a metal plate in them at the last minute.

Think about it, you don't have a clue how she's seeing what she sees. Why in particular, should a metal plate be as visible to her as an inner organ? Maybe she sees the energy of the organ. In that case she's seeing the acupuncture meridian connected to the organ and the inner organ's energy signature. Obviously a metal plate has no acupuncture meridian, and does not have the same energy as an actual organ

CSICOP said 5 out of 7, 1 in 250 odds, was sufficient. She got 4. It seems to be the only time she failed any test. 2 of them, shortened esophagus and removed appendix, she said before the test might be problematic for her.

Anyways, she said before hand she probably couln't do the shortened esophagus or the removed appendix. Think about it, those conditions aren't really diseases, and there are no appendix, esophagus, or steel plate meridians. Also, those three conditions had already healed, they aren't diseases. She got the 4 real diseases correct at 1 in 50 odds.

[MoonDragn]

Sounds like the perfect subject for Randi's challenge. Would be nice to see her prove it too. Would shut the mouths of alot of ignorant skeptics on this board who think they know everything.

[Bronze Dog]

I've never met a skeptic who claimed to know everything. We tend to make a big deal about not knowing everything and how thrilling discovery is. Unfortunately, believers aren't interested in sharing their discoveries by, you know, providing evidence.

[MoonDragn]

I've met a few already on this board who keeps posting that they know with an undeniable fact that something does not exist and is "WOO" as they call it. Yes its up to someone who claims something exists by providing proof. But when that proof is given, a skeptic always denies the validity of the evidence by questioning the source of the evidence or the credibility of the person providing the evidence. If this girl can do what she does in the randi test, it would at least prove that some skeptics are wrong about the existence of something outside our current realm of science.

How can skeptics doubt that our current level of science is pitiful and that we still don't understand at least 99% of our universe around us?

[Bronze Dog]

Originally Posted by MoonDragn

I've met a few already on this board who keeps posting that they know with an undeniable fact that something does not exist and is "WOO" as they call it.

Example, please?

[Starthinker]

This has been up for a long time on the CSICOP site. It wasn't just CSICOP, she failed with other interviewers as well. She said she could see every cell in a human body but she couldn't see a metal plate or missing appendix? These were both on the same man, by the way, not two different people but she still said the man was healthy. Again, she said she could see every cell in a human body and tell what's wrong, so you'd think the absence of cells would be a tell tale sign. Also, she claimed she could see through clothes but when asked if a curtain could be put between her and the subject she said she couldn't see through it, but she couldn't see a metal plate? Or, to be more correct, if a curtain blocks her abilities wouldn't a metal plate block them and thus she could have at least say, "something's blocking my ability in this man, in this area."

I've read other articles on her and like most extraordinary claims, only those that totally believe her can find examples where she is right and then ignore all the times she was wrong.

[MoonDragn]

If what she sees is some sort of life energy, the metal plate wouldn't be emitting anything therefore would totally be invisible to her.

As for absence of an appendix. Is she a doctor or medical student. How would she know about an organ she has no knowledge of unless she can see it? Think about it. If I didn't know anything about cars would I know it if you removed alternator from the engine block?

[LTC8K6]

I see Kilik is on the way to another suspension.....

[Bronze Dog]

If she doesn't have medical knowledge, how can she diagnose?

Of course, all these questions and speculations are pointless until she can pass a proper test.

[Ashles]

Originally Posted by MoonDragn

Sounds like the perfect subject for Randi's challenge. Would be nice to see her prove it too.

It is and it certainly would be.

Funny how she doesn't apply then, isn't it?

Or these Qigong masters.



By the way Moondragn I've noticed how your posts appear to be getting angrier and angrier for some reason.

This is often the case when cherished beliefs are questioned.

[LTC8K6]

Quote:

If this girl can do what she does in the randi test

This girl is a fraud, pure and simple. Note the claim has now changed to where she only needs your picture to tell what is wrong with you. Just your passport photo, in fact. This is nothing but the usual hype and inaccurate reporting. The fact that she was text messaging during the test is pretty strange....

Let's just read what CSICOP actually says.

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/natasha.html

[Ashles]

Originally Posted by MoonDragn

If what she sees is some sort of life energy, the metal plate wouldn't be emitting anything therefore would totally be invisible to her.

As for absence of an appendix. Is she a doctor or medical student. How would she know about an organ she has no knowledge of unless she can see it? Think about it. If I didn't know anything about cars would I know it if you removed alternator from the engine block?

So your explanation is that she can't detect anything that is there that shouldn't be, she also can't detect anything that isn't there and should be, and she doesn't have any medical knowledge to evaluate what she can see.

Why do people have to stretch so?

[LTC8K6]

Quote:

Is she a doctor or medical student. How would she know about an organ she has no knowledge of unless she can see it?

If I have X-ray vision I can pretty quickly see what is different between people. If I line up seven folks, how many won't have an appendix?

The claims are silly and do not stand up to the simplest questions. The girl has no paranormal abilities, period. What she has is a lot of hype, a lot of believers, and a lot of cash coming in, plus one badly done CSICOP test.

[I'll_buy_that]

"Professor Machi said: "We did a whole range of tests, and the strangest thing was that we found she could also use her abilities on photographs, even on tiny passport photos"


She isn't seeing some sort of energy if you believe this quote from the article. if she can do it through photos, then I really can't see why she can't see a metal plate, but then I don't understand "Superpowers" like "Professor Yoshio Machi at Tokyo University, who specialises in studying apparent superpowers in human beings"

She is doing some sort of guessing. I don't know how magicians can do the mind reading trick, but I know it's a trick and I think she is doing something similar

[MoonDragn]

Originally Posted by BronzeDog

Example, please?

Ok I'll do what other skeptics here do all the time, quote things out of context :

Originally Posted by Ashles

But no. Of course. Psychics aren't interested in money. Or helping anyone else with that money obviously.

and a good example of it here :

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

The claims are silly and do not stand up to the simplest questions. The girl has no paranormal abilities, period. What she has is a lot of hype, a lot of believers, and a lot of cash coming in, plus one badly done CSICOP test.

[athon]

'The invisible agenda' always amuses me. There's no reason for it, no evidence for it...

What do woo's have to lose if their beliefs are disproven? A lot. They derive comfort from feeling that they know something that others fail to see. It's the only explanation for why they choose (and I sincerely feel it has to be a choice) to not see how science works.

What do skeptics have to lose if their beliefs are disproven? Nothing...but look at what they have to gain! New discoveries to play with, to ask questions about! I would so love such abilities to exist; it would open up new possibilities. New treatments, new ways to diagnose. New answers to how biology works.

But in order for me to really trust in the existence of such things, they need evidence. Real evidence.

She succeeded attaining 50 - 1 odds. So? Even 100 - 1 odds happen frequently each day. Countless million to one odds happen every year all over the world. Such tests are good places to start, but to insinuate it's where we dust our hands and say 'there's your proof' is mindnumbingly ignorant.

Athon

[MoonDragn]

Originally Posted by Ashles

So your explanation is that she can't detect anything that is there that shouldn't be, she also can't detect anything that isn't there and should be, and she doesn't have any medical knowledge to evaluate what she can see.

Why do people have to stretch so?

no, my explaination is that how the hell do we know what it is she is actually detecting? Stop making stupid assumptions. This was a case where the obvious parameters they agreed upon for the test was changed. Why do skeptics have to be so dense?

What do believers have to gain? Credibility AND also the ability to advance science if they are right. The same thing that skeptics say they wish for.


Skeptics on the other hand really don't want to see change. They prefer their old world views. When the things in their world rock they dig in their claws denying the existence of everything.

When they are finally proven wrong, they claim they never denied the existence to begin with and then find something else to criticize.

The people who denied the world was round were the skeptics, the people who denied the earth was not the center of the universe were skeptics. Not the other way around.

Originally Posted by Athlon

She succeeded attaining 50 - 1 odds. So? Even 100 - 1 odds happen frequently each day. Countless million to one odds happen every year all over the world. Such tests are good places to start, but to insinuate it's where we dust our hands and say 'there's your proof' is mindnumbingly ignorant.

Isn't that the condition of the "proof" to obtain results other than chance. What constitute a good test then if even something against the odds of chance is just chance and not proof?

[Bronze Dog]

Originally Posted by MoonDragn

Ok I'll do what other skeptics here do all the time, quote things out of context :

So, are you saying you can't come up with a legitimate example, only manufacture one?

[Starthinker]

Originally Posted by MoonDragn

If what she sees is some sort of life energy, the metal plate wouldn't be emitting anything therefore would totally be invisible to her.

As for absence of an appendix. Is she a doctor or medical student. How would she know about an organ she has no knowledge of unless she can see it? Think about it. If I didn't know anything about cars would I know it if you removed alternator from the engine block?

Then wouldn't she at least see a scar? A metal plate must be in place to cover some serious bone loss (I can't think of another reason for a metal plate), wouldn't that be detected? Wouldn't that be a serious flaw or disturbance in this "life force"? I didn't even know about her ability to do this with photos, then why couldn't she do it through a curtain? She can diagnose from a passport photo for someone who isn't even there, but someone right next to her is undiagnosable due to a simple curtain between the two? But clothes are just fine? What if the person wore the curtain, would that stop her or does wearing the curtain make it clothes and become okay?

Sorry, I'm new here and I'm not the type to just say "she's a fraud." I prefer to point out reasons WHY she APPEARS to be a fraud and to ask questions that makes the person making the claim explain or at least think about them.

[LTC8K6]

Quote:

This was a case where the obvious parameters they agreed upon for the test was changed.

This was also a test where the subject cheated.

[Bronze Dog]

Originally Posted by MoonDragn

no, my explaination is that how the hell do we know what it is she is actually detecting? Stop making stupid assumptions. This was a case where the obvious parameters they agreed upon for the test was changed. Why do skeptics have to be so dense?

Good example of why I prefer to test the existence of an ability before speculating about its mechanisms.

[Starthinker]

Originally Posted by MoonDragn

no, my explaination is that how the hell do we know what it is she is actually detecting? Stop making stupid assumptions. This was a case where the obvious parameters they agreed upon for the test was changed. Why do skeptics have to be so dense?

What was changed? They didn't use the curtain per HER request and one of the subjects didn't disclose that his appendix was out? Also, her interpreter was communicating with a cell phone to an unknown person, which was supposed to be not allowed. So again, what was changed? What protocol was changed that screwed her up.

As for not knowing how she does it nor why she couldn't detect a metal plate, she stated how she does it. She said, she can seen the major organs just as if she were looking at an anatomy textbook, right down to the cellular level, if she so desired. So, she can see right down to the cellular level but a metal plate is invisible to her? I just don't buy it.

[Minkster]

Where exactly did the 'goalposts' move in this test? I can't see anything other than two test subjects withdrawing and being replaced. Hardly a problem to someone claiming 'x-ray eyes'.

What I can see is several breaches in protocol from Natasha which could have helped her amass the 4/7 result - a result which lets not forget was agreed with the claimant as a 'failure' prior to the test commencing.

[Starthinker]

Sorry about multiple postings, but I just read the article again, it says they had 7 subjects with conditions that they already knew they had, she was told what the conditions were and just had to match the condition to the person. Those were the agreed upon conditions. One person, who had a metal plate didn't disclose he also had his appendix out. That was an oversight as far as I can see. That's how she was tested. I still don't see where there was change in protocol anywhere, can you tell me what I am missing?

[athon]

Originally Posted by MoonDragn

no, my explaination is that how the hell do we know what it is she is actually detecting? Stop making stupid assumptions. This was a case where the obvious parameters they agreed upon for the test was changed. Why do skeptics have to be so dense?

Where was it changed? The parameters were consistent throughout the experiment. Even the subject agreed that she failed. What do you know that she did not?

Quote:

What do believers have to gain? Credibility AND also the ability to advance science if they are right. The same thing that skeptics say they wish for.

You say science like you understand the methodology. Care to explain how science works, since so far you have yet to demonstrate any understanding?

