• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

"Debunking Skeptics" site

PixyMisa said:
I don't entirely agree. Science is an attempt to build ever more accurate and ever more general predictive descriptions of the natural world. That necessarily assumes that the natural world is self-consistent.

It might not be. In which case science wouldn't work.

Since science does work, we have no reason to think that this assumption is incorrect. In other words, it's not unfalsifiable, just unfalsified.

Of course, either way plumjam is hopelessly wrong.
Click to expand...

The point I was trying to make is that any finding that it is "scientific" is necessarily materialistic/naturalistic. If it was found that science didn't work, would that be a scientific finding? I don't see how any successful scientific enquiry could ever falsify its own naturalistic assumptions.

As an aside, within certain limitations, I'm a little bit sympathetic to plumjam's worldview. We experience the world as narrative, not as matter in motion. The human experiential universe is made of stories. That they are, in the strictest sense, untrue stories doesn't mean they are unimportant or unnecessary for human flourishing.

The problem is that those who are committed to exploring that subjective, experiential universe often do so without a sense of perspective or irony about what they are doing. This is exacerbated by an apparent need to acquire the success and prestige of science; therefore, constructing and exploring narrative is re-branded "scientific" and presto! - materialism refuted!

And that, I think, is exactly what is happening here.
 
Pure_Argent said:
Oi... this just gets worse and worse.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=633
Click to expand...

"The sheer magnitude and complex web of deceit surrounding the individuals and organizations involved in this conspiracy is mind boggling, even for the most astute among us. Most people react with disbelief and skepticism towards the topic, unaware that they have been conditioned (brainwashed) to react with skepticism by institutional and media influences that were created by the Mother of All mind control organizations: The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London."

Top comedy. I'm reminded of a popular CT claim r.e. the 07/07/05 bombings that the bus was blown up "in front of/right outside" the Tavistock Institute in Tavistock Square as a "message." Naturally the faithful lapped that one up, none of them being able to work out that, a) the Tavistock Clinic, where the Institute had its origins, was actually based in the dialogonally-opposite corner of the Square, and b) both the Clinic and the Insitute moved to other parts of London decades previously.
 
Pure_Argent said:
Wow. This thread made me sad inside.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=33

It really shows off the paranoia and unwillingness to actually listen to alternative viewpoints that permeates the site.
Click to expand...


Wheeeee! The Professor is there. :)

Re: Poll: Should Skeptics be allowed in this forum?
by The Professor on Wed Jul 22, 2009 2:13 am

Skeptics have threatened my family. No kidding! Some are twisted trolls. Some are not.
However, I am all for free speech!!!!

There are many people who have changed their minds after listening to the truth. I was one of them.

Just boot the ones who violate the rules and turn their information over to the Authorities if they threaten members.

THE MAN THE SKEPTICS REFUSED TO TEST FOR A MILLION DOLLARS
Click to expand...


My bold.

He's nothing if not tenacious.

It also seems the mods only did half a job on him. :D

.
 
Last edited:
plumjam said:
By equating all scientific findings as necessarily supporting the materialist worldview you have decided the whole question from the outset and rendered scientific findings powerless vis-a-vis any influence on philosophical outlook.
Click to expand...
But D'rok didn't do that. He said that scientific inquiry assumes methodological naturalism, which is a set of epistemological assumptions. There have to be epistemological assumptions.

If you have a way to modify those assumptions so that additional evidence and theories can be admitted to science, please let us know how. The trick is that the new things introduced have to cooperate with the existing things. There can't simply be a magical connection, because, as we all know, there shall be no poofing in science.

I've asked this question of many "immaterialists," but not once have I received an answer.

~~ Paul
 
Pure_Argent said:
I don't think I was here during the Professor's days. What's he going on about?
Click to expand...
.
He applied for the MDC, and insisted that his test could only be done on Halloween, requiring JREF to put other claim on hold to process his.

Except that after Halloween, he announced he'd be doing it a couple weeks later. (Which he never did.)

The Halloween schtick was because he was hoping to turn the test into a media circus.

He desperately wanted JREF to agree that if a certain scientist could not explain his trick on the spot, that this mean it was completely scientifically unexplainable and therefore paranormal and so would win the $1M (despite the fact that he was told several times and in no uncertain terms that he would have to test twice.)

He insisted that since some celebrities were taunted by the waiving of the preliminary testing, it was not "fair" that he should have to test twice.

He claimed to have a team of writers working on his protocol, although how science-fiction and fantasy authors were supposed to help with a valid protocol he never explained. This "team" reportedly shared Prof's by then often stated belief that the MDC was a scam, and yet neither they nor the Prof could say exactly why.

All of this, while never actually articulating a clear claim as to what he was going to do (but he was quite clear on the little "invocation" he planned to use to heighten the suspence for the viewers at home.)

Oh, and did I mention that all of this was to be done in a cemetary at midnight, where he would be trespassing?

After it became painfully apparent that he was never going to make a clear claim nor submit an even marginally workable protocal (by this point, on purpose, so he could claim JREF refused to test him) he began posting libelous slurs against several JREF staffers and Randi, finally threatening a member plausibly enough to get himself banned.

IOW, a pathetic blowhard trying to use the MDC for publicity, and instead getting a massive award of Fail.

.
 
Last edited:
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
But D'rok didn't do that. He said that scientific inquiry assumes methodological naturalism, which is a set of epistemological assumptions. There have to be epistemological assumptions.

If you have a way to modify those assumptions so that additional evidence and theories can be admitted to science, please let us know how. The trick is that the new things introduced have to cooperate with the existing things. There can't simply be a magical connection, because, as we all know, there shall be no poofing in science.

I've asked this question of many "immaterialists," but not once have I received an answer.

~~ Paul
Click to expand...

Yeah. This is precisely what I am trying to ask. Well put.
 
Pure_Argent said:
So a standard woo, then.
Click to expand...
.
No, a woo mostly has convinced themselves that the woo is real.

Prof knew very well that he is a third-rate trickster, he just really really wanted to be second-rate.
.
 
Pure_Argent said:
So a standard woo, then.
Click to expand...
No. A knowledgeable woo, and a deceitful one. His deceit is in at least two forms:

He misrepresents the actions and arguments of skeptics when reporting to others, and he misrepresents his own actions and beliefs when "selling" himself.

He is a moderately successful magician/mentalist, is highly knowledgeable of magical/mental methods (including having created his own moderately successful Over-the-Radio mental effect), and is, by his own admission, a victim of ADD (ADHD?) and therefore subject to emotional outbursts.

His actions are driven, imo, by a mixture of attention-seeking, publicity-seeking, emotional indiscipline, and genuine belief, in descending order.

His full stage name is The Professor, Slim King. He doesn't hide his real name, but as I don't have permission to reveal it here, I won't (it has been revealed before, by him, I think).

This last bit I reveal as a pleasant curiosity and not as a swipe: His job outside of magic and mentalism is as a John Belushi impersonator (more accurately a John Belushi character impersonator) as one half of a Blues Brothers group that performs regularly at Disney World in Orlando.
 
So he made these claims (without actually making any claims), not because he wanted to prove that the paranormal was real, but just to garner attention for himself?
 
plumjam said:
From the website:


The above is indeed the central contradiction and irony of JREF and its forum.

Pseudoskepticism is driven primarily by belief in the materialistic worldview. It tries to hijack the prestige of science to defend that worldview, but is forced into being positively anti-scientific when any scientific findings come up which contradict the worldview.

Thus evidence against a particular belief (materialism) doesn't count as evidence. And then they parade around ridiculing people for believing things and being unscientific.

It's an amusing spectacle. :D
Click to expand...

First, one of the fundamental error assumptions about science is that most science is done in the order/way the "Scientific Method" is written out for Science texts - particularly those at or below undergraduate level. Most isn't.

@nd, yes, scientists and scientifically interested people do not tend to accept anything that cannot be proven in the material world (as opposed to being "proven" by words or anecdotes - philosophy and dinner conversation). And it takes strong evidence to make us change from one view to another (think Einstein not wanting to move from Newtonian ideas applied to physics to Quantum ideas being applied at very small scales) but real/verifiable, thoroughly tested evidence will ultimately bring about change.

The problem with those you speak of (not here-in the funny website) is they are willing - even eager- to overturn the proven for the unproven just because someone calls the unproven/unaccepted "just being covered up", " being hidden by the big[corporations, government, old scientists, military, NWO.....]" or just "the scientists won't pay attention because it can't be seen (except: on alternate Tuesdays in November of most leap years; in the house over on McDougal Street; right after a NASA launch -in the blast material; by my friend Bob whenever he is in his attic.....)".
 
Last edited:
Pure_Argent said:
So he made these claims (without actually making any claims), not because he wanted to prove that the paranormal was real, but just to garner attention for himself?
Click to expand...
.
That's my take -- can't see any other reason for him to then make the accusations and threats (mostly passive aggressively) he did.
.
 
Seeing them quote Carl Sagan--out of context--made me sick.

I read through a couple of items...they got Einstein all wrong along with other items.

Unfortunately, some of the stuff is written with enough rhetoric to make it sound plausible to anyone without science skills.

The internet still isn't raising awareness...

glenn
 
Are any of these claims true?:

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/cherrypicking.php

Here's my take:

Even IF James Randi did lie, that's not enough to prove that astrology is true, considering that others have provided their take on the subjest.
So I say: go ahead PSYCOP, disprove Randi's supposed cherry picking. See if I care. There's plenty of people out there that can disprove astrology.
BTW, here's a few:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/89334/debunking_astrology_myth_in_the_modern.html

http://daphne.palomar.edu/jgilardi/astrology debunk.htm

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/astrology.html

And my personal favorite:
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4173
 
Last edited:
Paradox74 said:
There's plenty of people out there that can disprove astrology.
Click to expand...

Well not really, no one can disprove astrology. Not being able to prove a negative and all that.

The onus is on the astrologer to show their claims are true.

So far, none have in controlled tests as far as I'm aware.

Therefore there is no reliable evidence that claims made for astrology as true.

 
Last edited:
Paradox74 said:
Are any of these claims true?:

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/cherrypicking.php

Here's my take:

Even IF James Randi did lie, that's not enough to prove that astrology is true, considering that others have provided their take on the subjest.
So I say: go ahead PSYCOP, disprove Randi's supposed cherry picking. See if I care. There's plenty of people out there that can disprove astrology.
BTW, here's a few:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/89334/debunking_astrology_myth_in_the_modern.html

http://daphne.palomar.edu/jgilardi/astrology debunk.htm

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/astrology.html

And my personal favorite:
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4173
Click to expand...

So he complains about Cherry Picking but the has this?
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/join.php
Isn't that "Cherry Picking" your members? =/
I'm new here, young and wrong most of the time and this guy seems off the deep end even to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom