is it only me,or

[Mr Anonymous]

d? I do hope you take this in the right way, but after having read this last I'm begging to think that perhaps I really should think about revising my usual stance on the various ideas pertaining towards "evidence" of extraterrestrial life - I'm truly buggered if I can think of any other way of explaining the existence of you....

You take care now, and always a pleasure.

A

 

[Gustav]

imagine that
all these righteous men of pseudo science resorting to ad hominems
absolutely disgusting and utterly reprehensible
so now, if i were to incorporate the slander from skinwalker and frankie into a phrase, we would see that duendy has been tarred and feathered as a...

"crackpot from mars"

is civility really too much to ask for?

/saddened

 

[duendy]

a VILLGE crackpot from mars'..haha fukin hillarious...but no...not Mars, it simply MUST be VENUS........ in FURS dahhhhhling

 

[Zephyr]

*imagines a horrible image* No, no! *rubs eyes* Get it out, get it out!

 

[ylooshi]

Is it only me, or are there other people who find that a certaint percentage of Skeptics are pseudo-Skeptics?
Very often when they do a rubutal or a critique of what they call
" crappot theories" or "Pseudo science" they often use techniques which isn't better than intellectual fascism.

I think a lot of so-called skeptics could do to be reminded of plate tectonics and meteors.


Wegner had the idea that continents "floated" on the earth's mantle and was greatly criticized for this belief.

People suggested that meteors were rocks falling from the sky, but it took years before the idea was accepted due to the dogma of skepticism.

We might find, some day, that a lot of things held as "impossible" or "improbable" have scientific explanations.

Skepticism is fine, but if the result is supression of ideas and discovery, it goes to far.

 

[Light]

I think a lot of so-called skeptics could do to be reminded of plate tectonics and meteors.


Wegner had the idea that continents "floated" on the earth's mantle and was greatly criticized for this belief.

People suggested that meteors were rocks falling from the sky, but it took years before the idea was accepted due to the dogma of skepticism.

We might find, some day, that a lot of things held as "impossible" or "improbable" have scientific explanations.

Skepticism is fine, but if the result is supression of ideas and discovery, it goes to far.

Yes, I agree. But in fact it will seldom lead to suppression for very long. The truth will eventually prevail just as it did the cases you mentioned and many, many others. Meanwhile, a healthy dose skepticism is a good thing - except for people like Duendy and a few others here who have such open minds that they actually have holes in their heads.

Isaac Asimov was well-known for what he called his "built-in doubter." And Carl Sagan is remembered for his famous quote, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." P.T. Barnum once said that a sucker is born every minute and that's far too true. The world is full of people who will believe almost any ridiculous claim, no matter how absurd. In the end it's true, honest skepticism that keeps everything on track. NOT any of the Duendys of the world. They are simply dead weights that try to pull everything back towards the dark ages in terms of real knowledge.

 

[ylooshi]

How do you define, "pseudo-skeptic?" More accurately, how do you qualify one since the definition is clear: a "fake skeptic?"

A "pseudoskeptic" pretends to be "skeptical" when what he is doing is DENYING any and all evidence that challenges his belief.

There's also a good article here, by Marcello Truzzi - CSCOP member & professor of sociology at Eastern Michigan University.

It begins:

Over the years, I have decried the misuse of the term "skeptic" when used to refer to all critics of anomaly claims. Alas, the label has been thus misapplied by both proponents and critics of the paranormal. Sometimes users of the term have distinguished between so-called "soft" versus "hard" skeptics, and I in part revived the term "zetetic" because of the term's misuse. But I now think the problems created go beyond mere terminology and matters need to be set right. Since "skepticism" properly refers to doubt rather than denial--nonbelief rather than belief--critics who take the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves "skeptics" are actually pseudo-skeptics and have, I believed, gained a false advantage by usurping that label.

Click the link above to read the rest.

Yenald Looshi

 

[Mr Anonymous]

A "pseudoskeptic" pretends to be "skeptical" when what he is doing is DENYING any and all evidence that challenges his belief.

Gosh, and apparently only skeptics remain capable of this - well, really!

There aught to be a Law!

 

[Gustav]

well, really!

now now

/wags finger

dont be getting yourself all worked into a tizzy
you do remember what happened the last time you threw a hissy fit, ja?
breathe, boy!

very good!

 

[duendy]

j

Yes, I agree. But in fact it will seldom lead to suppression for very long. The truth will eventually prevail just as it did the cases you mentioned and many, many others. Meanwhile, a healthy dose skepticism is a good thing - except for people like Duendy and a few others here who have such open minds that they actually have holes in their heads.

Isaac Asimov was well-known for what he called his "built-in doubter." And Carl Sagan is remembered for his famous quote, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." P.T. Barnum once said that a sucker is born every minute and that's far too true. The world is full of people who will believe almost any ridiculous claim, no matter how absurd. In the end it's true, honest skepticism that keeps everything on track. NOT any of the Duendys of the world. They are simply dead weights that try to pull everything back towards the dark ages in terms of real knowledge.

Light...you clown. yer middle name is ad hominem. you talk about 'honest scepticism' and dont CHOKE....? one day....one day....go check the link which explains pseudoskeptic...one of the threads here down below. your shit is there to be seen a,b,c, d etc........now slander off yer troll

 

[Gustav]

Yes, I agree. But in fact it will seldom lead to suppression for very long. The truth will eventually prevail just as it did the cases you mentioned and many, many others.

how long is "very long"
you seem very assured. why?
would you like to see the wait time shortened?
if so, what steps would you recommend to ensure expeditiousness?

"a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." (planck)

the quote seems rather optimistic
he does not acknowledge that there could be institutional biases and fixed traditions that could span multiple generations and take as long to discard