Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 General Skepticism
 Old skepticism' debunkery tactics ……..debunked.
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 10

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 03/07/2005 :  07:42:44   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral

quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist

But again, it would be easy to go point by point and knock down every one of his mocking claims.



Then do it ,so you be on topic.

Just don't use those tactics of the old skepticism ,already debunked.

Debunked by whom? :amusment: You and this Drasin charector? :laughter: Not yesterday; not this day; not hardly any day at all. But thanks for the chuckle.

I now question if you even have a legitimate topic. You certainly have yet to come up with anything solid and verifiable beyond a money mistake over at JREF, which is meanful only to some few at JREF, and signifies doodly-squat here.

'Jarl, if you're going to regain any tattered shred of creditability, you're going to have to do better than this.


"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Edited by - filthy on 03/07/2005 07:45:36
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 03/07/2005 :  07:58:05   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
Then do it ,so you be on topic.

Just don't use those tactics of the old skepticism ,already debunked.


As this is all I've spoken about, I have yet to see how I've been off topic.

Anyhow, let's take some examples from your friend. Here are some of his mocking examples of how to "debunk" anything:
quote:
<> Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims!" (Note that this technique has withstood the test of time, and dates back at least to the age of Galileo. By simply refusing to look through his telescope, the ecclesiastical authorities bought the Church over three centuries' worth of denial free and clear!)

<> If examining the evidence becomes unavoidable, report back that "there is nothing new here!" If confronted by a watertight body of evidence that has survived the most rigorous tests, simply dismiss it as being "too pat."

. . .

<> Downplay the fact that free inquiry and legitimate disagreement are a normal part of science.
In case anyone missed it (*ahem*), Mr. Drasin's list is a satirical set of "guidelines" which encapsulates how a proponant of the "unorthodox" (e.g. UFOs, ESP etc.) sees the establishment's all-too-easy attack her or his idea or theory. Of course, because of the nature of the list, none of Drasin's actual guidelines are real. That is, they are made up and based only on perceived attitudes and actions. He has not cited an actual episode, for instance, where evidence for a UFO was rejected because a scientists, even when "confronted by a watertight body of evidence that has survived the most rigorous tests," then "simply dismiss[ed] [the evidence] as being 'too pat.'"

Indeed, this is the problem with Drasin's list in general. All his derisive examples, while mocking (and sometimes funny) aren't based on anything but his own perception. Sure, perhaps he thought that his evidence for UFOs (or ESP, or spoon-bending) was "watertight" but it is obvious that others did not agree. And since, as he notes (see below), "disagreement [is] a normal part of science," it is hard to see how he can have problems with this.

As noted above, Drasin suggests that establishment science will "[d]ownplay the fact that free inquiry and legitimate disagreement are a normal part of science," but can he cite examples of this happening? (Besides when he does it, of course!)

He also makes some illogical statements. For instance, at one point he says that establishment scientists will "[a]t every opportunity reinforce the notion that what is familiar is necessarily rational," so that "[t]he unfamiliar is therefore irrational, and consequently inadmissible as evidence." But the two are not mutually exclusive. Just because the "familiar" is "rational" does not mean that the "unfamiliar" is not. (And then, is quantum physics or string theory "rational"?)

This argument is particularly illogical:
quote:
Always refer to unorthodox statements as "claims," which are "touted," and to your own assertions as "facts," which are "stated."
Does the following make sense:

quote:
"The facts Mr. Smith has stated are not supported by the evidence"


Of course not. And surely Mr. Drasin would be reluctant to speak about the evidence against UFOs (or whatever) as "facts"-- doubtless they would be "claims" which the establishment "touted" to "debunk" the "facts" which he "stated."

So anyhow, these are the real problems with Drasin's list.

