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

Debunking skeptics .....

Options
123457»

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,660 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Zombrex wrote: »
    And pray tell what is the reality of armchair skeptics. Since when did pointing out the flaws, inconsistencies and down right nonsense of paranormal researches get invalidated because the person pointing this out was in an armchair at the time.

    Oh that's right, these people are not playing the game properly...

    The reality is many of the anti paranormalists - or indeed 'skeptics' as they call themselves (wrong word) - havent the first notion of paranormal research. yet they are experts on it. 'armchair' is a term used for many types of people - be they wanna be scientists, politicians, republicans .. whatever. The kind who talk the talk but have never bothered walking the walk. That is the reality of armchair skeptics. Pretend scientists if you will. Much smarter than the rest of us obviously.


  • Options
    #183
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,660 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Hoop66 wrote: »
    That's because there are so many of them.

    as in many things in life. Still - you dont see many people who havent a balls notion about farming giving out about how farmers grow crops. yet you have many on here who havent a clue about the paranormal complaining about people who are interested in it. I say, if they have no interest in the paranormal to the degree that they've never bothered educating themselves about the field, then they should bugger off and annoy other people and leave us alone.


  • Options
    #184
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,660 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    Dave! wrote: »
    What about people who read other people's studies and do understand them? Are they still unqualified to debate it?

    Where? On this forum? you are having a laugh. Show me one - and dont be using mediums and psychics as a complete representation of the paranormal.

    Also - you'd be a pretty ****e scientist if all you ever done was read other peoples reports and never came up with anything of your own.
    :) I assume you're the one who decides on whether or not someone understands a study BTW (i.e. if they disagree with you, they probably don't understand it)

    I have no idea what you are on about there tbh. Why would you make that assumption?
    It's handy for you that your slogan for your group is "common sense, not science", because it means the bar for considering yourself qualified enough to conduct research is low (you just have to have common sense!).

    Dave!, its obviously not that common, going by this whole post of yours.
    If I went out tonight with a proton pack, looking for ectoplasm, would that qualify me to have an opinion?

    It wouldnt surprise me in the least if after doing that you believed you did. You made my point nicely there for me.


  • Options
    #185
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,336 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    maccored wrote: »
    havent the first notion of paranormal research.

    Yet many of us not only do know about the research but have also trained ourselves, or have been trained, on how to read scientific papers and research texts, a skill lacking in many the lay man and woo artist.

    Despite that training and experience and knowledge I have no knowledge of anything which substantiates the "paranormal". I am all ears if anyone else has however.
    maccored wrote: »
    they should bugger off and annoy other people and leave us alone.

    Given you are in the skeptics corner is it not you that should "bugger off" and leave people alone? Your post makes about as much sense as a teetotaler going into a pub and declaring all the drinkers should leave.
    maccored wrote: »
    Where? On this forum? you are having a laugh. Show me one

    As I said I am knowledgeable in not just many of the papers people cite but also how to read and understand research papers and statistics and more. I am not alone in this, there are many such people on the forum. Zombrex for example is far from under-educated in this regard.
    maccored wrote: »
    Also - you'd be a pretty ****e scientist if all you ever done was read other peoples reports and never came up with anything of your own.

    Not so. There are many kinds of scientist who do just that.

    One example is the popular science writer. Such people do not always write any of their own science or do research, but make a living out of reading, understanding and interpreting science.

    A second example would be the peer review process. The entire process of science hinges on "peer review" which is scientists who read, understand, and interpret the works of other scientists. Again by no means are all of the people engaged in such work also engaged in writing their own.


  • Options
    #186
    Myrddin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 33,733 ✭✭✭✭Myrddin


    maccored wrote: »
    The reality is many of the anti paranormalists - or indeed 'skeptics' as they call themselves (wrong word) - havent the first notion of paranormal research. yet they are experts on it. 'armchair' is a term used for many types of people - be they wanna be scientists, politicians, republicans .. whatever. The kind who talk the talk but have never bothered walking the walk. That is the reality of armchair skeptics. Pretend scientists if you will. Much smarter than the rest of us obviously.

