Pathological Skepticsm.

[Agitprop]

Hello. I read your letter.

Certainly bizarre, if it is indeed true. I'd have to know you better if I was to place 100% faith in your story, though!

I've had similar instances occur, but not as weird as that, exactly!

That is exactly what I would think if someone told or wrote me something like that. I dismiss a lot of spiritual rambling figuring it's the result of wishful thinking combined with over-interpretation or coincidence. So that's good, Giambattista. You truly are a skeptic, but an open minded one. Cool. I don't know why I sent it to you, particularly. Strange. Just following a hunch, I guess.

 

[Giambattista]

I don't know why I sent it to you, particularly. Strange. Just following a hunch, I guess.

Actually, I think it was because I said that you could/should! But if I have spiritual importance, supposedly, then more power to me! I mean, to US!

 

[Giambattista]

If this actually happened as you say it did, then no amount of ranting by any "well-meaning" skeptic will turn you away from your belief. Their words, in a sense, will be those of an irrational amateur, exactly the opposite of what they would claim to be.

Hmmmm....

 

[Agitprop]

If this actually happened as you say it did, then no amount of ranting by any "well-meaning" skeptic will turn you away from your belief. Their words, in a sense, will be those of an irrational amateur, exactly the opposite of what they would claim to be.

Hmmmm....

Every person runs other's experiences through their own filtering systems. If a person's bottom line is one of scientific materialism, then I am by definition, crazy or fantasy based or quaint. I won't try to change their minds.

There could be any number of reasons people are attracted to this way of thinking. And the scientific materialist debunkers act as a braking mechanism to balance off the fantasy prone and the hellish order they may impose on the world if their utopian visions weren't held in check.

I initially proposed to send you this information because I sense that you can conceive it may have happened as I described it, but am not encouraging you to be anything but skeptical.

 

[btimsah]

Forum-Skeptics would make terrible scientists, real science requires little leaps of faith and a great deal of intuition before compelling evidence or data is actually arrived at. That is something these people are loath to do, although to be fair they are useful at propping up pre-existing 'facts' and theories, not much else though.

Well stated, and helps articulate the danger of pathological skeptiscm seen on these types of boards.

(Edit - and sorry I have not been in on this discussion, I did not know it had gone this far. :m

 

[btimsah]

I am not a scientist, as many of you know, but there has been something I have been trying to prove for a while now.

At the heart of the UFO/ETI cases lies an assumption that our military and NASA have it in their policy to hide certain information regarding ETI for reasons pertaining to our national security.

I have ALWAYS wanted to see if I could prove such a thing. Not just hypothesis, but prove that NASA and our Military are under strict security requirements when it comes to any evidence of ETI or the suggestion of their existance.

If you can PROVE that, then the request for "physical proof" becomes futile.

 

[Stryder]

The only reason that there might be any forms of control over such information being made public IF anything did happen is purely because of the number of nutjobs out there that could turn what ever occurs into a symbolism in their religion, which in turn could cause people to commit suicide in mass numbers, start religious wars, or pretty much undermine any powers of state that the officials hold (namely commonly refered to mass hysteria and rioting.)

Since it's suggested that governments don't want their civilisations crumbing over one night based upon such delusional thinkers, it only goes to suggest that no information would be presented directly to the public without a longterm slow process of gradually letting the information slip out.

This suggests that all you impatient UFO buffs should realise even if their is evidence, there is very good reason for it not being made public, and very good reason not to force publication if there is anything. (Which I heartily believe their isnt)

 

[Communist Hamster]

No, btimsah, it doesn't. Just because they are under orders to hide "things" oes not mean that there are "things". It may just be a precautionary measure. If such an order existed.

 

[Silas]

Apparently, KNOWLEDGE STOPS wherever certain HUMANS say it does. How do humans dictate the origin of ALL MATTER?

"Knowledge stops wherever certain humans say it does." Indeed, that is the very mantra of the Intelligent Design promoters. "This is inexplicable!" they cry, and try to insert God as a "result" into a scientific paper.

Fortunately, real science rejects such artificial boundaries to Humanity's exploration of the infinitude of knowledge. We may not yet have arrived at the answer to your previous question ("Where did all the matter for the Big Bang come from?"), but we will continue to investigate, theorise, experiment and promote those hypotheses that match closest to the truth, and ultimately give us the power to shape our destiny.

 

[phlogistician]

At the heart of the UFO/ETI cases lies an assumption that our military and NASA have it in their policy to hide certain information regarding ETI for reasons pertaining to our national security....

If you can PROVE that, then the request for "physical proof" becomes futile.

No, not really, we've done this one before. NASA and mechanised military organisations with the capability to communicate, co-operate, react. and control, are fairly recent.

So what about all the visitations that should have occurred before the govts of the world were in a position to stifle the news?

Surely, such things would then have been common knowledge.

I now think that the public have such tools as to be able to disseminate any information publicly too, despite any attempts by any organisation to quash such communcation.

So the ability to control was perhaps only during a brief period where govts had a technological advantage over the populace, say, WW11 to the 70's. Of course, that period included the cold war, and that rather destroys the co-operation required to stifle such an internationally huge story.

So, even if you could prove an attempt by govts to stifle, I really don't think such an attempt would have worked.

 

[Giambattista]

"Knowledge stops wherever certain humans say it does." Indeed, that is the very mantra of the Intelligent Design promoters.

Indeed, that statement holds just a shred of truth. Both of them do.

By the way, congratulations! You're the only one I've seen who responded to that rather drunken statement of mine.

Fortunately, real science rejects such artificial boundaries to Humanity's exploration of the infinitude of knowledge.

Yes, I've heard rumors.

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

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?

you called me a woowoo i think i didnt know the defenition of the word untill now,


and im curious as to what stuff i believe in that has no evidence?,


i dont actually believe in anything atall if you want to know and get technical,

and are you not a hypocrite and contradict yourself right there,

you believe in time, gravity, black holes, and the big bang,


so are you a fellow woowoo because those are theorys, or is there a diff between non proven science, and non proven theories? i cant make out the difference,


and for a guy who thinks its all poppycock, you do spend an awfull lot of your time replying to psudoscience threads dont you?, if its such nonesense ignore it then like an adult, you should stick within the science threads because you obviously shouldent lower yourself to such woowoo poppycock now should you.

so why such a big interest with telling people its poppycock over and over like a broken record, you thinks its BS some others dont, whats the problem? justg ignore people, you are obviously interested in telling people its BS, but for such a man of science why dont you trouble your head with more real pressing issues, like how to improve science and go make some contributions towards it on scoforums maybe, instead of spreading hate and insults?


do you know how to be polite by the way man it looks like some what of an issue or problem you cant seem to solve, or want to solve.

peace .

 

[phlogistician]

Empty, you haven't got what it takes to square up to me, that much has been proven over and over.

So let it drop, you'll only embarrass yourself again.

 

[candy]

phlogistician

If the best you can do is a personal attack againist Empty instead of logically refuting his statements the only place you have won is in your own mind.

 

[Communist Hamster]

He has already logically refuted their arguments far too many times before, and cannot be bothered to do it again when he will merely be brushed aside and told he is brainwashed, or soemting equally w00-w00

 

[candy]

If he has logically refuted others statements it has not been in this thread.

 

[Patrick Molloy]

My reply is in reference to the examples you used in describing a hypo-skeptic. To deny that man went to the moon and that the Holocaust occurred are extremes. The next three are not and tend to just express an opinion. They are hotly debated topics among mainstream thinkers. The denial of the moon landing and Holocaust are not. These deniers are rare and receive way too much publicity. Even these examples are much unalike. The moon landing was a much more concrete event. The Holocaust is a term that comes with ambiguities. Does the Holocaust apply only to the six million Jews slaughtered or does it included the 25 million Russians killed on the Eastern front?

 

[Giambattista]

you believe in time, gravity, black holes, and the big bang,


so are you a fellow woowoo because those are theorys, or is there a diff between non proven science, and non proven theories? i cant make out the difference,

You've said some silly things before, in my opinion, but this isn't quite one of those.

 

[superluminal]

It's scary in here.

 

[Communist Hamster]

If he has logically refuted others statements it has not been in this thread.

No, not in this thread. I didn't say that he had refuted stupid baseless theories in this thread. Try others.