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: 14
70
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
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?

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.

I'm not sure if this assumption about validity is so very limited after all. I think we should take developed countries as basis of thinking this through. We, who live in such countries only need to look around inside our house to realize, that we have tv-sets, music players, humidity apratuses, electronic temperature meters, computers and things like that. Those alone actually work with very simple and well defined physical laws. If those laws were incorrect, none of the devices would work (which btw means that all alternative theories that don't allow these devices as currently designed, are wrong).

That wen't a little off-topic, but there also really is no limits when you have dug all conventional explanations and ruled them out. At that point, physicists are allowed to theorize pretty much anything they want, as long as they don't break the laws of physics (thermodynamics, for example). Its hard for me to see how this would be very limiting, although it does lay boundaries.

So, here we have two examples of perspective which tend to state that we are not very limited in speculations of new discoveries, although we still have boundaries to watch for.




posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by disownedsky
 

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)?


I don't agree with this strawman. Yes, science is necessarily a multi-generational collaborative endeavor that is mostly just a lot of very careful and unglamorous work to solve just one tiny piece of the puzzle. This means that you have to build on the most reliable results that have come before, but it doesn't mean mindless acceptance of same. If a scientist really wants to make her career, she will successfully raise doubts about previously accepted conclusions. Uncertainty and doubt are essential to the scientific process. Dogma is the enemy of any sort of knowledge.

Every generation produces a flock of talented young scientists who are eager to break the paradigm.



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


I'm not sure what you mean by that. If you mean that the results of science need to be logically consistent in order to achieve long term acceptance, then yes, but sometimes a paradox arises, and this can be very creative. At the frontiers of science there are many things that aren't quite consistent, and this drives progress forward.



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.


Huh? Is it your contention that we'd have anything like theoretical physics without great, painstaking labors to generate and evaluate experimental data and years of vigorous debate? Have you ever been in a real physics lab? Plenty of nuts and bolts there.

Sure, there is lots of creativity and lots of abstraction in theoretical physics, but no model is any good if it doesn't explain and predict the data.



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.



That is a big screaming strawman. I don't know ANYONE who makes that assumption, or would even want to. What do you mean by "these"?

Skepticism is about doubt, not certainty.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 01:10 AM
link   
Yet another great post Sky. Yet another flag and star 4 u!


But there is a rather large grey area.
But who you call what is all a matter of perception.
The gods know I have been called such (a disinfo agent, troll, etc) by a few of the more what I considered out there theorists we have in here just for disagreeing. But I agree I shouldn't respond attack with attack but I am after all human and it IS human nature to respond inkind if not more-so, which I have been guilty of as well.
Some people get way over protective of their favorite theories I have noticed.
To the point even counterpoints are seen as base attack, if not ignored completely.
Not to defend (or justify) some of the people that do in fact seem to have an agenda of smear but in the end you just can't really know one way or another.

Oh and I do get sick of being called sheeple (or ignorant, or etc, so forth and so on) for disagreeing with someone, which is common.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 01:51 AM
link   
reply to post by disownedsky
 


An example is in order:

Research by the men who comprised the scholars of the holy roman empire, assumed certain things about the earth, based on scripture (which was considered the book of truths in their time). Scholars of today, research ACCEPTED historical and scientific texts, because they are considered the books of truth of our time. The same human propensity to be dogmatic about prior research, appears. The same unwillingness to accept anything that isn't rubber stamped and released for human consumption by the historical or scientific overlords. It's a twin of the holy roman empire. the only thing missing is an over reaching pope. instead there are many popes, who, for whatever reason, had their theories promoted over the theories of their brethren. but to be a part of their club, you have to join them and agree with everything they say, like becoming a member of the catholic church.

it's the same thing, all.over.again.

now let's look at some interesting examples:

they said gilgamesh was a fictiious person who never existed.
gilgamesh's city has been found.

they said troy never existed.
troy has been found.

they said children can only be born via the birth canal.
babies can be conceived in several ways now.

they said humans can't fly.
houston, tranquilty base here. the eagle has landed.

they said the ancient greeks couldn't write during the time of the ancient egyptians and tossed out all ancient greek texts for constructing their timeline.
but turns out the greeks could write, their historical texts were useful in dating the timeline. oh well, too late now! it's been called myth and legend, and the entire thing has been set according to the egyptian timeline (cause we all know it's not myth and legend!!)

what's significant about all this is they never back tracked on their original theories. someone else of prominence, who apparently had the okay from the higher ups, would come in and break the news and had enough clout to over rule the previous dogma (a baby pope perhaps). but all the theories, books, theses, articles, papers and rationale regarding history and science, previously written, have never been recanted, just swept under the rug and ignored. There are a few cases where it was publically admitted that the previous theories were all wet! but these are rare in comparison to the amount that are found to be incorrect and quietly escorted out of the room.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 

Sorry had to chime in here.

**ahem**

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!





But it should also be noted that they aren't always wrong either.
Or the fringe always right.
Christianity was once a "fringe" group.
Now look at it. Though I think they are wrong. Eh. Who knows. I am just a man. Sorry.

[edit on 23-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 02:18 AM
link   
What's even more significant is the writing of the now disproven texts that were never recanted, are used today to disqualify new theories and concepts, even though the disproven texts have been found to be incorrect! how convenient!

for example, why not go back and redate the timeline based on all the ancient archives and not just the egyptian one? because it would open a can of worms regarding accepted texts view of ancient history, which is summarily tossed out cause it's myth dangitall! err, yeah, that's why our timeline is based on the egyptian archives.

gotcha. yeah. okeeeeee.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 



All the ancient archives contradict each other in various ways I have noticed.
The simple fact of the matter is history is not an exact science and can't be given human nature.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


Velikovskii I think is such a maligned figure and yet so much of his research is at the very least well worth reading. Einstein was reading WORLDS IN COLLISION just before he died... And sure he intended to try and repudiate it but up to that point he had found that surprisingly difficult and in fact had pushed for particular measurements to be done of Venus to prove Velikovskii right or wrong finally.

The shameful Sagan vs. Velikovskii episode before the Academy of Science is unforgettable also.

Not Sagan's finest hour.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 04:24 AM
link   
Interesting thread. I get where Sky is coming from...

But. (theres always a but)

To put it in a nutshell, its too easy to come onto a forum like this, post some wild unsubstantiated BS and then scream "disinfo agent" at anyone who actually questions whats being written.

I have seen some extraordinary threads on ATS. Then again I've also seen a fair load of sensationalised crap and a whole heap of agendas from facists and haters, all who claim to be the "real thing" and have "real facts" and all who profess to be perfectly innocent who will, eventually, call you a "disinfo agent" or (recently) a "pseudoskeptic" for calling them on it.

The signal to noise ratio is low, but its there. Calling people "pseudo skeptics" or "disinformation agents" is giving the noise an excuse to use to its own ends, and in a world where governments, media and dangerous groups are all well versed in the machinations of propaganda its a dangerous habit to pick up.



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 04:42 AM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


I think when it becomes disinfo is when a claim is made, by those who say they know better than everyone else, that a pic of Aristarchus glowing blue, is just color enhanced. Then when you show them a pic taken by an astronomer who didn't color enhance it, and it's still glowing blue, they pretend like they didn't see your evidence or claim the image is doctored or that the astronomer who took it enhanced it. Observe this beautiful blue glowing aristarchus


Aristarchus Crater
Credit: Mike's Astroimagery UK

the "experts" where this image is shown will tell you that it isn't really blue like that. that that is deliberately colored blue or the color saturation upped so it appears bluer than it is/ in other words, the claim that "surely other astronomers would see these anomalies" is a red herring, because when other astronomers DO see these anomalies and provide pictures, they are accused of faking it.




source image
4317 x 4506 moon
homepage.ntlworld.com...

[edit on 23-1-2008 by undo]



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


This is an excellent example, thank you. The picture IS very interesting and deserves some closer research and that is said from a sceptic point of view. But usually from the "believer" pov, the imagination is running wild and the picture is "proof" for a hollow moon with civilizations living there, the "proof" that ET has monitored humanity for a long time and probably created us, the "proof" that the moon is in fact a giant spaceship and of course, the "proof" that ET loves all of us and can be summoned with lasershows and happy happy thoughts to help us reach the next level of consciousness.

And with this scenario, rational people are driven away from the topic, even if they'd shown initial interest. Wouldn't that count as disinformation ?

Also, your "fake" argument runs both ways, the hardcore debunker won't accept additional photos, the believer won't accept any scientific explanation.


[edit on 23-1-2008 by Phil J. Fry]



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phil J. Fry
and of course, the "proof" that ET loves all of us and can be summoned with lasershows and happy happy thoughts to help us reach the next level of consciousness.

And with this scenario, rational people are driven away from the topic, even if they'd shown initial interest. Wouldn't that count as disinformation ?


Obsess much??


Many witnesses and experiencers report that the ETs communicate with them by telepathy, not spoken language. Cliff Stone says this too!


So WHY NOT try to use telepathy to communicate with and summon ETs?

It's very simple logic, that anyone not blinded by total contempt of any and all things mystical or spiritual should be able to understand


[edit on 23-1-2008 by MrdDstrbr]



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrdDstrbr
Obsess much??

[edit on 23-1-2008 by MrdDstrbr]


Perfect. One liner. Bill me.

Vic



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by V Kaminski
Perfect. One liner. Bill me.
Vic


Fry's obsession with debunking Greer is perfect?

Well it's perfectly annoying, anyway



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo

the opening comments from obi wan were perfect:

"only a sith deals in absolutes."


Apparently, it's not only Sith, but Obi-Wan too. Isn't "only a sith deals in absolutes" an absolute?



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Apparently, it's not only Sith, but Obi-Wan too. Isn't "only a sith deals in absolutes" an absolute?


Come to think of it, yes! Perhaps there are parameters for being and not being absolute, such as not assuming out of the box, that everything that is considered true now, is and always will be true?

If you don't ask any questions, how will you learn? If you only ask questions of one side and not the other, you are only seeing it from a single perspective and that doesn't sound like good science to me.

[edit on 23-1-2008 by undo]



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 07:55 AM
link   
If a computer can ask questions, why can't we?



What's the problem with asking questions and formulating your own theories, I ask?



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Well, se should maybe start with definition of disinformation before continuing this debate. Lots of people here don't seem to agree what it actually means, and then there are a few who do know and some who don't care to check their book of words. Google is your friend. HEre's a definition.

Disinformation is the deliberate dissemination of false information. It may include the distribution of forged documents, manuscripts, and photographs, or propagation of malicious rumours and fabricated intelligence.

Nobody has yet pointed this out, but people here on this thread have begun to define disinformation differently. If somebody's wrong about anything, it is NOT disinformation by any common definition of that word. It merely means that whoever it was who told something was wrong.

There is obviously a difference in being wrong and deliberately telling something as fact when origin of whatever opinion knows differently. We all believe and know different things, there is no concious mind on this planet parallel to our own. That's why we all have different perspectives, and that's also when reduction, occams razor etc come into play when we want to know something. Then again, somebody may be just trolling around and keeping fun, but that's another story.


I posted this because I clearly saw that some are trying to enarlge definition to include everything (all information) that they think offences their beliefs. That's medieval reasoning, we live in the third millennium for christ's sake.



[edit on 23/1/08 by rawsom]

[edit on 23/1/08 by rawsom]



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 08:28 AM
link   


I clearly saw that some are trying to enarlge definition to include everything (all information) that they think offences their beliefs


Most people who post alternative data, sincerely believe it at the time of posting. Some are proven wrong. Some are proven wrong only because the bulk of the skeptics on the thread claim it is wrong -- debunked, they shout. of course, usually it's on topics that have no clear way of proving either yea or nay, but they are absolutely sure they are right. that rock is not a person, it's a rock. that anomalie is not an anomalie, it's a crater. occam's razor becomes occam's endless list of reasons not to ask questions.

[edit on 23-1-2008 by undo]



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 08:48 AM
link   
I don't see how we can ever arrive at new discoveries without pre-approval. Science is not about pre-approval. It's about learning the truth, whatever, whereever that might be.

For example, if the current timeline for history is based on ancient egypt's timeline, are we sure they counted the pharaohs correctly? afterall, many of them were co-regents. (upper and lower). yet they placed them end to end so they'd seem like the oldest civilization. how can we be absolutely certain of anything if our science and history is based on only part of the information?

what about the rest of the ancient civs? greece had artifacts and archaeological history and textual history, what about their data? what about the data of the far east? the chinese, japanese, etc? what about the countless other nations of the world? their histories were all ruled unreliable on the basis that they mentioned gods in their texts. well so did the egyptians but that didn't stop them from using their history .

listen, they present history as a science but leave out ninety percent of the data from the experiment. this is an example of occam's razor with an extreme filtration system on it -- only a very small representative portion of the data gets accepted for the experiment and literally everything else is ignored. no double blind studies. no comparative study. what's the point of even bothering to study it if there's nothing to compare it to? i

these are valid questions that leak over into the skeptic topic. you realize you're being skeptical about something that you haven't even studied yet? and if you had, you'd eventually have to face the facts that it's a huge mess, and some of the worse science you will ever see, but it's accepted because most people don't ask questions.

it's okay if you don't ask questions, but for the sake of all that's even remotely scientific, please allow the rest of us to at least not assume right away, that every anomalie and bizarre event is mundane. occam's razor needs an upgrade. thing is too narrow minded and selective.




top topics



 
70
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join