    Why then is someone allowed to believe without doing any research & and have their views protected.... yet someone can't disbelieve without doing any work or their views are ridiculed?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    I gather he does do 'research', with the caveat that his 'research' is just a bunch of people running around with proton packs giving each other a fright. That's what gives him the arrogance to lambaste other people for being armchair skeptics or wannabe skeptics or whatever - the belief that doing something/anything is automatically better than nothing, even if the 'something' is counterproductive or a waste of time.


  • Options
    #188
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,660 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    I believe you three have answered my questions.

    "with the caveat that his 'research' is just a bunch of people running around with proton packs giving each other a fright." - and Dave! .. what the blue f*ck are you talking about?

    As I say - answered my questions well. The 'skeptics' really havent a clue.


  • Options
    #189
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,660 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    EnterNow wrote: »
    Why then is someone allowed to believe without doing any research & and have their views protected.... yet someone can't disbelieve without doing any work or their views are ridiculed?

    I dont know - as Ive said to you numerous times so far. Why dont you go ask a believer. I think its perfectly fine to ridicule someone who professes to understand a subject without ever researching it.


  • Options
    #190
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,660 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Yet many of us not only do know about the research but have also trained ourselves, or have been trained, on how to read scientific papers and research texts, a skill lacking in many the lay man and woo artist.

    Despite that training and experience and knowledge I have no knowledge of anything which substantiates the "paranormal". I am all ears if anyone else has however.

    I doubt anyone has knowledge of the paranormal - it seems to be a silly thing, apparently, to attempt to research it.
    Given you are in the skeptics corner is it not you that should "bugger off" and leave people alone? Your post makes about as much sense as a teetotaler going into a pub and declaring all the drinkers should leave.

    Considering there arent many skeptics in here - instead a gang of cynics masquerading as such - you post actually doesnt make much sense. Give me skeptics in the sketpcis forum. Its like someone who has an odd drink talking to a bunch of alchos - to fix your analogy.


    As I said I am knowledgeable in not just many of the papers people cite but also how to read and understand research papers and statistics and more. I am not alone in this, there are many such people on the forum. Zombrex for example is far from under-educated in this regard.

    My point is your should be out doing the research, not reading someone elses paper.

    Not so. There are many kinds of scientist who do just that.

    One example is the popular science writer. Such people do not always write any of their own science or do research, but make a living out of reading, understanding and interpreting science.

    Thats a science writer. By your definition, they make money by writing, not researching anything science related, so really .... my point stands.
    A second example would be the peer review process. The entire process of science hinges on "peer review" which is scientists who read, understand, and interpret the works of other scientists. Again by no means are all of the people engaged in such work also engaged in writing their own.

    People who peer review, surely have experience researching. This flaffing about trying to defend the most indefensible position really is trying. And very, very telling.


  • Options
    #191
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    maccored wrote: »
    I believe you three have answered my questions.

    "with the caveat that his 'research' is just a bunch of people running around with proton packs giving each other a fright." - and Dave! .. what the blue f*ck are you talking about?

    As I say - answered my questions well. The 'skeptics' really havent a clue.
    And I see you've picked up on some throwaway remark and focused on that rather than addressing the point I was making.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,660 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    a load of bollocks remark.

    Doing something IS much better than doing nothing Dave! . Why do you need that explained to you.


  • Options
    #193
    maccored
    Registered Users Posts: 10,660 ✭✭✭✭maccored


    ... and, none would give a monkeys about people doing things, if there wasn't so much 'intellectual' brow beating and frowning at the paranormal from the likes of yourself. The point I'm making is don't talk until you at least have a clue what you;re on about - that usually comes from going out there and researching the subject. I have yet to find a 'skeptic' on this forum who's done that - and yet they believe they can ridicule and make small of the rest of us. Talk about arrogant. .


  • Options
    #194
    Oryx
    Subscribers Posts: 19,425 ✭✭✭✭Oryx


    macored, cut out the insults and cool the tone down a lot. Ta.


  • Options
    #195
    Myrddin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 33,733 ✭✭✭✭Myrddin


    maccored wrote: »
    I dont know - as Ive said to you numerous times so far. Why dont you go ask a believer. I think its perfectly fine to ridicule someone who professes to understand a subject without ever researching it.

    So for example, in the main forum is someone posts something like:

    "The night my grandmother passed away, it was just me in the house where she used to live. I 100% heard a noise coming from upstairs like feet shuffling, & then the noise of my grandmothers bed creaking as if she was getting into it. I firmly believe it was her spirit in the house. I know nothing about the paranormal, but I just know in my heart it was her."

    Would you say in your opinion that such a person is open to 'ridicule' about this belief just as much as an 'armchair skeptic'? Such a person would have done no research on the subject, but just 'knows' what it was in their opinion. Is there any difference in your opinion, between such a person & an armchair skeptic who declares:

    "It was probably your imagination. Loss can be traumatic for people & cause weird perceptual things to happen. Were there any pets in the home that night? Was there a wind/breeze blowing? If the realisation that it was your grandmothers spirit was there with you gave you comfort thats a good thing, but in all honesty, this probably has a very normal explanation."


  • Options
    #196
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,336 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    maccored wrote: »
    I doubt anyone has knowledge of the paranormal

    So I have seen no evidence for it. You have seen no evidence for it. No one either of us knows has any evidence for it. I think we are agreed that it is an entirely unsubstantiated set of notions which people believe for no other reason than they simply want to therefore.

    If you ever get around to finding any research you think supports it however do come back to us. I am all ears. Or eyes, as the case may be.
    maccored wrote: »
    Considering there arent many skeptics in here

    If you wanna launch into an ad hominem spew about people in here then do it on your own time, not mine. I have no interest.
    maccored wrote: »
    My point is your should be out doing the research, not reading someone elses paper.

    And a bad point it is because many people do both, some people do one or the other. There is no rule that any one person has to do both. Some do, some do not.

    However there is certainly no reason for me to research the claims of others if they have nothing to substantiate it themselves. If someone wants to make a claim about the paranormal I will first consider THEIR substantiation for this claim. I will not go off and prove their claims for them.

    The issue is I have not just seen very little... but literally NO evidence, argument, data or reasoning to lend even a modicum of credence and substantiation to any of those claims. It appears to be an area of discourse based on fantasy only. What research would you have me, or anyone else, do therefore given these people can not even do their own?
    maccored wrote: »
    People who peer review, surely have experience researching.

    Nope. Not all. Amazing how easy it is to write "surely" in a sentence that is false isn't it?
    maccored wrote: »
    This flaffing about trying to defend the most indefensible position really is trying.

    Then stop flaffing about trying to defend the most indefensible position and it will not be so trying for you any more. Simples.


  • Options
    #197
    Standman
    Registered Users Posts: 1,681 ✭✭✭Standman


    maccored wrote: »
    I doubt anyone has knowledge of the paranormal - it seems to be a silly thing, apparently, to attempt to research it.

    Considering there arent many skeptics in here - instead a gang of cynics masquerading as such - you post actually doesnt make much sense. Give me skeptics in the sketpcis forum. Its like someone who has an odd drink talking to a bunch of alchos - to fix your analogy.

    My point is your should be out doing the research, not reading someone elses paper.


    You state that most of us here are cynics because we have not gone out to do the research. What kind of research would you be satisfied with? The kind we can see in a video on Leinster paranormals youtube channel?


    By your own admission you doubt anyone has knowledge of the paranormal. You say we are lazy cynics who don't bother doing any research. Paranormal research in the field seems to involve doing anything that comes into your head. I mean, one thing is as good as the other seeing as nobody knows anything about the paranormal. In that case I have done probably more research than the average person. But I am still a cynic I guess according to you, maybe because I don't bother joining a paranormal society is it?


Advertisement