Quote:

Skeptics on the other hand really don't want to see change. They prefer their old world views. When the things in their world rock they dig in their claws denying the existence of everything.

When they are finally proven wrong, they claim they never denied the existence to begin with and then find something else to criticize.

When you feel victimised by arrogance, be arrogant in return...is that it? Not a good philosophy to follow. You sound just like my students who respond with 'But he started it!'. I've already supplied my perception of the skeptic's position. I can easily ammend that to say it represents my personal position. Hence this paragraph is quite offensive.

Quote:

The people who denied the world was round were the skeptics, the people who denied the earth was not the center of the universe were skeptics. Not the other way around.

So because you challenge the status quo, you are are correct? I restate; you don't have a clue about how science works.

Athon

[I'll_buy_that]

Even, just looking at these articles...

"But according to Russian daily newspaper Izvestia, the scientists have so far failed to explain the vivid and detailed accounts she gives of the inside of bodies."

Scientists are not in the position of explaining this, it is up to her to prove that she can do it. And when it states that she can see "vivid detail", then why not a metal plate? or the missing parts that the plate covers.

As far as the curtains, they must be lead. Superman can't see through lead

[MoonDragn]

I have a very good understanding of how science works. The basics of scientific theory is to first make an observation, then come up with a theory about that observation. Then test your theory out by experiments.

The key point here is observation. The problem is there is a disagreement because what the girl claims to be able to do is not witnessed by the person who comes up with the theories. So the observation itself is in quesiton. Thats why we are actually performing these tests, to confirm the observation.

To observe the phenomenon itself is not proof of the ability or the claim. It is the first step in the theorizing process. That is science.

The point I'm trying to make is that if we can get her to do a Randi challenge somehow, at least there would be a fair agreed to test and not something that is biased. You can argue the results of previous tests all day, a test designed to show the evidence without doubts is what I'm after.

[athon]

Originally Posted by MoonDragn

Isn't that the condition of the "proof" to obtain results other than chance. What constitute a good test then if even something against the odds of chance is just chance and not proof?

This is why I say you do not understand science.

'Proof' is a mathematical term. It is not scientific.

Proof means conclusive evidence which precludes the need for any further testing. This test was a simple probability exercise. She had a one in fifty chance of getting the results she did by pure chance. Sure, it's interesting. But the odds were agreed to be higher than that because one in fifty chances offer nothing really substantial by the way of evidence.

If you're a gambling person, would you bet your life on 49-1 odds? That's a one in fifty chance you might die. I sure wouldn't. Same sort of thing here; there's a one in fifty chance that we accept something as evidence that is nothing of the sort. People rely on that to make life and death decisions (especially here). A one in fifty chance of being wrong when we come to establishing a view of how nature works...a one in fifty chance of being wrong in establishing new medicines, new treatments, new diagnostics, new theories on how biology operates...

You might like to gamble. Science does not.

Quote:

Why do skeptics have to be so dense?

Again, inflammatory comments in the face of feeling victimised don't help your argument.

I assume you are referring to the fact that people here endeavour to request such 'obvious' facts and evidence. Simply because even after asking for what appears to be obvious, many believers cannot come up with the goods. Suddenly it does not seem so dense...

Athon

[Ashles]

Originally Posted by MoonDragn

Ok I'll do what other skeptics here do all the time, quote things out of context :

How ridiculous. You are asked to come up with an example of something, then you instantly quote something out of context and admit you are quoting it out of context. What is the point of that?

My statement was very obviously sarcastic in context (I certainly hope you realised that, if not...) therefore it does not assist your argument in any way.

Rather weak Moondragn. It's a shame when your arguments become this desperate that they have to use quotes that don't back you up and you admit that they don't.

[athon]

Originally Posted by MoonDragn

I have a very good understanding of how science works. The basics of scientific theory is to first make an observation, then come up with a theory about that observation. Then test your theory out by experiments.

Nearly.

First, form a hypothesis based on asking the question 'how does my observation relate to the models already constructed by science?'. Second, ask how you could be wrong. Third, develop a test that will contribute evidence to a model. Fourth, using these results, inquire further how they can be replicated and adjusted to account for the possibility you might still be wrong.

