Opinion of Skepticism

[James Monroe]

They are true FF's in a increasingly world that's acceptable of woo and pseudoscience, which has now become mainstream.


 

[136or142]

Real skeptics are good, deniers who claim to be skeptics are bad.  As an aside, mediocre white males who claim to be skeptics (Michael Shermer) are also pretty useless (except in his own specific field.)

[James Monroe]

Real skeptics are good, deniers who claim to be skeptics are bad.  As an aside, mediocre white males who claim to be skeptics (Michael Shermer) are also pretty useless (except in his own specific field.)

In your mind how are figures of the movement such as Michael Shermer not true skeptics?  The movement goal is to challenge misconceptions among the non-scientific community.

[Small L]

Alright as a tool, but doesn't work as a worldview.

[136or142]

Real skeptics are good, deniers who claim to be skeptics are bad.  As an aside, mediocre white males who claim to be skeptics (Michael Shermer) are also pretty useless (except in his own specific field.)

In your mind how are figures of the movement such as Michael Shermer not true skeptics?  The movement goal is to challenge misconceptions among the non-scientific community.

The paranormal community, for instance, would claim that Michael Shermer is a 'debunker' and not a true skeptic in that he doesn't even read the evidence before offering counter arguments.

Stanton Friedman, who is a believer in UFOs but also has a MSc in nuclear physics, has been very critical of Shermer for this.  They have debated a number of times and maybe Shermer has learned some of the evidence since then, but when I first heard them in a debate, Shermer frequently said "I don't really know much about the specifics of the case, but...."

I can understand if you don't believe something or if it's counter to your world view that you aren't going to look in to it all that much, but if you are going to be so arrogant as to not only call yourself a skeptic but to found a society claiming yourself as a skeptic, I think you should make much more of an effort.

I have heard him in interviews on other paranormal topics and he seems to do this pretty much all the time:  making counterarguments without actually knowing the details of the evidence behind the claims. I think it is fair to refer to him as a 'debunker' and not a true skeptic.

As for my views, I followed him for a while on twitter and I find him to be, indeed one of the privileged white males, who has succeeded despite being banal (I don't dispute his scientific knowledge or capabilities.)  Most of his tweets tended to be on the political side when I followed him and he tended to rail against 'political correctness/left wing censorship in universities' and once cited the old canard "Hitler was a leftist because the term Nazi means National Socialism"

I was going to reply to him "Great, then we should get along fine with North Korea since it's democratic (People's Democratic Republic of Korea) but somebody had already beat me to it.

To me he's an arrogant and banal person.

There are also claims that he's very sexist.  That doesn't really fit here, but I mention it because since I'm criticizing him, I don't want to potentially leave the impression that I don't care about that.

As an aside, in terms of banal white males who achieved success for no discernible reason I would add Tyler Cowan, David Brooks and possibly Steven Pinker and David Brooks.  Malcolm Gladwell is a fraud, but at least he stole a worthy idea to achieve success.  Oh yeah, another banal white male is David Brooks.  Did I mention David Brooks?

[°Leprechaun]

Descartes, of course, is one of the most famous skeptics, and his "dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum",
has been rightly challenged by other philosophers, because the  "I" in his reasoning could just as well be the effect of thinking than the reverse, that the "I" is the result of the experience of thinking. The idea of "no self" predates Descartes by 2000 years. The "I" that supposedly exists could be explained by reductionism. Other philosophers who lived after Descartes, pointed these problems with his thinking.

Descartes self-doubting was only a starting point in all of this.

Call it reductio ad absurdum if you must, but I suppose anything could be doubted, including obviously whether skepticism the epistemological tool.

Edit: of course this is basic Philosophy 101, but I remember being skeptical of Descartes' starting point when I took Philosophy 101 over 40 years ago.. a blast from the past for me, I suppose.
Nevertheless, I also suppose that's it's as good a starting point as it was about 400 years ago during Descartes' lifetime.

[Georg Ebner]

Descartes, of course, is one of the most famous skeptics, and his "dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum",
has been rightly challenged by other philosophers, because the  "I" in his reasoning could just as well be the effect of thinking than the reverse, that the "I" is the result of the experience of thinking. The idea of "no self" predates Descartes by 2000 years. The "I" that supposedly exists could be explained by reductionism. Other philosophers who lived after Descartes, pointed these problems with his thinking.

Descartes self-doubting was only a starting point in all of this.

Call it reductio ad absurdum if you must, but I suppose anything could be doubted, including obviously whether skepticism the epistemological tool.

Edit: of course this is basic Philosophy 101, but I remember being skeptical of Descartes' starting point when I took Philosophy 101 over 40 years ago.. a blast from the past for me, I suppose.
Nevertheless, I also suppose that's it's as good a starting point as it was about 400 years ago during Descartes' lifetime.

Those "no-selfs" were some asiatic cosmosophs (and some european/american LaborRats with their mystical monism/materialism).
I know, that my I is the only archimedical point I have; but not an abstract I - what would lead to an empty solipsism -, but a vital I: "I am I and my condition." (GOMEZ DAVILA): I am I - and I am thrown towards totality, towards the telos.

[Small L]

Descartes was not a skeptic.

[dead0man]

The paranormal community, for instance, would claim that Michael Shermer is a 'debunker' and not a true skeptic in that he doesn't even read the evidence before offering counter arguments.

Stanton Friedman, who is a believer in UFOs but also has a MSc in nuclear physics, has been very critical of Shermer for this.  They have debated a number of times and maybe Shermer has learned some of the evidence since then, but when I first heard them in a debate, Shermer frequently said "I don't really know much about the specifics of the case, but...."

I can understand if you don't believe something or if it's counter to your world view that you aren't going to look in to it all that much, but if you are going to be so arrogant as to not only call yourself a skeptic but to found a society claiming yourself as a skeptic, I think you should make much more of an effort.

it can be frustrating when you, day after day, deal with people that think a photo is solid evidence of something or that unidentifiable lights in the sky are proof we are not alone.  Sure, if you're going to get in the business of skepticism, you have to to expect you're going to be dealing with the "true believers" all the time, but it doesn't mean that should be your job 100% of the time.

I'm a skeptic because of Carl Sagan.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[RFayette]

Descartes was not a skeptic.

Yeah, Descartes was doing a thought experiment, not stating his actual views.

[136or142]

The paranormal community, for instance, would claim that Michael Shermer is a 'debunker' and not a true skeptic in that he doesn't even read the evidence before offering counter arguments.

Stanton Friedman, who is a believer in UFOs but also has a MSc in nuclear physics, has been very critical of Shermer for this.  They have debated a number of times and maybe Shermer has learned some of the evidence since then, but when I first heard them in a debate, Shermer frequently said "I don't really know much about the specifics of the case, but...."

I can understand if you don't believe something or if it's counter to your world view that you aren't going to look in to it all that much, but if you are going to be so arrogant as to not only call yourself a skeptic but to found a society claiming yourself as a skeptic, I think you should make much more of an effort.

it can be frustrating when you, day after day, deal with people that think a photo is solid evidence of something or that unidentifiable lights in the sky are proof we are not alone.  Sure, if you're going to get in the business of skepticism, you have to to expect you're going to be dealing with the "true believers" all the time, but it doesn't mean that should be your job 100% of the time.

I'm a skeptic because of Carl Sagan.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh sure, there will always be people who 'want to believe.'  Many true believers whether in the paranormal or pretty much anything else are going to see what they want to see irrespective of the quality of the evidence.  I don't know if skeptics or 'debunkers' pointing out basic facts is really going to alter the opinions of these people though most of the time.

The best joke I've seen mocking these 'true believers' was in the original Ghostbusters when the three of them are at the library:

Ray (Dan Ackroyd): Symmetrical book stacking. Just like the Philadelphia mass turbulence of 1947.

Peter (Bill Murray): You’re right, no human being would stack books like this. (rolls eyes)

The problem is, the skeptics, or 'debunkers' seem to treat all belief in the paranormal and all paranormal evidence in this way, that there is no good evidence out there.  That is easy to maintain if you don't learn any of the details of the evidence, I find with some of these cases that it's much harder to be a 'debunker' when I read the actual evidence.

[dead0man]

The problem is, the skeptics, or 'debunkers' seem to treat all belief in the paranormal and all paranormal evidence in this way, that there is no good evidence out there.  That is easy to maintain if you don't learn any of the details of the evidence, I find with some of these cases that it's much harder to be a 'debunker' when I read the actual evidence.

I've never had that problem.  Certainly there has been things I could not explain, but not being able to explain something is nowhere near proof of anything.

[James Monroe]

Real skeptics are good, deniers who claim to be skeptics are bad.  As an aside, mediocre white males who claim to be skeptics (Michael Shermer) are also pretty useless (except in his own specific field.)

In your mind how are figures of the movement such as Michael Shermer not true skeptics?  The movement goal is to challenge misconceptions among the non-scientific community.

The paranormal community, for instance, would claim that Michael Shermer is a 'debunker' and not a true skeptic in that he doesn't even read the evidence before offering counter arguments.

Stanton Friedman, who is a believer in UFOs but also has a MSc in nuclear physics, has been very critical of Shermer for this.  They have debated a number of times and maybe Shermer has learned some of the evidence since then, but when I first heard them in a debate, Shermer frequently said "I don't really know much about the specifics of the case, but...."

I can understand if you don't believe something or if it's counter to your world view that you aren't going to look in to it all that much, but if you are going to be so arrogant as to not only call yourself a skeptic but to found a society claiming yourself as a skeptic, I think you should make much more of an effort.

