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.
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?
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
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.
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.
************************************************************************
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.
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.
THEY LAUGHED AT GALILEO:
Three common examples of Straw Man arguments
widely used by skeptics - W.Beaty 1997
Debunking Common Skeptical Arguments Against
Paranormal and Psychic Phenomena
Revised October 7, 2001
By Winston Wu
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
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.
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.
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)
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?