Stellafane
Village Idiot.
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2006
- Messages
- 8,368
Good question, but consider this: In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one?
Skeptisism vs Cynicism on 911
- Thread starter SYLVESTER1592
- Start date
Good question, but consider this: In what way does making a post between 400-1000 words make it any more valid than a shorter or longer one?
SYLVESTER1592
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 307
It gives the opportunity to present an argument with a background to get a better insight in the critical thought that went into it. It makes the poster think about their arguments and helps the reader to follow the train of thought not just posting one liners and referring to websites to present your opinion. Just stating something is wrong or ridiculous and running away without being able to present the critical thought that is the standard of this forum is not what I consider to be a good post, even if it’s true, even if I agree with it or even if I don’t. I want to hear your arguments in a comprehensive post.
It’s not that hard cuddles. I think you can understand that. Why not give it a real try…
Others in here have and have done a good job at it.
SYL
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,448
But how do you really feel?
Nominated for its...uh...colorful and vivid use of language.
It gives the opportunity to present an argument with a background to get a better insight in the critical thought that went into it. It makes the poster think about their arguments and helps the reader to follow the train of thought not just posting one liners and referring to websites to present your opinion. Just stating something is wrong or ridiculous and running away without being able to present the critical thought that is the standard of this forum is not what I consider to be a good post, even if it’s true, even if I agree with it or even if I don’t. I want to hear your arguments in a comprehensive post.
It’s not that hard cuddles. I think you can understand that. Why not give it a real try…
Others in here have and have done a good job at it.
SYL
So basically what you're saying is that you don't care whether anything is actually true or supported by facts, as long as people waffle on for hours without actually saying anything it must be good. As I think I demonstrated quite well, posting 420 words does not mean a post is any more informative or useful than posting 21.
If you really expect people to concede to your demands for waffle instead of just posting what is actually relevant, or even just whatever the hell they feel like, then your stay on this forum is going to be rather short and depressing for you.
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,448
Skepticism and cynicism are not mutually exclusive, as a variety of posts in this thread have demonstrated.
Skepticism doesn't mean being agnostic about everything.
Skepticism doesn't mean being agnostic about everything.
SYLVESTER1592
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 307
Show us the critical thought that went into your argument for skepticism or cynicism in the OP. It's an opportunity, not a demand. There is no obligation to post here. If you can clarify the critical thought that went into forming the argument you present and show it to the readers, you have lived up to the standard of this forum. It has nothing to do with waffle... I'm a bit disappointed that you think so.
If you feel you can present a critical thought, describe how it's constructed and why you believe it's right in a way that helps you think about these questions to help the reader understand your position, then mission accomplished.
If you feel you can't or don't want to, there are other threads to choose from. In other forum threads on different subjects, skepticism is the rule. Even Mr. Randi himself is a skeptic, if you ask me, and not a cynic. I like to think he is a better representation of what this forum is about.
Please, if you can write the post.
If you choose otherwise, so be it...
SYL
Arkan_Wolfshade
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2006
- Messages
- 7,154
Quite. And moreso, the point of modern skepticism is to not remain forever neutral:
http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/jarrett/talks/LiU/sci_method_2.html
SYLVESTER1592
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 307
I agree.
I have made aslightly different choice, but I think that for me it's more a wish to remain skeptical then being cynical. Cynicism has as much a place in science as religion in my opinion, so I try not to be a cynic. I admit it's not always easy...
SYL
I have noticed a lack of orthodoxy and following rules here when it comes to debunking people and sheep in the 9/11 truth movement. No rules are followed, there is a respect for authority that is lacking. Many have not come up to the 400-1000 rule of this thread's opening post. If you can not follow rules the members of the cult on 9/11 truth will see we are not really shills and agents for the official 9/11 story, but people who use critical thinking and logic to understand 9/11. I repeat, if certain people do not start being more regimented on this debunking of those who have joined the cult known as 9/11 truth, the member of that cult will discover we are not shills and sheep for the man, or woman. The leaders, experts and cult members of 9/11 truth may see though our facade of ridicule! They have limited capacity to discover our ridicule is based on facts and evidence. This is due to the fact reading and research, and more importantly comprehension are not required to be a member of 9/11 truth.
Members of 9/11 truth movement see their attackers as skeptical people who have no minds and just repeat the official story. The 9/11 truth cult members fail to see the use of facts and evidence to support the debunking of their misinformation. They must think we are cynical of their ideas and unable to accept the "truth" since we are mere sheep in the machine of the official story NOW system of closed minds and people unable to think outside the box. The 9/11 truth cultist are unable to see they are wrong. They think those who take their misinformation and refute it are cynical shills working for the official story. They fail to see the turth movement as the propaganda machine for lies about 9/11. They actually have become the closed minded locked in the box cultist they label the rest of the world as. They are lockstep marching to the chant rant "9/11, inside job" as they use the dead of 9/11 as hostages to for their chant, "we do this in memory of those who died". Lost in a cult, no way out, they see the disgust from outside as skepticism and cynicism, they fail to see how they have fallen for the lies of a fraudulent cult called 9/11 truth.
Members of 9/11 truth movement see their attackers as skeptical people who have no minds and just repeat the official story. The 9/11 truth cult members fail to see the use of facts and evidence to support the debunking of their misinformation. They must think we are cynical of their ideas and unable to accept the "truth" since we are mere sheep in the machine of the official story NOW system of closed minds and people unable to think outside the box. The 9/11 truth cultist are unable to see they are wrong. They think those who take their misinformation and refute it are cynical shills working for the official story. They fail to see the turth movement as the propaganda machine for lies about 9/11. They actually have become the closed minded locked in the box cultist they label the rest of the world as. They are lockstep marching to the chant rant "9/11, inside job" as they use the dead of 9/11 as hostages to for their chant, "we do this in memory of those who died". Lost in a cult, no way out, they see the disgust from outside as skepticism and cynicism, they fail to see how they have fallen for the lies of a fraudulent cult called 9/11 truth.
SYLVESTER1592
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 307
Thanks for the link Arkanshade.
I think that's right. It refers back to the OP. The number of chances we give to a claim. I'll look at anything once...
Oh BTW welcome
SYL
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
I fully and completely stated my opinion on the matter without requiring anywhere near 400 words.
I have been known to post rather long posts in these subforums at times, but these are generally a result of very thorough investigation, complete with appropriate evidence.
You asked for opinion, not an investigation. I see no need to express my opinion in any more words than the minimum required.
-Gumboot
I have been known to post rather long posts in these subforums at times, but these are generally a result of very thorough investigation, complete with appropriate evidence.
You asked for opinion, not an investigation. I see no need to express my opinion in any more words than the minimum required.
-Gumboot
Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule. Use 400 words or stop posting, you are in violation of the 400 to 1000 rule.
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,448
While people often post fantastic posts that could be entered in an essay contest or submitted as an assignment, these posts are the exception and are almost always the result of inspiration, not artificial constraints.Show us the critical thought that went into your argument for skepticism or cynicism in the OP. It's an opportunity, not a demand. There is no obligation to post here. If you can clarify the critical thought that went into forming the argument you present and show it to the readers, you have lived up to the standard of this forum. It has nothing to do with waffle... I'm a bit disappointed that you think so.
If you feel you can present a critical thought, describe how it's constructed and why you believe it's right in a way that helps you think about these questions to help the reader understand your position, then mission accomplished.
If you feel you can't or don't want to, there are other threads to choose from. In other forum threads on different subjects, skepticism is the rule. Even Mr. Randi himself is a skeptic, if you ask me, and not a cynic. I like to think he is a better representation of what this forum is about.
Please, if you can write the post.
If you choose otherwise, so be it...
SYL
This forum, like most internet forums, is primarily a discussion forum. Clarification of one's position and the path they took to get there is acheived very efficiently through the sharing of ideas--far more efficiently than through sitting in front of a blank screen and trying to capture it all at once in 400-1000 words.
[mode=cynical]You probably have an essay assignment you need to complete and are looking for someone to do your work for you.[/mode]
Last edited:
SYLVESTER1592
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 307
Thanks beachnut...
A bit hard to read, but I expected that your opinion would be more complex to comprehend immediately. I have to read it a few more times, but think I get the idea.
Thank you
I'll read the rest later...
SYL
A bit hard to read, but I expected that your opinion would be more complex to comprehend immediately. I have to read it a few more times, but think I get the idea.