Please, latinijral, if I've been "debunked" then cite specifically which of Mr Drasin's examples I've used and show exactly how it invalidates my criqitue of Drasin's list.
Edited by - Cuneiformist on 03/07/2005 08:01:27
Go to Top of Page

R.Wreck
SFN Regular

USA
1191 Posts

Posted - 03/07/2005 :  08:14:41   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send R.Wreck a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by R.Wreck


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by latinijral:

Daniel Drasin is the autor of the article : Zen . . . And the Art of Debunkery .

http://members.aol.com/ddrasin/zen.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Wow. I'd say Danny is a little upset that nobody believed his UFO story.

Anther mistake of the old skepticism.
The wrong use of the words " anybody" "everubody",etc, when they want to reinforce their arguments,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



UPDATE FOR THE HOPELESSLY ANAL RETENTIVE:

Wow. I'd say Danny is a little upset that nobody, BESIDES CREDULOUS WOO WOO FLYING SAUCER ABDUCTEES WHO WILL BELIEVE DAMN NEAR ANYTHING AS LONG AS IT POINTS TO A SECRET ONE-WORLD GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY COVERUP BASED AT AREA 51 OF THE ALIENS LIVING AMONG US AND AND HOLDING POSITIONS OF POWER (THEY ARE ALSO KNOWN AS THE ILLUMINATI) SO THAT ONE DAY THEY CAN MAKE THE HUMAN RACE INTO THEIR PERSONAL SERVANTS, LANDSCAPERS, AND BODY PROBE TEST SUBJECTS, believed his UFO story.


The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley

The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 03/07/2005 :  08:32:46   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
I found this that Mr. Drasin has to say about his thoughts on his critique of science:
quote:
But this is critique. Ultimately, critique alone fails to satisfy or to move things along. What I believe is most needed, then, is to broadcast examples of evolutionary success -- in the realms of society, politics, business and, above all, "new science." (emphasis added)
Why don't you follow your mentor's advice and move on to something substantial?

(For those interested, his "new" science is defined as
quote:
a broad spectrum of perspectives and activities in the "hard" and "soft" sciences -- and related fields -- that share a humanistic, progressive, decentralist, environmentally conscious and life-affirming orientation. Philosophically, New Science represents a return to unbiased openness and genuine curiosity, with science held as a process of discovery and understanding -- perhaps even a way of life -- rather than a collection of data or a body of fixed and final laws.

Since New Science tends to work in harmony with nature rather than against it, it tends to get more effective and enduring results. Its more spectacular successes, including revolutionary clean energy sources, breakthroughs in environmental restoration, effective health alternatives and exciting new approaches to education, economics and governance, have extraordinary global implications.

If you know what to look for, you'll find New Science springing up virtually everywhere: in basement laboratories and meditation classes; in medical research institutions and health-food stores; in Ivy-League universities, small-business boardrooms and the World Wide Web; on the Giza plateau, the streets of Tokyo and the wild, Eastern plains of Colombia; in the timeless traditions of indigenous peoples and in dusty, turn-of-the-century volumes previously ignored, forgotten or rejected by the scientific mainstream.
Uh-huh. Sounds, uh, interesting.)
Edited by - Cuneiformist on 03/07/2005 08:35:50
Go to Top of Page

furshur
SFN Regular

USA
1536 Posts

Posted - 03/07/2005 :  08:34:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send furshur a Private Message
For fun lets look at how JREF tested (not debunked) a claim of a dowser and compare it to the first several statements from your debunking site:
quote:
Before commencing to debunk, prepare your equipment. Equipment needed: one armchair.

Actually the equipment was agreed upon by the dowser and JREF. The dowser supplied his own gold for the test.
quote:
Portray science not as an open-ended process of discovery but as a holy war against unruly hordes of quackery- worshipping infidels. Since in war the ends justify the means, you may fudge, stretch or violate the scientific method, or even omit it entirely, in the name of defending the scientific method.

The dowser wanted to talk about how dowsing works but JREF said it was not important, it only was testing if dowsing works. A double blind test was performed in accordance with scientific experimental procedure.
quote:
Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible. This will "send the message" that accepted theory overrides any actual evidence that might challenge it--and that therefore no such evidence is worth examining.

