• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Questioning Winston Wu's 30 arguments

Ricardo

Unregistered
Joined
Aug 12, 2019
Messages
484
Analysis of 30 site arguments http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Contents.htm


Argument # 1: It is irrational to believe anything that hasn't been proven.

This is the main philosophy behind most skeptical arguments. As Dr. Melvin Morse, Seattle pediatrician and author specializing in child Near Death Experiences said:



“The notion that 'It is rational to only believe what's been proven' somehow got twisted into ‘It is irrational to believe in anything that hasn't been proven’.” (Interview from video: Conversations with God)



By "proven" skeptics mean proven according to the scientific method, which they consider to be the only reliable method. There are several problems with this argument:

<snip>


Edited by Loss Leader: 
Quotes added to identify this as the writings of another. Lengthy quote snipped for Rule 4. Do not quote lengthy tracts available elsewhere on the web or otherwise subject to copyright.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
One new thread about Time Cube, and now one about Winston Wu? I think we should scan the area for temporal anomalies, or excess chroniton particles near by. Apparently objects from the past are making their way into our current space-time continuum without realizing there's been a passage of time.

Prepare to do something handwavey with the main deflector dish!
 
This forum isn't going to get many new members with replies like that.

I think the E out of JREF should have carried over to here.
Taking the piss out of posters instead of addressing the argument; no matter how many times you have heard it before; is not cool.
The option to not reply is a thing.
 
Last edited:
This forum isn't going to get many new members with replies like that.

I think the E out of JREF should have carried over to here.
Taking the piss out of posters instead of addressing the argument; no matter how many times you have heard it before; is not cool.
The option to not reply is a thing.
There's five tons of straw and debunked charletons there to rebut... what's taking You so long? Have at it already.
:(

The only new member woo I'd like is a return of the dowsers, those guys crack me up. [emoji2]
 
There's five tons of straw and debunked charletons there to rebut... what's taking You so long? Have at it already.
:(

The only new member woo I'd like is a return of the dowsers, those guys crack me up. [emoji2]
But of those 30 arguments, none are right for you?
 
But of those 30 arguments, none are right for you?
No, none of them deal with what I would personally consider to be the true gem of the scientific method and the bane of woo artists: Peer review and why it is so god damn important.

The scientific method is a process of acquiring objective, and not subjective knowledge and understanding. It is not some mystic tome of "these particular things are really true and these other things are not, so sayeth the lab coated nerds".

Allowing others to scrutinize your hypothesis is a pretty big deal, because if others can replicate your results again and again then we can probably say that we are pretty close to truly figuring out yet another little thing about our universe with ever greater and greater degrees of confidence.
 
Last edited:
No, none of them deal with what I would personally consider to be the true gem of the scientific method and the bane of woo artists: Peer review and why it is so god damn important.

The scientific method is a process of acquiring objective, and not subjective knowledge and understanding. It is not some mystic tome of "these particular things are really true and these other things are not, so sayeth the lab coated nerds".

Allowing others to scrutinize your hypothesis is a pretty big deal, because if others can replicate your results again and again then we can probably say that we are pretty close to truly figuring out yet another little thing about our universe with ever greater and greater degrees of confidence.
Well, there's some (non-woo) new blood I can welcome, so... Welcome Deadie!


You don't dowse do you?
[emoji2][emoji2][emoji2]
 
Last edited:
First off, he doesn't define "Believe". There is a difference between FAITH and BELIEF. I don't want to have faith in my brakes to stop my car, however I do not believe fairies or angels are responsible for my coming to a stop.

Most of his points are mere whining about how the game is rigged against woo.

Every point he tries to make he complains about or "sneaky" fact-based belief system. He ignores the fact that most paranormal researchers refuse to step up their game to embrace the scientific method, and this is because they are usually starting with the claim that X is true, and then back-engineering the evidence to back it up.

He wants a separate (LOWER) standard for paranormal phenomenon.

Plus he doesn't mention ghosts and as a ghost hunter I'm offended...I mean there's no such thing as ghosts but why are we always treated like second class citizens by the Psychics-Are-Real crowd? Maybe because we don't make any money off our woo?

So the OP has been addressed.
 
I'm not going to give the site the benefit of my clicks, so I'm only going to address the section quoted in this thread.

Science doesn't deal in "proof". Proof is for mathematics and alcohol. Science deals in evidence, and in determining whether a hypothesis is supported by evidence. Such evidence must be reliable and repeatable by other parties.
 
The bottom line is what Arth said above: Evidence. And good quality evidence. What woo peddlers always get wrong about skeptics is that we are closed minded, hold science as a religious belief and have impossible standards of “proof.”

I don’t think this is true at all. Tell me you are psychic and all I really want is some good evidence that you are indeed psychic. We can devise a simple procedure that will satisfy that “good evidence” standard well enough to convince me. I don’t really need to see it “proven” in peer reviewed journals.

You can read minds? Awesome! I am thinking of a 5 digit number. What is it?

You can talk to dead people? Wow! Can you ask my father to tell me something that isn’t vague, feel-good Hallmark sentiments?

I would be so easy to convince with the right evidence.
 
This forum isn't going to get many new members with replies like that.

I think the E out of JREF should have carried over to here.
Taking the piss out of posters instead of addressing the argument; no matter how many times you have heard it before; is not cool.
The option to not reply is a thing.
The ship you're trying to book passage on sailed years ago.

You go to post on the forum you have, not the forum you wish to have, or used to have at an earlier date.
 
You don't dowse do you?
[emoji2][emoji2][emoji2]
Haha. I'm a plumber by trade and I suppose it was about 10 years ago now that I had a customer in all seriousness ask me what the 'trick' was to witching a buried water well line on his property he needed to dig up. He was genuinely frustrated as his bent rod didn't seem to be working to his satisfaction and I guess he just assumed I had the answer for some reason. I found it pretty humorous at the time.
 
This forum isn't going to get many new members with replies like that.

I think the E out of JREF should have carried over to here.
Taking the piss out of posters instead of addressing the argument; no matter how many times you have heard it before; is not cool.
The option to not reply is a thing.
What "argument"? Recycling Wu's debunked crap is not by any standard an argument.
 
Skepticism as inertia
Modern science is based on skepticism. On the one hand, science must always be open to new ideas (strange as they may seem) as long as they are supported by scientific evidence, but must do so in a way that they are always properly scrutinized to ensure that their implications are true. and results. Whenever a new hypothesis is formulated or a new claim is made, the entire scientific community mobilizes itself to prove its theoretical and practical viability. As on any other plane, the more unusual new ideas and inventions are, the more resistance they tend to face during their scrutiny through the scientific method. A consequence of this is that several scientists throughout history, when presenting their ideas, were initially greeted with allegations of fraud by colleagues who did not wish or were unable to accept something that would require a change in their established views. For example, Michael Faraday was called a charlatan by his contemporaries when he said he could generate an electric current simply by moving a magnet through a coil of wire.
In January 1905, more than a year after Wilbur and Orville Wright made their first flight at Kitty Hawk (December 17, 1903), Scientific American magazine published an article ridiculing the Wright flight. With astonishing authority, the magazine cited as its main reason for questioning the Wrights that the American press had failed to cover the flight. Others joining the skeptical movement were the New York Herald, the United States Army, and numerous American scientists. Only when President Theodore Roosevelt ordered public attempts at Fort Mayers in 1908 after Alberto Santos Dumont's 14-bis flight on an improved aircraft did the Wright brothers substantiate their claims and compelled even the most zealous skeptics to accept the reality of flying machines heavier than air. In fact, the Wright brothers were successful in public demonstrations of their machine flight five years before the historic flight [lacks sources]. In this context, although the Wright brothers' flight, while not shutting down the skeptics, was perhaps the first where a heavier-than-air ship took off after Otto Lilienthal's pioneering flights. However, the first flight of a machine capable of flying entirely on its own, without the aid of catapults, is however correctly credited to Santos Dumont, who is duly registered and documented .Most modern revolutionary inventions, such as the tunneling current microscope, which was invented in 1981, still find intense skepticism and even ridicule when first announced. As a physicist, Max Planck noted in his 1936 book The Philosophy of Physics: "a major scientific breakthrough rarely makes its way by gradually winning and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that 'Saul' becomes'. What really happens is that your opponents die gradually and the growing generation is familiar with the idea from the beginning. "https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceticismo
 
Hi Ricardo!

Especially since you seem to be posting a lot of someone else's words here, please use the quote function. That way we can tell which words were written by someone else, and not you. Instructions are here, or you can just highlight the text and hit the little quote window icon if you're using a web browser.
 
The issue I have with him is that he does not give good examples. He could say that skeptics say anything, but without quotes it is meaningless.
 

Back
Top Bottom