Might seem trivial, but it is where believers seem to get stuck.

Quote:

The key point here is observation. The problem is there is a disagreement because what the girl claims to be able to do is not witnessed by the person who comes up with the theories.

There is no theory here. This is what I'm saying; the hypothesis here has nothing to do with supporting a theory.

First, the hypothesis 'this girl has X ability' is stated. It relates to current models in the following way; the apparent observation could be attributed to human pattern making and selective reasoning. Second, how could I be wrong? In this case, it is determined that if she can perform the test and succeed the same results that any other person could attain by chance one out of every 1000 times, then it indicates I could be wrong.

Then, we see if it can be replicated... and slowly science builds.

Knowledge produced by science does not explode onto the scene. It slowly builds with time and accumulation of evidence.

Quote:

To observe the phenomenon itself is not proof of the ability or the claim. It is the first step in the theorizing process. That is science.

No. That is a step in science.

Athon

[Ashles]

Originally Posted by MoonDragn

no, my explaination is that how the hell do we know what it is she is actually detecting?

We don't know that she is detecting anything in the first instance. That is what is to be demonstrated before we even think about coming up with explanations and excuses.

I suggest you follow this piece of advice that you yourself offer:

Quote:

Stop making stupid assumptions.

Indded.
Let's see if she actually has any unusual ability before we start getting all excited.

Quote:

This was a case where the obvious parameters they agreed upon for the test was changed. Why do skeptics have to be so dense?

And the subject was using her phone throughout the test.
It was overall not a great test so the results aren't very useful either way.
Maybe she should apply for the Randi challenge? What do you think?
And why hasn't she?

Quote:

What do believers have to gain? Credibility AND also the ability to advance science if they are right. The same thing that skeptics say they wish for.

It is what sceptics wish for. It is always the sceptics you see asking for proper testing, scientific rigour and replicability, rarely the believers.

Quote:

Skeptics on the other hand really don't want to see change. They prefer their old world views.

A complete lie.

Quote:

When the things in their world rock they dig in their claws denying the existence of everything.

Scientific research is built around the very concept of change and new discoveries.

Beliefs are entirely the opposite. As you are consistently displaying with your angry posts.

Quote:

When they are finally proven wrong, they claim they never denied the existence to begin with and then find something else to criticize.

Another lie. Is this really the best you can do? Quotes taken out of context and blatant and obvious lies?
And when people are proven wrong in these matters who exactly do you think demonstrates the fact? Sceptics of course - people who questioned what was widely accepted as common fact and investigated and experimented to discover the truth.

Quote:

The people who denied the world was round were the skeptics,

You need to study your history on this one. Yet another person who hasn't read my sig.

Quote:

the people who denied the earth was not the center of the universe were skeptics. Not the other way around.

Once we wade through your multiple negatives we see that you are again wrong.
The 'sceptics' by definition were those who doubted the commonly held earth-centric view of the universe.
Sceptic does not equal prevailing public opinion - usually it means the opposite.

Quote:

Isn't that the condition of the "proof" to obtain results other than chance. What constitute a good test then if even something against the odds of chance is just chance and not proof?

I don't think it was a great test and the results are not convincing for either viewpoint.
I would love to see a well conducted test of the girl. Then perhaps the matter could be settled one way or another.

[Ipecac]

Originally Posted by MoonDragn

How can skeptics doubt that our current level of science is pitiful and that we still don't understand at least 99% of our universe around us?

Well, it's obvious that some people don't understand 99% of the universe around us.

I'm fairly certain that we understand more than 1%.

[Blondin]

I'm getting deja vu. Is this just a rehashed story about the xray girl that was tested earlier this year or is this about a new attempt?

edit: Okay, forget I asked. I should have just checked out the links provided in the OP...

[Kilik]

I just saw this 2 nights ago on TV, I hadn't heard of her ever before.

What I noticed was that she got 4. 2 she got wrong she said would be a problem. Maybe she did simply decide to play the odds on the last 5th one.

