What is wrong with what Steorn is doing?

You have persistently referred to Steorn proceeding via, or focussing on, "the standard channels of science", or "the standard scientific process" , rather than accepting challenges from "the organized skeptical movement".

Do you think that what Steorn are doing is "proceeding via the standard channels of science"?
 
T'ai Chi said:
SO we've concluded that there is nothing wrong with Steorn ignoring a challenge from an organization in the organized skeptical movement, and focusing more on the standard channels of science.
Click to expand...

You keep mentioning 'Standard channels of science', but you seem to have a different understanding as to what these standards are to the majority of other people.

In what way is advertising for testers in The Economist a standard channel?
 
T'ai Chi, you keep repeating "standard channels of science" and "skeptical organization" over and over and over and over...

1. Do you believe this methodology is really "standard" or really "science"? We've posted responses and links that offer a precis of the standard process as we understand it. What in Steorn's cloak-and-dagger methodology do you find to be "standard"? (Standard –noun 1. something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model.)

2. Skeptical Organization. This seems to be your particular bete noir, as it shows up over and over in other threads. I may not have gotten the decoder ring and secret handshake when I joined up. Could others share with me? I thought this was a forum of free-wheeling, free-thinking, question-asking skeptics with a dash of cynics, a soupcon of pedants, salt and pepper to taste. If there's an official dogma and canon, I wish they'd posted it in the membership agreement section.
 
T'ai Chi is either a troll, or a woo-woo idiot with a chip on his shoulder. You will never get a real answer from him, trust me.

I'll just add this: if Steorn did go through the standards channels of science rather than the JREF million-dollar Challenge, then yes, I'm pretty sure everyone here would approve, and would find nothing wrong with that. The thing is, Steorn is doing no such thing, so this is a complete red herring.
 
In what way is a doing challenge from a single organization in the organized skeptical movement?
 
T'ai Chi said:
In what way is a doing challenge from a single organization in the organized skeptical movement?
Click to expand...

You've outdone yourself! :D
This makes no sense at all. I asked you about your two concerns, the 'accepted scientific methodology', and the bee in your bonnet that has you repeatedly referring to 'skeptic organizations'. You've now mixed them into something that seems computer-generated.
 
So we've agreed that it is more responsible to seek out independent scientists. Super!
 
I would say that this "Organised Sceptical Movement" To which T'ai Chi keeps referring wouldn't be sceptical of Steorn IF they were using the "standard channels of science" because the mass PR campaign and the full page advertisement in the economist and all the other red flags that Steorn has produced would not have drawn their attention. Instead the individual members of the "organised sceptical movement" would be flexing their science muscles to replicate the data. The only thing that differentuates a SCEPTIC from a believer is the PROOF.
 
I think it's more like Tai is a woo-enabler. He himself isn't a woo, but he has the same mentality when it comes to science and so allows woos to go without scrutiny.
 
T'ai Chi said:
In what way is a doing challenge from a single organization in the organized skeptical movement?
Click to expand...

This post convinces me: t’ai chit is Iacchus! He’s been taking his meds, and has lost much of his former windyness. That’s an improvement as far as it goes.

Now he just pops his goofball questions, trying to sound oracular and mysterious, a cross between Li Po and Yoda.

The little quote above demonstrates how much real progress he’s made.

I sure wish he’d abandon that irritating little bowing icon.

ETA: I don't think I should spell windyness with two i's. Should I?
 
Last edited:
sackett said:
ETA: I don't think I should spell windyness with two i's. Should I?
Click to expand...
Try a google fight. "windyness" generates about 1850 hits, whereas "windiness" generates about 49000 hits. Since the majority is always right, go with windiness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom