Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

I don't believe in skeptics

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 09:13 PM
link   
There are people who still believe the Earth is flat, you can argue with them until proverbially your head explodes, they will not change there minds...

www.alaska.net...

Skepticism in the modern prose is not different than in the past...

Any thoughts?




posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   
I'm skeptical about your "I Don't believe in Skeptics thread"

2nd line



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 09:51 PM
link   
I think the most accurate and appropriate term is Debunker because it covers both category of skeptics and dis info agents.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 09:59 PM
link   
No, really, they exist!!

There are pics!

I know a guy whose cousin went to school with one!




posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by luciddream
When people don't agree with them, they call them close minded.

All we need is some evidence to worth with...

My pet rocks talks to me, it doesn't always talk and sometimes it is very picky on when to speak, all i have is shaky image/videos of my rock and some vibrations, if you don't believe it you are close minded... sounds fair?


You stole my rock!! I thought it ran away from home, but now I know!
You broke into my house in the middle of the night and you stole my rock!!
I had pics up on phone poles for weeks and nobody ever called. I thought it slipped out accidently and went back to the quarry to be with it's family, but now I know, you took it!

I want my rock back



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
reply to post by onequestion
 



Being willing to take a look at something and then refuting it is one thing but openly refuting things without a second look, or thought is close minded. Not changing your position or discouraging creative thought is close minded.


Would you ever change your mind and accept, say, that spirituality, theology, metaphysics, and mysticism were all bunk if someone presented you with scientific material which "proved" that such things were not real?

Skepticism works both ways. You can be as skeptical of science as you can of the metaphysical. I wouldn't be so quick to point to the skeptics as the ones unwilling to change their minds when presented with alternatives. The believers are often just as unwilling to relinquish closely-held beliefs as the skeptics.

~ Wandering Scribe


You make a really good point. Are the people who disagree with us really not "true skeptics" or is it us who are not the true skeptics?

Because someone disagrees with what we may say, whether it be based on outright dismissing it or giving what they think is "proof", we often balk at them and refuse to listen to them saying they're just "closed minded". But maybe it's us that is closed minded and refusing to give up on an idea we hold dear, even when presented with evidence that proves we're wrong. So, we say they are close minded and they have the problem instead of admitting we are the one with the problem.

It happens on both sides of an argument or issue. Neither side wants to give in, so they oppose what the other side says with all they have. One of the sides will always scream "close minded" to the other when they have run out of evidence to support their side. It's a last resort that we turn to when we refuse to be open minded ourselves.

Is the problem REALLY with the opposing side or is the problem with the person claiming someone else is "close minded"?

Good point to ponder



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueMule
Being willing to take a look at something and then refuting it is one thing but openly refuting things without a second look, or thought is close minded. Not changing your position or discouraging creative thought is close minded.


given the thread one could say you are being a pseudo-skeptic regarding science...

The coin has two sides



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 10:34 PM
link   


Date: 8 Apr 1998 01:19:29 GMT
From: DOwens6683
Newsgroups: alt.paranormal
Subject: Stupid Skeptic Tricks

Ever get into an argument with a skeptic only to end up
exasperated and feeling you've been bamboozled? Skeptics are
often highly skilled at tying up opponents in clever verbal
knots. Most skeptics are, of course, ordinary, more-or-less
honest people who, like the rest of us, are just trying to make
the best sense they can of a complicated and often confusing
world. Others, however, are merely glib sophists who use
specious reasoning to defend their prejudices or attack the ideas
and beliefs of others, and even an honest skeptic can innocently
fall into the mistake of employing bad reasoning.

In reading, listening to and sometimes debating skeptics over the
years, I've found certain tricks, ploys and gimmicks which they
tend to use over and over again. Here are some of 'em. Perhaps
if you keep them in mind when arguing with a skeptic, you'll feel
better when the debate is over. Shucks, you might even score a
point or two.


www.discord.org...



************************************************************************
SYMPTOMS OF PATHOLOGICAL SKEPTICISM (c)1996 William J. Beaty
************************************************************************
THIS PAGE: amasci.com...
MAIN PAGE: amasci.com...


Many members of the mainstream scientific community react with extreme
hostility when presented with certain claims. This can be seen in their
emotional responses to current controversies such as UFO abductions, Cold
Fusion, cryptozoology, psi, and numerous others. The scientists react
not with pragmatism and a wish to get to the bottom of things, but
instea with the same tactics religious groups use to suppress heretics:
hostile emotional attacks, circular reasoning, dehumanizing of the
'enemy', extreme closed-mindedness, intellectually dishonest reasoning,
underhanded debating tactics, negative gossip, and all manner of
name-calling and character assassination.

