"Debunking Skeptics" site

[FSM]

plumjam? Where'd you go, dude?

 

[Nonpareil]

plumjam? Where'd you go, dude?

Back into the fires of Mount Doom, from whence he was spawned.

 

[FSM]

Uh uh uh. Tossing out the trite and unsupported, "YOUSE guys are religious freaks, so there, rubber, glue, bleh bleh blehdy bleh..." and then running away...

plumjam is usually so funny that no matter what crap he spouts off about, I'm reading his posts with delight. But this, eh. I expect the funny to grow exponentially in relation to how ridiculous and unsupported the opinion is.

So, you owe me, plumjam. You owe me some funny.

 

[Minarvia]

I want Plumjam to come back, too. He says "tired old arguments" or some such. Well, he should know by now that when on this forum when he makes a claim or definitive statement he is expected to back it up. Either he doesn't understand that or he can't do it. He says he's "played that game" but I don't think so.

And the expectations may be old but if they are logical how can they be "tired?" He says that and then runs off. No fair! Come back, PJ!

And, yes, I posted this mainly to bring it back to page 1.

 

[Paradox74]

You mean so you can redefine it, using a variety of tired old tactics, as non-evidence in order to protect and preserve your worldview. I quit playing that game a long time back.


A worldview is a philosophical phenomenon, not a methodological one. So whichever methodological assumptions are made are (or should be) irrelevant to the worldview.
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.
That's actually imposing an unnecessary limit on science in order not to upset your philosophical applecart.. borderline anti-scientific even.

It's a circular and closed approach to knowledge, and its perpetuation relies on sustained denial of the validity of any human experience which doesn't fit the circle. Hence debunking, denial and ridicule are the main rituals of this belief system; practiced here by the faithful.

Amen.

Does this guy sound like some kind of a postmodernist or a social-deconstructiveist(I'm not too sure if that is how its spelled) to anyone?

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.

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.

My mistake.

 

[Minarvia]

Does this guy sound like some kind of a postmodernist or a social-deconstructiveist(I'm not too sure if that is how its spelled) to anyone?

Well, I don't know about that, but he sounds like a "has no idea of what a skeptic site is and likes to paint people here with a broad brushist" type. And then posteth and runneth away when asked proper and should-be-expected questions.

Too bad, really. I usually enjoy his posts.

 

[m_huber]

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.

I'm not sure this is the same case as religion. Religions posit that God exists, but without evidence. Astrologers posit that the relative positions of the planets and the stars has some meaning. There is no question that the planets and the stars exist, but demonstrating the meaning is another matter altogether. Insofar as they make predictions or can be used practically, those are positive claims made by astrology which can be tested. If the tests fail (which they do), then the claims are disproven. If none of the claims passes a test, then the driving assumption behind the claims must also be false.

Anything that makes claims is testable. When religious people say "You can't disprove god," they are correct in a general sense, but not completely correct. You can disprove some gods. If the claim is that a certain god always appears when a certain incantation is recited, then recital of the incantation can demonstrate that the god does not exist. In the bible, Jesus says "where two or more are gathered in my name, I will be with them," in the OT, God says "bring me tithes... see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that you will not have room enough for it." (Mal 3:10) These are positive, testable claims about christianity. And they fail. The only god who can survive rigorous scrutiny is one who has no interaction with the world, and in that case, there is nothing to worship.

 

[GanipGnop]

SCEPCOP in Luv

I like the article in the news and updates section of the home page titled, "New! Study says pathological skepticism conducive to illness". I laughed so hard I almost wet myself! I guess the next time I feel run down I'll know why.

I find it hilarious that the pseudoscience crowd has found the term pseudo so effective in bebunking their ludicrous claims that they are making a lame attempt to latch on to our success with the term. Don't they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. SCEPCOP must be madly in love with us if that's the case!

 

[Minarvia]

Just when skepticism and critical thinking gains a toehold on tv and in the media some group, whether religious, or conspiracy theorists, or whoever, manage to try and quash it again for the favor of total woo thinking (or non-thinking, actually).

On a pretty good podcast, the Paracast, they like to use the term "debunkers" as derogatory and love "skeptibunkers." They always use one foolish statement by Michael Shermer to paint all well-known skeptics (the one where he said that pilots are worse observers than the average Joe, or some such,) and claim that Randi is "Just a debunker and the problem with him is that he isn't interested in "the truth."

Other than that, a fine and fairly balanced show. But what can they or others expect from Randi? He only has so much time in life and hours in a day. His main goal is to promote critical thinking and help keep people from being duped. He'd have to live to about 500 to do all that PLUS search for the truth of everything that is thrown at him. Sigh...

So now a website has to promote "woo" thinking. Very sad. Really.

 

[adamwho]

I have seen this site used reference by psi believers. It is just embarrassing. I keeping asking myself; what is the point? They aren't claiming a religious belief, there is no heaven or hell for believers is psychic phenomena, the regular believers and not in a position to make money or otherwise defraud others.... what is the point?

 

[FSM]

To get us to pay attention to them....


because they luvvvvv us, they want to kiss us, they want to hold us...




ETA: And who can blame them, really?

 

[Audible Click]

I like the article in the news and updates section of the home page titled, "New! Study says pathological skepticism conducive to illness". I laughed so hard I almost wet myself! I guess the next time I feel run down I'll know why.

I find it hilarious that the pseudoscience crowd has found the term pseudo so effective in bebunking their ludicrous claims that they are making a lame attempt to latch on to our success with the term. Don't they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. SCEPCOP must be madly in love with us if that's the case!

Ahhh...so being a skeptic has given you bladder problems!

 

[Minarvia]

I like the article in the news and updates section of the home page titled, "New! Study says pathological skepticism conducive to illness". I laughed so hard I almost wet myself!

I guess you are incontinent to woo! Or is that intolerant? Nope, must be incontinent!

 

[adamwho]

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.

Actually it is child's-play to prove astrology to be false.
1. You can use the time honored, change the horoscopes and months, hand them out and ask for correlations. You response will be the same no matter which horoscope goes to which person.
2. My method: Since there are only 4 fundamental forces in the universe, calculate force exerted by the planet/stars, the show that these forces cannot have any meaningful effect. In fact everyday items are more physically relevant.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

OK, let's move on to the pseudoskeptic section. First let's see who Scepcop identifies as pseudo-sketpics:

* James Randi and his JREF crowd
* Michael Shermer
* CSICOP and their crowd
* Penn and Teller
* The Mythbusters
* Phil Plait and his "Bad Astronomy" folks