|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 03/05/2005 : 22:01:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
None of your Jesus rant relates to the topic. Jesus people buy into the paranormal. Fine. But do skeptics? You suggest that they do. I've argued TIME and AGAIN that this isn't the case.
No, actually, he doesn't. He's claiming that the "old skepticism" battles against the idea that Jesus had some sort of paranormal nature about him.
This, of course, implies that the "new skepticism" does not argue against that idea, but it's left unstated and latinijral seems to be unwilling to share this information with anyone.
I really don't understand how he expects to teach people to be "new skeptics" when he's keeping what the "new skepticism" is a TOP SECRET, but it sure reminds me of his arguments against the JREF and their scholarship to MoeFaux. In other words, latinijral is nothing but a hypocrite, and doesn't deserve your time and effort ('you' being Cuneiformist or anyone else).
Look, latinijral was first asked to define "new skepticism" back on November 18th, 2004, and he hasn't provided even a hint of the answer. Three months and fifteen days should have been more than enough time for him to come up with something, but - as he would say - NADA.
This is one monster of a dead horse. More beatings aren't going to help. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2005 : 03:31:00 [Permalink]
|
It is interesting, or perhaps not, that latinijral has yet to participate in any thread other than those he himself has started. And if you've read even a part of one of those, you've pretty much covered it all. They are as alike as any litter of armadillos.
As I stated elsewhere, "One-trick pony."
So latinijral, whereaway now? What suprises and amazements does the 'New Skepticism. have in store? Or are we to continue to flog Dave's defunct equine until it is finally reduced to the purest strain of the utter bullshit that it represents?
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2005 : 03:48:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Now your original question(“what is old skepticism and what is new skepticism, and what is your point?”) got SHORTER.
Magic? Nah…..you understood what you need to understood.
Have you tried google? It will be a start for you. Type like this……. “old skepticism”.
So, just for the hell of it, I ran a google on 'old skepticism, and came up with this:
quote:
What we should say to the Skeptic
Nick Bostrom, PhD
(c) 1996
nick@nickbostrom.com
Dept. of Phil., LSE. and Dept. of Math., King's College
Go to Nick Bostrom's Home Page
How can we be justified in believing that the sun will rise tomorrow?
Since it is conceivable that the sun won't rise tomorrow although it has always done so in the past, we cannot hope for justification for the belief that it is strictly speaking absolutely certain that the sun will rise tomorrow. What we are looking for is an explanation of why it is reasonable even to believe with a high degree of confidence that the sun will rise.
A first step towards such an explanation is to point out that, given what we know, the simplest hypothesis is that the sun will not behave differently tomorrow from what it has always done; to assume that it will rise is to assume that nature is regular in this respect.
This is well and good as far as it goes. If many more details were added and the result were generalized to cover other cases too, we might have claimed thereby to have made a contribution to scientific methodology. Had we asked, not for grounds for believing that the sun will rise, but for reasons for believing in the inflationary scenario of cosmological development, for example, then an answer along this line may well be presumed to have satisfied the inquirer. We would explain to him the available evidence, argue why certain objections are invalid or at least not decisive, and implicitly or explicitly appeal to a principle of induction to prove our claim that the we have grounds for believing in the inflation theory and the predictions that can be derived from it when taken together with other pieces of accepted science. However, it is clear that this is not what a philosopher asking why he should believe that the sun will rise tomorrow is out for. To the above explanation he would reply: "Yes, but why should I believe in the principle of induction?".
Here is the "problem of induction": What should we say to that skeptic philosopher?
We might argue with him as follows.
It continues with a figuritive argument between a dogmatist and a skeptic.
I have no idea what this might have to do with Randi or Geller or Moefaux, or any of the rest of our present cast of charectors.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2005 : 06:09:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist:
And why in fucking hell do I have to Google for something when the fucking Father of the new fucking Skepticism is right fucking here. You're the one bitching about old versus new skepticism-- you tell me what they are. If you can't, then I can only assume that you're a fucking idiot/troll/internet-whore, to whom I wish a slow and painful death. But if you're interested in a discussion of new ideas, then tell me what the fuck it is you're talking about. Otherwise, then go play in traffic and die.
How do you really feel, Cune? C'mon, don't hold back, let it out, you'll feel better. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2005 : 07:04:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
And why in fucking hell do I have to Google for something when the fucking Father of the new fucking Skepticism is right fucking here. You're the one bitching about old versus new skepticism-- you tell me what they are. If you can't, then I can only assume that you're a fucking idiot/troll/internet-whore, to whom I wish a slow and painful death. But if you're interested in a discussion of new ideas, then tell me what the fuck it is you're talking about. Otherwise, then go play in traffic and die.
You sound like you need a hug. [hugs] |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2005 : 10:00:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by R.Wreck
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist:
And why in fucking hell do I have to Google for something when the fucking Father of the new fucking Skepticism is right fucking here. You're the one bitching about old versus new skepticism-- you tell me what they are. If you can't, then I can only assume that you're a fucking idiot/troll/internet-whore, to whom I wish a slow and painful death. But if you're interested in a discussion of new ideas, then tell me what the fuck it is you're talking about. Otherwise, then go play in traffic and die.
How do you really feel, Cune? C'mon, don't hold back, let it out, you'll feel better.
Right. Every once in awhile it does feel good to let it all out. Of course, I don't really wish death on anyone, and besides-- my wishing death has as much an effect on reality as my wishing a Cowboys victory in the Super Bowl, or for a new Corvette or for anything else.
But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2005 : 10:57:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral:
Do you consider Geller's atributed paranormal acts a fraud?
Why?
Back to the original topic, at least for a moment:
It is clear that Geller has not and can not produce what he promises. Specifically, he cannot bend a spoon solely by the force of his mind. The only way his mind is involved is by sending the commands to the muscles in his hand that are massaging and bending the spoon. How this guy ever became famous for what is less than a fourth rate parlor trick is unfathomable. (I remember, as a youngster, the first time I saw him on TV, claiming he bent the spoon with his mind. I thought I had to be missing something, because he was working the damn thing with his hands the entire time! I figured maybe I'd understand what was so marvelous about it when I was a little older. I'm still waiting.)
Call him whatever you prefer, be it fraud, huckster, charlatan, or deluded nutbag. I'll accept any or all of those.
That said, Geller is no more or less a fraud than many others, including, but not limited to, Falwell, Hovind, the pope, Sylvia Browne, John Edward, Barry Bonds, Ken Lay, Bernie Ebbers, or any one of the thousands of fakes, phonies, fanatics, and fucked up flim-flammers polluting the planet with their putrid pronouncements. None of them can do what they claim or back up their positions with more than pure unadulterated bullshit.
As to the "failure" of skeptics (old, new, or middle aged) to "destroy" Geller, well I can only say that if I had the time or inclination to attempt such destruction, he'd be pretty far down my list of targets. In any case, I don't have the time or the appetite for wholesale destruction of all foolishness. The best I can muster is an attempt to teach my kids some critical thinking skills, and to apply same when presented with nonsensical blather. My hope is that over time, each generation might become a little less sucseptible to unsupported and unsupportable mumbo jumbo, to the point where someone like Geller would be laughed off the stage the first time he attempted to swindle the audience, never to be heard from again. And I hope that happens before some Imam or Ayatollah squares off with a bible toting lunatic in a game of nuclear dodge ball over who's imaginary being of supreme love is better.
So, latinijral, I'll work to change what I can, and I'll leave the crusade of annihilation to you and the sons of the new skepticism. Good luck. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2005 : 13:53:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
This is one monster of a dead horse. More beatings aren't going to help.
How about that...
 |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2005 : 15:01:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by R.Wreck
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral:
Do you consider Geller's atributed paranormal acts a fraud?
Why?
Back to the original topic, at least for a moment:
It is clear that Geller has not and can not produce what he promises. Specifically, he cannot bend a spoon solely by the force of his mind. The only way his mind is involved is by sending the commands to the muscles in his hand that are massaging and bending the spoon. How this guy ever became famous for what is less than a fourth rate parlor trick is unfathomable. (I remember, as a youngster, the first time I saw him on TV, claiming he bent the spoon with his mind. I thought I had to be missing something, because he was working the damn thing with his hands the entire time! I figured maybe I'd understand what was so marvelous about it when I was a little older. I'm still waiting.)
Call him whatever you prefer, be it fraud, huckster, charlatan, or deluded nutbag. I'll accept any or all of those.
That said, Geller is no more or less a fraud than many others, including, but not limited to, Falwell, Hovind, the pope, Sylvia Browne, John Edward, Barry Bonds, Ken Lay, Bernie Ebbers, or any one of the thousands of fakes, phonies, fanatics, and fucked up flim-flammers polluting the planet with their putrid pronouncements. None of them can do what they claim or back up their positions with more than pure unadulterated bullshit.
As to the "failure" of skeptics (old, new, or middle aged) to "destroy" Geller, well I can only say that if I had the time or inclination to attempt such destruction, he'd be pretty far down my list of targets. In any case, I don't have the time or the appetite for wholesale destruction of all foolishness. The best I can muster is an attempt to teach my kids some critical thinking skills, and to apply same when presented with nonsensical blather. My hope is that over time, each generation might become a little less sucseptible to unsupported and unsupportable mumbo jumbo, to the point where someone like Geller would be laughed off the stage the first time he attempted to swindle the audience, never to be heard from again. And I hope that happens before some Imam or Ayatollah squares off with a bible toting lunatic in a game of nuclear dodge ball over who's imaginary being of supreme love is better.
So, latinijral, I'll work to change what I can, and I'll leave the crusade of annihilation to you and the sons of the new skepticism. Good luck.
Excellent post.
I knew some of you have potential. |
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
|
|
|
latinijral
Banned
197 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2005 : 15:16:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
quote:
Originally posted by Cuneiformist
And why in fucking hell do I have to Google for something when the fucking Father of the new fucking Skepticism is right fucking here. You're the one bitching about old versus new skepticism-- you tell me what they are. If you can't, then I can only assume that you're a fucking idiot/troll/internet-whore, to whom I wish a slow and painful death. But if you're interested in a discussion of new ideas, then tell me what the fuck it is you're talking about. Otherwise, then go play in traffic and die.
You sound like you need a hug. [hugs]
A lot of hugs .I am included now.
This poor soon only demonstarted his killer instints,his lack to holad a debate,a familiar trauma and how easy he gets piss off when he is out of arguments.
Beijos. |
Father of the new skepticism
Cuneiformist "But yeah, I'm sick of latinijral. And his "new "skepticism"! |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2005 : 15:56:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by latinijral
[A lot of hugs .I am included now.
This poor soon only demonstarted his killer instints,his lack to holad a debate,a familiar trauma and how easy he gets piss off when he is out of arguments.
Figa.
In any case, it's true that I am "out of aruments" as you claim. This is because every possible aspect of your various claims have been called into question. There's nothing left to do but wait for a reply (and bitch about the fact that you continue to dodge the real questions). Tragically (but predictably), you have failed to answer any questions or reply to critiques. Instead, you post lame replies (usually including an imparative to "relax" and something about "instinct") and beg us to start new threads in which to ask our questions.
I'd have predicted that since you've offered nothing new and all your ideas have been shown to be false that you'd start a new thread with yet more lame points of discussion. However, it's clear that I'm too late.
It's getting old, latinijral. |
|
|
|
Shacal
Skeptic Friend
USA
51 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2005 : 16:48:07 [Permalink]
|
Sorry, I just have to post. I don't do it a lot, but I try to read a good thread here every once in a while.
But this thread... What the hell? I read it from the beginning, and I have determined that latinrajal is clinicallhy insane. How else can someone be that confusing, illogical and overbearingly condescending. I just really wanted to say to Cuneformist etc. that I feel your pain
 |
"The problem with communication is the illusion that we have accomplished it" |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2005 : 17:01:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shacal
Sorry, I just have to post. I don't do it a lot, but I try to read a good thread here every once in a while.
But this thread... What the hell? I read it from the beginning, and I have determined that latinrajal is clinicallhy insane. How else can someone be that confusing, illogical and overbearingly condescending. I just really wanted to say to Cuneformist etc. that I feel your pain
Thanks, Shacal. You'd feel it more if you knew how much I drank last night before making that post!  |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2005 : 17:14:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shacal:
But this thread... What the hell? I read it from the beginning, and I have determined that latinrajal is clinicallhy insane. How else can someone be that confusing, illogical and overbearingly condescending. I just really wanted to say to Cuneformist etc. that I feel your pain
You read it from the beginning? In one sitting? Do you enjoy headaches? |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 03/06/2005 : 17:52:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shacal
Sorry, I just have to post. I don't do it a lot, but I try to read a good thread here every once in a while.
But this thread... What the hell? I read it from the beginning, and I have determined that latinrajal is clinicallhy insane. How else can someone be that confusing, illogical and overbearingly condescending. I just really wanted to say to Cuneformist etc. that I feel your pain
Yes, yes he is -- isn't he beautiful?
It is so rare to have so much wonderful confusion wander in the door! Does marvels for our collective blood pressure -- mine actually went down because it temporarely saves me from posting a writing I was saving for when times get slow.
And perhaps, some fair day, he'll enlighten us about the New Skepticism. The suspense is driving me to drink.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