Two can play at that game! Therefore, I call their behavior
"Pathological Skepticism," a term I base upon skeptics' assertion that
various unacceptable ideas are "Pathological Science." Below is a list
of the symptoms of pathological skepticism I have encountered, and
examples of the irrational reasoning they tend to produce.


amasci.com...



The One-Sidedness Fallacy
Peter Suber, Philosophy Department, Earlham College

This is one of the most common and most misleading fallacies. It really ought to have a name. Some writers call it special pleading, but most writers use that term for a slightly different fallacy. Some call it confirmation bias, which is an accurate but little-used term. I like "one-sidedness fallacy" because we are accustomed to calling arguments "one-sided" if they suffer from the limitations we'll describe here.

The fallacy consists of giving reasons for your thesis without considering reasons against it, or giving reasons against an opposing view without considering reasons for it.

It's easy to say something for virtually any thesis, or to say something against it. So to hear something for or against a thesis doesn't take us very far. To be in a good position to decide the truth of a thesis, we'd like to hear (1) the best that can be said (2) on each side. We'll worry about "the best" elsewhere. This hand-out is about reaching two-sidedness.


Note that there may be far more than two sides to a complex issue. So the true alternative to one-sidedness is many-sidedness. But I will refer to the alternative as "two-sidedness" for convenience.
The one-sidedness fallacy does not make an argument invalid. It may not even make the argument unsound. The fallacy consists in persuading readers, and perhaps ourselves, that we have said enough to tilt the scale of evidence and therefore enough to justify a judgment. If we have been one-sided, though, then we haven't yet said enough to justify a judgment. The arguments on the other side may be stronger than our own. We won't know until we examine them.

So the one-sidedness fallacy doesn't mean that your premises are false or irrelevant, only that they are incomplete. You may have appealed only to relevant considerations, but you haven't yet appealed to all relevant considerations.


www.earlham.edu...



THEY LAUGHED AT GALILEO:
Three common examples of Straw Man arguments
widely used by skeptics - W.Beaty 1997


www.amasci.com...



Debunking Common Skeptical Arguments Against
Paranormal and Psychic Phenomena
Revised October 7, 2001

By Winston Wu


www.freeinquiry.com...



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by kthxbai

Originally posted by BlueMule
Being willing to take a look at something and then refuting it is one thing but openly refuting things without a second look, or thought is close minded. Not changing your position or discouraging creative thought is close minded.


given the thread one could say you are being a pseudo-skeptic regarding science...

The coin has two sides




Corrupt Skeptics are like this. When new "evidence" for example comes to support a missing link between apes and Neanderthal, they are quick to go into it open-mindedly, and each step of the way, they find that the "evidence" isn't bs, and it's real, and they become elated.

Now if the evidence comes forth for "telepathy", they go at it in a way to disprove it, debunk it, and to destroy it permanently, from the world, and from their psyche.

These are selective skeptics.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by David2770

Originally posted by kthxbai

Originally posted by BlueMule
Being willing to take a look at something and then refuting it is one thing but openly refuting things without a second look, or thought is close minded. Not changing your position or discouraging creative thought is close minded.


given the thread one could say you are being a pseudo-skeptic regarding science...

The coin has two sides




Corrupt Skeptics are like this. When new "evidence" for example comes to support a missing link between apes and Neanderthal, they are quick to go into it open-mindedly, and each step of the way, they find that the "evidence" isn't bs, and it's real, and they become elated.

Now if the evidence comes forth for "telepathy", they go at it in a way to disprove it, debunk it, and to destroy it permanently, from the world, and from their psyche.

These are selective skeptics.


I don't know if it exists or not, part of me hopes it does. However, if it does, there will have to be scientific evidence to prove it, not just what someone "feels" or wants to believe. If it exists, it can be measured, if it can be measured, it's in the realm of science. Instead of attacking science, those who believe in telapathy should be exploring science to trying to find a way to give credible proof to what they are proposing.



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by kthxbai

Originally posted by David2770

Originally posted by kthxbai

Originally posted by BlueMule
Being willing to take a look at something and then refuting it is one thing but openly refuting things without a second look, or thought is close minded. Not changing your position or discouraging creative thought is close minded.


given the thread one could say you are being a pseudo-skeptic regarding science...

