It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


NSF to ATS: You're Stupid!

page: 4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 01:34 PM

Originally posted by Spiderj

Probably shouldn't sit on a jury

Hey that's fantastic! I've actually got jury duty next week. I knew there were some good advantages to joining this site but never in a million years did I ever think it could get me out of jury duty.

Thank you ATS, thank you.


But actually, I honestly and truly believe that if that statement is true that it is a psychological attack on a low magnitude. What a bunch of nonsense, because most of everyone on ATS has WELL ABOVE AVERAGE critical thinking skills and because of the fact that they do NOT CONFUSE fact from fiction attributes to this ABOVE AVERAGE critical thinking ability.

I almost feel sorry for those scientists, I wish I had a long term memory so I could be a scientist or some high standing figure and learn a thing or two so in my own words I could tell these fags to eat ****.

[edit on 2-9-2006 by chibidai_rrr]

posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 01:45 PM
As a matter of fact, when science itself cannot explain the universe... why are scientists allowed to call me stupid? That is what the original poster implied is that scientists think I am stupid. They cannot even explain the universe. We all know the big-bang is totally insane BS. and I am supposed to be stupid? something cannot come from nothing, that is basic logic at its SIMPLEST form. 0+1 does NOT equal 1.
einsteing said the universe is perfect with E=MC[sup]2[/sup]
modern scientists say the universe is chaos because of a new theory- Quantum Physics.
which universe are these scientists that tried to call me stupid living in?
E=MC[sup]2[/sup] or Quantum Physics?
no matter which one they have chose, both have never been more than theories.
E=MC[sup]2[/sup]... Einstein died writing in a notebook trying to figure everything out.
Quantum Physics is still in its "infancy."
Both theories disprove eachother.
Perfection and Chaos.
Don't call me stupid for believing in the paranormal.
You are supposed to be so smart, why don't you design me a pill the i can swallow that makes me as smart as you?

[edit on 2-9-2006 by chibidai_rrr]

posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 03:04 PM

Originally posted by Schaden
... This is the same outfit that publishes dubious scientific "research" to justify
outlawing cancer and AIDS patients' access to medical cannabis.
Despite all of the other private and university study, the govt only parrots
the NSF talking points....

Excellent point.

Although I think I'd reverse the last statement to say that the NSF only parrots the Government's talking points.

Our tax dollars at work...


posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 03:34 PM

Originally posted by behindthescenes
I just wanted everyone to know that the National Science Foundation recently concluded that anyone who believes or has an active interest in the paranormal, UFOs, cryptozoology, fringe science, etc.:

a) lacks critical thinking skills

b) Is inable to make well-informed decisions

c) Probably shouldn't sit on a jury

d) Often confuses fact for fiction

At least, that's the general views expressed by the NSF (The group didn't mention ATS specifically, I was just inferring that from the paper).


[edit on 31-8-2006 by behindthescenes]

I think your in the wrong place. I don't think this site has anyone who believes or has an active interest in the paranormal, UFOs, cryptozoology, fringe science, etc.:

Its a broad statement ( i know there are some of you who are real and true to yourselves.) And I know not I can't Group EVERYBODY together.

posted on Sep, 2 2006 @ 08:01 PM
Does this evaluation apply to Biblical literalists?

posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 03:30 PM

Originally posted by Matyas
Does this evaluation apply to Biblical literalists?

Notably, the words "religion", "Christian", "Bible", "Creationist" and "God" do not appear in the article. I posit that these were left out to keep the present administration's core constituency from getting upset over this article. It is the NSF, after all, the government's mouthpiece in the realm of science.

The article also cites James Randi. i'm just saying.

posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 03:48 PM
you know i kind of have to agree with them.... i mean i feel it's natural, healthy and only human to have a facination with the macabre...or suprstitious "unproven" things....but i think i agree with what they are saying that if u take it seriously u might be looney.

i mean there are some ppl who belive so strongly in that stuff its like a religon to them..i'm sorry but while ufos and stuff like that might be facinating, they still havent been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to exist the way ppl say they do.

i mean it even said that some ppl change they habits cause of a stupid astrology report...

yeah so they have got a point, all that stuff might be cool to play with in recreation, but you have to grow up and live in the real world at some point.

posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 04:37 PM

Originally posted by Spawwwn...i'm sorry but while ufos and stuff like that might be facinating, they still havent been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to exist...

The "real" world is a lot more complex than that Al. That is why we lag other countries and the level of technology we could be at, precisely because minds are shut by the party line of the status quo.

And furthermore, the boys and girls at DoD and NASA will never get the answers they want because now they will be labelled "kooks" for trying.

kooky video

Personally I don't buy the whole "alien" package, just as I don't buy the "weather balloon" or "swamp gas" versions. But to not look at the other more likely scenarios and theories, just because of the fear of being lebelled, to me is not playing the part of a "good" scientist. Such behavior is tantamount to sticking one's head in the sand. So in essence, the NSF has shot itself in the foot, wounding the core administration, their source of funding, their own scientists, and the practice of science at large by institutions, affiliates, and independents.

posted on Sep, 4 2006 @ 07:49 PM
Well, ATS is kinda... off the hook sometimes. Often you'll see people coming to promote the government's 'aliens aren't there' belief system and all sorts of similar madness. It comes with having a popular site.

