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.
1.How reliable is the source of the claim?
2.Does the source make similar claims?
3.Have the claims been verified by somebody else?
4.Does this fit with how the world works?
5.Has anyone tried to disprove the claim?
6.Where does the preponderance of evidence point?
7.Is the claimant playing by the rules of science?
8.Is the claimant providing positive evidence?
9.Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory?
10.Are personal beliefs driving the claim?
Originally posted by zaiger
reply to post by cripmeister
1.How reliable is the source of the claim?
This is a method of ad himinem attack. If a physicist told us the moon was made out of cheese and the GFL said it was made of rocks it would not make the moon be made out of cheese.
2.Does the source make similar claims?
In an objective analysis it would not matter.
3.Have the claims been verified by somebody else?
I do not see why this would matter the GFL and all the spirit light people have numbers to back them up but that does not make them right.
4.Does this fit with how the world works?
This kind of goes out the window when you are dealing with subjects that alter the way the world works. According to this and the above the x-ray, television would all set off the detection kit shortly before they came to be.
5.Has anyone tried to disprove the claim?
This again does not change much, who has tried to do what does not really mean anything.
6.Where does the preponderance of evidence point?
That is somewhat subjective, depending on what it is there may be no proof on either side just theories.
7.Is the claimant playing by the rules of science?
This just begs the question "what are the 'rules' of science?"
8.Is the claimant providing positive evidence?
This is kinda subjective again, positive evidence is usually what the reader agrees with.
9.Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory?
This goes along with the idea that science is just a long history of corrected mistakes.
10.Are personal beliefs driving the claim?
This would work well on both sides Skeptics saying there is no such thing as ufos and the open skulled believer saying they are real. So is one side's personal beliefs more valid that the others?
Originally posted by cripmeister
- How reliable is the source of the claim?
- Does the source make similar claims?
- Have the claims been verified by somebody else?
- Does this fit with how the world works?
- Has anyone tried to disprove the claim?
- Where does the preponderance of evidence point?
- Is the claimant playing by the rules of science?
- Is the claimant providing positive evidence?
- Does the new theory account for as many phenomena as the old theory?
- Are personal beliefs driving the claim?
Originally posted by bsbray11
I've said it before but this is nothing but a set-up for self-indoctrination.
"How reliable is the source of the claim?"
Who decides what is reliable? According to most authorities, the MSM is reliable. Enough said! Let the blind indoctrination continue.
"Does this fit with how the world works?"
There is not a single person on this Earth who can tell you how the whole planet works. What this question means is, "Does this fit with your pre-conceptions of the world?", in which case, learning anything new about it is already completely ruled out. More of the indoctrinations we've already been taught, please!
"Is the claimant playing by the rules of science?"
I have no problem with this as long as it is strict logic and reasoning, but many people are incapable of this and think of science as if it's the new religion. Something can't be true unless it's peer reviewed by a bunch of Ivy League schools, etc. which is a blatant logical fallacy if true logic and reasoning are to be followed.
"Are personal beliefs driving the claim?"
Ah, the final card to be played. Simply dismiss the source because they actually believe what they are claiming? And you do not, of course (if you haven't picked that up from the other points already!), so obviously they are wrong!
I have a fine baloney detection kit, and this "baloney detection kit" is baloney.
Originally posted by RedBird
Your post is full of bombast and rhetoric.
I highly reccomend that you read my previous post on the matter. (You should find it directly above the one I am replying to now.)
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Well, I have to give some credit to those being skeptical of the skeptics' guidelines I suppose. But I suspect that those so inclined to challenge the "baloney detection kit" probably believe in some baloney and like it that way.
Originally posted by bsbray11
This coming from someone who confuses rhetorical arguments with literal ones and has a record of being unable to validate their own assertions with the kind of proof they demand of others.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
If you're going to be accusatory, at least be honest about things. You tried to derail a thread by nitpicking one of my posts and I refused to engage your derailing attempt. Apparently to your profound irritation.
And I was right, at least in your case. You pick apart the "kit", and you believe in things that you cannot readly support with evidence, a.k.a., "baloney".
Originally posted by bsbray11
No, you claimed there was evidence for something or other and thus the thread itself was pointless, and so I asked what this evidence was, and you immediately backed away and accuse me of "nitpicking."
It's not irritating to me. Not a single one of the people who argue in favor of the 9/11 OS, have ever manned up to the challenge of showing what has actually been proven. Not a single damned one of you, in all the years I've been posting here. So no, it's not irritating, but it's kind of comical and sad at the same time. Like Copernicus' days all over again.
So what's the flaw with the scientific method itself, if it has to have this "baloney detection kit" to supplement it? Think about it, and tell me what the flaw is. But don't hurt yourself.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I believe wholeheartedly in scientific method. The "kit" is designed to address psueodoscientfic and/or unsupported claims.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I believe wholeheartedly in scientific method. The "kit" is designed to address psueodoscientfic and/or unsupported claims.
And the scientific method is not?
You still have not explained what the problem with the scientific method is, that it should include this "kit."