Thank you
I'll read the rest later...
SYL
ConspiRaider
Writer of Nothingnesses
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2006
- Messages
- 11,156
By golly you're right. And I'm ashamed of myself for squandering words, appalled at my breezy brevity my own damned self. What will people say about my...
DR. FRANKENSTEIN (pronounced Fronken-STEEN)
Reputation, reputation!
INGA
You've got to stop s(th)inking about it, Herr Doktor. Vhy look! You haven't even touched your food!
DR. FRANKENSTEIN
(palms plate repeatedly)
There! I've touched it! Happy?!?
Last edited:
SYLVESTER1592
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 307
While people often post fantastic posts that could be entered in an essay contest or submitted as an assignment, these posts are the exception and are almost always the result of inspiration, not artificial constraints.
This forum, like most internet forums, is primarily a discussion forum. Clarification of one's position and the path they took to get there is acheived very efficiently through the sharing of ideas--far more efficiently than through sitting in front of a blank screen and trying to capture it all at once in 400-1000 words.
[mode=cynical]You probably have an essay assignment you need to complete and are looking for someone to do your work for you.[/mode]
No I past my essay assignments long ago... It's called a PhD thesis and 10 hypercritical old guys question you on it....
Look at it as an opportunity and a tool, nothing else...
You can post when you like, if you have a clear opinion and think about it, most can produce a good post.
I like to read it. No catch, no agenda. Just curious. I posted my idea's and have been very open and straight forward about it, putting myself in harm's way. I just like to see a good effort...
SYL
negativ
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2005
- Messages
- 1,904
C'mon, man, tell us how you really feel.
Regarding the OP, there have been several thoughtful replies. Upon reflection, I believe the distinction between "skeptical" and "cynical" is being conflated with the quality of the opposing argument. Let me explain.
There is an ill-defined threshold in discourse, distinguishing thesis statements that at first contact, even before any analysis, are either "plausible" or "absurd." I'll illustrate with an example: Suppose we didn't know anything detailed about September 11th, being neophytes to the JREF Forum. If we encounter an argument that claims the attacks were orchestrated with the help of the CIA, at first glance this appears possible. If, on the other hand, we hear of space beams that cause steel to disintegrate, this appears absurd. A skeptical individual would politely challenge the first, but would be well within her rights to ignore or deride the second.
Carl Sagan approached this problem in his seminal text The Demon-Haunted World through the example of "The Dragon in My Garage." He describes a thesis statement that begins as merely unlikely ("I have a dragon in my garage" -- perhaps I own an alligator, or collect Chinese cultural artifacts), but gradually escalates into sheer idiocy ("it breathes heatless fire, floats, is invisible, and cannot be touched"). Exactly where this thesis crosses the line into absurdity is not completely clear, but it certainly does.
I propose that the reason this threshold is ill-defined is because the particular merits of any individual argument are tighly coupled with the source, and furthermore, few of the arguments seen here are new. The first time someone raised the question of "nearly free-fall collapse," it would have been appropriate for us to run some calculations quantifying the accuracy of this statement -- which we have, and found it to be false. The seven hundredth time such an argument is raised, it deserves no attention whatsoever.
Since the threshold of absurdity is ill-defined, I have considered attempting to formalize a test -- setting a so-called "Gravy line," if you will -- failing which an argument requires no refutation, being improperly stated or not satisfying a minimal burden of proof. For such poor arguments, no criticism could be considered cynic in nature. While there are some occasional new ideas brought here that deserve scrutiny, and some posters who are truly seeking education (perhaps knowing the invalidity of a given argument but lacking the expertise to refute it themselves), I suspect that the vast majority will fail this test.
It is important to keep in mind that no skeptic should be required to address every idea on an equal footing. To suggest this is to commit an error of equivocation.
I haven't done a word count, but hopefully the above meets the even more poorly defined requirement of "civility." I'll be even happier if it's useful.
472, but if you count the symbols which are worth 1000 words, that puts you over by 472.C'mon, man, tell us how you really feel.
I haven't done a word count, but hopefully the above meets the even more poorly defined requirement of "civility." I'll be even happier if it's useful.
or 1472, if you count . Both. Outstanding, and if written in one short coffee brake, even more qualified for excellence. Time and space.
Last edited: