Any true "kooks" posting lately...

[De_Bunk]

Been away from this board for a while...

Can't be a**ed reading all the threads....

Can anyone direct me to a true kook post...

Someone who is still actively posting...

Thanks..

De_Bunk ( Scourge of the Believer...and Gellers worst nightmare)

[RCNelson]

Have we chased all the woo-woos away?

T'ai Chi in Homeopathy is everywhere!

(They just don't make kooks like they used to.)

[EdipisReks]

there aren't too many kooks around, but T'ai Chi, as far as i can tell, is an inanimate block of some dense metal.

[T'ai Chi]

Quote:

Originally posted by EdipisReks
there aren't too many kooks around, but T'ai Chi, as far as i can tell, is an inanimate block of some dense metal.

Great ad-homs fellas. Demonstrate your kookiness I suppose.

[Yahweh]

Quote:

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Great ad-homs fellas. Demonstrate your kookiness I suppose.

Pointing out ad-homs might be an effective way to show flaw in an arguement, but I'm not sure how well pointing out ad-homs works on someone who made a sarcastic jesture of humor.

[EdipisReks]

Quote:

Originally posted by Yahweh

Pointing out ad-homs might be an effective way to show flaw in an arguement, but I'm not sure how well pointing out ad-homs works on someone who made a sarcastic jesture of humor.

oh, that's just cute little Oinkie being himself.

[rustypouch]

There were a couple of good ones in the Paltalk room for a while last night.

[BTox]

I third the nomination for T'ai Chi. Any advocate of homeopathy is, by definition, a kook!

[T'ai Chi]

Quote:

Originally posted by EdipisReks

oh, that's just cute little Oinkie being himself.

This is the name, folks, that EdipisReks has decided to call me, for whatever reason.

Does he think that that will get me to stop asking questions?

Oinkie, hmm, you know what, I kind of like that. Thanks Ed!

[T'ai Chi]

Quote:

Originally posted by BTox
I third the nomination for T'ai Chi. Any advocate of homeopathy is, by definition, a kook!

Aww, you care, you really do.

You know that I never once said that I am an advocate of homeopathy. I have never touched the stuff, and probably will never.

I am, however, an advocate of scientifically testing things, bypassing silly 'it won't ever work!' opinions, and getting straight to the heart of the matter by doing tests.

[ceptimus]

Tai Chi,

I just did a search on you to see if I could work out whose sockpuppet you might be. I was appalled to discover you joined on the same day I did, just before me in fact.

There were only three members who joined after you, but before me, and they have never posted (yet). They are:

• PawkyPants
  dippnerr
  Lactosian Intoleranc

So perhaps I am one of your sockpuppets? I sincerely hope not.

[De_Bunk]

Tai Chi...

If you even give Homeopathy more than one seconds thought...then you are a kook...

Sorry...

But thats real life....

I mean...come on ...get real...use your common sense...

If everyone did that...there would be no paranormal sh*t...ever...

Homeopathy...yeh right...my a**

Get your head straight....


DB

[woodguard]

Quote:

Originally posted by De_Bunk
Tai Chi...

If you even give Homeopathy more than one seconds thought...then you are a kook...

DB

Isn’t that the definition of a closed mind.
Placing everything in one category and calling it wrong.

Wouldn’t a true skeptic look at each and every claim.

At one time, washing your hand before surgery was thought to be for the kooks!
How many children died at child birth, before we learn to wash our hands?

[T'ai Chi]

Quote:

Originally posted by ceptimus
Tai Chi,

I just did a search on you to see if I could work out whose sockpuppet you might be. I was appalled to discover you joined on the same day I did, just before me in fact.

There were only three members who joined after you, but before me, and they have never posted (yet). They are:

• PawkyPants
  dippnerr
  Lactosian Intoleranc

So perhaps I am one of your sockpuppets? I sincerely hope not.

Admit it Ceptimus, I am your sock puppet and you are mine.

Ask skeptical questions and point out how we must address things scientifically and I get called a sock puppet, troll, and even Oinkie.

I can deal with that.

[T'ai Chi]

Quote:

Originally posted by De_Bunk
Tai Chi...

If you even give Homeopathy more than one seconds thought...then you are a kook...

Sorry...

But thats real life....

I mean...come on ...get real...use your common sense...

If everyone did that...there would be no paranormal sh*t...ever...

Homeopathy...yeh right...my a**

Get your head straight....

DB

DeBunk, I disagree.

We must examine the evidence, wherever it may lead.

If a study says that something is significant, there could be an effect or there could be some type of error in the experiment, etc.

Either way, follow-up studies give us knowledge. Stopping any and all tests, doesn't.

We, or I at least, must remain impartial and scientifically study things. Yes, even homeopathy. And many do.

If there is nothing there, fine. If there is something there, to quote Randi, I want to know about it.

[jj]

Quote:

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

I am, however, an advocate of scientifically testing things, bypassing silly 'it won't ever work!' opinions, and getting straight to the heart of the matter by doing tests.

Really, then how do you explain your scientific misbehavior in several threads where I've had to whup you upside the head?

I'm not sure why I'm not igoring you today, except maybe to point DB's keyboard at you.

[jj]

Quote:

Originally posted by woodguard
Wouldn’t a true skeptic look at each and every claim.

No, they wouldn't look at the same claim over and over again, even when put forth by different people.

Just because some people who make audio cables claim that they create room-temperature cooper pairs, for instance, but that their materials aren't superconductors or anything like that, but have zero impedence, doesn't mean I need to look at their claims twice, for instance.

Some claims, via the misinformation in the claim, require nothing but a quick twitching motion.

Some claims in audio, for instance, repeatedly shown but never ONCE in a DBT, don't need to be examined AGAIN when the experimental methodology is known to be fatally flawed, and when that flaw has been pointed out again and again.

Homeopathy is like that, too, the only evidence "for" is egregiously, completely flawed. It's not my job to show that it doesn't work, the presumption is that it doesn't UNTIL SOMEBODY SHOWS THAT IT DOES in a proper experiment.

So, no, a real skeptic does not investigate the same loser claim over and over again.

[woodguard]

Quote:

Originally posted by jj

Just because some people who make audio cables claim that they create room-temperature cooper pairs, for instance, but that their materials aren't superconductors or anything like that, but have zero impedence, doesn't mean I need to look at their claims twice, for instance.

This is a good example, because even if 1000 people make the clam. Someone will make a superconductor at low temperature some day.

The truth is, you have to do a science study of each claim. You cannot really call everyone who is bending a spoon, a fake. Even if one in a billion is doing it with his mind.


Science is slow and pain staking and so is the truth. There are no easy or quick answers.

[thaiboxerken]

This is a good example, because even if 1000 people make the clam. Someone will make a superconductor at low temperature some day.

People already do. But a superconductor at near-room temperatures is nigh-impossible. One thing, though, when people try to make superconductors, they are actively researching and using science to get there. Homeopathy, however, does not use any scientific procedure and they've been using the same type of quackery since it's invention in the 1800's.


The truth is, you have to do a science study of each claim. You cannot really call everyone who is bending a spoon, a fake. Even if one in a billion is doing it with his mind.

Yes you can. It's up to the claimant to provide evidence that what they have is real.


Next, you'll tell me that I have to test everyone in the world to claim that people can't shoot lasers out of their eyes.

[Iamme]

de_bunk---Just go turn on your tv and tune into the Osbournes some night. That should give you your daily minimum requirement of kookiness. It's Ozzy himself. I like it when he mumbles stuff..like when the cat is on the couch or something. It be neat if we could get Ozzy to post over here.

People in general I think get into watching/listening to kooks. You know...someone completely 'gone'...'off the deep end'...'not all there'...'off their rocker'...'nuts'...'lunatic'...'a pickle short of a Big Mac'...'a french fry short of a happy meal'. I think the networks should give us more kooks to watch.

We could play this out and ask readers/posters to name the celebrities or the tv shows that present the kookiest people. There was the Adams Family...but what is kooky now? Mike Tyson up and got kooky, didn't he?

[gnome]

Quote:

Originally posted by woodguard


This is a good example, because even if 1000 people make the clam. Someone will make a superconductor at low temperature some day.

The truth is, you have to do a science study of each claim. You cannot really call everyone who is bending a spoon, a fake. Even if one in a billion is doing it with his mind.


Science is slow and pain staking and so is the truth. There are no easy or quick answers.

I would not say that any idea should not continue to be tested and verified... by those that remain interested in it. But doesn't there have to be some rationing of effort by the "skeptical community" as it were?

[woodguard]

Quote:

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


But a superconductor at near-room temperatures is nigh-impossible

Next, you'll tell me that I have to test everyone in the world to claim that people can't shoot lasers out of their eyes.

If you use science you have to test them. Science is based on facts, it does not prejudge.


And high-impossible is not impossible. If you think in the next 100 years we will not discover a low temperature superconductor ?

[thaiboxerken]

If you use science you have to test them. Science is based on facts, it does not prejudge.

Hardly, they have to present their evidence to science. There is a difference. You seem to imply that skeptics have the burden of evidence and responsibility to test claims. This is false, otherwise science would be a black-hole of a resource. No, the ones that have the new "discovery" or claim must provide their own research and evidence.


And high-impossible is not impossible. If you think in the next 100 years we will not discover a low temperature superconductor ?

We have many, many low temperature semiconductors. Maybe you're just not intelligent enough to realize that. However, I doubt we'll discover ROOM-temperature superconductors in the next 1000 years. I'm willing to be proven wrong, when someone discovers a superconductor that works above 30F-degrees, give me a call.

[reprise]

lekatt has managed to get himself an semi-officially declared a kook on talk.atheism.

Quote:

Leroy Kattein 2 stars lekatt@XXXXX
Near-death experiences prove God; disagreement is illogical and insulting.

He's also attracted attention inspired a Pit thread at the SDMB.

Lekatt, if one could sell ignorance, you'd be Walmart

You can find a list of his contributions to the JREF forums here.

[thaiboxerken]

Steve Grenard is back, now THAT's a true kook.

[arcticpenguin]

I could be a kook if I wanted to be.

[asthmatic camel]

Quote:

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
I could be a kook if I wanted to be.

How can you be so self-assured ? Where is your evidence ? I demand that you demonstrate your kookiness immediately.

Regards,

AC.

[woodguard]

Quote:

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
[b] they have to present their evidence to science.

I will remind your of one of the JREF's goals.

Supporting and conducting research into paranormal claims through well-designed experiments utilizing "the scientific method" and by publishing the findings in the JREF official newsletter, Swift, and other periodicals. Also providing reliable information on paranormal and pseudoscientific claims by maintaining a comprehensive library of books, videos, journals, and archival resources open to the public.

I will also remind you, insulting someone intelligents is a real poor debating skill, and a little childish.

And because you believe something is truth or false does not affect reality, that is woo woo thinking.

[jj]

Quote:

Originally posted by woodguard


This is a good example, because even if 1000 people make the clam. Someone will make a superconductor at low temperature some day.

Quite obviously you don't understand their claim, which is self-contradictory, claiming both have a room-temperature superconductor and NOT having one simultaneously.

The truth is, you have to do a science study of each claim. You cannot really call everyone who is bending a spoon, a fake. Even if one in a billion is doing it with his mind.

Really? That's the "truth"?

I have to examine the same claim 449,328 times because 449329 people have read the same mistaken advertisement?

Science is slow and pain staking and so is the truth. There are no easy or quick answers.

Easy to say. What's your credentials?

[jj]

Quote:

Originally posted by woodguard


If you use science you have to test them. Science is based on facts, it does not prejudge.



Really? In your world the facts are on the side of the claimant in all cases?

Well, I claim, just because, you should give me 10,000,000 US Dollars.

Gonna do it?


And high-impossible is not impossible. If you think in the next 100 years we will not discover a low temperature superconductor ?

You're not understanding the original claim, which involved a claim that something was a superconductor, that it wasn't, and that whatever it was operated at room temperature.

I think you're grasping a bit hard here.

No, we do not need to test EVERY claim, novel claims, claims supported by evidence, they have a chance. The SOS, however, is just a waste of time.

[jj]

Quote:

Originally posted by woodguard



I will remind your of one of the JREF's goals.

Supporting and conducting research into paranormal claims through well-designed experiments utilizing "the scientific method" and by publishing the findings in the JREF official newsletter, Swift, and other periodicals. Also providing reliable information on paranormal and pseudoscientific claims by maintaining a comprehensive library of books, videos, journals, and archival resources open to the public.

I will also remind you, insulting someone intelligents is a real poor debating skill, and a little childish.

And because you believe something is truth or false does not affect reality, that is woo woo thinking.

I see, and if one concludes that a claim is false, say, because it is internally self-contradictory, that is woo woo thinking?

Really?

I think that you are seriously confused about what science is, how it works, and what constitutes "proof", what constitues "disproof", and what constitutes a simple unscientific claim.

[woodguard]

Quote:

Originally posted by jj


Really? In your world the facts are on the side of the claimant in all cases?

You're not understanding the original claim.

I am not really on one side or the other.( Not any more)
I believe you have to look at each claim. Just because the first 100 were fake or wrong, the next one might be real.

I don't feel you can say all Homeopathic is wrong. None of them may work but you still have to test each one.

This will never happen in the real world. I am being idealistic here, in a perfect world every claim would be tested.

Because a claim sound wrong, does not make it wrong.

If it were regulated the hole thing would crash and burn.
I personal don't think any of it works.

[woodguard]

Quote:

Originally posted by jj


I see, and if one concludes that a claim is false, say, because it is internally self-contradictory, that is woo woo thinking?
.

If something was self-contradictory, that fact would make it wrong. But not all claims are that easy to disprove.

The facts of the claim should be judged, not how you think or feel.
Making decidion on feeling is woo woo thinking.(To me anyway.)

[woodguard]

Quote:

Originally posted by jj


Easy to say. What's your credentials?

None, I am an ex-woo woo.

And I don't what to be the oppsite of a woo woo, which is someone who think everything it wrong without looking.

[reprise]

Hey D_B, the OP of this thread is definitely deserving of the title "kook".

[woodguard]

Quote:

Originally posted by jj


No, we do not need to test EVERY claim, novel claims, claims supported by evidence, they have a chance. The SOS, however, is just a waste of time.

Let me try to explain what I am trying to typing.

If you have 100 different homeopathic products.
Do you test only the first 10 and say the rest are wrong?
Or do you test all 100.
If product #34 sound silly do you test it or say if wrong because its silly? ( this is woo woo thinking).

Now could be wrong but I thought that was how science is done.

I think the big question is how many time do you listen to the sample claim, and act on it.

[reprise]

Quote:

Originally posted by woodguard


Let me try to explain what I am trying to typing.

If you have 100 different homeopathic products.
Do you test only the first 10 and say the rest are wrong?
Or do you test all 100.
If product #34 sound silly do you test it or say if wrong because its silly? ( this is woo woo thinking).

Now could be wrong but I thought that was how science is done.

I think the big question is how many time do you listen to the sample claim, and act on it.

woodguard, while what you suggest might be an appropriate way of testing herbal remedies, the basic underlying theory of homeopathy is flawed. What if we test 10 bottles of #34 and find no active ingredient in those - should we then test every other bottle in the same batch because those molecules of active ingredient must have ended up "somewhere" in the batch?

[Ratman_tf]

Beyond that, the theory of sucussion and water having memory has no evidence to back it up, and no explanation of how it could work. Add in the evidence that Homeopathy produces 'remedies' that have the same effect as a placebo, and I think we can move beyond Homeopathy, scientifically.
Unless someone comes up something new in the Homeopathy field, but then it is on them to provide the evidence, since they would be the one making the claim.

Here in this thread I claim that no human can fly under his/her own power. How many people should we throw off the Empire State Building before being resonably sure this is true?

[woodguard]

Quote:

Originally posted by reprise
woodguard, while what you suggest might be an appropriate way of testing herbal remedies, the basic underlying theory of homeopathy is flawed. What if we test 10 bottles of #34 and find no active ingredient in those - should we then test every other bottle in the same batch because those molecules of active ingredient must have ended up "somewhere" in the batch?

That is true. I think what I am missing is the true definition of homeopathic.
I have been including herbal and eastern medicine in homeopathic.

[wert]

Our dowsing friend Edge seems to have faded away. Guess he got tired of posting off topic UFO pictures and petulantly claiming he would re-take the challenge when the "time is right". Which seems more and more to be "never".