Very New and need to know.
- Thread starter thatmexdude
- Start date
First, Gustav has yet to define "pseudo-skeptic," a very obvious play on words with "pseudoscientist" and meant to be a counter-pejorative. Woo-woo is also a pejorative, but one based in phonetics of the term. "Woo-woo" is the sound a train makes to get attention. So the term, "woo-woo" is an analogy to the attention-seeking mystery-mongers and significance-junkies. But since it obviously offended Gustav, who appears to have taken it very personally, I'll refrain from future use of it. Instead, I'll refer to mystery-mongers and significance-junkies as mystery-mongers and significance-junkies, even though it is a lot more to type.
Second, let me recommend this link as a decent critical review of CSICOP: http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/CSICOPoverview.htm
The article (Hansen, 1992) is, however, incomplete, but I think the majority of it is present minus the conclusions and bibliography.
Third, I'd like to add that I couldn't begin to comment "The Baker Affair" link, since I've never read it, but I am familiar with the ancient "Mars Effect" criticisms.
James Randihttp://www.randi.org/jr/041103.html
"The misrepresentation of the CSICOP involvement in the Gauquelin matter has been discussed numerous times before, and that accusation is quite false. CSICOP's only fault there lay with the reluctance of astronomer George Abell to consider Rawlins as a competent authority on the subject of astrology, and they — and Abell, personally — apologized for that fact, quite adequately. There was certainly nothing "fraudulent" nor "engineered" on the part of CSICOP. In any case, the entire Gauquelin matter has faded into obscurity with the other bits of pseudoscience, having failed attempts at replication."
Absolute Astronomy.Comhttp://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/M/Ma/Mars_effect.htm
"Zelen's (and Kurtz's and Abell's) rebuttal was poorly written. Read it a second, third, or fourth time, though, and you will see that the initial appearances are deceptive. Zelen split the sample not to examine the Mars effect, but primarily to examine the randomness of the subsample of 303 champions. And it turned out that the Gauquelins did not choose their subsample randomly."
http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/resources/articles/klass-crybaby.htm ]Philip J. Klass[/url]
" Were it possible to turn back the clock, undoubtedly Kurtz, Zelen and Abell would try to be more precise in defining test objectives and protocol and would do so in writing. And more time would be spent in more carefully phrasing articles dealing with such tests. But all CSICOP Council members and Fellows have other full-time professions that seriously constrain time available for CSICOP efforts.
[...] FATE and McConnell have demonstrated the intrinsic flaw in the basic approach of those who promote claims of the paranormal -- THEIR EAGERNESS TO ACCEPT CLAIMS OF EXTRAORDINARY EVENTS WITHOUT RIGOROUS INVESTIGATION. Neither FATE nor McConnell contacted CSICOP officials to check out Rawlins' charges. This demonstrates why CSICOP is so sorely needed.
Richard Kammen
" "Crybaby" was written by Councilor Philip Klass. Although it offered to refute the cover-up charge, it ignored practically every specific point that Rawlins had made. Instead it offered blatant ad hominem attack on Rawlins' motives and personality, bolstered with rhetorical ploys--including crude mis-quotation.
Believing that a full understanding would still get this fiasco straightened out, I sent in a 28-page report called "Personal Assessment of the Mars Controversy." I came to three conclusions: (a) the scientific errors were gross, (b) Paul Kurtz was not guilty of a cover-up on grounds of lack of statistical understanding, (c) CSICOP was guilty of a cover-up by not taking Rawlins seriously, while "Crybaby" was a disgrace.
*************
So there's a few links of Rawlins-'Mars Effect' articles that give varied perspectives on the issue.
Personally, I've never been a big fan of Klass –though I have to agree with some of his points. I think he was a bit over-the-top in his ad hominem statements, but he had a point. I'd be willing to accept that CSICOP was a bit sloppy in their methodology, but I'd also argue that this was early in their existence and that they've learned from it. The work that CSICOP does is, today, top notch and their journal, The Skeptical Inquirer is well written and referenced.
The principles that CSICOP holds are worthy and meaningful and they serve the purpose of questioning the extraordinary claims of those that would attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the unsuspecting public.
So... does Gustav and the other woo-woos... uh, ahem... mystery-mongers and significance-junkies have any recent criticisms of CSICOP and skeptics at large? Something that could be considered current events?
What those who crave all-things-mysterious and find significance-in-any-spurious-correlation really hate about skeptics is that they ask questions that cause them to fall flat on their faces in the excrement of their own beliefs.
Without evidence to back their wild, speculative claims, they amount to nothing but liars. Harsh, but true. Instead of addressing the issue of evidence, they look for excuses to engage in ad hominem wars and toss insults back and forth. They also make unfounded attempts to level many of the same criticisms against skeptics that skeptics have long since leveled in their direction, such as the question of cult-like behavior and misguided beliefs.
Beliefs are fine, but need to be based on the wisdom of evidence. Otherwise, they're meaningless.
NONE of Gustav's criticisms hold true. He is good at quoting the rhetoric of others from many years ago, but seems to have difficulty forming his own critical analyses. Perhaps he can overcome this failing... we shall see. I'd like to see Gustav give us what he thinks instead of just quoting/repeating rhetoric. I've done my share of quoting others above, but I also offer my own commentary and opinions on the subject and I don't consider CSICOP completely innocent with regard to bias. But I do believe this is an organization that has worked hard to avoid it since and has used the experience to grow.
But, when you have someone questioning your beliefs, I suppose it's easier to redirect blame at them than consider that they might actually be right. Why not simply bitch and cry, eh?
In the mean time, I offer the following about CSICOP: The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
Here are some links to some choice articles in Skeptical Inquirer and on the CSICOP site.
Out of Balance, by Chris Mooney - a critical review of the ABC Primetime special: Seeing is Believing.
Critical Thinking About Energy, - by Thomas R. Castan and Brennan Downes - The Case for Decentralized Generation of Electricity
Should We Teach the Controversy, by Jason Rosenhouse - a critical look at the desire by some to teach 'Intelligent Design' in our public schools.
The Columbia University 'Miracle' Study: Flawed and Fraud, by Bruce Flamm - regarding the much hyped study of the power of prayer that ended up scamming a major peer-reviewed journal.
Pranks, Frauds and Hoaxes from Around the World, by Robert Carroll - from the writer of the book, Don't Get Hoaxed.
Complete Index of available online articles.
About CSICOP
CSICOP encourages the critical investigation of paranormal and fringe-science claims from a responsible, scientific point of view and disseminates factual information about the results of such inquiries to the scientific community and the public. [click link above for more details]
Council for Media Integrity
An educational outreach and advocacy program of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) [click link above to see details and accomplishments]
Agitprop is very correct when she accuses CSICOP of being biased and 'one-sided' in its attempts to pressure media to monitor its sloppy presentations of "facts" and "data" in shows and news stories that portray pseudoscience and the paranormal as reality or established fact. It is CSICOP's position that the media takes advantage of the gullibility of the public in much the same manner as Miss Cleo -siphoning ratings the way she siphoned 900# minutes- and, therefore, CSICOP acts as an informed and skeptical voice of reason in holding the media accountable for this, but rewarding it when it does right.
CSICOP members are, and have been, distinguished:
Paul Kurtz, Chairman; professor emeritus of philosophy, State University of New York at Buffalo
James E. Alcock,* psychologist, York Univ., Toronto
Susan Blackmore, psychologist, Univ. of the West of England, Bristol
Richard Dawkins, zoologist, Oxford Univ.
Kenneth Feder, professor of anthropology, Central Connecticut State Univ
Philip J. Klass,* aerospace writer, engineer
Bill Nye, science educator and television host, Nye Labs
Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist and director, Hayden Planetarium, New York City
Eugenie Scott, physical anthropologist, executive director, National Center for Science Education
John Maddox, editor emeritus of Nature
John R. Cole, anthropologist, Dept of Anthropology, UMass-Amherst; Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, UMass
Carl Sagan, Astronomer, Cornell University, co-founding member of CSICOP, author.
Stephen J. Gould, co-founding member and fellow of CSICOP, author, Paleontologist, author, Harvard University.
Issac Asimov, author.
<img src="http://www.csicop.org/giftshop/decal/decal-icon.jpg">
References:
AbsoluteAstronomy.com (2005). The Mars Effect. Found at http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/M/Ma/Mars_effect.htm
Hansen, George (1992). CSICOP and the Skeptics: An Overview The Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 86:1, pp. 19-63.
Kammen, Richard (1982). The True Disbelievers: Mars Effect Drives Skeptics to Irrationality Zetetic Scholar, issue 10, pp. 50-65.
Klass, Philip J. (1981). Crybaby. Non-published: submitted and refused by Fate magazine in 1981.
Randi, James (2003). More Attacks/Lies Launched, Megalogophobia, Einstein Wrong, Ephedrine Bombed, The Guardian & Science, Bogustry, More Fish, Remenance, 666=393, and "Dowser Brand" Water. Swift: the online newsletter for JREF, April 11, 2003.
Second, let me recommend this link as a decent critical review of CSICOP: http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/CSICOPoverview.htm
The article (Hansen, 1992) is, however, incomplete, but I think the majority of it is present minus the conclusions and bibliography.
Third, I'd like to add that I couldn't begin to comment "The Baker Affair" link, since I've never read it, but I am familiar with the ancient "Mars Effect" criticisms.
James Randihttp://www.randi.org/jr/041103.html
"The misrepresentation of the CSICOP involvement in the Gauquelin matter has been discussed numerous times before, and that accusation is quite false. CSICOP's only fault there lay with the reluctance of astronomer George Abell to consider Rawlins as a competent authority on the subject of astrology, and they — and Abell, personally — apologized for that fact, quite adequately. There was certainly nothing "fraudulent" nor "engineered" on the part of CSICOP. In any case, the entire Gauquelin matter has faded into obscurity with the other bits of pseudoscience, having failed attempts at replication."
Absolute Astronomy.Comhttp://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/M/Ma/Mars_effect.htm
"Zelen's (and Kurtz's and Abell's) rebuttal was poorly written. Read it a second, third, or fourth time, though, and you will see that the initial appearances are deceptive. Zelen split the sample not to examine the Mars effect, but primarily to examine the randomness of the subsample of 303 champions. And it turned out that the Gauquelins did not choose their subsample randomly."
http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/resources/articles/klass-crybaby.htm ]Philip J. Klass[/url]
" Were it possible to turn back the clock, undoubtedly Kurtz, Zelen and Abell would try to be more precise in defining test objectives and protocol and would do so in writing. And more time would be spent in more carefully phrasing articles dealing with such tests. But all CSICOP Council members and Fellows have other full-time professions that seriously constrain time available for CSICOP efforts.
[...] FATE and McConnell have demonstrated the intrinsic flaw in the basic approach of those who promote claims of the paranormal -- THEIR EAGERNESS TO ACCEPT CLAIMS OF EXTRAORDINARY EVENTS WITHOUT RIGOROUS INVESTIGATION. Neither FATE nor McConnell contacted CSICOP officials to check out Rawlins' charges. This demonstrates why CSICOP is so sorely needed.
Richard Kammen
" "Crybaby" was written by Councilor Philip Klass. Although it offered to refute the cover-up charge, it ignored practically every specific point that Rawlins had made. Instead it offered blatant ad hominem attack on Rawlins' motives and personality, bolstered with rhetorical ploys--including crude mis-quotation.
Believing that a full understanding would still get this fiasco straightened out, I sent in a 28-page report called "Personal Assessment of the Mars Controversy." I came to three conclusions: (a) the scientific errors were gross, (b) Paul Kurtz was not guilty of a cover-up on grounds of lack of statistical understanding, (c) CSICOP was guilty of a cover-up by not taking Rawlins seriously, while "Crybaby" was a disgrace.
