babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » A thread dedicated to scepticism

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: A thread dedicated to scepticism
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 05 March 2005 03:19 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence"
Often attributed to Carl Sagan

"If It Sounds Too Good To Be True, It Almost Certainly Is"

"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence. "
Richard Dawkins

"I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. I must, of course, admit that if such an opinion became common it would completely transform our social life and political system; since are at present faultless, this must weigh against it. I am also aware (what is more serious) that it would tend to diminish the incomes of clairvoyants, bookmakers, bishops and others who live on the irrational hopes of those who have done nothing to deserve good fortune here or hereafter."
Bertrand Russel

A few sceptical resources:

Field guide to critical thinking

http://www.skeptics.ca

http://www.csicop.org/

http://www.randi.org/

http://www.quackwatch.org/

http://www.snopes.com/

And for the french speakers:

http://www.sceptiques.qc.ca/

[ 05 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

[ 05 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 05 March 2005 04:08 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
BBC4: Josephson embarasses Randi
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 05 March 2005 04:21 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
BBC4: Josephson embarasses Randi

Fidel, you're trolling. Keep it up and I'll report you.

And Josephson is considered a quack by other scientists, period.

[ 05 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 05 March 2005 04:41 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Run Randi Run
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 05 March 2005 04:45 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Stop your trolling. It's not my fault if Randi got under your skin. And if you're going to keep posting links to every charlatan on the net that has a beef with Randi, I will be forced to report you.

[ 05 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 05 March 2005 04:53 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Randi's a two-bit magician.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 05 March 2005 04:54 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Reported to the moderator.
From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 05 March 2005 05:11 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In my opinion, Fidel isn't trolling, because he isn't posting simply to piss people off. However, I would say this is contributing to thread drift so I would like to ask you both to start a new thread if you want to debate James Randi specifically.

So let's have an end to this and get on with the topic.

gavel + table = whack.

PS. Just so you don't get all puffed up, Fidel, you might want to reflect that Sollog seems to be a man who's lost some of his marbles.

[ 05 March 2005: Message edited by: DrConway ]


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 05 March 2005 05:37 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I say, it's a mad mad world?. I will cast my virtual shadow on this thread no more. I think I hear my mother calling me.[shhhhhhhwfff]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 05 March 2005 05:43 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Do you guys remember that Kids in the Hall sketch about a little guy who kept picking fights in bars? No matter how much his ass got kicked, he kept coming back for more.

Anyway...


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 05 March 2005 05:49 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I didn't know you were a little guy, Surf.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 05 March 2005 06:01 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In a related subject:

I just read Bricmont and Sokal's Intellectual Impostures. You probably heard about this, and I think it was discussed in other threads, so it's old hat, I suppose. Nevertheless, I quite enjoyed reading the book.

The starting point was a great hoax played by Alan Sokal on a publication specialising in trendy post-modern thinking. He wrote an article that was a parody of post-modern pseudointellectual writing titled "Transgressing the boundaries: towards a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity". This article was accepted for publication by the American cultural studies journal Social Text and is included as an appendix in the Sokal and Bricmont book. Adding insult to injury, the article was published in a special issue of the said journal to combat the criticism of the post-modern movement levelled by distinguished scientists such as Gross and Levitt.

What really shocked me is the fact that, from the first page, it is obvious to anyone with a modicum of scientific knowledge that the article was bunk.

The authors then delve into the writings of some of the most fashionable French intellectuals. They restrict their critique to articles that use scientific concepts and expose them for the preposterous, pretentious tripe that they are. I,m not familiar with the work of most of these "thinkers", but if they are unable to be rigourous when they invoke scientific concepts, I don't think I can trust their opinions and judgements regarding other things. Anyway, the results are pretty funny, not least for the quotations of the comments of these "intellectuals" on each other’s work, in which they typically praise the clarity of thought! Fun book, highly recommended!


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 05 March 2005 06:02 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
I didn't know you were a little guy, Surf.

I should have guessed that my comment would be lost on you... Now buzz off, I'm trying to have a serious thread here.

[ 06 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 05 March 2005 06:33 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Surferosad:
Do you guys remember that Kids in the Hall sketch about a little guy who kept picking fights in bars? No matter how much his ass got kicked, he kept coming back for more.

One of my AA sponsors used to be like that after a few drinks.


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
H Ergaster
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8011

posted 05 March 2005 06:47 PM      Profile for H Ergaster   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A couple more links:

The Skeptic's Dictionary

Bad Astronomy (with a forum of its own)

The Talk.Origins archive (not that there'd be many creationists here, but it's still a hell of a site)

Haven't read the book you mentioned, Surferosad, but it sounds like a good read. Myself, I still love Why People Believe Weird Things, by Michael Shermer. And Demon-Haunted World, by the late, great Carl Sagan.


From: Vancouver, BC | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Snuckles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2764

posted 05 March 2005 07:39 PM      Profile for Snuckles   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Sollog, now there is a name I haven't heard in awhile.

He used to post his "predictions" (and flimsy defenses of them) on sci.skeptic among other newsgroups.


From: Hell | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 05 March 2005 08:14 PM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A great book for everyone to read is Robert Park's "Voodoo Science - The Road From Foolishness To Fraud"

Robert Park is a...oops gotta answer phone, later


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
TemporalHominid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6535

posted 05 March 2005 10:26 PM      Profile for TemporalHominid   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Surferosad:
[QB]"Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence"
Often attributed to Carl Sagan


This was David Hume's posit. Sagan did a great job is popularising and clearly explaining this idea.


I think Carl Sagan was more level headed than Dawkins ever was. Sagan remembered to apply Spinoza's dictum to inquiry during scientific iquiry into claims.


quote:
I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them.

Randi and Dawkins could learn to apply this dictum. Well educated intelligent people can be fooled or decieved or can be prone to faulty reasoning. (There is evidence that the more educated a person is the more likely they are to be fooled, perhaps as a result of over-confidence), but anyone that is fooled is not necessarily a fool.


From: Under a bridge, in Foot Muck | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
LeftRight
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2379

posted 05 March 2005 11:33 PM      Profile for LeftRight   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Scepticism is better applied to those who get the money than those who give it. There as reason a reformed education for those who may misgive is needed.

Just in case you haven't guessed, I like Jean Piaget. http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/piaget.html


From: Fraser Valley | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 05 March 2005 11:37 PM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I saw a juxtaposition here that would suit my purposes to emplify the way in which a subject might be presented like skepticism, that asked someone to focus, as one would on string theory.

What do I find but the seeds of skepticism are stolen quotes from someone who does not know anything about string theory?

So like Josephson, Allan Sokal knows about what?

So this ends the smearing of the individual I guess in a most polite way.

Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity

Hence Allan Sokal, and the deceptive way in which the article written( Skepticism and it's various links, although sounding good has really nothing to do with string theory.

If held in context of what is presented with string theory, then if (a)it sounds good, and (b)if it flatters the editors idealogical preconceptions, Skepticism is a bunch of crock


In short, the essay is deliberate nonsense from start to finish. But Mr. Sokal submitted it to Social Text in order to see whether (as he put it in the journal Lingua Franca) "a leading North American journal of cultural studies . . . would publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions."

So having been slighted on the knowledge that I put forward, the real question is, if what I presented in relation to string theory is correct or not? Skepticism would point out this failure in understanding, versus using pre based assumptions stolen from another era of thought like Sokals?

And for some strange reason, the word Nihilism entered my mind, and wondering why, I went on a little bit of a journey to understand this term.

Does it fit the basis of skeptics credo that eventually, you have to believe in nothing? Logically if you discard everything for nothing then logically your process is doomed?

Better yet, you might ask Skepticism that if the fundamental building blocks are something different then strings, what value is your credibility, if it resorts to nothing as a basis?

Thus Skepticism has no foundation and valuse to build from?

Question to Dr. Conway: Why is a thread locked after reaching over 100?

[ 06 March 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 06 March 2005 12:27 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
WHILE (modhaton = 1) DO

The dial-up folks complain it takes too long to load the entire thread when the post count gets that high.

WEND
modhaton = 0


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 06 March 2005 02:31 AM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have no idea of what Forum Observer is talking about. You're going from string theory to scepticism and back and I can't see why! Keep it simple and to the point please, so that we can follow whatever it is you're trying to say!

[ 06 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 06 March 2005 02:38 AM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by LeftRight:
Scepticism is better applied to those who get the money than those who give it. There as reason a reformed education for those who may misgive is needed.

Just in case you haven't guessed, I like Jean Piaget. http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/piaget.html


Another example of unclear language. You mean to say that we should be sceptical of those who cheat people out of their money (or of those who ask for money), and be understanding to those who get cheated? Kind of a trivial point, isn't it? Are you also trying to say that people should be better educated so that they won't be suckered? And what does Piaget have to do with it? Is it because you think his methods would be better at educating?

[ 06 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 06 March 2005 02:54 AM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by TemporalHominid:

Randi and Dawkins could learn to apply this dictum. Well educated intelligent people can be fooled or decieved or can be prone to faulty reasoning. (There is evidence that the more educated a person is the more likely they are to be fooled, perhaps as a result of over-confidence), but anyone that is fooled is not necessarily a fool.


I quite agree. But I can perfectly understand how much frustration someone who spends a lot of time debunking hokum must sometimes feel! It's like Hercules fighting the Hydra... And always being the party pooper gets really tiresome. People rarely thank you when you question their beliefs, even if their beliefs are hurting them...


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Vigilante
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8104

posted 06 March 2005 03:31 AM      Profile for Vigilante        Edit/Delete Post
I find it funny that modern day skeptics seem to conveniantly be in bed with the man.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 06 March 2005 04:17 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Speaking of scepticism, I've been having a barrel of laughs reading old Usenet threads based on some guy's rants that Maxwell's Equations can be made invariant under the Galilean-Newtonian Transformations.

Even though he was delivered a well-deserved debunking, you'll notice that the fella never actually responds to people who point out the fallacies in his own arguments, or even the well-reasoned proof of the lack of invariance of the laws of electromagnetism under the Galilean-Newtonian transformations; all he does is just heap abuse on them and slip away from actually admitting he screwed up.

People like him are all over; when guys like James Randi come along, or Penn & Teller, the people who got debunked scream "conspiracy" and huffily insist that they're right and everybody is wrong, but when asked to step up to the plate, won't do so except under their own conditions.

(PS. Don't worry if you don't understand the stuff in the Usenet thread; just notice how "Eleaticus" always calls people names and is rudely dismissive even in his "FAQ". Real FAQs wouldn't use that kind of language.)


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 06 March 2005 04:18 AM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Vigilante:
I find it funny that modern day skeptics seem to conveniantly be in bed with the man.

Which man? Do you mean, THE MAN?

If you do, well, don't generalise. Scepticism is not an ideology, it can't be put in left or right terms. Nobody owns it and nobody speaks for it. It's just a loose principle. Basically, it can be reduced to a simple rule: do your best to not believe in something when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. Personally, I always thought of scepticism as something progressive: sceptics tend to distrust authority (they won't accept arguments from authority as valid) and they tend to question accepted views. Problem is, I think, that so many so called progressive people have chosen to associate themselves with clear bunk that it has become increasingly difficult to claim scepticism as a value typical of the left... Which saddens me a great deal! I mean, what attracted me to the left side of the political spectrum was its rationalism and humanism.

[ 06 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 06 March 2005 04:41 AM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by H Ergaster:
A couple more links:

The Skeptic's Dictionary

Bad Astronomy (with a forum of its own)

The Talk.Origins archive (not that there'd be many creationists here, but it's still a hell of a site)

Haven't read the book you mentioned, Surferosad, but it sounds like a good read. Myself, I still love Why People Believe Weird Things, by Michael Shermer. And Demon-Haunted World, by the late, great Carl Sagan.


I haven't read that Shermer book yet. But I intend to get it. He writes a column in the Scientific American. He's fun, but at times he comes across as being a little smug... Demon-Haunted world is pretty cool. I also like a lot of what Martin Gardner wrote on the subject of pseudoscience and the paranormal.


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Seiltänzer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8259

posted 06 March 2005 07:00 AM      Profile for Seiltänzer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What are we being sceptical about? This pertains directly to "evidence". There are some things for which there is no evidence in the scientific sense and never can be.

Faith is often based on personal evidence. I believe something because I feel it to be true, for example. I cannot share feelings with others; I can only evaluate them in and for myself. Should I not believe because I cannot say, "look, here: evidence!"

From Jean Paul Friedrich Richter's 'Speech of the Dead Christ':

quote:
Auch hab' ich die Absicht, mit meiner Dichtung einige lesende oder gelesene Magister in Furcht zu setzen, da wahrlich diese Leute jetzo, seitdem sie als Baugefangene beim Wasserbau und der Grubenzimmerung der kritischen Philosophie in Tagelohn genommen worden, das Dasein Gottes so kaltblütig und kaltherzig erwägen, als ob vom Dasein des Kraken und Einhorns die Rede wäre.

translation:

Also I have this purpose, to frighten some of the reading and read professors with this piece. For verily these people, since they have become day-laborers after the manner of condemned criminals in the waterworks and mining operations of critical philosophy, weigh the existence of God as cold-bloodedly and cold-heartedly as though it were a question of the existence of the kraken or the unicorn.



From: UK (né Toronto) | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 06 March 2005 08:07 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Micheal Shermer's "Why People Believe in Wierd Things" doesn't actually say why people believein wierd things.

However, it's a great book as it bravely examines the claims of Holocaust deniers and debunks them. Worth the read just for that.

Another great book, perhaps the father of all books on scepticism, is Mackay's "Popular Dellusions and the Madness of Crowds." Still lucid-- and relevant-- after all these centuries.

I guess there's an "orthodox" scepticism that says nothing is true, because actual truths are very hard to come by. However, for most sceptics the word "provisional" is understood to ride before the word truth.

I think there is room to be critical of today's mainstream sceptics. If they are represented, in the main, by "Skeptical Inquirer" then I think they have been less than courageous by not stepping into the political ring in a timely fashion.

I don't think it's a conscious political bias, but rather an attempt to avoid the mire of political bias.

But the silence from people like James Randi and Michael Shermer during the lead up to the attack on Iraq was deafening.

The Bush administration presents more fat targets for sceptics than a hundred Uri Guellers or Mary Browns. Focusing on debunking silly psychics while a mad man runs the world is, well, kinda nuts, and that kind of silence can be intepreted as coming down on the side of "The Man".

However, I'd say the premier voice today in scepticism, Richard Dawkins, is pretty even handed. Yes, he's been critical of what he calls "Radical Feminists", Feminists that use Postmodernism, but at the same time he's even more critical of the religious fundamentalism of all stripes, and the religious right doesn't escape from his just short of vitriolic attentions.

[ 06 March 2005: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 06 March 2005 08:10 AM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have no idea of what Forum Observer is talking about. You're going from string theory to scepticism and back and I can't see why! Keep it simple and to the point please, so that we can follow whatever it is you're trying to say!

I ws stepping back and taking a macro approach and summing your skeptical approach to the thread base on Josephson and ESP. While it was true that you discounted ESP and held to these views, you did not entertain anything beyond the subject that I brought into focus as the subject model for consideration.

These would have been a few conflicting ideas that I was tryng to assess. One the basis of your arguemen and why certain sayings are used by skeptics, second, what might have driven you to consider the context in regards to quantum gravity as told by the hoaxster Sokal in line with the method used by skepticism.

I cannot see anything of substance if the logic of approach is the same as a model to deconstruct something that would have no basis in which to judge the model

So this would have been a evasive tactic as Dr. Conway produces by making us aware of Maxwell equations and of the evasive tactics that would apply in the thread I am bringing back for attention under the guise of Skepticism.

Keep it simple is what I am defintely trying to do when I turn the tables, using perspective views.


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 06 March 2005 08:21 AM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Focusing on debunking silly psychics while a mad man runs the world is, well, kinda nuts.

While I do not diagree on the madman issue, it is important to get to the heart of the issues so you would assess a madman and the hold on the public?

These would require some deep and discerning views on the ideology that is being spread amongst the populace?

Reductionistic principles, can be applied to a lot of areas of concern?


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 06 March 2005 08:41 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think what sceptics can say about the Bush administration is to prove the claim that religious ideology plays a significant role in policy making, point out that religion is irrational, and let the public decide if they want policy based on irrational or rational thinking.

I remember watching Colin Powel present his WMD "evidence" before the United Nations, and even sitting at home, without documents to examine and footnotes to check, I knew much of what Powel was claiming wasn't supported by evidence.

And the sceptics were silent.

I've always looked at CSICOP and sceptical examinations of phenomena like "The Loch Ness Monster", "Big Foot", "Alien Abduction" or "Will Farrel" as training ground for more important sceptical examinations of things that actually affect your life.

You can use the same tools, for example, when you examine the claims of the electronic appliance salesman trying to interest you in that extended warranty. Or the building contractor doing that extention to your house. Or the politician at your door at election time.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 06 March 2005 08:48 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Vigilante:
I find it funny that modern day skeptics seem to conveniantly be in bed with the man.

That's true. American Republican's are the only one's who paid skeptics of global warming any attention. Most scientists around the world are now in agreement that global warming is real.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 06 March 2005 09:03 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There are people who are sceptical of the evidence for global warming. They have been debunked by other sceptics.

The media throws the word sceptic around quite freely, because few if any in the media are sceptics themselves, but prefer to be everyone's gullible fools.

[ 06 March 2005: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
TemporalHominid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6535

posted 06 March 2005 11:47 AM      Profile for TemporalHominid   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Seiltänzer:

Faith is often based on personal evidence. I believe something because I feel it to be true, for example. I cannot share feelings with others; I can only evaluate them in and for myself. Should I not believe because I cannot say, "look, here: evidence!"

From Jean Paul Friedrich Richter's 'Speech of the Dead Christ':



Correct, faith is personal as are feelings. Faith and feelings can never be examined in a scientific way as they are usually not falsifiable (not testable). Science moves on to focus on testable claims.

This is not a condemnation of anyones faith or anyones feelings. Science has no way of verifying the personal feelings.

If the someone says "I have a soul, because I feel I do." science can not examine this, as this is not testable. This person's personal perpective is based on a feeling and science can not invalidate a feeling. The above statement is outside of the scope of scientific inquiry, and judgement is suspended.


From: Under a bridge, in Foot Muck | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 06 March 2005 11:51 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The above example may not be provable or unprovable, but it doesn't mean it has to be accepted as "true".

Does "Big Foot" exist? Damned if I know. But I do know that there isn't as yet enough evidence to support a claim that it does.

And that is, in fact, a scientific judgement on "Big Foot" and the "Soul".

[ 06 March 2005: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
TemporalHominid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6535

posted 06 March 2005 11:59 AM      Profile for TemporalHominid   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:

I think there is room to be critical of today's mainstream sceptics. If they are represented, in the main, by "Skeptical Inquirer" then I think they have been less than courageous by not stepping into the political ring in a timely fashion.

I don't think it's a conscious political bias, but rather an attempt to avoid the mire of political bias.

But the silence from people like James Randi and Michael Shermer during the lead up to the attack on Iraq was deafening.

The Bush administration presents more fat targets for sceptics than a hundred Uri Guellers or Mary Browns. Focusing on debunking silly psychics while a mad man runs the world is, well, kinda nuts, and that kind of silence can be intepreted as coming down on the side of "The Man".


[ 06 March 2005: Message edited by: Tommy_Paine ]


I think this is a fair criticsm. I think these skeptics have been critical of the Bush Admin in a general way, for basing decisions on faith rather than on evidence for many policies. This is not something new however, as Martin Gardiner and others have pointed out that politians are the same decade after decade when it comes to basing policies on faith or public/popular opinion rather than on evidence, or on making the facts fit their world view.


From: Under a bridge, in Foot Muck | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 06 March 2005 12:17 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And fair enough, Gardiner and Randi have been addressing Congress on the need for better science education. I gather their take on politics is to create a better educated electorate, which will in turn encourage more rational politics.

That's a very long haul objective, and while I certainly agree, it doesn't mean the "Skeptical Inquirer" couldn't have done an article subjecting Colin Powel's claims before the U.N. to critical analysis.

If it's balance they are concerned about, they could also have taken a major plank from the Democratic platform and done the same treatment.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
TemporalHominid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6535

posted 06 March 2005 12:33 PM      Profile for TemporalHominid   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:
...I do know that there isn't as yet enough evidence to support a claim that it does.


Correct on Big foot and the Soul in terms of scientfic inquiry.
If I may;

Provisionally this claim is not testable (as there is no robust, verifiable evidence), therefore the claim is not a scientific theory that can be scrutinised via scientific method.

Ideally a claim should be withdrawn by the claimant if the claim can not be supported by the evidence.
Unfortunately claimants often have emotional or financial investment in their claims, and may be seeking fame and or fortune, but I digress I do not know or understand all the motives of any claimants in regard to the claims they make.

It is not for science to determine motive, but to determine if a claim is testable or not, and if it is testable, can the evidence and results be verified in a double blind test, and repeated.


As to "I feel..." statements, science can not examine these. I don't think that "I feel..." statements are claims. Until someone indicates that something observable or testable is used to support their feelings, scientific inquiry is not possible.


From: Under a bridge, in Foot Muck | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 06 March 2005 12:47 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Seiltänzer:
What are we being sceptical about? This pertains directly to "evidence". There are some things for which there is no evidence in the scientific sense and never can be.

Faith is often based on personal evidence. I believe something because I feel it to be true, for example. I cannot share feelings with others; I can only evaluate them in and for myself. Should I not believe because I cannot say, "look, here: evidence!"

From Jean Paul Friedrich Richter's 'Speech of the Dead Christ':


I think that you would agree then, if faith is based on "personal evidence", that it shouldn't be imposed on others, and that it should be a private affair. To me that means that faith related views shouldn't be taught in public schools, shouldn't be used to justify laws and should generally be kept out of politics and education.

[ 06 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 06 March 2005 01:01 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:

That's true. American Republican's are the only one's who paid skeptics of global warming any attention. Most scientists around the world are now in agreement that global warming is real.


If someone says he's sceptic of such and such thing, that doesn't mean that they are really "sceptical"... I mean, a lot of religious fanatics are "sceptical" of evolution. That's why I think that informed scepticism (as opposed to "bad faith" scepticism, in the sense of a scepticism that is only guided by religious of ideological bias) can only work when it includes a good general knowledge of science together with critical thinking skills. That's an approach that I wish would be taught in schools... But isn't!

[ 06 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 06 March 2005 01:13 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As to "I feel..." statements, science can not examine these. I don't think that "I feel..." statements are claims. Until someone indicates that something observable or testable is used to support their feelings, scientific inquiry is not possible.

I think most of us here understand that. Unfortunately, we live in a society that tends to validate any opinion. Somehow, "we're all entitled to an opinion" has been interpreted by many in the main stream media as "we're all entitled to be right." And we're not.

Who is to blame for that? Postmodernists? Maybe. I think it's just a mix of media ignorance and lazyness taking advantage of a less than well educated pubic.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 06 March 2005 01:16 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by forum observer:

I ws stepping back and taking a macro approach and summing your skeptical approach to the thread base on Josephson and ESP. While it was true that you discounted ESP and held to these views, you did not entertain anything beyond the subject that I brought into focus as the subject model for consideration.


Ok, I understand this part here, I think. I did not discuss if string theory could serve as a model for ESP because, as I told you on that particular thread, I don't see the point of using an hypothesis (string theory, while interesting and promising hypothesis, has not yet been properly tested) to explain something that has never been proven to be true (i.e. ESP). Also, I'm not qualified to discuss string theory (I only have a layman's understanding of the subject), and probably neither are you.

quote:
Originally posted by forum observer:
These would have been a few conflicting ideas that I was tryng to assess. One the basis of your arguemen and why certain sayings are used by skeptics, second, what might have driven you to consider the context in regards to quantum gravity as told by the hoaxster Sokal in line with the method used by skepticism.

I cannot see anything of substance if the logic of approach is the same as a model to deconstruct something that would have no basis in which to judge the model


I don't understand what you are saying here.

quote:
Originally posted by forum observer:

So this would have been a evasive tactic as Dr. Conway produces by making us aware of Maxwell equations and of the evasive tactics that would apply in the thread I am bringing back for attention under the guise of Skepticism.

Keep it simple is what I am defintely trying to do when I turn the tables, using perspective views.


Nobody is trying to evade anything. I'm sorry, but we can't discuss these things with you because we are unable to understand you most of the time! When I read you, I often feel like I'm reading something that was written in chinese and then translated to english by one of them web based language translators!

[ 06 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Seiltänzer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8259

posted 06 March 2005 02:36 PM      Profile for Seiltänzer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Surferosad:
I think that you would agree then, if faith is based on "personal evidence", that it shouldn't be imposed on others, and that it should be a private affair. To me that means that faith related views shouldn't be taught in public schools, shouldn't be used to justify laws and should generally be kept out of politics and education.

Since I am a firm believer in personal as opposed to organized religion I would agree. Although I see no harm in teaching about "faiths" in schools (religious studies, etc), just as history or politics is taught.


From: UK (né Toronto) | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 06 March 2005 02:50 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Surferosad:

If someone says he's sceptic of such and such thing, that doesn't mean that they are really "sceptical"... I mean, a lot of religious fanatics are "sceptical" of evolution. That's why I think that informed scepticism (as opposed to "bad faith" scepticism, in the sense of a scepticism that is only guided by religious of ideological bias) can only work when it includes a good general knowledge of science together with critical thinking skills. That's an approach that I wish would be taught in schools... But isn't!

[ 06 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


Phew, thanks for that definition. After four years of university and several years working in my field, I wasn't sure about that. Thanks!.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 06 March 2005 02:57 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, I agree that "faiths" should be taught, but I also believe that the teaching regarding these kinds of things should also be closely integrated with history classes. A separate class dedicated to religions alone wouldn't do justice to the complexity of the subject. For instance, I don't think you can understand modern christianity without knowing about the Roman Empire, the fights within the early church and the reformation, just for starters.

Therefore, I wouldn't be in favour of having a class exclusively dedicated to religion or religions.


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 06 March 2005 02:58 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:

Phew, thanks for that definition. After four years of university and several years working in my field, I wasn't sure about that. Thanks!.


Well, you sure talk like someone who isn't aware of the definition. Since all I have is what you write, I'm forced to take it at face value... You can't assume that I know that you've been to University and all that. And even if I knew that... I've been a T.A. for a while now, and I've given a few classes. It's surprising how little some university students know...

[ 06 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 06 March 2005 03:28 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Keep up the good work, I'm sure someone will hire you down the road.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Seiltänzer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8259

posted 06 March 2005 04:18 PM      Profile for Seiltänzer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Surferosad:
Yeah, I agree that "faiths" should be taught, but I also believe that the teaching regarding these kinds of things should also be closely integrated with history classes. A separate class dedicated to religions alone wouldn't do justice to the complexity of the subject. For instance, I don't think you can understand modern christianity without knowing about the Roman Empire, the fights within the early church and the reformation, just for starters.

Therefore, I wouldn't be in favour of having a class exclusively dedicated to religion or religions.


There are difficulties with this however. Politics and literature cannot be disassociated from history. A proper and thorough knowledge of historical context is necessary for both. Philosophy, too, I think. And philosophy and religion are bedfellows, as are politics and religion. It would have to be the Mother of all Classes.


From: UK (né Toronto) | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 06 March 2005 05:56 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Seiltänzer:

There are difficulties with this however. Politics and literature cannot be disassociated from history. A proper and thorough knowledge of historical context is necessary for both. Philosophy, too, I think. And philosophy and religion are bedfellows, as are politics and religion. It would have to be the Mother of all Classes.


Mmmm, true... Anyway, a class dedicated to comparative religion would already be a huge improvement. When I went to high school, we were stuck between choosing "education morale" and "education religieuse". They were both given by the same teacher... The first one was a namby-pamby ethics class were the teacher essentially talked about christian values but without clear mentions to religion, the other was an hardcore catholic religious class. Back in those days, Montreal public schools were still divided according to religion: there was a catholic school board and a protestant school board. Pretty backwards! School boards now are split along language, so I believe that things must have improved regarding how religion is taught...

[ 06 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
LeftRight
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2379

posted 06 March 2005 09:48 PM      Profile for LeftRight   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Surferosad:

Another example of unclear language. You mean to say that we should be sceptical of those who cheat people out of their money (or of those who ask for money), and be understanding to those who get cheated? Kind of a trivial point, isn't it? Are you also trying to say that people should be better educated so that they won't be suckered? And what does Piaget have to do with it? Is it because you think his methods would be better at educating?

[ 06 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


If action can not be derived from scepticism, then what good is it? Trivial? True is true and true from true....unclear language? I have trouble with foreign grammar to, but not not too much.


From: Fraser Valley | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 06 March 2005 09:54 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by LeftRight:

If action can not be derived from scepticism, then what good is it? Trivial? True is true and true from true....unclear language? I have trouble with foreign grammar to, but not not too much.


I think you're confusing scepticism with cynicism.

[ 06 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 06 March 2005 10:45 PM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I obviously gave you to much credit

Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity


Thinking, that since you brought up Sokal, you would actually know the article in consideration you might actually know something about string theory(quantum gravity)?

Since you don't and I do, at least this is in order.

Do I understand all the math structures that are implored, not really, but the concepts I do. Spent a couple of years trying to understand.

If you understood the paragraph from Dvali then you would have known how much I actually do know

You see I have heard this challenge issue, enough from good minds and when Dr. Conway spoke up on Maxwell and somebody ignoring the challenge, I couldn't help but surmize that GR wouldn't be as complete a theory, if the fundamentals were change at that level?

But imagine attributing the photon to mass I do not know how many times I had to see this corrected.

And then, there was light. Let's keep it simple, eh

in the sense of a scepticism that is only guided by religious of ideological bias) can only work when it includes a good general knowledge of science together with critical thinking skills


You don't need Skepticism, to have critical thinking. If it's taught is of value without assigning it under a label?

You don't need to be a Skeptic to practise humanism.

Skepticism is over rated and the points brought up on weather and the issues in Iraq in terms of proof are good ones to wonder about? Where are the Skeptics?

In all fairness the Americans do use Skepticism as a basis for rejecting of the Kyoto Accord?

Here is your chance to refute their concerns and to ask them to come aboard?

The difference between European countries and the UNited States? Did Europeans know more then the American people, that they would have made a difference like Canada did by staying out from direct miltary intervention based on fault evidence?

"If you are not with us, you are against us?" Strong rhetoric for sure and maybe an attitude that started in America and has not stopped?

Do Skeptics only come out when it's safe in groups, or when the sayings have accumulated enough that same set scenarios, can be matched to quotes?

When it sounds to good to be true....?

[ 06 March 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 06 March 2005 11:44 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Dawkins has never been quiet about anything:

quote:
"Obnoxious as Saddam Hussein undoubtedly is, it is not obvious that he is more of a danger to the world than 'President' Bush and his reckless handlers.

It would be a tragedy if Tony Blair, a good man who has so much to offer this country, were to be brought down through playing poodle to this unelected and deeply stupid little oil spiv,"


quote:
"The first Gulf War was provoked by a specific aggressive act by
Iraq. Not to have retaliated in Kuwait could legitimately have been
compared to Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler at Munich. Nothing of the
kind applies to the present proposal for war. The timing gives the game
away. It comes from America, not Iraq."

He went on: "Bush is the aggressor. Britain has no business following the
lead of this unelected bully. Regime change in Iraq would be nice for
Iraqis. Regime change in Washington would do more good to the world in the
long run."


And this.


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 07 March 2005 12:15 AM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by forum observer:
I obviously gave you to much credit

Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity


Thinking, that since you brought up Sokal, you would actually know the article in consideration you might actually know something about string theory(quantum gravity)?

Since you don't and I do, at least this is in order.

Do I understand all the math structures that are implored, not really, but the concepts I do. Spent a couple of years trying to understand.

If you understood the paragraph from Dvali then you would have known how much I actually do know

You see I have heard this challenge issue, enough from good minds and when Dr. Conway spoke up on Maxwell and somebody ignoring the challenge, I couldn't help but surmize that GR wouldn't be as complete a theory, if the fundamentals were change at that level?

But imagine attributing the photon to mass I do not know how many times I had to see this corrected.

And then, there was light. Let's keep it simple, eh

in the sense of a scepticism that is only guided by religious of ideological bias) can only work when it includes a good general knowledge of science together with critical thinking skills


You don't need Skepticism, to have critical thinking. If it's taught is of value without assigning it under a label?

You don't need to be a Skeptic to practise humanism.

Skepticism is over rated and the points brought up on weather and the issues in Iraq in terms of proof are good ones to wonder about? Where are the Skeptics?

In all fairness the Americans do use Skepticism as a basis for rejecting of the Kyoto Accord?

Here is your chance to refute their concerns and to ask them to come aboard?

The difference between European countries and the UNited States? Did Europeans know more then the American people, that they would have made a difference like Canada did by staying out from direct miltary intervention based on fault evidence?

"If you are not with us, you are against us?" Strong rhetoric for sure and maybe an attitude that started in America and has not stopped?

Do Skeptics only come out when it's safe in groups, or when the sayings have accumulated enough that same set scenarios, can be matched to quotes?

When it sounds to good to be true....?

[ 06 March 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]


Are you pulling my leg?


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 07 March 2005 12:32 AM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A few points to consider from other posters besides my own?

Why would I be pulling your leg?

I told you Skeptics ideology(you say there is none?) is based on Nihilism, and that if it continues, it arrives at nothing. Is this true or false?

If we are to hold Skeptics credo of value then where would the skeptics analogies and quotes end?

I already answered that.

It is much safer to throw away a concept and groupies that call themselves skeptics, and treat the basis of human thinking as a right to each and responsibiltiy of each, without assigning it to a religion?

[ 07 March 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 07 March 2005 01:18 AM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by forum observer:
A few points to consider from other posters besides my own?

a) Why would I be pulling your leg?

b) I told you Skeptics ideology(you say there is none?) is based on Nihilism, and that if it continues, it arrives at nothing. Is this true or false?

c) If we are to hold Skeptics credo of value then where would the skeptics analogies and quotes end?

I already answered that.

d) It is much safer to throw away a concept and groupies that call themselves skeptics, and treat the basis of human thinking as a right to each and responsibiltiy of each, without assigning it to a religion?

[ 07 March 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]


a) Because you weren't making any sense, and it seemed like you were doing it on purpose.

b) Scepticism is not an ideology nor a religion. It's just a principle. Don't believe in stuff for which there is no evidence, period. That's all. You can be a socialist and a sceptic, even a conservative and a sceptic. Nihilism is an extreme sort of scepticism. It is belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. Obviously I don't believe in this, and I personally don't know of any modern day sceptic who does. I believe in a lot of things, but I try, as much as possible, to have evidence backing up my beliefs. For most sceptics, science is pretty important since it is the principal means with which they figure out what is real and what is not. Therefore, scepticism does not necessarily lead to nihilism.

c) I don't understand your question. Is it a question?

d) So you wanna throw away the idea that that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true?

[ 07 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 07 March 2005 01:36 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think skeptics like these are more abusive bordering on malignment as the objective. Attacking intellectuals and the arts is typical of fascism. The Nazis maligned socialists like Albert Einstein and Karl Polanyi in the 1930's.

Did James Randi attempt to ambush Brian Josephson on BBC radio or not ?.

[ 07 March 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 07 March 2005 01:44 AM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
I think skeptics like these are more abusive and reminiscent of Hitler youth than anything. Attacking intellectuals and the arts is typical of fascism. Did James Randi attempt to ambush Brian Jospehson on BBC radio or not ?.

I'm quoting this because I want to preserve it for "historical reasons".


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 07 March 2005 02:00 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This thread is more about personal attacks than conversing with any intent to answer questions. That's just what the hack magician is infamous for.

Note sad Surfer's personal attack on ForumObserver...

quote:
Originally posted by Surferosad:
Nobody is trying to evade anything. I'm sorry, but we can't discuss these things with you because we are unable to understand you most of the time! When I read you, I often feel like I'm reading something that was written in chinese and then translated to english by one of them web based language translators!

Besides his poor grammar, note that the sad Surfer didn't appreciate my hassling him just a prior to this and quickly threatened to turn me in to the internet feds. Sucky-whiney baby or what!. Must've been a mama's boy. ha ha

Once again, did the former magician turned cynic attempt a real debate with the prize winning physicist?. Or will our in-house "TA" simply attempt to undermine the credibility of a Nobel prize winning physicist as the basis for his skepticism ?.

[ 07 March 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
H Ergaster
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8011

posted 07 March 2005 02:16 AM      Profile for H Ergaster   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This thread is more about personal attacks than conversing with any intent to answer questions.


If it is, then you're the one who made it so. Congratulations.
quote:
Once again, did the former magician turned cynic attempt a real debate with the prize winning physicist?. Or will our in-house "TA" simply attempt to undermine the credibility of a Nobel prize winning physicist as the basis for his skepticism ?.

Since the other thread got closed you never got the chance to answer my question. I'm sure you were just getting around to it, though, so here it is again:

quote:
Because Josephson won a Nobel Prize 30 years ago, does that give him a free pass to promote whatever mysticism he feels like?

From: Vancouver, BC | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 07 March 2005 02:30 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ahhh, you mean that other thread where personal attack and expletives were used as an appeal to authority ?. ha ha

"It's like religion. Heresy [in science] is thought of as a bad thing, whereas it should be just the opposite." - Dr. Thomas Gold

Here's a report by statistician, Jessica Utts on remote viewing and produced by UCAL for the US military who have since spent millions on developing it for obvious reasons.

quote:

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EVIDENCE FOR PSYCHIC FUNCTIONING

Professor Jessica Utts
Division of Statistics
University of California, Davis

Results: Using this method for enhancing the accuracy of the guesses, subject #531, who had been successful in previous similar experiments, was able to achieve 76 correct answers out of 100 tries. This remarkable level of scoring for this type of experiment resulted in an effect size of .520 and a z-score of 5.20. The other two subjects did not differ from chance results, with 44 and 49 correct decisions out of 100 or 101. (One subject accidentally contributed an additional trial.)



ucdavis.edu


"It is really quite amazing by what margins competent but conservative scientists and engineers can miss the mark, when they start with the preconceived idea that what they are investigating is impossible. When this happens, the most well-informed men become blinded by their
prejudices and are unable to see what lies directly ahead of them." - Arthur C. Clarke, 1963

"In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." - Galileo Galilei

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
- Sir Martin Rees (astronomer)

"There is no better soporific and sedative than skepticism." -Nietzche

"Space travel is bunk" -Sir Harold Spencer Jones, Astronomer Royal of Britain, 1957, two weeks before the launch of Sputnik

"Physical concepts are the free creations of the human mind and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world."
- Einstein/Infeld in "The Evolution of Physics" 1938

[ 07 March 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 07 March 2005 10:49 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, now this thread, ostensibly in Science and Humanities, is showing online psychic ads. I wonder what troll is making that happen with his persistent and apparently unwelcome kook-shit?
From: ř¤°`°¤ř,¸_¸,ř¤°`°¤ř,¸_¸,ř¤°°¤ř,¸_¸,ř¤°°¤ř, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
H Ergaster
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8011

posted 07 March 2005 11:16 AM      Profile for H Ergaster   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Here's a report by statistician, Jessica Utts on remote viewing and produced by UCAL for the US military who have since spent millions on developing it for obvious reasons.

Sure. Cold War paranoia. After all, the Soviets were up to the same shenanigans.

The Evidence for Psychic Functioning: Claims vs. Reality

quote:
When we examine the basis of Utts's strong claim for the existence of psi, we find that it relies on a handful of experiments that have been shown to have serious weaknesses after undergoing careful scrutiny, and another handful of experiments that have yet to undergo scrutiny or be successfully replicated. What seems clear is that the scientific community is not going to abandon its fundamental ideas about causality, time, and other principles on the basis of a handful of experiments whose findings have yet to be shown to be replicable and lawful.

[ 07 March 2005: Message edited by: H Ergaster ]


From: Vancouver, BC | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 07 March 2005 11:24 AM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For most sceptics, science is pretty important since it is the principal means with which they figure out what is real and what is not. Therefore, scepticism does not necessarily lead to nihilism.

Well I would like to think that regardless of being a Skeptic science, is also very important.

You mention that Nihilism was an extreme form of scepticism, so you do acknowledge this basis? So what we have to discern then is, that there is subtler forms, that if held to inquiry will reveal more then nothing?

IN my journies in trying to comprehend, a basis of logic approach brought this logic to this realization.

I would not of asked if it were true or false

Ultimately you had to realize that such endeavors to inquiry would rather have you find the truth, and not drive the comprehension to nothing?

So in this respect I would say without endorsing Skepticism that independant of this class of association that you have formed, we can see the attributes of good citizenship if we use these discrimminating factors in our dealings.

Only good questions will reveal what is needed to make distinctions that are appropriate and not the idolicism that one may have placed in the Halls of Skepticism.


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 07 March 2005 11:46 AM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I sit in one of the dives
On fifty second street
Uncertain and afraid
As the clever hopes expire . .

Is there a shift from cold war mentality and attempts to preserve the State of Fear? Are there greater realizations to the ecology of thought that fictional characters remind us. When we learn to percieve the undercurrents that move societies to take the positions they do and support faulty evidence?

I contend that you do not need skeptisim, but good questions to discern the basis of the evidence offered?

You do not want to institute responsible individuals to classifications, in regards to religious intolerances? Hence nations, who individuals can choose the appropriate actions and the support evidences brings to bear on issues.

So if your from London, and you had evidence that ran contrary to what was presented by the United States, did you do all you could to bring it to others awareness?

You want to create independance and discerning individuals? Strong nations, Strong United Nations?


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 07 March 2005 12:06 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Forum Observer, I can't follow your thinking. I'm trying, but I can't. And it's not just faulty grammar! You jump from one subject to another, and you bring up all kinds of weird, apparently unrelated subjects! And when I do understand you a bit, you keep bringing up points that have already been answered.

I don't understand you, but I just realised that you don't understand me either! I think we're just talking pass each other!

And this is not a personal attack! I'm sure I'm not the only one who's having trouble with forum observer.

[ 07 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 07 March 2005 12:22 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by H Ergaster:

bla bla bla
[ 07 March 2005: Message edited by: H Ergaster ]

Ergo, if Randi is the da-bunker he claims to be, then why doesn't HE reproduce Utts' results to show that they were a hoax in true Randian fashion ?.

In fact, send the old bugger an email with the challenge that I will pay him a million bucks if he can pull off 76/100. HA HA

PS: If the feds'd have wanted a hack magician's opinion on remote viewing, then we can be sure they'd have called Amazing Randi!!! HA HA

[ 07 March 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 07 March 2005 12:23 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fidel, your arguments and quotations are obviously made in bad faith. You're ready to claim scientific support when it suits you, but when it doesn't, you just go "what do they know anyway?"...
From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 07 March 2005 12:49 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You mean like the Amazing one would do ?.

So it's insults, personal attack, and now you're putting words in my mouth ?. Nice stuff.


A Field Guide to Skepticism

"What we need is not the will to believe but the will to find out." - Bertrand Russell

"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

"We not only believe what we see, to some extent we see what we believe...The implications of our beliefs are frightening." - Richard Gregor


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 07 March 2005 12:57 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Phew, thanks for that definition. After four years of university and several years working in my field, I wasn't sure about that. Thanks!.

You went to university for 4 years? Perhaps these people can help you get your money back.


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 07 March 2005 01:04 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:

A Field Guide to Skepticism


A review of Dean Radin's book Unconscious Universe.

[ 07 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 07 March 2005 01:05 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Another skeptic drone with a drive-by. You people should be the last ones to haunt a university.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 07 March 2005 01:12 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
beeb beeb
From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 07 March 2005 01:14 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Surferosad:

A review of Dean Radin's book Unconscious Universe.

[ 07 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


Highly regarded journal refuses to publish correction of error in review: a case of censorship?


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
H Ergaster
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8011

posted 07 March 2005 01:15 PM      Profile for H Ergaster   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Surferosad:
And this is not a personal attack! I'm sure I'm not the only one who's having trouble with forum observer.

No, you're not the only one. That's why I'm leaving him for you


From: Vancouver, BC | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 07 March 2005 01:19 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, it's perfectly possible that Fidel went to a university! But if he did, it must have been one of those places were they train students to do a job instead of giving them an education... Or maybe they did try to give him an education, but failed. I mean, we can't hold universities responsible for their former students behaviour, now, can we?

Here's something useful for those who try to be critical thinkers: a list of logical fallacies.

I think Fidel has had recourse to many of the fallacies listed, in particular the missing the point fallacies...

[ 07 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 07 March 2005 01:23 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Apologies are typical of abusive personalities, Surf.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 07 March 2005 01:24 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh for god's sake, can't you two get a room or something?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 07 March 2005 01:29 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I doubt that the point five who goes by "SurferO'" has ever been intimate with anyone but his bad self, Michelle. ha ha

And Surfer, exclamation marks at the end of every sentence is improper and unnecessary!. Where did you go to school, or did you ?.

[ 07 March 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 07 March 2005 01:33 PM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And this is not a personal attack! I'm sure I'm not the only one who's having trouble with forum observer.

Yes I know it may seem disjoined if one does not undertand the basic premise that I had put forward in string theory, in regards to model apprehension and extension.

Not just the standard model, but in our thinking as well?

Sometimes the historical does sone good just so we can see this evoltuion of thinking from Pythagorean to Thales, Plato and Aristotle and to the current thougts held today in science.

From Euclid to the Fifth postulate, From Giralamo Sachherri to Gauss , Reimann and what we are being lead through in the geometry and non-euclidean views.

It requires expanded dimenisonal thinking I guess? Please do not take this as a insult, it's just that you lack information and understanding.

I am trying to make myself very clear. If others are having problems please ask specific questions then.

[ 07 March 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 07 March 2005 01:33 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm quoting myself because I don't want to have to write this again.

"Frankly, I find it highly annoying that you pretend to talk in a scientific tone while you obviously don't give two shits for scientific methods and conclusions. Or better, you only care about those methods when they tell you what you wanna hear. I work in science, bud. I can't count the times where one of my cherished ideas was demolished by some professor, or a colleague, or an article, and I had to go back to the drawing board, start anew...That's how it goes! With supporters of ESP, if scientific methods don't give what they want, then there's obviously something wrong with the methods or with the people who did the experiment... Once again: every single time an ESP experiment has been done in a controlled setting, with both sceptics and believers present (the presence of sceptics is very important here, since they're the ones that need convincing, and the ones that are harder to fool) and with clear experimental parameters, the ESP experiment has failed to prove that there is such a thing as ESP. There are probably hundreds, maybe thousands of such experiments. If even a single one had clearly indicated that there was something to ESP, I'm sure it would have been widely publicised, and it would have been reproduced by hundreds of researchers around the world.

I don't hide the fact that I find ESP highly improbable. And the field has a long history of association with charlatans, con men and deluded thinkers. Why is it so surprising then, why does it annoy you so much, that someone like me ask for hard evidence? Wouldn't you demand rigourous testing too if your were in my shoes?"


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 07 March 2005 01:36 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Oh for god's sake, can't you two get a room or something?

I was trying to have a reasonable discussion, without personal attacks. But unfortunately Fidel is unable to argue without calling names. If you don't believe me, read the thread from the beginning.

[ 07 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 07 March 2005 01:41 PM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't hide the fact that I find ESP highly improbable. And the field has a long history of association with charlatans, con men and deluded thinkers. Why is it so surprising then, why does it annoy you so much, that someone like me ask for hard evidence? Wouldn't you demand rigourous testing too if your were in my shoes?"

YOu have preconcived ideas that lead you to distance yourself from the current points discussed in reality. This, like motivation hinders any further discussion and closes your mind.

It's just that you are not informed and you let other cases rule your thinking. Critical thinking is fine but leave the mode of operandi behind for another day. One where you wish to operate on the principals of the ideology of Skepticism and quotes.


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 07 March 2005 01:41 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You're entirely bereft of the wherewithal necessary for a real discussion. I think you're socially retarded, Surfer.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 07 March 2005 01:50 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Surferosad:
I'm quoting myself because I don't want to have to write this again.

bla bla bla ...
"I don't hide the fact that I find ESP highly improbable. And the field has a long history of association with charlatans, con men and deluded thinkers. Why is it so surprising then, why does it annoy you so much, that someone like me ask for hard evidence? Wouldn't you demand rigourous testing too if your were in my shoes?"


A scientist who murders the English language!. And he quotes himself, too!. Now I'm skeptical!.

[ 07 March 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 07 March 2005 02:01 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How's your French, Fidel? Is it any better than my english?
From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 07 March 2005 02:04 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Anyway, I give up. This thread has been turned to shit anyway. Between one guy's incoherent rants and another guy's personal attacks, it has become impossible to have a reasonable talk...

Dr. Conway, I know we aren't at the 100 posts mark yet, but could you please put this thread out of its misery?

[ 07 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 07 March 2005 02:07 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Surferosad:
I was trying to have a reasonable discussion, without personal attacks. But unfortunately Fidel is unable to argue without calling names. If you don't believe me, read the thread from the beginning.

I did read it from the beginning. I remember reading the beginning yesterday and thinking, for god's sake, Surferosad, if you think someone is trolling, then why on earth are you feeding the troll and playing tit-for-tat? Right from the beginning you could have ignored him and brought it to the attention of the moderator (by private mail or e-mail) instead of playing his game. But instead, it seems you couldn't bear to let him have the last word, and so you and he have been having this little war throughout the thread.

So why keep it going? Or, if you absolutely can't bear to let a troll have the last word, why not take it to private mail? This is what I don't get. You complain that he wrecked your thread, but you played right along with him, right into his hands. And now he's laughing at you because it worked so well.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 07 March 2005 02:09 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
You're entirely bereft of the wherewithal necessary for a real discussion. I think you're socially retarded, Surfer.


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 07 March 2005 02:10 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, Michelle, Surfer did some thread busting himself prior to this one. He continued the personal attacks on ForumObserver and me in this thread. We were just giving him the old what for.

Didn't know Anglais wasn't your first language. I apologize and will cease with that line of attack. I'm impressed. But you still suck at personal attack whether it's lil ol me or a Cambridge Nobel laureate in physics.

[ 07 March 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 07 March 2005 02:14 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

I did read it from the beginning. I remember reading the beginning yesterday and thinking, for god's sake, Surferosad, if you think someone is trolling, then why on earth are you feeding the troll and playing tit-for-tat? Right from the beginning you could have ignored him and brought it to the attention of the moderator (by private mail or e-mail) instead of playing his game. But instead, it seems you couldn't bear to let him have the last word, and so you and he have been having this little war throughout the thread.

So why keep it going? Or, if you absolutely can't bear to let a troll have the last word, why not take it to private mail? This is what I don't get. You complain that he wrecked your thread, but you played right along with him, right into his hands. And now he's laughing at you because it worked so well.


But I did complain to the moderator!

See, I've tried to answer Fidel in those few occasions were he seemed to be saying something that had a connection with the thread, but he kept up the personal attacks... So I lost patience!


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 07 March 2005 02:26 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What I did was post a link which mentioned your alter ego, the "Amazing Randi." I thought you'd be both challenged and delighted at the same time. Instead, you threatened to turn me in to the forum feds!!!.

I never used rolly eyes as much, but I seem to enjoy tit-for-tat for some reason now.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 07 March 2005 02:54 PM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
NO further discussion is needed on this thread by myself because I dealt with the issue of Skepticism.

Dealt with the evasive tactics that were applied to myself and a previous thread.

I do not consider myself a troll.....and for any to apply this term displays more of a insult then any that would have been exchanged between Fidel and Surf.

Dr. Conway explained Fidel's position in context and has been monitoring I am sure.

I think Surf is fine, just a little misguided in his position. The points he made are fine and very applicable across the board regardless of the association. I just saw it as limiting depending on the convictions regarding discussion. I only try to emulate the process that was applied to myself.

No hard feelings I hope.

[ 07 March 2005: Message edited by: forum observer ]


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 07 March 2005 03:34 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Surferosad:
But I did complain to the moderator!

See, I've tried to answer Fidel in those few occasions were he seemed to be saying something that had a connection with the thread, but he kept up the personal attacks... So I lost patience!


No, see, what you did was you complained to the moderator AFTER engaging in a tit-for-tat bickerfest for a bunch of posts first. That's not really the point of "not trollfeeding". The idea is, you IGNORE someone who is trolling and report them to the moderator, not that you argue with them for post after post throughout the thread, making sure you always get the last word, AND bringing it to the attention of the moderator.

When I read this thread, yes, I can see that Fidel was so obviously trolling it. But you were feeding into it right from the start.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Surferosad
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4791

posted 07 March 2005 03:52 PM      Profile for Surferosad   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, I was just trying to warn him, but I understand that my behaviour might have been perceived as "troll feeding". Sometimes it's hard to figure out when someone is trolling... Anyway, I'm not going to feed Fidel anymore.

[ 07 March 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
forum observer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7605

posted 07 March 2005 06:01 PM      Profile for forum observer   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Dr. Conway saidIn my opinion, Fidel isn't trolling, because he isn't posting simply to piss people off. However, I would say this is contributing to thread drift so I would like to ask you both to start a new thread if you want to debate James Randi specifically.

I have a technical question. I wanted to link to a post, how would I do this in reference to Dr. Conway's statement, besides using quote?


From: It is appropriate that plectics refers to entanglement or the lack thereof, | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 07 March 2005 08:25 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ok, y'all, this is getting out of hand. I'm exercising moderatorial discretion on this one.
From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca