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: 9
70
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Look at some of the statements by so-called "skeptics" on this thread:

"You are a liar"

"This thread is useless"

"No research into Ufos has been done"


The pseudoskeptics agenda is not driven by scientific inquiry but emotion-based.

To have the same nonsense employed again and again is tiring and distracting from deepening research on the real subjects.

[edit on 21-1-2008 by Skyfloating]




posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 10:03 AM
link   

"You are a liar"

Maybe he was a liar


"This thread is useless"

Maybe it was useless


"No research into Ufos has been done"

Maybe it wasn't done any research.

You are just backing up my claims .. But if you whould have provided us with links to those threads, maybe I could have agreed with you ..


The pseudoskeptics agenda is not driven by scientific inquiry but emotion-based.


Your replies to my post are emotion based.


To have the same nonsense employed again and again is tiring and distracting from deepening research on the real subjects.


I feel the same way..



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by tep200377
 



Originally posted by tep200377
. I'd say that 98% of UFO posters are not researching more than 5 minutes.


Hi tep200377,
I suppose that just before you write this down you has put your big thumb in your mouth, make it wed and stick it in the air right?

Because what you say is nothing more then guessing?
So in fact, you do yourself of what you others accusing of, am I right?


Originally posted by tep200377
Heck, most of them aren't even posting their own stuff... just "what is your thougts of this 10 year old debunked 1000 times video.."


Even the best scientists when doing research, study and use material / stuff of others don’t you think?
So, there is nothing wrong with that.


Originally posted by tep200377
Just because you have 1 person that has done a lot of reading and posting doesn't mean its all based on research.


Again your big thumb in the air I suppose?



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by tep200377
 


Fine, have it your way then. Maybe if this thread were entitled "UFOs: The Evidence" Id lead you around ATS showing you the relevant threads. But this thread is not about that, its about skeptics vs. pseudoskeptics and the tactics of disinformants.

Speaking of disinformer tactics, here´s one:

1. Publish absolutely silly and non-credible information on subject X.
2. Later, when someone tries to argue pro subject x, refer to that absolutely silly and stupid video, as if it were representative of subject X.

Thats the tactic you employ when you mention the most idiotic of threads opened here and take them to be representational of UFOlogy.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 10:34 AM
link   
this thread is turning into a pissing match. one cannot play if the ball is not thrown back. we need to stick to the issue.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Look at some of the statements by so-called "skeptics" on this thread:
"You are a liar"
"This thread is useless"
"No research into Ufos has been done"
The pseudoskeptics agenda is not driven by scientific inquiry but emotion-based.


I agree with this above, but do you really see this as much? Or do you see the opposite of people making extraordinary claims while using words like indisputable, undeniable, proof positive etc. in their post only to see a weak YouTube video, or opinions labeled as facts, or questionable citations that might fit the OP’s logic but goes completely against a mountain of other citations? I also see posts where the initial logic is ok but then the OP takes a leap in thought that is like leaping across the Grand Canyon, but is treated like the next logical small step.

If a person put forth a topic and did it in a way to generate discussion no matter how far out it seemed, I would think the response would be much different. You could call me a skeptic more than anything else, but I do recall your recent post about “How "the law of attraction" works” and I felt that you presented it in the right way to generate interest. This was the first time I have heard of it, and being more of a skeptic, I asked a few questions and your response did nothing but generate more interest for me to research it.

I am the type of person that needs substantiated proof. I do not just assume, nor do I take the OP at this word, and when topics go against the law of physics as we know them or go into areas that are far from common knowledge this all requires empirical data of some kind that is not full of confounding or opinionated information to call it factual. Does this not make sense to anyone? Presenting a theory and then discussing a hypothesis based on that theory is great, but people seem to always want to say their theory is factual right off the start.

My favorite example is the Criss Angel’s 1900+ post thread. I get slammed dunked by the believers that it is all real when I suggest a TV show cannot be considered empirical data proving it is real. I also get knocked around when I say that if a person under “controlled conditions” can levitated a foot off the ground that is all the proof I need. It can be done randomly for the show, but not for a group of unbiased observers.

For a person to use the word “Fact” it needs to follow certain rules to get that label, and when it cannot, then the OP needs to understand this and present their topic correctly even if THEY feel it is fact. This is only logical and shows empathy for those who do not have the knowledge, ability, or skill to also see it as fact.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
You kept calling for an example so I made the mistake of giving in to your request. Simple as that.

As I dont use the 9/11 Forum I doubt that I have the agenda to silence that person.

One major point of this thread was to point out differences between skeptics and pseudoskeptics.


So, you just carelessly and reckless just pulled out a name at random? And on the basis of what? CatHerder, whether you agree with the conclusions or not, crafted a well-researched post; you seemingly labelled it as an example of disinformation and "pseudoskepticism" on the basis it ran contrary to conspiracy theories.

This is not about pointing out the difference between pseudoskeptics and skeptics. This is about trying to discredit anyone who is a skeptic. Otherwise, you would not be trying to label someone crafting a meticulously researched post as an example of disinformation or a "pseudoskeptic." You post "rules" to identify pseudoskeptics, many of which are so vague they can apply to anyone making any sort of argument. You would not be warning everyone to be wary of those who demand evidence for extrodinary claims.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacevisitor
reply to post by tep200377
 

Hi tep200377,
I suppose that just before you write this down you has put your big thumb in your mouth, make it wed and stick it in the air right?

Because what you say is nothing more then guessing?
So in fact, you do yourself of what you others accusing of, am I right?


Yes, I did. It was a wet thumb up, but I don't think I'm far from the truth.


Even the best scientists when doing research, study and use material / stuff of others don’t you think? So, there is nothing wrong with that.


Yes, scientist use others work to research. But that was not my point. I tried to point out ie. those who post threads with videos and articles they stumble upon, just to be the first to post an outdated article.




Originally posted by tep200377
Just because you have 1 person that has done a lot of reading and posting doesn't mean its all based on research.


Again your big thumb in the air I suppose?


No? Hi did just give me one user ..


Edit: major typos that even I found


[edit on 21-1-2008 by tep200377]



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating
reply to post by tep200377
 


Alas...its frustrating to be aware of rock-solid evidence such as witness-testimony, pictures that havent been debunked, videos, artefacts, implants and personal experiences with UFOs, abductee accounts, statements made by respected and intelligent public figures...

...and then to have a so-called "skeptic" come by and say "There is no evidence whatsoever".

The next thing that skeptic will predictably say is "show me one piece of evidence". You show him one piece and he will try to rip that piece of evidence apart using the methods described in the opening post.


Yes, this has become standard procedure on this site. If someone makes a claim, they are expected to at least give us some sort of evidence to discuss. You surely can't blame people for asking for some evidence to work with?

And if some evidence (e.g. a photo) is given, then expect people to tear it to shreds to try and debunk it. If it is a good piece of evidence then it will stand up to the test. Most of the time when a picture is called 'CGI' or 'photoshopped', it is for a good reason, and the accusers are quite experienced in using CGI and photoshop programs themselves.

A bit of skepticism is healthy anyway, it helps bring more facts out into the open. I agree that there are some people who just get childish and derail threads, but don't just throw all skeptics into the same boat. The 'good' skeptics help maintain the validity and maturity of this site.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

I agree with this above, but do you really see this as much? Or do you see the opposite of people making extraordinary claims while using words like indisputable, undeniable, proof positive etc. in their post only to see a weak YouTube video, or opinions labeled as facts, or questionable citations that might fit the OP’s logic but goes completely against a mountain of other citations? I also see posts where the initial logic is ok but then the OP takes a leap in thought that is like leaping across the Grand Canyon, but is treated like the next logical small step.



The opposite is of course true. Ive played both the skeptic who ridicules and critisises posts and the enthusiastic believer. It works both ways. But thats what balance is all about.

Believe it or not, there are some ATS-members here who have never ever been anything other than a debunker.



My favorite example is the Criss Angel’s 1900+ post thread. I get slammed dunked by the believers that it is all real when I suggest a TV show cannot be considered empirical data proving it is real. I also get knocked around when I say that if a person under “controlled conditions” can levitated a foot off the ground that is all the proof I need. It can be done randomly for the show, but not for a group of unbiased observers.


Well, lets not turn this into a skeptics vs. believers discussion, because it is not. I share your frustration with the true-believer-syndrome.

The actual question posed in the opening post is "Is some of the information on ATS significant enough to attract Disinformers (who then pose as skeptics or insane-believers)?"



For a person to use the word “Fact” it needs to follow certain rules to get that label, and when it cannot, then the OP needs to understand this and present their topic correctly even if THEY feel it is fact. This is only logical and shows empathy for those who do not have the knowledge, ability, or skill to also see it as fact.


Yes. One reason so many kids here open threads on "indisputable proof" blabla is in order to gain attention for their thread...similar to what the yellow press does to gain readers.

Interestingly, the people I am referring to in the OP dont even bother with threads like that though.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

So, you just carelessly and reckless just pulled out a name at random? And on the basis of what? CatHerder, whether you agree with the conclusions or not, crafted a well-researched post; you seemingly labelled it as an example of disinformation and "pseudoskepticism" on the basis it ran contrary to conspiracy theories.


I have already apologized and admitted to my wrong-doing. You want to continue to rub it in?




You would not be warning everyone to be wary of those who demand evidence for extrodinary claims.



Untrue. I often say to people: "Dont take my word for it, check it out yourself" or "I may be wrong, but this is what I think...".

This is the good attitude taken by most people here at ATS.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Topical Primer

This thread was intended as pointing out the difference between a true skeptic and a pseudoskeptic. Not as a debate on whether something exists or not.

The pseudoskeptic is someone who does nothing other than engage in negativity and ridicule all the time and towards any thread on a subject. If he were to engage in that only once in awhile, I wouldnt label him a pseudoskeptic.

This type of person does operate on ATS.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating


Yes. One reason so many kids here open threads on "indisputable proof" blabla is in order to gain attention for their thread...similar to what the yellow press does to gain readers.

Interestingly, the people I am referring to in the OP dont even bother with threads like that though.



I think this is an interesting thread. I would hazard a guess that the majority of my posts have at least appeared to be skeptical - indeed I think you and I have locked swords before, Skyfloating. I don't have any particular agenda - I'm certainly not being paid (though I would say that, wouldn't I...)!

But the quote you give regarding "disproven" and "not proven" is a really good catch. There is a big difference, of course, and not one I think I've ever considered enough.

All I'd say in defence of the skeptic is this. I came to these boards because I believed in aliens and ufos, I believed in government conspiracies, and I believed in getting them out in the open. I started off as open minded as you could hope me to be. I was shocked at how quickly I became cynical, though. Actually what has happened is that I believe far less of what I see now, than I did before I got here. You could say I'm more skeptical - I prefer to think my nose for conspiracy has become more refined!

I reserve the right to cry foul over posts that I consider to be either coming from a position of supposed authority that can't be backed up, or that portray speculation as fact. But beyond that you are right, and thanks to your interesting and well-composed post, at least one skeptic will be thinking hard about the nature of proof before he calls a game over in future.

LW



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by LoneWeasel

All I'd say in defence of the skeptic is this. I came to these boards because I believed in aliens and ufos, I believed in government conspiracies, and I believed in getting them out in the open. I started off as open minded as you could hope me to be. I was shocked at how quickly I became cynical, though. Actually what has happened is that I believe far less of what I see now, than I did before I got here. You could say I'm more skeptical - I prefer to think my nose for conspiracy has become more refined!



The effect ATS has had on you is interesting, to say the least. Reading a lot of ATS does make one more able to judge information and see through the nonsense. And as long skepticism doesnt blow out the fire of enthusiasm for exploration, its a good thing.

I have found that new discoveries are often pre-paved by enthusiasm. This enthusiasm often tilts over into gullibility. Thats where skepticism is required. But that often tilts over into cynicism. Tough to keep the balance.

[edit on 21-1-2008 by Skyfloating]



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by tep200377
But that was not my point. I tried to point out ie. those who post threads with videos and articles they stumble upon, just to be the first to post an outdated article.



Originally posted by tep200377
I'd say that 98% of UFO posters are not researching more than 5 minutes.


Look for a moment how you post a thread yourself, is that what you call doing research?

reply to post by tep200377
 



Originally posted by tep200377
Sorry, this post might start with short information in english to begin with. In norways biggest newspaper, the story goes that a norwegian professor of history has uncovered the secret society we've all heard about: Illuminati en.wikipedia.org...
He claims that they are behind events like the russian and the french revolution, the last two world wars, gloalisation and the Catholic Church .
Untill now, the story is in norwegian, and I'll try to translate some of it in my next posts.
www.dagbladet.no...





[edit on 21/1/08 by spacevisitor]

[edit on 21/1/08 by spacevisitor]



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by tep200377
Sorry, this post might start with short information in english to begin with. In norways biggest newspaper, the story goes that a norwegian professor of history has uncovered the secret society we've all heard about: Illuminati en.wikipedia.org...
He claims that they are behind events like the russian and the french revolution, the last two world wars, gloalisation and the Catholic Church .
Untill now, the story is in norwegian, and I'll try to translate some of it in my next posts.
www.dagbladet.no...


Did I claim that this was a UFO, alien or something paranormal? I'd say you really hit a few meters from the nail on this one.. I was merely trying to relay an news article about conspiracy. I wasn't trying to prove anything .. nada...

a poor try to prove a point..

[edit on 21-1-2008 by tep200377]



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoneWeasel
I reserve the right to cry foul over posts that I consider to be either coming from a position of supposed authority that can't be backed up, or that portray speculation as fact.
LW


Right on. There is nothing wrong with debunking when it's bunk we have before us.



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 04:10 PM
link   
The disinformation game is alive and well. Now days anyone can say that if they do not agree with you they can say you are being paid to disinform. Sure it is a real game that is played. But we also have to look at it from this point of view as well. We all have free will of choice.

I say this cause I have encountered many who disrupt myself and others and who even have accused me and my friends of being disinformants. I also have encountered people and even friends whom have very differing points of view than myself and there is no amount of discussion that is going to change their minds.

I used to have friendly debate on line with some over email correspondance where it was so interesting cause some would only use the bible for example to speak for them when addressing me. They could not speak for themselves, by using their own words and thoughts. Others just stick to thier pont of view and that is that.

In life, do we need to really worry about those who are paid to disrupt us. I say, let them post and you either agree or you don't. Post what you feel is important and reply when it seems right, but do not let any post get under you skin. For that is when they got you.

Just know that what is truth for you is what is important to you. It is good to keep an open mind, but only you can change your mind for it is each of us that is determined in our actions and reactions and we must always be in full responsibility for such.

Determined self-repsonsibility is at the heart of the freedom that each of us has in our free will of choice.




posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phil J. Fry


Originally posted by MrdDstrbr
You'll notice I've even greatly reduced my posts re: Greer, in fact I didn't even really want to post in this thread as I knew the exact same four vultures would be all over me and all clapping each other on the back giving each other stars the second I did....


Well, according to Mrd, i can choose between being a spook, paid debunker or disinfo agent



Dredging up old posts of mine from like 5 months ago, Fry?

Obsess about me much???

Look, I know that there are at least a couple anti-Greer spooks on here. I will not discuss how I know or why I believe this. But the fact that there are anti-Greer spooks on here only reinforces my belief that there's at least some truth to what Greer is saying.

FWIW, if you are not a spook, just a particularly obsessive and annoying skeptic, then I apologize for calling you a "Vulture".



[edit on 21-1-2008 by MrdDstrbr]



posted on Jan, 21 2008 @ 07:35 PM
link   
There have been times when I've seen some posters act totally irrational and display a consistent lack of critical thinking . I figured they are just mentally deficient/ uninformed/ stubborn first and foremost, but the 'Spook' tag was tempting. Im sure there are disinformants around here though... *cough* CaptainObvious *cough*


[edit on 21-1-2008 by Unplugged]



new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join