Are You A Quack?

[wegs]

I agree. I also think part of the forcing that occurs on the part of the conventional science fans here is this blackballing of posters who present views and evidence that contradict their own worldview. It's a typical sociological phenomenon which can be seen from country clubs to gangs to political parties. It's how the ever vulnerable herd defends itself from outside invaders who would present subversive ideas and facts and threaten the unity of the group. The group's credo is enforced like a law on the members and all must march in lockstep to the cadence of infallible science. Heretics are quickly sniffed out, labeled, and banished all in the name of the holy standards of the group. Conform like sheep or be cast out into the outer darkness.

I think for the sake of scientific discussions, there is such a thing as objective reasoning and facts. So, when faced with ideas that aren't built around facts, it might be why you receive opposition, at times. But, it's not like you're posting about the paranormal in the physics section. lol

 

[paddoboy]

science is effective because it HAS criticism. it is based upon it... but it is not criticism by belief, rather it is criticism based upon evidence.

Bingo! All science at one time or another was "outside the box" at one stage or another........all science is open to proper evidenced based criticism.
It advances to acceptance stage when and if the evidence shows it as matching observation and aligning with experimental results, while successfully predicting.
Some here have "proposed" new possible thoughts, and outcomes, but when questioned on those thoughts, or when asked for references/links or citations supporting what they suggest, they have remained eerily silent on the matter.
The cap certainly fits those sorts, and fits perfectly when those unsupported claims are made in the sciences without any support or citation.

 

[paddoboy]

I think a 'quack' is someone who tries to pass off opinions/beliefs/philosophies as factual, and uses circumstantial ''evidence'' or fabricates ''evidence'' to back up their assertions. I don't recall Magical Realist ever doing this. He tends to posit his own beliefs, and how he's come to them, but that doesn't make him a 'quack.' Forcing others to believe what you believe with no objective ''evidence'' to back it up, would fall under ''quackery.''

While MR certainly posts his stuff in the right sections, that does not mean that what he posts should not be questioned.
And in the MR particular case, whenever any questioning, and/or possible suggesting of other outcomes are raised, is when MR most certainly does object, and object strongly. Check out some of those threads of his, particularly the ones where he has been infracted or the thread closed.
This being first and foremost a science forum, means that any claim in any section that is not supported by appropriate evidence is questioned.
And again, the thread is basically about quacks, cranks and other alternative adherents, that claim to over ride existing, accepted scientific theory, and/or non scientific claims for which other solutions are possible.
Again, this thread is not specifically about ghosts, goblins, Bigfoot or Aliens conducting medical experiments.
It is not and was not about MR, and the cap fitting he has undertaken, was his own doing.

 

[Magical Realist]

I think for the sake of scientific discussions, there is such a thing as objective reasoning and facts. So, when faced with ideas that aren't built around facts, it might be why you receive opposition, at times. But, it's not like you're posting about the paranormal in the physics section. lol

I use reasoning and facts on paranormal topics just as I do in science topics and philosophy topics. The same loyalty to evidence and logic that tells me evolution is real, and that the Big Bang happened, and that global climate change is occurring, also tells me that ufos and ghosts and esp are all real too. Some speculation is involved at times, but I always stick to the facts and the eyewitness reports themselves.

 

[wegs]

I use reasoning and facts on paranormal topics just as I do in science topics and philosophy topics. The same loyalty to evidence and logic that tells me evolution is real, and that the Big Bang happened, and that global climate change is occurring, also tells me that ufos and ghosts and esp are all real too. Some speculation is involved at times, but I always stick to the facts and the eyewitness reports themselves.

I've read some of those things, so I know you do, but the scientific method can't really be used when trying to ''prove'' the paranormal. Some of it is based on belief or faith.

 

[Magical Realist]

I've read some of those things, so I know you do, but the scientific method can't really be used when trying to ''prove'' the paranormal. Some of it is based on belief or faith.

The scientific method couldn't prove relativity, evolution, or quantum mechanics when those theories were first formulated. It's pretty much an outdated artifact from middle school science fairs imo..

 

[wegs]

The scientific method couldn't prove relativity, evolution, or quantum mechanics when those theories were first formulated. It's pretty an outdated artifact from middle school science fairs imo..

