|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 02/17/2011 : 15:35:35 [Permalink]
|
Oh, I would like to see more people step in and participate as well. For different reasons than you probably, but we do agree on that point at least.
As for you comparing me to Dave_W, I'll accept that as a compliment even though you think you are scoring with an insult.
But anyway, back to the topic-
Let me try and break it down to a simple linear format, maybe your aged mind will be better able to respond intelligently to the question.
(shit some guy makes up)-->this is evidence for(alien visitation, jesus, bigfoot, whatever)
This specific thread (from the OP anyway) is about Edgar Mitchell making some shit up in 2008 and then he (and others) using his made up shit as evidence for alien visitation.
Your attemped pontifications and intellectual bullying aside, the initial topic of this thread is nonsense. That is why no one is really interested in it, and why it has devolved into a discussion about mermaids.
|
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 |
|
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2011 : 17:54:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
What a dilemma! On the one hand, a Valued Member arguing that the subject matter is not worth arguing about; on the other hand a Mighty Adjuducator concluding that his powerful persuasions concerning the very same worthless dreck... |
You've got a big error there. Dude was railing against the value of Mitchell's UFO nonsense. I was arguing against the consistency, utility and foundations of your agnosticism regarding ET visitations in general. So, not "the very same" subject at all, and no "paradox" (as you called it) is in sight. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 02/17/2011 : 18:10:27 [Permalink]
|
Dude's right, though; There's so much of this nonsense going around, it's easy to tune out. I like mermaids much better than half-assed, alien conspiricy theories.
Loch Ness Mermaid
|
"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! 
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2011 : 09:58:12 [Permalink]
|
| Computer malfunction. Will repost. |
| Edited by - bngbuck on 02/18/2011 09:59:43 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2011 : 13:36:21 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
| I would like to see more people step in and participate as well. For different reasons than you probably, |
What would those reasons be?| As for you comparing me to Dave_W, I'll accept that as a compliment even though you think you are scoring with an insult. |
Really, Dude, I don't keep score. I intended the comment as an observation on the consistency of your opinions on many matters with those held by Dave. You could do worse.
And there could be worse mentors than Dave! At 40-something, Dave approaches the conventional image of Homo Universalis. Although the notion of polymathy was a possibility in Leonardo's time, the exponential explosion of information and knowledge today has rendered such an image a pathetic impossibility. However, the effort it takes to even approach such a quixotic goal is certainily admirable.
I obviously make such an effort myself. In some ways, it is easier as one ages, but that is, of course, countered by the information explosion. No one can ever hope to catch up! You make an excellent effort yourself, many others here do also; and there is nothing insulting about it. You are absolutely correct in viewing my comment as a complement. Many folks would be well advised to aspire to becoming a modern-day Rennaissance Man, even though it is a near-impossibility.| Let me try and break it down to a simple linear format, maybe your aged mind will be better able to respond intelligently to the question. |
I appreciate your consideration.| (shit some guy makes up)-->this is evidence for(alien visitation, jesus, bigfoot, whatever) |
In my view, this is where you may become a bit presumptive. First..... to repeat the Skeptic Mantra, where is your evidence that - "some guy" (who?) - made up this - "shit?" Examined, documented facts would strongly validate and add credibility to this opinion. If you could justify your broad generalization with specific, documented investigation of whatever "evidence" is claimed regarding Mitchell's statements, I would take your criticism of Mitchell very seriously and it would seriously affect my agnosticism regarding this Mitchell matter. [This may be your cue, Dave!]
As far as jesus, bigfoot, and whatever; I fail to understand the relevance of these alleged events and things to the Mitchell discussion. Certainly, there may be parallels in each instance of the "shit" that you enumerate, but in what way do they assist in the examination of Mitchell's supposed epiphanies and the validity, or lack thereof, of his anecdotal evidence for EV? Each of these extraordinary claims requires its own version of extraordinary evidence. However, I don't see bigfoot's print anywhere in Mitchell's military buddies' chatter.
I certainly don't see extraordinary evidence for Mitchell's claims of ET's. Neither do I see anything approaching proof positive that his statements are utter nonsense. In my view, anyone professing absolute conviction of Mitchell's fraudulence is as gullible as those who who swallow such stories hook, line and kinker and profess to "know" that we are not "alone in the Universe"
| This specific thread (from the OP anyway) is about Edgar Mitchell making some shit up in 2008 and then he (and others) using his made up shit as evidence for alien visitation. |
Well, I'll be happy to accept that as fact if you will provide irrefutable evidence that Mitchell did, in fact, make up shit, and that named others did in fact make up shit, and offer a sensible hypothesis for their reasons for doing so, followed by an investigation to bear out such hypothesis. As it stands, it is an interesting and quite possibly valid opinion.
If there was a law that prevented citizens from making up shit, and you were the prosecuting attorney litigating against Mitchell as one charged under such a law, please outline your case against Mitchell. I realize the laws and rules concerning legal evidence are substantially different than the precepts of critical thinking and scientific method, but I challenge you to demontrate that legal standards (such as "preponderance of evidence") are a higher standard to meet than the establishment of fact as defined by the rigors of the scientific method.| Your attemped pontifications and intellectual bullying aside, the initial topic of this thread is nonsense. That is why no one is really interested in it, and why it has devolved into a discussion about mermaids. |
Dude, pontification is a pejorative judgment after the fact. "Attempted pontification" is oxymoronic.
I regret the insecurity you betray by using the term "intellectual bullying" It is very difficult for one true intellectual to bully another. You perform very well under pressure, Dude, there is no need for intellectual penis envy. And I can guarantee that you would best me hands down (so to speak) in any other contest of the dimensions of various genitalia! At my age, one searches for a magnifying glass to assist in the act of urination!
I agree that the lack of interest in the thread may be related to it's degeneration into a discussion of mermaids and other pap. I previously accepted a share of responsibility for this and apologized. However, if the initial OP is, in fact, nonsense; then we all here at SFN must have a pretty juvenile audience. Look at the "read" current numbers for this thread from its initiation. Management is well aware of this phenomenon, and that is why Dave will soon offer an excellent, detailed dissection of much of what I have said above. And I probably will be moved to respond. Etc. When the numbers really drop, it may be time for all of us to pick up our marbles and go home and rest for a while.
I just hope this damn computer will survive until the upcoming marathon ends. I put out enough to you today to elicit many more pages of retorts, insult, disagreement, new perspectives, and possibly commentary of real value. I truly hope that it prompts at least a few of the new menbers or less prolific posters that remain as lurkers, to sit down and speak out!
I do appreciate you and the other A-List 20-odd that do frequently chime in on interesting nonsense such as this Mitchell thread. The essence of interest in SFN to me is the variety of positions that different folks take on controversial subjects.
May his god bless Bill Scott, and a few others that keep contention and disputation alive here! Otherwise, SFN would quickly degenerate into a military boot camp of near-total conformity to authority and opinion presented as demonstrated fact. Kind of like Answers in Genesis! |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2011 : 15:01:49 [Permalink]
|
Bill:
May his god bless Bill Scott, and a few others that keep contention and disputation alive here! Otherwise, SFN would quickly degenerate into a military boot camp of near-total conformity to authority and opinion presented as demonstrated fact. Kind of like Answers in Genesis! |
Naaa... It might seem like we walk in lockstep. And I suppose on some issues of concern to skeptics, we do. Homeopathy is a scam. I'm pretty sure there's no argument among the regulars on that one. Alien visitation from other worlds is unlikely. Same thing.
But we also disagree on some fundamental issues regarding the direction skepticism should take, what skepticism covers, and other such matters. So no. You're wrong. We really do bring different points of view to SFN even with regard to skepticism just as our mission statement says. I'm surprised you haven't seem any of our debates along those lines.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2011 : 15:39:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
However, if the initial OP is, in fact, nonsense; then we all here at SFN must have a pretty juvenile audience. Look at the "read" current numbers for this thread from its initiation. Management is well aware of this phenomenon... |
Odds are, the thread view count is so high because Filthy posted a photo of Ann Coulter long ago, and Google Image Search has a few bugs. This has happened to a few other threads around here, most of all to whatever the thread was that someone posted a photo of Hitler in.| When the numbers really drop... |
They won't, ever. The thread view count is for all time, and so can't go anywhere but up. If Google finally figures out that the image people were coming here for wasn't really here, the number will just not rise as quickly as before. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2011 : 17:12:46 [Permalink]
|
| Odds are, the thread view count is so high because Filthy posted a photo of Ann Coulter long ago, and Google Image Search has a few bugs. |
Right! Blame da filth for everything -- hell, everybody else does. Why, "They're shootin' men in Texas just because they look like me!"
Wonder how many hits this'n 'll generate.
|
"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!
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2011 : 17:25:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Wonder how many hits this'n 'll generate. |
None, if the proper search keywords aren't in the text near the image. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2011 : 20:38:58 [Permalink]
|
bng said:
| Dude, pontification is a pejorative judgment after the fact. "Attempted pontification" is oxymoronic. |
I am aware of the definition. Wich is why I strung it together with "attempted". Your seemingly oracular pronouncements about the regular members here (and me in particular) fail to align with reality. So "attempted pontifications" seems an apt description.
But anyway...
| to repeat the Skeptic Mantra, where is your evidence that - "some guy" (who?) - made up this - "shit?" |
I've said this probably more than a hundred times in these forums. A claim made without supporting evidence isn't a claim at all, its just shit some asshole made up. Mitchell claiming we have been visited by aliens and the government is covering it up? Get a fucking grip, that is nothing but a sad and pathetic end to a once respectable man's mind. No evidence to base the claim on, so I don't need to disprove it, all I have to do is point and laugh. Hope that helps you comprehend.
| As far as jesus, bigfoot, and whatever; I fail to understand the relevance of these alleged events and things to the Mitchell discussion. |
Now you are just intentionally being an ass, you understood me perfectly. I mention those only to illustrate the form of the claim Mitchell is making. It doesn't matter which one of them (aliens, bigfoot, jesus, fiaries, whatever) you put into the claim, all are equally lacking a key element. No evidence, therefore no real claim, its just shit some asshole made up.
| I certainly don't see extraordinary evidence for Mitchell's claims of ET's. Neither do I see anything approaching proof positive that his statements are utter nonsense. In my view, anyone professing absolute conviction of Mitchell's fraudulence is as gullible as those who who swallow such stories hook, line and kinker and profess to "know" that we are not "alone in the Universe" |
So you do agree that Mitchell is just makign shit up. Good! Its just too bad that you think his bullshit needs to be proven to be nonsense, that is where you are failing to think critically.
I don't see anything approaching proof positive that little invisible green gravity fairies are NOT responsible for gravity! In my view, anyone professing absolute conviction that gravity fairies don't exist is a gullible dimwit!
/yawn Whatever. I'm bone fucking weary of shit like this from the religitards, and I don't know how you can let yourself fall into that flawed type of thinking.
 |
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 |
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2011 : 21:06:15 [Permalink]
|
Kil.....
| It might seem like we walk in lockstep. And I suppose on some issues of concern to skeptics, we do. Homeopathy is a scam. I'm pretty sure there's no argument among the regulars on that one. Alien visitation from other worlds is unlikely. Same thing. |
Yeah. My point exactly. I do like the word "unlikely", however. If that is, in fact, the case.| But we also disagree on some fundamental issues regarding the direction skepticism should take, what skepticism covers, and other such matters. So no. You're wrong. We really do bring different points of view to SFN even with regard to skepticism just as our mission statement says. I'm surprised you haven't seem any of our debates along those lines. |
I have, David. I, probably wrong-headedly, have declined to participate in most pf those debates because of the very issues implicit in this thresd to which we are now posting. One of my deepest reasoned convictions is that there is an essential epistemological difference between atheism and agnosticism. As I read the "true" skepticism of the 20-odd active members of the debating fraternity here, a vast majority if not a totality, of the purist skeptics here feel that an agnostic position on any issue is either a "weak" form of skepticism or else not skepticism at all. Something is wrong until proven right, occasionally vice-versa, but a grey zone is not in the equation. Certainty is not only possible, it is mandatory! At one end of the spectrum or the other. In fact, there is no spectrum, only right or wrong!
Hence the lock-step, with management largely leading the band. And when I run into conceits such as the "all opinion is fact" declaration; or "the dictionary is wrong"; I really get a little crazy.
After doing my share of hearing and contesting this kind of orthodoxy, I just kind of lost the heart for opposing it. As with most pursuits of the absolute, it is my personal conviction that such activity is not only unrealistic, it begins to have the spoor of dogma. This is antithetical to my philosophy, which is essentially based on a statistical peception of reality. In my view, Truth, Existence, black, white, right and wrong, and all other perceptons of reality; can only be expressed and understood in degrees of probability. This may be the ultimate skepticism, or it may be no skepticism at all, but in my mind, no degree of application of "Critical Thinking" or the Scientific Method can lead to truth or certitude. Very close approximation, perhaps, but to me, there are truly NO absolutes. Only degrees of probability.
There is very little degree of probability of persuading either hard skeptics (atheistic determinists) or believers/theists, of my world-view; and although I have enjoyed a great deal of the give and take (at least as long as it remained civil), it is a hopeless and even quixotic endeavor; as I have already noted in this thread. And, in addition to my other flaws, I am a romantic. Romanticism is hardly logically persuasive and if you don't have the flavor of it by the time you're forty, you probably never will! I became infected in my childhood.
So I am right, that there is considerable lockstep here; and probably wrong, in that I do not not fully credit the degree of diversity of opinion that may exist here because my experience is that hardly anyone ever gets involved other than Dave, Dude, and yourself, certainly a catholic trio.
However, I have erred in not participating sufficiently in the "Proper Role and Nature of Skepticism" discussions because I feel like an outlier. And, in truth, I am. Your point is well taken. Perhaps as a member of SFN, I should take it's mission statement more literally--- and bowing to SFN's near-consensus as to what is the proper definition of skepticism, rethink my role here in a skeptic's forum. Your thoughts? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2011 : 21:23:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
In my view, this is where you may become a bit presumptive. First..... to repeat the Skeptic Mantra, where is your evidence that - "some guy" (who?) - made up this - "shit?" Examined, documented facts would strongly validate and add credibility to this opinion. If you could justify your broad generalization with specific, documented investigation of whatever "evidence" is claimed regarding Mitchell's statements, I would take your criticism of Mitchell very seriously and it would seriously affect my agnosticism regarding this Mitchell matter. [This may be your cue, Dave!] |
Yeah, yeah. Another "Skeptic Mantra" you seem to be forgetting is "that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Ed Mitchell (and everyone else) is capable of saying anything he wants to. Given the near-infinitude of possible utterances, the odds against him saying something true are very small, indeed. So unless he provides evidence in support of a statement, it's an extremely safe bet that it's false.| I certainly don't see extraordinary evidence for Mitchell's claims of ET's. |
I don't see any normal evidence for them, either.| Neither do I see anything approaching proof positive that his statements are utter nonsense. |
Is "proof positive" a good epistemic standard?| In my view, anyone professing absolute conviction of Mitchell's fraudulence is as gullible as those who who swallow such stories hook, line and kinker and profess to "know" that we are not "alone in the Universe" |
Does this "absolute conviction" standard apply also to evolution and General Relativity?| Well, I'll be happy to accept that as fact if you will provide irrefutable evidence that Mitchell did, in fact, make up shit... |
Is "irrefutable evidence" a good epistemic standard?| ...and that named others did in fact make up shit, and offer a sensible hypothesis for their reasons for doing so, followed by an investigation to bear out such hypothesis. |
Do you do this every time you think someone might be making something up? How do you have any money left after investigating all the scam artists who must be contacting you?| As it stands, it is an interesting and quite possibly valid opinion. |
Statistically, it's extremely likely to be true.| If there was a law that prevented citizens from making up shit, and you were the prosecuting attorney litigating against Mitchell as one charged under such a law, please outline your case against Mitchell. I realize the laws and rules concerning legal evidence are substantially different than the precepts of critical thinking and scientific method, but I challenge you to demontrate that legal standards (such as "preponderance of evidence") are a higher standard to meet than the establishment of fact as defined by the rigors of the scientific method. |
"Preponderance of evidence" generally means "more likely than not" in both legal and scientific contexts. It's about the lowest bar one needs to hurdle in order to reach a tentative conclusion.
On the other hand, "establishment of fact" is a phrase used in neither law nor science, at least not at all commonly. I deduce from your challenge that you think that scientific hypotheses "graduate" into theories and then into facts as evidence accumulates, which is an all-too-common myth. "This table is six feet long" is a scientific fact established by nothing more than the application of a measuring device to the table in question. There is nothing grandiose in science about facts, because most of them are established through nothing more than simple observation. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2011 : 22:46:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
One of my deepest reasoned convictions is that there is an essential epistemological difference between atheism and agnosticism. |
But is there?| As I read the "true" skepticism of the 20-odd active members of the debating fraternity here, a vast majority if not a totality, of the purist skeptics here feel that an agnostic position on any issue is either a "weak" form of skepticism or else not skepticism at all. |
An agnostic position on a question for which there is no preponderance of evidence is just fine by me. An agnostic position on a question in which the evidence clearly points in one direction or another is an abdication of skepticism.| Something is wrong until proven right, occasionally vice-versa, but a grey zone is not in the equation. Certainty is not only possible, it is mandatory! At one end of the spectrum or the other. In fact, there is no spectrum, only right or wrong! |
An agnostic position requires that there be a gray area, but for most of the questions we deal with, there isn't. And the only reason to manufacture one is to try to unreasonably justify agnosticism.| And when I run into conceits such as the "all opinion is fact" declaration; or "the dictionary is wrong"; I really get a little crazy. |
Obviously. Nobody here, for instance, ever said "all opinion is fact," but you went a lot crazy, anyway. So crazy, in fact, that you've summarized the argument you were opposed to as "all opinion is fact."
Ironically, it is in that statement you've made there that you are the one denying that there is a nuance to be appreciated. My position is that there is a spectrum to "assertions of truth" that ranges from "wild-ass guess" through "opinion" and "pretty solid" to "undeniable Truth." You (seemingly purposefully) mischaracterized my argument as demanding that "opinion" be treated the same as "Gospel," and would tolerate no dissent from your position.
There was no gray area there at all, according to you. You were absolutely positive regarding your conclusion about what an "opinion" is, and your continued insistence that those of us who disagreed with you were the ones being unreasonable is nothing less than an unprompted but utterly convincing demonstration of your fundamental hypocrisy.
I was, and still am, thoroughly open to being shown to be wrong about my opinion on opinions, but you cannot even be honest enough to merely describe my opinion correctly, even after I explained to you how you were wrong about what I think, numerous times. In fact, you seem to restate it more and more wrongly as time goes by. Certainly you can see how your calls for agnosticism regarding particular questions while being totally anti-agnostic towards a question we discussed are less than compelling.| As with most pursuits of the absolute, it is my personal conviction that such activity is not only unrealistic, it begins to have the spoor of dogma. This is antithetical to my philosophy, which is essentially based on a statistical peception of reality. In my view, Truth, Existence, black, white, right and wrong, and all other perceptons of reality; can only be expressed and understood in degrees of probability. This may be the ultimate skepticism, or it may be no skepticism at all, but in my mind, no degree of application of "Critical Thinking" or the Scientific Method can lead to truth or certitude. Very close approximation, perhaps, but to me, there are truly NO absolutes. Only degrees of probability. |
We agree completely. Except that none of what you've said justifies agnosticism with regard to a question for which we have good evidence, unless you're also willing to be agnostic towards questions for which the evidence is otherwise overwhelmingly in one direction. In other words, you'd have to be willing to say, "it feels like I have a headache, but it's possible that I don't, so I'll have to remain agnostic about it," if you're going to try to defend agnosticism for certain pet questions on the basis that "there are truly NO absolutes."| There is very little degree of probability of persuading either hard skeptics (atheistic determinists) or believers/theists, of my world-view... |
This hard skeptic shares your view, but cannot use it to justify refusing to come to tentative conclusions where the preponderance of evidence (at least) points in a particular direction. I'm certainly not afraid of being wrong (I've been wrong lots of times, about a lot of things), and not opposed to changing my mind as new evidence arrives. I can't think of any reason to insist on agnosticism on some question, while clearly opposing agnosticism on other questions, except for fear of being wrong about particular things.
But what's the downside about being wrong about ET visitations being incredibly unlikely? None that I can see, unless you think that the aliens are going to be vindictive about disbelief in their existence (just like the Christian god). Or you just don't like the idea of other UFO believers going "neener-neener-neener" at you after they get proven right. Or you get some sort of thrill out of standing on a patently false philosophical high-ground. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2011 : 02:36:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Kil.....
| It might seem like we walk in lockstep. And I suppose on some issues of concern to skeptics, we do. Homeopathy is a scam. I'm pretty sure there's no argument among the regulars on that one. Alien visitation from other worlds is unlikely. Same thing. |
Yeah. My point exactly. I do like the word "unlikely", however. If that is, in fact, the case. |
So your ah-hah “exactly” moment is proof positive that skeptics seem to reject magical thinking? Well Duh! And in that way we are walking in a lockstep that borders on dogma, or the rejection of magical thinking really is nothing more than an impenetrable dogma that we hold and you can equate with religious dogma or an inability to consider grey areas?
How open should we be to homeopathy? It’s been tested a number of times and no test has shown that a homeopathic has any more efficacy than a placebo (outside of in-house studies that were never published in any respected scientific journal) The whole notion of a homeopathic being anything more than water is silly. There’s nothing in the water! (You do understand that there is a difference between homeopathy and other forms of alternative medicine, right? Because, you know, some people think of all herbal remedies as being homeopathic. They aren’t.)
So while I might say “unlikely” regarding our being visited by space aliens, I am much closer to being certain about homeopathy. So close to certain that I don’t feel I’m going out on a limb to call it an outright scam. Worse yet, unlike the idea that we may be being visited by beings from another world, which is a rather benign kind of belief, the notion that a homeopathic can cure has been linked to the deaths of people who have made a very poor choice when considering their medical options and taking action. They have died of illnesses that are often easily curable.
We can keep asking for the evidence that aliens are visiting us. But with nothing more than anecdotes, fuzzy photos and all the talk of cover-ups, not to mention the physical challenges that visiting us would involve, we have every right to remain doubtful. On the other hand, it’s a big universe and so the door is left slightly ajar.
That can’t be said for homeopathy. We can and do reject the idea that water can be made to retain the memory of a long lost molecule or atom that was once in the water but isn’t anymore. The claim that water has a memory is horseshit. And no one has even tried to explain to me how they get the memory water with the vibration in it into pill form without losing even the freaking water with the memory? And I've asked!
So even those things we doubt are on a continuum that runs from "huh?" to “unlikely” to "complete and total bullshit. Ain’t happing. Never did and never will." And even that conclusion is held tentatively, if only very slightly so.
If it's walking in lockstep to take the skeptical position and make the skeptical case on a skeptic's website, I'm guilty as charged I guess. But read my signature...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 02/19/2011 : 07:57:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
As I read the "true" skepticism of the 20-odd active members of the debating fraternity here, a vast majority if not a totality, of the purist skeptics here feel that an agnostic position on any issue is either a "weak" form of skepticism or else not skepticism at all. Something is wrong until proven right, occasionally vice-versa, but a grey zone is not in the equation. Certainty is not only possible, it is mandatory! At one end of the spectrum or the other. In fact, there is no spectrum, only right or wrong!
|
I certainly hope you're not including me in that posse, because if you do, I'd have to seriously question your perception.
Also, you're setting up a false dilemma here. "Something is wrong until proven right". What is right and what is wrong is not necessarily the only two alternatives there is. There is a huge grey area which you dismiss, or at least you believe we dismiss without due consideration. But that is not true. Something is not-right until proven right. And "proven" is a word I dislike simply because "proof" really only matters in mathematics and whisky. In all other matters, we should use "evidence" since a skeptic's conclusion should always be tentative, and "proof" is a positive and absolute statement which leaves no room for tentativeness.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Moon-walker claims alien contact cover-up
