Objective evidence matters!!

We need to include the media in the mix as well. Most people find out about some topic through the media and unfortunately the media can be wrong, right, biased but most importantly short and to the point. It does not have the time to present the top 5 theories on "x" instead it presents the most common one and this gives the mistaken interpretation of a theory as a fact (or law ).

People need to interpret media information as well. Simply dismissing it becasue it conflicts with ones preconceived notions on a subject does not mean its an NWO conspiracy!. Likewise, believing it without question is also wrong....this is where the internet is your friend. You can confirm the truth behind a subject by cross referencing media stories from different sources especially where those sources are known to have a different political bias.

reply to post by MrXYZ


I liked your post, and I agree with all of it, except I do think your inclusion of Ufologists is misguided. As a formal UFO researcher with a major UFO research organization, I have heard and seen enough evidence - I.e. radar returns, credible competent eyewitness testimony (usually both for the same incident) - that while I may be still agnostic to the origins of these clearly manufactured craft, there is no way to deny that something is invading earth's airspace.

So, to be somewhat scientific about, I am not allowed to discount the possibility that these seemingly, intelligently controlled objects could be alien in origin. Of course I can't discount the fact that these aren't some form of mass hysteria either.

But that's why I do it. I think some kind of human psychological quirk, that causes us to see things we attribute as UFOs, is just as interesting as the possibility that these are alien visitors. Again, it is just as bad, scientifically, to say that no UFOs are alien spacecraft, as it is to say all UFOs are alien spacecraft.

You forgot this one:


Excellent thread otherwise. Unfortunately, indoctrination, ignorance and stupidity is fighting against it.

I gave you an sNf but i do see the same nonsense being pulled by the science community. Such as the age of dinosaur fossils. I also see them so willing to disprove religion they spout off total nonsense or ignore evidence that they dont agree with.

This fossil is 65 million years old. How do you know that? Its in this rock thats 65 million years old. How do you know that? It has this 65 million year old fossil in it.

I also hear about carbon dating fossils alot. First of all, it goes off the asumption that we know how much carbon 14 was in the specimen at death. We assume this based on carbon 14 levels today. We dont know for sure that out theories on carbon 14 are correct at all. So its not 100%. But also, theres a certain point when so much carbon 14 has decayed that you cant carbon date something anymore. This is in the thousands of years, not millions. And what if some fossils really are 65 million years old and others are newer but similar? Assuming is bad.

Atleast they arent as bad as creationists. Theres obvious evidence of the earth existing longer than that.

I was in a church one time before i got away from that crap. Infact it was a kingdom hall of jehovahs witnesses. They were talking about how we know the bible is true. And quoted a scripture from the bible that said so. Huh??? Oh, and theyre young earth creationists.

My neighbor is a jehovahs witness. He says that im wicked because i know the truth and dont follow it. Huh? If i thought they were teaching the truth id follow it. Why would i not?

Infact i do know the truth. It aint in the bible either.

One of my favorites is the prophecies in the bible that jesus fulfilled. Im supposed to know he fulfilled the prophecies because in the same book that told the future it tells it was fulfiled. What????

Dont even get me started on blurry ufos

reply to post by MrXYZ


Great thread, but sadly, it will probably fall mostly on deaf ears. But again, great thread, great little explanation of how not to be an idiot on ATS, I really hope people actually pay attention.

It's funny that you mention having to debunk the same things over and over, ditto, all of us rational thinkers are in that same boat, and it is getting tiring. And some of us end up being snippy with people.

I know I simply can't take having to explain the basic fact that contrails can last for hours and fan out into lingering cloud cover. It's almost every day I have to post that.

And what is the thanks I get for helping to educate the chemtrailers so they might actually be able to put forward a theory?

I get called a paid shill. Dudes, I wish I was getting paid, it would make a lot more sense than me wasting most of my breaks at work retyping the same stuff over and over.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

I get REALLY ANNOYED if people are too lazy to fact check their posts. Just because something fits your preconceived notion or belief doesn't mean it's automatically correct.

It's very hard to fight against confirmation bias when it's combined with cognitive dissonance. In fact, it's near impossible. These types of people are best left to their own devices and you're better off saving your breath for someone who isn't a lost cause.

IRM

Originally posted by InfaRedMan

Originally posted by MrXYZ

I get REALLY ANNOYED if people are too lazy to fact check their posts. Just because something fits your preconceived notion or belief doesn't mean it's automatically correct.

It's very hard to fight against confirmation bias when it's combined with cognitive dissonance. In fact, it's near impossible. These types of people are best left to their own devices and you're better off saving your breath for someone who isn't a lost cause.

IRM

I agree it's probably impossible to educate the indoctrinated in some forum, but I feel it's important to debate their claims with objective evidence for others to judge for themselves.
In affect your going open other readers eyes who would otherwise be deceived.

But whats good about a Scientific document is that you could repeat the experiment and find flaws(which is good for the community and yourself).

I remember i did my PGLO gene transfer from Jellyfish to E.coli(its a basic experiment for bachelors) but doing it from scratch is hard as hell. I looked at many Peer reviewed article with similar experiment, and i seen multiple results that varied slightly and my results matched the side with most majority. This way i can be sure that "OK, i know that this result is more possible than the other."

No scientist 100% believe in anything, they never will, everything is 99% best is 99.99%, Scientist will never say something is absolute, that's what best when looking at these documents, no one PRAYS to them and have BELIEF that they are the absolute word.

reply to post by Klassified


There's a big difference between a science organization and a creationist website that is based on logical fallacies and lies. Yes, anybody can lie, but when several people peer review something, it is far more likely to be accurate, than simply reading a blog and nodding your head. The abuses of power and knowledge in the scientific community are rare. Science as a whole is the best method we have for fact gathering. Creationism is not. You can often throw out an entire source just be reading the first couple lines. They are usually demonstrably wrong in their assumptions. Science websites and institutions hold FAR more weight than internet blogs about ignorance.

Originally posted by akushla99
Subjectively speaking, there are things which science calls 'fact' which they have niether the equipment nor the open-mindedness to make determination upon...and usually they 'fit' questionable phenomena into thier own version of confirmation bias...based on the results of testing with equipment (or tests) unable to measure 'questionable' phenomena...if scientists/researchers, and the majority of the population were unable to see the color red...how ostracised and 'wrong' do you think you'd feel, if you could see the color red?

Please give me the list of these scientific facts that are not provable / falsifiable. Good luck.

This fossil is 65 million years old. How do you know that? Its in this rock thats 65 million years old. How do you know that? It has this 65 million year old fossil in it.

And the ignorance continues. Is that really how you think they date fossils?

I also hear about carbon dating fossils alot. First of all, it goes off the asumption that we know how much carbon 14 was in the specimen at death. We assume this based on carbon 14 levels today. We dont know for sure that out theories on carbon 14 are correct at all. So its not 100%. But also, theres a certain point when so much carbon 14 has decayed that you cant carbon date something anymore. This is in the thousands of years, not millions. And what if some fossils really are 65 million years old and others are newer but similar? Assuming is bad.

C-14 isn't even used on dinosaur fossils. This shows that you haven't done your research on fossils and dating. Not that the scientific community is wrong or makes assumptions. People love to speak on these things as if they are even remotely qualified. I appreciate you perfectly proving the XYZ's point by posting this.

reply to post by Barcs

I appreciate you perfectly proving the XYZ's point by posting this.

I was almost hoping someone would provide a good example of how NOT to properly research his claims

Having said that, this isn't really a evolution vs creationism thread...I merely wanted to highlight the importance of doing proper research. Not just because I'm tired of rehashing the same crap over and over again, but also because some people look incredibly stupid by making badly researched posts...just before getting all bitchy when people point out how wrong they are.

reply to post by MrXYZ


Great thread, Mr. XYZ.

Here are a few more:

We're all Darwinists.

Man evolved from chimps.

We haven't found the missing link.

All evolutionists are automatically atheists.

It's called argumentum ad infinitum.

When the other guy gives up it means they've won.

Such as it is.

It gets worse than that, even when you have peer reviewed material from credible universities and/or professionals you often get told:
"They want you to think that", "It's a government cover-up","It's all to deceive you"

At that point the conversation completely breaks down.

Because they have already decided to ignore evidence based proof and have chosen to just believe what they want to.

I know several people like that who are quite comfortable proclaiming the WHOLE of the scientific community is wrong about x,y,z. But are quite happy to believe some unknown quack or rogue scientist!.

A great thread, I'm not sure how much more I can add other than writing a few sentences to get the 2nd line thing... But over all your list of how to think and what to look for is well put together much appreciated.

People need to question everything they see/hear and read. For me it's normal to do so... for others, not so much.

again thanks for this thread.

reply to post by MrXYZ


SnF for quality. Not content.

Some of the purest forms of truth, lack the evidence or any need for proof.

Research your claims ? Hell ya ! A lesson I learned quickly in the school of hard knocks. RIGHT HERE !
On ATSss...

Originally posted by randyvsSome of the purest forms of truth, lack the evidence or any need for proof.

Many would disagree - the requirement for proof is essential. Ideas without proof are just ideas.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

SnF for quality. Not content.

Some of the purest forms of truth, lack the evidence or any need for proof.

Research your claims ? Hell ya ! A lesson I learned quickly in the school of hard knocks. RIGHT HERE !
On ATSss...

edit on 24-6-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

You can't call something the "truth" if there's ZERO objective evidence backing it up

They call it "faith" for a reason...but faith doesn't equal truth.

Some of the purest forms of truth, lack the evidence or any need for proof.

Reminds me of this quote from the satirical TV show, Brass Eye:



"Genetically, paedophiles have more genes in common with crabs than they do with you and me. Now that is scientific fact. There's no real evidence for it, but it is scientific fact".

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

SnF for quality. Not content.

Some of the purest forms of truth, lack the evidence or any need for proof.

Research your claims ? Hell ya ! A lesson I learned quickly in the school of hard knocks. RIGHT HERE !
On ATSss...

edit on 24-6-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

You can't call something the "truth" if there's ZERO objective evidence backing it up

They call it "faith" for a reason...but faith doesn't equal truth.

Get your brain in gear X and tell me why you are dead wrong. You know, devils advocate.

Not all truth needs proof. Evidence is in no way required for something to be true. Don't tell me you can't think of one example for what I'm saying.

The sun will rise tomorrow ? True or false ? Or is that faith ? All of the above ?