is it only me,or

[SkinWalker]

What you are guilty of is being a fool.

How can you tell someone that recounts a personal discovery to you that they are wrong? You have no idea what they can do. You never met them except on the internet.

I can know much about what they can and cannot do. Mammalian physiology is well understood, and H. sapiens have not demonstrated any of the abilities people claim they have. Moreover, there is no evolutionary example of these abilities in either extant or extinct species that demonstrates that such abilities are an evolutionary advantage or that they have evolutionary origins.

So, I can say quite confidently that when someone claims to have the ability to bend a spoon with his mind, he is lying. Either to himself or others.

Now, should you show me the testable evidence of this ability (or others) that can be confidently reproduced, I would be willing to revise my position.

 

[SkinWalker]

Comming back on my previous post about PSEUDO skeptics
ridiculing people who present something that contradicts them; there are many instances that they criticise tests,
yet having no qualification in that certaint area to do so.

Thats the case with Michael Shermer. In 11/2001 he wrote in "Baloney Detection" :

" The biggest problem with the cold fusion debacle, for instance, was not that Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischman were wrong. It was that they announced their spectacular discovery at a press conference before other laboratories verified it. Worse, when cold fusion was not replicated, they continued to cling to their claim. Outside verification is crucial to good science. "

Forgeting that he is primaly a psychologist with limmited knowledge to speak in that area.

Why does being educated as a psychologist automatically imply that one is ignorant in other areas? Perhaps you should read Parks' Voodoo Science, in which he levels some very specific criticisms against Cold Fusion. Criticisms which are coming from a physicist.

We hear often these days from cold fusion believers about the great progress that has been made in cold fusion. We will hear it again on April 30, at the APS meeting. This week, WN received a long report from the Naval Research Laboratory. It was dated March 26, 2001, just three days after the anniversary of the 1989 cold fusion press conference in Salt Lake City. The report was about a Pons and Fleischmann kind of experiment: an "open" electrolysis study of excess heat in the electrolysis of heavy water, using a Pd-B alloy cathode. One of the authors is none other than Martin Fleischmann. How appropriate. Twelve years ago at this time, the news was about the unreliability of closed calorimetry experiments. Twelve years later, cold fusion research is still struggling with the same point. Progress?
http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN01/wn042001.html

It would seem that Michael Shermer is uniquely qualified to speak to us about pseudoscience and the power of belief among people. The question of the paranormal and the pseudoscientific is often one of psychology. So, again, you've failed to demonstrate any fake skepticism. Indeed, I've yet to see you qualify in your own words what genuine skepticism is.

Please, properly delineate the two so that a discussion may indeed ensue.

 

[Mr Anonymous]

now, mr A, dont recall you asking ny of the others here to refrain from uing such ....harldy courteous terms when referring to people who claim to have had 'non-ordiinary' experiences--like errr WHACKOS< LIARS< MENTALLY ILL< WOO WOOS....all rather insulting , no?

Firstly, nothing to apologise for, but always deeply appreciated when offered nevertheless. Thank you.

Now with regard to the above - I assure you, should anyone ever demonstrate the misfortune of referring to myself, personally, in any of the above terms they'll be ruing the day they ever clapped eyes on me before sundown in no short order and thanking me for putting them straight.

The singular point is, no one ever does.

I do, on the otherhand, routinely face the charge of Materialist, Debunker, Pseudo-Skeptic... whatever the duce that particular piece of rhetorical nonsense is supposed to mean - based largely on the fact I'm capable of writing at length in what may appear, to a person of a non-academic background, to be "scholarly tones".

It's an affectation I adopt purely for my own amusement. Many board members here, actually being from an actual academic background such as myself, recognise it as the send-up it most usually is. Others don't.

The truth of the matter though remains largely far more prosaic - truth be told, the actual reason I write to the general length I do is seriously because I often find I don't actually know what my actual answer is going to be until I've had occasion to formulate it in writing. Until its down "on paper" as it were, I honestly don't know what it is I'm going to say.

I tend to figure things out as I'm writing.

That being the case being, for which you can only accept my word I suppose, as far as being a UFO nut goes, these days I deal with this stuff for a living and have been for more years than I care to divulge and yet even I don't buy into one jot of the sorts of guff UFO Belief seems content to buy into wholesale.

You ask me "do you wholly believe in materialistic science??" as if Science is some form of religious belief - Science is simply method, its the antithesis of all belief. That demonstration remains its one, sole and only fundamental tenant hardly qualifies its adherents as members exclusively of some manner of establishment Cult.

The charge that Science rejects that which it cannot define demonstrates only little to no understanding at all of Quantum Physics, an area of study founded completely on the investigation of nature on a level which fundamentally eludes any possibility of direct quantitative measurement simply by virtue of way nature itself appears to be actually structured - yet despite these grave, utterly "non-materialistic" physical aspects of nature when viewed at its most profoundly fundamental level - the application of this exact form of scientific study has produced the Electronic Age and a far, far greater understanding of the Universe as a cohesive whole than mankind as a species has ever manged to understand throughout the course of our history to this present day.

Science it's self forces us to understand nature in terms intangible to common experience - from the antibiotics you'll take when suffering from a bacterial infection to the production of the "consciousness expanding" LSD an anti-materialist may happily take - the benefits of both and more come from simply applying sound method when trying to discern the truth underlying what on the surface merely only appears to be.

There's no dogma in this. There's no belief. All Science sets out to provide is an understanding of how things work in a manner that can be communicated, understood and applied by others for everyones equal benefit - merely pointing to a mystery and revealing in its very mysteriousness as if that in itself provides some form of answer...

That very much is dogma. That remains wholly what religion remains based upon.

Rather as religion is not God, Belief alone is simply not understanding - it remains simply what it is. Belief.

Since science remains the antithesis of that very exact thing, how exactly is it supposed to address things which can't actually be addressed? The continual demands of science to provide answers for what people choose to believe in is a process not at all unlike walking into a store that only sells Computers and PC peripherals and demanding to be furbished with a pound a ripe English Cheddar and berating the establishment as being in some way wanting for simply not being actually geared up to facilitate the wholly inappropriate demand being required of it.

 

[Zephyr]

I believe there was a Monty Python sketch about that

(And surely a scholarly person knows the different between a tenant and a tenet? Not that I ever make mistakes ... )

In other words, I mostly agree with Mr Anonymous' explanation. As far as I'm aware science doesn't claim to answer questions about religion. Of course, that doesn't stop some people getting uptight when theories of evolution, etc. are mentioned. Although those are mainly the ones who aren't creative enough to jump at the chance to say that the Creator intended evolution all along

 

[Mani]

Why does being educated as a psychologist automatically imply that one is ignorant in other areas? Perhaps you should read Parks' Voodoo Science, in which he levels some very specific criticisms against Cold Fusion. Criticisms which are coming from a physicist.



It would seem that Michael Shermer is uniquely qualified to speak to us about pseudoscience and the power of belief among people. The question of the paranormal and the pseudoscientific is often one of psychology. So, again, you've failed to demonstrate any fake skepticism. Indeed, I've yet to see you qualify in your own words what genuine skepticism is.

Please, properly delineate the two so that a discussion may indeed ensue.

Sorry, but as a person who is a psychologist and who hasn't
studied chemistry at the the university, this is quite a
poor argument

As for Dr Robert Park, he is qualified to do such criticisms,
yet it is still a very complex subject as there many tests
which were done in institutions which contradict him,and which mysteriously isn't present in his book.

link: http://www.alternativescience.com/voodo-science.htm

Some think the evidence is still inconclusive but that deserves further research link: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595109689,00.html

I am interested to known what you think about the chemical imbalance article, for if it is truth then it is
pseudo-science. Why then should we scorn then more cold
fusion then pharmaceutical companies accussed of fraud?

 

[SkinWalker]

Sorry, but as a person who is a psychologist and who hasn't
studied chemistry at the the university, this is quite a
poor argument

I'm curious if your own qualifications rival Shermers. I'm also curious why you would assume that he hasn't sufficient coursework in chemistry or even physics. Perhaps you attended the University with him?

At any rate, Dr. Shermer's education includes:

Ph.D. Claremont Graduate School: 1991 History of Science (Dissertation: Heretic-Scientist: Alfred Russel Wallace and the Evolution of Man: A Study on the Nature of Historical Change. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation Information Service)
M.A. California State University, Fullerton: 1978 Experimental Psychology
B.A. Pepperdine University: 1976 Psychology/Biology

I think its safe to assume that he studied chemistry enough to grasp the concept of cold fusion. Moreover, I'd assert that suggesting cold fusion is some mystical process that only those that are specifically educated in it or related disciplines can understand is also a characteristic of pseudoscience.

As for Dr Robert Park, he is qualified to do such criticisms,
yet it is still a very complex subject as there many tests
which were done in institutions which contradict him,and which mysteriously isn't present in his book.

link: http://www.alternativescience.com/voodo-science.htm

I really have little interest in cold fusion and either its proponents or detractors. I have noted, however, that little has changed with regard to the claim: we have yet to have the free energy it promises; and as far as I can tell, there has not been a published work that outlines a reproducible process to achieve cold fusion.

Some think the evidence is still inconclusive but that deserves further research

Sure. As long as my tax dollars aren't being wasted on what appears to be a pseudoscience, people should do what they feel is important.

I am interested to known what you think about the chemical imbalance article, for if it is truth then it is
pseudo-science. Why then should we scorn then more cold
fusion then pharmaceutical companies accussed of fraud?

If I get an opportunity to read it, I'll offer an opinion.

I'm still waiting for a qualification, in your own words, on who are the "fake" skeptics versus those that are the "real" skeptics.

 

[duendy]

Mr A, you claim that 'science' is the antithesis of all belief"...and ten inquite how can such an antithesis of believe possible seriously examine 'woo woo' claims....admittedly you didn't say woo woo, but i am pointing to what you refer
Your words say one thing. ACTIONS do another.....your argument reminds me of the loyal supporter of communism or captialism, that ie., ifthe ideology was JUST given the chance evrything would be alright.....but i rather look directly AT the ideology, the dogma, the myth, th 'sciencism'.......Skin worries about possible religion happening if claims of the phenomena we are on about started being 'taken seriously'.....and i agreed. BUT i am also saying, tat we ar ALREADY up to our follicles in te sciencism myth. millionsof kids are being drugged on its pills! FACT!.....so it is not some rather heroic enterpreie of anti-belief people going where none has gone before. That is a myth

 

[Zephyr]

I've found a possible definition for pseudoskepticism!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskeptic

 

[Gustav]

... em, d?..........soon?

what pedantic claptrap. this is not a goddamn chat room

i mean, cramming a post with gossip, anecdotes, confessions and digressions is absurd. why these garrulous and untidy narratives are more suited for a goddamn novel. droning on interminably like this wastes everyones time

all that was asked was that........duendy should refrain from being a hypocrite
so dump the trivialities and get to the fucking point!
what fucking tedious bullshit

 

[Mr Anonymous]

I believe there was a Monty Python sketch about that

(And surely a scholarly person knows the different between a tenant and a tenet? Not that I ever make mistakes ... )

Indeed, there was a Python Sketch of exactly such exactitude, and mmmmmm.... Yup, did rather go through the spell checking there with only the one eye open really, didn't I...?

Thanks for the thumbs up by the way. Much of the appreciated.

your argument reminds me of the loyal supporter of communism or captialism, that ie., ifthe ideology was JUST given the chance evrything would be alright.....but i rather look directly AT the ideology, the dogma, the myth, th 'sciencism'.......Skin worries about possible religion happening if claims of the phenomena we are on about started being 'taken seriously'.....and i agreed. BUT i am also saying, tat we ar ALREADY up to our follicles in te sciencism myth. millionsof kids are being drugged on its pills! FACT!.....so it is not some rather heroic enterpreie of anti-belief people going where none has gone before. That is a myth

....Gnnnnnnnn.... for the love of Puppies.....

d, what knowledge reveals and what people elect to practically do with that knowledge aren't the same thing. A scientist can talk till they are blue in the face, other than other scientists frankly no one ever actually listens. It's only when other people wrap their collective heads around certain idea's science may possible propose as being possible and they see either financial/economic/political and/or military value in the notion that anything actually starts to happen - all at the behest of everyone else.

That individual scientists can be swayed to give opinion preferable to certain third party interest, be they of social, political or militarily concern remains one facet only of the fact that we live in a democracy - there's as much good with the deal as there is bad, but at least no one sticks a gun up your nose and blows you're brains out for saying such-and-such-sucks-the-root.

At least not publicly anyway.

These are issues outside of the process of science itself - which remains just that. A process. A method to be applied.

That is all science is.

Quite where the rest of this stuff is y'come out with comes from I have no idea, but then again I and people like me are too deaf, dumb and blind to even know what it is we are thinking in the first place - so why bother asking us our opinion - we're all just sheep, right?

what fucking tedious bullshit

Oh, I absolutely couldn't agree with you more old man. Jolly well done with finally coming to terms with that. Marvelous progress.

 

[Gustav]

Yup, did rather go through the spell checking there with only the one eye open really, didn't I...?

so you finally agree that it is better to have both eyes open when posting in sciforums? this is indeed a milestone in your life, frankie. an absolutely and entirely unexpected turn of events. and to imagine they all said you couldnt!

my heartiest congratulations

now we must work on getting all those brain cells to work in a coherent fashion and who knows, you might actually produce a legible sentence or two.

keep up the good work, frankie

bye!

 

[Mr Anonymous]

keep up the good work, frankie

Absolutely marvelous stuff there Gustav, whatever it was you said, I'm sure it was probably marvelous. Who's "frankie"?

 

[Gustav]

Absolutely marvelous stuff there Gustav, whatever it was you said, I'm sure it was probably marvelous. Who's "frankie"?

dear me
things have definitely take a turn for the worse
was it not just an hour ago you were being your usual garrulous, pedantic and vindictive self?

Anyway, where does the time go? It's been real.

the blasted time fugue again? and in addition to that, an identity crisis?
how can i help? should i call for the men in white coats? they have cookies y'know. perhaps a diagnosis?

dissociative phenomena (losing time, fugue states, memory losses, changes in personality); is a symptom of ptsd

do you really believe you are mr anonymous, frankie?

 

[Gustav]

whatever it was you said, I'm sure it was probably marvelous.

do not fret so, boy
we will work on that too and eventually get you up to speed
i promise
it might be just a crawl but still an improvement on being at a standstill
wouldnt you say?

 

[Mr Anonymous]

do you really believe you are mr anonymous, frankie?

Actually I merely just asked. Who's mr anonymousfrankie?

 

[Gustav]

of course you did, boy

 

[Mr Anonymous]

"Of course I did", what?

 

[Gustav]

"Of course I did", what?

look. i understand you are probably experiencing a rather stressfull and traumatic episode of the ptsd psychoses. it is normal to be in a state of confusion. i understand it is quite late over in britain so why not get some rest? do you have some place you can lie down? a bench perhaps?

tomorrow you will wake up feeling chirpy as an old fart and can go back to being your usual garrulous, pedantic and vindictive self right here in sciforums

i promise
now run along boy

 

[Mr Anonymous]

Eh? What now?

 

[duendy]

Mr A......
a) the original intention of the Greek concept for 'Democracy' was to disclude women and slaves.....!

b) we aren't in a demoracy. its even worse than the above

c) 'science' doesn't comeon its own. itis silly to even think se. it is always wit people. and te mainstream science we are subjected to is sciencism. a merger btween science and state used for social control and the maintanance of te status quo, as was the church&state preceeding it