You're right, but they are provable using a scientific method. It's like proving God, or proving ghosts and ghouls using a process that can only explain those things that are found within the confines of what physics can explain. I may believe in a supernatural realm, but I can't prove why I believe it, using science. At least, not yet. lol

 

[wegs]

While MR certainly posts his stuff in the right sections, that does not mean that what he posts should not be questioned.
And in the MR particular case, whenever any questioning, and/or possible suggesting of other outcomes are raised, is when MR most certainly does object, and object strongly. Check out some of those threads of his, particularly the ones where he has been infracted or the thread closed.
This being first and foremost a science forum, means that any claim in any section that is not supported by appropriate evidence is questioned.
And again, the thread is basically about quacks, cranks and other alternative adherents, that claim to over ride existing, accepted scientific theory, and/or non scientific claims for which other solutions are possible.
Again, this thread is not specifically about ghosts, goblins, Bigfoot or Aliens conducting medical experiments.
It is not and was not about MR, and the cap fitting he has undertaken, was his own doing.

I've always thought though, that those other sections that fall outside of science, etc...were more flexible in what could be posted and what could be considered ''evidence.''

 

[paddoboy]

The scientific method couldn't prove relativity, evolution, or quantum mechanics when those theories were first formulated. It's pretty an outdated artifact from middle school science fairs imo..

But science in general, is a discipline in perpetual progress. It survives on continued genuine questioning....it's theories are continually modified/updated and in time grow in certainty.
Relativity, is modeled on what we observe and the results of experiments: It's a robust, near certain aspect of physics....Quantum mechanics although not completely understood, is also observed and aligns with experimental results....Evolution on the other hand is a scientific theory, that has grown to the certainty stage. Your "outdated" comment is simply a reflection of your angst in the fact that the scientific methodology has shown such mythical stories as Bigfoot, ghosts, goblins and other supernatural nonsense as just that...mythical nonsense.
Science and the scientific methodology also raise your angst and deflate your beliefs in supposed Alien contact. Many reasons have been given as to why such contact has been highly unlikely. That does not reflect well on your personal beliefs and subsequent credibility.
But again, a reminder, this thread is more a reflection on the non mainstream scientific claims that are often put in the scientific sections to obtain a hint of credibility, and the general refusal of their proponents to support their propositions with citations etc.
It is not specifically about you and your myths, which you to your credit, rightly debate in the proper section.

 

[paddoboy]

I've always thought though, that those other sections that fall outside of science, etc...were more flexible in what could be posted and what could be considered ''evidence.''

I agree wegs......But they are still open for critical questioning, something which MR has shown in the past to not suffer gladly.
eg: My argument against the unlikely stories of Alien contact and/or visitations, is after travelling so many light years to get here, they are obviously far in advance of us....so really would not have anything to be afraid of from us humans.....so why do they appear in out of the way places, to isolated individuals? Why not in front of the UN buidling? Why not make their visitations official? Why just the continued flittering in, and then flittering out again? And over so many decades and hundreds and thousands of sightings.
UFO's exist....I've seen one. But to jump to the sensationalistic conclusion that they are of extraterrestrial origin, is not logical. Many many possibilities and alternative answers can explain otherways...atmospheric anomalies and disturbances, light reflections/refractions, mirages etc etc.
Claiming Alien visitations is extraordinary and life changing, and as such requires extraordinary evidence.
Could Earth have been visited by Aliens? Certainly yes! But as yet we do not have the required evidence to support that to any reasonable degree.
But again, this is not specifically about MR's supernatural and/or Alien claims.
This is more about the concerns with those that post unscientific crap, unsupported nonsense, in the sciences, and refuse to give any citation supporting said nonsense.

 

[wegs]

This is more about the concerns with those that post unscientific crap, unsupported nonsense, in the sciences, and refuse to give any citation supporting said nonsense.

I thought so, sorry if we derailed a bit.

 

[Boris2]

A man walks into an office.

Man: (Michael Palin) Ah. I'd like to have an argument, please.

Receptionist: Certainly sir. Have you been here before?

Man: No, this is my first time.

Receptionist: I see. Well, do you want to have the full argument, or were you thinking of taking a course?

Man: Well, what would be the cost?

Receptionist: Well, It's one pound for a five minute argument, but only eight pounds for a course of ten.

Man: Well, I think it's probably best if I start with the one and then see how it goes from there, okay?

Receptionist: Fine. I'll see who's free at the moment.

(Pause)

Receptionist: Mr. DeBakey's free, but he's a little bit conciliatory. Ahh yes, Try Mr. Barnard; room 12.

Man: Thank you. (Walks down the hall. Opens door.)

Angry man: WHADDAYOU WANT?

Man: Well, Well, I was told outside that...

Angry man: DON'T GIVE ME THAT, YOU SNOTTY-FACED HEAP OF PARROT DROPPINGS!

Man: What?

A: SHUT YOUR FESTERING GOB, YOU TIT! YOUR TYPE MAKES ME PUKE! YOU VACUOUS TOFFEE-NOSED MALODOROUS PERVERT!!!

M: Yes, but I came here for an argument!!

A: OH! Oh! I'm sorry! This is abuse!

M: Oh! Oh I see!

A: Aha! No, you want room 12A, next door.

M: Oh...Sorry...

A: Not at all!

A: (under his breath) stupid git.

(The man goes into room 12A. Another man is sitting behind a desk.)

Man: Is this the right room for an argument?

Other ManJohn Cleese) I've told you once.

Man: No you haven't!

Other Man: Yes I have.

M: When?

O: Just now.

M: No you didn't!

O: Yes I did!

M: You didn't!

O: I did!

M: You didn't!

O: I'm telling you, I did!

M: You did not!

O: Oh I'm sorry, is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour?

M: Ah! (taking out his wallet and paying) Just the five minutes.

O: Just the five minutes. Thank you.

O: Anyway, I did.

M: You most certainly did not!

O: Now let's get one thing quite clear: I most definitely told you!

M: Oh no you didn't!

O: Oh yes I did!

M: Oh no you didn't!

O: Oh yes I did!

M: Oh no you didn't!

O: Oh yes I did!

M: Oh no you didn't!

O: Oh yes I did!

M: Oh no you didn't!

O: Oh yes I did!

M: Oh no you didn't!

O: Oh yes I did!

M: No you DIDN'T!

O: Oh yes I did!

M: No you DIDN'T!

O: Oh yes I did!

M: No you DIDN'T!

O: Oh yes I did!

M: Oh look, this isn't an argument!

(pause)

O: Yes it is!

M: No it isn't!

(pause)

M: It's just contradiction!

O: No it isn't!

M: It IS!

O: It is NOT!

M: You just contradicted me!

O: No I didn't!

M: You DID!

O: No no no!

M: You did just then!

O: Nonsense!

M: (exasperated) Oh, this is futile!!

(pause)

O: No it isn't!

M: Yes it is!

(pause)

M: I came here for a good argument!

O: AH, no you didn't, you came here for an argument!

M: An argument isn't just contradiction.

O: Well! it CAN be!

M: No it can't!

M: An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

O: No it isn't!

M: Yes it is! 'tisn't just contradiction.

O: Look, if I *argue* with you, I must take up a contrary position!

M: Yes but it isn't just saying 'no it isn't'.

O: Yes it is!

M: No it isn't!

O: Yes it is!

M: No it isn't!

O: Yes it is!

M: No it ISN'T! Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.

O: It is NOT!

M: It is!

O: Not at all!

M: It is!

(The Arguer hits a bell on his desk and stops.)

O: Thank you, that's it.

M: (stunned) What?

O: That's it. Good morning.

M: But I was just getting interested!

O: I'm sorry, the five minutes is up.

M: That was never five minutes just now!!

O: I'm afraid it was.

M: (leading on) No it wasn't.....

O: I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to argue any more.

M: WHAT??

O: If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

M: But that was never five minutes just now!
Oh Come on!
Oh this is...
This is ridiculous!

O: I told you... I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you PAY!

M: Oh all right. (takes out his wallet and pays again.) There you are.

O: Thank you.

M: (clears throat) Well...

O: Well WHAT?

M: That was never five minutes just now.

O: I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!

M: Well I just paid!

O: No you didn't!

M: I DID!!!

O: YOU didn't!

M: I DID!!!

O: YOU didn't!

M: I DID!!!

O: YOU didn't!

M: I DID!!!

O: YOU didn't!

M: I don't want to argue about it!

O: Well I'm very sorry but you didn't pay!

M: Ah hah! Well if I didn't pay, why are you arguing??? Ah HAAAAAAHHH! Gotcha!

O: No you haven't!

M: Yes I have! If you're arguing, I must have paid.

O: Not necessarily. I *could* be arguing in my spare time.

M: I've had enough of this!

O: No you haven't.

M: Oh shut up!

(Man leaves the office)

 

[Magical Realist]

...

 

[paddoboy]

I thought so, sorry if we derailed a bit.

It wasn't you that derailed it.
The cap just happened to be a perfect fit.

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

The same loyalty to evidence and logic that tells me evolution is real, and that the Big Bang happened, and that global climate change is occurring, also tells me that ufos and ghosts and esp are all real too. Some speculation is involved at times, but I always stick to the facts and the eyewitness reports themselves.

Magical Realist

i have to argue that one

for starters, it's called confirmation bias at best. you want to believe in something therefore you see what you believe is evidence for it. that does not mean that there really is evidence for it. (also note that there are different levels and types of evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence )

for two, there is absolutely no empirical evidence that can be validated that demonstrates "ghosts" or "ufo's" are real
(and by "ufo's" i specifically mean the biased delusional jump from "unknown" to "alien", because there is absolutely zero evidence that aliens, as in non-earth life forms, are real. period. full stop.)

and most important of all... lets address this last part separate

Some speculation is involved at times, but I always stick to the facts and the eyewitness reports themselves.

eyewitness testimony is the absolute worst evidence you can have for anything... even investigators prefer to use it only to direct the investigation rather than as a firm evidence of anything.

2- this link/video deals with ufo's, aliens and eyewitness testimony. it also comes from an actual scientist. not a layman.

 

[Magical Realist]

eyewitness testimony is the absolute worst evidence you can have for anything... even investigators prefer to use it only to direct the investigation rather than as a firm evidence of anything.

No it isn't. Eyewitnesses determine news reports, history, and criminal trials. We use it everyday to determine what is happening around us. I've driven hundreds of thousands of miles relying on my own eyewitness account of what is roughly 100 yds in front me. There's not the slightest reason to doubt what people see and hear that's right in front of them when there is no motive to lie.

or two

, there is absolutely no empirical evidence that can be validated that demonstrates "ghosts" or "ufo's" are real
(and by "ufo's" i specifically mean the biased delusional jump from "unknown" to "alien", because there is absolutely zero evidence that aliens, as in non-earth life forms, are real. period.full stop.)

LOL! So spouts the typical armchair skeptic who has never studied an actual ufo or ghost case in all their lives. Spare me the summarial dismissals. I've been studying these phenomena way too long to not know better. The evidence for these phenomena is both compelling and abundant. Why don't you educate yourself: http://www.ufoevidence.org/

 

[Daecon]

Now see what you've done, Stumpy?

 

[Yazata]

I think a 'quack' is someone who tries to pass off opinions/beliefs/philosophies as factual

I'm going to disagree with that sentence.

Doesn't everyone do that every day? We all express our beliefs. It seems to me that's what 'stating one's belief' means: asserting the truth of propositions that may or may not be true in fact.

When disagreements arise, sometimes it's because the justifications for the assertions aren't convincing. (More often it's because the assertions contradict somebody else's pre-established beliefs.)

The way to respond to unconvincing assertions isn't to launch into a crazy fundamentalist jihad against perceived heretics and unbelievers. The way to respond is to calmly say "I'm not convinced" and perhaps give some reason why. I'm not convinced by all of MR's views on UFO's, ghosts, and certainly not by many of his views on politics. But I don't hate MR for speaking what some on the board evidently consider science-blasphemy. He's actually one of the more creative and provocative participants on this board. (You're pretty good yourself, Wegs. You've started some good threads recently and you are usually a voice of reason around here.)

Here's a definition of "quack" that I agree with. (It's the dictionary definition that MR posted in post #3):

quack

[kwak]
Spell Syllables
noun
1.
a fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill.
2.
a person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to skill, knowledge,or qualifications he or she does not possess; a charlatan.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/quack

I think that the word is most commonly used in the medical context, but it might arguably be more broadly applicable to public pretense in any profession or area of expertise. I'm not convinced that Siegel (author of the text in the OP), has very much background or expertise in epistemology (the theory of knowledge) or the philosophy of science, and almost certain that he has no professional qualifications (or license to practice) in psychiatry, no matter how solid an expert he is in supersymmetric string theory or whatever it's supposed to be. He's just a layman in the fields in which he's expressing such strong and abusive opinions. If he pretends to be anything more than that... he's in danger of becoming a quack himself. He's very close to the edge.

And I don't think that most of the non-professional science-cranks that he's attacking are literally quacks either, unless they try to pass in public as professional scientists. They are just laypeople (often self-educated in very imperfect and incomplete ways) with ideas that somehow contradict current professional opinion (or at least Siegel's).

Unlike Siegel, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. (Why is disagreement about scientific matters so terrible? Why is uniformity and conformity of lay opinion so important?) At least the people that he excoriates are taking an interest in science, at least they are trying to think about it for themselves. Isn't that supposed to be a good thing? If not, then what's the alternative? 'Justification by faith alone'? (Where have we heard that before?)

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

No it isn't. Eyewitnesses determine news reports, history, and criminal trials.

Magical Realist
1- just because it is used doesn't mean it's a good thing.
2- if you don't believe me, try actual research
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1228141?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/apl/62/1/90/

http://agora.stanford.edu/sjls/Issue One/fisher&tversky.htm

http://www.simplypsychology.org/eyewitness-testimony.html

if those are too technical, try this
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/

more to the point: it is entirely subjective. too many factors can affect what you remember about what you've witnessed.

We use it everyday to determine what is happening around us. I've driven hundreds of thousands of miles relying on my own eyewitness account of what is roughly 100 yds in front me. There's not the slightest reason to doubt what people see and hear that's right in front of them when there is no motive to lie.

you obviously have absolutely no real life experience with people or reality then... see above links for more information.

everything you see is subjective to you. that doesn't make it real, nor does it mean it truly exists. there are cognitive interpretation issues unique to you.
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/bul/109/1/25/

https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...nd-delusions/84173C1E63DE8424843F1A423DA69B75

https://www.cambridge.org/core/jour...ar-disorders/CF7482D6207941E5E04E7EAAA9D61E85

events can shape how you think altering your perspective: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0005796799001230

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278262607000322

this is even evident in non-stressful events that are clear and concise: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1207/s15516709cog1104_1/abstract

interpretation of events can depend on culture as well: http://www.jstor.org/stable/748192?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents


just because you believe it to be true doesn't mean it is, nor does it mean it's real. regardless of how functional you appear to people in society (or to yourself). after all, most serial killers have serious impairment but can still function socially (and some are very adept at making you believe their social integration)

So spouts the typical armchair skeptic who has never studied an actual ufo or ghost case in all their lives

according to you
how do you know about what i've done in my life?
let me share something with you: i'm a retired badge carrying armed professional investigator. i've had to investigate this type of thing in conjunction with various crimes (or on their own in some cases).
i believe what can be validated and proven ... and i've yet to find any legitimate empirical evidence supporting that BS and - this is important - i'm not so stupid or gullible that i believe everything published on the internet is legit or real ... i do my homework.

Why don't you educate yourself: http://www.ufoevidence.org/

confirmation bias at it's worst
this bears repeating: i'm not so stupid or gullible that i believe everything published on the internet is legit or real ...

see 4chan RULE 37

.

tell you what: prove they exist to the scientific community using their methods and levels of evidence ... then we can talk. there is no "reasonable doubt", nor is there room for "guessing". proof is what is required. something that isn't a hoax, shooped or etc...

until then: it's all crap and you fell for it

Now see what you've done, Stumpy?

Daecon
ROTFLMFAO
i know, right?

 

[sideshowbob]

So we've gone from being called a psychotic quack for disagreeing with an OP to someone just noticing your hair color.

There are two kinds of people in the world: racists and people who don't like to be called racists. If somebody calls me a racist, I don't bluster and deny it. I ask them what they see as racist in my behaviour and I try to correct my behaviour accordingly.