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

R.Wreck
SFN Regular

USA
1191 Posts

Posted - 03/09/2005 :  02:44:02   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send R.Wreck a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral:

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?



C'mon lat, you can tell us. You were abducted by aliens, right?

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 - 03/09/2005 :  02:44:23   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message
The question 'Jarl, that you continue to avoid like it was hiding in the cloaca of a crocodile, is as follows:

"You have debunked the 'old' skepticism, or so you claim. What pray, do you have to replace it?"

Common courtesy requires that you give an answer.


"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

Siberia
SFN Addict

Brazil
2322 Posts

Posted - 03/09/2005 :  03:53:51   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Siberia's Homepage  Send Siberia an AOL message  Send Siberia a Yahoo! Message Send Siberia a Private Message
How ironic, that he preaches against irony when he's the one irritatingly condescending and ironic.
Hypocrisy, anyone?

"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa

"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 03/09/2005 :  05:59:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral

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 !!



Dodgedodgedodge! I already demonstreated that my argument was neither abstract nor theoretical. It addressed specifics and was quite concrete. If you cannot address this fact, then there's no point in continuing the discussion. Indeed, there's no point for you to continue this thread. If I ran this folder, I'd give you one more chance to address my arguments (or at best clarify how I'm being "abstract" or "theoretical") or I'd lock the thread. But I don't, so feel free to keep dodging!
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 03/09/2005 :  18:53:20   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message
quote:
Keeping your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible?



Apparently, in this particular troll's demented little mind, "abstract and theoretical" are the same as "specific and evidenced".


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

latinijral
Banned

197 Posts

Posted - 03/09/2005 :  20:31:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send latinijral a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist


I'd give you one more chance to address my arguments (or at best clarify how I'm being "abstract" or "theoretical") or I'd lock the thread. But I don't, so feel free to keep dodging! .



If DAVE did it , then KIL did it, why not you?
You need your 15 minutes of fame with me.
Close this thread if you feel piss off with the Old skepticism' debunkery tactics ……..already debunked.

Your “obscure” warning doesn't “hold any water”.
Wait! Where did I read that?
Did I sound abstract or theorical?
Hmmmmm.
That Drasin is driving you all crazy.
You need more improved tactics



quote:
Originally posted by R.Wreck

quote:
Originally posted by latinijral



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

C'mon lat, you can tell us. You were abducted by aliens, right?

What that has to do with your incorrect and old debunked style of using the word “nobody” and your wishes to ridicule in order to hide your absence of arguments about the topic?
Common son ,you have potential.





Father of the new skepticism

Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"!
Edited by - latinijral on 03/09/2005 20:50:08
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 03/09/2005 :  21:21:57   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
What that has to do with your incorrect and old debunked style of using the word “nobody” and your wishes to ridicule in order to hide your absence of arguments about the topic?
And what's the topic?? You link an unfunny, condescending, and biased article criticising skeptics written by someone who obviously lacks incredulity; and then accuse us of acting similarly. (The article does not "debunk debunkers." It makes fun of sterotypes and cartoon-like caricatures that share little in common with reality.) That's not a "topic of discussion," that's name calling. Especially as you refuse to state what this "New Skepticism" is.

Look, just because you claim we aren't open-minded doesn't mean it's true. Everyone at SFN has given you ample opportunity to back up your claims. You have failed to do so. That is on you, not us. Calling us names still does not advance your cause, whatever that is, which you still refuse to say.

I will say this: if you seek to debunk the tactics of "old skeptism" it's going to take a helluva lot more effort on your part than simply linking to a facetious screed.


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Edited by - H. Humbert on 03/09/2005 22:15:43
Go to Top of Page

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 03/09/2005 :  22:09:23   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral

quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist


I'd give you one more chance to address my arguments (or at best clarify how I'm being "abstract" or "theoretical") or I'd lock the thread. But I don't, so feel free to keep dodging! .



If DAVE did it , then KIL did it, why not you?
You need your 15 minutes of fame with me.
Close this thread if you feel piss off with the Old skepticism' debunkery tactics ……..already debunked.

