Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is anyone else a skeptic?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #46
    Science is a method for understanding the universe through empirical testing and validation. It starts with obseration, moves to hypothesis, then to testing, then to "theory"/facts which are subject to new information being discovered in the future.

    Skeptics/Brights/whatever you wish to call them, build the foundation for their understanding of the universe by using the scientific method.

    Crackpots and wishful thinkers seek to subvert or ignore the scientific method so that they don't have to risk disproving their own views of the world. They start with belief, move to assertion, then to denial and avoidance, and finally, outright delusion in order to protect their beliefs from critical examination.

    This is a skeptical website, run by skeptics. If you're one of the credulous people who believe things despite a glaring lack of evidence to support those beliefs or in spite of evidence to the contrary, you're precisely the type of person we're going after here. Even though we limit the scope of our activities and discussion to Martial Arts, people like John Edward and Sylvia Brown; and idiotic practices like dowsing and remote viewing, are just as "Bullshido" as Yellow Bamboo.

    Comment


      #47
      Originally posted by Thaiboxerken
      Translation: Science doesn't support my beliefs, so I'll say science shouldn't be trusted.
      Is that what you think I'm saying? If not, my mistake. If so, your translator is malfunctioning.

      That is not a translation of my beliefs. As it happens i have massive respect for the scientific method.

      But when scientists' theories are in competition, it is very common to say that YOUR science can't be trusted, that the methodologies of the comptetion are flawed.

      The scientific method is an incredibly powerful tool, but it is only as good as the researcher using it.
      "You know what I like about you, William? You like guns AND meditation."

      Comment


        #48
        The merits of a scientists claims and methods can be shown with evidence. Your stance seems to be one of an appeal to ignorance. You imply that if science hasn't found evidence for a certain paranormal phenomena, then it's the fault of science, not the likelihood that the paranormal isn't real.
        "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire.

        Comment


          #49
          One of the most important parts of science is the peer review process. "Paranormal" garbage and the people who support it, rarely if ever participate in this process with legitimate scientists or any scientists at all outside of their circle of support for their delusions.

          Comment


            #50
            Originally posted by Thaiboxerken
            The merits of a scientists claims and methods can be shown with evidence. Your stance seems to be one of an appeal to ignorance. You imply that if science hasn't found evidence for a certain paranormal phenomena, then it's the fault of science, not the likelihood that the paranormal isn't real.
            Ken, you are pulling this stuff out of your ass.

            My stance is simply an appeal to uncertainty, which is the essence of scepticism. You are projecting a remarkable ammount of bullshit here, and then claiming that I am saying it. I'm not.

            And frankly, this is exactly my point. When an emotional reaction comes up, even level-headed types who pride themselves on their objectivity begin to resist an open discussion and start to make unwarranted assumptions based on their own preconceptions.

            This kind of knee jerk reaction is easy to see in others. It is painfully hard to see in ourselves. It obviously happens all the time when there is not a way to test and quantify the results,: ie religion, other people's politcs, etc.

            It can and does also happen amongst the scientific community.
            "You know what I like about you, William? You like guns AND meditation."

            Comment


              #51
              Originally posted by Phrost
              One of the most important parts of science is the peer review process. "Paranormal" garbage and the people who support it, rarely if ever participate in this process with legitimate scientists or any scientists at all outside of their circle of support for their delusions.
              I do not disagree with this statement at all.
              "You know what I like about you, William? You like guns AND meditation."

              Comment


                #52
                Originally posted by Zendetta
                It can and does also happen amongst the scientific community.
                Yep, if science doesn't support your beliefs, it's the fault of science and not the belief.

                That's typical woo-woo philosophy and you won't convince me to jump onboard your woo-woo wagon.
                "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire.

                Comment


                  #53
                  The String theory is easy to test, assuming we had a particle accelerator the size of Jupiter. They do have some ideas as to its existence through ghost phenomena when two particles alter to match each other regardless of the distance apart. Another theory that's interesting is the graviton particles being universe or membrane permeable which would explain why they are the weakest of the four forces. Phrost what's your Avatar from, I've been meaning to ask that. Is it a SWAT guy taking out some rifle wielding redneck?
                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGXiN-_BCts

                  Numa ^ 3

                  Comment


                    #54
                    Originally posted by Thaiboxerken
                    Yep, if science doesn't support your beliefs, it's the fault of science and not the belief.

                    That's typical woo-woo philosophy and you won't convince me to jump onboard your woo-woo wagon.
                    Ken, stop being a dick. Richard Feynman has noted that it is a flaw in physists that they offer explanations for 'anomalous' results that devate from expected values and accept results that confirm predictions.
                    Its a perfectly natural thing to do and hard to prevent. And it does slow down the refinement of the sciences.

                    You have a horrible tendency to attack what you think people are saying and not lisen to what they actually think. I do it myself but you take it to extreme.

                    Originally posted by Stickx
                    It must suck for legit practitioners of tai chi like Cullion to see their art get all watered down into exercise for seniors.
                    Those who esteme qi have no strength. ~ Exposition of Insights into the Thirteen Postures Attrib: Wu Yuxiang founder of Wu style tai chi.

                    Comment


                      #55
                      Originally posted by Thaiboxerken
                      Yep, if science doesn't support your beliefs, it's the fault of science and not the belief.

                      That's typical woo-woo philosophy and you won't convince me to jump onboard your woo-woo wagon.
                      When my beliefs clash with the best evidence, i change them.

                      Hey, I think all beliefs are mental constructs. When I can help it, I try not to believe in anything.

                      Am I wasting my time here talking about how many scientists can be prejudiced against other (equally scientific) paradigms?

                      You seem to believe, with an almost *religious* fervor, that evidence will overcome that prejudice. Plainly put, this is not always the case. Moreover, it seems to be the exception rather than the rule. I would want to know you better before concluding the following, but you strike me as an archetypal example of the sceptic that does not examine his own biases.
                      "You know what I like about you, William? You like guns AND meditation."

                      Comment


                        #56
                        Originally posted by Jekyll
                        Ken, stop being a dick.

                        You have a horrible tendency to attack what you think people are saying and not lisen to what they actually think. I do it myself but you take it to extreme.
                        Exactly. When our deep assumptions are challenged, reasoning shuts down and bad manners take over. Happens all the time , even to smart sceptical folks like Ken. We all do it, and we do it alot more if we don't try to train ourselves out of that particular conditioned response.

                        Ken is now trying to tell me what I think rather than *ask* me what I think.

                        Perhaps he has ESP?
                        "You know what I like about you, William? You like guns AND meditation."

                        Comment


                          #57
                          Am I wasting my time here talking about how many scientists can be prejudiced against other (equally scientific) paradigms?
                          What are some examples of such paradigms that exist today? Chi manipulation? Voodoo witchcraft? Reiki? Homeopathy? Scientology?

                          The quantum fields are very hard to understand and are "weird", yet because they have sufficient evidence and use scientific method, science has had to accept it at a legitimate field.
                          "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire.

                          Comment


                            #58
                            Originally posted by En
                            Hmm, I would love to take a year off between graduation and med school to do research on qi and acupuncture but I doubt I could find faculty sponsorship for it.

                            Quickfeet, what is this paper you are writing for? Are you affiliated with an academic institution?

                            i am writing the paper for the medical providers that i have / will come in contact with that are interested in the neuroanatomical mechanisms of acupuncture.

                            i am possibly going to do some research at bastyr (where i graduated with my masters of acupuncture) at the end of the year, but i am not sure yet.

                            if you are interested in acupuncture research, check out "clinical acupuncture: scientific basis" by g. stux and r. hammerschlag (eds), ISBN: 3540640541. it is a great book.

                            http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...40640541&pdf=y

                            Comment


                              #59
                              perhaps these skeptics were unaware of the progress made since 1997 in terms of acupuncture research.
                              That's why I suggested you to present your research to those skeptic organizations.
                              "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." Voltaire.

                              Comment


                                #60
                                Originally posted by Thaiboxerken
                                What are some examples of such paradigms that exist today? Chi manipulation? Voodoo witchcraft? Reiki? Homeopathy? Scientology?
                                Well, in terms of unscientific paradigms, the ESP you use to read my mind has gotta count for something.

                                I already cited the friction between relativity and quantum theory - it went far beyond Einstein. Einstein was alive for the intial experimental evidence of quantum theory, yet he never embraced it. A similiar revolution and conflict happened between relatvity and the older Newtonian laws.

                                The general notion in scientific revolutions is that the old guard, with their old prejudices, simply do not come over to the other side even after evidence is in. They simply die off and the new gaurd, unencumbered by the older bias, makes groundbreaking discoveries in directions that were never even imagined, let alone tested, by the elders.

                                As a method, science is sound because it can be tested and theories can evolve. ScientISTS, on the other hand, are human beings who are prone to human foibles like bias, reflex prejudice, and bad manners.

                                I feel like a thorough discussion of the invariably subjective nature of human conciousness is an essential element of any talk of "scepticism."
                                "You know what I like about you, William? You like guns AND meditation."

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X