*************
So there's a few links of Rawlins-'Mars Effect' articles that give varied perspectives on the issue.
Personally, I've never been a big fan of Klass –though I have to agree with some of his points. I think he was a bit over-the-top in his ad hominem statements, but he had a point. I'd be willing to accept that CSICOP was a bit sloppy in their methodology, but I'd also argue that this was early in their existence and that they've learned from it. The work that CSICOP does is, today, top notch and their journal, The Skeptical Inquirer is well written and referenced.
The principles that CSICOP holds are worthy and meaningful and they serve the purpose of questioning the extraordinary claims of those that would attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the unsuspecting public.
So... does Gustav and the other woo-woos... uh, ahem... mystery-mongers and significance-junkies have any recent criticisms of CSICOP and skeptics at large? Something that could be considered current events?
What those who crave all-things-mysterious and find significance-in-any-spurious-correlation really hate about skeptics is that they ask questions that cause them to fall flat on their faces in the excrement of their own beliefs.
Without evidence to back their wild, speculative claims, they amount to nothing but liars. Harsh, but true. Instead of addressing the issue of evidence, they look for excuses to engage in ad hominem wars and toss insults back and forth. They also make unfounded attempts to level many of the same criticisms against skeptics that skeptics have long since leveled in their direction, such as the question of cult-like behavior and misguided beliefs.
Beliefs are fine, but need to be based on the wisdom of evidence. Otherwise, they're meaningless.
NONE of Gustav's criticisms hold true. He is good at quoting the rhetoric of others from many years ago, but seems to have difficulty forming his own critical analyses. Perhaps he can overcome this failing... we shall see. I'd like to see Gustav give us what he thinks instead of just quoting/repeating rhetoric. I've done my share of quoting others above, but I also offer my own commentary and opinions on the subject and I don't consider CSICOP completely innocent with regard to bias. But I do believe this is an organization that has worked hard to avoid it since and has used the experience to grow.
But, when you have someone questioning your beliefs, I suppose it's easier to redirect blame at them than consider that they might actually be right. Why not simply bitch and cry, eh?
In the mean time, I offer the following about CSICOP: The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
Here are some links to some choice articles in Skeptical Inquirer and on the CSICOP site.
Out of Balance, by Chris Mooney - a critical review of the ABC Primetime special: Seeing is Believing.
Critical Thinking About Energy, - by Thomas R. Castan and Brennan Downes - The Case for Decentralized Generation of Electricity
Should We Teach the Controversy, by Jason Rosenhouse - a critical look at the desire by some to teach 'Intelligent Design' in our public schools.
The Columbia University 'Miracle' Study: Flawed and Fraud, by Bruce Flamm - regarding the much hyped study of the power of prayer that ended up scamming a major peer-reviewed journal.
Pranks, Frauds and Hoaxes from Around the World, by Robert Carroll - from the writer of the book, Don't Get Hoaxed.
Complete Index of available online articles.
About CSICOP
CSICOP encourages the critical investigation of paranormal and fringe-science claims from a responsible, scientific point of view and disseminates factual information about the results of such inquiries to the scientific community and the public. [click link above for more details]
Council for Media Integrity
An educational outreach and advocacy program of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) [click link above to see details and accomplishments]
Agitprop is very correct when she accuses CSICOP of being biased and 'one-sided' in its attempts to pressure media to monitor its sloppy presentations of "facts" and "data" in shows and news stories that portray pseudoscience and the paranormal as reality or established fact. It is CSICOP's position that the media takes advantage of the gullibility of the public in much the same manner as Miss Cleo -siphoning ratings the way she siphoned 900# minutes- and, therefore, CSICOP acts as an informed and skeptical voice of reason in holding the media accountable for this, but rewarding it when it does right.
