Obsessive Debunking Disorder (ODD)?

I think there are those who simply will not listen to reason. There are times when debunking is the most rational thing to do, and to be honest, this is the majority of the time. But there are cases where evidence exists to suggest that there is more going on than meets the eye. It also depends on whether the person is saying that there is absolutely no way something is true, in spite of evidence to the contrary, and them saying that something is possible, just not very likely.

The former means they are not reasonable people. For instance, I do not subscribe to the idea that aliens are visiting earth, but I will analyze the evidence available. I have many times. I am open to the idea, and do not think it is impossible, I just have yet to be convinced. The only reason I entertain the idea at all is because of all the reports. There cannot be thousands of eyewitness reports claiming something without there being something to those claims. However in the case of aliens, I am reserved simply because of the sheer number of things that can be mistaken for alien craft in the sky. But it is reasonable for me to figure that a small percentage of those claims, at the very least, are probably true. So although I have not been convinced, I expect that if some claims are true, I will be convinced at some point in the future.

But someone who is closed to an idea like that altogether, is someone who is not reasonable or rational. And it is very frustrating when the debunker has no knowledge of what they are talking about to begin with. To say whether something is true or false, one must have analyzed all the available evidence. That is my opinion anyway.

Ha ha ha. This is quite funny actually.

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by B1rd1nFL1ghT

 

reply by intrptr

 

You don't live in a town called Stepford, by any chance?

well, yes, actually...I do

The town of Stepford is one of the only towns where the schools are not filled with gang members. Sad, but true.

There are kids in Stepford? Oh, thats right. No children either. Yep, no gangs, children, crime... except the crime of Chauvinism. I really dug the first movie when it came out. I thought what an awful place. In the end when Katharine Ross's character was killed and replaced by a compliant copy, I nearly died.

Ha!
Love it
Yes..yes...yes! This is where I live, stepfordville or town or whichever. There are children here, unlike the movie. However, most of the children are unruly little brats!
What was this thread about again, lol.

I think we might have to kidnap Phage and take him to the team of scientists studying this. He'd be worth his weight in gold to them.

reply to post by ParanoidAmerican


OP thank-you for making me smile today (after a $h!tty weekend) ... the first members that sprang to mind when I read this was the trio of hardcore debunkers mostly found dwelling in the Ancient Civilization forum (not mentioning any names but if you frequent that forum you'll know exactly who I mean) these three self-appointed 'experts' have their blinkers super-glued in place and will not be budged from their opinions by anyone (and they can become quite savage in defence of said 'own opinions' when they work as a pack).

And then there is a forth who pops up at irregular intervals these days on several forums and actually seems to have his own fan-club ... I have to admit that this one used to irritate me immensley but has grown on me over the years as he actually seems a little embarrassed by the 'hero worship' he receives which in itself is quite endearing ... not only that but he is usually proven to be correct in the things that he says (annoyingly) but I have also seen (on a couple of occasions) him retract an opinion when he has realized he was wrong ... writing this I realize it is his fans that anger me not him (for identity see post directly above) lol

Anyhoo ... love the thought that these 'narrow-minds' now have a name for their affliction ! They'll be going into mass denial

Woody

Thomas Sheridan also claims that Psychopaths can be identified by:

~ a ring finger being longer than the index finger.
~ A receeding hairline
~ Heavy growth of facial and body hair
~ Acne
~ High cheekbones
~ Low brow bridge.

Does any of that sound familiar? I'm sure Hitler would've really liked Sheridan's books

ETA: the above is classic debunking tactic and considered a logic falacy. Can anyone name that tune?

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
~ Psychopaths can be identified by a ring finger being longer than the index finger.

A ring finger being longer than the index finger is actually a sign of higher testosterone. Whoever the hell that guy is who links it to psychopathy is a pseudo-scientific idiot.

Additional ways to label people does not promote critical thought. Hard core skeptics might be rigorous or they might be feeding their own biases or anything in between. Labeling is what you do when your too tired to think.

Originally posted by Xaphan

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
~ Psychopaths can be identified by a ring finger being longer than the index finger.