Your “obscure” warning doesn't “hold any water”.
Wait! Where did I read that?
Did I sound abstract or theorical?
Hmmmmm.
That Drasin is driving you all crazy.
You need more improved tactics


Zzzzzzz *szznt* Huh?!? Oh. Zzzzzzzzzzzzz
Go to Top of Page

Starman
SFN Regular

Sweden
1613 Posts

Posted - 03/10/2005 :  01:37:20   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Starman a Private Message
Do we have to feed the trolls every hour, or just once a day?
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 03/10/2005 :  02:52:17   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Starman

Do we have to feed the trolls every hour, or just once a day?

Just once a day, it would appear.

Latinijarl, the question, asked many times now, yet remains. As you seem unable to remember it, I'll pose it again:

"You have debunked the 'old' skepticism, or so you claim. What pray, do you have to replace it?"

Actually, I'm convinced that you have nothing but verbal flatulence -- that's all you've shown us thus far. But I can be proven wrong and I'm willing to give you a chance to do it. If you can.

And the answer is......?


"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

Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist

USA
4954 Posts

Posted - 03/10/2005 :  08:44:09   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Cuneiformist a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Starman

Do we have to feed the trolls every hour, or just once a day?

Exactly, Starman. That's why I'm done...
Go to Top of Page

tomk80
SFN Regular

Netherlands
1278 Posts

Posted - 03/10/2005 :  09:21:22   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit tomk80's Homepage Send tomk80 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Starman

Do we have to feed the trolls every hour, or just once a day?


It depends. Sometimes you just let'em die, sometimes they are amusing enough so you can spoil them for a while.

Tom

`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll-
Go to Top of Page

filthy
SFN Die Hard

USA
14408 Posts

Posted - 03/10/2005 :  10:17:54   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send filthy a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist

quote:
Originally posted by Starman

Do we have to feed the trolls every hour, or just once a day?

Exactly, Starman. That's why I'm done...

Not I. I want to know all about the New Skepticism and I will have the answer to our question.

Like Yossarian, I will pursue latinijral even through the very fetid intestines of these many fora for the answer.

"You have debunked the 'old' skepticism, or so you claim. What pray, do you have to replace it?"

He'd be wise to give it up now.


"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 03/10/2005 15:20:57
Go to Top of Page

R.Wreck
SFN Regular

USA
1191 Posts

Posted - 03/10/2005 :  17:12:35   [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



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


C'mon lat, you can tell us. You were abducted by aliens, right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What that has to do with your incorrect and old debunked style of using the word “nobody” and your wishes to ridicule in order to hide your absence of arguments about the topic?



Just looking at the evidence, lat:

-You showed up here claiming Randi was a "shit idol" (whatever the hell that is) because he didn't give you Carlos a million bucks for the picture of the UFO bird flying by the WTC. Nevermind that the prize is not for evidence of UFOs, and that your Carlos' evidence was the epitome of lame.

-The only clue you give about the "new skepticism" is a rant by this Drasin character who offers this:

quote:

<> Point out that an "unidentified" flying object is just that, and cannot be automatically assumed to be extraterrestrial. Do this whether or not anyone involved *has* assumed it to be extraterrestrial.

<> Equate nature's laws with our current understanding of nature's laws. Then label all concepts such as antigravity or interdimensional mobility as mere flights of fancy "because what present-day science cannot explain cannot possibly exist." Then if an anomalous craft is reported to have hovered silently, made right-angle turns at supersonic speeds or appeared and disappeared instantly, you may summarily dismiss the report.

<> 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.

<> Point out that the official SETI program assumes in advance that extraterrestrial intelligence can only exist light-years away from Earth. Equate this a-priori assumption with conclusive proof; then insist that this invalidates all terrestrial reports of ET contact.

<> If compelling evidence is presented for a UFO crash or some similar event, provide thousands of pages of detailed information about a formerly secret military project that might conceivably account for it. The more voluminous the information, the less the need to demonstrate any actual connection between the reported event and the military project.

<> When someone produces purported physical evidence of alien technology, point out that no analysis can prove that its origin was extraterrestrial; after all, it might be the product of some perfectly ordinary, ultra-secret underground government lab. The only exception would be evidence obtained from a landing on the White House lawn--the sole circumstance universally agreed upon by generations of skeptics as conclusively certifying extraterrestrial origin!

<> If photographs or other visual media depicting anomalous aerial phenomena have been presented, argue that since images can now be digitally manipulated they prove nothing. Assert this regardless of the vintage of the material or the circumstances of its acquisition. Insist that the better the quality of a UFO photo, the greater the likelihood of fraud. Photos that have passed every known test may therefore be held to be the most perfectly fraudulent of all!

<> Argue that all reports of humanoid extraterrestrials must be bogus because the evolution of the humanoid form on Earth is the result of an infinite number of accidents in a genetically isolated environment. Avoid addressing the logical proposition that if interstellar visitations have occurred, Earth cannot be considered genetically isolated in the first place.

<> Argue that extraterrestrials would or wouldn't, should or shouldn't, can or can't behave in certain ways because such behavior would or wouldn't be logical. Base your notions of logic on how terrestrials would or wouldn't behave. Since terrestrials behave in all kinds of ways you can theorize whatever kind of behavior suits your arguments.

<> Stereotype contact claims according to simplistic scenarios already well established in the collective imagination. If a reported ET contact appears to have had no negative consequences, sarcastically accuse the claimant of believing devoutly that "benevolent ETs have come to magically save us from destroying ourselves!" If someone claims to have been traumatized by an alien contact, brush it aside as "a classic case of hysteria." If contactees stress the essential humanness and limitations of certain ETs they claim to have met, ask "why haven't these omnipotent beings offered to solve all our problems for us?"

<> When reluctant encounter witnesses step forward, accuse them indiscriminately of "seeking the limelight" with their outlandish stories.

<> Ask why alleged contactees and abductees haven't received alien infections. Reject as "preposterous" all medical evidence suggesting that such may in fact have occurred. Categorize as "pure science- fiction" the notion that alien understandings of immunology might be in advance of our own, or that sufficiently alien microorganisms might be limited in their ability to interact with our biological systems. Above all, dismiss anything that might result in an actual investigation of the matter.

<> Travel to China. Upon your return, report that "nobody there told me they had seen any UFOs." Insist that this proves that no UFOs are reported outside countries whose populations are overexposed to science fiction.

<> Where hypnotic regression has yielded consistent contactee testimony in widespread and completely independent cases, argue that hypnosis is probably unreliable, and is always worthless in the hands of non-credentialed practitioners. Be sure to add that the subjects must have been steeped in the ET-contact literature, and that, whatever their credentials, the hypnotists involved must have been asking leading questions.

<> If someone claims to have been emotionally impacted by a contact experience, point out that strong emotions can alter perceptions. Therefore, the claimant's recollections must be entirely untrustworthy.

<> Maintain that there cannot possibly be a government coverup of the ET question . . . but that it exists for legitimate reasons of national security!

<> Accuse conspiracy theorists of being conspiracy theorists and of believing in conspiracies! Insist that only *accidentalist* theories can possibly account for repeated, organized patterns of suppression, denial and disinformational activity.

<> In the event of a worst-case scenario--for example, one in which extraterrestrial intelligence is suddenly acknowledged as a global mystery of millennial proportions--just remember that the public has a short memory. Simply hail this as a "victory for the scientific method" and say dismissively, "Well, everyone knows this is a monumentally sig

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

latinijral
Banned

197 Posts

Posted - 03/10/2005 :  22:35:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send latinijral a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by filthy.

Latinijarl, the question, asked many times now, yet remains. As you seem unable to remember it, I'll pose it again:

"You have debunked the 'old' skepticism, or so you claim. What pray, do you have to replace it?" .



Do you have evidence that I claimed that I have debunked the old skepticism?

Maybe you have troubles to read the opening post.
It is about how the Old skepticism' debunkery TACTICS are ……..debunked by……..( did you read the name of some author?).

Some questions you think are so smart ,in the reality are just full of misinterpretations ,so I just gave you some time to think about it.
Your repetition of the same mistake just confirms what Drasin said about those debunked tactics.

I will wait for your evidence that I claimed that I debunked the old skepticism.
Don't be confuse with my showing of the evidence of the MISTAKES of the old skepticism.




Father of the new skepticism

Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"!
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 0.56 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000