|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2009 : 02:31:12 [Permalink]
|
Jakesteele.....
Just as a pure speculation, what is your view of the oft-repeated arguments detailing the excessive time that it would take to transverse the distance from the nearest planetary system to Earth; such arguments demonstrating that alien life could not survive the shortest possible travel time as even that would run into hundreds or possibly thousands of years? |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 10/05/2009 : 04:46:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Dude.....
| I'm confident that even your crusty old brain can discern the alteration you have made between then and now. |
My crusty old brain would not dare, with it's 80-odd years of ever-increasing ignorance, to challenge your yeasty young polymathy! All I can do is point out to you that, in my statement....| To confess the whole truth, these events fascinate me, along with hundreds of other odd, curious, unexplained, mysterious, and highly suspect phenomena. The chances are high that 90+ percent of all this shit is pure, unadulterated bullshit or else extremely ordinary occurences of one kind or another. |
..... the referent "hundreds of other odd, curious, unexplained, mysterious, and highly suspect phenomena." was immediately precedent to the referrer "all this shit"
This sentence structure is completely in accord with Garner's Modern American Usage, the most commonly used textbook on the subject.
There is no alteration, I was talking about two different subjects in the two different posts. Sorry, Dude, not even a nice try!
|
You have yourself backed into a corner and can't admit your error. "90+ percent of all this shit"
Just agree that your statement is, at best, vague and ambiguous.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2009 : 04:53:20 [Permalink]
|
bng said:
| A pattern of scratches on rocks identical to what you suggested might easily be overlooked by a professional, unless they were aware that something of that nature might be an important artifact. A laser-etched titanium plate would likely receive due attention. |
It seems very unlikely to me that a trained anthropologist or archaeologist is going to overlook a series of prime numbers scratched into a rock, even if the scratching was crude.
And as we are speculating about what a race capable of travelling between stars would leave behind, I'd speculate it wouldn't be scratches in a rock. More like a laser carved metal plate. If it was intended to be found it would also be left in some obvious place not likely to be effected much by catastrophic geology.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2009 : 04:58:39 [Permalink]
|
jake said:
Yeah, right, sure, uh-huh. Let's go with what you said and you can do me a favor by educating me on this matter. My needs are very simple and few. I just need the answer to a couple of questions that any decent debunker should know immediately:
1. What is the explanation to the first sighting.
2. How long did the lights hover/descend over Phoenix?
|
Well, I'm not a debunker. My comment is aimed at your appalling lack of knowledge with regard to the scientific method and some basic physical laws. I am personally completely uninterested in flashing lights in the sky.
There is no possibility of a real conversation with you on the topic you want to talk about anyway, not until you correct your ignorance of more basic matters.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
jakesteele
New Member
USA
37 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2009 : 08:12:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Well, Jakesteele, it's good to see that your threat to ignore me was empty. There can be no meeting of the minds if one side simply refuses to communicate.Originally posted by jakesteele
Ah, the old "Law of the Avoided Question: Answer the question you would have liked to have been asked rather than the one that was asked. Who cares what the original question was, answer a question that you have prepared an answer for regardless (any question will do, as long as it is related to the subject… and sometimes not even then |
Except that my question was directly relevant to yours. As I said, it's impossible for me to answer or even opine on as it stands.| And lest we forget: "Law of the “Official Story” (aka. Safe refuge in a harbor) – The Official Story is always right. If the OS says it was a weather balloon, then it was; proof positive, case closed. No question, no doubt, total acceptance." |
Yeah, I'm sure the fact that I have expressed doubt of the "Official Story" directly to you will be handwaved away by you as a false-flag operation.
But let's ignore that, like civilized people. What did you ask? You asked:I would still like an answer to:
1. What is the explanation to the first sighting. |
And I asked:| Why don't you tell us again what, precisely, was the "first sighting?" Events are obviously being confused here. |
If you're unwilling to go even that far, and claim that I'm just avoiding your question or holding to the "official story" because I asked you for more information, then the problem here is obviously yours.
You also asked:| 2. How long did the lights hover/descend over Phoenix? |
And I asked:| Which lights, specifically? |
And instead of providing an answer, you just repeated your question. There's a lot going on in your head that make these "simple" questions not so simple.| ***Dave W. - "But it's obvious that you do doubt the "Official Story," because a pilot saying "I dropped flares at that time" is a perfectly reasonable explanation, no more evidence necessary. But you think that that's not enough for a "completely definitive conclusion." |
Is this you trying to answer my question? Are the flares allegedly the "first sighting" or are they allegedly the lights which hovered or descended over Phoenix?| So you said you don't doubt the Official Story ("...no more evidence necessary."), then you refuse to answer a couple of simple questions that any debunker worth his salt should be able to answer off the top of his head... |
Well, there's one of your problems: I'm not a debunker. You've concluded that I am, and now seem intent on doing nothing more than being hypocritically rude.| ...and now you say to me, "You, quite obviously, have trouble tolerating unknowns like that." |
Oh, I see what your problem is: you're assuming that I haven't changed my mind.| I think the reason you are so cranky is because of the cognitive dissonance created by holding two conflicting ideas. |
Just more insults (armchair psychology that flies in the face of the available evidence, no less), and no discussion.| If your revised statement is now, "We don't know and I'm fine with that" then what are you arguing about? |
So you're saying that asking you questions is "arguing?" No, you're annoyed that I do have answers to the "it's possible that it's aliens" crappola, which is why you've stopped discussing anything of substance, and have fallen back on insulting me.
By the way, I'd like for there to be a compelling explanation for all of these events. I'm fine with "we don't know" only in absence of any such explanations and people start trying to force-fit magical ETs into our collective ignorance.| You accept the Official Story and now say there is no definitive answer but you still accept the Official Story...? |
Yeah, see why you're confused? You've completely ignored the part where I agreed that if the flares lasted only 5 minutes, then they fail to be an explanation for a three-hour event (unless, of course, they were dropping lots of flares).
I don't give a rat's ass about the "Official Story" if it utterly fails to explain the events as actually observed. I don't actually have a dog in this race (you obviously do, and you're projecting reflexively), but I can certainly see that the "it might have been aliens" dog is so lame it never left the starting line.
|
At this point it is obvious you don’t have an answer to my questions. After doing more leg work that a debunker should do for himself
before he starts debunking, I found a “fairly reasonable” explanation given by the pilot who made an official announcement. No thanks necessary, I’m just doing the job that any objective, logical, rational, open-minded person would do http://www.theufochronicles.com/2008/05/phoenix-lights-project-snowbird-and.html
YOUNG: What about the arguments that the flares were visible longer than 1-hour, when the actual burn-time for parachute flares would be around 4 or 5 minutes?
SULLINS: They were dropping alot of flares. They were over that range for over an hour. One aircraft would go in, drop a couple of flares, make its run and attack a target, then another aircraft would come in from behind and illuminate the range again, so they were continually dropping flares in that area.
As soon as I get doing the leg work for you and find an answer to the first question, Henderson, Nevada, you'll be the second person to know.
|
Sacred Cows make the tastiest hamburgers |
|
|
|
jakesteele
New Member
USA
37 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2009 : 08:41:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Jakesteele.....
Just as a pure speculation, what is your view of the oft-repeated arguments detailing the excessive time that it would take to transverse the distance from the nearest planetary system to Earth; such arguments demonstrating that alien life could not survive the shortest possible travel time as even that would run into hundreds or possibly thousands of years?
|
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/08/has-warp-speed-.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Alcubierre
http://media.caltech.edu/press_releases/11935
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17476-ion-engine-could-one-day-power-39day-trips-to-mars.html?full=true
http://www.jlab.org/news/internet/1997/spooky.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3308109.stm
The links above show:
1. Stopping light in its tracks totally.
2. Teleportation
3. Spooky effect at a distance.
4. A way to get around the speed of light.
I gave the above examples of how far the human race has come in such a short time. If you look at the warp dive links you see earth already coming up with theoretical working models. Right now it would take a dylithum crystal the size of Jupiter, but it shows it can be done in theory. If you remember, the first computer that, I believe it was the govt. or IBM built, we had was as huge as a building, working on vacuum tubes and not even as good as a decent hand-held calculator.
Every step of the way, as paridigms come and go, there are two forces at work. One are the visionaries, and yes, some crazies too, and then you have the paradigm police. They tug at each other. The paradigm police get pulled along by the visionaries and the visionaries get restrained enough to keep from falling off the edge of the universe, if you will.
To say something is impossible as judged by our still very limited scientific constraints is like the old saying, “If God had meant for man to fly he would have given him wings.” That’s very short sighted.
With our theoretical warp drive being technically possible, it opens doors we never knew existed. Who knows what’s on the other side of the doors? The warp drive, or some variation of it, could possibly circumvent the time/distance restraint that we currently face in spite of what the naysayers and doubters think. Me thinks they protest too loudly.
|
Sacred Cows make the tastiest hamburgers |
|
|
|
jakesteele
New Member
USA
37 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2009 : 08:46:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
jake said:
Yeah, right, sure, uh-huh. Let's go with what you said and you can do me a favor by educating me on this matter. My needs are very simple and few. I just need the answer to a couple of questions that any decent debunker should know immediately:
1. What is the explanation to the first sighting.
2. How long did the lights hover/descend over Phoenix?
|
Well, I'm not a debunker. My comment is aimed at your appalling lack of knowledge with regard to the scientific method and some basic physical laws. I am personally completely uninterested in flashing lights in the sky.
There is no possibility of a real conversation with you on the topic you want to talk about anyway, not until you correct your ignorance of more basic matters.
|
Due to my 'appalling lack of knowledge, in this case logic, I am kindly asking you if I've got this right about your post:
Ad hominem abusive
Ad hominem abusive (also called argumentum ad personam) usually and most notoriously involves insulting or belittling one's opponent, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions. |
Sacred Cows make the tastiest hamburgers |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2009 : 10:43:04 [Permalink]
|
jakesteele:
At this point it is obvious you don’t have an answer to my questions. After doing more leg work that a debunker should do for himself before he starts debunking, I found a “fairly reasonable” explanation given by the pilot who made an official announcement. No thanks necessary, I’m just doing the job that any objective, logical, rational, open-minded person would do http://www.theufochronicles.com/2008/05/phoenix-lights-project-snowbird-and.html |
Why should we look for answers to questions that are of interest to you? And who here made the attempt to debunk anything related to your questions? Hell, even the idea of alien visitation wasn’t “debunked.” It just doesn’t warrant consideration because the evidence for it is completely lacking and the very idea of it is seriously problematic. And that point has been made over and over again.
You have a clear agenda, and it's written right in your profile. What really matters to you is successfully "debunking debunkers" and not the answers to your questions, so much. Those are just bait. I have noticed that after being corrected several times, you have refused to drop your personal favorite ad hominem attack on skeptics by calling us "debunkers" and are now claiming some kind of victory because poor you had to look for the answers to questions that you posed and could have looked up for yourself at any time.
What you were really after is to prove that skeptics don’t have all the answers, as though we ever claimed that we did. Or worse, we should snap to attention and search out the answers to your questions, just because you asked for them, to prove that we really are open minded or some shit like that. Who the hell are you to make that kind of demand on us? And who the hell are you to then ridicule us if we don't jump through your hoops purposely designed to expose the truth about skeptics?
Frankly, your dishonesty disgusts me jakesteele. Maybe it hurts that no one here actually played your little game. Or maybe, because you are so convinced that skeptics are more interested in debunking than they are in looking for the most likely explanation for mysterious events, that you will turn every response to you on its head to fit your bias. I don’t know and I don’t care.
What I do know is that it was always up to you to look for the answers to your questions. We are not here to serve you…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2009 : 10:45:53 [Permalink]
|
jakesteele.....
Good luck with Dude! He can be a lot of fun, once you understand that he's mildly psychotic. Actually, many here have their quirks, myself excepted, of course. Dude popped out of the perimetrium bitter at being born, and has been in free-fall ever since! His hobby is researching four-letter words.
I don't know if my imagination is sufficiently advanced to contemplate the physics (or lack, thereof,) behind a "warp drive", it sounds a bit like the basic motivation of dirty old men like me.
But it occurs to me that sufficiently advanced automation could certainly overcome the laboriously spelled-out limitations on the life-span of sentient life (as we know it) to allow a really high-tech, self-programmed, robotic spacecraft to transverse enormous distances.
So why go through all the work of demonstrating that aliens (or humans) could not live long enough to cross interstellar space, when there may be no reason for assuming life of any sort (unless you want to call high automation 'artificial life') must be aboard theoretical light-year-crossing "flying saucers"?
Dave's and others remarkable calculations as to the energy requirements necessary to send any degee of physical mass over light years of distance are a much more serious argument against "Contact" -- at least as envisioned by Carl Sagan -- a human-to-live-alien being encounter! And although the force of persuasion shrinks a great deal when you think in terms of robotics, I am sure that a creative mathematician can demonstrate that interstellar anything is impossible!
I am currently researching some of the opposition positions to the energy argument. More later. I (perhaps others, it's an opportunity for much more stoning) would like to hear your views on
the absolute certainty of the premise that we cannot go to the stars, nor can any star system inhabitants come to us, without a warp drive -- in other words, explicable speculation within the boundaries of contemporary physics. Forget the heckling, jake, there are others here that have reasoned imagination like yourself. You are a harder target that the last whipping boy, Jerome, who was banned for his transgrssions. I am sure that I will be too, probably before I reach ninety!
I never have been any kind of fan of the "alien abduction" fantasies that assume actual alien life forms are present, or have been present in our earthly environment.
Do you favor any of this degree of speculation?
I'm sure you perceive my ulterior motive, it is to determine where to put you on the nutcase scale of one to ten. [u]I[/i] have arrived to about five in my dotage; while in college I was a lousy one-half point! |
| Edited by - bngbuck on 10/05/2009 11:41:08 |
|
|
|
jakesteele
New Member
USA
37 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2009 : 11:00:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
jakesteele:
At this point it is obvious you don’t have an answer to my questions. After doing more leg work that a debunker should do for himself before he starts debunking, I found a “fairly reasonable” explanation given by the pilot who made an official announcement. No thanks necessary, I’m just doing the job that any objective, logical, rational, open-minded person would do http://www.theufochronicles.com/2008/05/phoenix-lights-project-snowbird-and.html |
Why should we look for answers to questions that are of interest to you? And who here made the attempt to debunk anything related to your questions, or has even tried to? Hell, even the idea of alien visitation wasn’t “debunked.” It just doesn’t warrant consideration because the evidence for it is lacking. And that point is been made over and over again.
You have a clear agenda, and it's written right in your profile. What really matters to you is successfully "debunking debunkers" and not the answers to your questions, so much. Those are just bait. I have noticed that after being corrected several times, you have refused to drop your personal favorite ad hominem attack on skeptics by calling us "debunkers" and are now claiming some kind of victory because poor you had to look for the answers to questions that you posed and could have looked up yourself at any time.
What you were really after is to prove that skeptics don’t have all the answers, as though we ever claimed that we did. Or worse, we should snap to attention and search out the answers to your questions just because you asked for them to prove that we really are open minded or some shit like that. Who the hell are you to make that kind of demand on us?
***And who the hell are you to then ridicule us if we don't jump through your hoops purposely designed to expose the truth about skeptics?
Do you realize what you just said? Pardon me, Miss, but you're Freudian slip is showing.
Frankly, your dishonesty disgusts me jakesteele. Maybe it hurts that no one here actually played your little game. Or maybe, because
***you are so convinced that skeptics are more interested in debunking than they are in looking for the most likely explanation for mysterious events, that you will turn every response to you on it’s head to fit your bias. I don’t know and I don’t care.
****First off, the term debunker is not derogatory, but the term psuedo-skeptic is. I have not used that yet. James Randi, Joe Nickell of CSI are debunkers and they're damn proud of it. It is Randi's whole shtick. You should be proud that you come from such lineage. Also, when it comes to the topics that a skeptic/critical thinker labels "woo, CTer, True Believer, etc., they then become at best, debunkers and in the worse case scenarios they become psuedo-skeptics.
So if you can't/won't give me the Official Explanation or at least your theory, then I guess you and I are done.
|
|
Sacred Cows make the tastiest hamburgers |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2009 : 11:26:47 [Permalink]
|
jakesteele:
First off, the term debunker is not derogatory, but the term psuedo-skeptic is. I have not used that yet. James Randi, Joe Nickell of CSI are debunkers and they're damn proud of it. |
Well, you are just wrong about that. While both have debunked many woo claims, both consider themselves investigators and skeptics and not debunkers. A debunking may be the result of an investigation, but I don't know of a single critical thinker who thinks that debunking should be our motivation for any investigation. And any skeptic who calls himself a debunker is not a critical thinker.
Joe Nickell:
In contrast to many paranormal proponants who are little more than mystery mongerers, or to some skeptics who call themselves "debunkers," I hold that mysteries should neither be fostered nor dismissed. Instead, they should be carefully investigated with a view toward solving them. I have spent my life trying to do just that -- whether the mysteries were paranormal or historical or forensic or literary or whatever their nature. |
I challenge you to find any reference or quote by Randi in which he describes himself a "debunker."
Also, I note that since I have both objected to and corrected you about that several times in this thread, you are not being honest about your use of the word "debunker" or you would have changed your description of us to "skeptics." Dave has told you that he too is not a "debunker." To the best of my knowledge, not one of us here at SFN would describe ourselves that way because it does not at all accurately define what it means to be a skeptic or a critical thinker or what it is that we promote.
Check that. In your profile, you describe yourself as "debunking debunkers," which tells me that you came here with an agenda and a bias.
Edited to add:
jakesteele:
So if you can't/won't give me the Official Explanation or at least your theory, then I guess you and I are done. |
Oh wait, I had the "official Explanation" right here on my desk for the longest time. I must have misplaced it!
I do have a theory though. It goes like this: Mysterious lights were seen in the sky's above Arizona. They might have been flares.
Satisfied? |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2009 : 11:30:31 [Permalink]
|
jake,
No, I'm not saying you are wrong about anything because of your ignorance, I am just pointing out your ignorance. It may seem insulting to you, but an accurate observation can't actually be an insult. If you hadn't bathed in a week and I tell you that you reek, it's not an insult. Me pointing out your obvious ignorance is the same, and it isn't an "ad hom".
You linking to those bits of physics yet again just shows that you really don't understand them or the scientific method. You don't have to keep demonstrating that for us, we get it.
bng said:
Good luck with Dude! He can be a lot of fun, once you understand that he's mildly psychotic. Actually, many here have their quirks, myself excepted, of course. Dude popped out of the perimetrium bitter at being born, and has been in free-fall ever since! His hobby is researching four-letter words.
|
Mildly? And here I was going for TV-Serial killer level psychotic...
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
jakesteele
New Member
USA
37 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2009 : 16:48:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
jakesteele:
First off, the term debunker is not derogatory, but the term psuedo-skeptic is. I have not used that yet. James Randi, Joe Nickell of CSI are debunkers and they're damn proud of it. |
Well, you are just wrong about that. While both have debunked many woo claims, both consider themselves investigators and skeptics and not debunkers. A debunking may be the result of an investigation, but I don't know of a single critical thinker who thinks that debunking should be our motivation for any investigation. And any skeptic who calls himself a debunker is not a critical thinker.
1. Joe Nickell:
In contrast to many paranormal proponants who are little more than mystery mongerers, or to some skeptics who call themselves "debunkers," I hold that mysteries should neither be fostered nor dismissed. Instead, they should be carefully investigated with a view toward solving them. I have spent my life trying to do just that -- whether the mysteries were paranormal or historical or forensic or literary or whatever their nature. |
1A. “I hold that mysteries should neither be fostered nor dismissed. Instead, they should be carefully investigated with a view toward solving them”. This makes for a great sound bite or a good ad, but in his case, that’s all. Hey, he’s got an image to maintain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwvEPeGPxeU
History Channel doc about human levitation. Go to approx. 1:10 minutes and see how carefully he investigates. You will see a classical example of what I call a “Forced Plausible” - Law of the Implausible plausibility – 1.) Trying to make something fit where it doesn’t fit; size 9 foot into a size 6 shoe. Every explanation MUST be a plausible and mundane one, even when it doesn’t fit.
2.) It is better to be mundane and wrong than to be complex and right.
(See Ocamm’s Beard – the simplest solution isn’t always the best one)
2. I challenge you to find any reference or quote by Randi in which he describes himself a "debunker."
2A. I don’t think you get it. Regardless of what label he chooses, he doesn’t do scientific research, he debunks. Writers write, they can call themselves scribe artists, wordsmiths or whatever else they want, but they are still writers. Randi is not interested in scientific inquiry, he’s only interested in exposing bunk by the act of debunking. What’s so terrible about that? Here is how the public perceives him: “Randi has an international reputation for his prestidigitation and as an escape artist, but he's best known as a debunker of paranormal and pseudoscientific claims.”
Read more: http://paranormal.suite101.com/article.cfm/james_randi_debunker_extraordinaire#ixzz0T5ySn2UG
3. In your profile, you describe yourself as "debunking debunkers," which tells me that you came here with an agenda and a bias.
3A. I only debunk debunkers when they need it, just like the Joe Nickell vid. I've only asked for the answer to a few questions.
4. Edited to add:
jakesteele:
So if you can't/won't give me the Official Explanation or at least your theory, then I guess you and I are done. |
Oh wait, I had the "official Explanation" right here on my desk for the longest time. I must have misplaced it!
I do have a theory though. It goes like this: Mysterious lights were seen in the sky's above Arizona. They might have been flares.
Satisfied?
5A. What? A debunker saying, “they might have been flares.” Katie bar the door and Annie get your gun. Stop the presses, breaking news!! Aw, you’re just trying to appear open minded. I’ll bet that’s the first time you’ve ever said that in light of you repeatedly invoking the Law of the Avoided Question.
When you find the misplaced Official Story for the Henderson, Nevada sightings I would greatly appreciate it if you shared it with me.
|
|
Sacred Cows make the tastiest hamburgers |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2009 : 17:44:55 [Permalink]
|
jakesteele:
History Channel doc about human levitation. Go to approx. 1:10 minutes and see how carefully he investigates. You will see a classical example of what I call a “Forced Plausible” - Law of the Implausible plausibility – 1.) Trying to make something fit where it doesn’t fit; size 9 foot into a size 6 shoe. Every explanation MUST be a plausible and mundane one, even when it doesn’t fit.
2.) It is better to be mundane and wrong than to be complex and right.
(See Ocamm’s Beard – the simplest solution isn’t always the best one) |
But Nickell didn’t offer a solution to the problem. He was merely speculating on one possibility. It was clever tape editing that did the rest. Are you going to hold that against him too? He didn’t debunk anything and he would be the first to tell you that. You probably would have noticed if you weren’t a bigot and didn’t resent skeptics the way that you do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47pRIniVg1Y&feature=related
jakesteele:
2A. I don’t think you get it. Regardless of what label he chooses, he doesn’t do scientific research, he debunks. |
Actually, having attended one of his preliminary tests, which he doesn’t conduct himself, I can tell you that they are set up very rigorously, including the use of double blind testing and other protocols that any good scientists would call for. Scientists often do set up the protocols for his tests, unless a magician will do because he knows the trick, as is the case with outing spoon benders like Uri Geller, who has refused to be tested. Randi doesn’t have to be a scientist, or do research. Many of his advisers are scientists, including Phil Plait, the president of the JREF.
Enough can't be said about magicians though. When it comes to detecting trickery they are pretty good at it, because they do trickery for a living.
Doubting an extraordinary claim is not the same as debunking. Doubt is what motivates skeptical inquiry, not the need to knock something down, which is how you see skeptics. There is a lot of information coming at us, some of it bogus, and there really does need to be a method for determining the truth value of those claims. But hey, in one ear and out the other if I am saying this to someone who wants to believe in something that us skeptics find reason to doubt. That's when we become "debunkers," eh? But hey, you are not alone in thinking of us that way. So do those who embrace the moon hoax conspiracy, anti-vaxers, holocaust deniers, creationists, and every other group making claims of fact, where few, if any facts exist to support their favorite "theories."
jakesteele:
Aw, you’re just trying to appear open minded. I’ll bet that’s the first time you’ve ever said that in light of you repeatedly invoking the Law of the Avoided Question. |
I really don’t care if you think I’m open-minded or not. Obviously, when you start with the premise that I am a debunker, you are already convinced that I am not open-minded. And that’s been my point all along. And no amount of correction will do, apparently. I know. I tried. I have, based on our discussion, concluded that you are a bigot. Ever try to reason with a bigot?
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2009 : 17:58:42 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
| Just agree that your statement is, at best, vague and ambiguous. |
I'll make this deal with you. You plead guilty to trychoschistism and I'll revise my post for clarity.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Phoenix Lights flare debris
