Pathological Skepticsm.

Gustav said:
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

I've been down this road before with him, and many others. They simply will not acknowledge the Belgium incident, or the Bentwaters incident(watch him bring up the lighthouse excuse :rolleyes: ).

Simply put, they aren't interested in examining the evidence. They want to proof placed in their laps.

Here, I'll show you.....

Skinwalker: How about the Belgium incident Skinwalker, or the Bentwaters. Why don't you tackle one of those. Give us the mundane explanation.
 
Gustav said:
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
hahaha. eyah, i know. and this is what dis-inspired me to carry on braekin my arse making a transcript of the ducmentary i previously mentioned. cause as i see it. these believers in the materialistic ideology here just do NOTHING but sit on their precious fat arses sputin 'Show meee zee evidence'/ jus that. comfort zone or WHATTT?
 
VRob said:
I've been down this road before with him, and many others. They simply will not acknowledge the Belgium incident, or the Bentwaters incident(watch him bring up the lighthouse excuse :rolleyes: ).

Simply put, they aren't interested in examining the evidence. They want to proof placed in their laps.

Here, I'll show you.....

Skinwalker: How about the Belgium incident Skinwalker, or the Bentwaters. Why don't you tackle one of those. Give us the mundane explanation.

I'm not familier with either. Of course, I've seen them mentioned in boards like this one, but not being one that buys woo-woo literature at the local Barnes & Noble (Atlantis Rising, UFO magazines, etc.), I don't know the data associated with the cases. Perhaps you'd care to start a thread (or link to one already begun on sciforums) and present the data for review and comment.
 
duendy said:
hahaha. eyah, i know. and this is what dis-inspired me to carry on braekin my arse making a transcript of the ducmentary i previously mentioned. cause as i see it. these believers in the materialistic ideology here just do NOTHING but sit on their precious fat arses sputin 'Show meee zee evidence'/ jus that. comfort zone or WHATTT?

Either the evidence exists or it doesn't. Why accept a speculation to be factual without evidence? What mode of critical thought allows fantasy to replace reality in any valid way beyond the temporary enjoyment of watching a movie or enjoying a good work of fiction?

Is this what gustav wanted you to challenge me on? That makes little sense.
 
SkinWalker said:
I'm not familier with either. Of course, I've seen them mentioned in boards like this one, but not being one that buys woo-woo literature at the local Barnes & Noble (Atlantis Rising, UFO magazines, etc.), I don't know the data associated with the cases.

And this is why I stated 'I rest my case'.

You already concluded that the two cases I asked you to comment on are 'Woo-Woo literature'. You mock these incidents simply because they might be associated with a subject you've already assumed is hogwash, without having the slightest idea what they're about.

This is exactly what a pathological skeptic would do. Do you not see this? :rolleyes:
 
Communist Hamster said:
Is being a pathological skeptic worse than being a woo-woo?

No, not necessarily. As I stated earlier, or in another thread, the Woo-woo's do more damage to this subject that the pathological skeptic.

The Woo-woo's need to stop posting rediculous info as if it's the smoking gun. And the pathological skeptic needs to realize that not everyone interested in this subject is a Woo-woo, and that not every incident is based on pure fantasy.

There is a mountain of evidence directly related to this subject. Unfortunately, there's also a mountain range of fraud, and deceit also associated with it. It's very difficult to seperate the facts, from the fantasy.
 
VRob said:
And this is why I stated 'I rest my case'.

You already concluded that the two cases I asked you to comment on are 'Woo-Woo literature'. You mock these incidents simply because they might be associated with a subject you've already assumed is hogwash, without having the slightest idea what they're about.

This is exactly what a pathological skeptic would do. Do you not see this? :rolleyes:


You're absolutely right. Please accept my apologies. What literature might I find these cases in to review and then return to discuss? The Journal Science? Scientific American?
 
The potential for damage is greater from the pathological skeptic because they want people to disown their own experiences in favor of the limited view of the pathological skeptic. The concept that if it can not be reproduced in a laboratory it did not happen denies reality. Miracle healings defy the norm and can not be reproduced on demand but the are reality that as yet is unexplained but documentable. Which is of course why I find them fascinating and of course figuring out how to produce them might come in handy someday.
 
Miracle healings have not been shown to have happened. "Pathological skeptics" have been demonstrated not to exist except with regard to the "woo-woo" skeptical of proven claims.
 
VRob said:
Then you must feel we have reached a pinnacle in our propulsion methods.

Far from it, but we have two problems here. One, distance, and to cover great distances, we need great speed. Great speed needs a lot of energy to get the object in motion, and again, lots to slow it. We can only travel at great speed where it is safe, ie, where there is very little dust and gas, as at speed, these would cause a lot of friction/damage. (Mr Anonymous and I had a discussion about this in another thread).

So far all we have are reaction engines. That's it. We can make different kinds, but that is it.

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.

Relativity would pose them the exact same problems as us. If they have conquered these limitations, they are far, far in advance of our technology, and then the supposed 'facts' of alien visitation and abduction just don't fit. They need to abduct humans to study us? They don't have decent remote sensing? They can't decode our DNA and study us from that? They anally probe people? They can't aneasthetise people adequately? They keep abducting the same person, over and over, as if they can learn more from them? Surely, their understanding of biology would be as advanced as their physics, and none of these things would be necessary to such an advanced race.

So believers impose technological restrictions on aliens too! They think aliens need invasive techniques, when we are trying to do that as little as possible using MRIs and keyhole surgery!

Sure, I understand that the idea that we can only use what we know here, but even WE are examining alternative methods of propulsion.

Propulsion isn't the answer, only warping space makes space travel really feasible. Even if you can travel quite quickly, (at a fraction of C using a propulsion system) it will take decades to get anywhere, lots of energy to get there, and when you get there, there might not be a life bearing planet. Assuming aliens are investigating the entire galaxy, how come they come to earth so often? Surely, they are sending probes to every star (100 billion ish) to look for life. That's a lot of probes. So for these guys to be coming as often as reported to earth, they must be local, have signalled back to home, to send more probes, or be able to just pop here on a whim, quickly. If they can do the latter, I really doubt they can't hide from radar, crash in the Desert, or mutilate cows. The facts just don't fit. The supposed evidence for aliens is convolved from disparate sources, into something that just doesn't fly.

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.

I agree, but when you have believers still clinging to things that have been proven false, it damages the field, and lessnes respectability, and most scientists won't go near the subject. A certain amount of house cleaning is needed, and believers need to start debunking, to be taken seriously.

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.

I challenge people's beliefs, be they religious, or pseudoscientific. Many people believe without any evidence. I have an issue with that, yes.

the sheer volume of evidence screams out that there is something very real happening here.

No, this is where we really do disagree. There are lots of Christians and lots of Jews on the planet. Lots of volume, let's say. One side say Jesus was the messiah, other side don't agree. Volume on both sides, and disagreement. Volume means very little. If it did, you'd have to be a Buddhist, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu etc all at the same time, and every schizm of each!

But many like yourself will not accept anything short of proof. And if we had the proof, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I'd settle for some good evidence right now. Proof would be great, evidence would be nice.
 
VRob said:
Simply put, they aren't interested in examining the evidence. They want to proof placed in their laps.

Here, I'll show you.....

Skinwalker: How about the Belgium incident Skinwalker, or the Bentwaters. Why don't you tackle one of those. Give us the mundane explanation.

Hello old man, sorry to butt in, know the questions put to Skin but he's obviously not biting and you've peaked m'curiosity.

Not having a go, just asking - lets say for absolute fact both the Belgium Incident and the RAF Brentwaters case were indeed the consequence of extraterrestrial visitation exclusively - no if's, no but's, no doing the King Tut Strut....

What exactly does that actually tell us?
 
it tells us that "both the Belgium Incident and the RAF Brentwaters case were indeed the consequence of extraterrestrial visitation" (Mr Anonymous)
 
Spontaneous healing has been documented many times in medical records.
Only a pathological skeptic would deny this reality.
 
Gustav said:
it tells us that "both the Belgium Incident and the RAF Brentwaters case were indeed the consequence of extraterrestrial visitation" (Mr Anonymous)

:)... Precisely so!

It tells actually nothing whatsoever - it tell us nothing at all about who our alien friends are, where they are from, what they are doing here. It tells us completely bugger all about how our alien friends went about getting here. It tells us nothing about what they were up to when they were here, or where they went to when they buggered off again afterwards.

All it tells is is that there are aliens.

One could have flicked a coin to arrive at that same conclusion and have had a 50% chance of being correct, and as far as the matter of intelligent life existing outside the confines of this solar system - not a one of these so-called Pathological or Pseudo Sceptics has in practice actually been arrogant enough to state with impunity "No, no such thing is possible," or words to that effect.

In short, simply knowing that extraterrestrials occasionally pop by informs us only that there are aliens out there to do it - about the rest....?
 
quite
there is, however, another ballgame going on.
how do we cope? what new strategies do we adopt? does nasa get an unlimited budget? blah? and blah?
 
Gustav said:
how do we [cope? what new strategies do we adopt? doesinasa get an unlimited budget?blah? and blah?

Deucedly good question that - I've never been able to fathom quite why it would be advantageous for a Government to actually cover-up the existence of such a thing as visiting ET's - there's no profit in it, only expense.

No such animal as a cheap conspiracy. It's all outgoings and for an indefinite term.

Perhaps, back in the 50's, when a person could be condemned anti-American simply for being just a little bit gay - not being actually American (nor indeed Human) at all in the first place, not exactly a prospect one can expect anyone to run up the flag-pole and get anyone to salute in a hurry I'm sure....

But from the mid 70's on, everyones Spielberged out on the notion of rapturous extraterrestrial contact - NASA got a lot of appropriations by congress not associated with hard edged science like the requisite follow-ups the space shuttle programme needed, but softer edged stuff like the foundation of SETI, re-evaluation programmes furthering investigation into the notion of life being possible on Mars - there was spending where the average Senator could happily face the folks back home because the folks back home we're actively queueing round the block shelling out perfectly good dollar to see what could be anticipated as being the "follow-through" of where such interest eventually lies in wide screen and glorious living Technicolour.

10 years back, one little faux pas on the part of a NASA geologist had Bill Clinton on the podium speaking presidentially about the auspicious times we were living in and what is to follow, all because someone merely thought one bit of meteorite contained evidence of millions year dead fossilised life in it - the appropriations necessary for all both current and the next 20 years to comes worth of funding for Mars related exploration NASA acquired wholly on the back of that one simple mistake.

The political will to invest was that great.

Were an actual Contact scenario formally announced - about the only panic that would ensue would be the ungodly stampede that would occur on Wall Street as the world and his dog snapped up options everything even peripherally space-tech related.

There'd be deaths, obviously. Tragedies, I imagine, each in their own respect. Slower, older Stock Brokers trampled underfoot by the younger, fitter ones, fleeter of foot. But this is just natures way of thinning the herd...

I don't know about unlimited NASA Funding, but I doubt they'd have to actually ask very hard for very much for a good long while afterwards, that much'd be a given... ;)
 
nice
it is not actual aliens that are required but mere rumors of some.
hah! so we have gone down this road several times!

Mr Anonymous said:

There'd be deaths, obviously. Tragedies, I imagine, each in their own respect. Slower, older Stock Brokers trampled underfoot by the younger, fitter ones, fleeter of foot. But this is just natures way of thinning the herd...

:D
 
Well, Like Martin Luther King, I too have a dream..... ;)

But, yeah. Nicely and concisely put, we need our take on aliens - quite where the devil these poor actual aliens fit into any of it...

Well, the only ones that could tell you that for a fact would be them.

Have a good evening old man, 2 in the am this side of the pond and my missus is going to moider me quite without the excuse of it being the am full stop if I don't shut this thing down for the night.

Have fun, gotta run.

A ;)
 
candy said:
Spontaneous healing has been documented many times in medical records.
Only a pathological skeptic would deny this reality.

I'm completely willing to accept their "reality." Simply cite the source.
 
Back
Top