|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
 Posted - 07/29/2002 : 13:35:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Ordinarily I would refuse to debate with you any further as long as you are being so dishonest, but I have already given my word.
Gee, how benevolent of you!
You've called me stupid, juvenile, and dishonest, you've been condescending, compared me to Creationists, and you've completely misrepresented my stance.
I tell you that the only "evidence" I've seen has been proven to be faked or mistaken, and ask you for evidence that hasn't been.
Instead of providing it, you claim to know that I won't believe it anyway and clam up.
I hope you'll understand that at this point, I couldn't care less whether you deem me worthy of further debate or not.
------------
You can tell she's hydrolic...
Her silver scream is supersonic
You can see the mercury smear in her eye... |
 |
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2002 : 14:17:45 [Permalink]
|
Where, pray tell, did I ever say, "I believe these monsters exist." I have never said any such thing.… At best it would mean that on the basis of the evidence as it stands I accept their existence, but even that would be pushing it.
They exist but you don't, and do believe it???????
There is no evidence that any of these "crypto-critters" exist. If there were they would stop being "crypto." There is no Zoologists conspiracy. (Gentlemen, gentlemen, it is of the up most imperative that we keep the existence of these animals from the general public. There could be riots of news leaked up!!!)
This is simply another rhetorical trick used by people who cannot argue rationally. By painting me a "true believer" you try to discredit me so that, hopefully, no one else will listen to the information I have to relate.
It has been a complaint that I have a positive genius for stating the obvious. There was no need for me to paint you as a "true believer" when you had already done such a journeyman like job of doing so. Sorry.
It is exactly this attitude, which I see in other scientific vigilantes, that convinces me that mainstream scientists tend to go with the concensus rather than dig too deep for the truth.
And this convinces me that those poor Down Syndrome kids of yours are doomed, as you don't have a clue as to what science is or how it works.
Ironically, what you said about reality is true, though; fortunately it has no compulsion to mold itself your narrow-minded interpretation of science and nature.
If by "narrow-minded" you mean only including facts and excluding obvious BS, then thank you.
I find your blanket dismissal of the evidence disengenuous in light of your comments concerning the opinions of mainstream scientists.
I find you blanket acceptance typical of "true-believers."
Existential claims in zoology are very easy to substantiate. You produce a specimen. Plain and simple, no muss and fuss.
You are, in fact, doing what I said mainstream scientists tended to do.
I'm about as mainstream and ordinary as anyone in the natural sciences. We are all skeptics. We all carefully examine the evidence. Sometimes there is just nothing there, no matter how much we want there to be. I would love the fame of discovering Slaterosaurus plesiosaur euryapsid in Loch Ness. I would particularly love the money--but there's just no beasty in that lake.
Mainstream scientists are driven by ego and greed just as much as anyone else. Discovering any of these folklore animals would mean instant wealth and fame. But look as hard as we can--there is nothing to find. They are myths.
There are cases of sasquatches turning into headhunters.
I have been up to Mendocino and Humbolt and have seen the Big Foot evidence with my own eyes. All fakes, poorly done fakes at that. Those famous movies of sasquatch walking away into the woods and looking back over her shoulder at the camera that are blurry and grainy on Fox are perfectly clear there.
Clear enough to see the seams in the suit.
There are no cases of Big foot turning headhunter, there aren't any Big Foots (Feet?). Feel safe to spend you next vacation in the Redwoods. They are truly beautiful. The only Big Feet you'll see are carved from stumps with chain saws.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
echthroi_man
Skeptic Friend
104 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2002 : 14:39:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I've lost count, has anyone been keeping track?
Is that six times now, in the past year, that someone has claimed that a Skeptic was being childish for not being credulous?
You have a knack for putting words into people's mouths. I did not say that Tokyodreamer was being childish for not being credulous (though why that should be considered childish is beneath me; aren't you so-called skeptics suppose to be open-minded?); I claimed he is being childish because he is acting childish.
