|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 04/14/2011 : 05:24:50 [Permalink]
|
| Christ guy, your British rigidity is exceeded only by your extraordinary lack of imagination. I laugh only at the brolly that's apparently up your bum. |
Thanks for the amusing stereotype, I am actually not British, (and I don't have a brolly in my bum), I just lived there a long time (I no longer do). And by all means continue, it's quite fun to see Dude being led around like a poodle (although I always imagined him as more of a Jack Russel). |
 |
 |
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 04/14/2011 : 11:28:49 [Permalink]
|
OFFC.....
| Thanks for the amusing stereotype, |
No thanks required. Those little bon mots just come to me naturally with no effort and I am pleased to share them with an appreciative audience.| I am actually not British, |
Pity! You would be the very model of a modern major pain-in-the-arse. As, apparently, am I.| and I don't have a brolly in my bum |
You need a colonoscopy. There's something up there!| I just lived there a long time |
I just lived there long enough to want to get the hell out.| And by all means continue, |
I would, but I fear the topic du jour has run it's course. Funny thing. I really wanted to see if anyone felt the precepts of deductive reasoning had application to a short-term decision challenge, but no response - except Humbert's omnianswer of "call the media" - even touched the topic. And it is thus that threads get twisted into worsted fabric.| it's quite fun to see Dude being led around like a poodle |
You fail to give Dude his due. He immediately saw many of the possible permutations of the problem, worked out a solid self-serving citizen solution, covered his ass, and figured a way to make a profit besides serving the God of Science. I would have done things much differently, but he certainly covered all the bases on a tight budget! Poodle he's not. He's a good guy, perhaps a bit short in the tooth yet, but hey! everyone under eighty has that problem!
What's with all the Christ crap, OFFC? I mean, have you been jumping puppies through hoops here since 2003 at the average rate of four or five posts a month? Or do you get an occasional epiphany focused on the epicentric position of SFN in the mind of God and then drop in to close another conversion? You're an odder duck than I am, Gunga Din!
|
| Edited by - bngbuck on 04/14/2011 14:58:49 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 04/14/2011 : 11:56:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
You have said "call the media". OK. That's one approach. Several others have said "call the police". |
The notable thing is that we all agree it is important to disseminate the information, not conceal it. All of your further questions don't alter this fundamental point of agreement. Any differences are merely over particular avenues and degree of exposure, so I can't imagine what your final point after this protracted survey is going be or how it will relate back to the topic of critical thinking. Or do you even have a point to make?
And why does Dude only get to "see" the creature and why is his quick judgment "that it is an elaborate hoax?" This is the sort of thing which can be determined in about 5 seconds. It's these sort of unrealistic restrictions which makes your hypothetical scenario feel like a loaded game. It's either a real biological specimen or it isn't. Do you wish to know what Dude would do with a real creature or a fake rubber doll? Because it's two different questions.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 04/14/2011 11:59:02 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 04/14/2011 : 14:56:14 [Permalink]
|
Humbert.....
| The notable thing is that we all agree it is important to disseminate the information, not conceal it. |
The police are going to disseminate the information? How? The Police channel?| I can't imagine what your final point after this protracted survey is going be or how it will relate back to the topic of critical thinking |
No point and no survey, I was curious if anyone felt that critical thinking methodology applied to a quick decision scenario in which there was a possibility of obtaining valuable scientific information. No one yet has said yes or no. Does critical thinking only apply to truth claims?| And why does Dude only get to "see" the creature? |
Humbert, I think you might benefit from a refresher course in Remedial Alphabet. He gets to see the thing when he opens the box. He has no other information except that it is a gift. He can do anything he wants to at this point. Why "only"?| The nature of the object in the box appears to be organic, but so far there is only visual identification. |
| Only Dude has seen this thing so far. Ostensibly, he owns it, by virtue of the note on the crate; so presumably he can handle it any way he wishes. |
| why is his quick judgment "that it is an elaborate hoax?" This is the sort of thing which can be determined in about 5 seconds. |
5 seconds is exactly what I mean by quick. Are you saying that if you opened a crate put on your front porch with an object in it that looked like the "alien" creature in the famous movie "ET", one of the first things you would think of would not be "Hoax"? "Fake"? "Prop?" "Halloween"? Are you saying the first thing you would think of would be: "My God, it's a real alien?" Really?| The quick judgment is that it is an elaborate hoax. But it has not been touched, only seen in the crate. |
Another thirty seconds, he probably pokes it with a stick or touches it with an examination glove on - to see if it is biological or a plastic fake. Ask Dude, it's up to him.| Do you wish to know what Dude would do with a real creature or a fake rubber doll? Because it's two different questions. |
Yeah, Humbert - sigh...! - that's part of the basic question of what would he do? What would he do after he looks at it? As we have seen, different people would do different things. IMO, Dude did some pretty smart things, as he relates it. Ultimately, the scenario poses some law enforcement problems. Calling the media immediately might be seen as unwise - especially if it turned out to be a not so clever hoax, as Dude might be seen as a a foolish person, or suspected of seeking publicity.
As to your attempted poke at my interest in critical thinking, I have absolutely no quarrel with any of CT, Scientific Method procedure, Logical Fallacy methodology or term logic theory. I was looking for viewpoints as to where and where not the CT methodology might be appropiately used. Any opinions? |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 04/14/2011 : 19:39:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Hawks.....
| Heck, there's even a "museum" that would buy the contents of Dude's crate whether it's alien or not. |
IMO, Dude could do a hell of a lot better than a "museum" if it was not a fake. Looks like he thinks so too!
|
Well, you know what they say about opinions and ass-holes...
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 04/14/2011 : 20:05:46 [Permalink]
|
Hawks.....
Well, you know what they say about opinions and ass-holes...
|
I'll bite, what do they say about opinions and ass-holes? |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2011 : 07:16:52 [Permalink]
|
Thanks for staying on topic and not engaging in stupid off topic arguments Bill.
Why dont you go ahead and tell us a few things now, since we have wandered so astray from the origin of this thread.
What would you consider convincing evidence for ET visitation?
What would you do in the scenario you presented?
And what are the thought processes that lead you to the answers you have for those questions?
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2011 : 07:44:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Hawks.....
Well, you know what they say about opinions and ass-holes...
|
I'll bite, what do they say about opinions and ass-holes?
|
Everyone's got one. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2011 : 20:20:48 [Permalink]
|
Dude
| Thanks for staying on topic and not engaging in stupid off topic arguments Bill. |
Dude, if the above is not intended sarcastically, then I apologize in advance to you. But because of this.....| since we have wandered so astray from the origin of this thread. |
.....I tend to believe that your first comment was sarcastic. If it was indeed sarcastic then.....
.....I have had enough of this fake whining about thread highjacking. It takes two to tangle a thread. I have never seen you shrink from a frontal assault here, and not engage in "stupid off topic arguments", and the same goes for many others including moderators and owners. So why should I? Smack a cheek, get your own smacked! And few here pay rigid attention to thread! Somebody wants to flame or fart at somebody else, they pretty well do it irrespective of breaking topic! That's ok with me, I think it makes things more interesting till it gets mean.
I realize that I have purposely painted a large bulls-eye on my back here on SFN and, according to one, have earned the "hatred" of several members; -- if that is a problem, it's my problem alone, not anyone else's. I'm perfectly capable of dealing with that. But I have "highjacked" no more threads than many other regulars and drop-ins have. This very thread is a case in point.
After considerable early palaver by others here about April Fools Day, I first posted starting on page 1, and continuing through pages, 2,3,4,and 5 making reference to CT on every page. Check them out, page by page! And if you are seriously interested in thread consistency and felt that the "Alien" exercise was not thread related, why ask me to continue? Which you did by writing an excellent scenario in response to what I gave you. It was obvious that you thought that one all the way through! And you are also asking me to continue in this post! You must have at least a minimal interest in thought experiments! Obviously, I love them.
You could have said, as did a couple of ramrods, this is stupid, stick to straight discussion of the topic, that is all we allow around here! But you did not do that! And it was your thread. Humbert or OFFC says shut up, I say fuck you, it's not your thread. You say go way, OK, it's your thread! Or it's Dave's or Kil's website! None of the above are mine.
Personally, I think that much of the twists and turns that so many (most?) of the threads here on SFN take, become some of the most interesting discourse and exchanges that these forums produce. But if thread consistency is a high priority as some seem to complain, then I would think that management would set some formal guidelines as to consistency in following thread topic - next to the "mission" statement which does set a frame for content. Every day I get more confused by the rules, or the lack of rules of skepticism. (Not really. Just provocative. Sorry)
Dude, if you did not intend sarcasm and wrote the first paragraph in earnest thanks, I apologize for the above rant, it was my misunderstanding.
Now.....
Why dont you go ahead and tell us a few things now....
What would you consider convincing evidence for ET visitation?
What would you do in the scenario you presented?
And what are the thought processes that lead you to the answers you have for those questions? |
I will be happy to do all of that and more, provided that we hear from you here, as the initiator of this thread, that my response to your request is not to be considered by you to be further "Highjacking". If Dave, or Kil requests that I not post anything further that appears to be "off topic" here including response to your request, I will comply. So I am asking for permission to continue and keep the squawking down by the folks that don't know how to turn off the TV.
I have asked repeatedly if extemporaneous truth-seeking can utilize critical thinking. The "alien-thing in a box" thought experiment is one example of what I consider to be an example of extemporaneous (an unplanned opportunity) truth seeking.
Otherwise, I don't care to add anything more to this thread.
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2011 : 21:06:02 [Permalink]
|
Would you like a tissue for those tears? And seriously, if you can't detect sarcasm that blatant, you perhaps need to cut your grog ration by half.
As for me getting on your case, you seemed interested in actually having a discussion here, so I am annoyed by how easily you are distracted by the homoerotic jesus picture and some jabs by others that could have been answered easy enough with a single sentence or just ignored for the sake of your interest in the conversation.
So answer the questions, stop crying, and if you must play tit-for-tat with every comment thrown your way, maybe stop for a minute participate in the main conversation along the way. But don't bitch about incivility and mean people unless you are going to suddenly become the embodiment of civility yourself.
You have my questions, I've asked you to answer them, now wipe those tears away and get back to something at least tangential to the topic.
OFFC- well, you are probably already aware of my low opinion of you. No real need for me to clarify it further, is there?
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2011 : 23:44:12 [Permalink]
|
Hawks.....
Your opinion is as good as mine. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/16/2011 : 00:16:36 [Permalink]
|
Well, since bngbuck is always clear as mud, it falls to us to figure out what he's trying to say. I think he somehow has a problem with critical thinking insofar as it reduces credulity. In other words, since critical thinking acts as a filter against bullshit, bngbuck is worried that it might on occasion strain out a true gem. This is potentially a real concern. For instance, despite the fact that all the arguments for the existence of god are unconvincing, evidence is nonexistence, and alternative hypotheses are more compelling; there might just be a god out there who exists anyway. We can't ever be certain. So, yes, it is possible that by adhering to the rigorous standards of critical thinking we may inadvertently disbelieve something which is actually true.
But can this be said to be a flaw in the skeptical method? I don't think so. There isn't any real alternative to critical thinking aside from believing something as a matter of faith, which is ill advised for self-evident reasons. Until humans achieve omniscience, our approach to knowledge and truth claims will always be a matter of probabilities and likelihoods. We can't ever be certain that a conclusion arrived at via critical thinking is true, but we can be certain that a conclusion arrived at through critical thinking is the most reasonable. It's the position most likely to be true. Sure, ignoring the the preponderance of evidence and following a personal intuition may, on rare occasion, luck onto an unlikely truth that more sensible minds have dismissed. But we'd only ever know it if further evidence is uncovered. In which case, the method of critical inquiry will have shifted onto it anyway.
And that's why bngbuck's fears are ultimately unfounded. The fact that a stopped clock is correct twice a day doesn't mean that broken timepieces are the best way to tell time. Critical thinking is still, despite the ever present possibility of error, simply the best method we have for determining the relative validity of truth claims. bngbuck may believe the tentative conclusions reached through critical thinking to be premature in some cases (seemingly only ever those of personal interest to him), but it's an irrelevant complaint so long as these conclusions are flexible enough to accommodate new data. For a skeptic, all conclusions are tentatively held. They are all a reflection of the current evidence and are therefore subject to revision if new evidence is uncovered. Skepticism is in no way dogmatic. It is not a collection of conclusions. It is an approach to knowledge. A methodology. And it is for this very reason I have chided bngbuck for failing to properly understand skepticism whenever he has accused us of ascribing to dogmatic beliefs. The method decides which positions are plausible. The evidence decides. What we wish were true just never comes into it.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 04/16/2011 00:28:57 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 04/16/2011 : 11:21:30 [Permalink]
|
| Thanks, Humbert, for your essay on the pivotal part I have played in the development of critical thinking. I'll recommend it to my biographer. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/16/2011 : 13:03:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Thanks, Humbert, for your essay on the pivotal part I have played in the development of critical thinking. I'll recommend it to my biographer.
|
Nothing in what I wrote suggests that I think you have played a part in the development of critical thinking, let alone a pivotal one.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 04/16/2011 17:44:04 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 04/16/2011 : 19:31:14 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
So answer the questions, stop crying, don't bitch, wipe those tears away, get back to something at least tangential to the topic.
|
Hey Boss, I quit. Remember?| I will be happy to do all of that and more, provided that we hear from you here, as the initiator of this thread, that my response to your request is not to be considered by you to be further "Highjacking". Otherwise, I don't care to add anything more to this thread. |
"Tangential" doesn't speak to "highjacking"
Sorry about OFFC's gut punch, try to get over it, Xanax, maybe?
Hey, I like your advice on one-liners.
Maybe you could show me? |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Critical thinking