There was no theory to discuss or keep abstract. Only the evidence from the experiment was presented.
quote:
Reinforce the popular misconception that certain subjects are inherently unscientific. In other words, deliberately confuse the *process* of science with the *content* of science. (Someone may, of course, object that since science is a universal approach to truth-seeking it must be neutral to subject matter; hence, only the investigative *process* can be scientifically responsible or irresponsible. If that happens, dismiss such objections using a method employed successfully by generations of politicians: simply reassure everyone that "there is no contradiction here!")

There was no discussion about inherently unscientific subjects the experiment was done so the results would speak for themselves.
quote:
Arrange to have your message echoed by persons of authority. The degree to which you can stretch the truth is directly proportional to the prestige of your mouthpiece.

The results of the test were published, no truth was stretched.
quote:
Always refer to unorthodox statements as "claims," which are "touted," and to your own assertions as "facts," which are "stated."

The dowsing ability was stated as a claim, because it was unproven - hence the need for a test.
quote:
Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims!" (Note that this technique has withstood the test of time, and dates back at least to the age of Galileo. By simply refusing to look through his telescope, the ecclesiastical authorities bought the Church over three centuries' worth of denial free and clear!)

Examining evidence for dowsing was the whole point running the double blind experiment.

There is no need to go on. Clearly Daniel Drasin in wrong if he is calling SKEPTICS debunkers. Skeptics are only saying show me some evidence for what you are claiming.


If someone says, "I saw a skull of a Home Erectus that was 3 feet tall and lived 18,000 years ago, but I lost or misplace or forgot where it was". I would say it is a 'bullshit' claim. If someone comes forward with evidence of this (which of course has happened), I would say how fascinating and want to learn more.


The New Skeptic stated this:
quote:
Declare that there is no proof that life can exist in outer space. Since most people still behave as if the Earth were the center of the universe, you may safely ignore the fact that Earth, which is already in outer space, has abundant life.

Of course the Earth is in outerspace, where else would it be? And this is suppose to prove what exactly?
There is no proof that life does exist outside of the Earth. I strongly suspect that it does - but there is no evidence that it does.


Latin if this is a New Skeptic - I think I'll stick with the old skeptic mode...




If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know.
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 03/07/2005 :  15:25:20   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
Chirp chirp chirp
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26002 Posts

Posted - 03/07/2005 :  21:12:11   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message
quote:
Philosophically, New Science represents a return to unbiased openness and genuine curiosity, with science held as a process of discovery and understanding -- perhaps even a way of life -- rather than a collection of data or a body of fixed and final laws.
Well, since the "old science" isn't a collection of data or a body of fixed and final laws - as any study of the history and methods of science will tell a person - this guy is simply working on one humongous straw-man argument.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

moakley
SFN Regular

USA
1884 Posts

Posted - 03/08/2005 :  05:47:45   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send moakley a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral

Daniel Drasin is the autor of the article : Zen . . . And the Art of Debunkery .

http://members.aol.com/ddrasin/zen.html

Old skepticism is still using those old tactics/strategy that seems to be part of just a dogma of a true believer secta.

Don't do the same mistakes ,please.
Try to think in something new.
They all already debunked.

I read the entire article and now my ribs hurt. This was clearly one of the funniest and sarcastic pieces I have read. The following had me LOL.
quote:
Downplay the fact that free inquiry and legitimate disagreement are a normal part of science.

If this wasn't written with a humorous intent then Daniel is clearly a few bricks short.

Life is good

Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 03/08/2005 :  07:16:05   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by moakley

quote:
Originally posted by latinijral

Daniel Drasin is the autor of the article : Zen . . . And the Art of Debunkery .

http://members.aol.com/ddrasin/zen.html

Old skepticism is still using those old tactics/strategy that seems to be part of just a dogma of a true believer secta.

Don't do the same mistakes ,please.
Try to think in something new.
They all already debunked.

I read the entire article and now my ribs hurt. This was clearly one of the funniest and sarcastic pieces I have read. The following had me LOL.
quote:
Downplay the fact that free inquiry and legitimate disagreement are a normal part of science.

If this wasn't written with a humorous intent then Daniel is clearly a few bricks short.

Well, on this page (a link I posted earlier), his hod seems a little light:
quote:
The Human Race evolved from apelike creatures roughly 100,000 years ago. About 5000 years ago, civilization as we know it started to develop. Our civilization today is the most advanced that has ever existed on planet earth. Or is it? There is tantalizing evidence that we got it all wrong, and that the human race is much more ancient than we thought.

Esoteric sources, such as Edgar Cayce, have always described a very different history of the human race, one that makes us not the apex of human evolution, but mere descendants of extremely ancient and highly advanced civilizations that existed on earth hundreds of thousands of years ago. But if that was true, wouldn't there be archeological evidence? Indeed there would be, and there is. Such evidence is commonly referred to as an archeological anomaly. Below, you will find many links that explore this issue. I also recommend reading Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race. An abridged introduction to that book is available online.

"In fact, such evidence has already been found, but it has since been supressed or conveniently forgotten. Much of it came to light immediately after Darwin published The Origin of Species, before which there had been no notable finds except Neanderthal man. In the first years of Darwinism, there was no clearly established story of human descent to be defended, and professional scientists made and reported many discoveries that now would never make it into the pages of any journal more academically respectable than the National Enquirer. Most of these fossils and artifacts were unearthed before the discovery by Eugene Dubois of Java man, the first protohuman hominid between Dryopithecus and modern humans.
Java man was found in Middle Pleistocene deposits generally given an age of 800,000 years. The discovery became a benchmark. Henceforth, scientists would not expect to find fossils or artifacts of anatomically modern humans in deposits of equal or greater age. If they did, they (or someone wiser) concluded that this was impossible and found some way to discredit the find as a mistake, an illusion, or a hoax. Before Java man, however, reputable nineteenth-century scientists found a number of examples of anatomically modern human skeletal remains in very ancient strata. And they also found large numbers of stone tools of variou

"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

latinijral
Banned

197 Posts

Posted - 03/08/2005 :  07:28:00   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send latinijral a Private Message

quote:
Originally posted by filthy.

Debunked by whom? :amusment: You and this Drasin charector? :laughter: Not yesterday; not this day; not hardly any day at all. But thanks for the chuckle.

I now question if you even have a legitimate topic.



“Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule.”

Who said that?
Another old tactic of the old skepticism….debunked




quote:
Originally posted by R.Wreck.

UPDATE FOR THE HOPELESSLY ANAL RETENTIVE:

Wow. I'd say Danny is a little upset that nobody, BESIDES CREDULOUS WOO WOO FLYING SAUCER ABDUCTEES WHO WILL BELIEVE DAMN NEAR ANYTHING AS LONG AS IT POINTS TO A SECRET ONE-WORLD GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY COVERUP BASED AT AREA 51 OF THE ALIENS LIVING AMONG US AND AND HOLDING POSITIONS OF POWER (THEY ARE ALSO KNOWN AS THE ILLUMINATI) SO THAT ONE DAY THEY CAN MAKE THE HUMAN RACE INTO THEIR PERSONAL SERVANTS, LANDSCAPERS, AND BODY PROBE TEST SUBJECTS, believed his UFO story.



“Ridicule has the unique power to make people of virtually any persuasion go completely unconscious in a twinkling.”
Characterize any serious investigator of the unorthodox as a "buff" or "freak," or as "self-styled"-- the media's favorite code-word for "bogus."
Can I add WOO WOO?
Who said that?
Another old tactic of the old skepticism….debunked

quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist.


In case anyone missed it (*ahem*), Mr. Drasin's list is a satirical set of "guidelines" which encapsulates how a proponant of the "unorthodox" (e.g. UFOs, ESP etc.) sees the establishment's all-too-easy attack her or his idea or theory. Of course, because of the nature of the list, none of Drasin's actual guidelines are real. That is, they are made up and based only on perceived attitudes and actions.(snip)

Please, latinijral, if I've been "debunked" then cite specifically which of Mr Drasin's examples I've used and show exactly how it invalidates my criqitue of Drasin's list.



“Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible. This will "send the message" that accepted theory overrides any actual evidence that might challenge it--and that therefore no such evidence is worth examining.”
Who said that?
Another old tactic of the old skepticism….debunked

Father of the new skepticism

Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"!
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 03/08/2005 :  07:52:25   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist.


In case anyone missed it (*ahem*), Mr. Drasin's list is a satirical set of "guidelines" which encapsulates how a proponant of the "unorthodox" (e.g. UFOs, ESP etc.) sees the establishment's all-too-easy attack her or his idea or theory. Of course, because of the nature of the list, none of Drasin's actual guidelines are real. That is, they are made up and based only on perceived attitudes and actions.(snip)

Please, latinijral, if I've been "debunked" then cite specifically which of Mr Drasin's examples I've used and show exactly how it invalidates my criqitue of Drasin's list.



“Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible. This will "send the message" that accepted theory overrides any actual evidence that might challenge it--and that therefore no such evidence is worth examining.”
Who said that?
Another old tactic of the old skepticism….debunked


What?!? How was my discussion "theoretical"?? Do you even know what that word means? Here: "Of, relating to, or based on theory," thus here: "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

How was my discussion "abstract"? I was talking specifically about Drasin's piece, and cited specific examples from it. In a bit of irony missed on you entirely, the person guilty of being "abstract" ("stated without reference to a specific instance" (emp. added)) is Drasin himself!

Indeed, it's hard to imagine how you could think that I'm suggesting that Drasin's evidence is not "worth examining" when in fact one of my main critiques was that he was lacking evidence.

I'd say "nice try, latinijral," but it wasn't. In fact, it wasn't even close-- it sucked. If that's the best you can do then you'd best give up now and admit that your friend Drasin's critique of "old" skepticism doesn't hold any water.
Edited by - Cuneiformist on 03/08/2005 07:55:47
Go to Top of Page

R.Wreck
SFN Regular

USA
1191 Posts

Posted - 03/08/2005 :  18:54:19   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send R.Wreck a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by R.Wreck.

UPDATE FOR THE HOPELESSLY ANAL RETENTIVE:

Wow. I'd say Danny is a little upset that nobody, BESIDES CREDULOUS WOO WOO FLYING SAUCER ABDUCTEES WHO WILL BELIEVE DAMN NEAR ANYTHING AS LONG AS IT POINTS TO A SECRET ONE-WORLD GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY COVERUP BASED AT AREA 51 OF THE ALIENS LIVING AMONG US AND AND HOLDING POSITIONS OF POWER (THEY ARE ALSO KNOWN AS THE ILLUMINATI) SO THAT ONE DAY THEY CAN MAKE THE HUMAN RACE INTO THEIR PERSONAL SERVANTS, LANDSCAPERS, AND BODY PROBE TEST SUBJECTS, believed his UFO story.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




“Ridicule has the unique power to make people of virtually any persuasion go completely unconscious in a twinkling.”
Characterize any serious investigator of the unorthodox as a "buff" or "freak," or as "self-styled"-- the media's favorite code-word for "bogus."
Can I add WOO WOO?
Who said that?
Another old tactic of the old skepticism….debunked



A little defensive there, aren't we? Do you have any evidence that the planet earth has been visited by aliens? If so, let's see it. I'm beginning to think that the "new skepticism" is just another name for the UFO / Roswell / Area 51 / alien abductee industry.

The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley

The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 03/08/2005 :  20:23:39   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral


quote:
Originally posted by filthy.

Debunked by whom? :amusment: You and this Drasin charector? :laughter: Not yesterday; not this day; not hardly any day at all. But thanks for the chuckle.

I now question if you even have a legitimate topic.



“Ridicule, ridicule, ridicule.”

Who said that?
Another old tactic of the old skepticism….debunked




quote:
Originally posted by R.Wreck.

UPDATE FOR THE HOPELESSLY ANAL RETENTIVE:

Wow. I'd say Danny is a little upset that nobody, BESIDES CREDULOUS WOO WOO FLYING SAUCER ABDUCTEES WHO WILL BELIEVE DAMN NEAR ANYTHING AS LONG AS IT POINTS TO A SECRET ONE-WORLD GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY COVERUP BASED AT AREA 51 OF THE ALIENS LIVING AMONG US AND AND HOLDING POSITIONS OF POWER (THEY ARE ALSO KNOWN AS THE ILLUMINATI) SO THAT ONE DAY THEY CAN MAKE THE HUMAN RACE INTO THEIR PERSONAL SERVANTS, LANDSCAPERS, AND BODY PROBE TEST SUBJECTS, believed his UFO story.



“Ridicule has the unique power to make people of virtually any persuasion go completely unconscious in a twinkling.”
Characterize any serious investigator of the unorthodox as a "buff" or "freak," or as "self-styled"-- the media's favorite code-word for "bogus."
Can I add WOO WOO?
Who said that?
Another old tactic of the old skepticism….debunked

quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist.


In case anyone missed it (*ahem*), Mr. Drasin's list is a satirical set of "guidelines" which encapsulates how a proponant of the "unorthodox" (e.g. UFOs, ESP etc.) sees the establishment's all-too-easy attack her or his idea or theory. Of course, because of the nature of the list, none of Drasin's actual guidelines are real. That is, they are made up and based only on perceived attitudes and actions.(snip)

Please, latinijral, if I've been "debunked" then cite specifically which of Mr Drasin's examples I've used and show exactly how it invalidates my criqitue of Drasin's list.



“Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible. This will "send the message" that accepted theory overrides any actual evidence that might challenge it--and that therefore no such evidence is worth examining.”
Who said that?
Another old tactic of the old skepticism….debunked


Ah, the final defense of the hopelessly bemused. I knew it would come sooner of later.

'Jarl, if you wish to avoid ridicule, I suggest that you avoid posting ridiculous statements and sites. I further suggest that you research carefully before posting at all. Thus far, you've had so little evidential support that you've fallen off the figurative cliff and into the cess pool of blather. And please stop stirring it up; it's truly foul and the exhaust fan is out of order. :holds nose:

But, back to topic: you have debunked the 'old' skepticism, or so you claim. What pray, do you have to replace it?

The time is now; shit or get off the pot.


"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)

"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres


"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude

Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,

and Crypto-Communist!

Go to Top of Page

latinijral
Banned

197 Posts

Posted - 03/08/2005 :  23:32:26   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send latinijral a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist

I'd say "nice try, latinijral," but it wasn't. In fact, it wasn't even close-- it sucked. If that's the best you can do then you'd best give up now and admit that your friend Drasin's critique of "old" skepticism doesn't hold any water.



Repeating the same mistake? Keeping your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible?
Common, change that old debunked style !!

quote:
Originally posted by R.Wreck

A little defensive there, aren't we? Do you have any evidence that the planet earth has been visited by aliens? If so, let's see it. I'm beginning to think that the "new skepticism" is just another name for the UFO / Roswell / Area 51 / alien abductee industry.


What that has to do with your incorrect and old debunked style of using the word “nobody” and your wishes to ridicule?

Father of the new skepticism

Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"!
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 03/09/2005 :  02:23:27   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message
quote:
A little defensive there, aren't we? Do you have any evidence that the planet earth has been visited by aliens? If so, let's see it. I'm beginning to think that the "new skepticism" is just another name for the UFO / Roswell / Area 51 / alien abductee industry.


You're on to something there.

Remember, latin's whole crusade against the JREF started out when his obviously mentally imbalanced friend sumbitted a video of the 9/11 attack, with a moving smudge, as evidence of the paranormal. Clearly he thought he was seeing some alien spacecraft hiding behing their advanced klingon/romulan cloaking screens, hanging out and watching the WTC burn. Only visible, of course, because they let the smoke outline them against the sky....


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 10 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.72 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000