CSICOP members are, and have been, distinguished:
Paul Kurtz, Chairman; professor emeritus of philosophy, State University of New York at Buffalo
James E. Alcock,* psychologist, York Univ., Toronto
Susan Blackmore, psychologist, Univ. of the West of England, Bristol
Richard Dawkins, zoologist, Oxford Univ.
Kenneth Feder, professor of anthropology, Central Connecticut State Univ
Philip J. Klass,* aerospace writer, engineer
Bill Nye, science educator and television host, Nye Labs
Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist and director, Hayden Planetarium, New York City
Eugenie Scott, physical anthropologist, executive director, National Center for Science Education
John Maddox, editor emeritus of Nature
John R. Cole, anthropologist, Dept of Anthropology, UMass-Amherst; Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, UMass
Carl Sagan, Astronomer, Cornell University, co-founding member of CSICOP, author.
Stephen J. Gould, co-founding member and fellow of CSICOP, author, Paleontologist, author, Harvard University.
Issac Asimov, author.
<img src="http://www.csicop.org/giftshop/decal/decal-icon.jpg">
References:
AbsoluteAstronomy.com (2005). The Mars Effect. Found at http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/M/Ma/Mars_effect.htm
Hansen, George (1992). CSICOP and the Skeptics: An Overview The Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 86:1, pp. 19-63.
Kammen, Richard (1982). The True Disbelievers: Mars Effect Drives Skeptics to Irrationality Zetetic Scholar, issue 10, pp. 50-65.
Klass, Philip J. (1981). Crybaby. Non-published: submitted and refused by Fate magazine in 1981.
Randi, James (2003). More Attacks/Lies Launched, Megalogophobia, Einstein Wrong, Ephedrine Bombed, The Guardian & Science, Bogustry, More Fish, Remenance, 666=393, and "Dowser Brand" Water. Swift: the online newsletter for JREF, April 11, 2003.
Gustav said:
Patience. Rather than simply quote the rhetoric of others or offer simple banter, I try to offer some of my own thoughts or discussion about the comments of others. Indeed, the juvenile banter you seem to value is of little interest to me.
Duendy, obviously you do not believe in "the primacy of materialistic science". So far, however, the only computers I have used, cars I have driven, medicines I have taken, etc. have been the fruits of such science. I eagerly await a journey in the first mentally-powered aeroplane or a look down the first remote-view telescope.
SkinWalker said:
ahh like... i agree with that...i dont agree with this... correct but......?
lets see the "thoughts or discussion"
SkinWalker said:
pathetic excuses and no new thoughts
SkinWalker said:
parroting and no new thoughts
thats it!
the rest of the post is nothing but ad homs and red herrings.
plus atempting to get off the hook on a technicality
ie: it is not happening now
the issue here is "true skepticism" as lauded by skinwalker
this quality is attributed to the org known as csicops
it has a history of fraudulence
and yet, skinwalker has absolutely no problem with miraculously giving it a clean bill of health.
does he really think i will buy his smattering of carefully vetted articles and appeals to authority as proof of csicops integrity?
no!
it is far more logical to hold the org to be suspect in its pronouncements
i know of institutional biases and corruption
why should csicops be exempt?
there are priors
i will not ignore
unlike skinwalker
besides, what makes him an authority on csicops? dispassionate observer, biased member or fanatical devotee?
more disingenuity
you are the one that started this crap with your "true skeptic"
now
it is implicit that a definition is known due to usage
it is then also implicit that its opposite is also known
so answer your own question
provide your own definitions
what is a "false skeptic"?
you are the one that started this crap with your "true skeptic"
now
it is implicit that a definition is known due to usage
it is then also implicit that its opposite is also known
so answer your own question
provide your own definitions
what is a "false skeptic"?
