Heyo!

Introduce yourselves here, get to know everyone else. Kick back and relax.
User avatar
Luomo
Poster
Posts: 213
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 2:14 pm
Custom Title: junior scientist.

Heyo!

Postby Luomo » Tue Aug 13, 2013 2:23 pm

New here,
looks like some sanity could be found in these fora.
Hope I'm right, and if so, I look forward to many rewarding discussions!
Luomo
Just a guy trying to use reason to find my way through the jungle of ideas.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 21050
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: Heyo!

Postby scrmbldggs » Wed Aug 14, 2013 12:51 am

Hi, Luomo. :wave:
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Daedalus
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 8:38 pm
Custom Title: Ave Atque Vale

Re: Heyo!

Postby Daedalus » Wed Aug 14, 2013 1:07 am

Hi Luomo, welcome to the forum. Hopefully you'll find it rewarding, or at least entertaining.
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30100
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Heyo!

Postby Gord » Wed Aug 14, 2013 1:45 am

Heyo! :wave:

I'm the crazy one. Or the sane one. It really depends on the qurom.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 21050
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: Heyo!

Postby scrmbldggs » Wed Aug 14, 2013 1:49 am

You're the one. The one and only one.
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12221
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Heyo!

Postby kennyc » Wed Aug 14, 2013 2:20 am

Welcome. Watch out for the wingnuts! :lol:
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2097
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: Heyo!

Postby OutOfBreath » Wed Aug 14, 2013 8:46 am

And the fact that most posters here contain at least some "traces of nuts" :)

:wel:

Peace
Dan

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 4
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

User avatar
Luomo
Poster
Posts: 213
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 2:14 pm
Custom Title: junior scientist.

Re: Heyo!

Postby Luomo » Thu Aug 22, 2013 6:29 pm

Nice forum you have here, but I have to say I'm a little disappointed by some of the shitty behavior that seems to get a pass here.

I see a lot of name-calling, especially against people who have a different take on some topics. I would have expected a bit more respect for other viewpoints. The word "troll" is tossed about rather liberally as a way of trying to discredit someone without actually engaging the topic.

It's a lazy tactic and a bit shameful to simply call another viewpoint "wrong" and then demand evidence for their "claims," placing all the burden of "proof" on them without having to do any work yourself. And then when they refuse to do all the work, dismissing them as a troll, is just about as shitty as it gets.

Inanity is common, as is normal in a social forum, but some of the threads are based on a serious topic, and it doesn't look good to see some posters "squat and run" after taking a cheap shot at some fragment of the discussion.

I'm all for having fun, but there has to be a better way than crapping on each other all the time.

Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of good people here, with great opinions, but I'm disappointed that the place is kept so untidy at times.
Just a guy trying to use reason to find my way through the jungle of ideas.

User avatar
Kaepora Gaebora
Regular Poster
Posts: 626
Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:41 pm

Re: Heyo!

Postby Kaepora Gaebora » Thu Aug 22, 2013 7:13 pm

Luomo wrote:
It's a lazy tactic and a bit shameful to simply call another viewpoint "wrong" and then demand evidence for their "claims," placing all the burden of "proof" on them without having to do any work yourself. And then when they refuse to do all the work, dismissing them as a troll, is just about as shitty as it gets.


This Is a skeptic forum. The skeptical viewpoint is about evidence for claims. If you present a claim and someone asks for evidence, you can back it up or take back or amend your claim (with evidence). Some just say "I just know," but that isn't good evidence. That's the burden of proof: you make an extraordinary claim, be prepared to present extraordinary evidence.

People are sometimes dismissed as trolls because they post without an intro anywhere with one post about UFOs or supernatural phenomena. They then don't back up those claims. It's a skeptic forum, you aren't going to get by with simple anecdotes.

User avatar
Daedalus
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 8:38 pm
Custom Title: Ave Atque Vale

Re: Heyo!