The coin has two sides





Corrupt Skeptics are like this. When new "evidence" for example comes to support a missing link between apes and Neanderthal, they are quick to go into it open-mindedly, and each step of the way, they find that the "evidence" isn't bs, and it's real, and they become elated.

Now if the evidence comes forth for "telepathy", they go at it in a way to disprove it, debunk it, and to destroy it permanently, from the world, and from their psyche.

These are selective skeptics.


I don't know if it exists or not, part of me hopes it does. However, if it does, there will have to be scientific evidence to prove it, not just what someone "feels" or wants to believe. If it exists, it can be measured, if it can be measured, it's in the realm of science. Instead of attacking science, those who believe in telapathy should be exploring science to trying to find a way to give credible proof to what they are proposing.


No it cant. Enough of this science crap. Science cannot measure metaphysical and or spiritual aspects of our universe. Science is not meant for things like that. Science cannot measure the soul, or life force, or the energy flowing in and around us, much less telepathy.

Science is good only for the primal aspect of our universe, the restricted physical, and three-dimensional.
edit on 4-1-2013 by David2770 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by David2770
No it cant. Enough of this science crap. Science cannot measure metaphysical and or spiritual aspects of our universe. Science is not meant for things like that. Science cannot measure the soul, or life force, or the energy flowing in and around us, much less telepathy.

Science is good only for the primal aspect of our universe, the restricted physical, and three-dimensional.
edit on 4-1-2013 by David2770 because: (no reason given)


Science can't measure it YET. If it can't be measured by science (eventually), then it doesn't exist



posted on Jan, 4 2013 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by kthxbai

Originally posted by David2770
No it cant. Enough of this science crap. Science cannot measure metaphysical and or spiritual aspects of our universe. Science is not meant for things like that. Science cannot measure the soul, or life force, or the energy flowing in and around us, much less telepathy.

Science is good only for the primal aspect of our universe, the restricted physical, and three-dimensional.
edit on 4-1-2013 by David2770 because: (no reason given)


Science can't measure it YET. If it can't be measured by science (eventually), then it doesn't exist


Science will never measure such phenomena. Not at this level at least. Only when humans can or are fully telepathic and can do psychic stuff in full can they also have the mind to invent a new science which can measure said phenomena.

The end.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by David2770

Originally posted by kthxbai

Originally posted by David2770
No it cant. Enough of this science crap. Science cannot measure metaphysical and or spiritual aspects of our universe. Science is not meant for things like that. Science cannot measure the soul, or life force, or the energy flowing in and around us, much less telepathy.

Science is good only for the primal aspect of our universe, the restricted physical, and three-dimensional.
edit on 4-1-2013 by David2770 because: (no reason given)


Science can't measure it YET. If it can't be measured by science (eventually), then it doesn't exist


Science will never measure such phenomena. Not at this level at least. Only when humans can or are fully telepathic and can do psychic stuff in full can they also have the mind to invent a new science which can measure said phenomena.

The end.


It cannot and will not be "proven" until it can be measured



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by kthxbai

Originally posted by David2770

Originally posted by kthxbai

Originally posted by David2770
No it cant. Enough of this science crap. Science cannot measure metaphysical and or spiritual aspects of our universe. Science is not meant for things like that. Science cannot measure the soul, or life force, or the energy flowing in and around us, much less telepathy.

Science is good only for the primal aspect of our universe, the restricted physical, and three-dimensional.
edit on 4-1-2013 by David2770 because: (no reason given)


Science can't measure it YET. If it can't be measured by science (eventually), then it doesn't exist


Science will never measure such phenomena. Not at this level at least. Only when humans can or are fully telepathic and can do psychic stuff in full can they also have the mind to invent a new science which can measure said phenomena.

The end.


It cannot and will not be "proven" until it can be measured


This whole mindset about things needing proof shows how small humans are nowadays. It seems like they'll cry to their mommies without proof.

Do I need proof when I see a lady that looks German, or perhaps Armenian, or Greek?? No. I don't. I'll know right away which ethnicity she is. Even if she's part german, i still got it part right.

Do I need someone to prove to me anything? No. Why? Because I've developed my mind, not even my spiritual force, but just my mind enough, that I can read through anyone's lies. Anyone lying to me or being dishonest ill know, even with my eyes closed.

I can even read people and tell you everything about them by a mere glance. You might think this has something to do with their clothing. Ok, remove their clothing and ill still tell know all about them in a glance. I'll do this even by reading a single sentence they wrote about ANYTHING, and also by their handwriting, not to mention their voice and choice of words, etc.

How will you do it? You'll have them take a test. It's a cool method, but what if someone chooses not to take a test? And the test takes long anyway, why not have a simple ability like read through their appearance, mind, and soul/spirit? It's much faster that way.

Proof is silly anyway. For example, I believe the king of England and some elite illuminati in the 18ty century communicated telepathically about what to do next. What if a commoner back then asked the elite, "sir, how do you contact England" and the elite responded, "telepathy", the commoner would laugh, it's not possible he would think. The elite would say really, I use telepathy. So then the commoner would ask for proof, but it'd be near impossible to deliver proof, and why would it matter to deliver proof anyway? Why would an upper, higher mind want to deal with a lower being, and waste time satisfying it? It's best the lower forms aren't even aware of such things, therein lies the power.

Proof is a silly concept meant only for dumb, lower humans. People always envision Star Trek as a future model, but Star Trek isn't futury, it's just the 20th century with some more technology. Advanced societies don't need proof. It's an outdated and retarded concept.

Much like, A friend showing you a photo of Bigfoot in the wild, is not proof he saw Bigfoot. Much like, him hugging Bigfoot and taking a photo, still isn't proof or evidence.

Much like, DNA samples are also NOT proof as they can also be planted there as proof, and also, said person could have been in an altered state of mind, or could have had a crazy insane episode, so again, it would technically not be him.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by David2770

This whole mindset about things needing proof shows how small humans are nowadays. It seems like they'll cry to their mommies without proof.

Do I need proof when I see a lady that looks German, or perhaps Armenian, or Greek?? No. I don't. I'll know right away which ethnicity she is. Even if she's part german, i still got it part right.



No, the failure to require proof shows how small humans are nowadays. It seems they'll cry to their mommies if they have to give proof.

A lady looks German because of previous Germans you have seen. She looks Armenian because of previous Armenians you have seen. She looks Greek because of previous Greeks you have seen. Either by physical appearance, bone structure, clothing, etc.

You have the concept completely inverted. Proof is the great equalizer and that is achieved through science. Science isn't this strange being that hovers about the earth, it is a simple process of comparison, data collecting, making a hypothesis and verifying it. It can be done in the formal sense or the informal sense, but it's still science.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by David2770
I can even read people and tell you everything about them by a mere glance. You might think this has something to do with their clothing. Ok, remove their clothing and ill still tell know all about them in a glance. I'll do this even by reading a single sentence they wrote about ANYTHING, and also by their handwriting, not to mention their voice and choice of words, etc.


Fine, read me. Tell me something about me. Not your opinion of me, not what I may have posted on the forum, but something tangible. I'll be honest with you and tell you if it's true or not.
(btw, that's SCIENCE, that's measuring something, seeing if it's accurate).

Now do you see, the things you mention are ways of measuring, how to compare things, how to verify them. That is what provides proof for something. Would it not be easier to accept science in taking measurements and proving your hypothesis then to say "oh, science doesn't exist but these "powers" I claim to have do" ? No, it makes much more sense to use science to verify that you do have methods by which to "read people". That's the first step and the one that you, yourself brought up. That's science. It's not quantum physics or molecular biology, but it's still science and it provides the exact proof that you were saying couldn't be given



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by David2770
Proof is a silly concept meant only for dumb, lower humans. People always envision Star Trek as a future model, but Star Trek isn't futury, it's just the 20th century with some more technology. Advanced societies don't need proof. It's an outdated and retarded concept.

Much like, A friend showing you a photo of Bigfoot in the wild, is not proof he saw Bigfoot. Much like, him hugging Bigfoot and taking a photo, still isn't proof or evidence.

Much like, DNA samples are also NOT proof as they can also be planted there as proof, and also, said person could have been in an altered state of mind, or could have had a crazy insane episode, so again, it would technically not be him.


No, proof is absolutely, positively necessary and is the only thing that separates fact from fiction. You keep reverting back to some type high-browed type of scientific measurement. It doesn't have to be carried out in a lab (of course with bigfoot, it will eventually lead to a lab and only a lab will be able to verify once and for all that bigfoot does exist if it does). That's the beauty of it. Science can't prove a negative, it's not possible. Science will never prove that bigfoot does not exist. It can prove one, individual speciman isn't bigfoot, but not that bigfoot doesn't exist. That's a negative and a negative can't be proven. The only way to prove there's not such thing as bigfoot is to first hypothesize that bigfoot DOES exist, then prove that your theory is wrong. It hasn't been done.

Proof isn't outdated and retarded, the resistance to proof is outdated and retarded. Proof isn't the past, it's the future. The world is open to so many different instruments of measure today, why not use them?? A photo is the beginning of proof. It's a necessary step in the process. He has a photo, that provides a tangible example of what he is saying. Of course photos can be faked, so it cannot be the soul proof, but it can offer support that can lead to more measurements and they lead to more until you finally are able to prove your hypothesis that it was bigfoot you hugged and not a guy in a suit.

DNA results, by themselves aren't considered proof, they're considered support, it takes much more than one article of support to give proof for anything and that support has to be compared to something else.

You yourself have outlined it, you just refuse to acknowledge it. You have a convuluted view of what science really is and are comparing your argument to the convuluted view instead of realizing you are using science yourself. Science isn't a "thing", it's a process, a process that does give proof either for or against.

Let's look at the guy with the photo. Say it is examined and found to be a guy in a bigfoot suit because the seams in the suit can be seen in the photo. That would be proof that the guy in question did not hug bigfoot in the photo. That's proof against that one case, not proof that bigfoot doesn't exist. Finding the counterexample to show the being in the photo isn't bigfoot doesn't make it a counterexample that bigfoot doesn't exist at all, just that the one particular subject isn't bigfoot.

For someone who is "so against science", you certainly give it a lot of power as well as use it yourself. Instead of contradicting yourself, it may be a better choice to change your concept of what science is to the correct concept or to give a different name to whatever it is you are calling science at the moment, because your idea/concept that is being discussed is not "Science". ...perhaps a subgategory or something, but there's much, much more to science than just absolute proof done by a computer program.


edit on 5-1-2013 by kthxbai because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by kthxbai

Originally posted by David2770

Originally posted by kthxbai

Originally posted by BlueMule
Being willing to take a look at something and then refuting it is one thing but openly refuting things without a second look, or thought is close minded. Not changing your position or discouraging creative thought is close minded.


given the thread one could say you are being a pseudo-skeptic regarding science...

The coin has two sides




Corrupt Skeptics are like this. When new "evidence" for example comes to support a missing link between apes and Neanderthal, they are quick to go into it open-mindedly, and each step of the way, they find that the "evidence" isn't bs, and it's real, and they become elated.

Now if the evidence comes forth for "telepathy", they go at it in a way to disprove it, debunk it, and to destroy it permanently, from the world, and from their psyche.

These are selective skeptics.


I don't know if it exists or not, part of me hopes it does. However, if it does, there will have to be scientific evidence to prove it, not just what someone "feels" or wants to believe. If it exists, it can be measured, if it can be measured, it's in the realm of science. Instead of attacking science, those who believe in telapathy should be exploring science to trying to find a way to give credible proof to what they are proposing.



In order to establish a scientific proof one must test a population. Meaning that to prove gravitational theory one would need to have explored the Universe and found it to be correct. Effectively what we discuss when it comes to gravity today is one of the foundations of modern science. But it is just a theory that so far as worked .

Proving the paranormal exists would require a test of Earth's entire population, that would be credible proof.

Otherwise one is simply presenting a statistical analysis. As an individual in order to prove the paranormal you would need practically infinite resources. Take for example that the first landing on the Moon was televised world wide, despite that there are people who claim it to be a lie.


Any thoughts?



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kashai


In order to establish a scientific proof one must test a population. Meaning that to prove gravitational theory one would need to have explored the Universe and found it to be correct. Effectively what we discuss when it comes to gravity today is one of the foundations of modern science. But it is just a theory that so far as worked .

Proving the paranormal exists would require a test of Earth's entire population, that would be credible proof.

Otherwise one is simply presenting a statistical analysis. As an individual in order to prove the paranormal you would need practically infinite resources. Take for example that the first landing on the Moon was televised world wide, despite that there are people who claim it to be a lie.


Any thoughts?


No, you are thinking only in terms of deductive reasoning, science involves much more than that. Look at the inductive side. Say you are a "caveman" and are down by the river. You throw a rock in the water and it sinks. You do it again, it sinks. You do it many times over and every time it sinks. You form a conjecture that all rocks sink. Until there is a counterexample your theory holds.

Of course that darn Cro-Magnon comes up and throws some pumice in the water and it floats, thus disproving your conjecture.


There are many avenues of science and they are all based on observing the world around us. Each and every thing you do, each and everything you observe, everything, absolutely everything is part of the realm of science. It may not be a specific discipline, it may not involve any hi-tech equipment, but it's still science. Science is "The study of... everything"
edit on 5-1-2013 by kthxbai because: took out all the extra quotes





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join