Sorry... not interested in juvenile banter... you can join the rest on my ignore list.
understanding the LIMITS of materialistic science does NOT mean your precious computer, car, and medicines will suddenlyLaika said:
'mentali-ize'...dear. what i mean is tat materialistic science is limited and dismisses FEPTH, and tus is trashin plaet, other peoples human freedoms, and...did you know tat all te gadgets you love shit?...oh yes. there is shit. and heyyyy...guesswhat? its not te good organic shit neither. its toxic shit. and you know who is chosen/forced to live on top of it and near it?...in U.S. in this instance?...why Native Americans, Blacks and Ethnic peoples is who!......materialism hey?...wonder if THEY could mentalize it away. nope
SkinWalker said:
Hey Skin, i gotta ask, im i still on 'it '? And if you immaturely dont respond as a way of replying, then your still the stubbon old fool i insulted a year ago, if not, "Hi"!!
:m:This discussion has degraded a little.
It seems csicop did not handle the evaluation of the Mars Effect research very well. This was nearly 30 years ago and csicop had only just been founded then. I don’t agree that their actions were ‘fraudulent‘. Perhaps there was some bias though.
Just curious, if PEAR, SAIC, SRI or a similar organisation released test results in the 70s that contained experimenter bias (they may have, I don’t know) should I then label them as a fraudulent organisation and rule out all further results from them?
If they had new, extremely positive results for psychic activity and I refused to look at it because they were ‘fraudulent’ 30 years ago I would labelled scared by the believers.
By the way I have only read a handful of articles by csicop although I thought they were well written. So don’t accuse me of worshipping them.
What I am seeing is that believers need to accept that Randi and csicop are fanatical liars (whether or not it's true) to help them explain away the debunking that these guys do.
It seems csicop did not handle the evaluation of the Mars Effect research very well. This was nearly 30 years ago and csicop had only just been founded then. I don’t agree that their actions were ‘fraudulent‘. Perhaps there was some bias though.
Just curious, if PEAR, SAIC, SRI or a similar organisation released test results in the 70s that contained experimenter bias (they may have, I don’t know) should I then label them as a fraudulent organisation and rule out all further results from them?
If they had new, extremely positive results for psychic activity and I refused to look at it because they were ‘fraudulent’ 30 years ago I would labelled scared by the believers.
By the way I have only read a handful of articles by csicop although I thought they were well written. So don’t accuse me of worshipping them.
What I am seeing is that believers need to accept that Randi and csicop are fanatical liars (whether or not it's true) to help them explain away the debunking that these guys do.
no, fanatical materialists. more to say bout tis beeeeelowshaman_ said:This discussion has degraded a little.
me::::
It seems csicop did not handle the evaluation of the Mars Effect research very well. This was nearly 30 years ago and csicop had only just been founded then. I don’t agree that their actions were ‘fraudulent‘. Perhaps there was some bias though.
me:::yeah bless em .maaaaybeee they 'd jest had a bad hair day huh?
Just curious, if PEAR, SAIC, SRI or a similar organisation released test results in the 70s that contained experimenter bias (they may have, I don’t know) should I then label them as a fraudulent organisation and rule out all further results from them?
me:::no love. yer missin the point. we are not saying mistakes cant be made. w are exposin the slavering fundamentalism of te materialistic tremple which is PSYCOP. shit...dont the very choice of name give you crusty untuition juices some give?
If they had new, extremely positive results for psychic activity and I refused to look at it because they were ‘fraudulent’ 30 years ago I would labelled scared by the believers.
me::but i actually do see you that way. maybe you dnt see yu like i see you. this is a prob or many people who have images of themselves
By the way I have only read a handful of articles by csicop although I thought they were well written. So don’t accuse me of worshipping them.
me:::::you DO seem to use them as a reference Bible. who else do you use, as a matter of interest?
What I am seeing is that believers need to accept that Randi and csicop are fanatical liars (whether or not it's true) to help them explain away the debunking that these guys do.
(From now on i am gonna call you people here who like to be seen as 'skeptics', materialists. thsis inspired by the link i give below.
the very first time i hit tese forums i called you 'pseudosceptics, which is also tru, but materialists hits the mark better i feel....Weelllllll..dont look like that. yous call US woo woos init?)
'WARNING PSYCHICS'
The following is essential information when dealing wit cosed minded skeptics/materialists. It is taken from some ten years of content analysis of debates...between 'skeptics' and psychics...
First, the word 'skeptic' is beingused too loosely these days. A 'skeptic' is one who questions and doubts BUT always allows for future possible confirmation. Many of te important psi..empiricists are openminded skeptics. The professional media skeptics are better called 'materialists' because it is very clear that a materialist is someone who ABSOLUTELY refuses to accept thre can ever be and psi or the paranormal or the afterlife. You will be doing these materialists a big favor if you call them 'skeptics'. DON'T.
Nearly all debunkers who apprear on television and radio are professional materialists. It's teir income, theirliving and their reputation which is at stake each time they appear...
When confonted by materialists/debunkers during some media session be informed that they will try to dominate, manipulate and misrepresent; they will try to lie, cheat, mislead, bully - anything to score a cheap point at your expense. Don't ever trust them anytime!
If and whenever they come across as saying something in your favor. It's like the hangman praising your neck!
....When a materialist is confronted wit highly persuavive evidence for te psi/afterlife the materialist will deny it immediately because the evidence will elicit anxiety. Increase his blood pressure, sweat etc. Denial will follow. The materialist will become angry, hostile, and even aggressive. He will try toreduce anxiety by denyin information.
Because it gives them anxiety they don't study the best evidence...
...Materialism is a fundamentalist religion with many priests but no congregation.
Richard Milton said that. On CSICOP:
...First, this CSICOP is NOT scientific. The study of its origins shows that tose genuine scientists resigned from it because they saw CSICOP NOT as 'scientific' but as negative active propaganda against the parnormal. CSICOP's president Paul Kurtz, was NOT a scientst but a philosopher. As a professor he uttered a most unscientific statement that he 'believes that the paranormal does not and cannot exist'." (read on about old Randi ff:!!!! http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/warningtopsychics.htm
the very first time i hit tese forums i called you 'pseudosceptics, which is also tru, but materialists hits the mark better i feel....Weelllllll..dont look like that. yous call US woo woos init?)
'WARNING PSYCHICS'
The following is essential information when dealing wit cosed minded skeptics/materialists. It is taken from some ten years of content analysis of debates...between 'skeptics' and psychics...
First, the word 'skeptic' is beingused too loosely these days. A 'skeptic' is one who questions and doubts BUT always allows for future possible confirmation. Many of te important psi..empiricists are openminded skeptics. The professional media skeptics are better called 'materialists' because it is very clear that a materialist is someone who ABSOLUTELY refuses to accept thre can ever be and psi or the paranormal or the afterlife. You will be doing these materialists a big favor if you call them 'skeptics'. DON'T.
Nearly all debunkers who apprear on television and radio are professional materialists. It's teir income, theirliving and their reputation which is at stake each time they appear...
When confonted by materialists/debunkers during some media session be informed that they will try to dominate, manipulate and misrepresent; they will try to lie, cheat, mislead, bully - anything to score a cheap point at your expense. Don't ever trust them anytime!
If and whenever they come across as saying something in your favor. It's like the hangman praising your neck!
....When a materialist is confronted wit highly persuavive evidence for te psi/afterlife the materialist will deny it immediately because the evidence will elicit anxiety. Increase his blood pressure, sweat etc. Denial will follow. The materialist will become angry, hostile, and even aggressive. He will try toreduce anxiety by denyin information.
Because it gives them anxiety they don't study the best evidence...
...Materialism is a fundamentalist religion with many priests but no congregation.
Richard Milton said that. On CSICOP:
...First, this CSICOP is NOT scientific. The study of its origins shows that tose genuine scientists resigned from it because they saw CSICOP NOT as 'scientific' but as negative active propaganda against the parnormal. CSICOP's president Paul Kurtz, was NOT a scientst but a philosopher. As a professor he uttered a most unscientific statement that he 'believes that the paranormal does not and cannot exist'." (read on about old Randi ff:!!!! http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/warningtopsychics.htm