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.

 

Debunking Pseudoskepticism: Common fallacies

page: 10
23
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


Sigh, they just don't stop do they. Perhaps you know no other way. I don't want to come across as rude but you clearly do not read peoples arguments properly virtually all the time.

read this statement please...

They just dont stop do they. who is they? I dont want to come across as rude, (when infact you are)

This is my arugment.. what makes your right? what is it that sets you apart form him or me? or anyone els for that matter?

what you fail to understand is that we are all in the same boat and yes its good to have a better grasp on things, but to belittle someone is not a good sign nore is it a sign of interlect, people read my posts and the first thing that comes into there head is my grammer and spelling.. granted this is what people do, but it does not show how smart i am nore does it reflect who i am, it mearly shows how i can not adapt to a system my brain can not cope with as much as others "use google"...

your thread is abot YOU not others,, its about your own self importants and not about skeptics, thats very correct..

and from the first line of the thread its hard not to see thats its about YOU

attention seeking ?

ADHD

maybe ur not an indigo_Child but an attention seekings child.. who wants admeration from ones peers in order to have some place in life

im sorry but life does not work that way no matter if u come from mars or your gentics are more "turned on" than mine.. witch btw is a joke




posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by symmetricAvenger
 



Now there's a personal attack if I ever saw one.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


You see this is why i dont undersant you arguments

you agree to disagree on what? what is it you dont agree on??

im not here to flame or bait you or even make u look stupid as that would make me pathetic, but i do wish to understand yoru argument and also why you infact think you have the right to belittle people on the way they think when infact its the same reason you postulate your own ideas

now correct me or ignore me but i urge you to atleas respond to my simple questions without being smart and giving me a one liner

i agree to dissagree is a cop out.. so are u as smart as you make out or not willing to answer me ?

and i do ask that with a very open mind and not in a way that would flame you or make me come across to you as an agressor. mearly trying to undersatand what it is you are infact saying.

I hope u understand my question as you are younger than me

indigo_child

(child)



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by symmetricAvenger
 


You have just come into this thread and insulted me personaly repeately in 3 different and consecutive posts without any provocation from me whatsoever, why should I talk to you? Give me one good reason why I shouldn't put you on my ignore list?

[edit on 2-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 01:37 AM
link   
This thread started out on a "whose the fastest gun in the West?" note.

When you demand a confrontation be prepared for someone bigger and better than you anticipated.

We found the answer to the question.

Hopefully a couple of us learned something about arguments that invoke logic and pure reason, but only in name.


Mike

[edit on 2-4-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


i did not insult you!!!

I asked vaild questions and state facts based on your own arguments

how can one class that as an insult?? i did not call you any names that would make me look pathetic or warrent a mod to say i was offtopic Nore did i want to..

I askes very simple questions based on the topic, the first line of the thread i did indeed use your own words?

you stated you have done this? but yet you question it anways? i dont get this part, and then in refenc to this and other topics we have both been on i asked why you smiled when others called you arrogant *like you enjoed it" and then befor this

may i remind you that you make a thread saying your gense were differnt to that of mine and thats why you are an indgo_child correct?

and then i asked why you agree to dissagree, what is it you dont agree on ? is it that i ask questions you can not ask or is that you chose not to ask them and chose to agree becuase that is the easy option?

You can ignore me if you wish to do so, but then that proves my point i assume. that one can not argue a case when infact one does not have one to being with

sherlock homes,,., that guy you talked about befor in that other thread remember?

i know i do

my grammer and spelling may suck but dont think for one second im a clown.

i read words as good as i do mathmatics, and my mathmatics make your grammer and spelling a joke

understand that logic the next time you post



and i did not call you stupid nor did i insult you, i just pointed out your not as smart as you think and nore should you belittle people for there right to have an opinon

critical thinking. not slander or making insults.. FACT



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 02:02 AM
link   
Deleted post. No point.

[edit on 2-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
reply to post by symmetricAvenger
 


You have just come into my thread and insulted me personaly repeately in 3 different and consecutive posts without any provocation from me whatsoever, why should I talk to you? Give me one good reason why I shouldn't put you on my ignore list?

[edit on 2-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]


I came into a public forum, "into my thread" does infact imply you made this thread to be self satisfied... and i did not insult you i only asked questions you did not answer in a manner i seem fit to me..

why should you talk to me? why should i respond? you asked the question did you not? so im doing what you asked, im replying "logic"... and as for the ignore list, feel free to do what you want in this regard.

as your statement show, you can not take critisiem very well nore do you wish to be proven WRONG when infact you are..

like i said befor being right 100% of the time means you are 100% wrong..

you leave no room to be corrected in you statements, and in this you will fail to grasp that

*1 you are no different to a skeptic
*2 you infact prove and show why skeptics are the way they are
*3 If you was as open minded as u claim then you would have humilty

and you do lack humility as you can never be wrong ....

does that make you infact the very same thing you argue against?

Pseudoskeptcik?

fale argument backed by ones idiolgy

thats infact what that word means

hope you understand that, and that did not reuqire me to have my gense alterd or any other new age bulls#it one wants to make out

logic and mathmatics and crital thinking of ones statments and sentance shows it..

and you epicly fail to do both

just to add my grammer and spelling are crap yes.. but i make up for it by reading peoples utter crap and looking in the mirror and not making people feel stupid..

that is a sign of interlect, for interlect is incumpersing NOT ones self right.

skeptics or not we are all one of the same and scoring points is as lame as it gets.. and for me you are as bad as the people who do the very same thing you make this post about.

You are your thread... you make that very clear to me



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by symmetricAvenger
 


Of course I am open to be corrected. I even request refutations, and when people genuinely engage my arguments I engage their arguments in kind.

Anyway you are not adding anything to this thread, are being incredibly nasty without provocation and from the looks of things have a lot of personal issues to settle and I don't think I would lose anything by putting you on my ignore list. So on you go.

[edit on 2-4-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


no they are not personal attacks.

they question your thinking and methadology

Nothing more... and if you say i am insulting you by reason of my arguement then you are seeking attention...

I did state this is not a personal attack nore am i here to flame or de rail the thread>

one must understand (more so you) that the argument you are infact doing is for your own benifit not that of others

spoilt childrend do this and i was pointing out this fact "as its in human nature"

its a phycology thing... if you cant have a deabte and say im insulting you when infact im not but im arguing my case then that would make you a spoilt brat with no reason to compermise?

i can understand you think you are always correct and that does show in your demina on here, but understand

You are no more smarter than the next person.. for the very questions we all seek are baesd on a question

thats why we question things

its called logic... you can play with words as much as you wish but some (i hate to say this) are infact smarter than you

does that grate you? do you not like the idea that infact i am smarter?

is that the reason why u dont debate me? and fob me off with one liners?

or is it that i make statements you find hard to counter act with your pseudoskepticism?

my thoughts aswell...

if you want to think everyone is dumb thats fine and dandy, but me being me ill challange your argument.. and as i have shown im very much up to the tast of it

and i dont need insults nore do i need my points removed, but i will on the internet infront of whoever happend to view this thread

challange you and your statements in regards to I KNOW IT ALL
when you dont



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


I said befor i am not here to insult nore do i wish to, i was only reading the thread that you posted about skeptics..

and i did say that.. why did you say in ur first comment/sentance that you are indeed a skeptic? but then u flame others for the very thing you do?

I just find that hypercritcal if anything? and i did rase other issues i have regarding other threads you have made.. not to degrade you but only for you to see that sometimes when you state things in a way that you do that can "BE LITTLE" someone

that is my point here. and arogance is a key factor, and you may not see it but others can and you react as being attacked for it.. normal granted but its not true ot others..

im just putty my case for the topic and i have been on topic with every post i have mad and i have not insulted you once..

if you wish me to insult you i can do so.. just to be a very smug little child and get my kicks.. but being me i would rarther qeustion you as a person and provid me answers to the ones i seek..

insults provide no anwers only #y outcomes "this is ATS" we insult each other via interlect.., you should know this well as you pratice it enough wth other memebers

; )



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
You say that skeptical people do not make any of the those common pseudoskeptical arguments I made and therefore I am misrepresentng them.


Okay. Let's pretend we're having an ATS convention. All 10,000 ATS members are here in the coliseum. I'm at the mike recognizing various subsets of ATS members .. all the Writers stand up .. yay! .. all the SME's stand up .. yay!.. All the pseudoskeptics stand up .... ... ... ...... ....

... uh .. guess what ... nobody stood up. You know why? Because there's actually no such thing as a pseudoskeptic. It's a derogatory term that somebody made up to insult people who don't believe in things.

I assure you that nobody ever decided to become a pseudoskeptic.

Joe Hillbilly, he don't believe in aliens. Has he ever investigated the evidence? No. So why doesn't he believe? Cuz he ain't never seen one and the guv'ment says they ain't real. And Joe ain't GONNA believe, until either the guv'ment says so or one walks right up to Joe and says "take me to your leader!" So, hey presto! Joe is now a pseudoskeptic because he has 'contempt' prior to investigation. He ain't looked at the evidence but he don't believe.

If someone says "I heard that interstellar travel is impossible, so how could ETS even get here?" Hey, presto! They just became a pseudoskeptic and their fallacy needs to be debunked!

Bah. The whole "pseudoskepticism" thing is about insulting and belittling people who don't believe extraterrestrials are visiting Earth (or whatever your thing that they don't believe in happens to be).

They're just regular people, getting by the best they can. Gentle education by way of some of the less spectacular (or troubling) cases will get you further than denouncing them as pseudoskeptics and "debunking" them.

You might as well just tell them they're idiots and they're stupid not to have noticed all this overwhelming evidence for ET. You'll get about the same reaction either way.


Right, just like you had not seen any skeptic ever say interstellar travel is impossible. We already know your memory is, shall we say, questionable.


No. There is nothing wrong with my memory. I said I haven't seen any skeptics (or pseudoskeptics) say that it is impossible for ETs to get here.
What does that have to do with your links to scientific papers? Some astronomer writing a paper on the impossibility of interstellar travel is NOT the same as an ATS member saying "UFOs can't be ET because ET's can't travel to Earth."

If you try to claim again that it is my memory or my honesty that is lacking here, you will be the one being deliberately deceitful - as well as obtuse.


Nope, a theory is only valid insofar as it can explain the available data.


All right! A straight answer! Maybe we're getting somewhere now.

1. The Suboceanic Civilizations Hypothesis (SCH) is more valid than the ETH because it explains:
a) why UFOs travel into, out of, and through/under the oceans
b) why UFOs monitor and watch us without announcing themselves
c) why UFO occupants are so concerned about what we are "doing to" the Earth

The ETH does not provide satisfactory explanations for any of this observed data.

2. The Extra Dimensional Hypothesis (EDH) is more valid than the ETH because it explains:
a) UFOs which change size, shape, color, and density
b) UFOs which appear to violate our laws of physics (the ETH says they have technology which transcends our physics, the EDH's simpler explanation says they aren't bound by our laws of physics because they aren't "phsyical" in our dimension
c) why UFOs seem to just hang around Earth and do as they please without any real plan - it's just the backward world "next door"
d) UFOs which suddenly appear and/or disappear, and continue to "travel" while "invisible"

The ETH does not provide satisfactory explanations for any of this observed data.

My hypotheses are more valid than your hypothesis!! Nanny nanny!!


Pseudoskeptical arguments are invalid and therefore they are easy to debunk. Even you admit all of the pseudoskeptical arguments are invalid.

The problem is, pseudoskeptical arguments don't exist. It is peoples' points of view, opinions, and beliefs you are insulting and "debunking" here.


You have won debates on an internet forum? OK....


Not just any forum, the ATS debate forum! Here is my record:


Heike _________________8_____________5-2________2__


That's 8 points, 5 wins 2 losses, and current winning streak is 2. My most recent win (in round 2 of the ongoing tournament) is still linked in my signature.



In the most recent case you categorically asserted nobody has said interstellar travel is impossible, then I prove you wrong, and rather than admiting you were wrong, you shift the goal. Hardly respectable.


I addressed that above. Scientific papers on the impossiblity of interstellar travel are NOT the same as a skeptic (or pseudoskeptic) saying that UFOs can't be ET because it is impossible for ET to get here. Or do you claim that that astronomer was one of your opponents arguing against the ETH somewhere?


Frankly, I don't even know what your position is anymore. That is how much you have changed your position.


Sheesh, how many times I gotta state it before you GET it?

The evidence is insufficient to validate the ETH.

Which means that people CAN have valid objections to the ETH without being pseudoskeptics (or bogus skeptics, or debunkers, or any of the other associated derogatory names).


Nope, I have said that those who do not accept ETH as the most valid explanation for UFO's are psueoskeptics.


Uh .. isn't that the same as what I said you said?


Another strawman. I never said those who question ETH for UFO's are bogus skeptics. A bogus skeptic is one who makes invalid arguments, not someone who disagrees with you.


Okay, wait a minute .. first you say "there can be no valid objection to the ETH for UFOs" and then you say "a bogus skeptic is one who makes invalid arguments." Sooo... any objection to the ETH is therefore invalid, making anyone who objects to the ETH a bogus skeptic by your definitions. Got it.



Well, as I am not treating others as being stupid or ignorant


Yes, you do, and I am not the only one who has seen it or mentioned it. It's a shame you can't see it, as you can't change it until you recognize it.


This never was a thread against skeptics.


Right. It was a thread against pseudoskeptics. Which a) don't exist and b) are defined as "those who do not accept ETH as the most valid explanation for UFO's."



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Post removed as it related to the above removed post


[edit on 2/4/2009 by skibtz]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   
I think we need to put the brakes on this discussion, take a step back and look at what is happening. In at least three threads, we have Child and Malcram browbeating any and every one who does not subscribe to their pet theory. Any who do not, be they skeptic or believer, is worthy of any sort of derision or insult. This is reminiscent of Polomontana and his supporters/sock-puppets, who are less interested in proving their hypothesis and more interested in silencing those who do not agree with them.

I would suggest we do not engage them in this any longer. They will proclaim victory, confusing it with proving their pet beliefs. We however are not hobbled by such confusion. Everyone else has witnessed their childish and borish behavior, which should tell them enough about who is open-minded and interested in genuine, sincere discussion.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 


Stop sermonizing to your flock SC.



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by skibtz
 


I was responding to Mikes 'gunfighter' post Skibtz in which he gleefully implies you have shot Indigo down with regard to logic. I completely disagree, and as I said, I find your and Heike's responses regarding logic to be painfully weak. That's my opinion, just as Mike gave his. I'm sorry you don't like it. And I was referring to the ongoing debate you and Heike are having regarding logic with Indigo and others over several threads, not just this one.

[edit on 2-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Malcram
I was responding to Mikes 'gunfighter' post Skibtz in which he gleefully implies you have shot Indigo down with regard to logic.


'You'?

I guess it was me who shot JR too?

Or stole Red Rum perhaps?


I completely disagree, and as I said, I find your and Heike's responses regarding logic to be painfully weak.


Then go to the relevant thread and make your case. That is how forums work right?

[edit on 2/4/2009 by skibtz]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by skibtz

I guess it was me who shot JR too?

Or stole Red Rum perhaps?


LOL. Well perhaps if you had been involved in heated exchanges with JR and Red Rum regarding the application of reason and logic across several threads I might have suspected you. Mike's comment was not regarding himself, clearly, but came on the heels of you and Heike tag teaming indigo. I had you both in mind actually.


Then go to the relevant thread and make your case. That is how forums work right?


As I said, my response was to Mike and his assessment, here. There was no intent to cause offense, I just don't think your arguments were very strong or warranted Mike's insinuation that Indigo had "met his/her (I'm not sure) match" with regard to an understanding of how logic applies to the UFO debate.

The reason I am now refraining from engaging, as you suggest, especially with certain members, is precisely because if they don't have a good grasp of logic then they are unable to recognize when they are being illogical, despite invoking 'logic', and when their arguments have been defeated. It becomes a futile exercise. I consider that Indigo has done an excellent job of thoroughly refuting these arguments according to logic and yet those disputing with her are unable or unwilling to see it. So what is the point in me getting involved? As I quoted recently, "There are none so blind as those who will not see."

[edit on 2-4-2009 by Malcram]



posted on Apr, 2 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Malcram
 


Funny how it's only you, Indigo, and Polo boy who have that problem with me. Everyone else seems to think I'm VERY logical.

I do admit though, that it's easier to remain on track with the logic when one's opponent doesn't keep making stuff up as they go along. I'm rather used to people who use references and try to stick to the truth.

But then, those people don't get to judge themselves, they get independently judged by an anonymous judge.

Funny how no one here will agree to debate with rules and judges.




top topics



 
23
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join