Speaking of which, stating that these creatures have been found is not the same as admitting that I believe these creatures exist, and he damn well knows it. As I explained earlier, I find certain evidence compelling, even convincing, among them being certain eyewitness testimonies. If these testimonies are true, then the creatures have been found, whether I wish to believe in them or not. At present I accept the testimonies at face value, but if it can be demonstrated that they are hoaxes or based on on mistaken identities or delusion (simply saying they are is not enough, I'll want to see evidence to that effect), then I would be willing to reject them, and along with them my claim that these creatures have been found.
By the way, putting words into people's mouths (ie, creating stawman arguments) is itself childish; it demonstrates a lack of maturity that comes with a reluctance to debate the evidence.
The Irish Headhunter
Oblivion -- When you REALLY want to get away from it all! |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2002 : 15:00:20 [Permalink]
|
We "so called" Skeptics are supposed to be skeptical.
He is open minded in the trueist sense of the word. He has said to you that if you produce convincing evidence he will change his opion. You can't get more open minded thanthat.
Eyewitness testimonies are only claims they are not proof or evidence. In science, as in most human dealings, one must present proof not just declare something. (Religion, however, makes a point of not working that way.)
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860
Edited by - slater on 07/29/2002 15:01:08 |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2002 : 15:05:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
stating that these creatures have been found is not the same as admitting that I believe these creatures exist, and he damn well knows it.
You're pulling our legs. You have to be. This is such total nonsense.
How can you claim that they absolutely, positively have been found to exist, and not believe they exist?
------------
You can tell she's hydrolic...
Her silver scream is supersonic
You can see the mercury smear in her eye... |
|
|
|
echthroi_man
Skeptic Friend
104 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2002 : 15:14:05 [Permalink]
|
Slater, I find it truly amazing how people who claim to be skeptics nontheless cannot tolerate a real skeptic when he or she enters their midst. Your pathetic attempt to discredit me by portraying me as a true believer simply shows the lengths you will go to silence any dissenting opinion.
I will explain this one more time, then I shall let you have the last word; I see no further use in discussing this issue with you as long as you behave so dishonestly.
As a person I am a true believer in only one subject: Christianity. Everything else I either accept or reject (not believe or disbelieve) on the basis of the evidence. The evidence for creatures like sasquatch and lake monsters that you reject out of hand I find compelling enough to entertain the possibility -- I repeat the possibility -- that these creatures might -- I repeat might -- exist. Some of the evidence is even sufficiently convincing that I tentatively -- I repeat tentatively -- accept their existence. I do, however, retain some doubt, sufficient that I would reverse my acceptance if it could be demonstrated that the evidence I find convincing is in fact wrong. Simply saying it is is not enough; unilaterally claiming there is no evidence, when in fact there is, simply underscores either your ignorance on this subject or your desperate need to convert others to your cause. Or perhaps it is intimidation, as you have tried to intimidate me.
I am a true skeptic: I examine the issue carefully, looking at ALL the evidence FROM BOTH SIDES; I read the opinions OF BOTH SIDES; I keep an open mind; I do not reject any piece of evidence or opinion out of hand; I reject claims that cannot be substantiated and I accept claims that can; and I form a tentative decision after weighing the pros and cons. I keep my mind open to new information, however, and I am ever ready to change my decision with new evidence.
I see very little of any of that on this forum. Instead I see close-minded stubborness; a refusal to even discuss the issue openly and rationally; an eagerness to use intimidation, insults, even threats to get me to conform to the opinions of a very few vocal vigilantes; blanket rejection not only of all known data but also all possible data; in short, a debunker's attitude.
It's obvious now that I made a mistake joining this forum. From what I had read before I decided to join I thought this would be a fun place to debate the issues. I wanted to be able to impart what I knew and learn what other people knew. But then I had expected that members would be open-minded enough to evaluate evidence and arguments rationally and objectively. I hadn't realized that this was in fact a private club for true believers in science orthodoxy; I had not seen the sign, Open-mined people interested in rational debate not wanted.
