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.

 

Fraudulent PseudoSkeptics

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   
I've found out about this link via another forum that I visit. It's a post that contains links to sites where certain hardcore skeptics were fraudulent in their attempts at debunking. Some of the links were already mentioned here at ATS, some not.

A nice reference for this forum:

Fraudulent PseudoSkeptics




posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Thanks. I will be using this link as a weapon in some of my posts



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   
[edit on 31-3-2008 by Skyfloating]



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Absolutely: always a handy topic - but not discussed nearly enough.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 10:31 AM
link   
First it would be a good idea if the believers could offer a single testable hypothesis for what they claim to be true. Until that happens, skeptics don't have to do anything, as there's nothing to disprove.

As it is, we have the believers running around elevating anecdotal evidence to something worth seriously considering, which makes the entire field look, well, childish.

Skeptics don't have to do anything. The believers are the skeptics' best friends, as they can't demonstrate a single thing, other than their willingness to believe their own senses over actual rigorous scientific testing.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


Dave, you make it sound as if there were a polarity: skeptics versus believers.

But "believers"...in what?

I am a firm believer that ANYTHING is possible.
At the same time, I am as skeptic as anyone I've ever met.
(And considerably more than some self-styled "skeptics", whose skepticism fails them whenever they are confronted with "science"... But skepticism means open-minded and non-hostile doubt regarding everything, including "science".)

As such, I know that there are things that simply CANNOT be proven in a way Randi & Co. would want (?) them to - because our "science" does not have the instruments to probe or gauge them.
Does that mean they necessarily don't exist...?

Randi may subscribe to such a Neanderthal conception of the Self and the world.
I am happy to say I don't. :-)





[edit on 8-4-2008 by Vanitas]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Dave,

If the so-called skeptics used actual science to review actual scientific experiments that where done that provide evidence for paranormal events I would agree with you. But as you can see in these links, these pseudo skeptics use any means necessary (which usually means unscientific) to debunk anything that does not fit into their belief of reality.

Yes the skeptics don't have to do anything. They should leave the work to be done by the real scientists.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Another gem:

The Suppression of Inconvenient Facts in Physics

Topics covered in this link:

The Cold Fusion Scandal; Transmutation and "Alchemy", Special Relativity Theory: Beyond Criticism, The myth of the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, Is the Speed of Light in Interplanetary Space a Constant?, Big Bang Cosmology - Beyond Empirical Falsification, Anti-Gravity, The Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Enfin, lots of material to delve into in that link alone.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by TheBandit795
 


Sure - those particular skeptics are fraudulent, but that in no way means that which they were trying to debunk is any more real. Tarring a whole group of non-believers for the actions of a vast minority is never a good idea.

As it is, there have been no experiments performed which show any sort of paranormal behaviour, so there's nothing to debunk. It's up to the paranormal believers to first figure out how to test their ideas, then the skeptics (which includes scientists, as they have to be skeptical by nature) can start their work.

Vanitas - I also believe that anything is possible. That doesn't mean, though, that I believe that anything anyone claims is the truth. When I say "believer", I'm talking about those folks who believe paranormal activity is taking place without any supporting evidence. That's not really a belief, but a faith.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by TheBandit795
 

As it is, there have been no experiments performed which show any sort of paranormal behaviour, so there's nothing to debunk.


Oh no???

Videotaped Experiments on Telephone Telepathy

A Question of Global Consciousness


Koestler Parapsychology Unit- Experiments in psi (more research needs to be done)


Pim v Lommel with medical evidence for Near Death experiences



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by TheBandit795
 


Oh yes!!!

Videotaped telephone telepathy experiment - not peer reviewed, tiny sample size, demonstrates nothing

Global consciousness - proves nothing, just indicates "something". No bearing on it being "paranormal", could very well be coincidence, or some very normal phenomenon yet to be identified

Experiments in Psi - Great idea. Still needs a lot more work before actually demonstrates anything useful to science

Pim van Lommel - he didn't find anything other than some people who have heart attacks experience a near death experience

If that's all you've got, then I think I can rest easy



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   



Videotaped telephone telepathy experiment - not peer reviewed, tiny sample size, demonstrates nothing


This has admittedly nothing to do with this discussion, strictly speaking, but it may be useful as fodder for thought all the same:

Telepathy is an almost daily experience in my life; it always has been.
Should I wait for my "peers" (who are they?) to test and confirm my actual experience, and not rely on my own analytical mind - which otherwise serves me perfectly in my research work (which has nothing to do with anything "paranormal", but it does involve close observation and data analysis)?

And BTW, what exactly is "paranormal"?

This is not a rhetorical question.

It would seem it relies on a definition of "normal" - but what is that definition?
Where can we read about it?
Who devised it, and on what basis?



If that's all you've got, then I think I can rest easy


So, the question is: why would the existence of something that "science" cannot prove disturb your rest?






[edit on 8-4-2008 by Vanitas]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Vanitas
 


Remember those shy dullard nerds with glasses that always nodded and said "yes" to everything the teacher said?

They later become pseudoskeptics in life.



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by TheBandit795
 


Global consciousness - proves nothing, just indicates "something". No bearing on it being "paranormal", could very well be coincidence, or some very normal phenomenon yet to be identified


I'm convinced that everything that is called paranormal will not be called that when the workings are identified. So that global concsiousnes experiment may well indicate something very normal but nonetheless has it never been really researched before now. So yeah, the global consciousness experiment has uncovered a unexpected result that indicates humans are not a closed circuit system. And by the way, time has not even been proven other then us experiencing the causality of it every single moment of our waking life.

It is that way with countless theories out there that are accepted as truth while the definitive proof of it is non-existent. ofcourse the other side is also true, don't lose your head in jumping to conclusions but bottomline is that if there is the case of PROOF you have to know that it is a scarse commodity in science land.

all above is a big imo ofcourse
.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by Harman]



posted on Apr, 8 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by TheBandit795
 


Oh yes!!!

Videotaped telephone telepathy experiment - not peer reviewed, tiny sample size, demonstrates nothing


I don't know as yet if it's not peer reviewed, and as far as I know, you don't know either.. But there's more where that came from.

A Filmed Experiment on Telephone Telepathy with the Nolan Sisters- Journal of the Society for Psychical Research 68, 168-172 (2004)

"Testing for Telepathy in Connection with E-Mails" -journal of Perceptual and Motor Skills, 101, 771-786


Global consciousness - proves nothing, just indicates "something". No bearing on it being "paranormal", could very well be coincidence, or some very normal phenomenon yet to be identified




Experiments in Psi - Great idea. Still needs a lot more work before actually demonstrates anything useful to science


True, but they have done lots already, and there is definately something there that should be studied.


Pim van Lommel - he didn't find anything other than some people who have heart attacks experience a near death experience


He showed evidence that we do survive after death, because of the veridical NDE's in that experiment. Which has not been debunked.

Yes, keep resting. If all scientists where that lazy, we would still be thinking that the Earth was flat and that the sun revolved around the Earth.

Here's some more for you to chew on. They are links to different experiments done in the area of psi done by PEAR, Radin, Jahn, Sheldrake etc...

www.paranormal-evidence.xaper.com...
www.paranormal-evidence.xaper.com...

And then this:

An Assessment of The Evidence For Psychic Functioning
by Professor Jessica Utts




top topics



 
4

log in

join