Those 3 she didn't get, were not illnesses. I don't think it's quite like superman, and of course there will be limits to what some can do with only inbornn ability, and inborn abilities also, of course won't be that stable. But why would going into a cell correlate to seeing metal plates. If she can see into that deep a dimension, she may miss many other more superficial layers.

Qigong masters teach enlightenment to their true students. It isn't like the past, or like religion, which was to teach about certain high level things, so people can understand and to create certian cultures.

If everyone knew that enlightenment was "real", they could never acheive it with that purpose in their heart, or their acheivment level of enlightenment might be lower.

[teddygrahams]

It will be repeated Thursday Oct 6 at 9PM and 1AM

[Nucular]

Originally Posted by Kilik

Those 3 she didn't get, were not illnesses. I don't think it's quite like superman, and of course there will be limits to what some can do with only inbornn ability, and inborn abilities also, of course won't be that stable. But why would going into a cell correlate to seeing metal plates. If she can see into that deep a dimension, she may miss many other more superficial layers.

So Kilik, what do you reckon? How do you think we should test her?

[Euromutt]

I have to point out, Kilik, that in your inital post you grossly misrepresented the protocol.

Originally Posted by Kilik

Under totally controlled tests done by the skeptical CSICOP organization, they had stated if she could identify 5 out of 7 unknown illnesses, with the people totally blind to what she was doing, they would have to admit her ability to see inside people was real. They said the odds would be 250 to 1 I think.

First, Demkina wasn't asked to identify "unknown illnesses." She was confronted with seven test subjects, six of whom had some physical abnormality and one of whom was perfectly intact, informed what each abnormality was, and asked to match each abnormality (or lack thereof) to one of the test subjects. That's an important distinction; she wasn't asked "what is wrong with this person?" in open-ended fashion, she was told "one (and only one) of these people has abnormality X; which one is it?"

Second, nobody (except you) ever claimed that the results of this test would establish that Natasha Demkina possesses the powers she claims to have. It was made explicitly clear that if she correctly matched five out of seven ailments (or lack thereof) to the correct people, there would be a basis to proceed with further testing. As Hyman says (see LTC8K6's link):

Quote:

We made sure to include in the protocol the statement that the "test is not in any way a definitive test. Deciding the truth of Natasha's claims with comfortable certainty is too simple and brief. It can only help to decide whether further studies of Natasha's claimed abilities are warranted."

[...]

Keep in mind that if she got five or more correct this would be consistent with her having the X-ray power that she claims. Yet it would also be consistent with the possibility that she was matching the target condition by normal means such as the appearance and behavior of the subjects.

Italics mine.

Look, the girl (and her entourage) agreed to the protocol; she claimed she could "pass" the agreed-upon test. She failed. End of story. Any speculation about "maybe that's not how her power works" (taking note, MoonDragn?) are pointless, because she said that is how her (supposed) power works.

Except it doesn't.

[CFLarsen]

Oh, for crying out loud.... This has been beaten to death several times...

Source

Source

Source

Source

Source

Do check the Archive before you open a new thread.

[Hawk one]

Quote:

the people who denied the earth was not the center of the universe were skeptics. Not the other way around.

The people who denied that the earth were round were none other than the Catholic church. The same church that also kept medical science down for centuries by making sure that any findings of something in your body that conflicted with the doctrine about the human body they taught, those findings were never reported. Because that would contract their beliefs. And that makes them believers, by definiton.

On the other side, we have Galileo, who was one amongst several people that, with his contribution along with many others, finally got Europe out of the dark age, and catching up on those cultures of the world that for centuries had known the earth was spinning round the sun on its own axis. By studying the phenomena properly, and by amounting evidence, he came to this conclusion. If the evidence -had- supported the earth being the center of the universe, he'd have come to that conclusion.

But he used scientific methods to find that it wasn't. Just like a proper skeptic always should. Trying to suggest that the church were the skeptics in this matter is requiring nothing short of this smiley:

And like Ashles said, you should study your history books. If you don't even know how widespread the belief that the earth being flat was amongst astronomers throughout history, don't attempt using it in a debate.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by BronzeDog

I've never met a skeptic who claimed to know everything. .

It's more like that they give the impression that they're pretty well convinced of the type of things that could possibly exist.