By the way, regarding my competence as a scientist -- which considering that you know nothing about me you seem certain that you can judge me -- it might interest you to know that I am the primary author on over two dozen publications, I have authored numerous book chapters and co-authored at least three books, and I have been invited to join the American Academy of Sciences, so I believe I know a little something about what science is and how it works.
The Irish Headhunter
Oblivion -- When you REALLY want to get away from it all! |
|
|
|
echthroi_man
Skeptic Friend
104 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2002 : 15:24:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
We "so called" Skeptics are supposed to be skeptical.
Defining a word by using a different form of it explains nothing. A true skeptic is suppose to be open-minded enough to admit that there is evidence to support a claim even if he does not find that evidence compelling. Blanket denials of the existence of such evidence is not being open-minded, it is close-mindedness of the worst sort.
By the way, Tokyodreamer's "open-mindedness" is a rhetorical sham, considering that he will not accept any evidence presented to him; after all, these creatures, like ESP, are impossible.
[quote}
Eyewitness testimonies are only claims they are not proof or evidence.
[/quote]
More putting words in my mouth. I never said they were proof. They are evidence, however; I learned that from my psychologist and anthropologist colleagues. Of course, you probably do not consider psychology or anthropology to be real sciences.
The Irish Headhunter
Oblivion -- When you REALLY want to get away from it all! |
|
|
|
echthroi_man
Skeptic Friend
104 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2002 : 15:30:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
How can you claim that they absolutely, positively have been found to exist, and not believe they exist?
For the last time, I never claimed that they absolutely, positively exist. I have stated over and over again that I tentatively accept their existence based on the evidence at hand. Give me evidence that proves they are impossible and I will change my mind.
But I do not believe in them because they are not my religion, they are not my god, and I do not have faith in their existence.
Are you people so meat-headed that you cannot understand the difference between scientific acceptance based on evidence and religious belief based on faith?
The Irish Headhunter
Oblivion -- When you REALLY want to get away from it all! |
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2002 : 15:31:59 [Permalink]
|
Chip's answers to various quotes: (Lighter reading derived from the same various statements that Slater collected and already wisely addressed.)
Where, pray tell, did I ever say, "I believe these monsters exist." I have never said any such thing.… At best it would mean that on the basis of the evidence as it stands I accept their existence, but even that would be pushing it.
i.e. They don't exist but based on "evidence"..."I accept their existence" (but that would be pushing it) so if you think I accept it (which I do) you're wrong, (because I don't.) (Except when I do.) (So there.)
This is simply another rhetorical trick used by people who cannot argue rationally. By painting me a "true believer" you try to discredit me so that, hopefully, no one else will listen to the information I have to relate.
Rhetoric eh? Well certainly there is some understanding in this day and age of the many attempts, among those who, by their own admission, are willing and able to "forge ahead" within the parameters and the very reasons behind their own personal agendas, and right under the noses of non-professional scientists who, by way of analogy, are "up the proverbial creek" which flows from the rivers of academic avoidance!
It is exactly this attitude, which I see in other scientific vigilantes, that convinces me that mainstream scientists tend to go with the consensus rather than dig too deep for the truth.
Well certainly there is some understanding in this day and age...oh, I said that. Well anyway, vigilantes (or "paradoxers" - as they were called in the 19th Century,) are goofy.
Ironically, what you said about reality is true, though; fortunately it has no compulsion to mold itself your narrow-minded interpretation of science and nature.
"Narrow minded" as in "narrowed" down to facts as a basis for study rather than myths.
I find your blanket dismissal of the evidence disingenuous in light of your comments concerning the opinions of mainstream scientists.
The evidence has never been presented, but I find a "blanket" helpful in winter, but temporally "disingenuous" on warm summer nights. (More rhetoric - oh well.)
You are, in fact, doing what I said mainstream scientists tended to do.
You mean, throw myths and garbage aside as they tend to get in the way of real data, and concentrate on tested experiments and research, which real (i.e. mainstream) scientists are attempting to understand for the benefit of us all? Well, OK then.
There are cases of sasquatches turning into headhunters.
