What is wrong with what Steorn is doing?

sackett said:
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?
Click to expand...

Glad to know I'm on your mind. Try focusing on the argument (you know, be a skeptic?) instead of me, next time.
 
Windiness? Okay. My first instinct -- I'm an instinctual speller -- was right.
 
sackett said:
tai, can't you understand? Your opinion is worthless.
Click to expand...
His opinion isn't exactly worthless. You have need to have something in order to judge if it is worthy or not. So far, he has not offered anything to judge.
 
Well, ole tai likes to offer his very lofty and dismissive opinions of other people's posts, and never yet has he uttered one of any value.

T'ai chi practitioners don't wear gi or other la-de-dah costumes.
 
T'ai Chi said:
Try focusing on the argument (you know, be a skeptic?) instead of me, next time.
Click to expand...
It's so cute when you play coy and ask people not to pay attention to you when you're obviously trying to get attention. Do it again!
 
I believe Balrog666 has a point: Responding to tai cheek is like throwing water in the sea.
 
Why are only a few people in an uproar about Steorn? Doesn't seem like many people disagree.
 
T'ai Chi said:
Really? Do you find the evidence supportsthat?
Click to expand...

Yes, I do have evidence to support that: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65097.

In fact, had you bother to read the responses above, you would have seen that. Oh, and it is up to 25/26, with one vote for "On planet X, nobody has an opinion" rather than yes.

So either you responded without reading previous entries, or you have to reading comprehension of a 3 year old. So, which is it, intellectual dishonesty, or idiocy? Not that I expect you to actually answer a question put to you...
 
Just finished reading the thread thus far, the only thing I got from T'ai Chi's posts are a throbbing headache. I wonder why you all bother with this chap and his annoying avatar?
 
T'ai Chi said:
What I think people are overlooking, is that even if they choose scientists they believe are not critical (for example, ones not members of the organized skeptical movement), they will make their findings available freely to all, from what it sounds like.

So even if the scientists aren't members of the organized skeptical movement, it doesn't matter, as the results (ie. what is really important, not sidetracks on issues about personalities) will be made available for all to critique.
Click to expand...

Papers and results are not what is important. To believe this is to accept arguments from authority, which are not proof. Albert Einstein's papers on special and general relativity did not establish relativity as the "law of the land" -- they merely gave scientists a framework in to do their own investigations and designing processes to test the theory. Transparency and openness in scientific investigation is absolutely essential.

No test performed by a closed group that merely presents "results" is scientifically valid. Scientific experiments must be clearly described and must be repeatable by skeptics (whose own results must be skeptically dissected as well) to achieve the mantle of "proof". This is why situations where people try to do science behind closed doors scream "fraud". The frequency with which people do this when discussing theories that contradict well-proven science, and their inevitable failure to provide any means for unbiased observers to repeat their experiments, is what allows people like Randi to "predict the future". It's not precognition; it's recognition.
 
The point is that it is more along the standard channels of science than applying for a challenge with a skeptic organization which has nothing to do with the standard channels of science.

It sounds like they are striving to get independent scientists, and as discussed, will make their results available.
 
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