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

Roberts to Debate Bermas on 'Hardfire'

pomeroo said:
Did Gravy lose the debate? Well, I suppose I can let the cat out of the bag now that the truth has been revealed. To see the event in all its glory, you'll still have to wait a few days, but here's how it went.

Bermas started talking about something--I think it was Bermas. I adhered to my plan of seizing the psychological upper hand by emitting a series of Tarzan yells. The Boys appeared flustered. As I ripped off my microphone, I noticed that Mark was already naked and standing on the table. I became a human whirlwind, all elbows and feet. Unfortunately, my kinetic energy caused me to overshoot, and the full fury of my assault fell on the cameramen. Acting independently, Mark had gone through a plate glass window and was racing down the hall, screaming like a banshee. Hereabouts I distinctly heard Gary Popkin, the producer, speak the word "hoses."

What happened next is somewhat unclear. I recall lying on the sidewalk, soaked to the skin, thinking that something was terribly wrong, that it was Thursday night and the weekend hadn't even begun yet. One of the cops said something about a "fast-paced show." This morning, I find that my car is now the property of the firm, Neidelman-Goetz-Neidelman. I have to look into this.
Click to expand...
In other words - your basic run-of-the-mill show? :)

When Mark was naked on the table - did you get to see The Amazing Tattoo?
 
Gravy said:
One bit of news: according to the LTW guys, David Ray Griffin will have a "debunking the debunkers" book out soon.
Click to expand...

I expect it will be this, in book form (from Griffin vs Chip Berlet:

In the Introduction to the book, I explained the difference between a deductive argument, which is “only as strong as its weakest link,” and a cumulative argument, which cannot be refuted by simply refuting one or two of its steps. In note 43, I added:

I emphasize this point because some polemicists, when confronted by a book whose conclusion they do not like, seek to undermine this conclusion by focusing on the few points that they believe can be most easily discredited. That tactic, assuming that good evidence is really presented against those points, is valid with regard to a deductive argument. In relation to a cumulative argument, however, it is tactic useful only to those concerned with something other than truth.
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/Post911/Griffin1.html
Click to expand...

Looks like now would be a good time to start pointing out a few more of Dr Griffin's deceptive practices.
 
MikeW said:
I expect it will be this, in book form (from Griffin vs Chip Berlet:
Click to expand...

In the Introduction to the book, I explained the difference between a deductive argument, which is “only as strong as its weakest link,” and a cumulative argument, which cannot be refuted by simply refuting one or two of its steps. In note 43, I added:

I emphasize this point because some polemicists, when confronted by a book whose conclusion they do not like, seek to undermine this conclusion by focusing on the few points that they believe can be most easily discredited. That tactic, assuming that good evidence is really presented against those points, is valid with regard to a deductive argument. In relation to a cumulative argument, however, it is tactic useful only to those concerned with something other than truth.
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/Post911/Griffin1.html
Click to expand...

What he really means is that you can knock away any of his "evidence" and it will still not change the conclusion, because (of course) the conclusion is not determined by evidence.
 
MikeW said:
I expect it will be this, in book form (from Griffin vs Chip Berlet:

Griffin said:
In the Introduction to the book, I explained the difference between a deductive argument, which is “only as strong as its weakest link,” and a cumulative argument, which cannot be refuted by simply refuting one or two of its steps. In note 43, I added:

I emphasize this point because some polemicists, when confronted by a book whose conclusion they do not like, seek to undermine this conclusion by focusing on the few points that they believe can be most easily discredited. That tactic, assuming that good evidence is really presented against those points, is valid with regard to a deductive argument. In relation to a cumulative argument, however, it is tactic useful only to those concerned with something other than truth.
http://www.publiceye.org/conspire/Post911/Griffin1.html
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I believe "cumulative argument" is peculiar to theologians trying to prove the existence of God, when all their actual arguments have been dismissed. Very appropriate.
 
In the Introduction to the book, I explained the difference between a deductive argument, which is “only as strong as its weakest link,” and a cumulative argument, which cannot be refuted by simply refuting one or two of its steps. In note 43, I added:

I emphasize this point because some polemicists, when confronted by a book whose conclusion they do not like, seek to undermine this conclusion by focusing on the few points that they believe can be most easily discredited. That tactic, assuming that good evidence is really presented against those points, is valid with regard to a deductive argument. In relation to a cumulative argument, however, it is tactic useful only to those concerned with something other than truth.
Click to expand...

Wow. Is there actually such a thing as a cumulative argument? Also, it seems that a large portion of truther arguments are of the for, "If there was molten metal, then 9/11 was an inside job," or "If people heard explosions, then 9/11 was an inside job." So wouldn't this be an argument against conspiracy theories? This doesn't make sense.
 
dubfan said:
Gravy: good job.

I don't even need to see it to know how it went.
Click to expand...
Hey, it's dubfan! Newcomers here should know that dubfan is a star debunker and an inspiration who was very active here a few months ago. After several of us were banned at the LC forum, dubfan took over and eloquently, patiently demonstrated what gibbering gibbons they are. Good to see you again, dub.
 
Thanks Gravy... Been busy with offline life, just stopped in to see what's going on, and saw the mention of the debate on Dylan's blog. I see JDX has his own BOARD now...LMFAO. And what happened to the LC forums? It looks everyone moved over to the boards at Screw Loose Change. And good 'ole Roxdog, still trying to get people to go on his lame-ass "show"...LOL
 
Dylan @ LC said:
mark's an interesting character. we all had a talk off-camera afterwards.
Click to expand...
I'm curious how that went.

the bottom line is this. alot of people watching this debate are going to have their minds made up.
Click to expand...
A lot of people's minds are made up about the Earth being flat. Doesn't make them right. And it doesn't mean they should be left uneducated.
 
dubfan said:
Thanks Gravy... Been busy with offline life, just stopped in to see what's going on, and saw the mention of the debate on Dylan's blog. I see JDX has his own BOARD now...LMFAO. And what happened to the LC forums? It looks everyone moved over to the boards at Screw Loose Change. And good 'ole Roxdog, still trying to get people to go on his lame-ass "show"...LOL
Click to expand...
Hi dubfan -

I'm a bit new to the JREF forum (but NOT James Randi), but not to engaging in a pitched battle with Twoofers. I hold court on another board.

This Roxdog character came over there and tried to get me to go on his show, half a dozen times or so. Interesting to come to JREF and discover the origins of some of the folks I've been battling with - almost singlehandedly.

And is JDX the guy who does Piwots Fo Twoof? Because the guy who started that thing ALSO appeared on this other board, and there I was again.

So I guess these CTers make the rounds...
 
Pardalis!

I love the bit where Daniels tells JDX to remember to take his B-vitamins.

Man, you can't write comedy this good.
 
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