Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Debunking Debunkers] Skeptic "across the board annilation" of "supernatural" "beliefs"...sigh

Expand Messages
  • Ruby Honey
    ... on the way to beginning another.
    Message 1 of 11 , Sep 29, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      >>By the way, I have a Masters degree, and I'm
      on the way to beginning
      another.<<

      In a hard science?


      You did not make any specifictions as to "hard science" when you made your little observation. So what is your
      implication? That critics of CSICOP have to have at least a Masters and only in the hard sciences? Hmmm, that's a bit
      of a paradox, since the founding fathers of that organization are not scientists.


      > I'll assume you agree with the other little gems.

      You're making a false assumption. Why would you assume that? Based on the fact I've only replied to one point you've
      made? Therefore, all other points are considered "non gems" by me? Seems like a faulty equation to me.


      ~ ruby



      --- In debunkingdebunkers@y..., "> Rush <" <milhouse-vanhouten@a...> wrote:
      > I'll assume you agree with the other little gems.
      >
      > >>By the way, I have a Masters degree, and I'm on the way to beginning
      > another.<<
      >
      > In a hard science?
      >
      > >>So again, why do you bother?<<
      >
      > To keep an open mind. To examine all points of view. To see what is out
      > there. To see what theories are developed. Who knows, one day one of them
      > may be right.
      >
      > Cordially,
      > Rush
      >
      > "Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We
      > WANT them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch
      > of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it...
      > There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is
      > the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough
      > criminals one MAKES them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it
      > becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a
      > nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just
      > pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or
      > objectively interpreted--and you create a nation of law-breakers--and then
      > you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system Mr. Reardon, that's the game,
      > and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." -Ayn Rand,
      > Atlas Shrugged
    • > Rush <
      ... little observation. So what is your implication? That critics of CSICOP have to have at least a Masters and only in the hard sciences? Hmmm, that s a bit
      Message 2 of 11 , Sep 29, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        >>You did not make any specifictions as to "hard science" when you made your
        little observation. So what is your implication? That critics of CSICOP have
        to have at least a Masters and only in the hard sciences? Hmmm, that's a bit
        of a paradox, since the founding fathers of that organization are not
        scientists.<<

        Read into it whatever you wish, but I didn't say any of those things above.
        I have criticisms of CSICOP, and I do not have a masters degree. One of my
        best friends has two masters degrees, one in education, the other in
        theology, and she is shocked that no one will pay her six figures. She is
        utterly unable to handle MS Word, let alone attack CSICOP.

        I simply asked a question. It is a "hard science?" It's a pretty general
        academic term, hard sciences being chemistry, physics, computer science and
        the like. Soft sciences being political science, economics, sociology,
        something followed by "studies," et cetera.

        >>You're making a false assumption. Why would you assume that? Based on the
        fact I've only replied to one point you've made? Therefore, all other points
        are considered "non gems" by me? Seems like a faulty equation to me.<<

        I thought we were having a discussion. Generally in email discussions you
        snip the parts one agrees with, instead of reposting them and saying, "I
        agree." If you don't agree, I invite your replies.

        Cordially,
        Rush

        "Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We
        WANT them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch
        of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it...
        There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is
        the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough
        criminals one MAKES them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it
        becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a
        nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just
        pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or
        objectively interpreted--and you create a nation of law-breakers--and then
        you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system Mr. Reardon, that's the game,
        and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." -Ayn Rand,
        Atlas Shrugged
      • Ruby Honey
        I m not reading anything into your posts, hence the use of the word implication and my asking about it. Furthermore, your snide comments on your friend
        Message 3 of 11 , Sep 29, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          I'm not "reading" anything into your posts, hence the use of the word "implication" and my asking about it. Furthermore, your snide
          comments on your friend with 2 degrees who is "utterly unable to attack CSICOP" is dumb. She's unable to attack CSICOP why?
          Because she's an idiot? She doesn't care? She's unfamilar with the organization? She has non science degrees? What is your point?

          And thanks for the little lesson in defining hard science for me, as if I didn't know.

          As to your little note to me about how to respond to posts, I'm not sure what that is about. I'll respond any way I choose to any posts I
          choose.

          ~ ruby

          --- In debunkingdebunkers@y..., "> Rush <" <milhouse-vanhouten@a...> wrote:
          > >>You did not make any specifictions as to "hard science" when you made your
          > little observation. So what is your implication? That critics of CSICOP have
          > to have at least a Masters and only in the hard sciences? Hmmm, that's a bit
          > of a paradox, since the founding fathers of that organization are not
          > scientists.<<
          >
          > Read into it whatever you wish, but I didn't say any of those things above.
          > I have criticisms of CSICOP, and I do not have a masters degree. One of my
          > best friends has two masters degrees, one in education, the other in
          > theology, and she is shocked that no one will pay her six figures. She is
          > utterly unable to handle MS Word, let alone attack CSICOP.
          >
          > I simply asked a question. It is a "hard science?" It's a pretty general
          > academic term, hard sciences being chemistry, physics, computer science and
          > the like. Soft sciences being political science, economics, sociology,
          > something followed by "studies," et cetera.
          >
          > >>You're making a false assumption. Why would you assume that? Based on the
          > fact I've only replied to one point you've made? Therefore, all other points
          > are considered "non gems" by me? Seems like a faulty equation to me.<<
          >
          > I thought we were having a discussion. Generally in email discussions you
          > snip the parts one agrees with, instead of reposting them and saying, "I
          > agree." If you don't agree, I invite your replies.
          >
          > Cordially,
          > Rush
          >
          > "Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We
          > WANT them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch
          > of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it...
          > There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is
          > the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough
          > criminals one MAKES them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it
          > becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a
          > nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just
          > pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or
          > objectively interpreted--and you create a nation of law-breakers--and then
          > you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system Mr. Reardon, that's the game,
          > and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." -Ayn Rand,
          > Atlas Shrugged
        • > Rush <
          ... implication and my asking about it.
          Message 4 of 11 , Sep 30, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            >>I'm not "reading" anything into your posts, hence the use of the word
            "implication" and my asking about it.<<

            Good.

            >>Furthermore, your snide comments on your friend with 2 degrees who is
            "utterly unable to attack CSICOP" is dumb. She's unable to attack CSICOP
            why? Because she's an idiot? She doesn't care? She's unfamilar with the
            organization? She has non science degrees? What is your point?<<

            My point was that you mentioned that I was implying that one had to have a
            masters degree to challence CSICOP. This is untrue. But simply because one
            has one doesn't mean one it capable of critical thinking. She is unable to
            program her VCR. THAT is a dilemma.

            >>And thanks for the little lesson in defining hard science for me, as if I
            didn't know.<<

            Well, you said >>"You did not make any specifictions as to "hard science"
            when you made your little observation. So what is your implication? That
            critics of CSICOP have to have at least a Masters and only in the hard
            sciences? Hmmm, that's a bit of a paradox, since the founding fathers of
            that organization are not scientists."<<

            I "did not make any specifications as to hard science" as I thought it was
            clear. When you said the above, I clarified what I meant by it.

            >>As to your little note to me about how to respond to posts, I'm not sure
            what that is about. I'll respond any way I choose to any posts I choose. <<

            You are entitled, but this weakens your position at best. If one cannot
            refute a position, they ignore it. While I am not saying this is what you
            are doing, your position on any one point is certainly not stregnthened by
            not replying.

            Cordially,
            Rush

            "Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We
            WANT them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch
            of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it...
            There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is
            the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough
            criminals one MAKES them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it
            becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a
            nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just
            pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or
            objectively interpreted--and you create a nation of law-breakers--and then
            you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system Mr. Reardon, that's the game,
            and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." -Ayn Rand,
            Atlas Shrugged
          • Clyde Wary
            Speaking of hard science ... Physics is probably the most rigorous, followed by chemistry, followed by biology, psychology, anthropology, etc, etc...getting
            Message 5 of 11 , Sep 30, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Speaking of "hard science"... Physics is probably the most rigorous,
              followed by chemistry, followed by biology, psychology, anthropology,
              etc, etc...getting "softer" in this progression. And mathematics,
              which is not a science, is the "hardest" of all, for it deals with
              pure logic. But the question to be asked is, "What virtue is there in
              'hardness'?" It is only a relative yardstick for determining the
              liklihood that the theories asserted are true. This does not mean
              that the theories and ideas of "soft" science, or of non-scientific
              fields, are false! Until around the 18th century, science as we know
              it did not exist. Is one to distrust the sum total of human knowledge
              accumulated prior to that time, simply because it was acquired without
              benefit of the "scientific method" or double-blind experiments?
              Scientific methods are the best, but they're not the only ones around,
              and knowledge garnered by other means might not be quite as reliable
              as that uncovered by a physicist, but it should not be dismissed. Oh,
              and what about physicists? Do we really want to trust people who tell
              us that light possesses two mutually exclusive properties (wave and
              particle), and that somehow it "knows" what sort of experiment we're
              going to conduct, before the fact, and behaves accordingly?:):):)
            • Ruby Honey
              I like that! --- Oh, and what about physicists? Do we really want to trust people who tell us that light possesses two mutually exclusive properties (wave and
              Message 6 of 11 , Oct 1, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                I like that! --- "Oh, and what about physicists? Do we really want to trust people who tell us that light possesses two mutually exclusive
                properties (wave and particle), and that somehow it "knows" what sort of experiment we're going to conduct, before the fact, and
                behaves accordingly?:):):)"

                In thinking about this today, about the need for critical thinking and the "dumbing down of America" in general (I
                mean, have you ever seen Leno's "Jaywalk") I of course found myself agreeing with the need to "think critically."
                Who wouldn't? I was thinking of a student I had last year; very surly, terrible speech habits, and so on. He just
                wouldn't, couldn't, get that the way one presents himself and speaks (and comprehends) has a lot to do with getting
                hired, maintaining a position, and so much more. And it's not a matter of being highly intelligent, but of being
                perceptive. If I'm hiring someone, I want someone who of course can speak well and has a sort of general working
                knowledge of "stuff" but I also want them to be aware, responsive, perceptive. Thinking critically. The problem, what
                is thinking critically? Is the answer going on a vendetta like Paul Kurtz and ridding the world of "irrational beliefs?" I
                hardly think so.

                You can have two people applying for a job; both who believe in baby Jesus. I myself don't believe in Jesus or a God
                in that sense at all, not for a second. And frankly, I have a hard time understanding how people can. BUT-- one
                person who applies for the job may be unsuited; not because they believe in Christ, but because they're simply
                unintelligent, etc. The other applicant may be very intelligent, and, yes, they're a Christian. So at this point I have to
                respect that. Respect means accept and behave yourself in a well mannered way. It doesn't mean I share those
                beliefs, or even understand them.

                It's possible the one person who is not suitable for the job isn't suitable, in part, because they've swallowed the
                whole fundie bible thing whole without thinking much about it. In that case, no critical thinking. But what of the other
                person who has given it quite a bit of thought, and read plenty of other works on other religions -- including no
                religion -- and has decided, for whatever reasons, that Christianity is the answer for them? Do I hire an atheist who
                might be a dullard and a dolt, incapable of perceiving anything other than his big toe, or the Christian? Is the atheist
                demonstrating "critical thinking?" And that's the better choice? I think not.

                I don't give a damn if someone "believes" in ghosts or ETs or what. Those beliefs do not, in themselves, mean a
                damn thing about critical thinking.

                And it's a very dangerous road Kurtz and others are tumbling down in their frenzied attempts to instill "rational
                beliefs" in people. FAr more dangerous than a "belief" in ghosts.


                ~ ruby


                --- In debunkingdebunkers@y..., "Clyde Wary" <pack_rat2@y...> wrote:
                > Speaking of "hard science"... Physics is probably the most rigorous,
                > followed by chemistry, followed by biology, psychology, anthropology,
                > etc, etc...getting "softer" in this progression. And mathematics,
                > which is not a science, is the "hardest" of all, for it deals with
                > pure logic. But the question to be asked is, "What virtue is there in
                > 'hardness'?" It is only a relative yardstick for determining the
                > liklihood that the theories asserted are true. This does not mean
                > that the theories and ideas of "soft" science, or of non-scientific
                > fields, are false! Until around the 18th century, science as we know
                > it did not exist. Is one to distrust the sum total of human knowledge
                > accumulated prior to that time, simply because it was acquired without
                > benefit of the "scientific method" or double-blind experiments?
                > Scientific methods are the best, but they're not the only ones around,
                > and knowledge garnered by other means might not be quite as reliable
                > as that uncovered by a physicist, but it should not be dismissed. Oh,
                > and what about physicists? Do we really want to trust people who tell
                > us that light possesses two mutually exclusive properties (wave and
                > particle), and that somehow it "knows" what sort of experiment we're
                > going to conduct, before the fact, and behaves accordingly?:):):)
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.