I have heard him in interviews on other paranormal topics and he seems to do this pretty much all the time:  making counterarguments without actually knowing the details of the evidence behind the claims. I think it is fair to refer to him as a 'debunker' and not a true skeptic.

As for my views, I followed him for a while on twitter and I find him to be, indeed one of the privileged white males, who has succeeded despite being banal (I don't dispute his scientific knowledge or capabilities.)  Most of his tweets tended to be on the political side when I followed him and he tended to rail against 'political correctness/left wing censorship in universities' and once cited the old canard "Hitler was a leftist because the term Nazi means National Socialism"

I was going to reply to him "Great, then we should get along fine with North Korea since it's democratic (People's Democratic Republic of Korea) but somebody had already beat me to it.

To me he's an arrogant and banal person.

There are also claims that he's very sexist.  That doesn't really fit here, but I mention it because since I'm criticizing him, I don't want to potentially leave the impression that I don't care about that.

As an aside, in terms of banal white males who achieved success for no discernible reason I would add Tyler Cowan, David Brooks and possibly Steven Pinker and David Brooks.  Malcolm Gladwell is a fraud, but at least he stole a worthy idea to achieve success.  Oh yeah, another banal white male is David Brooks.  Did I mention David Brooks?

My knowledge of Shermer comes from reading articles in the Scientific American, which he can be sometimes arrogant and pompous, though he always backed it up with a intrigue of the weird things that many Americans believe in. For skeptics it's hard to convey just how delusional many people are if they believe in much of the stuff without any scientific evidence to back off the claim. For Shermer and the skeptic community they just have a disgusting distaste for the paranormal and woo stuff that any counter-argument is going to end with logical fallacies that are so far fetch that makes it possible for believers in science to take with a grain.

Shermer has always been somewhat on the left, so hearing the anti-SJW talk is very disappointing, expected from an older and privileged white guy.

David Brooks is a useless twit and don't understand the NYT reasoning for keeping him on the columnists staff.


For another key skeptic person with a hostility towards anything paranormal how do you feel about the Amazing James Randi?
 

[136or142]

The problem is, the skeptics, or 'debunkers' seem to treat all belief in the paranormal and all paranormal evidence in this way, that there is no good evidence out there.  That is easy to maintain if you don't learn any of the details of the evidence, I find with some of these cases that it's much harder to be a 'debunker' when I read the actual evidence.

I've never had that problem.  Certainly there has been things I could not explain, but not being able to explain something is nowhere near proof of anything.

Explain these:

1.This event was very well known up to the 1970s. Sadly seems to be forgotten:

15 people were supposed to show up to church for choir practice and 12 of them were going to come separately.  They made a point of showing up on time every week on time. However, on the time of the week when the choir singers were supposed to be there and an underground gas leak caused the church to explode, not a single choir member was in the church.

This was the West Side Baptist Church in Beatrice Nebraska and it occurred in 1950. There was a television 'movie of the week' made about this in the 1970s, but I can't find it.

http://www.snopes.com/luck/choir.asp

If the odds is 1 in 50 that one would miss the choir practice, then the odds of all 12 missing the choir practice is 1 in 244140625000000000000.

According to the Snopes story, they were late for practice on average one out of every four times so the odds of all 12 missing the choir practice was 1 in 1,000,000 according to Snopes.  However, I don't think they've calculated the odds correctly.  The calculation is .25^12 which I can't do with an internet calculator because it goes to e, however, the odds of nine missing when the odds are 1 in 4 of any missing are already over 1 in 250,000.

From what I'd heard about it from Unsolved Mysteries and read about it from a book called Amazing Coincidences, the odds were greater than one in four as any member who was late for practice was punished (I think they weren't allowed to attend the next week.)

2.Unless this whole story is made up (and I think the recordings exist, so it's not likely.)

"Towards the end of the program, she also discussed telepathy being a part of these paranormal experiences during extreme conditions. Coffey told an amazing story of a culturally diverse mountain crew that encountered a harrowing blizzard. Communicating via radio, they navigated the terrain safely. Upon returning to base camp, they listened to a recording of their conversation and were astonished to hear that they had all been speaking their native languages, yet understood each other perfectly."

https://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2008/07/13

[136or142]

Real skeptics are good, deniers who claim to be skeptics are bad.  As an aside, mediocre white males who claim to be skeptics (Michael Shermer) are also pretty useless (except in his own specific field.)

In your mind how are figures of the movement such as Michael Shermer not true skeptics?  The movement goal is to challenge misconceptions among the non-scientific community.

The paranormal community, for instance, would claim that Michael Shermer is a 'debunker' and not a true skeptic in that he doesn't even read the evidence before offering counter arguments.

Stanton Friedman, who is a believer in UFOs but also has a MSc in nuclear physics, has been very critical of Shermer for this.  They have debated a number of times and maybe Shermer has learned some of the evidence since then, but when I first heard them in a debate, Shermer frequently said "I don't really know much about the specifics of the case, but...."

I can understand if you don't believe something or if it's counter to your world view that you aren't going to look in to it all that much, but if you are going to be so arrogant as to not only call yourself a skeptic but to found a society claiming yourself as a skeptic, I think you should make much more of an effort.

I have heard him in interviews on other paranormal topics and he seems to do this pretty much all the time:  making counterarguments without actually knowing the details of the evidence behind the claims. I think it is fair to refer to him as a 'debunker' and not a true skeptic.

As for my views, I followed him for a while on twitter and I find him to be, indeed one of the privileged white males, who has succeeded despite being banal (I don't dispute his scientific knowledge or capabilities.)  Most of his tweets tended to be on the political side when I followed him and he tended to rail against 'political correctness/left wing censorship in universities' and once cited the old canard "Hitler was a leftist because the term Nazi means National Socialism"

I was going to reply to him "Great, then we should get along fine with North Korea since it's democratic (People's Democratic Republic of Korea) but somebody had already beat me to it.

To me he's an arrogant and banal person.

There are also claims that he's very sexist.  That doesn't really fit here, but I mention it because since I'm criticizing him, I don't want to potentially leave the impression that I don't care about that.

As an aside, in terms of banal white males who achieved success for no discernible reason I would add Tyler Cowan, David Brooks and possibly Steven Pinker and David Brooks.  Malcolm Gladwell is a fraud, but at least he stole a worthy idea to achieve success.  Oh yeah, another banal white male is David Brooks.  Did I mention David Brooks?

My knowledge of Shermer comes from reading articles in the Scientific American, which he can be sometimes arrogant and pompous, though he always backed it up with a intrigue of the weird things that many Americans believe in. For skeptics it's hard to convey just how delusional many people are if they believe in much of the stuff without any scientific evidence to back off the claim. For Shermer and the skeptic community they just have a disgusting distaste for the paranormal and woo stuff that any counter-argument is going to end with logical fallacies that are so far fetch that makes it possible for believers in science to take with a grain.

Shermer has always been somewhat on the left, so hearing the anti-SJW talk is very disappointing, expected from an older and privileged white guy.

David Brooks is a useless twit and don't understand the NYT reasoning for keeping him on the columnists staff.


For another key skeptic person with a hostility towards anything paranormal how do you feel about the Amazing James Randi?
 

Shermer is a mainstream science person so he knows global warming is real, but from what I've read about him, he was always more of a libertarian.  It might be more accurate to describe him as somebody who has left leaning objectives (hoping that people treat each other decently, for instance) but that he often favors conservative or libertarian policies to achieve these objectives.

I haven't read any of his articles, but, as I wrote above, his arguments I've heard are the standard banal ones that a person doesn't have to label themselves a skeptic to be familiar with (not that banal arguments can't be true.)  So, for instance, essentially, 'I don't have to know the details of any UFO case to know it can't be real, beyond the literal that somebody saw an unidentified flying object.  I know that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, and I'm pretty certain that there is nothing that is close to earth that has advanced life on it."

So, what about the argument that it may be possible for something to travel faster than the speed of light? (of course, while speeding up, this object would have to travel at the speed of light for an incredibly short period of time, so I don't know how to get around that, but I think there may be theoretical ways around that.)

So, you have no interest that there are objects in the sky that can't be unidentified (after all credible potential possibilities have been explored)?

Since this leads to the possibility of UFOs being something other than alien craft, Shermer's answer is a banal dismissiveness along the lines of "I'm sure if these cases were further explored, logical explanations would be found."

Well, hey, you bill yourself as a leading skeptic, why don't you find the explanations then?

[136or142]

In regards to The Amazing Randi, I have mixed feelings about him.  Like Houdini before him, Randi exposed frauds, and that was a good thing for him to do.

However, there is also no question that he is an angry/nasty person and that some of his methods are not entirely ethical (he refers to himself as an 'honest liar' which sort of acknowledges that he agrees with these assessments, especially the 'ethical' part.) In regards to his attack on the paranormal, he seems to clearly believe 'the ends justify the means.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/11270453/James-Randi-debunking-the-king-of-the-debunkers.html

But before we parted, I told him my research painted a picture of a clever man who is often right, but who has a certain element to his personality which leads him to overstate.

“Oh I agree,” he said.

“And sometimes lie. Get carried away.”

“Oh I agree. No question of that. I don’t know whether the lies are conscious lies all the time,” he said. “But there can be untruths.”  (FWIW, I wrote the second paragraph before reading the article.  That aside though, I'm not sure that even Randi's biggest supporters would disagree with the assessment that he is an angry person who believes the ends justify the means.)


His 'million dollar challenge' is a perfect example of his dishonest nature.  Again, by his own admission, he essentially acknowledged that this challenge was nothing more than a publicity stunt that could never be won (though he claimed he was quoted inaccurately). He chose who could make the challenge and he required a 100% success rate, which is, of course, not the standard for something to be statistically significant.  So, right there, a failure to pass his test is not actually proof that whatever was being tested was not actually something genuinely paranormal, it just showed that it wasn't 100% successful.  So, in this case, the gullible here are those who believe  
that Randi's challenge was anything more than a publicity stunt.

https://www.dailygrail.com/2008/02/the-myth-of-the-million-dollar-challenge/

Those in the more credible areas of paranormal things claim that Randi and especially his challenge unfairly discredited all paranormal as 'woo' and made it very difficult for any credible researcher to investigate anything described as paranormal, not matter how strong the evidence was, especially in the United States.  And for that, I have very negative feelings towards him.  I've seen the documentary about him 'An Honest Liar' so I can understand where his anger comes from, but what happened to him doesn't give him the right to behave unethically or to design a fraudulent 'challenge'.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Examples of these are the very poorly named 'near death experiences' of which many cases should really be named as 'brain death experiences,'  reincarnation and mental abilities to cause random events to happen greater than chance.  In this case, the evidence I've heard and read shows that these mental abilities cause events to only be slightly greater than random chance (but still to a statistically significant level) which, as I wrote above, is why Randi's 100% success rate requirement was a way to ensure that nobody could ever win the challenge.

This article describes some of the credible evidence:
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/there-is-a-paranormal-activity-lab-at-the-university-of-virginia/283584/

In regards to the 'brain death experiences' I found that a bit amusing because normally it's scientists who argue against much of the paranormal community when those in the community (falsely) claim that quantum physics might explain some paranormal events by replying "quantum physics has some unusual things, but there is nothing in it that explains mind over matter, for instance.  You can't just throw out the term 'quantum physics' and then make up your own science.

However, when it comes to 'brain death experiences' I've read several 'debunking scientists' say 'there is nothing in this experiences that has to be any more than neurons firing.  We can't explain the coherence of the experiences, but we're confident it's nothing more than that.'  Well, if that isn't scientists making up their own science, I don't know what is.

https://skeptiko.com/223-dumbest-explanation-yet-for-near-death-experience/

If I had to choose between the believers in the paranormal and the scientific community, I would not hesitate to choose science, but  I also think that (seemingly virtually all) scientists are wedded to their own dogma of materialism, and that they themselves sometimes resort to 'woo' explanations to defend their dogma.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edit to add: apparently the scientific community regards the claims that they are effected by 'a materialist dogma'as a conspiracy theory and also dispute that they are dogmatic believers in materialsim (per rational wiki's article on Rupert Sheldrake)

"His latest book is The Science Delusion (2012) in which he concludes modern science has turned into materialism and is being constricted by assumptions that have hardened into dogmas. The book promotes a conspiracy theory that the scientific community are materialist skeptics who have deliberately ignored evidence for psychic phenomena and other woo topics."

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake#Anti-skepticism

I normally like rationalwiki, but when reading the consensus? scientific explanation for 'brain death experiences' which is clearly itself unscientific, it's hard to conclude that scientists themselves don't sometimes resort to pseudo science to defend a certain worldview (materialism.)

Also, this is the rationalwiki article on Michael Shermer: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Shermer

As usual with rationalwiki, the snark is very funny.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Generally a good thing, though this leads to random people who want their opinions to be lent more credence to adopt the mantle of skepticism when it is not warranted.

[dead0man]

The problem is, the skeptics, or 'debunkers' seem to treat all belief in the paranormal and all paranormal evidence in this way, that there is no good evidence out there.  That is easy to maintain if you don't learn any of the details of the evidence, I find with some of these cases that it's much harder to be a 'debunker' when I read the actual evidence.

I've never had that problem.  Certainly there has been things I could not explain, but not being able to explain something is nowhere near proof of anything.

Explain these:

1.This event was very well known up to the 1970s. Sadly seems to be forgotten:

15 people were supposed to show up to church for choir practice and 12 of them were going to come separately.  They made a point of showing up on time every week on time. However, on the time of the week when the choir singers were supposed to be there and an underground gas leak caused the church to explode, not a single choir member was in the church.

This was the West Side Baptist Church in Beatrice Nebraska and it occurred in 1950. There was a television 'movie of the week' made about this in the 1970s, but I can't find it.

http://www.snopes.com/luck/choir.asp

If the odds is 1 in 50 that one would miss the choir practice, then the odds of all 12 missing the choir practice is 1 in 244140625000000000000.

According to the Snopes story, they were late for practice on average one out of every four times so the odds of all 12 missing the choir practice was 1 in 1,000,000 according to Snopes.  However, I don't think they've calculated the odds correctly.  The calculation is .25^12 which I can't do with an internet calculator because it goes to e, however, the odds of nine missing when the odds are 1 in 4 of any missing are already over 1 in 250,000.

From what I'd heard about it from Unsolved Mysteries and read about it from a book called Amazing Coincidences, the odds were greater than one in four as any member who was late for practice was punished (I think they weren't allowed to attend the next week.)

2.Unless this whole story is made up (and I think the recordings exist, so it's not likely.)

"Towards the end of the program, she also discussed telepathy being a part of these paranormal experiences during extreme conditions. Coffey told an amazing story of a culturally diverse mountain crew that encountered a harrowing blizzard. Communicating via radio, they navigated the terrain safely. Upon returning to base camp, they listened to a recording of their conversation and were astonished to hear that they had all been speaking their native languages, yet understood each other perfectly."

https://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2008/07/13

what part of "not being able to explain something is nowhere near proof of anything" was hard for you?

[136or142]

The problem is, the skeptics, or 'debunkers' seem to treat all belief in the paranormal and all paranormal evidence in this way, that there is no good evidence out there.  That is easy to maintain if you don't learn any of the details of the evidence, I find with some of these cases that it's much harder to be a 'debunker' when I read the actual evidence.

I've never had that problem.  Certainly there has been things I could not explain, but not being able to explain something is nowhere near proof of anything.

Explain these:

1.This event was very well known up to the 1970s. Sadly seems to be forgotten:

15 people were supposed to show up to church for choir practice and 12 of them were going to come separately.  They made a point of showing up on time every week on time. However, on the time of the week when the choir singers were supposed to be there and an underground gas leak caused the church to explode, not a single choir member was in the church.

This was the West Side Baptist Church in Beatrice Nebraska and it occurred in 1950. There was a television 'movie of the week' made about this in the 1970s, but I can't find it.

http://www.snopes.com/luck/choir.asp

If the odds is 1 in 50 that one would miss the choir practice, then the odds of all 12 missing the choir practice is 1 in 244140625000000000000.

According to the Snopes story, they were late for practice on average one out of every four times so the odds of all 12 missing the choir practice was 1 in 1,000,000 according to Snopes.  However, I don't think they've calculated the odds correctly.  The calculation is .25^12 which I can't do with an internet calculator because it goes to e, however, the odds of nine missing when the odds are 1 in 4 of any missing are already over 1 in 250,000.

From what I'd heard about it from Unsolved Mysteries and read about it from a book called Amazing Coincidences, the odds were greater than one in four as any member who was late for practice was punished (I think they weren't allowed to attend the next week.)

2.Unless this whole story is made up (and I think the recordings exist, so it's not likely.)

"Towards the end of the program, she also discussed telepathy being a part of these paranormal experiences during extreme conditions. Coffey told an amazing story of a culturally diverse mountain crew that encountered a harrowing blizzard. Communicating via radio, they navigated the terrain safely. Upon returning to base camp, they listened to a recording of their conversation and were astonished to hear that they had all been speaking their native languages, yet understood each other perfectly."

https://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2008/07/13

what part of "not being able to explain something is nowhere near proof of anything" was hard for you?

I didn't like it, because as I explained above, it's a dodge:

"That is easy to maintain if you don't learn any of the details of the evidence, I find with some of these cases that it's much harder to be a 'debunker' when I read the actual evidence."

No, these cases aren't proof of anything, but they are evidence of something unusual. Of course, they don't have to have the explanations that believers in the paranormal put forth, but they are anomalies, and when science dismisses these things as 'woo' it means they don't research anomalous events, which might be a major loss.  

It's easy to believe that paranormal events are 'woo' in the abstract when you don't look at the evidence and just dismiss the whole thing, it can be a lot harder when you read about seemingly impossible things like these three cases. (Including the one from the Atlantic Article.)  If, in the church case, the odds of it happening was really as high as 1 in a million, then it was an extremely fortunate event that was unlikely but not impossible, however, I'm pretty sure that Snopes calculated the odds incorrectly, and I also dispute the odds of any single person not making the practice on time was as high as 1 in 4.

[dead0man]

I didn't like it, because as I explained above, it's a dodge:

"That is easy to maintain if you don't learn any of the details of the evidence, I find with some of these cases that it's much harder to be a 'debunker' when I read the actual evidence."

what's there to learn?  Some place claims a bunch of people missed choir practice one night and the church happened to blow up that night.  What is this supposed to be evidence of?  If it's anything more than "sometimes weird sh**t happens" then it's woo.  Certainly not proof of "God".  Some people communicated weirdly....and?  It's weird, sure, but it's not proof of anything.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

yep, that's exactly what I'm saying

You must be logged in to read this quote.

a good skeptic (or "science") should only dismiss something that is woo, when it's presented as some kind of "proof of something", not "unusual".  "hey look at this weird spot on my wall, that's weird right?" is very different from "hey, look at this weird spot on my wall, must be ghosts".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I like weird sh**t as much as anybody, but it's when it's claimed that "this weird thing is proof of something" that the problems start.  Pictures of strangely shaped wood in Scottish lakes are not proof of prehistoric monsters.  Videos of a dude in a monkey suit walking through the woods is not proof of big foot.  Dust particles floating close to the camera lens and oddly illuminated by the flash are not proof of ghosts.  Even finding ships floating the ocean with no crew and no evidence of shenanigans, weird noises when you know you're alone or people that just up and disappear are not proof of anything.  Some things are unexplainable.  It sucks sometimes, but life would be boring without a little mystery.

background-I grew up in "America's Most Haunted Town", so I've been hearing bull sh**t since before I could talk.  My Dad is/was weird and had lots of books on strange things, paranormal, etc...they went well with the books on Christian "End of Days/Rapture/'Jesus is coming, so look busy!'"... those scared me way more than the ones about ghost ships and alien abductions.  Thankfully he also had a book called The Straight Dope that were collections of a column in The Chicago Reader (and syndicated).  People would write in and ask strange questions, like "how many calories in cum" or "are the 85mpg carburetors real and just being hidden by the oil industry".  The answers would be funny, usually fully investigated, informative and free of BS.  They showed how sometimes even the "authorities" were wrong, and that you really should question everything.  Those books started me on a road to skepticism.  Johnny Carson, Carl Sagan, James Randi and Penn Jillette carried me rest of the way.  I'm still fascinated by stories of the unexplained, like all skeptics I think.  The thing "true believers" like to not appreciate is that we skeptics want aliens to be real just as much (if not more) than you do.  Nothing would be more awesome to science than finding a prehistoric fish in a pond or a bipedal mammal so far not seen.  Hell, I can even enjoy the stories the Bull sh**tters tell, but only when it's good and original....somebody trying to say "yeah, I don't buy into 9-11 conspiracy theories either, but tower 7 got pulled down by the govt to hide something and I know Trump is going to start a war with Iran" for the hundredth time is frustrating.

[mgop]

They are true FF's in a increasingly world that's acceptable of woo and pseudoscience, which has now become mainstream.


 

hillbot can't accept skepticism? nobody should question science?

[James Monroe]

They are true FF's in a increasingly world that's acceptable of woo and pseudoscience, which has now become mainstream.


 

hillbot can't accept skepticism? nobody should question science?

Not sure the sarcasm is applicable here.

[136or142]

I didn't like it, because as I explained above, it's a dodge:

"That is easy to maintain if you don't learn any of the details of the evidence, I find with some of these cases that it's much harder to be a 'debunker' when I read the actual evidence."

what's there to learn? What is this supposed to be evidence of?  If it's anything more than "sometimes weird sh**t happens" then it's woo.  Certainly not proof of "God".  Some people communicated weirdly....and?  It's weird, sure, but it's not proof of anything.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

yep, that's exactly what I'm saying

You must be logged in to read this quote.

a good skeptic (or "science") should only dismiss something that is woo, when it's presented as some kind of "proof of something", not "unusual".  "hey look at this weird spot on my wall, that's weird right?" is very different from "hey, look at this weird spot on my wall, must be ghosts".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I like weird sh**t as much as anybody, but it's when it's claimed that "this weird thing is proof of something" that the problems start.  Pictures of strangely shaped wood in Scottish lakes are not proof of prehistoric monsters.  Videos of a dude in a monkey suit walking through the woods is not proof of big foot.  Dust particles floating close to the camera lens and oddly illuminated by the flash are not proof of ghosts.  Even finding ships floating the ocean with no crew and no evidence of shenanigans, weird noises when you know you're alone or people that just up and disappear are not proof of anything.  Some things are unexplainable.  It sucks sometimes, but life would be boring without a little mystery.

background-I grew up in "America's Most Haunted Town", so I've been hearing bull sh**t since before I could talk.  My Dad is/was weird and had lots of books on strange things, paranormal, etc...they went well with the books on Christian "End of Days/Rapture/'Jesus is coming, so look busy!'"... those scared me way more than the ones about ghost ships and alien abductions.  Thankfully he also had a book called The Straight Dope that were collections of a column in The Chicago Reader (and syndicated).  People would write in and ask strange questions, like "how many calories in cum" or "are the 85mpg carburetors real and just being hidden by the oil industry".  The answers would be funny, usually fully investigated, informative and free of BS.  They showed how sometimes even the "authorities" were wrong, and that you really should question everything.  Those books started me on a road to skepticism.  Johnny Carson, Carl Sagan, James Randi and Penn Jillette carried me rest of the way.  I'm still fascinated by stories of the unexplained, like all skeptics I think.  The thing "true believers" like to not appreciate is that we skeptics want aliens to be real just as much (if not more) than you do.  Nothing would be more awesome to science than finding a prehistoric fish in a pond or a bipedal mammal so far not seen.  Hell, I can even enjoy the stories the Bull sh**tters tell, but only when it's good and original....somebody trying to say "yeah, I don't buy into 9-11 conspiracy theories either, but tower 7 got pulled down by the govt to hide something and I know Trump is going to start a war with Iran" for the hundredth time is frustrating.