A ring finger being longer than the index finger is actually a sign of higher testosterone. Whoever the hell that guy is who links it to psychopathy is a pseudo-scientific idiot.

Really? It's 2013 and we still believe in chiromancy?

There is no -direct- link discovered between mental illness or testosterone and the length of fingers. Please cite any peer reviewed study that claims that their is or cease using terms like 'pseudo-scientific idiot'.

reply to post by ParanoidAmerican


I say you're right. And nowhere is it more apparent than in the metaphysics and philosophy forum. My metaphysical thread was derailed several times by 'science goons'. Additionally, they didn't know it at the time, nor did they acknowledge it when I explained it to them, but what is generally known to debunkers as "science" is based on the elimination of "Cartesian Doubt". That is to say, these people don't permit themselves to 'believe' any idea unless it's been tested many times within the framework of the "Scientific Method" brought to the fore by Réné Descartes. Here's the part I have a hard time understanding: The idea doesn't have to be tested by them for them to accept it. It has to be tested by someone who has standing in the "Scientific Community". Oh, personal experience might form the basis of forming a hypothesis, which then has to be tested 'scientifically', using repeated experiment under controlled conditions, but personal experience is dismissed as being real evidence, because it's "just anecdotal". So let me get this right, these people will accept specially-formed anecdotes (in the form of "published and peer-reviewed scientific papers"), but not anecdotes that refer to one ephemeral experience. Well, that sounds smart, dunnit?

Aside from all the problems with that, they further want to expand the sphere of applicability of 'scientific method' into realms in which it has no business, such as history and spirituality and philosophy. It's extremely annoying, when discussing a topic such as the possibility or probability of there existing parallel universes from your own experience and having one of these ninnyhammers start yapping "no, no, that can't be right. there's nothing scientific to support it. I'll believe you have evidence when you show me a peer-reviewed paper. Your anecdotes don't count as evidence." This, in the Metaphysics/Philosophy forum!

So if any of you science suckers (alas, one born every minute) are reading this: Please try to withhold worship of your particular golden calf when it doesn't apply to the subject at hand! We all know how great science is!

reply to post by seamus


You forgot a key component in the Scientific Goonery.

Repeatablity.

Science does make room for anecdotal evidence, as long as such evidence can be repeated within a controlled environment.

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Xaphan

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
~ Psychopaths can be identified by a ring finger being longer than the index finger.

A ring finger being longer than the index finger is actually a sign of higher testosterone. Whoever the hell that guy is who links it to psychopathy is a pseudo-scientific idiot.

Really? It's 2013 and we still believe in chiromancy?

There is no -direct- link discovered between mental illness or testosterone and the length of fingers. Please cite any peer reviewed study that claims that their is or cease using terms like 'pseudo-scientific idiot'.

Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.

Xaphan was responding to my post which points out Sheridan's claims regarding mental illness and physical features. Sheridan is definitely a psuedo-scientific idiot... the evidence for that claim has already been posted.

how about debunking hyperbolic and flat-out false titles? some here on ATS pick a headline and post it, without seeing if it has any merit, even if it's widely known to be false, or takes a couple of minutes to research that it is a falsehood.

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
reply to post by seamus

 

You forgot a key component in the Scientific Goonery.

Repeatablity.

Science does make room for anecdotal evidence, as long as such evidence can be repeated within a controlled environment.

Yes, thanks for mentioning that as I forgot. In my experience, many odd occurrences are the result of a specific configuration of the universal waveform and are by their very nature irrepeatable. They are real events that have no scientific basis. And yet the Science Goons gnash their teeth and stamp their feet and want to make all such things go away. The fact that they cannot doesn't deter them from ruining other people's threads on topics that have nothing whatsoever to do with their religion.

ETA: O wait, I did say repeated... I just didn't make that as clear I guess.

reply to post by ParanoidAmerican


What say you ATS ODD real, have we seen it first hand?

Need you ask

ODD thats rampant round here

defo deserves star + flag

Originally posted by Blarneystoner

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by Xaphan

Originally posted by Blarneystoner
~ Psychopaths can be identified by a ring finger being longer than the index finger.