Postby Daedalus » Thu Aug 22, 2013 7:17 pm

Kaepora Gaebora wrote:
Luomo wrote:
It's a lazy tactic and a bit shameful to simply call another viewpoint "wrong" and then demand evidence for their "claims," placing all the burden of "proof" on them without having to do any work yourself. And then when they refuse to do all the work, dismissing them as a troll, is just about as shitty as it gets.


This Is a skeptic forum. The skeptical viewpoint is about evidence for claims. If you present a claim and someone asks for evidence, you can back it up or take back or amend your claim (with evidence). Some just say "I just know," but that isn't good evidence. That's the burden of proof: you make an extraordinary claim, be prepared to present extraordinary evidence.

People are sometimes dismissed as trolls because they post without an intro anywhere with one post about UFOs or supernatural phenomena. They then don't back up those claims. It's a skeptic forum, you aren't going to get by with simple anecdotes.


It's also worth noting that in addition to these fine points by KG, that some users are long-time ideologues, trolls, or "agenda" types.

Then again, some people just don't get along, period.

It's unfortunately that sometimes a new user will seem to fall into some category such as a "drive-by" a la what KG described... and gets a harsh reception.

It's a forum full of people, who have good days, bad days, moods, prejudices, and good things to offer.
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)

User avatar
Luomo
Poster
Posts: 213
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 2:14 pm
Custom Title: junior scientist.

Re: Heyo!

Postby Luomo » Thu Aug 22, 2013 8:05 pm

Kaepora Gaebora wrote:
Luomo wrote:
It's a lazy tactic and a bit shameful to simply call another viewpoint "wrong" and then demand evidence for their "claims," placing all the burden of "proof" on them without having to do any work yourself. And then when they refuse to do all the work, dismissing them as a troll, is just about as shitty as it gets.


This Is a skeptic forum. The skeptical viewpoint is about evidence for claims. If you present a claim and someone asks for evidence, you can back it up or take back or amend your claim (with evidence). Some just say "I just know," but that isn't good evidence. That's the burden of proof: you make an extraordinary claim, be prepared to present extraordinary evidence.

People are sometimes dismissed as trolls because they post without an intro anywhere with one post about UFOs or supernatural phenomena. They then don't back up those claims. It's a skeptic forum, you aren't going to get by with simple anecdotes.


An informed opinion should carry as much weight as a denial. If someone wishes to promote it to the status of a claim, then supporting evidence is required. If I say I believe that the theory of evolution is sound, a creationist doesn't have the right to declare it an unsupported claim, based on the fact that I don't have all the evidence readily at hand. Similarly, an informed opinion may have a great deal of supporting evidence, but it may not be all nice and handy to pass around the room. Just a little respect for people's opinions please.
Just a guy trying to use reason to find my way through the jungle of ideas.

User avatar
Daedalus
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 8:38 pm
Custom Title: Ave Atque Vale

Re: Heyo!

Postby Daedalus » Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:58 pm

Luomo wrote:
Kaepora Gaebora wrote:
Luomo wrote:
It's a lazy tactic and a bit shameful to simply call another viewpoint "wrong" and then demand evidence for their "claims," placing all the burden of "proof" on them without having to do any work yourself. And then when they refuse to do all the work, dismissing them as a troll, is just about as shitty as it gets.


This Is a skeptic forum. The skeptical viewpoint is about evidence for claims. If you present a claim and someone asks for evidence, you can back it up or take back or amend your claim (with evidence). Some just say "I just know," but that isn't good evidence. That's the burden of proof: you make an extraordinary claim, be prepared to present extraordinary evidence.

People are sometimes dismissed as trolls because they post without an intro anywhere with one post about UFOs or supernatural phenomena. They then don't back up those claims. It's a skeptic forum, you aren't going to get by with simple anecdotes.


An informed opinion should carry as much weight as a denial. If someone wishes to promote it to the status of a claim, then supporting evidence is required. If I say I believe that the theory of evolution is sound, a creationist doesn't have the right to declare it an unsupported claim, based on the fact that I don't have all the evidence readily at hand. Similarly, an informed opinion may have a great deal of supporting evidence, but it may not be all nice and handy to pass around the room. Just a little respect for people's opinions please.


An informed opinion carries the wait of an opinion... which is basically zero in skepticism.

You're entitled to your opinions... nobody has to respect them though. Creationists have the "opinion" that because evolution is a "theory", it should share time with their own "theory" of history. They have a right to their opinion, but don't ask for me or anyone to respect it.
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12221
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Heyo!

Postby kennyc » Thu Aug 22, 2013 10:05 pm

And the 'problem' is that 99% of the krap that gets posted as seriously informed krap is just that, krap and anyone that has been around rational skeptical forums long enough to read knows that and treats it as such.

No certainly that could be a new perspective, new evidence, new support, that's what we always hope for, but as I said, 99% of the time, it's just the same ol' krap posted, repeated, or cut and pasted for the millionth time.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. And yes there are some real wackos out there.

:D
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12221
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Heyo!

Postby kennyc » Thu Aug 22, 2013 10:07 pm

Oh and an opinion and a denial are absolutely NOT of equal weight. It's called burden of proof. If you make the claim then you are expected to support it with rational scientific evidence.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
Luomo
Poster
Posts: 213
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 2:14 pm
Custom Title: junior scientist.

Re: Heyo!

Postby Luomo » Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:21 pm

Some of the lame dismissals are equally crappy.
Just a guy trying to use reason to find my way through the jungle of ideas.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8769
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Heyo!

Postby Poodle » Fri Aug 23, 2013 12:39 am

You haven't been here long, Luomo, and I don't say that to mean that you should 'tag along' with forum practice. But when you've been here a while and your knowledge of genetics has been challenged on ridiculous grounds (for the fifteenth time) by every woo merchant who feels like a giggle, you may not display the patience that you are requesting.

Very few wooistas are looking for meaningful discussion. The usual tactic is to make a claim and then say "Prove I'm wrong". Well - in a nutshell - no. This is a skeptic forum and should, in my opinion, follow skeptic 'rules'.

Rule No. 1 - if you have a claim, provide some evidence.
Rule No. 2 - do not expect counter-evidence to be provided until you've followed Rule 1.

User avatar
Luomo
Poster
Posts: 213
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 2:14 pm
Custom Title: junior scientist.

Re: Heyo!

Postby Luomo » Fri Aug 23, 2013 12:47 am

Poodle wrote:You haven't been here long, Luomo, and I don't say that to mean that you should 'tag along' with forum practice. But when you've been here a while and your knowledge of genetics has been challenged on ridiculous grounds (for the fifteenth time) by every woo merchant who feels like a giggle, you may not display the patience that you are requesting.

Very few wooistas are looking for meaningful discussion. The usual tactic is to make a claim and then say "Prove I'm wrong". Well - in a nutshell - no. This is a skeptic forum and should, in my opinion, follow skeptic 'rules'.

Rule No. 1 - if you have a claim, provide some evidence.
Rule No. 2 - do not expect counter-evidence to be provided until you've followed Rule 1.

I don't agree with a double standard, even under the banner of skepticism. A debunker's explanation should stand up to scrutiny as well as that of the claim being challenged. If the "rules" are one-sided, they are lousy rules.
Just a guy trying to use reason to find my way through the jungle of ideas.

User avatar
Daedalus
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 8:38 pm
Custom Title: Ave Atque Vale

Re: Heyo!

Postby Daedalus » Fri Aug 23, 2013 12:47 am

Luomo wrote:
Poodle wrote:You haven't been here long, Luomo, and I don't say that to mean that you should 'tag along' with forum practice. But when you've been here a while and your knowledge of genetics has been challenged on ridiculous grounds (for the fifteenth time) by every woo merchant who feels like a giggle, you may not display the patience that you are requesting.

Very few wooistas are looking for meaningful discussion. The usual tactic is to make a claim and then say "Prove I'm wrong". Well - in a nutshell - no. This is a skeptic forum and should, in my opinion, follow skeptic 'rules'.

Rule No. 1 - if you have a claim, provide some evidence.
Rule No. 2 - do not expect counter-evidence to be provided until you've followed Rule 1.

I don't agree with a double standard, even under the banner of skepticism. A debunker's explanation should stand up to scrutiny as well as that of the claim being challenged. If the "rules" are one-sided, they are lousy rules.


You're ignoring the reality that the "debunker" is not making a claim.
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)

User avatar
Luomo
Poster
Posts: 213
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 2:14 pm
Custom Title: junior scientist.

Re: Heyo!

Postby Luomo » Fri Aug 23, 2013 12:48 am

Daedalus wrote:
Luomo wrote:
Poodle wrote:You haven't been here long, Luomo, and I don't say that to mean that you should 'tag along' with forum practice. But when you've been here a while and your knowledge of genetics has been challenged on ridiculous grounds (for the fifteenth time) by every woo merchant who feels like a giggle, you may not display the patience that you are requesting.

Very few wooistas are looking for meaningful discussion. The usual tactic is to make a claim and then say "Prove I'm wrong". Well - in a nutshell - no. This is a skeptic forum and should, in my opinion, follow skeptic 'rules'.

Rule No. 1 - if you have a claim, provide some evidence.
Rule No. 2 - do not expect counter-evidence to be provided until you've followed Rule 1.

I don't agree with a double standard, even under the banner of skepticism. A debunker's explanation should stand up to scrutiny as well as that of the claim being challenged. If the "rules" are one-sided, they are lousy rules.


You're ignoring the reality that the "debunker" is not making a claim.

I think reality has equal bearing on either side of the belief. No one should be given a handicap.
Just a guy trying to use reason to find my way through the jungle of ideas.

User avatar
Kaepora Gaebora
Regular Poster
Posts: 626
Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:41 pm

Re: Heyo!

Postby Kaepora Gaebora » Fri Aug 23, 2013 12:59 am

Luomo wrote:
Daedalus wrote:
Luomo wrote:
Poodle wrote:You haven't been here long, Luomo, and I don't say that to mean that you should 'tag along' with forum practice. But when you've been here a while and your knowledge of genetics has been challenged on ridiculous grounds (for the fifteenth time) by every woo merchant who feels like a giggle, you may not display the patience that you are requesting.

Very few wooistas are looking for meaningful discussion. The usual tactic is to make a claim and then say "Prove I'm wrong". Well - in a nutshell - no. This is a skeptic forum and should, in my opinion, follow skeptic 'rules'.

Rule No. 1 - if you have a claim, provide some evidence.
Rule No. 2 - do not expect counter-evidence to be provided until you've followed Rule 1.

I don't agree with a double standard, even under the banner of skepticism. A debunker's explanation should stand up to scrutiny as well as that of the claim being challenged. If the "rules" are one-sided, they are lousy rules.


You're ignoring the reality that the "debunker" is not making a claim.

I think reality has equal bearing on either side of the belief. No one should be given a handicap.


No crap. We make claims, they are challenged, we provide evidence to the best of our ability or just say "I don't know," or "I can't find the information backing my claim."

People can make claims all they like. When they are requested for evidence and they don't back it, they fail the burden of proof. People who aren't making the claim have no obligation to prove the other's claim.

User avatar
Kaepora Gaebora
Regular Poster
Posts: 626
Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2013 10:41 pm

Re: Heyo!

Postby Kaepora Gaebora » Fri Aug 23, 2013 1:10 am

For example, let's say I know that there is a magical talking lion in an alternate world that lies behind a closet somewhere in a British manor. Someone asks me to prove it.

Now let's say I don't rescind my claim or say I don't know. I instead say, "I just know it! You can't disprove it! You look it up!" Here, I would be trying to shift the burden of proof to the other, trying to get the other person to prove it and showing lack of knowledge in falsifiable claims.

OR I could show them what evidence I have. Someone notes it's an anecdote, or that this picture is a fake, etc. Then it isn't good evidence at all. However, if there is an expedition into this closet which I have pointed out at a location and the almighty Aslan shows his face to modern photography and inquiry, then that is excellent hard evidence that my claim(s) is not a fabrication or dreamed up in my own head.

