skeptics - the inner workings
- Thread starter spookz
- Start date
- Status
Myths about Skeptics.
Myth #1: Just show me the data and I'll believe it.
The problem with this is that skeptics are very often ``shown the data'' and very often don't believe it. Instead, they unpack the studies and look for the errors. This is known as doing good science. When a result contradicts accepted theory, or a fundamental assumption of natural science a good researcher, a good skeptic, will give it more than glancing attention.
For example, the PEAR or auto-ganzfield results are by any stretch of the imagination extraordinary evidence. They are large meta-studies incorporating hundreds of separate experiments. They are the ``proof'' of psi-effects for skeptics, and everybody else to see. I have read those studies and remain unconvinced. I would be convinced, however, by the same level of data for a variety of other effects. In what way has PEAR not met its burden of proof? I remain unconvinced because of what I consider procedural and statistical problems with the meta-studies, or the collection of experiments that make up the meta-studies. I also remain unconvinced because I cannot see what belief would provide me? What theory drives the belief in psi? How will it help bring together other data, or generate new ideas? What phenomena (besides these meta-studies) would be explained by the psi-hypothesis?
Prior beliefs affect our acceptance of the data, and it could be argued that skeptics such as Gardner, Klass and Nickell are good skeptics because of their prior beliefs. They know going into an investigation that there is a prosaic explanation, and are determined to find it. What's wrong with that? Well, it can (and has in some cases) lead to incorrect or premature conclusions. It also doesn't do much for skepticism's reputation when a researcher goes in falsely, and obviously so, proclaiming neutrality. Why not just be honest and say: ``I don't believe it. It is possible to convince me, but I don't think that is going to happen because in my experience, the world doesn't work that way.''
Myth #2: A skeptic should also be an atheist, or at least agnostic, since belief in a deity is incompatible with the truly skeptical mind.
We at ISUNY hear this a lot, and, from what I've heard we are not alone. First, to be honest many self-described skeptics are agnostic. But, not all, or even a majority, of the members of local skeptical groups are agnostic, and there is a very strong commitment on the part of local groups to not exclude or alienate religious people.
As to whether being an atheist is a necessary precursor to being a true skeptic, I have already provided one counter example (the skeptical atheist who is also a holocaust revisionist). So clearly, being an atheist does not make one a good skeptic, why should being a good skeptic make one an atheist? There are a variety of attitudes and opinions regarding matters of personal faith expressed in the skeptical community. There are also a variety of ways people reconcile their faiths with science, society and politics. We should no more expect skeptics to be atheist than republican, or libertarian, or whatever your favorite ``rational'' political stance is.
We should also not underestimate theism as a motivator for a skeptical attitude. Bainbridge and Stark, for example, found a strong tendency for fundamentalist to reject occult and pseudoscience beliefs. And, the claims of Mike Wernke that he was in a satanic cult were ``debunked'' by Hertenstein and Trott for Cornerstone magazine---an evangelical publication. Mainstream religions are also natural allies with skeptics in opposing creationist attempts to teach their brand of religion in science class.
Besides, issues of gods and dæmons are none of the business of a skeptics group for good, practical reasons. And, there is nothing more frustrating to those who work hard to build a local skeptics group than to have atheists come in and drive away members by attempting to convert them.
Myth #3: Being a good skeptic means being a debunker.
Some people are really gun-ho to debunk. Why? I can understand a desire to ``protect'' people from charlatans, but that characterization of believers, and promoters of the paranormal is, to me suspect. It is also a very aggressive approach to skepticism, very confrontational, and makes many people uncomfortable. (And is, perhaps one of the reason there are so few women in skeptics organizations.)
If there is good evidence of fraud, there are law enforcement and regulatory agencies to handle this. If they are not doing their job to your satisfaction, there is a government open to lobbying and elections. Skeptic organizations can promote science and rationalism in a variety of ways that don't involve personal debunking efforts.
Myth #4: Skeptics are defending science and reason from a rising tide of irrationality.
\corollary There is a rising tide of irrationality.
