Pathological Skepticsm.

[Gustav]

skeptics are not scientists. most do not have an serious academic background. they are merely hanging on to the coattails of those that do real research and make actual contributions to society

no sirree

they make up for their lack of intellect by engaging the addlebrained in a transparent ploy to look smarter than they actually are. these fucks usually hang out in pseudoscience forums yakking about what science is not but can rarely ever say what it is.

it is those that fail in real science and succeed instead, in pseudoscience, that are able to refer to the pathetic highlights of their achievements...... namely the debunking of crackpots such as ufotheatre

sad

 

[Gustav]

Woo-woo: someone who draws attention to wild claims of the paranormal or metaphysical

retarted definition. skin does not know that it then begs the question as to who it is then that draws attention to a simple claim about a paranomal or metaphysical event.

skin always qualifies with "wild" and other superlatives of the same vein in blind ignorance of the fact that they are all are pretty much, a very subjective and personal opinion. unbeknowest [deleted], what is "wild" usually has a way of turning out to be quite commonplace.

In modern times, the meaning of the word metaphysics has become confused by popular significations that are really unrelated to metaphysics or ontology per se, viz. esotericism and occultism. Esotericism and occultism, in their many forms, are not so much concerned with inquiries into first principles or the nature of being, though they do tend to proceed on the metaphysical assumption that all being is "one".

[deleted]

a problem with ontologies?
boggles the mind
[deleted]

 

[Gustav]

But at the end of the day, when the thoughts are collected, only the ones that are testable can be kept. The rest must, necessarily, be discarded. This is the nature of the hypothesis.

[personal insult deleted]

 

[candy]

Skinwalker,
I believe that someone who tells another person that they only think that an alternative supplement made their symptoms disappear would qualify as being skeptical to the point of dysfunction.
"Pathological Skeptic" wear the title with pride; you most certainly earned it.

 

[btimsah]

Get spewing that bile! Please explain why my post was 'pathological', and support your argument!



I don't know, it is just the accepted term for someone who believes pseudoscientific theories are fact without any evidence. Does it matter who invented the term?



Well, I agree with Skinwalker, and the term 'pathological skepticism' seems
more apt when levelled at woowoos, in the areas he stated. So, maybe!

Pathologcial Skeptics being Woowoos, would make the term hypocritical, yes. Well done. Is that a bullet hole in your foot?



So now I'm a 'pathological skeptic'? That's just a label you try and use to demean people who disagree with you, when you know you can't prove your arguments, and are too scared to admit your theories are unsupported. I learned science, and I have no pathological traits, so trying to label me is just another baseless assertion, and that's all you guys can do.



No, what it is, is that you woowoos see the term woowoo as derogatory, and want a similar phrase to throw back. Even when it's pointed out to you that 'pathological skepticism' fits the woowoo mindset more than that of a scientist or true skeptic, you still refuse to admit it.



Now, that is really a stretch. If I denied I was a pink giraffe (which I am not) would you assume I was? Rather pathetic attempt to hang a label on me, and it demonstrates how desperate you are.



That's how science works! Scientists must be skeptical first, so they don't bias or affect the results of their work. If they work towards a foregone conclusion, guess what happens? False positives are attained, and flaws ignored.



What was your point? That 'pathological skeptics' are scientists, or that I am one?

My point is that you thought I was referring to you when I posted about pathological skeptiscm. That is what got your panties in a wad. Don't fear though, many do that - and then blame me for their own assumptions.

Also, the term Pathological skeptiscm is no more "propaganda" than the term woo-woo. Weather you are one of them or not is up to you, but I can only take it that you did not like the term because you thought it applied to you.

It's like in school when someone would say; "She's such a prostitute" and the same girl always turned and says; "Who you callin a prostitute"?!

But, you did a good job trying to spin this around. I can see through your debunkery.

 

[SkinWalker]

Skinwalker,
I believe that someone who tells another person that they only think that an alternative supplement made their symptoms disappear would qualify as being skeptical to the point of dysfunction.

I'm assuming you are referring to me. I do recall some similar comment. But I tell you this, I am swayed by evidence. I'm completely willing to revise my position should someone show evidence that said "supplement" is consistently beneficial in the manner to which it is claimed. This means empirical testing. Show me the evidence, I'll change my position. There are many natural remedies for health related problems that are legitimately demonstrated to be effective. Most aren't as effective as medicines that are refined to be more specific, but I'd be hard pressed to find a viable solution to my natural drug of choice: coffee.

"Pathological Skeptic" wear the title with pride; you most certainly earned it.

I'd like to see you qualify that assertion. Merely making a derisive comment because you disagreed with something I said doesn't demonstrate it. If you really want to get even, show the evidence and hold me to my word that I'll revise my position to agree with you. What, by the way, would it take to get you to agree with me?

 

[phlogistician]

My point is that you thought I was referring to you when I posted about pathological skeptiscm. That is what got your panties in a wad. Don't fear though, many do that - and then blame me for their own assumptions.

That is a lie! Re-read the thread, liar! My first post was a response to JamesR, discussing which is more harmful, woowoos or 'pathological skeptics', it was not a reply to your opening post. YOU then engaged me by quoting my post to JamesR, and accused me DIRECTLY of being a pathological skeptic.

Also, the term Pathological skeptiscm is no more "propaganda" than the term woo-woo. Weather you are one of them or not is up to you, but I can only take it that you did not like the term because you thought it applied to you.

Short memory hey woowoo? You accused me of it DIRECTLY. It was not guilt my association on my part, you said;

See, Phlogistician - it is your pathological skeptiscm

So I didn't think it applied to me, you accused me of it.

It's like in school when someone would say; "She's such a prostitute" and the same girl always turned and says; "Who you callin a prostitute"?!

No it's not, you said, in reply to my post, after quoting me;

Well that was pathological bullshit.

You didn't just throw the phrase in the air, and see who responded, it was aimed directly at me.

But, you did a good job trying to spin this around. I can see through your debunkery.

It seems you can't even remember the chain of events in the thread, let alone see through anything! Typical woowoo behavior though, stating something as fact, when the evidence shows the opposite! Well done, is that another bullet hole in your foot?

 

[Giambattista]

'OK OK! (running out of the shower all drippin).......
first, you pre-sume there WAS A 'big bang'. actually this 'fact' is being questioned by some SCIENTISTS......so. ISbig bang a myth?? can we be sure it's not?
as for your question of whay are you/we here, and how come matter energy exists at ALL.
this is why it is interesting to consider that it is NOT JUST matter-energy, but matter-energy AND consciousness. that if we understandmatter-energy is conscious/sentient, then we realize it is naturally CREATIVE....eternally so

Merely used that as an example. I'm aware it is not set in stone.

 

[shaman_]

me)))))))bottom line is you lot cant take crit but love to dish it out

Yes believers take criticism very well...

me((((((((you'll assume tat we are moprons who are blind to your moves. we aint.......

No I do not think believers are morons. Some very smart people can be deluded. Perhaps we are all deluded to some extent.

we see shit yo deny

You are seeing what you want to see. It makes your life more exciting.

let me explain it agin. it is someone who is a fundamental materialist. whose default poistion is 'if yer cant measure it it aint real'
as i've said in anothertread? in a way i value you insistence of measureing. for we know only too well when dodgy beliefs are accepted they bring all kinds of evils. true. BUT so does materilistic assumption too! like Nature is dead etc.............

we therefoore need to be very carfeul then how we examine all about all this. for example, does one equate a familiy who claim to have had n abduction experince wit some New Ager who claims to channel an entitiy who claims there is a 'White Brotherhood'...etc?.............your insistenceof objectivity actually suppresses your fullness of being , and tis dogma affects all others' potentiial for such experience

This isn't really a response to my post but I am used to that. Anyway it also seems that you refer to anyone who uses scientific method as a fundamentalist materialist or a pseudoskeptic.

