Pathological Skepticsm.
- Thread starter btimsah
- Start date
Gustav said:
Why do some people insist on playing the "You seem to think you know what I believe. Why don't you tell me what I believe, smarty pants.." game? Why don't you clear up your beliefs for us G.
I think you are a wishy-washy pseudo... whatever. I think you think that photos and testimony are enough to conclude that UFO's are aliens. I think this is dumb.
There. That's what I think. Am I wrong? If so, please clarify.
M
Mr Anonymous
Guest
superluminal said:
Sort of, though personally I'dve gone for the Elonium Q36-XRNX Series - buck for buck, dollar for dollar your looking at twice the explosive space modulation at a fraction of the initial engery outlay.
Also, it comes in spanky green with leather upholstery trim. Chicks really, really groove on that....
Gustav said:
I'm sorry Gustav, I'm not sure I follow you here what it is you're asking me to do. I mean, on the one hand I'm not entirely sure I'd agree with the basic thrust of the argument that different standards and kinds of evidence actually applies to any of the sciences to begin with - let alone astronomy.
The standards applied to all the sciences regarding evidence remain pretty universal - it's no good saying that simply because you have a haystack and a needle can get lost in one that by dint of the fact that you have a field with a haystack in it a needle is in someway predisposed as being resident inside it simply by dint of the fact that you have a haystack to begin with.
The search for any form of truth, scientific, spiritual or otherwise, is essentially a search for a needle in a pile of hay no less stacked than any other.
As far as the sciences go, the requirement remains always first and foremost to present reasonable evidence that infact the needle one is looking for is infact resident in the particular haystack one is looking at over and above any of the others contained within the same field - and then finding the needle as final proof as a consequence of following the hypothesis put forward in saying its worth looking in the first place.
That doesn't change in any of the disciplines as far as I'm aware.
superluminal said:
while most of my posts addressed to you seek to establish the same charge (and perhaps fairly successfully since you refuse to address or dispute in any meaningful manner) you have not indicated as to why and how, you think i am one.
please, in a concise manner, lay out the methodology and data utilized to arrrive at said conclusion. i will then either clarify, rebut or accept the charge.
that is more than any of you fucks would do
superluminal said:
this quote is a testament to the stupidity of the pseudo skeptics and lay bare to all, their nefarious agenda
ja, sl, the photo of a speck in the sky is indeed a et spaceship. i know this because my kid brother who snapped it, told me so.
happy now?
superluminal said:
which is?
Last edited:
Gustav,
You are now engaging in rampant obfuscation of whatever issue we were discussing (I forget). I have no idea what you believe or base your beliefs on. I am a simple scientific skeptic. I wish only evidence that stands up to common sense, intelligent review.
No true scientist accepts photos or hearsay as primary evidence since they can both be easily faked and fabricated as has happened untold numbers of times. All that shows is that there is some odd phenomenon going on. Most objective scientists feel that the UFO phenomenon consists of the following components:
1) Misidentification of natural phenomena
2) Hoaxes
3) Mental abberation (hallucination)
4) Psychological effects of waking seizures or dreams.
There is no positive scientifically valid evidence after years of investigation that warrants any strong belief that UFO's are alien spacecraft.
There. Now you know what I believe and where I stand. Can it get any simpler?
So, What do you believ and where do you stand Gustav? Can you bring yourself to be clear and concise regarding your position?
You are now engaging in rampant obfuscation of whatever issue we were discussing (I forget). I have no idea what you believe or base your beliefs on. I am a simple scientific skeptic. I wish only evidence that stands up to common sense, intelligent review.
No true scientist accepts photos or hearsay as primary evidence since they can both be easily faked and fabricated as has happened untold numbers of times. All that shows is that there is some odd phenomenon going on. Most objective scientists feel that the UFO phenomenon consists of the following components:
1) Misidentification of natural phenomena
2) Hoaxes
3) Mental abberation (hallucination)
4) Psychological effects of waking seizures or dreams.
There is no positive scientifically valid evidence after years of investigation that warrants any strong belief that UFO's are alien spacecraft.