User avatar
Daedalus
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 8:38 pm
Custom Title: Ave Atque Vale

Re: Heyo!

Postby Daedalus » Fri Aug 23, 2013 1:13 am

Luomo wrote:
Daedalus wrote:
Luomo wrote:
Poodle wrote:You haven't been here long, Luomo, and I don't say that to mean that you should 'tag along' with forum practice. But when you've been here a while and your knowledge of genetics has been challenged on ridiculous grounds (for the fifteenth time) by every woo merchant who feels like a giggle, you may not display the patience that you are requesting.

Very few wooistas are looking for meaningful discussion. The usual tactic is to make a claim and then say "Prove I'm wrong". Well - in a nutshell - no. This is a skeptic forum and should, in my opinion, follow skeptic 'rules'.

Rule No. 1 - if you have a claim, provide some evidence.
Rule No. 2 - do not expect counter-evidence to be provided until you've followed Rule 1.

I don't agree with a double standard, even under the banner of skepticism. A debunker's explanation should stand up to scrutiny as well as that of the claim being challenged. If the "rules" are one-sided, they are lousy rules.


You're ignoring the reality that the "debunker" is not making a claim.

I think reality has equal bearing on either side of the belief. No one should be given a handicap.


You're still ignoring what a claim is, what the burden of proof means, and why it exists.

If you tell me, "Bigfoot is real," and I say, "Show me"... I'm not making a claim I need to support, but challenging you to support yours. There is no dueling reality, just your claim, and everyone else demanding that you have more than your "good word" to back it up.
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12221
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Heyo!

Postby kennyc » Fri Aug 23, 2013 1:42 am

Luomo wrote:
Poodle wrote:You haven't been here long, Luomo, and I don't say that to mean that you should 'tag along' with forum practice. But when you've been here a while and your knowledge of genetics has been challenged on ridiculous grounds (for the fifteenth time) by every woo merchant who feels like a giggle, you may not display the patience that you are requesting.

Very few wooistas are looking for meaningful discussion. The usual tactic is to make a claim and then say "Prove I'm wrong". Well - in a nutshell - no. This is a skeptic forum and should, in my opinion, follow skeptic 'rules'.

Rule No. 1 - if you have a claim, provide some evidence.
Rule No. 2 - do not expect counter-evidence to be provided until you've followed Rule 1.

I don't agree with a double standard, even under the banner of skepticism. A debunker's explanation should stand up to scrutiny as well as that of the claim being challenged. If the "rules" are one-sided, they are lousy rules.



You don't have to agree.....you're not in charge.
Nor do you get to make the rules or tell others what to do.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12221
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Heyo!

Postby kennyc » Fri Aug 23, 2013 1:45 am

Daedalus wrote:
Luomo wrote:
Daedalus wrote:
Luomo wrote:
Poodle wrote:You haven't been here long, Luomo, and I don't say that to mean that you should 'tag along' with forum practice. But when you've been here a while and your knowledge of genetics has been challenged on ridiculous grounds (for the fifteenth time) by every woo merchant who feels like a giggle, you may not display the patience that you are requesting.

Very few wooistas are looking for meaningful discussion. The usual tactic is to make a claim and then say "Prove I'm wrong". Well - in a nutshell - no. This is a skeptic forum and should, in my opinion, follow skeptic 'rules'.

Rule No. 1 - if you have a claim, provide some evidence.
Rule No. 2 - do not expect counter-evidence to be provided until you've followed Rule 1.

I don't agree with a double standard, even under the banner of skepticism. A debunker's explanation should stand up to scrutiny as well as that of the claim being challenged. If the "rules" are one-sided, they are lousy rules.


You're ignoring the reality that the "debunker" is not making a claim.

I think reality has equal bearing on either side of the belief. No one should be given a handicap.


You're still ignoring what a claim is, what the burden of proof means, and why it exists.

If you tell me, "Bigfoot is real," and I say, "Show me"... I'm not making a claim I need to support, but challenging you to support yours. There is no dueling reality, just your claim, and everyone else demanding that you have more than your "good word" to back it up.


This.

As has been demonstrated in several discussions already, he doesn't understand the basics of skepticism or rational inquiry.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12608
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Heyo!

Postby JO 753 » Fri Aug 23, 2013 9:03 am

I agree with you Luomo.

I hav a slitely different attitude about it tho.
Luomo wrote:Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of good people here, with great opinions, but I'm disappointed that the place is kept so untidy at times.


Soundz like you think Pyrro shoud be regulating and cleaning more.

I'v been in sum forumz in wich the moderator feelz the need to rule on every litl disagreement and enfors the rulez with the narrowest interpretation. Makes for dull, short, withered topics. Conformity killz creativity, man.

Youll do fine here if you dont take it too seriously. Its just a frakkin interweb forum.

User avatar
Luomo
Poster
Posts: 213
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 2:14 pm
Custom Title: junior scientist.

Re: Heyo!

Postby Luomo » Fri Aug 23, 2013 11:09 am

"Bigfoot is real" would be a claim, and requires supporting evidence.

" I believe Bigfoot is real" is an opinion, and may or may not be based on evidence, but in any case, it is not a claim. Instead of hounding someone for the evidence to prove their "claim" or calling them an idiot, how about a civilized debate of the purported evidence instead? Disparaging everything the person says because of their opinion, is rude and makes the forum look stupid.
Just a guy trying to use reason to find my way through the jungle of ideas.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12221
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Heyo!

Postby kennyc » Fri Aug 23, 2013 11:27 am

Luomo wrote:"Bigfoot is real" would be a claim, and requires supporting evidence.

" I believe Bigfoot is real" is an opinion, and may or may not be based on evidence, but in any case, it is not a claim. Instead of hounding someone for the evidence to prove their "claim" or calling them an idiot, how about a civilized debate of the purported evidence instead? Disparaging everything the person says because of their opinion, is rude and makes the forum look stupid.



That's just your opinion and it makes you look rude and stupid.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
Luomo
Poster
Posts: 213
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 2:14 pm
Custom Title: junior scientist.

Re: Heyo!

Postby Luomo » Fri Aug 23, 2013 11:43 am

kennyc wrote:
Luomo wrote:"Bigfoot is real" would be a claim, and requires supporting evidence.

" I believe Bigfoot is real" is an opinion, and may or may not be based on evidence, but in any case, it is not a claim. Instead of hounding someone for the evidence to prove their "claim" or calling them an idiot, how about a civilized debate of the purported evidence instead? Disparaging everything the person says because of their opinion, is rude and makes the forum look stupid.



That's just your opinion and it makes you look rude and stupid.

Intolerance is stupid too.
Just a guy trying to use reason to find my way through the jungle of ideas.

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12221
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Heyo!

Postby kennyc » Fri Aug 23, 2013 11:46 am

Luomo wrote:
kennyc wrote:
Luomo wrote:"Bigfoot is real" would be a claim, and requires supporting evidence.

" I believe Bigfoot is real" is an opinion, and may or may not be based on evidence, but in any case, it is not a claim. Instead of hounding someone for the evidence to prove their "claim" or calling them an idiot, how about a civilized debate of the purported evidence instead? Disparaging everything the person says because of their opinion, is rude and makes the forum look stupid.



That's just your opinion and it makes you look rude and stupid.

Intolerance is stupid too.


And that too. Why you think your way is better, this forum and most of the posters were here long before your arrival.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
Luomo
Poster
Posts: 213
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 2:14 pm
Custom Title: junior scientist.

Re: Heyo!

Postby Luomo » Fri Aug 23, 2013 11:57 am

kennyc wrote:
Luomo wrote:
kennyc wrote:
Luomo wrote:"Bigfoot is real" would be a claim, and requires supporting evidence.

" I believe Bigfoot is real" is an opinion, and may or may not be based on evidence, but in any case, it is not a claim. Instead of hounding someone for the evidence to prove their "claim" or calling them an idiot, how about a civilized debate of the purported evidence instead? Disparaging everything the person says because of their opinion, is rude and makes the forum look stupid.



That's just your opinion and it makes you look rude and stupid.