 

[VRob]

Here are some quick-ref definitions:

Woo-woo: someone who draws attention to wild claims of the paranormal or metaphysical in the way a train whistle draws attention to a train approaching a crossing. "Woo-woo" is the sound of the whistle, but in the case of the pseudoscience claimant, the train hasn't even left the station.

Skepticism refers to the thoughtful and reflective inquiry, particularly with regard to wild claims and speculations. Skeptic comes from the Greek "skeptikos," which translates to "thoughtful." The latin scepticus means "thoughtful" or "reflective." Skepticism, therefore, is not about being close minded, it's about being open minded.

I'll grant you that the Woo-woo is far worse, even for his own point-of-view, than a true skeptic is. I've visited this site on and off over the past few years, and the woo-woo's drive me away faster than the skeptics.

But there are also many Debunkers with an agenda here, who try and call themselves skeptics. Skinwalker, and Phlogistican are two that immediately come to mind. These people don't desire to examine the evidence. They have already written their conclusions, and find any evidence contrary to that conclusion to be smashed down immediately. Ah yes.... the true scientists that they are..

 

[SkinWalker]

But there are also many Debunkers with an agenda here, who try and call themselves skeptics. Skinwalker, and Phlogistican are two that immediately come to mind.

I can't speak for phlog, but I call myself nothing. I'm skeptical of many things, but have no agenda except truth. I feel the need to speak out when people make claims that have no basis in fact or evidence to support them.

These people don't desire to examine the evidence. They have already written their conclusions, and find any evidence contrary to that conclusion to be smashed down immediately. Ah yes.... the true scientists that they are..

I think I'll disagree with you here and issue a challenge. Produce any clear evidence that I've ignored or not otherwise refuted successfully as invalid. I'm more than willing to revise my position on any topic that finds its way in the pseudoscience/parapsychology subforums with evidence. Indeed, my position on things like ESP, ETI, etc. is that they are possible. I simply don't accept that some things said about these topics are factual since they either aren't testable or lack evidence.

What's interesting -even fascinating- is the response that the so-called "woo-woos" give to those that disagree with them and ask logical questions like "what evidence do you have." Responses like, "you're a pseudoskeptic" because you don't believe what I believe. What nonsense.

 

[phlogistician]

But there are also many Debunkers with an agenda here, who try and call themselves skeptics. Skinwalker, and Phlogistican are two that immediately come to mind.

What's at the top of my agenda? Let's take a look. Oh yes, it says

'extraordinary claims at least require some some evidence.'

Given the size of the Universe, I think it's quite likely the Universe is well populated with other life forms besides ourselves, and a proportion of these will be intelligent.

Given the size of the Universe, I don't think it's feasible that any species have travelled across it, certainly not in such great numbers as reported, to abduct and probe people, conspire with our governments, or breed with that 'Rael' guy.

So people are definitely misguided, or plain lying about it. The question then, is who, and how many? Is it 99% lies? 100% lies? What intrigues me, is that believers won't sift out obvious dross so they can look for nuggets of information.

I'd love to meet an alien. I think it would be fantastic to know we are not alone. It would be superb to learn about another planet, and share our knowledge. Sadly, I see nothing that makes it look as if this has, or will ever happen. I won't accept, not be satisfied with fakery to placate myself.

 

[VRob]

Given the size of the Universe, I don't think it's feasible that any species have travelled across it,

Then you must feel we have reached a pinnacle in our propulsion methods. I still find it confusing how supposedly intelligent individuals continue to put our technological limitations on another race that may be millions of years more advanced than us. Sure, I understand that the idea that we can only use what we know here, but even WE are examining alternative methods of propulsion.

So people are definitely misguided, or plain lying about it. The question then, is who, and how many? Is it 99% lies? 100% lies? What intrigues me, is that believers won't sift out obvious dross so they can look for nuggets of information.

Oh, I've sifted through the lies, and I'm very well aware of the damage it does to this subject. However, I'm not naive enough to assume one(or 10,000) deception eliminates ALL the evidence.

Another thing I've observed with you, and others like yourself, are you don't attack the intrieging evidence. You go after the Woo-woo's. While the still inconclusive evidence exists. Bentwaters, Mexico City, Washington DC(1952), Iranian Air Force fighter, Belgium Air Force report, ect.... along with the thousands of highly credible eyewitness testimonial. There is no single item that stands out as the smoking gun with this subject, but the sheer volume of evidence screams out that there is something very real happening here. But many like yourself will not accept anything short of proof. And if we had the proof, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[duendy]

Right On!!

 

[SkinWalker]

What's fascinating is the belief itself along with the mechanisms for the belief. Each of the cases you mention above have more mundane and prosaic explanations that are far more probable, and in most cases demonstrably so. "Volume of evidence" is meaningless when the evidence isn't repeatable or verifiable. What there *is* evidence for is the fallibility of the human perception of events that are extraordinary.

 

[duendy]

What's fascinating is the belief itself

me))))))yes i keps seeing this term bandies about, usually in your opposite dircton at 'us'. we are your'believers' aren't we? if not 'woo woo' or 'crackpot' or 'whacko' etc etc, we also get labeled 'believer'......

along with the mechanisms for the belief.

me))))))))by 'mechanisms' what do you mean? brain chemistry? try be more clear what you mean

Each of the cases you mention above have more mundane and prosaic explanations that are far more probable, and in most cases demonstrably so.

me)))as said by whom? and 'far more PROBABLE for whome?? people such as yourself who push a materialistic agenda like CsiCOP for example. known also to rather focus on debunking indivudala etc rathe than actuall address actual evidence including their own materialistic agenda

"Volume of evidence" is meaningless when the evidence isn't repeatable or verifiable.

me)))yeah, cause QUANTITY and conveyor-belt scenarios are the criteria for your 'evidence'. IF someone has a very uniquE ABDUCTION EXPERIENCE IT is UNIQUE ISN'T IT. TO I MAY SHARE CERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS LIKE LOSS OF TIME ETC. so say some family reports an abduction experience....which has happened. what do you say to them? please. tell me step by step how you would go about invistigating ther claim?

What there *is* evidence for is the fallibility of the human perception of events that are extraordinary.

yes your BIGGIE get-out-clause is that! you can always rely on tis old chestnut where you hafe the audactity an LACK of real science to patronizingly say to people they dont KNOW what they experience.
and you say this whn you dont even KHOW the 'evidence' for what consciousness IS. ie., you rae on about this in the 'know' when actually, totally blind!

 

[VRob]

What's fascinating is the belief itself along with the mechanisms for the belief. Each of the cases you mention above have more mundane and prosaic explanations that are far more probable, and in most cases demonstrably so. "Volume of evidence" is meaningless when the evidence isn't repeatable or verifiable. What there *is* evidence for is the fallibility of the human perception of events that are extraordinary.

I rest my case.

 

[SkinWalker]

Duendy, you've yet to demonstrate that anyone hafe (sic) a lack of 'real science' nor have you demonstrated that you even truly understand the scientific process. I fail to see what qualifies you to comment on others with regard to science or to comment on science itself.

Beyond that, I rely on that "old chestnut" because it happens to be demonstrably true. As to your "'evidence' for consciousness red herring... I'm plainly ignoring it because I don't like your typical red herring/strawman tactics. Make a thread if you truly want answers or actual discussion.

Oh, and -as usual- I'm not bothered with reading all the poorly formated replies within the quotes. If you haven't the time or energy to properly format, obviously they aren't important.

 

[SkinWalker]

I rest my case.

And what was you case, precisely? Just curious. Just asking questions here.

 

[Gustav]

What's fascinating is the belief itself along with the mechanisms for the belief. Each of the cases you mention above have more mundane and prosaic explanations that are far more probable, and in most cases demonstrably so.

challenge skinwalker on this. what explanations are offered. ask for links

i have never seen the pseudos tackle anything harder that a blurry photo of a speck in the sky