craterchains (Norval said:
hmmmmm, does this ring a bell? To any one?
Not to me. Phlog? Arch? Ophi? You guys seen this stuff before? Was there a meeting I missed? Damnit. God Damnity-Damn! I paid my freakin' union dues guys!
craterchains (Norval said:
#1.) The burden of proof is always on the woo-woo making a sensational claim, even when he or she is not making a claim. Cause them to get frustrated.
The "woo-woo" or anyone else that makes an extraordinary claim will always have the burden of proof in science. The so-called "woo-woo" simply gets pissed when they get held accountable to the same standard as those with educations. The bar cannot be lowered out of pity. But if they aren't making a claim, why would they have any burden of proof at all?
craterchains (Norval said:
#2.) After a woo-woo gets banned or leaves a discussion, chant the following 3 times: “Mundane Claims Win The Day, Mundane Claims Win The Day, Mundane Claims Win The Day”.
I can't stand it when woo-woo's get banned. That's one of the reasons why sciforums has always appealed to me. Without the occasional woo-woo, it would be dull. Besides, I believe that all voices have the right to be heard, even the ones that are full of BS. But, conversely, I believe in the right to provide a counter-argument if warranted.
craterchains (Norval said:
#3.) None of you’re claims need to be proven, because you’re not the one making a sensational claim. Keep repeating this to yourself so as to make sure the woo-woo can’t ever challenge you.
Anyone who makes a claim or cites a fact should be ready to provide sources for information. Particularly when refuting nutty claims and speculative assumptions that are being passed off as reality.
craterchains (Norval said:
#4.) If you let a woo-woo go, without impugning or attacking them personally, then you are not doing it correctly. You must find them stupid, and inferior.
Attacking the person is simply wrong and it's bad form. I've been known to do it on occasion though I think I've kept it to a bare minimum and I remember apologizing more than once. However, I also have noted that many so-called "woo-woo's" regard attacks on their "theories" to be personal attacks. Crazymikey responded this way back in the day on more than one occasion.
craterchains (Norval said:
#5.) Woo-woo’s are stupid and inferior.
Nah. That's simply unfounded. While there may be some correlation to belief and intelligence, I personally have noted that many of the so-called "woo-woo's" are quite intelligent. Indeed, Agitprop proved herself to be both intelligent and quite superior in wit and ability to debate. Smart people who believe in strange things are generally better at producing arguments for their beliefs.
craterchains (Norval said:
#6.) A sensational claim is only wrong, if it’s presented by a woo-woo, or someone not as educated as yourself. If a fellow debunker presents a sensational claim, pretend the idea has merrit. (Take one for the team)
I don't think that's the case at all. I recall on several occasions I was corrected on some point and I readily accepted the refutation when I noticed my error. I've also seen those that you would consider to be "debunkers" argue matters in other forums. The difference is, most see the error and either revise their position or provide stronger evidence to support the original one.
craterchains (Norval said:
#7.) Always explain away a UFO as natural, remember you don’t have to prove anything. If you claim it’s something natural, the burden of proof is on them to prove it’s not natural. This way you can claim it’s anything.
That's why I usually ask questions rather than making a blanket statement with regard to UFOs. Like, "why can't this be..." My only beef with the UFO/ETI proponents is that they typically start with the result they want (that aliens drive UFOs) and work backward. I start with the observed phenomena and provide prosaic possibilities and note that these are more probable. In most cases, there simply isn't any data to draw on. But settling for the alien drivers of UFOs is bad science just because you can't make a conclusion.
craterchains (Norval said:
#8.) The truth can be our enemy, if the truth supports a sensational claim. It’s then you’re job to distort or confuse the truth so as to support a more mundane explanation.
Baloney. Their is either evidence and data or there isn't.
craterchains (Norval said:
#9.) Don’t ever offer words of support, or agreement with a woo-woo. Constantly attack, harass and confuse them. Remember how much smarter, and more important you are than a stupid woo-woo.
I think there's been plenty of cases in sciforums where skeptics have disagreed with so-called "woo-woo's" yet offered some various words of encouragement. I've done so with Starman and, just recently, Ophiolite told Btimsah he was smart and humorous. Disagreement, even adament disagreement, doesn't imply complete disdain. Not always, anyway.
craterchains (Norval said:
#10.) Visit
www.badastronomy.com and find a woo-woo to be destroyed. Search the banned list to reminisce and enjoy you’re past work. If the banned user’s list does not exist create one. Use this to compare other woo-woo’s to past ones.
Hmm. I've noticed several so-called "woo-woo's" here at sciforums that have been banned at Bad Astronomy. Hey, it's Phil's place. He can run it the way he likes.
craterchains (Norval said:
A most interesting "hobby"? May be to some and yet to others this seemingly benign attitude is also reminiscent of BET's attitudes.
What a wackjob you are! Prove it you nutter! Oh. Wait... I mean how would you know what the attitude is of a BET (assuming that stands for Bad ExtraTerrestrial)?