Intolerance is stupid too.


And that too. Why you think your way is better, this forum and most of the posters were here long before your arrival.

Just my thoughts after having been here awhile. Nobody has to change of course.
Just a guy trying to use reason to find my way through the jungle of ideas.

User avatar
Daedalus
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 8:38 pm
Custom Title: Ave Atque Vale

Re: Heyo!

Postby Daedalus » Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:05 pm

Luomo wrote:"Bigfoot is real" would be a claim, and requires supporting evidence.

" I believe Bigfoot is real" is an opinion, and may or may not be based on evidence, but in any case, it is not a claim. Instead of hounding someone for the evidence to prove their "claim" or calling them an idiot, how about a civilized debate of the purported evidence instead? Disparaging everything the person says because of their opinion, is rude and makes the forum look stupid.


"I believe that bigfoot is real," is not a statement often unaccompanied by a list of reasons why the person thinks it's real. I'd add that if you show up on a SKEPTIC forum just to declare your various beliefs, that's an odd choice.

In any case, you can't debate a naked opinion, you can't have a conversation about it. "I believe that bigfoot is real"...

...OK.

Why do you believe that?

...Then we're back to claims.
"Propaganda is a monologue which seeks not a response, but an echo." (W.H. Auden)
"Given time and plenty of paper, philosophers can prove anything." (Robert Heinlein)
"The map is not the territory." (Alfred Korzybski)
“You’re in the desert, you see a tortoise lying on its back, struggling, and you’re not helping — why is that?" (Bladerunner)

User avatar
Luomo
Poster
Posts: 213
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 2:14 pm
Custom Title: junior scientist.

Re: Heyo!

Postby Luomo » Sat Aug 24, 2013 1:11 am

kennyc wrote:
Daedalus wrote:
Luomo wrote:
Daedalus wrote:
Luomo wrote:[

This.

As has been demonstrated in several discussions already, he doesn't understand the basics of skepticism or rational inquiry.


You're at it again and you're not fooling anyone, You can't just claim incompetence and not back it up. It doesn't make you look as smart as you think it does.
Just a guy trying to use reason to find my way through the jungle of ideas.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 21050
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: somewhere

Re: Heyo!

Postby scrmbldggs » Sat Aug 24, 2013 1:26 am

Luomo wrote:
kennyc wrote:
Luomo wrote:
Daedalus wrote:
Luomo wrote:[

This.

As has been demonstrated in several discussions already, he doesn't understand the basics of skepticism or rational inquiry.


You're at it again and you're not fooling anyone, You can't just claim incompetence and not back it up. It doesn't make you look as smart as you think it does.

Sorry Luomo, that's a very confusing post/quoting*. It does look as if you were claiming to have said what Kenny said.

And also like you're talking to yourself. :)


*I took out the first "Daedalus" quotation so I could stay within the five quotes limit while quoting Luomo.
.

Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8769
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Heyo!

Postby Poodle » Sat Aug 24, 2013 10:03 am

Do you realise, Luomo, that the majority of your posts are complaints about the forum? You complain about the members being dismissive and then dismiss their responses. I'm beginning to form the impression that you are here principally for the complaints, especially considering that your introductory post stated that you thought this was a sane place. You had looked around the forum before you posted that, I assume?

(This post will be dismissed in 10 ... 9 ... 8 ... 7 ... ... ...)

User avatar
Luomo
Poster
Posts: 213
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 2:14 pm
Custom Title: junior scientist.

Re: Heyo!

Postby Luomo » Sat Aug 24, 2013 6:13 pm

scrmbldggs wrote:
*I took out the first "Daedalus" quotation so I could stay within the five quotes limit while quoting Luomo.


Yes, editing error, I couldn't post with more than 5 nested quotes. I hoped that it worked well enough to show who I was responding to.
Just a guy trying to use reason to find my way through the jungle of ideas.

User avatar
JO 753
Has No Life
Posts: 12608
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 3:21 pm
Custom Title: rezident owtsidr
Location: BLaNDLaND
Contact:

Re: Heyo!