This is one of my favorites. It is in almost every CSICOP fundraising requests, it is repeated in Skeptical Inquirer, and taken as something of a matter of faith. And, faith is what it is, because so far I can find no evidence of an increase in irrationality or superstition. Next time somebody mentions this ``rising tide,'' ask him or her when irrationality was at it's low point and what life was like in those halcyon days. Or, ask how they are measuring irrationality and it's increase. Even the polls published over the years in {Skeptical Inquirer indicate at most a shift in emphasis as one belief replaces another in the popular imagination.
On the whole I suspect that irrationality, belief, and credulity are at about the same level as they have always been, just distributed in different ways. I further suspect that the terms used to describe the beliefs of others have more to do with how new versus established that belief is in society. When skeptics attack the New Age qua New Age, I always have this uncomfortable feeling that New Age beliefs are being singled out. Somebody makes a testable claim? Ok, test it. Somebody professes belief in a oneness of life? Let them get on with their life, and find another hobby for yourself. (sofka)
link in this thread and here
Myth #1: Just show me the data and I'll believe it.
The problem with this is that skeptics are very often ``shown the data'' and very often don't believe it. Instead, they unpack the studies and look for the errors. This is known as doing good science. When a result contradicts accepted theory, or a fundamental assumption of natural science a good researcher, a good skeptic, will give it more than glancing attention.
For example, the PEAR or auto-ganzfield results are by any stretch of the imagination extraordinary evidence. They are large meta-studies incorporating hundreds of separate experiments. They are the ``proof'' of psi-effects for skeptics, and everybody else to see. I have read those studies and remain unconvinced. I would be convinced, however, by the same level of data for a variety of other effects. In what way has PEAR not met its burden of proof? I remain unconvinced because of what I consider procedural and statistical problems with the meta-studies, or the collection of experiments that make up the meta-studies. I also remain unconvinced because I cannot see what belief would provide me? What theory drives the belief in psi? How will it help bring together other data, or generate new ideas? What phenomena (besides these meta-studies) would be explained by the psi-hypothesis?
Prior beliefs affect our acceptance of the data, and it could be argued that skeptics such as Gardner, Klass and Nickell are good skeptics because of their prior beliefs. They know going into an investigation that there is a prosaic explanation, and are determined to find it. What's wrong with that? Well, it can (and has in some cases) lead to incorrect or premature conclusions. It also doesn't do much for skepticism's reputation when a researcher goes in falsely, and obviously so, proclaiming neutrality. Why not just be honest and say: ``I don't believe it. It is possible to convince me, but I don't think that is going to happen because in my experience, the world doesn't work that way.''
Myth #2: A skeptic should also be an atheist, or at least agnostic, since belief in a deity is incompatible with the truly skeptical mind.
We at ISUNY hear this a lot, and, from what I've heard we are not alone. First, to be honest many self-described skeptics are agnostic. But, not all, or even a majority, of the members of local skeptical groups are agnostic, and there is a very strong commitment on the part of local groups to not exclude or alienate religious people.
As to whether being an atheist is a necessary precursor to being a true skeptic, I have already provided one counter example (the skeptical atheist who is also a holocaust revisionist). So clearly, being an atheist does not make one a good skeptic, why should being a good skeptic make one an atheist? There are a variety of attitudes and opinions regarding matters of personal faith expressed in the skeptical community. There are also a variety of ways people reconcile their faiths with science, society and politics. We should no more expect skeptics to be atheist than republican, or libertarian, or whatever your favorite ``rational'' political stance is.
We should also not underestimate theism as a motivator for a skeptical attitude. Bainbridge and Stark, for example, found a strong tendency for fundamentalist to reject occult and pseudoscience beliefs. And, the claims of Mike Wernke that he was in a satanic cult were ``debunked'' by Hertenstein and Trott for Cornerstone magazine---an evangelical publication. Mainstream religions are also natural allies with skeptics in opposing creationist attempts to teach their brand of religion in science class.
Besides, issues of gods and dæmons are none of the business of a skeptics group for good, practical reasons. And, there is nothing more frustrating to those who work hard to build a local skeptics group than to have atheists come in and drive away members by attempting to convert them.
Myth #3: Being a good skeptic means being a debunker.
Some people are really gun-ho to debunk. Why? I can understand a desire to ``protect'' people from charlatans, but that characterization of believers, and promoters of the paranormal is, to me suspect. It is also a very aggressive approach to skepticism, very confrontational, and makes many people uncomfortable. (And is, perhaps one of the reason there are so few women in skeptics organizations.)
If there is good evidence of fraud, there are law enforcement and regulatory agencies to handle this. If they are not doing their job to your satisfaction, there is a government open to lobbying and elections. Skeptic organizations can promote science and rationalism in a variety of ways that don't involve personal debunking efforts.
Myth #4: Skeptics are defending science and reason from a rising tide of irrationality.
\corollary There is a rising tide of irrationality.
This is one of my favorites. It is in almost every CSICOP fundraising requests, it is repeated in Skeptical Inquirer, and taken as something of a matter of faith. And, faith is what it is, because so far I can find no evidence of an increase in irrationality or superstition. Next time somebody mentions this ``rising tide,'' ask him or her when irrationality was at it's low point and what life was like in those halcyon days. Or, ask how they are measuring irrationality and it's increase. Even the polls published over the years in {Skeptical Inquirer indicate at most a shift in emphasis as one belief replaces another in the popular imagination.
On the whole I suspect that irrationality, belief, and credulity are at about the same level as they have always been, just distributed in different ways. I further suspect that the terms used to describe the beliefs of others have more to do with how new versus established that belief is in society. When skeptics attack the New Age qua New Age, I always have this uncomfortable feeling that New Age beliefs are being singled out. Somebody makes a testable claim? Ok, test it. Somebody professes belief in a oneness of life? Let them get on with their life, and find another hobby for yourself. (sofka)
link in this thread and here
Last edited:
Reflection On The Reception Of Unconventional Claims In Science
The most important thing here is that maverick ideas, unconventional claims, and anomalies must be viewed not as crises but as opportunities. Some of these claims, probably a small minority, will in fact turn out to have some substance because after all that is what drives science forward. Without anomalies and their validation, later incorporation, and explanation, we would not have any progress in science. We have a fundamental problem in science of somehow trying to balance openness with conservatism, and imagination and creativity with criticism. How can we keep science an open system? From the history of science it is clear that radical conceptional innovations are not accepted until all the orthodox interpretations have failed. There are different viewpoints on this. Michael Polanyi defends the conservative side. He said,
"There must be at all times a predominantly accepted scientific view of the nature of things, in the light of which, research is jointly conducted by members of the scientific community. Any evidence which contradicts this view has to be disregarded, even if it cannot be accounted for, in the hope that it will eventually turn out to be false and irrelevant."
I don't agree with Polanyi. The good scientist is one who is unprejudiced with an open mind, ready to embrace any new idea supported by facts. The history of science shows, however, that this is not usually the case. The burden of proof is not only on the claimant, but he is faced with denial rather than simply doubt. (truzzi)
The most important thing here is that maverick ideas, unconventional claims, and anomalies must be viewed not as crises but as opportunities. Some of these claims, probably a small minority, will in fact turn out to have some substance because after all that is what drives science forward. Without anomalies and their validation, later incorporation, and explanation, we would not have any progress in science. We have a fundamental problem in science of somehow trying to balance openness with conservatism, and imagination and creativity with criticism. How can we keep science an open system? From the history of science it is clear that radical conceptional innovations are not accepted until all the orthodox interpretations have failed. There are different viewpoints on this. Michael Polanyi defends the conservative side. He said,
"There must be at all times a predominantly accepted scientific view of the nature of things, in the light of which, research is jointly conducted by members of the scientific community. Any evidence which contradicts this view has to be disregarded, even if it cannot be accounted for, in the hope that it will eventually turn out to be false and irrelevant."
I don't agree with Polanyi. The good scientist is one who is unprejudiced with an open mind, ready to embrace any new idea supported by facts. The history of science shows, however, that this is not usually the case. The burden of proof is not only on the claimant, but he is faced with denial rather than simply doubt. (truzzi)
pathological skepticism.
Many members of the mainstream scientific community react with extreme hostility when presented with certain claims. This can be seen in their emotional responses to current controversies such as UFO abductions, Cold Fusion, cryptozoology, psi, and numerous others. The scientists react not with pragmatism and a wish to get to the bottom of things, but instead with the same tactics religious groups use to suppress heretics: hostile emotional attacks, circular reasoning, dehumanizing of the 'enemy', extreme closed-mindedness, intellectually dishonest reasoning, underhanded debating tactics, negative gossip, and all manner of name-calling and character assassination.
1. Belief that theories determine phenomena, rather than the reverse.
2. Erecting barriers against new ideas by constantly altering the requirements for acceptance. (A practice called "moving the goalposts.")
3. Belief that fundamental concepts in science rarely change, couple with a "herd following" behavior where the individual changes his/her opinions when colleagues all do, all the while remaining blind to the fact that any opinions had ever changed.
4. Belief that science is guided by consensus beliefs and majority rule, rather than by evidence. Indulging in behavior which reinforces the negative effects of consensus beliefs while minimizing the impact of any evidence which contradicts those beliefs.
5. Adopting a prejudiced stance against a theory or an observed phenomena without first investigating the details, then using this as justification for refusing to investigate the details.
6. Maintaining an unshakable stance of hostile, intolerant skepticism, and when anyone complains of this, accusing them of paranoid delusion. Remaining blind to scientists' widespread practice of intellectual suppression of unorthodox findings, and to the practice of "expulsion of heretics" through secret, back-room accusations of deviance or insanity.
7. Ignoring the lessons of history, and therefore opening the way for repeating them again and again.
8. *Denial* of the lessons of history. An inability to admit that science has made serious mistakes in the past. Maintaining a belief that good ideas and discoveries are never accidentally suppressed by closed-mindedness, then revising history to fit this belief.
9. Using circular arguments to avoid accepting evidence which supports unusual discoveries, or to prevent publication of this evidence.
10. Accusing opponents of delusion, lying, or even financial fraud, where no evidence for fraud exists other than the supposed impossibility of evidence being presented.
11. Unwarranted confidence that the unknown is in the far distance, not staring us in the face.
12. Belief that certain fields of science are complete, that scientific revolutions never happen, and that any further progress must occur only in brushing up the details.
13. Excusing the ridicule, trivialization, and the scorn which is directed at 'maverick' ideas and at anomalous evidence. Insisting that sneering and derisive emotional attacks constitute a desirable and properly scientific natural selection force.
14. Justifying any refusal to inspect evidence by claiming a "slippery slope." Using the necessary judicious allocation of time and funding as a weapon to prevent investigation of unusual, novel, or threatening ideas.
15. A blindness to phenomena which do not fit the current belief system, coupled with a denial that beliefs affect perceptions.
16. A belief that all scientific progress is made by small, safe, obvious steps, that widely-accepted theories are never overturned, and that no new discoveries come from anomalies observed.
17. Hiding any evidence of personal past ridicule of ideas which are later proved valid. Profound narcissism; an extreme need to always be right, a fear of having personal errors revealed, and a habit of silently covering up past mistakes.
18. Belief in the lofty status of modern science but with consequent blindness to, and denial of, its faults. A tendency to view shameful events in the history of modern science as being beneficial, and a lack of any desire to fix contemporary problems.
19. A belief that Business and the Press have no tendency towards close-mindedness and suppression of novelty, and that their actions are never are guided by the publicly-expressed judgement of scientists
20. Refusing to be swayed when other researchers find evidence supporting unconventional phenomena or theories. If other reputable people change sides and accept the unorthodox view, this is seen as evidence of their gullibility or insanity, not as evidence that perhaps the unconventional view is correct.
21. Elevating skepticism to a lofty position, yet indulging in hypocrisy and opening the way to pathological thinking by refusing to ever cast a critical, SKEPTICAL eye upon the irrational behavior of scoffers.
22. Belief that modern scientists as a group lack faults, and therefore clinging to any slim justifications in order to ignore the arguments of those who hope to eliminate the flaws in Science.
23. Blindness to the widespread existence of the above symptoms. Belief that scientists are inherently objective, and rarely fall victim to these faults. Excusing the frequent appearance of these symptoms as being isolated instances which do not comprise an accumulation of evidence for the common practice of Pathological Skepticism. (beaty)
examples
Many members of the mainstream scientific community react with extreme hostility when presented with certain claims. This can be seen in their emotional responses to current controversies such as UFO abductions, Cold Fusion, cryptozoology, psi, and numerous others. The scientists react not with pragmatism and a wish to get to the bottom of things, but instead with the same tactics religious groups use to suppress heretics: hostile emotional attacks, circular reasoning, dehumanizing of the 'enemy', extreme closed-mindedness, intellectually dishonest reasoning, underhanded debating tactics, negative gossip, and all manner of name-calling and character assassination.
1. Belief that theories determine phenomena, rather than the reverse.
2. Erecting barriers against new ideas by constantly altering the requirements for acceptance. (A practice called "moving the goalposts.")
3. Belief that fundamental concepts in science rarely change, couple with a "herd following" behavior where the individual changes his/her opinions when colleagues all do, all the while remaining blind to the fact that any opinions had ever changed.
4. Belief that science is guided by consensus beliefs and majority rule, rather than by evidence. Indulging in behavior which reinforces the negative effects of consensus beliefs while minimizing the impact of any evidence which contradicts those beliefs.
5. Adopting a prejudiced stance against a theory or an observed phenomena without first investigating the details, then using this as justification for refusing to investigate the details.
6. Maintaining an unshakable stance of hostile, intolerant skepticism, and when anyone complains of this, accusing them of paranoid delusion. Remaining blind to scientists' widespread practice of intellectual suppression of unorthodox findings, and to the practice of "expulsion of heretics" through secret, back-room accusations of deviance or insanity.
7. Ignoring the lessons of history, and therefore opening the way for repeating them again and again.
8. *Denial* of the lessons of history. An inability to admit that science has made serious mistakes in the past. Maintaining a belief that good ideas and discoveries are never accidentally suppressed by closed-mindedness, then revising history to fit this belief.
9. Using circular arguments to avoid accepting evidence which supports unusual discoveries, or to prevent publication of this evidence.
10. Accusing opponents of delusion, lying, or even financial fraud, where no evidence for fraud exists other than the supposed impossibility of evidence being presented.
11. Unwarranted confidence that the unknown is in the far distance, not staring us in the face.
12. Belief that certain fields of science are complete, that scientific revolutions never happen, and that any further progress must occur only in brushing up the details.
13. Excusing the ridicule, trivialization, and the scorn which is directed at 'maverick' ideas and at anomalous evidence. Insisting that sneering and derisive emotional attacks constitute a desirable and properly scientific natural selection force.
14. Justifying any refusal to inspect evidence by claiming a "slippery slope." Using the necessary judicious allocation of time and funding as a weapon to prevent investigation of unusual, novel, or threatening ideas.
15. A blindness to phenomena which do not fit the current belief system, coupled with a denial that beliefs affect perceptions.
16. A belief that all scientific progress is made by small, safe, obvious steps, that widely-accepted theories are never overturned, and that no new discoveries come from anomalies observed.
17. Hiding any evidence of personal past ridicule of ideas which are later proved valid. Profound narcissism; an extreme need to always be right, a fear of having personal errors revealed, and a habit of silently covering up past mistakes.
18. Belief in the lofty status of modern science but with consequent blindness to, and denial of, its faults. A tendency to view shameful events in the history of modern science as being beneficial, and a lack of any desire to fix contemporary problems.
19. A belief that Business and the Press have no tendency towards close-mindedness and suppression of novelty, and that their actions are never are guided by the publicly-expressed judgement of scientists
20. Refusing to be swayed when other researchers find evidence supporting unconventional phenomena or theories. If other reputable people change sides and accept the unorthodox view, this is seen as evidence of their gullibility or insanity, not as evidence that perhaps the unconventional view is correct.
21. Elevating skepticism to a lofty position, yet indulging in hypocrisy and opening the way to pathological thinking by refusing to ever cast a critical, SKEPTICAL eye upon the irrational behavior of scoffers.
22. Belief that modern scientists as a group lack faults, and therefore clinging to any slim justifications in order to ignore the arguments of those who hope to eliminate the flaws in Science.
23. Blindness to the widespread existence of the above symptoms. Belief that scientists are inherently objective, and rarely fall victim to these faults. Excusing the frequent appearance of these symptoms as being isolated instances which do not comprise an accumulation of evidence for the common practice of Pathological Skepticism. (beaty)
examples
Last edited:
Proper scientific skepticism isn't a denial of all things unknown...
What one should say is, of the information that is being presented, there should be a distinction made between what is known and what is speculative. This distinction should not be difficult for the person presenting the information.
A photograph is "known", insofar as the image in the photograph represents information that does not change and is verifiable by all. When we decide what to say about the photograph, we decide upon the nature of the elements that we see.
When we look at a picture of a flying saucer, there are three things we can say (generally speaking).
1) This is a picture of a circular object floating in the sky.
(A direct description of the photograph.)
2) This would appear to be a picture of an aircraft, but not one that I recognise.
(A simple description of your interpretation of the photograph, based on quantifiable assumptions, such as "it looks like a manufactured object", "it is in the sky", "it does not appear to be falling")
3) I speculate that this is a Grishka second degree attack and multi-role vehicle maintained by the Aurigae Bellicose Council, who are here on Earth to develop a pre-emptive war declaration party in case we say anything nasty about them.
(A speculation, which can be as wild as you wish but should admit to its own speculative nature as part of the statement.)
The place where this system falls down is in the nature of what is considered a quantifiable assumption in section (2). One person may look at the photograph and see the bumps around the edge of the circular object and make an atomic assumption that they are quantizing gravity focusers, where another person just sees bumps that are too small to identify as anything recognizable.
So ideally, when you analyze a photograph, or any other piece of information, you should try to break down your assumptions so that other people can see what part of your story does not match theirs.
What one should say is, of the information that is being presented, there should be a distinction made between what is known and what is speculative. This distinction should not be difficult for the person presenting the information.
A photograph is "known", insofar as the image in the photograph represents information that does not change and is verifiable by all. When we decide what to say about the photograph, we decide upon the nature of the elements that we see.
When we look at a picture of a flying saucer, there are three things we can say (generally speaking).
1) This is a picture of a circular object floating in the sky.
(A direct description of the photograph.)
2) This would appear to be a picture of an aircraft, but not one that I recognise.
(A simple description of your interpretation of the photograph, based on quantifiable assumptions, such as "it looks like a manufactured object", "it is in the sky", "it does not appear to be falling")
3) I speculate that this is a Grishka second degree attack and multi-role vehicle maintained by the Aurigae Bellicose Council, who are here on Earth to develop a pre-emptive war declaration party in case we say anything nasty about them.
(A speculation, which can be as wild as you wish but should admit to its own speculative nature as part of the statement.)
The place where this system falls down is in the nature of what is considered a quantifiable assumption in section (2). One person may look at the photograph and see the bumps around the edge of the circular object and make an atomic assumption that they are quantizing gravity focusers, where another person just sees bumps that are too small to identify as anything recognizable.
So ideally, when you analyze a photograph, or any other piece of information, you should try to break down your assumptions so that other people can see what part of your story does not match theirs.
It's one word - pseudoskeptic.
Bluehead,
A skeptic is one who looks at both sides of the issue equally, in addition to not personally attacking either side based on differing theories. What has been happening on this board lately is vicious personal attacks on anyone who doesn't bow to the standard theories. What has been happening here in not skepticism. It is just plain debunking.
A skeptic is one who looks at both sides of the issue equally, in addition to not personally attacking either side based on differing theories. What has been happening on this board lately is vicious personal attacks on anyone who doesn't bow to the standard theories. What has been happening here in not skepticism. It is just plain debunking.
VRob
I have been known to perpetrate vicious attacks of my own in the past. In my defense, my most withering assaults have been directed against a few specific types of people:
A gentleman called Hahnemannian received perhaps the greatest amount of my abuse some while in the past. I spent especial effort ragging him out because he was selling homeopathic medicine.
Why does this deserve extra venom? Well, one of the tenets of homeopathic medicine is that normal medical treatment is destructive and will kill you, and should be avoided at all costs. Instead, if you - say - have cancer, you should sip their watery concoctions and hope that it somehow realigns your vital patterns so that you no longer have cancer. Now, I have no problem with their potions and such, but I do have a problem with their long and strident insistence that all standard medical care is instantly lethal and has never helped anyone - this is a fabrication which harms those people who believe it.
Interestingly, when asked about Emergency Medicine (first aid and such), he informed all of us that he found it horrible and did not believe in it and that, no, there was no such thing as homeopathic first aid. So presumably, as a homeopathic believer, you should carry a pistol at all times. That way, if you are critically injured, you can put yourself out of your misery.
Any beliefs that cause harm to others in this way deserve to be insulted.
People like ManMadeFlyingSaucer do not injure people with their beliefs that I know of, but are willing to leap in and misrepresent nearly any situation as supporting what they believe. He will cheerfully identify a photo of a speck as a "spy saucer", when even the photographer was not able to see clearly what it was.
Many people approach unexplained phenomena as already being explained by things that they previously believe, since ET, the Shadow Government, and other such explanations are so rich in possibilities that they can be used to explain almost anything.
I cannot discount the possible existence of ET and the Shadow Government, even in the ridiculous forms that they take in some accounts. BUT, that doesn't mean that I have to accept them as the basis of every theory that is expounded... and I have learned the hard way that "speculation" quickly becomes too thick to sort through, although people like fluid1959 will claim that all of their statements are speculation, as if that was a proper defense of their spurious claims.
So, in addition to those who actually harm people I am also inclined to have no patience for those who practice intellectual dishonesty on a regular basis.
When it comes to the major questions, like whether ETs exist, I can only say... I dunno. The evidence is not convincing. There's no evidence at all that they don't. So we're stuck, until something actually convincing comes along.
I should point out that those who engage in intellectual dishonesty are undermining not only their own position, but also that of the others who make similar-sounding claims... so you should be careful of some of these guys too, Vrob.
I have been known to perpetrate vicious attacks of my own in the past. In my defense, my most withering assaults have been directed against a few specific types of people:
A gentleman called Hahnemannian received perhaps the greatest amount of my abuse some while in the past. I spent especial effort ragging him out because he was selling homeopathic medicine.
Why does this deserve extra venom? Well, one of the tenets of homeopathic medicine is that normal medical treatment is destructive and will kill you, and should be avoided at all costs. Instead, if you - say - have cancer, you should sip their watery concoctions and hope that it somehow realigns your vital patterns so that you no longer have cancer. Now, I have no problem with their potions and such, but I do have a problem with their long and strident insistence that all standard medical care is instantly lethal and has never helped anyone - this is a fabrication which harms those people who believe it.
Interestingly, when asked about Emergency Medicine (first aid and such), he informed all of us that he found it horrible and did not believe in it and that, no, there was no such thing as homeopathic first aid. So presumably, as a homeopathic believer, you should carry a pistol at all times. That way, if you are critically injured, you can put yourself out of your misery.
Any beliefs that cause harm to others in this way deserve to be insulted.
People like ManMadeFlyingSaucer do not injure people with their beliefs that I know of, but are willing to leap in and misrepresent nearly any situation as supporting what they believe. He will cheerfully identify a photo of a speck as a "spy saucer", when even the photographer was not able to see clearly what it was.
Many people approach unexplained phenomena as already being explained by things that they previously believe, since ET, the Shadow Government, and other such explanations are so rich in possibilities that they can be used to explain almost anything.
I cannot discount the possible existence of ET and the Shadow Government, even in the ridiculous forms that they take in some accounts. BUT, that doesn't mean that I have to accept them as the basis of every theory that is expounded... and I have learned the hard way that "speculation" quickly becomes too thick to sort through, although people like fluid1959 will claim that all of their statements are speculation, as if that was a proper defense of their spurious claims.
So, in addition to those who actually harm people I am also inclined to have no patience for those who practice intellectual dishonesty on a regular basis.
When it comes to the major questions, like whether ETs exist, I can only say... I dunno. The evidence is not convincing. There's no evidence at all that they don't. So we're stuck, until something actually convincing comes along.
I should point out that those who engage in intellectual dishonesty are undermining not only their own position, but also that of the others who make similar-sounding claims... so you should be careful of some of these guys too, Vrob.
Thanks for your response Bigbluehead. I actually agree with most of your post, especially your last paragraph. I agree that this subject gets a very bad reputation from a few of its fringe members, but this site contains many different theories, and many different individuals. They should not all be grouped & labelled together.
I have zero answers, and only about a billion questions.
I have zero answers, and only about a billion questions.
Good! Let the questions begin!
Will Sheephogan
Registered Member
Good! Let the questions begin!
Questions heck - let me see.........
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Will you marry me?
Excellent posts, thank you..
Questions heck - let me see.........
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Will you marry me?
Excellent posts, thank you..
Why the bump?
- Status