Debunking skeptics .....

Interesting read

SCEPCOP is the 1st Coalition to expose the fallacies and misinformation of the Pseudo-Skeptics and their movement. Dedicated to Truth, Objectivity and the Scientific Method toward all data, experiences and evidence. Contains resources, articles, books, videos and forum.


http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/

maccored

theres a nice definition of cynics on that site that I've quoted on here before. I think sceptism is a great thing. Too many people though dont realise they arent sceptical, but moreso cynical in their outlook on the paranormal.

How Pseudoskeptics hijack "Skepticism" to mean its opposite:
Disinformation, Mind Control and Suppression

Pseudoskeptics are not just wrong and fallacious in their reasoning and approach to investigating the paranormal with outright rejection of anything that doesn't fit into a materialist orthodox paradigm. They've also, knowingly or unknowingly, engaged in deceptive mind control by hijacking critical terms to mean their OPPOSITE, including the very term "skeptic" itself. And they've hid what they truly are (suppressors of new ideas) by pretending to the opposite of what they are. Let me explain.

As mentioned earlier, a skeptic doubts, inquires, questions, ponders, etc. But these pseudoskeptics do anything but. They attack, ridicule, discredit and suppress anything and everything that challenges the materialist reductionist paradigm.

That last bit sound familiar?

maccored

heres more (I cant help it)

As such, the term "skeptic" now refers to the one who suppresses and attacks the questioner, rather than the questioner himself. In other words, the new "skeptic" is someone who debunks a "skeptic" by wearing the hat of the person they are out to debunk, in effect impersonating them! It's a highly deceptive form of role reversal that is sneaky and deceptive.

again ... thats something that is very very relevant to this forum and something Ive been saying for a long time. This sub forum is incorrectly named as well.

steddyeddy

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.

As mentioned earlier, a skeptic doubts, inquires, questions, ponders, etc. But these pseudoskeptics do anything but. They attack, ridicule, discredit and suppress anything and everything that challenges the materialist reductionist paradigm.

Zombrex

From the main page of the site

Background

The Paranormal is one of the most exciting frontiers today. Research into Consciousness, Quantum Physics and Psychic Phenomena, etc. explores venues that are unlocking the mysteries of the universe and gateways to other dimensions or levels of reality and consciousness. These provide deeper insights into a larger nature of reality, revealing insights into the meaning of existence and spawning hope for a better future in which humanity's consciousness and awareness are elevated to new heights, transcending greed, lust for power, hatred, violence, ignorance, and the confines of a materialistic paradigm that keeps us living in fear. Therefore, the study of the Paranormal is a key stepping stone for humanity's next stage of evolution.

This sounds like the usual silliness, a bunch of believers annoyed that these "cynics" won't simply accept what ever pseudo-science nonsense they come up with next.

maccored

as I have said elsewhere on this site, i dont give a toss what else that site links to or says .... its hits the nail on the head when it comes to 'skeptics' who havent got a f*cking clue. And there seems to be quite a few of them. and the paranormal is science now, is it? It is not and doesnt pretend to be, therefore it cant be a 'pseudo-science'.

This sounds like the usual silliness, a bunch of believers annoyed that these "cynics" won't simply accept what ever pseudo-science nonsense they come up with next

that statement says more about the person making the statement than anything else.

Zombrex

maccored wrote: »

as I have said elsewhere on this site, i dont give a toss what else that site links to or says .... its hits the nail on the head when it comes to 'skeptics' who havent got a f*cking clue.

That again seems to be just people who don't accept the claims and are ruining their fun. How dare someone say we are not unlocking the secrets to the universe and a higher plane of human existences.

Any skeptic who is being a kill joy is dismissed as a "cynic". Pretty similar to the claims made on this forum, so I can see what you like the site.

maccored

thats a terribly, terribly simplistic view.

the majority of skeptics ive encountered in regards the paranormal are proper skeptics who realise that we dont understand anything classed as paranormal - we dont have the answers.

There are others though, who seem to have the same viewpoint as yourself and seem to give the impression that society DOES understand the paranormal .... so much so that real skeptics think others are 'ruining the fun'. Its my view that you might need to research the paranormal a bit first before coming to such conclusions.

Zombrex

maccored wrote: »

thats a terribly, terribly simplistic view.

the majority of skeptics ive encountered in regards the paranormal are proper skeptics who realise that we dont understand anything classed as paranormal - we dont have the answers.

There are others though, who seem to have the same viewpoint as yourself and seem to give the impression that society DOES understand the paranormal .... so much so that real skeptics think others are 'ruining the fun'. Its my view that you might need to research the paranormal a bit first before coming to such conclusions.

The only time I've ever seen someone dismissed as a 'cynic' is when they are not playing along with the fanciful idea that there is something exciting and profound behind paranormal experiences.

Instead of supporting paranormal claims it is far easier to focus attention trying to bad mouthing those do not give them a free pass.

The reality is that while the likely explanations behind paranormal experiences are interesting they are also relatively boring compared to the claims of those who push a believers agenda. After all who wouldn't rather that quantum mechanics was breaking down the realities between thought and matter and blah blah blah. Much more exciting that simply a tick of the light or the human tendency to pattern match random shapes or any of the other mundane explanations for paranormal claims.

When someone approaches an area of claims looking for excitement it is expected that they will be annoyed at those who don't play along with this expectation. But that is there issue, it has little to do with whether those not playing along are being sensible or not in their scepticism.

maccored

Two things, if you dont mind.

1) Who is this someone .... and what would they have to do with paranormal research. Are you on about people who say, think mediums are great etc etc? And you honestly think that people like me disagree with you?

2) Go chat to anyone claiming to be researching the paranormal ... they know full well how boring it is. I seem to be missing the actual points that you are trying to make in your post.

Im trying to work out a) if you just dont understand the scope the word 'paranormal' covers or b) you're just trying to wind me up.

Back to my earlier suggestion of at least researching whatever it is your crusading against.

Instead of supporting paranormal claims it is far easier to focus attention trying to bad mouthing those do not give them a free pass.

Great attempt at muddying the waters there. NO-ONE has been bad-mouthing anyone. Not unless you believe your one of them psuedo-skeptics they were talking of. I fully believe those kind of people exist. Its not an insult. Its just a fact of life.

Zombrex

maccored wrote: »

Two things, if you dont mind.

1) Who is this someone .... and what would they have to do with paranormal research. Are you on about people who say, think mediums are great etc etc? And you honestly think that people like me disagree with you?

2) Go chat to anyone claiming to be researching the paranormal ... they know full well how boring it is.

Well yes, continuously running into a dead end because there is nothing solid behind paranormal claims is bound to be boring. But that wasn't my point, the point is that the claims themselves a very existing. Ghosts! UFOs! Magic! The supernatural!.

So exciting you could probably sell a book about all the claims people make. Oh wait, people already have.

maccored wrote: »

Im trying to work out a) if you just dont understand the scope the word 'paranormal' covers or b) you're just trying to wind me up.

Actually I'm just commenting on how poor a website that one above is, and the trend a lot of believers have for dismissing kill joy skeptics as "cynics".

maccored wrote: »

Great attempt at muddying the waters there. NO-ONE has been bad-mouthing anyone. Not unless you believe your one of them psuedo-skeptics they were talking of.

They are talking about skeptics. They call them cynics or psuedo-skeptics because they won't play along with the excitement of "paranormal research". They are kill joys, and this makes the believers rather annoyed, particularly the believers who like to think their excitement is justified by science.

And from my experiences with you you do exactly the same thing, dismiss genuine skepticism as cynicism because you don't like genuine skepticism, it is far too boring.

maccored

theres a quaint little phrase which goes "I dont have to attend every argument Im invited to' ... and thats much where I am on this. You know where I stand - Ive made myself pretty clear ... yet you still ignore the fact that ... like many things ... we wont learn more about the paranormal until people start trying to figure it out. Im glad for you as you think you already have the answers.

I cant really see the point in repeating myself.

And from my experiences with you you do exactly the same thing, dismiss genuine skepticism as cynicism because you don't like genuine skepticism, it is far too boring.

Case in point ... the above is rubbish. I am a skeptic. I have no 'belief' when it comes to the paranormal, outside of what normal experience has taught me. You on the other hand, cant really call yourself a skeptic as you've already made up your mind.

back to that go away and educate yourself argument. you can start by learning what the word 'skeptic' actually means.

What? Ive said that before? I KNEW ive been repeating myself (hence back to the original phrase quoted earlier)

maccored

Zombrex wrote: »

They are talking about skeptics. They call them cynics or psuedo-skeptics because they won't play along with the excitement of "paranormal research". They are kill joys, and this makes the believers rather annoyed, particularly the believers who like to think their excitement is justified by science.

no they arent - they're talking about people who are cynical in regards the paranormal ... people who claim that they know it all to be rubbish - though they cant back that up with research of any kind. Research is one thing many in the paranormal are trying to accomplish, though its at very early stages yet.

These people arent skeptical .. they arent questioning, they arent looking for answers ... they just want the world to think they are amazingly more intelligent than the rest of us because they 'know' the paranormal is rubbish.

Absolute twaddle sir.

those people arent skeptics and they should stop pretending to be.

maccored

thanks for not answering any of my questions mind you.

krd

maccored wrote: »

no they arent - they're talking about people who are cynical in regards the paranormal ... people who claim that they know it all to be rubbish - though they cant back that up with research of any kind. Research is one thing many in the paranormal are trying to accomplish, though its at very early stages yet.
.

James Randi has been investigating and debunking claims of paranormal powers for years. He has a prize of million dollars for anyone who can prove they have paranormal abilities. No one has yet been able to claim the prize. Yet, there are scores of people who make a living from claiming they do have these powers. Dowsers, mind readers, etc. Randi has debunked them all.

There's a problem in proving negatives. You can't prove someone is not communicating with the dead, or spirits. You can't prove homoeopathy to be bunk. Because homoeopathic remedies are just water, with supposedly a "memory" of having an ingredient in them. There's lots of stuff on the web, with people making claims that quantum physics proves the existence of the spirit world etc - that also is complete bunk. In terms of science, you can't even combat them, because they're just picking little bits and twisting them. In Rhonda Bryne's The Secret, she makes claims about quantum physics being able to allow you to project your desires into the universe - and the universe responds. No, scientist has ever proved that the power of positive thinking is a force in the standard model. Because it isn't. She's not the only one at it.

In Ireland we have a really warped way with words. Cynical is thought to mean someone who is critical. Irish people can't stand criticism. They don't like the sound of it - they think reality is just a projection of their perception. Another warped word Irish people have is ignorant. The word ignorant, actually means someone who deliberately ignores the world. Or someone who is deliberately thick and unthinking, and even proud of themselves for it. In Ireland we have it upside down - an ignorant person is someone who opens their mouth and says something intelligent.


There are people out there in the fortune telling and "healing" business who are just rotten to the bone. They're manipulating people and ripping them off. Those people are actually the genuine cynics.

maccored

krd wrote: »

James Randi has been investigating and debunking claims of paranormal powers for years. He has a prize of million dollars for anyone who can prove they have paranormal abilities. No one has yet been able to claim the prize. Yet, there are scores of people who make a living from claiming they do have these powers. Dowsers, mind readers, etc. Randi has debunked them all.

Oh yes - Mr Randi. I think he comes across as a genuinely nice fella, but I dont trust your claim that he has 'bebunked them all'. Debunked fake mediums etc - yeah. Not much else though. Do all 'critical thinkers' believe the paranormal starts and ends with mediums and psychics?

I find this an interesting article on James - http://www.rense.com/general50/james.htm

There's a problem in proving negatives. You can't prove someone is not communicating with the dead, or spirits. You can't prove homoeopathy to be bunk. Because homoeopathic remedies are just water, with supposedly a "memory" of having an ingredient in them. There's lots of stuff on the web, with people making claims that quantum physics proves the existence of the spirit world etc - that also is complete bunk. In terms of science, you can't even combat them, because they're just picking little bits and twisting them. In Rhonda Bryne's The Secret, she makes claims about quantum physics being able to allow you to project your desires into the universe - and the universe responds. No, scientist has ever proved that the power of positive thinking is a force in the standard model. Because it isn't. She's not the only one at it.

A few things. Why are you calling the paranormal a negative? Do you know 'paranormal' things dont happen ... like, can you show me the research that debunks or explains the vast majority of paranormal reports?

I hate the likes of Rhonda Byrne. Why are you telling me about her?

In Ireland we have a really warped way with words. Cynical is thought to mean someone who is critical. Irish people can't stand criticism. They don't like the sound of it - they think reality is just a projection of their perception. Another warped word Irish people have is ignorant. The word ignorant, actually means someone who deliberately ignores the world. Or someone who is deliberately thick and unthinking, and even proud of themselves for it. In Ireland we have it upside down - an ignorant person is someone who opens their mouth and says something intelligent.

... and so us idiots who research the paranormal ignorant, dont like criticism and maybe thick and unthinking? Speak for yourself fella ... my IQ is probably around the same as yours. Talk about condescending.

There are people out there in the fortune telling and "healing" business who are just rotten to the bone. They're manipulating people and ripping them off. Those people are actually the genuine cynics.

And whose arguing with you on that? Thats twice you've introduced things I have no interest in and on which I totally agree with you on.

Heres an interesting viewpoint on paranormal research

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf2_sTGYuew

steddyeddy

To my mind a lot of skeptics have a bad attitude towards skepticism and they do the field of idealogical skepticisim more harm than good. Im a skeptic but I have to say that that article is right and some skeptics deservable have give a bad name to the name.

Ill lay out my case as follows. I have heard on here and in the real world that skeptics view themselves as representing the default position of science. To me as a skeptic that lets the side down. Many many times in science people were skeptical of current scientific thinking, the default so to speak. Challenging the mainstream when relevent is what a real skeptic does. A person who accepts current science as default without apprasing the evidence for his/herself is not a skeptic, thats a sheep.

Another thing I hear is its not a skeptics duty to disprove a theory but a person proposing the theory. thats one hundred per cent true but I think its the skeptics duty to put forward an alternative explantion for a certain phenomenom. A lot of the time they do in fairness eg fortune teller is simply lying or infrasound creating auditory hallucinations (recent research into the haunting phenomenom).

The final thing ill say about some skeptics is not agreeing with a scientists or lay persons conclusion is fine but some skeptics seem to have a problem with scientists investigating a particular hypothesis.

krd

steddyeddy wrote: »

Many many times in science people were skeptical of current scientific thinking, the default so to speak.

This is true. In real science, there a disputes over theory. Some stuff is more rock solid than other stuff. Like Einstein's E = mc2. We've seen the atomic bomb go off. It was only possible because of E = mc2. It's unlikely, that theory will ever be overturned. But there are other areas of dispute. Like black holes - that they exist is generally not disputed, but what's in them is. Dark Matter is another one. Most scientist believe it exists - but some do not. It's never been seen - that's why it's called Dark Matter. It might be there, or it might be something peculiar in gravity.

Challenging the mainstream when relevent is what a real skeptic does. A person who accepts current science as default without apprasing the evidence for his/herself is not a skeptic, thats a sheep.

If you do a search on Youtube.. Most of the stuff on "quantum physics" is krank stuff. I'm surprised how much there is. One minute they're talking about atoms, electrons, the next they're onto spirituality. It's not science. Homoeopaths, have latched onto "quantum physics" too. They may claim that quantum entanglement (spooky action at a distance) proves their medicine has something in it. It doesn't prove anything like that.

Another thing I hear is its not a skeptics duty to disprove a theory but a person proposing the theory. thats one hundred per cent true but I think its the skeptics duty to put forward an alternative explantion for a certain phenomenom.

If there is a concrete phenomenon. It's like people believing their dog is psychic, because when they come home from work, their dog is sitting at the door waiting for them. It doesn't cross their minds, that dogs may have a way of telling the time, and are expecting you at that time. It's not really any more paranormal than how homing pigeons find their way home - and that isn't really scientifically understood either. It's unlikely pigeons have psychic powers. If someone can prove they do, it would open up a completely new field of science.

The final thing ill say about some skeptics is not agreeing with a scientists or lay persons conclusion is fine but some skeptics seem to have a problem with scientists investigating a particular hypothesis.

With science. There's a generally accept rule of the scientific method. If it doesn't pass the method, then it can't be called science. And the method is simple - whatever the phenomenon is, it needs to be repeatable by someone else.

It's like EVP. If one group of researchers could go somewhere and get clear recordings of voices etc....And then another group go another night, and they also have clear recordings. Then they may have something - if it's repeatable over and over again, then they have something concrete. Then they need a theory. If the theory can be experimentally proven, and repeated, then they have rock solid science.

But this kind of stuff can be difficult. Like, how do you test pigeons to see how they find their way home - they have difficulty flying with a brain scanning machine rapped around their heads.


There is also bad science. Where research is published, but the hypothesis can't be proved either right or wrong. That doesn't happen too often, but it does happen.

krd

maccored wrote: »

A few things. Why are you calling the paranormal a negative? Do you know 'paranormal' things dont happen ... like, can you show me the research that debunks or explains the vast majority of paranormal reports?

You can never prove a negative. Ie You can prove something does happen. But you can't prove something doesn't happen.

Say if you say, you can close your eyes and communicate with aliens. I can't prove you can't.

I hate the likes of Rhonda Byrne. Why are you telling me about her?

Rhonda Bryne claims, although she does reference science (bogusly), she is essentially claiming, we all have psychic powers, and can use our psychic powers to request things from the universe.

... and so us idiots who research the paranormal ignorant, dont like criticism and maybe thick and unthinking?

That's not really what I said. And there is a difference between a superstitious belief, and doing research. When a Catholic priest is turning water into wine, he's not doing research.

Speak for yourself fella ... my IQ is probably around the same as yours.

That's probably true.

Talk about condescending.

These things get out of hand quickly.

And whose arguing with you on that? Thats twice you've introduced things I have no interest in and on which I totally agree with you on.

Heres an interesting viewpoint on paranormal research

This is back to the scientific method. If it's spontaneous and not repeatable, then it can't be proved or tested.

It's like pigeons - we don't really know how they can find their way home. And testing them in a lab is not much use.

Charles Darwin actually believed in spiritualism. He used to go to seances.

Around the same time, at the height of the spiritualism boom, the physicist J. J. Thomson, discovered the cathode ray tube (the thing in old televisions) and properties of electrons. It's said at the time, he was trying to see if it was possible to make some electrical device for communicating with the dead.

kylith

maccored wrote: »

I find this an interesting article on James - http://www.rense.com/general50/james.htm

I wouldn't give too much credence to that site. Mr. Rense doesn't say on his site what it is he actually does on his show but with topics like:
[SIZE=+1]Propaganda And Mind Control[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]
True Conspiracies And Coverups[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]
The New World Order[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]
Toxic Vaccines[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]
Military Remote Viewing[/SIZE]
and[SIZE=+1]
Paranormal Phenomena[/SIZE]
(all taken directly from http://www.rense.com/aboutnew1.htm) it sounds to me like he has a vested interest in trying to discredit Mr. Randi.

It's also got the worst laid-out homepage since my 16 year old self had a go on angelfire.com, but that's beside the point.

This James Randi always has to pop up. He has a following he sells books on the subjects. Alot of people who buy these books are the skeptic community, which to me can contaminate any of "his" scientific tests. Not to mention the 1 million he puts up.

I would rather see "real scientists" study this properly and do tests properly.

krd

Deleted User wrote: »

I would rather see "real scientists" study this properly and do tests properly.

What do you consider doing the tests properly to be?....letting the psychic or the medium completely control the environment?

Randi has done tests on people. And when they fail. As he usually uses methods that would that would take lottery odds to beat by chance. And when they fail, they make claims like, he scared the spirits away. Or he has a bad aura.

Zombrex

maccored wrote: »

These people arent skeptical .. they arent questioning, they arent looking for answers ...

This straw man is still getting flogged I see.

A skeptic does not have to be questioning nor looking for answers. They merely have to skeptically evaluate claims presented to them.

Again you are upset with these people not for being skeptics but for not playing along with the game, for being kill joys, for not getting excited by all this nonsense as you clearly do.

Zombrex

maccored wrote: »

theres a quaint little phrase which goes "I dont have to attend every argument Im invited to' ... and thats much where I am on this. You know where I stand - Ive made myself pretty clear ... yet you still ignore the fact that ... like many things ... we wont learn more about the paranormal until people start trying to figure it out.

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.

maccored wrote: »

Case in point ... the above is rubbish. I am a skeptic.

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.

joseph brand

maccored wrote: »

theres a quaint little phrase which goes "I dont have to attend every argument Im invited to' ... and thats much where I am on this. You know where I stand - Ive made myself pretty clear ... yet you still ignore the fact that ... like many things ... we wont learn more about the paranormal until people start trying to figure it out. Im glad for you as you think you already have the answers.

I cant really see the point in repeating myself.

There IS NO paranormal. Why not try investigating the legend of the Gingerbread Man? Or that house made of cakes and sweets in Hansel and Gretel.

maccored wrote: »

Case in point ... the above is rubbish. I am a skeptic. I have no 'belief' when it comes to the paranormal, outside of what normal experience has taught me. You on the other hand, cant really call yourself a skeptic as you've already made up your mind.

back to that go away and educate yourself argument. you can start by learning what the word 'skeptic' actually means.

What? Ive said that before? I KNEW ive been repeating myself (hence back to the original phrase quoted earlier)

You sure don't sound like a skeptic. I'm always wary that some posters on here may have a vested interest in the topic, in this case, the paranormal. Would your income be affected if everyone copped on and realised it was all bullsh1t?

Zombrex

steddyeddy wrote: »

Another thing I hear is its not a skeptics duty to disprove a theory but a person proposing the theory. thats one hundred per cent true but I think its the skeptics duty to put forward an alternative explantion for a certain phenomenom.

Nonsense. Why would that be a skeptic's duty?

Again the complaint here seems to be some people are not interesting in playing the game, not interested in getting excited about some unexplained claim, for being kill joys.

Hardly a serious complaint.

joseph brand

steddyeddy wrote: »

Another thing I hear is its not a skeptics duty to disprove a theory but a person proposing the theory. thats one hundred per cent true but I think its the skeptics duty to put forward an alternative explantion for a certain phenomenom. A lot of the time they do in fairness eg fortune teller is simply lying or infrasound creating auditory hallucinations (recent research into the haunting phenomenom).

A skeptic has no such duty. Your first sentence cancels out your next.

krd

joseph brand wrote: »

There IS NO paranormal. Why not try investigating the legend of the Gingerbread Man? Or that house made of cakes and sweets in Hansel and Gretel.

In fairness something needs to be said. The original chemists; the alchemists. Were investigating magic, and fairy tales about transmuting base materials into gold, when they built the knowledge that became the hard science of chemistry.

Isaac Newton, wasted most of his time investigating magic and other nonsense, stuff you never hear about - as it doesn't fit the contemporary narrative.

There was a time, when there was really no difference between science and magic. You have to think about it. Astronomy and astrology were once, one and the same thing. The star maps and the observations were once all for religious and superstitious purposes.

maccored

Im sur ethen you dont believ anything you read on skynews.com, or the bbc website etc ... considering they cover more than one topic. Really ... if you cant argue, theres no point in bitching about whatever website it came from. It kinda shows you dont have a point.

kylith wrote: »

I wouldn't give too much credence to that site. Mr. Rense doesn't say on his site what it is he actually does on his show but with topics like:
[SIZE=+1]Propaganda And Mind Control[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]
True Conspiracies And Coverups[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]
The New World Order[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]
Toxic Vaccines[/SIZE][SIZE=+1]
Military Remote Viewing[/SIZE]
and[SIZE=+1]
Paranormal Phenomena[/SIZE]
(all taken directly from http://www.rense.com/aboutnew1.htm) it sounds to me like he has a vested interest in trying to discredit Mr. Randi.

It's also got the worst laid-out homepage since my 16 year old self had a go on angelfire.com, but that's beside the point.

maccored

You are a funny person. Are you telling me your mammy never made gingerbread men? Of course they exist .. people cook them up all the time.

joseph brand wrote: »

There IS NO paranormal. Why not try investigating the legend of the Gingerbread Man? Or that house made of cakes and sweets in Hansel and Gretel.





You sure don't sound like a skeptic. I'm always wary that some posters on here may have a vested interest in the topic, in this case, the paranormal. Would your income be affected if everyone copped on and realised it was all bullsh1t?

Im always wary of people posting on the paranormal who havent don their homework. That includes you.

Anyway ... its all bull****, eh? As ive asked many times from people like yourself ... how do you know its all bull****? How much study and research have you done ... or are you basically assuming you're right and are ridiculing, driven by your own ego? Never mind if its all bull****, then why are you here complaining? Go off and harrass some other forum you have no interest in rather than posting absolute crap here.

maccored

No the complaint here is that some people cant tell what a cynic is, nor understand what a skeptic is. I fear you are one of these people.

Zombrex wrote: »

Nonsense. Why would that be a skeptic's duty?

Again the complaint here seems to be some people are not interesting in playing the game, not interested in getting excited about some unexplained claim, for being kill joys.

Hardly a serious complaint.

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.

Eddie Rockets !! thats just dragging down this forum.

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:

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.

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?

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:

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.