The Skeptics Dilemma

reply to post by nablator

I'm speechless at the stupidity of hating people who don't agree with you.

Me too. Are you implying I hate you or others here? That accusation has been hurled around numerous times in this thread by disgruntled skeptics who don't like their arguments being deconstructed and, apparently, 'bogus skepticism' being identified AT ALL. But I don't 'hate' anyone here nor have I ever expressed that. But say it enough times Nablator and the mud just might stick, eh?

Believers don't want to think rationally and discuss facts. They already know everything.

I see, and you don't think that's quite a gross generalization?

The only belief I have is that reality is more complex than it seems. I try not to be superficial and refrain from jumping to conclusions.

No beliefs and no superficial jumping to conclusions....except that:

Believers don't want to think rationally and discuss facts. They already know everything.

Nablator, I find your arguments and persona rather inconsistent.


[edit on 16-3-2009 by Malcram]

Originally posted by Malcram
Well whaddya know! A supposed 'uber believer' - with the handle spiritualevolution - turns up preaching 'death to the skeptics'. Did one of you guys really feel you had to pull that trick out of the bag in order to undermine this debate?

Too obvious. I don't buy it.

Actually, SpiritualEvolution is the latest handle of an oft-banned member we commonly refer to as "weneedtoknow." He comes on, posts how much he hates skeptics and wants to kill them, then is banned.

No trick on the part of skeptics, just our resident troll.

And I would recommend in the future you be damn sure you have at least a single shred of evidence before you accuse skeptics of pulling such tricks.

Originally posted by Seany
Skeptics, DEBUNK THIS

Debunk what? What is your claim?

Again, whether we can debunk it or not is meaningless. An inability to invalidate a hypothesis is not the same as proving the hypothesis. The onus is on you to prove it.

reply to post by SaviorComplex


if your gone to you quotes
use the full quote
you are not a skeptic
you are a twister of words
and half truths

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by Seany
Skeptics, DEBUNK THIS

Debunk what? What is your claim?

Now there I'm with you Savior

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
Again, whether we can debunk it or not is meaningless. An inability to invalidate a hypothesis is not the same as proving the hypothesis. The onus is on you to prove it.

The onus is on the presenter of the case to provide enough evidence to tip Occam's Razor. In skeptic terminology.

Once the simplest answer is clearly non-terrestrial, the onus then transfers to the researcher who is still skeptical in spite of the evidence to provide a simpler explanation than the extra-terrestrial hypothesis.

-WFA

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
and I'm still waiting for his argument to this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Dear WFA,

The "Aliens exist" thread degenerated into YOUR failure to answer SaviorComplex's question "If we know the chances, then what are those chances?"
"Pretty darn good" is not an answer. The honest answer is no one knows. The only certainty is that it is not nil. Estimates by astrophysicists and exobiology experts are wild guesses and opinions, not actual knowledge.

SaviorComplex is hard to convince, and so am I. Don't get mad about it.

reply to post by SaviorComplex


You might want to go back back and note that I didn't make an "accusation", I expressed a suspicion in the form of a question. I'm still suspicious. I still don't buy it.

But hey, you know what that feels like, right?

Originally posted by Malcram

I addressed you in another thread, and noticed you have not answered.

I have no idea which thread nor know of anyway to find out. I'm not that adept at using ATS features. Perhaps you could tell me?

Going to address this part first.

This was my a mistake on my part. You had answered; for whatever reason my browser did not include every page of the discussion and said "thread" when I meant, "post." I apologize.

Originally posted by Malcram
No, you were impugning our motives in raising the issue of 'bogus skepticism" at all, and were making all sorts of false claims about why we raised it, rather than refuting the definition of bogus skepticism that was given.

It is not a false claim at all. That is often how such labels are used; instead of addressing the argument the labels are used to dismiss the personality.

And I addressed why I do not agree with it. The criteria can be applied to anyone at any time and robs skeptics of the right and ability to make opinion and draw conclusions.



[edit on 16-3-2009 by SaviorComplex]

Originally posted by SaviorComplex


No trick on the part of skeptics, just our resident troll.

PROVE IT

This is how cheesy your arguments are

Originally posted by Malcram
You might want to go back back and note that I didn't make an "accusation", I expressed a suspicion in the form of a question. I'm still suspicious. I still don't buy it.

No, you outright accused skeptics of creating a sock-puppet to discredit believer. Your words...

Originally posted by Malcram
Well whaddya know! A supposed 'uber believer' - with the handle spiritualevolution - turns up preaching 'death to the skeptics'. Did one of you guys really feel you had to pull that trick out of the bag in order to undermine this debate?

The accusation is in bold.

You have participated in these forums for all of seven days. So you do not know how long we have had to deal with "weneedtoknow." Come to think of it, how do we know that SpiritualEvolution isn't your sock-puppet so you can vent your angry at skeptics? See how easy this came can be played?

Originally posted by Seany

PROVE IT

This is how cheesy your arguments are

What are you asking me to prove?

I would recommend doing a search for posts by weneedtoknow. You will notice a similar writing and rhetorical style.

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
I answered. I answered all of your questions. And yet, you seemed to have abandoned that thread.

I was not addressing you; so I'm not exactly sure you felt the need to answer a very specific question that was not being asked of you. Of course, you didn't exactly answer it, just said you did. Weird.

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
If you're looking to have this debate, I've always been a willing participant.

You seem confused on what we are debating in the first place.

Originally posted by nablator

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
and I'm still waiting for his argument to this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Dear WFA,

The "Aliens exist" thread degenerated into YOUR failure to answer SaviorComplex's question "If we know the chances, then what are those chances?"

Hey there Nablator! It's been too long my friend I've missed your insights and willingness to actually debate individual points

I did not fail to answer his question though. I'm sorry if my answer disappointed you, but at least it was an intellectually honest answer.

We do have a pretty good idea about the chances, for example, we know that there are planets around other stars, existing habitable zones, etc.

Please read the frenchfry post linked above for clarity. I addressed it fully, with due respect.

Originally posted by nablator
"Pretty darn good" is not an answer.

Sure it is. It's not a certainty, or a specific answer, but it is an answer. And in context, it made sense. Especially since you and I exist and are here talking about it. Once something is proven possible (us here today on Earth) then that factor MUST be included in forming further hypothesis.

If you want a specific answer, you could say the odds are 1 in 9 (just using our own solar system as a comparison/estimation point). But you and I (and Yeti and Savior) all know that the universe doesn't end at the edge of our solar system, and that answering such would be intellectually dishonest.

Originally posted by nablator
The honest answer is no one knows.

Let's be clear, nobody knows if it actually exists, lot's of people have studied space for a long time and can make some fairly good guesses. So when 'knowing' is talking about 'knowing the chances' and not 'knowing for sure' then I'd say that a lot of people 'know'.

It's the context that matters, and the point stands.

Originally posted by nablator
The only certainty is that it is not nil. Estimates by astrophysicists and exobiology experts are wild guesses and opinions, not actual knowledge.

Tell that to Stephen Hawking and Frank Drake I would respectfully disagree with you here, and say that formula like the Drake equations are not wild guesses at all, but merely tools for prediction based upon observed evidence. There's a big field between those goalposts. Making a Scientific Guess is not the same as making a wild guess, or expressing an opinion as fact.

Originally posted by nablator
SaviorComplex is hard to convince, and so am I. Don't get mad about it.

Oh I'm not mad.

Also, I'm not trying to convince him of anything. I'm trying to address his points with rational critical thinking, applying the Scientific Method.

He doesn't have to believe anything in order for him to evenly apply skeptical reasoning to all arguments. And I'm certainly allowed to call him on it when he fails to do so, as he is free to do to me.

Nice to see you again old friend! Any new findings on the STS footage?

-WFA

Originally posted by SaviorComplex
I was not addressing you; so I'm not exactly sure you felt the need to answer a very specific question that was not being asked of you. Of course, you didn't exactly answer it, just said you did. Weird.

That's what happens when you debate in a public forum, the public has this tendency to join in...

You took a shot at anyone professing the ETH my friend, and I responded as any ATS member who's been around long enough to know better should have.

Like I said before, stop picking on the newbies, and try someone your own size.

-WFA

Edited to add: I'm signing off for the night because the only show I watch on TV is coming on. I'll make sure to follow up in this thread when I'm next online.

[edit on 16-3-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Going to address this part first.

This was my a mistake on my part. You had answered; for whatever reason my browser did not include every page of the discussion. I apologize.

No problem. I personally find navigating my way through this place and using it's features like trying to operate the death star singlehandedly. LOL.

It is not a false claim at all. That is often how such labels are used; instead of addressing the argument the labels are used to dismiss the personality.

Ah, but you weren't talking about how often "such labels are used", you were directly opposing myself and others in this thread be cause WE had had dared to raise the issue of Bogus Skepticism. "It is an attempt..." you proclaimed. "They", "Them", you said. Whom were you addressing? Who else had raised the subject and whose motive for so doing were you claiming to know and to condemn? You were suggesting OUR real motive in bringing the subject up was to "marginalize every skeptic", to "deny" and "rob". No? I think everyone who reads that post in context can see exactly what you meant. I also made it clear earlier that I believed the post was aimed and myself and others in this thread and you made no attempts to dissuade me of that. You, like Nablator, are being rather inconsistent SC.

And I addressed why I do not agree with it. The criteria can be applied to anyone at any time and robs skeptics of the right and ability to make opinion and draw conclusions.

No, be honest now. I asked you what you disagreed with about the definition. You are avoiding answering. I suspect because you don't disagree with the definition at all, you just don't like it being discussed, because you fear that people will use it. So it appears you consider all use of the phrase 'Bogus Skepticism' to be 'misuse', no matter how accurate the definition might be.


[edit on 16-3-2009 by Malcram]

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
That's what happens when you debate in a public forum, the public has this tendency to join in...

Again, asking a very specific person a very specific question. Yet you felt the need to answer and the need to give an answer that was not related to the question at all. Very weird.

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
You took a shot at anyone professing the ETH my friend, and I responded as any ATS member who's been around long enough to know better should have.

When and where did I take this "pot shot?" Was it when I asked a specific person a specific question that had nothing to do with "anyone professing the ET hypothesis." I asked him to name someone unconvinced of the ETH they would consider a real skeptic. That is a far cry from a pot-shot at everyone who believes in the ETH.

Just astonishing you would consider it such.

[edit on 16-3-2009 by SaviorComplex]

Originally posted by Malcram
I asked you what you disagreed with about the definition. You are avoiding answering. I suspect because you don't disagree with the definition at all, you just don't like it being discussed, because you fear that people will use it.

No, I have been explicit in my problems with the definition. And I cannot be more explicit. While it can and does describe a particular mindset, it is so loose and so vague that it can be applied to any one taking any position at any given moment.

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

No, you outright accused skeptics of creating a sock-puppet to discredit believer. Your words.

Well, that's just a lie. Do you know what one of these is - ? - it's kinda the antithesis of an "outright accusation". And if you are going to quote someone, do make sure that it doesn't directly refute the accusation you are making against them. Also, in an "outright accusation" of skeptics, don't you think that it's fairly important not only that the outright accusation be present, but also the word 'skeptic' be present in the relevant sentence? LOL. I expressed a suspicion in the form of a question, you'll never twist that successfully into an "outright accusation", although it is rather an expose of your dishonest debating style. As I said, I'm still suspicious. Strongly suspicious. Whose cause did spiritualevolutions appearance serve? But it's not an "accusation" because I don't know for sure, and I never claimed I did.

You have participated in these forums for all of seven days. So you do not know how long we have had to deal with "weneedtoknow." Come to think of it, how do we know that SpiritualEvolution isn't your sock-puppet so you can vent your angry at skeptics? See how easy this came can be played?

Are you trying to pull rank on me SC? LOL. "You don't know about weneedtoknow man, you weren't there" Grow up SC. And you don't know that Spiritualevolution isn't my "sockpuppet", I suppose, just as you don't know that he's not a skeptic intent on undermining the debate. If so, he needn't have bothered, as ever since your "They, them", "marginalize" "rob" "every skeptic" sermon, this whole discussion has become steadily more immature and pointless. Still, I suppose it beats actually discussing 'Bogus Skepticism' right?


[edit on 16-3-2009 by Malcram]

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
Sure it is. It's not a certainty, or a specific answer, but it is an answer.

You are right. It is an answer. But is a very poor answer. "Pretty darn good," is very subjective.

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
I would respectfully disagree with you here, and say that formula like the Drake equations are not wild guesses at all, but merely tools for prediction based upon observed evidence.

The Drake Equation was never intended to be a tool to predict how many civilizations exist out there. It was a thought-experiment to demonstrate how much we do not know.

reply to post by SaviorComplex


Excellent. If that really is your only concern SC, then I'm sure over the next few days we can hammer out a razor sharp definition of 'Bogus Skepticism" that we can all agree on. Then we can see where it applies. What say you?

[edit on 16-3-2009 by Malcram]