Donn said:
Hello again, tis I.
I hope this board does not get frustrated with me posting the stuff I receive in my email!
I am looking for comment and to learn from the way the logic is pulled apart.
I want to see the process of Skeptical Analysis being applied to this kind of writing.
I hope you enjoy this, it's typical of the stuff I am getting and I feel a little, well, spooked by it and I want to satisfy myself that my inner suspicion is that this is total bunk - only it's so slick and this chap is so very practised.
Here goes...
---------------------------
Yeah, he's practiced, however polishing turds will get him nowhere.
The Bigger Picture, etc:
Most people are very weary of conspiracy theorists, mostly because they are
very radical in their views and virtually always go against the 'accepted
norm'. In fact, most people have a kind of dismissal trigger that goes off
whenever they even hear the word 'conspiracy', with no help from the
conspiracy theorists here. From an informed perspective, most conspiracy
theorists who like to tackle things from a scientific perspective can be
proven wrong since they often tend to overlook other potential reasonable
explanations other than their often-narrow view of things. The views of
most conspiracy theorists can surely NOT be called 'balanced'.
This is a great tactic, write something that people can agree with in order to cast a pallor of "truth" onto the rest of the essay. This is pretty common in sales and political speeches.
I am no conspiracy theorist - as I prefer to include as many tangible facts
within my perceptual experience of something. I am NOT interested in plain
theories and conjecture without any tangible substance (that gets nobody
anywhere). Indeed, the Evidence is what matters. [Interestingly enough,
Evidence is subjective for most people... and quite so, the 'weight of
evidence' will vary from person-to-person and society-to-society; a concept
that is NOT too foreign in the practise of Law in all civilized cultures
around our planet].
How is evidence subjective? A fingerprint is a fingerprint. DNA is DNA, no matter where you go. An eyewitness is an eyewitness in Nebraska or Nepal.
In China, it is said that the faintest ink is better than the best memory and in the western world we agree and provide stenographers and video cameras to keep a permanant record.
And notice that he capitalizes "evidence". As if all evidence is created equal. No, it is not. A fingerprint in the victim's blood is much better evidence than a eyewitness who saw someone who looked like you twenty feet from the crime scene.
For a Scientist, indeed, the measure of evidence should
be strict; however, it should NOT be so strict as to cause barriers within
the mind of the Scientist himself... at the very least, the Scientist should
be aware of this should he or she wish to make significant progress or any
great advance in his/her field of Science (and until Scientists stop
limiting Themselves, they will have to continue to rely upon most new
discoveries happening by 'accident').
Define "strict". Scientists limit themselves to that which can be tested and compared. Is that too strict?
New discoveries are not made by accident. Even if the discovery is unexpected, scientists make it through systematic testing to prove or disprove an hypothesis. They make these unexpected discoveries by using the strict methods that scientists should use.
At Heart, I am a Scientist and indeed I call myself a Scientist whether or
not I have a piece of paper to 'show for anything' (something that others
who call themselves scientists would prefer as a means of categorisation) as
it certainly is NOT the piece of paper that makes the Scientist (look up the
term in a dictionary). [Yes, the definition of a Scientist can be argued to
be a matter of semantics, however, unfortunately, it has also become an
issue of trust due to the lack of honour prevalent in our society.]
That "piece of paper" shows that the person was willing to put in the hours needed to learn the basics.
Here's the definition in dictionary.com
"A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science."
How does one know whether or not someone has expert knowledge? Through the documentation of that study. That piece of paper is that documentation. It says that the holder has aquired expert knowledge in that field.
However it does not say that this person should be taken on his authority no matter what.
Indeed
the Domain of Science truly isn't an exclusive field and no-one has a
monopoly over it, even though there are many today who actively present
themselves as 'scientists', when in actual fact they are monopolists who
seek dominion and control of True Science and 'superiority' over others
along with Their own generational dogma - today usually the ones shouting
the loudest about 'how right they are and how wrong some other Scientist
might be' or whom have the greatest on-going media exposure.
Now we get the inkling of the conspiracy theory. Again giving a shallowly correct statement that science isn't an exclusive field. It isn't an exclusive field, however, science does demand a certain amount of discipline and work. If one isn't willing to put the effort in, then he or she cannot say that he or she is a scientist.
Next, he calls scientists "monopolists who seek dominion and control of True Science" What is True Science? The author has never answered this question.
As for monopolists, anybody who puts in the hard work is welcome to join. And if you really have the evidence to overthrow a theory, they would welcome you to bring it.
As I have put
it before, to many-a-sceptic, today's 'Science' is NO better than a dogmatic
religion, along with all it's vices (if you don't believe me, just compare
some of the reactions of some of today's so-called 'scientists' to that of
fundamentalist religious fanatics when their belief-system is perceived to
be 'under attack')
This is an old canard of science as religion. Of course, you realize that if scientists didn't defend their work that they would be seen as "stuck up in their ivory towers"
The passionate presentation of evidence is not the same as the defense of a belief system that is obviously flawed.
... this statement should also NOT be seen as a forthright
judgement over the many True Scientists among us today and the many True
Scientists that have in the past contributed to our society. Indeed, the
original meaning of the meaning of a Scientist is A Seeker of Truth.
A True Scientist Questions Everything and Dismisses Nothing (to believe that
his and other's perceptions of reality are perfect would be arrogant in the
extreme). How is it therefore that what many 'scientists' of today find
themselves dismissing many ideas and concepts MORE than accepting them as
possibility? How is this, I ask, different from a fundamental religious
fanatic going around calling everything that disagrees with his doctrine
"Evil!"?
The author creates his own definition of "True Scientist" and expects us to accept it on his authority. And let's look at the definition.
"A True Scientist ...dismisses nothing" How can a scientist dismiss nothing? You might as well say to a sculptor not to chisel away stone to create a statue. Scientists must dismiss the experiments that do not work. They must dismiss hypothesis that cannot bear the weight of evidence. If they cannot dismiss nothing, then they would be stalled in their progress, bogged down by the weight of what does not work.
The reason why scientists came up with double blind testing is because scientists know that they are prone to fallible thinking as much as everybody else.
And scientists often dismiss their own ideas and concepts more than anyone else's. A religionist will never say, "I was wrong, let's go back and try this again."
A scientist will often say that. They will try to find flaws in their work before anyone else can. If they don't, other scientists will try to find those flaws. Every scientific theory today has someone or several someones searching for its flaws. This onslaught is the strength of science, not a weakness.
It boils down to a fundamental matter of an attitude of Limitation verses
Limitlessness and Positivity verses Negativity. Which one do You chose?
I have a simpler choice, what works verses what doesn't.
Going with what doesn't work is very limiting, you are bogged down with all these old notions that you must study over and over again and can never dismiss. Kind of like a sculptor who must not remove any stone from a block, ever.
Positivity versus negativity? What is more negative: that you must continue to study hypothesis that do not work or that you study what actually works and find more things that do work?
Another bit of impetus as backing for what I say, for whatever it is worth
to you or anyone reading this, is the fact that, unlike the conspiracy
theorists, I have personally dealt with agents of some Illuminati groups;
both directly and indirectly and therefore have no question in my mind that
these organisations do indeed exist, and exist at the very highest levels of
government... because I have had a taste of just who these people are and
how they operate there are some things that I am aware of, and this also
connects to another aspect of what I am involved in, which if I had to go
around telling people I would be labelled delusional and paranoid. I am
neither, and let me tell you: Nothing compares to just how paranoid They
are, especially these days.
Who are the Illumanati? I'm sorry, but every criminal conspiracy, no matter how high it goes, gets exposed and with exposure names are named.
Buried bodies are recovered, not all, but enough so you know that something is afoot. Often very important bodies like the Romanovs.
Evidence is always left behind of meetings et. If archeologists can reconstruct life a few millinia ago through refuse heaps, surely we'd be able to find something by now.
If you know illumanati agents, name names and tell us where the bodies are buried, where they met so we can have some evidence.
Yes, I am quite aware that there is INDEED a great manipulation of world
governments, medicine (I know several medical doctors who will agree with
me), science, educational institutions, world events, politics and
(especially) the media.
Name those doctors who agree, please. Who is doing the manipulation and how? Reread the above.
Truth is NOT difficult to twist if one has the
power and 'seeming' authority to do so.
What amazes me is that most people know that 99% of politicians are
self-serving, dishonourable, power-hungry people who really don't have
anyone else's best interest except their own at heart; and yet they find it
difficult to believe that these same people (who are always wealthy) get
together and amongst themselves and other influential groups and do whatever
they can to strengthen and promote Their agendas? They certainly DO, and
yet sadly this is only the tip of the Iceberg...
Anyway, I am NOT here to prove anything to anyone or to make any specific
point! (unless there is a dire need for it or I am asked about my opinion,
in which case I will do what I can to convey it as clearly as possible).
Tell us something we don't know. I'm sorry but people who seek power and wealth will get together and use it. Probably to acquire more wealth and power.
Even people who don't have wealth will get together and use what power they can, look at the Martin Luther King's bus boycott. They weren't wealthy people, they had no social status, but they used the small amount of power they had to change their situation.
Nobody can 'prove' anything to you unless you chose to prove it to yourself.
This is an interesting quote from a guy trying to convince us of things like "True Scientists" and the "Illumanati"
Notice how he shifts the burden of proof to the questioner. The author makes the assertions, the author back the assertions.
The basic question to the author should be, "why should we believe you?"
I do NOT know how anyone can call this World 'natural', 'normal' or
'healthy'. It has been very UNHEALTHY for a very long time...
Anyway, this is just my perspective... It wasn't supposed to turn into an
essay, like it almost did! ...and the Iceberg doesn't get any smaller.
Define "unhealthy".
And it's just his perspective, the defense of the lack of evidence. "I've spouted enough fertilizer to grow an impressive crop, but it's just my perspective so I don't have bring any evidence to the table."
See the basic question: "why should we believe you?"
LMAO!