| Subject: Re: A Definition of UFO Skeptic |
| From: Michael Davis |
| Date: 06/01/2005, 12:23 |
| Newsgroups: alt.paranormal,alt.paranet.ufo,alt.alien.research,alt.alien.visitors |
altheim wrote:
"Michael Davis" <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
altheim wrote:
"Michael Davis" <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
altheim wrote:
"Michael Davis" <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
researcher wrote:
Michael Davis wrote:
altheim wrote:
[snis]
Then why did you post your comment "Can't speak for yourself..."
directly beneath your own "This isn't a debating forum..." - which
in turn you posted under my name? This is just sloppy editing.
More like sloppy reading.
Very little seems to be comprehensible to you.
You really do suck at this.
Agreement noted.
Why don't you give up Michael, these tit-for-tat comebacks
are pathetic.
Projection and wishful thinking noted.
List what you think he has proposed that can be scientifically
investigated.
His Psychotronic Energy.
Ok, so please explain how it can be investigated.
Why me? It's not my theory.
You are defending it far more vigorously than its author, so why
not you?
See, there's more to
science than just making up a snappy but meaningless phrase like
"psychotronic energy."
I agree - absolutely.
Then what has been the point of your involvement in this thread?
In fact I said as much to researcher himself.
It is one thing to observe an anomalous effect, but the moment
you give it a name - like psi or psychotronic - you imply you
know its mechanism.
You imply a lot more than that. You might want to actually
determine that something really even exists before you go making
up names for it that imply an underlying mechanism, let alone a
mechanism as thoroughly debunked as psi.
The trouble is, when you are at the
theorizing stage
You aren't at the theorizing stage. As I pointed out, you haven't
even reached the hypothesizing stage yet. You really need to read
up on the scientific method. A review of Carl Sagan's baloney
detection techniques would also be in order.
you *need* a name or label in order to convey
what you are theorizing about. Therefore, thoeorizers need a
little bit of lattitude in order to communicate.
Utter bullshit. Point out even one instance of scientists in peer
reviewed journals jumping to the wild conclusion that whole new
undiscovered forms of energy are needed to explain some anomaly
mentioned in some story they got third or fourth hand and was not
accompanied by any supporting evidence, let alone giving a cutesy
name to this alleged new energy. I'll wait while you head down to
the library.
...I'll help you out with the first step. What leads
you to believe there even is some unknown form of energy at work here?
Please explain it in detail and show all your work. You need to answer
that question first, then about a dozen more, before you can even start
to formulate a decent testable hypothesis.
If you are asking me you are just pissing in the wind. If it were my
theory I would find a different way of presenting it to the group.
Why are you even bothering to defend it?
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is
proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in
everlasting
ignorance--that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
Non sequitur. You have not actually investigated anything.
But it *is* relevant:
To whom?
The same people for whom you think it is non sequitor.
You mean kooks? Well lots of nonsensical things are somehow relevant to
them, but so what? How is it relevant here in the real world?
You are getting lost again -
No, I know exactly where I am, and I'm not in fantasy land like
you are.
or deliberately trying to obfuscate:
You said, to reiterate, that the above statement which, in short,
says that "contempt prior to investigation... keeps man in
everlasting ignorance" is non-sequitor, i.e. irrelevant.
It was irrelevant to the discussion. Now you are trying to make it
relevant by making it the topic of discussion. I reject your
attempt at topic drift.
Well, the fact is, it is a universal truth and it *is* relevant
here because you (though not only you) are showing
contempt for an idea *before* investigation.
Incorrect. I am showing contempt for "researcher's"
*lack* of
investigation. He just barreled straight on ahead from a silly
notion he derived from unsubstantiated stories, onward to a whole
new form of energy complete with a snazzy name, without doing the
first iota of actual investigation himself. The men who authored
the quotes he posted, if alive today, would be on my side of the
argument, not yours and his.
And all are totally irrelevant to this discussion. "researcher" just
can't think of anything intelligent and relevant to say, so he panicked
and cut&pasted a bunch of irrelevant quotes from famous people in hopes
that his cowardly shotgun approach might hit something and impress
someone. Looks like he only managed to impress you. Everyone else seems
to see what a fool he is.
Oh! come on. Don't be so damn patronizing.
Request denied.
Not everyone enjoys
confrontation like you do and not everyone has made Usenet
debate a compulsive hobby like you.
Really? (Checks stats) You seem to be out posting me by a ratio of
three to one. You compulsively respond to each of my posts, even
if they aren't responses to you. And all your posts (except for
the ones where you are kissing "researcher's" ass) seem to be
confrontational. Your hypocrisy is showing again.
It doesn't mean his ideas
are bad.
But his ideas
*are* bad. Why are you the only one in this thread
who can't see that?
If you really want to influence his thinking try a bit of
sensitivity.
I prefer the "tough love" method when dealing with kooks.
In one sentence you manage to offend two basic
tenets of the very doctrine you most want to uphold - scepticism.
The skeptics here don't seem to be offended by *my* posts. HTH.
Bwaaaaahahahaha! ... How do you know? Shall we ask them?
Feel free
Political correctness will be the death of Western Civilization. It is a
disease that costs more and does more damage than AIDS, cancer, heart
disease and male pattern baldness combined. The world just makes so much
more sense when you *don't* give every ranting nut the benefit of the
doubt. Try it, you'll like it.
Hey! You'll get no argument from me about political correctness.
Then why do you insist on practicing it?
I'm far from PC but I don't go in for deliberate Schadenfreude
either.
What makes you think I do? I derive no pleasure from the
misfortune of others. Watching the antics of kooks though is quite
entertaining. Since they aren't miserable in their kookery, it
isn't schadenfreude. HTH.