A ring finger being longer than the index finger is actually a sign of higher testosterone. Whoever the hell that guy is who links it to psychopathy is a pseudo-scientific idiot.

Really? It's 2013 and we still believe in chiromancy?

There is no -direct- link discovered between mental illness or testosterone and the length of fingers. Please cite any peer reviewed study that claims that their is or cease using terms like 'pseudo-scientific idiot'.

Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired.

Xaphan was responding to my post which points out Sheridan's claims regarding mental illness and physical features. Sheridan is definitely a psuedo-scientific idiot... the evidence for that claim has already been posted.

Oh, my comprehension is just fine. I understand what Xaphan posted. Now for you to reread what I posted and understand that he used the same psuedo-scientific approach you are claiming Sheridan made when he posted about finger lengths and testosterone. There can be more than one "psuedo-scientific idiot" to use his own term, especially when people use pseudo-science to back up their own chiromantic claims of finger length meaning one thing over another.

Originally posted by seamus

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
reply to post by seamus

 

You forgot a key component in the Scientific Goonery.

Repeatablity.

Science does make room for anecdotal evidence, as long as such evidence can be repeated within a controlled environment.

Yes, thanks for mentioning that as I forgot. In my experience, many odd occurrences are the result of a specific configuration of the universal waveform and are by their very nature irrepeatable. They are real events that have no scientific basis. And yet the Science Goons gnash their teeth and stamp their feet and want to make all such things go away. The fact that they cannot doesn't deter them from ruining other people's threads on topics that have nothing whatsoever to do with their religion.

ETA: O wait, I did say repeated... I just didn't make that as clear I guess.

edit on 20-5-2013 by seamus because: (no reason given)

Nothing religious about the Scientific Method, my friend. It takes faith out of the equation completely. Unlike what you are claiming. So much of what you claim needs a faith component to even begin to be understood. If you are going to impart information that doesn't matter because what happened can never happen again.. why is it important knowledge? Is it because it happened?

reply to post by ParanoidAmerican
I have been of the opinion that the obsessive debunkers have a compulsive contrarian need to assume they are smarter than everyone else, and the one sure way to establish that point is to find themselves too intelligent to believe whatever someone else wants to bring up. Rather than allow a discussion to proceed, they jump in and mock every point and every person who made one. If they were as smart as they need to believe, they would be better at debating, and would leave the mockery out of their responses.

Just what we need, psychiatric diagnoses for normal variations of human behavior.

Looking down on your fellow humans because they will not entertain your viewpoints is nonproductive, and no, ignoring your fellow humans because of this assanine as well.


I am open to all ideas, even the notion that one doesn't beleive in conspiracies.

Originally posted by chichilouise
reply to post by ParanoidAmerican

 

I have been of the opinion that the obsessive debunkers have a compulsive contrarian need to assume they are smarter than everyone else, and the one sure way to establish that point is to find themselves too intelligent to believe whatever someone else wants to bring up. Rather than allow a discussion to proceed, they jump in and mock every point and every person who made one. If they were as smart as they need to believe, they would be better at debating, and would leave the mockery out of their responses.

Great post ...

Another point that I find incredible (particularly where science is involved) is that the 'experts' who critisize and try to belittle and/or make people feel stupid for daring to step outside of the confines of that damnable 'box' is that they seem to conradict the fact that science by it's very definition is 'ever changing' as new discoveries are constantly made ... and yet they of the ODD school of thinking stick rigidly to their unwavering opinions regardless (at the time) ... and it's only later that they will use the newly confirmed information with great subltey ... almost as if they 'knew' it all along.

But they really show their inferior technique when they inevitably draw the great and trusted 'pseudo sword' as if it were a weapon with which to slay and cut-down the thoughts and opinions of the open-minded (pseudo-science / pseudo-religion / pseudo-history ... you get the picture)

In a nutshell ODD is real ... it is alive and well and living proof is found daily on ATS ... and whilst they can be a little tedious at times ... they can make for a good spectator sport (if you like a large portion of predictability with a generous dollop of arrogance) when the website is having a slow day

Woody