Still, I'll take the NSF seriously once they get a few scientists to join. Till then, they'll have to accept their status as an obnoxious club for politicians. And why must we have a thread dedicated to every silly little claim by a couple of geezers in suits?

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 01:03 AM

a decline in scientific literacy and critical thinking;

Things inspired by scifi:
1. Cell Phones.
2. Submarienes & Space Travel
3. Arthur C. Clark & geosynchronous orbit

Transparent aluminum, suggested by Star Trek is a possibility. As we explore the structure of matter, and the nature of transparency of materials, perhaps eventually we will discover a metal alloy with this property. Tokyo Institute of Technology accidently discovered a semiconductor that is transparent, so why not discover an actual metal too... (News Flash! This exists now!)
5. ion drive
6. rapid prototyping (think of going in the direction of replicators)
7. nanotech.
8. Babel Fish (online translator) in the direction of a Universal translator
(this list can go on.)

This was fiction. Someone thought fiction was believeable enough to try to immitate. So what if everything we ever believe is wrong?

Think about it as a road with deep ditch on both sides. To avoid the left ditch, you spin out of control into the right, still ruining your car. A mind without creativity is void. Absolutely worthless.

I remember quite clearly in an education thiesis paper I wrote, about 2-3 years ago, having a quote somewhere along the lines of: "This drive for education focusing on the sciences and math, leave no room for music and arts, and we will create a generation of scientists without the capacity to dream." This is an old quote, some 40 years old. Guess what, that time is now.

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 01:58 AM
Too add something to what JLC said, pretty much every robotics engineer or robotocist or whatever they call themselves at some point will bring up Isaac Asimov and his three rules of robotics.

Just a thought.


posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 08:07 AM
Ran across a great piece on a Yahoo blog caled "Tools for intellectual self defense" to add to the critical thinking skills tool-chest. A link.



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 08:20 AM

Originally posted by behindthescenes
d) Often confuses fact for fiction

No one can tell fact from fiction. Alot of science is based on faith that cannot be proven, so scientists also, cannot tell fact from fiction.

Science breakthroughs came from people who do not accept the norm. If everyone thought about what they are told, no one would ever imagine doing anything else.

These freaks should tell the ipcc, that they are up there own arse, and the public with any brain what so ever, can tell your lying. Everything the ipcc does, is leave out the sun, out of everything they do and say. This is a good example of not being able to tell fact from fiction.

posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 09:00 AM

an active interest in the paranormal...

So, does this include people who believe in God?

Maybe next time you want to get out of jury duty you should simply inform them that you're a Christian.

posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 09:18 AM
reply to post by behindthescenes

a) lacks critical thinking skills

b) Is inable to make well-informed decisions

c) Probably shouldn't sit on a jury


I have to agree. I'm seriously concerned about people who sit on juries who, for example, believe in God. That whole "oath" thing when people give evidence is a bit of a tip-off that most witnesses seem to "confuse fact and fiction" and the clothes that judges wear in British courts? Where's the critical thinking skill there, eh??

posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 04:18 PM
It's so special to know that the halls of science have managed to retain their legendary narrow-minded arrogance into the 21st century.

I think ATS members should take up a collection, and mail the authors of this report, a nice big box of Exlax.

Hey, it couldn't hurt :-)

posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 04:21 PM
How to get out of jury duty. "I friggin' love ATS!!!'
I think the NSF doth protest too much.

posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 05:52 PM

In its efforts to debunk pseudoscience, the Council also urges TV producers to label documentary-type shows depicting the paranormal as either entertainment or fiction, provides the media with the names of expert spokespersons, asks U.S. newspapers to print disclaimers with horoscope columns, and uses "media watchdogs" to monitor programs and encourage responsibility on the part of television producers.

I find the above very disturbing and biased but I am not very suprised.

Finally, various skeptics groups and renowned skeptic James Randi have long-standing offers of large sums of money to anyone who can prove a paranormal claim. Randi and members of his "2000 Club" are offering more than a million dollars. So far, no one has met the challenge.

Anything that cannot be fully proven is labeled as pseudoscience.

posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 06:11 PM

some shows contribute to scientific illiteracy by promoting unproven ideas and beliefs as real, instilling a distrust of scientists[48] and fostering misunderstanding of the methods of scientific inquiry

In a democracy people are free to believe whatever they want. I don't need the national science foundation to guide me but it would be very helpful if they were less dogmatic in their views and did some research into "paranormal" events before labeling people.

In my opinion, SETI and NASA are the worse offenders. What they say is gospel. Recently, they made a series of documentaries of our solar system and not once do I remember them mentioning ufos, aliens, weird anomolies on other planets or anything remotely interesting. They always babble about the same stuff with a few insertions just to keep people from falling asleep. BS!

posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 06:31 PM
HELLO you guys went to the wrong site.

makes more sense


new topics

top topics

<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in