Gary Schwartz,CSICOP life after death!!

delphi_ote said:
I figured it was a copy-paste job, but I didn't bother putting it in Google.

I'm still curious why I should read it or pay it any mind.
Click to expand...

just what i thought,a bunch of die hard skepytics.

in case you dont know the scientific world doesnt take randi or you seriously.

and learn to read:mad:
 
woodwater said:
just what i thought,a bunch of die hard skepytics.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and all the whining by Schwartz won't make us any less skeptical of the crap he's produced

in case you dont know the scientific world doesnt take randi or you seriously.
Click to expand...

Which is why Nature magazine has used Randi to test aspects of claims on several occasions. :rolleyes:

and learn to read:mad:
Click to expand...

Read what? Schwartz's bawling like little baby because everyone with a hint of science education could see his stuff was crapola? Spare us, child, and go back to real education.
 
All name-calling aside...

Where can we see Schwartz's data?

Where can we review Schwartz's protocols?

A multi-centered study is not replication. Besides, you can't replicate anything if you don't have the details of the original experimental protocol.

Meanwhile, magical powers still have not been shown to exist. We wait, but in the meantime, we have to live our lives.
 
Pyrrho said:
All name-calling aside...

Where can we see Schwartz's data?

Where can we review Schwartz's protocols?

A multi-centered study is not replication. Besides, you can't replicate anything if you don't have the details of the original experimental protocol.

Meanwhile, magical powers still have not been shown to exist. We wait, but in the meantime, we have to live our lives.
Click to expand...

No he simply proved what you dont want to be proved.
The proof that youre Pseudo skeptics is that you dobnt even read:D
 
woodwater said:
just what i thought,a bunch of die hard skepytics.

in case you dont know the scientific world doesnt take randi or you seriously.

and learn to read:mad:
Click to expand...

Oh my God, did you just refer to Dr. Gary Schwartz as "the scientific world"? Dr. "Departed Hypothesized Co-Investigator" Schwartz? The laughingstock of the academic universe, utter disgrace to the University of Arizona? That Dr. Gary Schwartz?

I'm afraid you're backing the wrong horse (or should I say jackass) on this one, woodwater. Dr. Schwartz is at best a joke and at worst a thief. If you think you're going to impress anyone here (or any other remotely rational person for that matter), promoting Dr. Schwartz as your champion is most definitely not the way to do it.

"The scientific world"...best laugh I've had today.

ETA: Oh, and if you're going to admonish us to "learn to read," how about you learn to spell? "Skepytics," sheesh...
 
Last edited:
woodwater said:
just what i thought,a bunch of die hard skepytics.
Click to expand...
Ah great. We've got another silly spelling of skeptic on our hands...
woodwater said:
in case you dont know the scientific world doesnt take randi or you seriously.

and learn to read:mad:
Click to expand...
Why should I read it? What is the point of the article? Why did you plagiarize it? What are you trying to say? Gibbering nonsense without an attached thesis statement of some kind is not a good way to persuade anyone. What is your point? What are you here to talk about?
 
delphi_ote said:
Ah great. We've got another silly spelling of skeptic on our hands...

Why should I read it? What is the point of the article? Why did you plagiarize it? What are you trying to say? Gibbering nonsense without an attached thesis statement of some kind is not a good way to persuade anyone. What is your point? What are you here to talk about?
Click to expand...


me---why do you call them pseudo skeptics?

real skeptic---Because essentially they are not skeptics! Simply, because they have never doubts about their own opinions. They have made up their minds, and refuse to be confused by the facts -- for example, that there CANNOT be an afterlife, hence for them all experiments such as by Gary Schwarz, are wrong and stupid by default.
And then they dream up all sorts of stupid arguments to bolster their opinions. Sometimes these arguments are even more absurd than the phenomenon in question.

Do Realize that one of the principal founders of CSICOP, Dr Marcello Truzzi, got out of CSICOP simply because he had discovered that most members are not skeptics at all, for exactly the same reason I just explained. For Truzzi, skepticism as propagated by CSICOP is pseudo-skepticism.
 
woodwater said:
me---why do you call them pseudo skeptics?

real skeptic---Because essentially they are not skeptics! Simply, because they have never doubts about their own opinions. They have made up their minds, and refuse to be confused by the facts -- for example, that there CANNOT be an afterlife, hence for them all experiments such as by Gary Schwarz, are wrong and stupid by default.
And then they dream up all sorts of stupid arguments to bolster their opinions. Sometimes these arguments are even more absurd than the phenomenon in question.

Do Realize that one of the principal founders of CSICOP, Dr Marcello Truzzi, got out of CSICOP simply because he had discovered that most members are not skeptics at all, for exactly the same reason I just explained. For Truzzi, skepticism as propagated by CSICOP is pseudo-skepticism.
Click to expand...


Okay, so Dr. Truzzi and Dr. Schwarz don't like CSICOP. So? Is there anything worthwhile to discuss here?
 
woodwater said:
Did you know that one of the founders of CSICOP left the site after realising most members were not real skeptics but just pseudo skeptics?
Click to expand...

Go home, woodwater, everyone here has heard of Rawlins. He is no surprise, and he was complete off base. What he said was not what you wanted him to say, and history has shown him for what he is.
 
woodwater said:
Do Realize that one of the principal founders of CSICOP, Dr Marcello Truzzi, got out of CSICOP simply because he had discovered that most members are not skeptics at all, for exactly the same reason I just explained. For Truzzi, skepticism as propagated by CSICOP is pseudo-skepticism.
Click to expand...

Truzzi, however, proceeded to produce absolutely nothing in his post-CSICOP years except to become the darling of the woowoo set. His contributions to skepticism and science were effectively nil.
 
kookbreaker said:
Truzzi, however, proceeded to produce absolutely nothing in his post-CSICOP years except to become the darling of the woowoo set. His contributions to skepticism and science were effectively nil.
Click to expand...


that doesnt change the fact that csicop propagates pseudo skepticism:D
 
woodwater, in your opinion, what's the difference between pseudoskeptics and "real" skeptics?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom