It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Pseudoskeptics and Disinformants on ATS

page: 12
70
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewWorldOver

Don't forget

"Show me physical proof... on the internet... somehow. Or you're lying."

"Show me evidence.... because I'm too lazy to do a google search or research this subject on my own... or you're lying."

"Show me the paper trail that _____ is involved with _____ even though you'd have no possible way of acquiring such material.... or you're lying. "



You're asserting that the burden of evidence does not lie with the claimant? There are an unlimited number of possible claims that are not supported by evidence, and a non-trivial subset of these are - at least on the surface - logically consistent. Surely you'd agree that it's madness to accept all unsupported claims presented, since you can't possibly have the resources to disprove all of them? Many such claims simply can't be disproven, since they are untestable in practice if not in principle.

So, the only filter that works is evidence, and it has to come packaged with the claim. If you have no evidence, it doesn't mean you're wrong, but it does mean that you don't know if you're right.

The only burden on the skeptic is to be able to admit when there simply isn't enough information to establish the falsehood of a hypothesis or claim. It is perfectly fine to leave a report in the unexplained file, recognizing that for most things, this is a one way trip.




posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 01:15 PM
link   
I'm personally really fond of that list, out there somewhere, about how absolutely impossible it is these days, to break out a new theory without it being rubber stamped to death by the mainstream communities first. If it isn't presented by Dr. such and such (and it has to agree with the establishment), might as well get use to it being ridiculed and then summarily ignored. The only chance it has of being seriously considered is if the person presenting it is already a highly respected member of the big wigs.

People are seriously brainwashed these days.

[edit on 22-1-2008 by undo]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 01:21 PM
link   


You're asserting that the burden of evidence does not lie with the claimant?


that's the problem. There are two claimants to every one of these types of discussions. Only one side is claiming that because it's backed up by authority, it is automatically true and anything contrary is automatically requiring heaps and stacks of burden of proof that has "an ever receeding horizon". You don't really want a list of all these "truths" that were automatically true, and turned out not to be true at all, do ya?

[edit on 22-1-2008 by undo]



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
I am calling you a pseudoskeptic because you use dishonest means of communication...such as re-defining what I am doing as "shutting down all disagreement".


Just as you are attempting to both define what is acceptable skepticism, and attempting to redefine my disagreement with you as pseudoskepticism/disinformation?


Originally posted by Skyfloating
The very fact that I engage with you in debate here proves your argument nonsensical.


No, it doesn't. You engage in the debate in an effort to twist what I am saying, to help further the effort to shut down debate and mis-label/redefine skepticism.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


You don't honestly believe ATS would allow it's Skeptic population to be compromised? Ain't gonna happen. Methinks you're protesting too much.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Sure, bring it on - but I would ask that you limit the Things That Turned Out To Be True After the Experts Said They Weren't to claims that didn't require piles of evidence and assiduous application of the scientific method to establish their truth.

You see, a key part of the scientific process is skepticism applied to testable claims, and testable claims are a whole more interesting than untestable ones, IMO.

Of course, there may be a bit of selection bias - for every one such, there were countless claims that were just delusional fantasies...



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
No, it doesn't. You engage in the debate in an effort to twist what I am saying, to help further the effort to shut down debate and mis-label/redefine skepticism.


Am I? Sounds like a conspiracy-theory



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by disownedsky

You see, a key part of the scientific process is skepticism applied to testable claims, and testable claims are a whole more interesting than untestable ones, IMO.



She says she loves me. Thats not a testable claim, but its a whole lot more interesting than dissecting cockroaches



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by disownedsky
 


We agree that part of scientific inquiry is observation, correct?

Secondly, we agree that part of scientific inquiry is if the thing studied has some
basis in our current scientific understanding, yes (which sadly, limits science since it refuses to accept anything that hasn't already been released for public consumption)?

Thirdly, we agree that it must have a rational reason and a logical conclusion?

I mean, science isn't just about the nuts and bolts, if it was, there'd be no theoretical physics and most of nuclear science would still be unknown.

These are very limiting frameworks to function within, as the assumption is that we already know everything there is to know and anything that deviates from that is not true or so highly suspect, that there's no reason to believe it to be true.

That's really not science, I'm sorry to say. Science is about discovery, not about stubborn refusal to admit you don't know it all already.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Am I? Sounds like a conspiracy-theory


One big difference...I have evidence, where as you have just willy-nilly accused people of being paid disinformation-agents, without evidence what-so-ever.

I noticed since I called you out on that, you've shifted a bit. You aren't using the "paid disinfo" agent accusation anymore, just sticking to pseudoskeptic. But let's go back to the original post:


Originally posted by Skyfloating
In 4 years of reading ATS I have become convinced that a troop of paid-disinformants is operating on ATS...disinformants are often cloaked as skeptics but do not behave like real skeptics but rather like pseudoskeptics


We already know you think CatHerder is one, but we don't know why (you already admitted you were wrong, but I want to know what standards you applied to make such an accusation). In your original post, you say these disinformants are the pseudoskeptics, implying one is a synonym for the other. Since you've called me a pseudoskeptic for standing up to you and calling you on your BS, it stands to reason that you believe I'm paid-disinformant too.

Who else is there, and what proof do you have, other than the fact you do not like these peoples opinions? Back it up. Sorry, but I am not going to allow you to make accusations and outright malign people without backing it up.

Besides, if you can prove anyone on here is a disinformation agent, then you will be doing the various causes on here a great service. Prove someone in the 9/11 forums is a disinformation agent, and you will all but prove the government is hiding something regarding 9/11. Prove someone in the Aliens and UFOs forum is a disinfo agent, and you will all but prove the government is trying to cover something up.

But you won't, because you can't, which has been proven when you tried to accuse CatHerder. And good tactic, by the way, accusing someone who hasn't posted in a while; little chance they'll come in here and defend themselves. Because you can't prove it, you'll just throw out generalizations and use vague standards that can be used to malign anyone.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Skyfloating,

What's he referring to here?


Since you've called me a pseudoskeptic for standing up to you and calling you on your BS


You have a thread somewhere that he's called BS?



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
You don't honestly believe ATS would allow it's Skeptic population to be compromised? Ain't gonna happen. Methinks you're protesting too much.


Not outright. However, if people like SkyFloating can create an atmosphere where skeptics are not tolerated.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


What I had in mind when I opened this thread is the following scenario:

An enthusiastic but naive poster opens a thread on any given alternative subject...lets say UFOs.

He is then bombarded by a hoard of arrogant self-proclaimed "skeptics" who rehearse the history of scientific method with him until he not only feels stupid and sucked dry of enthusiasm but also ceases to invest his heart into research again.

So, instead of discussing the matter at hand, the thread is derailed into bunch of petty arguments and deflective questions...peppered by personal attacks.

You happen to be doing the same thing...with the slight difference that you are actually somewhat on topic as this is a discussion about the nature of skepticism and different types of skepticism. If you were to act out the same type of inquiry in an UFO-thread, that would be, in my opinion, plain wrong.

Assuming there is a grand cover-up going on, we must also assume that either those who strive to uncover information are under attack and that a thing such as disinfo-agent exists.

Of course, if there is no grand cover-up happening its a different story.

I believe there is a good possibility that information-warfare exists.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by undo
You don't honestly believe ATS would allow it's Skeptic population to be compromised? Ain't gonna happen. Methinks you're protesting too much.


Not outright. However, if people like SkyFloating can create an atmosphere where skeptics are not tolerated.


There are skeptic moderators, friend.

You'll be fine.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

We already know you think CatHerder is one...I want to know what standards you applied to make such an accusation).


Talk about "rubbing it in". Typical pseudoskeptic-standard. The opponent makes one mistake, apologizes for it, but he will continue to point it out again and again.

And now you are baiting me to elaborate on CatHerder even more. Nice try.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   
I think skepticism is fine as long as it doesn't stop one looking for the truth within. No case is closed to an open mind.


But when 'facts' become absolute then we have a problem. Our growth is through refinement.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


But if you really want to know by what standards someone can be assumed to be a disinformant, here they are:

To visit a website dedicated to Topic X not to chat about topic X, not to open a thread about topic X but onlyto discredit topic X and those who talk about topic X.

Now imagine you see someone exhibiting that behavior exclusively over 5 years.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 02:27 PM
link   
one good point about this pissing contest is you gets points. ha! ha! ha! always a positive to a negative. right?



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by musselwhite
one good point about this pissing contest is you gets points. ha! ha! ha! always a positive to a negative. right?


Above a certain point-count there´s not much you can buy with your points. Hope they offer some more stuff in their points shop soon.




posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 02:41 PM
link   
i'd donate points for a charitable cause if some philanthropist would match it with cash.



new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join