|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2010 : 15:56:22 [Permalink]
|
Rudolfo:
Here is the point - you're supposed to be skeptical about EVERYTHING ... especially what authority tells you .... |
Well, here is as far as I will go with you with that assertion. Every conclusion we have is subject to change if the evidence merits a change. But in general, we are doubtful of any claim that is outside of the consensus of known experts on any given subject. Also, the bigger the claim, the more evidence that is required to support it. In other words, the evidence must be equal to the claim. And in still more other words, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Doubt and suspicion is not sufficient to support an extraordinary claim. And your claim is extraordinary because it challenges the consensus view. An overwhelming consensus at that.
That is why it is incumbent upon you to support your claim. As I said in another post, doubting everything does not make you a skeptic. It does, in fact, make you a cynic, and those two things are not the same.
And here ends another lesson that probably won't sink in. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 03/30/2010 : 15:59:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Rudolfo
And yet, nowhere in this forum do I find an ounce of skepticism to an absolutely incredible event that is not supported by any physical evidence as admitted by van Pelt ! That is another mystery to me. |
What's the mystery? You keep lying about what Van Pelt said.| Instead, you go to great lengths to justify the absurd. No one can name one person who died in a gas chamber. Bad faith request! |
That's not a justification, it's an application of skepticism to the question at hand.| The gas chamber is a hoax? Not evidence! |
It's not evidence. You're the one who keeps saying that it is, and when challenged on it, you resort to nothing but ridicule.| The eyewitness testimony is prima facie absurd. So what! |
Your premise did you in on that one. Why should we even exert the effort to examine your accusations of absurdity when you began with such a blatantly absurd statement?
| You're skeptical of holocaust denial, and you express your skepticism with idiotic comments and insults. What is the sense of that? |
Well, I've been trying to teach you skepticism, but you've just insulted me for my efforts.| Just for an example, take Dave W.'s comment (the only one in this thread that even referenced the OP) that the revisionist request to 'name one person who died in a gas chamber at Auschwitz' is 'in bad faith'. Can this be serious? Not to me. If you think it is serious, and represents skepticism, well ....... |
See? You can't even say why you think it's not serious. You just ridicule, ridicule, ridicule and think you've made a point.
Again, if you think it's a good-faith question, then show that you don't have a double-standard by giving me the name of one person who died during the Black Death and the proof. Proof which doesn't rest on any authority (see below).| You're skeptical of Uri Gellar. For Christ's sake, everyone in the world knows he is a fake. That doesn't make you a skeptic. You're skeptical of an alien invasion, etc. This isn't skepticism, as no one believes this nonsense. |
You're quite incorrect.| Here is the point - you're supposed to be skeptical about EVERYTHING ... especially what authority tells you .... |
Tell me what "authority" you think is telling me that the Holocaust happened. You dodged this question once already, in another form. Let's see if you'll actually discuss the issues that you keep bringing up, or if you're just here to pontificate. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Rudolfo
Banned
124 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 05:30:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Well, here is as far as I will go with you with that assertion. Every conclusion we have is subject to change if the evidence merits a change. But in general, we are doubtful of any claim that is outside of the consensus of known experts on any given subject. Also, the bigger the claim, the more evidence that is required to support it. In other words, the evidence must be equal to the claim. And in still more other words, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Doubt and suspicion is not sufficient to support an extraordinary claim. And your claim is extraordinary because it challenges the consensus view. An overwhelming consensus at that.
That is why it is incumbent upon you to support your claim. As I said in another post, doubting everything does not make you a skeptic. It does, in fact, make you a cynic, and those two things are not the same.
And here ends another lesson that probably won't sink in.
|
For crying out loud, you don't even understand the meaning of skepticism ....
skep·tic also scep·tic (skptk)
n.
1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
Instead of being a skeptic, you are the opposite, accepting generally accepted conclusions,
[we are doubtful of any claim that is outside of the consensus of known experts on any given subject.]
and doubting only the real skeptic who challenges them. LOL. Perfect.
The rest of your post, about extraordinary claims, etc., is just pure nonsense. The only goal is to provide you cover for dismissing out of hand any fact or argument that conflicts with the 'general consensus'.
Take for example this thread, not one person has even acknowledged the incredible facts in the OP about the Nuremberg and Dachau trials.
Instead there is an endless stream of idiocy and evasion. This is adolescent pseudo-skepticism ... name calling, ridicule.... etc. As is demonstrated by next 5 posts to this thread ! LOL.
|
| Edited by - Rudolfo on 03/31/2010 09:29:04 |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 06:10:45 [Permalink]
|
| For crying out loud, Skepticism =/= sceptic. Strange the Anaheim Angels don't even have wings like the dictionary told me. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 07:04:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Rudolfo
The rest of your post, about extraordinary claims, etc., is just pure nonsense.
|
Holy crap, I can't believe you wrote that! Number one, that is called "hand-waving" - dismissing something out of hand as beneath you to even answer. Number two, are you a total fucking idiot? Really. That comment is so apocalyptically stupid that I am literally speechless. I don't know even where to start in debating that.
Honestly, that statement shows how incredibly fucking stupid you are and how its worthless to even try to engage you in an intelligent debate. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 07:36:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Fripp
Honestly, that statement shows how incredibly fucking stupid you are and how its worthless to even try to engage you in an intelligent debate. |
Might be perceived as rude, but called for and spot on!
From the Wikipedia page on skepticism
...some advocates of discredited intellectual positions such as AIDS denial and Holocaust denial engage in pseudoskeptical behavior when they characterize themselves as "skeptics" despite cherry picking evidence that conforms to a pre-existing belief. According to Richard Wilson, who highlights the phenomenon in his book Don't Get Fooled Again (2008), the characteristic feature of false skepticism is that it "centres not on an impartial search for the truth, but on the defence of a preconceived ideological position". |
And here we have a perfect poster boy for that behavior. |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 08:06:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Starman
From the Wikipedia page on skepticism
...some advocates of discredited intellectual positions such as AIDS denial and Holocaust denial engage in pseudoskeptical behavior when they characterize themselves as "skeptics" despite cherry picking evidence that conforms to a pre-existing belief. According to Richard Wilson, who highlights the phenomenon in his book Don't Get Fooled Again (2008), the characteristic feature of false skepticism is that it "centres not on an impartial search for the truth, but on the defence of a preconceived ideological position". |
And here we have a perfect poster boy for that behavior.
|
Wow, Starman, excellent find. I predict that Rudy's response will be to stick his fingers in his ears and shout "La la la la la, I am not listening to you..."
Yes, I know my response was rude, but that comment deserved that level of rudeness. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 03/31/2010 : 08:23:55 [Permalink]
|
A skeptic is one who doubts that which is unproven; a fool is one who doubts that which is.
You got nothing, Rudolfo.
|
"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 03/31/2010 10:09:34 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 10:56:51 [Permalink]
|
Rudolfo:
1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions. |
As long as you want to make your dictionary an authority on the full meaning of skepticism, have you looked up "scientific skepticism"? No? I didn't think so.
Also, "generally accepted conclusions" is a rather nebulous phrase in that a generally accepted conclusion could be that the majority of Americans believe that the world was created by a creator. That's a generally accepted conclusion. Do you doubt what you are told about how your computer works? When you go to bed at night do you doubt that the sun will come up tomorrow? And if not, why not? Those too are generally accepted conclusions.
"Scientific Skeptics" when looking at denial claims made by conspiracy theorists defer to a consensus of people who are expert in the field in question, because any one person can't be an expert in all fields of endeavor. It is not our job to question or doubt everything. It is our job to remain open to competing evidence and to change our view if the evidence is compelling enough.
As a wise man once said; "We must keep an open mind, but not so open that our brains fall out."
Let's take Climate change as an example. At one time it seemed reasonable to a lot of skeptics to question whether it was at least in part due to anthropomorphic causes. As the data grew, and the consensus of scientists working in the area of climate science grew to believe that man made causes were indeed contributing to global warming, many of the early skeptics of climate change changed their position based on the data and the growing consensus of experts in the field. It may be a skeptics job to question authority, but only up to the point where it becomes unreasonable to question that authority. Rudolfo. Are you getting this?
You can question whether evolution happens, because that's what the overwhelming consensus of evolutionary biologists say happens, but you would be foolish to do so. And it wouldn't make you an "evolution skeptic" if you did doubt the consensus of scientists on the matter. It would put you firmly in the camp of evolution deniers, who have another agenda and evolution doesn't conform to that agenda.
I understand Rudolfo, that you are right now figuring out how you can evade what I am saying here, look up another dictionary definition, and call me idiotic again. But I'm not really posting this comment for your enlightenment. I doubt that's possible anymore, given your previous statements about what you think skeptics are supposed to do, after being corrected repeatedly. We have lurkers, and part of my job is to talk to them, and to point out where your train has run way off of its rails...
And yes. An extraordinary claim like those made by holocaust deniers does require extraordinary evidence, because of the enormity of the claim.
Hunches don't make it.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Rudolfo
Banned
124 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 12:54:25 [Permalink]
|
[As long as you want to make your dictionary an authority on the full meaning of skepticism,]
I didn't have to look it up, I explained it correctly a few posts ago, I know the dictionary definition, I know common usage, I posted the definition for your benefit. I know what it means. You, apparently, don't.
Changing the meaning of common words, like skeptic, or evidence, is a standard tactic of dishonest debate. You can read about it with documented examples in Smith's article linked earlier. And you'd learn something about holocaust debate too.
And of course, you like the other pseudo-skeptics on this forum, evade evade evade discussing the holocaust conspiracy.
|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
 Posted - 03/31/2010 : 13:20:31 [Permalink]
|
If it wasn't for the effort he has put into some of his ramblings I would have called Loki at this point.
Amazing how much blatant hypocrisy that will fit in a small mind. |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2010 : 13:26:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Rudolfo
And of course, you like the other pseudo-skeptics on this forum, evade evade evade discussing the holocaust conspiracy. |
Why won't you answer my questions? |
- 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 - 03/31/2010 : 13:47:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Rudolfo
[As long as you want to make your dictionary an authority on the full meaning of skepticism,]
I didn't have to look it up, I explained it correctly a few posts ago...
|
No. You didn't. But it doesn't really matter because, as I said, I didn't really post that for you. I knew I would and did get exactly the reply I expected from you when I posted. You're a closed circuit.
But hey, did you ever bother to look up "scientific skepticism?" Of course you didn't...
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Rudolfo
Banned
124 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2010 : 07:26:08 [Permalink]
|
[But hey, did you ever bother to look up "scientific skepticism?" Of course you didn't... ]
I am a scientist (pretty high powered engineer with a long resume). I don't have to look up scientific skepticism.
I did look up skeptic, and printed it for your benefit. You ignored the dictionary definition. Amazing to me.
Let me try to make it clearer than clear.
Without any of the subtleties whatever, what is the essential meaning of the word skeptic?
Answer: a skeptic is one who doubts ! One who requires evidence and proof !
Instead for you a skeptic is someone who ridicules anyone who doubts the 'consensus of experts'.
And, that is all you do, ridicule. You seem to think that agreeing with the 'consensus of experts' gives you the prerogative, which you exercise freely, to dismiss any fact or argument that discredits the consensus. This is the exact opposite of skepticism.
Now, let me illustrate -
The holocaust consensus is that the Nazis attempted to exterminate the European Jews by transporting them to camps and gassing them during WW II, and did kill six million Jews.
I show you a Zionists article in 1919 claiming a holocaust of six million Jews in Europe, and you completely ignore it. Prima facie evidence that the holocaust is a hoax. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice ..... well, you know !
I show you pictures of happy well fed Jewish children in the camps at the end of the war, prima facie evidence that the holocaust did not happen, and you used some sort of pretzel logic to dismiss them.
I show you that Soviets (or Poles) constructed a fake gas chamber at Auschwitz, prima facie evidence of a hoax, and again, you dismiss it.
I show you a fake gas chamber at Majdanek, prima facie evidence of a hoax, the only other 'gas chamber' in existence, and again by some sort of pretzel logic that is absurd on its face you reject that too.
I demonstrate that the best 'eyewitness testimony' is phantasmagoria, prima facie evidence of a hoax, and you ignore it.
I demonstrate how the Zionists were able to make pure phantasmagoria from unidentified eyewitnesses the basis of US policy, prima facie evidence of a hoax, and you ignore it.
I demonstrate that 'confessions' obtained by torture became judicial fact, prima facie evidence of a hoax, and you ignore it.
Etc.
You think that the 'consensus of experts' is all you need as an argument. You think it is foolish to doubt it. That the consensus in itself is sufficient reason to ignore or dismiss any fact or argument against the consensus. Let's see how you put it ....
[It may be a skeptics job to question authority, but only up to the point where it becomes unreasonable to question that authority.]
Read the definition of skeptic again ! It never becomes unreasonable to question authority. That is the role of the skeptic.
|
| Edited by - Rudolfo on 04/01/2010 07:29:10 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2010 : 07:43:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Rudolfo
I am a scientist (pretty high powered engineer with a long resume). |
Another engineer who thinks he's a scientist. | Without any of the subtleties whatever, what is the essential meaning of the word skeptic? |
Yes, just ignore the context. That makes everything better.| Answer: a skeptic is one who doubts ! One who requires evidence and proof ! |
And we have that.| And, that is all you do, ridicule. |
Hypocrite.| You seem to think that agreeing with the 'consensus of experts' gives you the prerogative, which you exercise freely, to dismiss any fact or argument that discredits the consensus. This is the exact opposite of skepticism. |
You haven't actually presented any facts or arguments that discredit the consensus. You've been attacking strawmen.| I show you a Zionists article in 1919 claiming a holocaust of six million Jews in Europe, and you completely ignore it. |
No, you showed us no such thing.| I show you pictures of happy well fed Jewish children in the camps at the end of the war, prima facie evidence that the holocaust did not happen, and you used some sort of pretzel logic to dismiss them. |
You're ignoring the story of those children, which explains why they were healthy. When are you going to address it?| I show you that Soviets (or Poles) constructed a fake gas chamber at Auschwitz, prima facie evidence of a hoax, and again, you dismiss it. |
Because it's a museum display, and not evidence of the Holocaust or evidence of a hoax.| I show you a fake gas chamber at Majdanek, prima facie evidence of a hoax, the only other 'gas chamber' in existence, and again by some sort of pretzel logic that is absurd on its face you reject that too. |
The idea that the window proves that it wasn't a gas chamber is stupid. You ignore the criticisms of your arguments.| I demonstrate that the best 'eyewitness testimony' is phantasmagoria, prima facie evidence of a hoax, and you ignore it. |
That was "the best" testimony?! By whose standards?| I demonstrate how the Zionists were able to make pure phantasmagoria from unidentified eyewitnesses the basis of US policy, prima facie evidence of a hoax, and you ignore it. |
Now there is some pretzel logic: 1940s US policy somehow indicates that millions of Europeans have been lying for a century.| I demonstrate that 'confessions' obtained by torture became judicial fact, prima facie... |
You keep using that term. I do not think you know what it means.| ...evidence of a hoax, and you ignore it. |
You can't even explain how that makes anything a hoax.Your problem is that you ignore the facts that don't agree with your hypothesis.| Read the definition of skeptic again ! It never becomes unreasonable to question authority. That is the role of the skeptic. |
And yet, when I question your authority, you evade and ridicule. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The holocaust conspiracy