So that guy who called me up last month and said, "I can get you a much better job at a higher salary if you'll just come in for an interview..." was very hairy and had big feet? No wonder I felt uneasy about his offer.
One other point - "cryptozoology" is phony and doesn't apply to real creatures that are illusive. I mentioned the giant squid in an earlier post. It is every bit as rare as bigfoot but scientists know it's out there because they have better data including a few pickled body parts, some smaller 20 foot long individuals, and old photographs. The "bigfoot believers" cannot get tourists out into the deep ocean so the squid isn't going to be as big a tourist draw.
"Speaking without thinking like shooting without aiming." - Charlie Chan |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2002 : 15:32:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
an eagerness to use intimidation,
Huh?
quote:
insults,
Hypocrite.
quote:
, even threats to get me to conform to the opinions of a very few vocal vigilantes
Threats?! Where?
quote:
But then I had expected that members would be open-minded enough to evaluate evidence and arguments rationally and objectively.
Yet here we are on the third page, and you haven't once mentioned any specific piece of evidence that you consider compelling. Someone truly interested in discussion wouldn't just say "go find it yourself".
------------
You can tell she's hydrolic...
Her silver scream is supersonic
You can see the mercury smear in her eye... |
|
|
|
echthroi_man
Skeptic Friend
104 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2002 : 15:43:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Yet here we are on the third page, and you haven't once mentioned any specific piece of evidence that you consider compelling.
Perhaps if you had responded with an open mind instead of dogmatic close-minded certainty that these creatures are unreasonable (ie, impossible), I would have responded with relish.
Even now if just one person expressed a desire for an open, rational discussion I would be very glad to describe that evidence.
The Irish Headhunter
Oblivion -- When you REALLY want to get away from it all! |
|
|
|
echthroi_man
Skeptic Friend
104 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2002 : 15:48:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
One other point - "cryptozoology" is phony and doesn't apply to real creatures that are illusive. I mentioned the giant squid in an earlier post. It is every bit as rare as bigfoot but scientists know it's out there because they have better data including a few pickled body parts, some smaller 20 foot long individuals, and old photographs. The "bigfoot believers" cannot get tourists out into the deep ocean so the squid isn't going to be as big a tourist draw.
And yet the giant squid is one of the great triumphs of cryptozoology. It is in fact the one case where a cryptozoologist (Bernard Heulvemanns; sorry for the misspelling) predicted its existence at a time when mainstream zoologists denied its existence, only to have it officially recognized a couple of decades later.
The Irish Headhunter
Oblivion -- When you REALLY want to get away from it all! |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2002 : 16:50:53 [Permalink]
|
I find it truly amazing how people who claim to be skeptics nontheless cannot tolerate a real skeptic when he or she enters their midst.
It's like they have a phrase book that they all quote. "I'm a real skeptic because I support-(pick any cock and bull story you please)- and you aren't because you disagree with me."
Your pathetic attempt to discredit me by portraying me as a true believer simply shows the lengths you will go to silence any dissenting opinion.
I've taken the liberty of reading your personal web site. Funny how Xians always seem to have personal web sites. I got a good laugh at how among all the graphics (nice Celtic Knots by the way) and claims of decent from the high kings of Ireland you were able to squeeze in a bit about how humble you are.
Your site presents you as an educated man whose early indoctrination into superstition won out over his more logical self. Your mention of your sisters children and your pets leads one to think that you have paid for this in your personal life.
I will explain this one more time, then I shall let you have the last word; I see no further use in discussing this issue with you as long as you behave so dishonestly.
You equate honesty with agreeing with you? Oh I forgot, I'm having the last word here. You aren't intending to reply. Don't stand on formality, you can say anything you please.
As a person I am a true believer in only one subject: Christianity.
So you have repeated and repeated. As though it was a positive quality you possessed. You don't seem to realize that this christianity has poisoned your thinking in general.
Everything else I either accept or reject (not believe or disbelieve) on the basis of the evidence.
A privilege you refuse to extend to anyone else. We tell you that we have seen the so called evidence and find it lacking and in some cases (Sasquatch photos and foot prints, Loch Ness monster confessed fake) fraudulent. You refuse to allow us our considered opinions, but refuse to offer reasons why.
The evidence for creatures like sasquatch and lake monsters that you reject out of hand
A fib if there ever was one. All of these claims have been investigated thoroughly and repeatedly for decades. No creatures have every been found. No spoor, track ways, nests or any peripheral evidence has ever been found. What the hell more do you want?
Or perhaps it is intimidation, as you have tried to intimidate me.
Paranoia raises it's head.
I am a true skeptic
Not by any stretch of the imagination
I do not reject any piece of evidence or opinion out of hand
You do not reject it in hand either, you'll fall for anything.
I reject claims that cannot be substantiated
That, as a scientist is what you should be doing.
But you aren't. That is, in fact, what this entire conversation is about--your insistence on unsubstantiated claims. In fact that is what every thread you have started on this board is about-you insisting that unsubstantiated claims are facts.
I am ever ready to change my decision with new evidence.
You have yet to show that evidence matters to you in the least. In fact by your statements here about witnesses and your basic supposition on the "Homer" thread I don't get the feeling that you fully understand what evidence is.
… on this forum. …I see close-minded stubborness; a refusal to even discuss the issue openly and rationally; an eagerness to use intimidation, insults, even threats to get me to conform to the opinions of a very few vocal vigilantes;
Rereading this thread I see no threats, no vigilantism. I do see you insulting people left and right and them not taking it kindly.
blanket rejection not only of all known data but also all possible data; in short, a debunker's attitude.
There is no fucking data. Only fakes-wise up.
From what I had read before I decided to join I thought this would be a fun place to debate the issues.
The only thing that has changed about this forum is that you joined it. Everyone else is the same and is behaving consistently with all our normal behavior. You join a group that calls themselves Skeptics and complain that they do debunking. Perhaps it's time to buy a new dictionary
I wanted to be able to impart what I knew and learn what other people knew.
And then become angry when a doctor of zoology tells you that some animals in folklore don't exist in the real world. You may have wanted to impart but you have no interest in learning.
I hadn't realized that this was in fact a private club for true believers in science orthodoxy
In other words--we honor truth here. It's not a private club, anyone honest can join.
I had not seen the sign, Open-mined people interested in rational debate not wanted.
You have shown no signs of being either open-minded or rational. You could probably do a great late night AM radio show a la Art Bell. Lake Champlain's "Champy" could be your first guest
By the way, regarding my competence as a scientist … and I have been invited to join the American Academy of Sciences
When they read this board; and I will make sure that they do; you can kiss that invitation goodbye.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2002 : 17:06:41 [Permalink]
|
Irish Headhunter:
"And yet the giant squid is one of the great triumphs of cryptozoology. It is in fact the one case where a cryptozoologist (Bernard Heulvemanns; sorry for the misspelling) predicted its existence at a time when mainstream zoologists denied its existence, only to have it officially recognized a couple of decades later."
Chip:
Bernard Heulvemanns (1913 - 2001) had a doctorate in zoology as well as a fascination with "the possible existence of still unknown animals." He studied all sorts of animals but he also believed that Neanderthal man and other "wild men" still live among us. (I'm sure an expedition to the next Aerosmith concert, or any average college frat party will confirm his assumptions.)
"Speaking without thinking like shooting without aiming." - Charlie Chan
Edited by - chippewa on 07/29/2002 17:15:55 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 07/29/2002 : 17:22:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Bernard Heulvemanns (1913 - 2001) had a doctorate in zoology as well as a fascination with "the possible existence of still unknown animals."
Boy that was some prediction considering that the first carcass of a giant squid that was identified as such and scientifically studied was washed up on a beach in Iceland in 1639.
Erik Ludvigsen Pontoppidan wrote a paper on them in 1752 as did Charles Douglas in 1770. The Frech Navy caught one in 1861 and Rev. Moses Harvey of Newfoundland put one on public exibition in 1874.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