The problem is, and this is basically what I've been saying about 'debunkers' is that you are nowhere near as skeptical of the supposed explanations as you are of the original claims.  A true skeptic should be skeptical about both the claims and the purported explanations.

For instance:
1."Some place claims a bunch of people missed choir practice one night and the church happened to blow up that night."  

This was not a 'claim' this was a well documented occurrence. The odds of this incident occurring are at least 1 in a million (according to Snopes) and probably much higher.  Again, does it prove anything? No. In this case, I'd agree I'm not sure what can be investigated.

2." Videos of a dude in a monkey suit walking through the woods is not proof of big foot."

This suggests to me you are a 'debunker' and not really a skeptic.  You are obviously referring to the Patterson/Gimlin video, but it is highly unlikely it was a person wearing a 'monkey suit'.

A.A suit like that could not be bought off the shelf when that video came out.  And, I was told by a film buff friend of mine, that the movie Planet of the Apes was supposed to have a whole bunch of additional things in it, but that the budget was shot in making all the ape costumes.  Planet of the Apes came out several years after the Patterson/Gimlin video, so the technology to make a suit like that would likely have even been more primitive. The estimates I've read I believe were that to make a suit like that would have cost at least $10,000 in 1968 dollars. It's hard to believe Patterson and Gimlin would have gone to that much trouble (and where would they have gotten the money from?  Maybe the guy in the suit was wealthy, there is that possibility.)

B.The biggest evidence put forward by the 'debunkers' is that many years later, a person came forward and said they were the person wearing the suit and the 'debunkers' said 'well there you go, it was a hoax.'  This was my first encounter with so-called skeptics (who I now refer to as 'debunkers') not holding purported explanations to the same standard that they hold the initial claims to.  I mean, if a random person comes forward claiming to be the someone completely covered up in a suit, he couldn't be lying, right?  

I have the book 'The Straight Dope.'  I've read parts of it from time to time.

[Sestak]

Several isolated unlikely events do not debunk anything. If there's a clear, connected chain of such events, then we can talk.

[dead0man]

The problem is, and this is basically what I've been saying about 'debunkers' is that you are nowhere near as skeptical of the supposed explanations as you are of the original claims.  A true skeptic should be skeptical about both the claims and the purported explanations.

For instance:
1."Some place claims a bunch of people missed choir practice one night and the church happened to blow up that night." 

This was not a 'claim' this was a well documented occurrence. The odds of this incident occurring are at least 1 in a million (according to Snopes) and probably much higher.  Again, does it prove anything? No. In this case, I'd agree I'm not sure what can be investigated.

2." Videos of a dude in a monkey suit walking through the woods is not proof of big foot."

This suggests to me you are a 'debunker' and not really a skeptic.  You are obviously referring to the Patterson/Gimlin video, but it is highly unlikely it was a person wearing a 'monkey suit'.

A.A suit like that could not be bought off the shelf when that video came out.  And, I was told by a film buff friend of mine, that the movie Planet of the Apes was supposed to have a whole bunch of additional things in it, but that the budget was shot in making all the ape costumes.  Planet of the Apes came out several years after the Patterson/Gimlin video, so the technology to make a suit like that would likely have even been more primitive. The estimates I've read I believe were that to make a suit like that would have cost at least $10,000 in 1968 dollars. It's hard to believe Patterson and Gimlin would have gone to that much trouble (and where would they have gotten the money from?  Maybe the guy in the suit was wealthy, there is that possibility.)

B.The biggest evidence put forward by the 'debunkers' is that many years later, a person came forward and said they were the person wearing the suit and the 'debunkers' said 'well there you go, it was a hoax.'  This was my first encounter with so-called skeptics (who I now refer to as 'debunkers') not holding purported explanations to the same standard that they hold the initial claims to.  I mean, if an anonymous person comes forward claiming to be the someone completely covered up in a suit, he couldn't be lying, right? 

I have the book 'The Straight Dope.'  I've read parts of it from time to time.

wait wait wait....you actually believe that big foot video?  Do you know how I know it's a guy in a monkey suit?  Because it looks like a guy walking in a monkey suit.  The fact that the guy that did it admitted it and that they bought a monkey a suit before the video was released and that they had a history of being con men just further proves it.

but lets say it didn't look like a human male walking in a cheap monkey suit and all the other evidence proving it was a couple of bad guys trying to make money off of morons was gone, it still wouldn't prove a large bipedal primate was undiscovered in western North America.  It's not odd to you that a guy who wrote books on big foot and who was making a "documentary" about big foot has created the "best" proof of big foot?  Do you have any idea how many hunting cameras are out there?  None have ever captured a big foot.  No body ever recovered, no skat, no hair on a tree, none hit by a car.

There are no large (bigger than a beagle) undiscovered land mammals, anywhere.  I wish there were, but there are not.