There. Now you know what I believe and where I stand. Can it get any simpler?
So, What do you believ and where do you stand Gustav? Can you bring yourself to be clear and concise regarding your position?
superluminal
i rather you form your own opinion based on what has actually has been said. i find it ridiculous that i have to justify my stance to anyone when instead it should be quite apparent to anyone who would bother to actually read. the medium is persistant. all posts remain.
for instance... duendy asks...
i reply
in another instance...jamesr asks...
i reply...
i rather you form your own opinion based on what has actually has been said. i find it ridiculous that i have to justify my stance to anyone when instead it should be quite apparent to anyone who would bother to actually read. the medium is persistant. all posts remain.
for instance... duendy asks...
duendy said:
i reply
in another instance...jamesr asks...
jamesr said:
i reply...
spookz said:
Gustav,
Can I deliver what? Logic? I already did. There is a human explanation for EVERY UFO sighting. Belgian or otherwise. I've already explained that without repeatable, scientific evidence there is every reason to believe that ALL sightings fall into the categories I've already presented.
What's more logical - the known failings of humanity, including lying, delusions and honest misinterpretations, or aliens that have never left a shred of valid evidence?
What's more logical - the most rare and odd atmospheric phenomena or aliens that have never left a shred of valid evidence?
You are clearly not interested in rational discussion. You are a UFO fanatic with nothing on your side but a wish for you alien friends to be real.
Have fun with your UFO buddies.
Bye.
Can I deliver what? Logic? I already did. There is a human explanation for EVERY UFO sighting. Belgian or otherwise. I've already explained that without repeatable, scientific evidence there is every reason to believe that ALL sightings fall into the categories I've already presented.
What's more logical - the known failings of humanity, including lying, delusions and honest misinterpretations, or aliens that have never left a shred of valid evidence?
What's more logical - the most rare and odd atmospheric phenomena or aliens that have never left a shred of valid evidence?
You are clearly not interested in rational discussion. You are a UFO fanatic with nothing on your side but a wish for you alien friends to be real.
Have fun with your UFO buddies.
Bye.
Mr Anonymous said:
Dear sir,
I think at least psychology comes close to being a science that cannot rely solely on reproducible laboratory experiments.
I may be wrong, but I highly doubt it.
Giambattista said:
Having been involved with a psychology student when I was at Uni, I can say they most definitely have laboratory experiments and data to back up their theories. Because I was roped into every survey and experiment her and her friends did as a subject. I've filled out endless questionaires, been hooked up to computers that measure reaction times, others that scanned my eyes while I read, or flashed images, etc.
Now, the 'reproduceable' part needs explaining somewhat here. Psychologists find means, modes and averages. They can't say specifics about an individual, but they can show trends in a population. So the experiment is 'reproduceable' in that if you sample the same number of people, you should get a similar result.
'relying solely' is an interesting point. I think psychology largely does rely on experimental data. I think every science does? I think we may need to decide which branch of psychology were are discussing here, as it's a broad subject?
M
Mr Anonymous
Guest
Giambattista said:
The practice of Psychiatry, perhaps. Psychology? No, pretty much all of all of it boils down to reductionable principals that can be demonstrated in controlled circumstances. Obviously, they don't tend to use test tubes so much, but psychology is a pretty lab intensive discipline nevertheless...
Okay, I had a few beers when I originally made that comment, and in such a state am more easily provoked to say something. I debated whether to say it, but decided to anyway.
My thoughts on the matter stemmed from some conversations I had with a friend of mine who had taken psychology in college. I think he wanted to major in it, but he put the education on hold indefinitely.
That's more what I was talking about: averages and the like. How a person reacts to an emotional situation (a verbal argument, lets say) is not going to be nearly as predictable as the effects of several glasses of wine on that same person. Why would it be? That was what I was getting at.
That was also the gist of what my friend had been saying: something about correlation rates of psychological theories, I believe. He said that high percentages of accuracy are hard to come by.
A perfect example of this would be in the realm of sexual preference. Numerous theories are put forth about the "pathology" (woops!) of being homosexual or whatnot. There are certainly minorities among psychologists who believe in the absent/distant father and domineering mother as a major cause of same-sex attractions (Freud, I guess). They have their data and studies that support this, but as far as I can tell, most major mental health organizations don't consider them to be a cause, and correcting them isn't necessarily going to be a cure.
This is not my league, so I'm merely making general commentary.
My thoughts on the matter stemmed from some conversations I had with a friend of mine who had taken psychology in college. I think he wanted to major in it, but he put the education on hold indefinitely.
That's more what I was talking about: averages and the like. How a person reacts to an emotional situation (a verbal argument, lets say) is not going to be nearly as predictable as the effects of several glasses of wine on that same person. Why would it be? That was what I was getting at.
That was also the gist of what my friend had been saying: something about correlation rates of psychological theories, I believe. He said that high percentages of accuracy are hard to come by.
A perfect example of this would be in the realm of sexual preference. Numerous theories are put forth about the "pathology" (woops!) of being homosexual or whatnot. There are certainly minorities among psychologists who believe in the absent/distant father and domineering mother as a major cause of same-sex attractions (Freud, I guess). They have their data and studies that support this, but as far as I can tell, most major mental health organizations don't consider them to be a cause, and correcting them isn't necessarily going to be a cure.
This is not my league, so I'm merely making general commentary.
M
Mr Anonymous
Guest
Giambattista said:
Basically, because the effects of alcohol on behaviour are more measurable, and therefore, more predictable.
Giambattista said:
As soon as folks mention Freud, I cringe. Referencing his work these days is like promoting blood letting or leeches as a medical cure. Sadly, Freud is a meme that isn't got rid of as easily as 'bad blood'.
But anyway, we are in general accord. Individuals are unpredictable, but populations follow trends, so all models have their limits.
Mr Anonymous said:
Okay, think of it this way: yes, alcohol is more measurable, but at the same time its effects are also more predictable, regardless of whether anyone is there to measure them. Nearly everyone reacts to alcohol in a very similar way, depending on tolerance and possibly a few metabolic or other physiological factors. I was talking more about the immediate effects on the body when I referred to alcohol. How person reacts psychologically is not as predictable. Some people get very belligerent and nonsensical, and others get bubbly and happy, more or less.
It doesn't take a genius to predict that pressing a hot iron against someone's skin will, 99% of the time, make them pull away and yelp in pain.
It DOES take more intellect (and perhaps a little luck) to predict whether a person will say "Yum" or "Yuck!" when presented with a plate of steamed broccoli. Or to predict whether a person prefers red, or purple as a color.
After all, those two things ARE in the realm of psychology, are they not?
Some things involving psychology are more predictable than color-preferences, but isn't much of psychology revolving around preferences of some kind or another? And preferences may change without warning.
Oh, well. I should never have said anything!
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
What you appear to be disregarding are the constants and the predictables in these hypothetical situations, while focusing on the unknowns.Giambattista said:
What are some of the constants?
1. We know that there will be some reaction when they are presented with a plate of steamed broccoli.
2. We know this reaction will vary from individual to individual.
3. We know that the reaction will be conditioned (in both the Pavlovian and non Pavlovian sense) by genetic factors, and by prior experience of foodstuffs in general and broccoli in particular. i.e. nature and nurture will have a role to play.
4. We know this reaction may vary from individual to individual, over time, and from time to time.
5. We know that the reactions 'Yum!' and 'Yuck' are reactions that are employed in other situations.
6. We know that people may have preferences for colours.
The list could be easily extended. It is equally easy to make psychology appear unpredicatable, and based upon opinion, guesswork and luck. The same can be done with any science if we focus on the areas beyond current understanding. This would be more unfair to the hard sciences, but it still seems misguided when applied to psychology.
You say - preferences may change without warning. Not so. Psychologists can define a range of causes in the internal and external environment of the individual that may cause a change of preference.
Okay. Have fun!