Postby JO 753 » Sat Aug 24, 2013 8:12 pm

I hav a complaint. Lazy automatic quoting.

Quoting an entire post and only commenting on 1 little bit uv it, or nothing at all, just a general comment. Just a shameful waste uv expensive parchment.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27467
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Heyo!

Postby Matthew Ellard » Sun Aug 25, 2013 1:32 am

Luomo wrote:Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of good people here, with great opinions, but I'm disappointed that the place is kept so untidy at times.


If you want to formally "hold up" a hypothesis or claim for review, you apply to have your discussion hosted in a "moderated thread". Pyrrho, the forum moderator will review and remove abusive or off topic posts before they are displayed on the forum. The other forum members will revert to clear arguments in that discussion.

If you are wishing to spread unsupported claims or propaganda, like the holocaust deniers, the fundamentalist religious people, the UFO supporters, the global warming deniers and "aliens built the pyramids" people then you can post in any part of the forum and simply obey the forum rules. You will get a mix of serious and humorous responses form the members. If you keep repeating the same propaganda (ie the holocaust deniers) you will get abused.

This forum is flexible and can host both serious and "wishy washy" discussions. Most of the current members simply come here for fun because it is rare to get "wooists" making serious claims in the moderated sub forum. I imagine that most members here can hold a proper scientific debate when they want to.

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30100
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Heyo!

Postby Gord » Sun Aug 25, 2013 3:30 am

Luomo wrote:
Poodle wrote:You haven't been here long, Luomo, and I don't say that to mean that you should 'tag along' with forum practice. But when you've been here a while and your knowledge of genetics has been challenged on ridiculous grounds (for the fifteenth time) by every woo merchant who feels like a giggle, you may not display the patience that you are requesting.

Very few wooistas are looking for meaningful discussion. The usual tactic is to make a claim and then say "Prove I'm wrong". Well - in a nutshell - no. This is a skeptic forum and should, in my opinion, follow skeptic 'rules'.

Rule No. 1 - if you have a claim, provide some evidence.
Rule No. 2 - do not expect counter-evidence to be provided until you've followed Rule 1.

I don't agree with a double standard, even under the banner of skepticism. A debunker's explanation should stand up to scrutiny as well as that of the claim being challenged. If the "rules" are one-sided, they are lousy rules.

It's not a double standard. If you supply evidence to support your side, I'll supply evidence to support my side. If you don't, then all I need to do to refute your statement is to make an opposing statement.

It would be a double standard if anyone could come here and post any old nonsense, and we'd be the ones expected to provide evidence that they're wrong. In many case, this is just impossible -- for example, those people who are "not even wrong".
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Luomo
Poster
Posts: 213
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 2:14 pm
Custom Title: junior scientist.

Re: Heyo!

Postby Luomo » Sun Aug 25, 2013 1:45 pm

I'm thinking more of a situation where lame explanations and ridicule can stand in the way of scientific investigation, such as the Kensington Runestone case. I believe the facts are along these lines: Something that resembled an authentic Viking runestone was found in rural Minnesota in 1898. This went against the prevailing opinion that no European had ever set foot on the North American Continent before Columbus. When the stone was eventually evaluated by scientific experts, they declared it was a fake.

The stone languished for the better part of a century, and may well have been destroyed, if it were not for a series of events which led to it being examined again recently with an open mind. The subject now seems to be taken much more seriously than it had previously. Some may say that this story illustrates that science works, but I think it also shows that science doesn't work nearly as well as it could, without some of the negative bias which seems to be an enemy of progress in some avenues of scientific endeavor.
Just a guy trying to use reason to find my way through the jungle of ideas.

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2097
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: Heyo!

Postby OutOfBreath » Sun Aug 25, 2013 8:14 pm

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kensington_Runestone

This the one you're talking about? Seems still to be widely believed to be a hoax by just about all experts on runes except for the locals who like to keep it as a sightseeing thing.

(Edit) also see this thread from a while back: viewtopic.php?t=19812

Peace
Dan

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 4
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert


Return to “The Nexus”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest