Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Debunking skeptics .....

Options
24567

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    Read that article Maccord, you owe me man.
    Pure arse, you're in Carlow & I'm in Carlow. We meet, you treat me to an Eddie Rockets Strawberry Malt, I'll call it evens.


  • Options
    #33
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Eddie Rockets !! thats just dragging down this forum.


  • Options
    #34
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Eddie Rockets !! thats just dragging down this forum.

    You're just cynical, even if you tried one of their malts it wouldn't be enough to convince you they are amazing.


    :pac:


  • Options
    #35
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,660 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    read what article?

    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    Read that article Maccord, you owe me man.
    Pure arse, you're in Carlow & I'm in Carlow. We meet, you treat me to an Eddie Rockets Strawberry Malt, I'll call it evens.


  • Options
    #36
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,660 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/hijackingterms.php - that article?

    That's not 'pure arse' - certainly not to me anyway as it seems to describe many Ive met around here. As I said, even Daves imagainery whatever it was he mentioned earlier is in there. Thats not 'pure arse' thats ****ing spot on.

    Why would I buy you a strawberry malt and why would we call whatever it is evens?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,660 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    If he insisted their malts didnt exist because he had never seen one ... then you might be on to something

    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    You're just cynical, even if you tried one of their malts it wouldn't be enough to convince you they are amazing.


    :pac:


  • Options
    #38
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    maccored wrote: »
    If he insisted their malts didnt exist because he had never seen one ... then you might be on to something

    I was kinda taking the mick out of your definition of cynic.

    (Only a little though:) )


    The article; well, it's poorly written and the guy behind it doesn't really come across too well. And he doesn't know what an ad hominem is.

    He says Randi is a jerk for not taking a guy up on his offer to starve himself, even though if the guy fell ill during the experiment the JREF could be held liable for refusing someone food and such.

    He also mistakes Randi's motives, in an old video when the reward was in the region of AU$30,000 (If memory serves), Randi stated that it would be a small price to pay to have confirmation of something paranormal.

    I could probably go on, but then I'd have to read the article again :p


  • Options
    #39
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Again this is the heart of the matter.

    Simply because someone does not share your (rather naive) optimism that there is going to be something exciting to discover in what you call the "paranormal" doesn't make them "pesudo-skeptical". It in fact makes them entirely the correct type of skeptic, someone who does not let personal desires cloud their judgement.


    You don't act like it. And at the end of the day I'll go on how you act rather than what you claim to be.

    Sorry but skeptical doesnt mean you refute every single claim out of hand or accept populist opinion in science as gospel. There is nothing wrong with investigating anything percieved as paranormal. The only fault would lie with having faith in the absense of any evidence or willingness to investigate.


  • Options
    #40
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Sorry but skeptical doesnt mean you refute every single claim out of hand or accept populist opinion in science as gospel.

    What a very odd thing to say. "Populist opinion in science". You mean the stuff that tells you it probably isn't the disembodied spirit of a dead person that made that noise. Bloody kill joys, don't they know how much more exciting it is to wonder if it might be a ghost! :rolleyes:
    steddyeddy wrote: »
    The only fault would lie with having faith in the absense of any evidence or willingness to investigate.

    No, the fault would lie with not being sceptical and letting oneself get carried away with unsupported claims and explanations because they are far more exciting that boring reality.


  • Options
    #41
    ShanePouch
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 83 ✭✭ShanePouch


    There are three types of person;

    1. A Cynic
    2. A Sceptic
    3. A Credulous Person


    The definitions for the above are

    1. A Cynic will not believe in a phenomenon even when there is good evidence to suggest the phenomenon is likely to be true

    2. A Sceptic will only believe in phenomenon if there is good evidence to suggest it is likely to be true

    3. A Credulous person will believe in a phenomenon even when there is no evidence to support its truth, and sometimes in spite of there being evidence to the contrary.

    It seems the only logical position to hold is that of a sceptic.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    ShanePouch wrote: »
    There are three types of person;

    1. A Cynic
    2. A Sceptic
    3. A Credulous Person


    The definitions for the above are

    1. A Cynic will not believe in a phenomenon even when there is good evidence to suggest the phenomenon is likely to be true

    2. A Sceptic will only believe in phenomenon if there is good evidence to suggest it is likely to be true

    3. A Credulous person will believe in a phenomenon even when there is no evidence to support its truth, and sometimes in spite of there being evidence to the contrary.

    It seems the only logical position to hold is that of a sceptic.

    Thats one hundred per cent not true. Skeptics have refuted facts because of scientific dogma before.


  • Options
    #43
    ShanePouch
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 83 ✭✭ShanePouch


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    Thats one hundred per cent not true. Skeptics have refuted facts because of scientific dogma before.

    If it's 100% untrue, perhaps you'd like to give us your definition for each of the three.

    Just because one or more people who you have considered to be sceptics (I use the UK spelling and see you favour the USA spelling) have refuted facts, doesn't mean the definition of sceptic changes.


  • Options
    #44
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,660 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    ShanePouch wrote: »
    If it's 100% untrue, perhaps you'd like to give us your definition for each of the three.

    Just because one or more people who you have considered to be sceptics (I use the UK spelling and see you favour the USA spelling) have refuted facts, doesn't mean the definition of sceptic changes.

    I do not understand why you can be bothered posting in a sceptics/skeptics forum if you really have so little understanding of what the word skeptic actually means.

    A sceptic will admit they dont have the answers. Cynics on the other hand, need the evidence before they'll believe anything (and therefore will never look for the answers themselves). You cant research the paranormal without being skeptical.

    Obviously you can toy with words and be pedantic, but the general understanding of being skeptical is you would not outright claim something to be true ... but you would also not claim outright that it would not be true, if there wasnt enough information to make that decision.


  • Options
    #45
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,660 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    I think Ciaran O'Keeffe hits the nail on the head
    Scepticism (or the US spelling – skepticism) is generally described as a doubting or questioning attitude. It can further be defined as follows:
    • It can be regarded as a philosophical stance in which one critically examines whether the knowledge and perceptions that they have are actually true, and whether or not one can ever be said to have absolutely true knowledge; or,
    • It can be a pragmatic position in which one questions the veracity of claims, and seeks to prove or disprove them using the scientific method.


  • Options
    #46
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,660 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Again this is the heart of the matter.

    Simply because someone does not share your (rather naive) optimism that there is going to be something exciting to discover in what you call the "paranormal" doesn't make them "pesudo-skeptical". It in fact makes them entirely the correct type of skeptic, someone who does not let personal desires cloud their judgement.

    I missed this one.

    Im amazed that 'Zombrex' - genius that he/she is - can tell me about my belief systems. Actually .. no Im not. Once again we have a cynic who assumes he/she knows everything ... including how people theyve never met think.
    You don't act like it. And at the end of the day I'll go on how you act rather than what you claim to be.

    Im quite happy in the knowledge you wouldnt know a skeptic if one had a debate with you on a skeptics forum, so Im not really too worried about what you think tbh. Go away and educate yourself is my only suggestion. Oh - I have to add an edit. I dont act like a skeptic? Go off and find me one thing ove ever said, or anything Leinster Paranormal has ever done that would lead you to believe I "let personal desires cloud their judgement". You sir, are talking out of your arse.


  • Options
    #47
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,660 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Thys is yet one more post that to me, shows how very very little you understand about paranormal research or the kind of people that participate in it. Its a bit like trying to have a grown up debate with a 4 year old.

    Zombrex wrote: »
    What a very odd thing to say. "Populist opinion in science". You mean the stuff that tells you it probably isn't the disembodied spirit of a dead person that made that noise. Bloody kill joys, don't they know how much more exciting it is to wonder if it might be a ghost! :rolleyes:



    No, the fault would lie with not being sceptical and letting oneself get carried away with unsupported claims and explanations because they are far more exciting that boring reality.


  • Options
    #48
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    maccored wrote: »
    I do not understand why you can be bothered posting in a sceptics/skeptics forum if you really have so little understanding of what the word skeptic actually means.

    A sceptic will admit they dont have the answers. Cynics on the other hand, need the evidence before they'll believe anything (and therefore will never look for the answers themselves). You cant research the paranormal without being skeptical.

    Obviously you can toy with words and be pedantic, but the general understanding of being skeptical is you would not outright claim something to be true ... but you would also not claim outright that it would not be true, if there wasnt enough information to make that decision.

    No, you just place emphasis on very poor quality evidence, and then accuse skeptics of being cynical because they aren't convinced. Most skeptics on here will be aware of the standard arguments and "evidence" that is usually put forth by paranormal enthusiasts. They usually amount to anecdotes that can't be substantiated, or ambiguous anomalies that are inconclusive.

    Just because someone doesn't personally go around and interview every nut who says they saw a ghost doesn't make them cynical. The paranormal meme has been floating around for centuries, and we still have nothing that amounts to solid evidence, despite so-called "paranormal investigators" devoting lots of energy to it.


  • Options
    #49
    ShanePouch
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 83 ✭✭ShanePouch


    maccored wrote: »
    I do not understand why you can be bothered posting in a sceptics/skeptics forum if you really have so little understanding of what the word skeptic actually means.

    A sceptic will admit they dont have the answers. Cynics on the other hand, need the evidence before they'll believe anything (and therefore will never look for the answers themselves). You cant research the paranormal without being skeptical.

    I am quite clear on the meanings of the words, and have looked up the OED which describes thus:

    cynic

    Pronunciation: /ˈsɪnɪk/
    noun
    • 1a person who believes that people are motivated purely by self-interest rather than acting for honourable or unselfish reasons:
    sceptic

    Pronunciation: /ˈskɛptɪk/
    ( archaic & North American skeptic)
    noun
    • 1a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions.

    As we can see, a cynic isn’t going to believe you because he doubts your motives, whereas a sceptic does not accept anything and questions and looks for evidence.

    maccored wrote: »
    Obviously you can toy with words and be pedantic, but the general understanding of being skeptical is you would not outright claim something to be true ... but you would also not claim outright that it would not be true, if there wasnt enough information to make that decision.
    Obviously we can both toy with words and be pedantic. If the meaning of words is unclear, then that’s not an unimportant subject for debate and clarification.


  • Options
    #50
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    maccored wrote: »
    I do not understand why you can be bothered posting in a sceptics/skeptics forum if you really have so little understanding of what the word skeptic actually means.

    A sceptic will admit they dont have the answers. Cynics on the other hand, need the evidence before they'll believe anything (and therefore will never look for the answers themselves). You cant research the paranormal without being skeptical.

    Obviously you can toy with words and be pedantic, but the general understanding of being skeptical is you would not outright claim something to be true ... but you would also not claim outright that it would not be true, if there wasnt enough information to make that decision.


    What sort of dictionary do you use?


  • Options
    #51
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    ShanePouch wrote: »
    If it's 100% untrue, perhaps you'd like to give us your definition for each of the three.

    Just because one or more people who you have considered to be sceptics (I use the UK spelling and see you favour the USA spelling) have refuted facts, doesn't mean the definition of sceptic changes.

    I agree however my point is that some people who present themselves are skeptics in a word arent. Prior to the discovery of a gorilla the self procalimed "skeptics" dismissed out of hand the repeated anatomically and ethologically correct sightings. The same sort of "skeptics" dismissed the consistent anatomically and ethologically reports of the komodo dragon, giant panda, hoan keim turtle, sneezing monkey of south america, the giant squid, the takin, the Okapi, the beaked whale, the Bondegezou and the Platypus.

    All of the above were met with the claim of hoax, the witnesses were dimissed as liars and the people who documented the claims were called psuedoscientists.

    Were there claims that turned out to be bogus? Of course but the skeptics criticised the investigators for even investigating the claims in the first place even though it was the investigation that determined the claims were a hoax. The Jersey devil springs to mind which was found to be created in order to lower real estate values ala scooby doo!

    My point is made to combat the currently held view amongst some skeptics that the skeptic community represents the current reality of science and combats dogma.A lot of the people refered to as nuts by the skeptics have been the real skeptics and the skeptics had being following dogmatism by accepting their theory that all these animals can be explained by hoaxing despite their being no evidence for a hoax.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    ShanePouch
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 83 ✭✭ShanePouch


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    I agree however my point is that some people who present themselves are skeptics in a word arent. .

    Perhaps the mistake is to believe how someone presents themselves, and not listen to what they say and what they do to decide if they are a sceptic, cynic or fanatic. :-)


  • Options
    #53
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    ShanePouch wrote: »
    steddyeddy wrote: »
    I agree however my point is that some people who present themselves are skeptics in a word arent. .

    Perhaps the mistake is to believe how someone presents themselves, and not listen to what they say and what they do to decide if they are a sceptic, cynic or fanatic. :-)

    Very true


  • Options
    #54
    Akrasia
    Registered Users Posts: 22,234 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    steddyeddy wrote: »
    I am myself a skeptic but I feel the term is often misused. There are definatly skeptics who misrepresent the truth in order to debunk some claims. No doubt about it. I have one or two interests that science doesnt recognise yet and some of the arguements put forward by some skeptics have been similar to "it cant exist therefore it doesnt ect". Some skeptics also used inaccurate science to attack my theories. Skepticism is about questioning in my opinion and coming up with alternative solutions.

    Skepticism is about basing one's opinions/beliefs on the evidence, and a rigorous analysis of what constitutes good evidence.

    Skepticism is also about openness to new ideas, and willingness to change one's position if the evidence is of a high enough quality to support a different hypothesis.

    Anyone who adheres to the above criteria can legitimately consider him/herself to be a skeptic.

    If you believe something that is not widely accepted by the skeptic community, there is a chance that the wider skeptic community are involved in some kind of conspiracy or that they are all 'pseudo skeptics', but there is also the chance that you are the person who is misguided and perhaps you should take a closer look at your own beliefs.

    Ask yourself, What kind of evidence would disprove this idea? If you can not think of any evidence that could be presented that would change your belief in a phenomena, then you are clearly not a skeptic.

    You also need to be capable of assessing the evidence in favour of your belief and contrast it with the evidence that contradicts your belief. Is your supporting evidence of a high quality? Was the methodology rigorous? Are there other possible explanations for each instance of the phenomenon?

    What are the implications if your belief are true?
    What are the implications if your belief are false?

    If the implications that your belief is true are that the entire theory of gravity must be thrown out and replaced with something entirely new, then you are going to need to provide an enormous amount of supporting evidence to justify this


  • Options
    #55
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Thats completely correct but unfortunately there seems to be some unwritten rules of Ridicule and prickyness along with skeptics.

    Here are some James Randhi fans commets about psychics on youtube

    http://youtu.be/UlwZWmu-bNM


    Edward and Praagh are ****ing SCUMBAGS

    markydo86 1 week ago

    Van Prague's voice is so obnoxious. I just want to punch him in his face.

    tonybony1491 3 days ago 4 pixel-vfl3z5WfW.gif


    I agree, I hope James Van Prague finds himself in a very special place in hell when he dies, the kind where he faces all his lies. People should research his legal problems, he's a known con artist and thief.

    MrWirelesscaller

    WHY DOES HE SOUND LIKE A FAG LOL
    Watchingyew 5 days ago



    Van Praagh has the voice of a woman.

    1000mbr 5 days ago


  • Options
    #56
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    What kind of f*cking retard post is the above? Should we trawl through YouTube and find some ignorant comments from "paranormal believers", and post them up, for no apparent reason?

    Hold the press - there are immature goons who like James Randi, and there are immature goons who do not like him.

    Your post above served no purpose whatsoever. You just posted up a demonstration of the lack of substance in your thoughts.


  • Options
    #57
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Dave! wrote: »
    What kind of f*cking retard post is the above? Should we trawl through YouTube and find some ignorant comments from "paranormal believers", and post them up, for no apparent reason?

    Hold the press - there are immature goons who like James Randi, and there are immature goons who do not like him.

    Your post above served no purpose whatsoever. You just posted up a demonstration of the lack of substance in your thoughts.



    Wow getting personal there, i didnt mean to hit a nerve, so BIG HUG.

    Its just a video by the website that i posted about in the initial thread. I thought it was funny how they say the skeptic community revert to defamatory comments and ridicule like they say.Although i have never seen in it here :pac:

    Sorry if i was generalizing the skeptic community.


  • Options
    #58
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Sorry bout that, had been on the Guinness... and Jameson... that night! :o My bad


  • Options
    #59
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Dave! wrote: »
    Sorry bout that, had been on the Guinness... and Jameson... that night! :o My bad

    Skeptics in the bar actually sounds like a good night :)


  • Options
    #60
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Skeptics in the bar actually sounds like a good night :)

    The evidence says otherwise....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    maccored wrote: »
    I missed this one.

    Im amazed that 'Zombrex' - genius that he/she is - can tell me about my belief systems. Actually .. no Im not. Once again we have a cynic who assumes he/she knows everything ... including how people theyve never met think.


    Im quite happy in the knowledge you wouldnt know a skeptic if one had a debate with you on a skeptics forum, so Im not really too worried about what you think tbh. Go away and educate yourself is my only suggestion. Oh - I have to add an edit. I dont act like a skeptic? Go off and find me one thing ove ever said, or anything Leinster Paranormal has ever done that would lead you to believe I "let personal desires cloud their judgement". You sir, are talking out of your arse.

    Can you point out the skeptical part of the Leinster Paranormal web page?

    If they are skeptical why is the web page littered with references to ghosts and other paranormal claims. Why is there even mention of the paranormal at all? Have you demonstrated these claims have enough evidence behind them to be scientifically supported? Have you demonstrated that there is supernatural events taking place? Heck, the slogan is apparently "common sense not science". Jesus Christ! The slogan might as well be "We have no idea but isn't it fun to imagine" :rolleyes:


Advertisement