• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How to debunk a skeptic.

In his debunking skeptics article, Winston Wu says "Paranormal investigators have even used geiger counters that detected electrical activity in a haunted area."

Were these paranormal geiger counters? What units were their displays calibrated in?
 
dlorde. You forgot the link

[nfURL]www.happierabroad.com/Debunking_Skeptical_Arguments/Page2.htm[/nfURL]
or for the full works (save $7)
[nfurl]www.psicounsel.com/wwudebunk.html[/nfurl]
 
Last edited:
dlorde said:
In his debunking skeptics article, Winston Wu says "Paranormal investigators have even used geiger counters that detected electrical activity in a haunted area."

Were these paranormal geiger counters? What units were their displays calibrated in?
Click to expand...


mR/hr (mystical Rationalizations per hour)
 
Radioactive ghosts?
Might account for the ghostly images on those 'haunted house' photos
 
dlorde said:
In his debunking skeptics article, Winston Wu says "Paranormal investigators have even used geiger counters that detected electrical activity in a haunted area."

Were these paranormal geiger counters? What units were their displays calibrated in?
Click to expand...

The problem is even more basic than their units of measure: geiger counters can't measure electrical activity. If Wu is using "electrical activity" as "ionizing radiation" (which could possibly work, as Gamma rays are electromagnetic radiation, but it would be a stretch), he is mistaken or betting on his audience's lack of knowledge.
 
Phew I'm glad there's a thread about this here! I have a blog and I made a post about SCEPCOP awhile back...they recently found it and a bunch of them have started making massive comments on it, so many LINKS!!! They even made a thread about me on their forum, which I was stupid enough to join...it's exhausting reading the threads there so I have no desire to go back.

Maybe you guys could help me out with something...they've been giving me all of this "evidence" and recommending books etc. but I have no inclination to read it. They've said that I'm not being skeptical because I haven't looked at their stuff and because I won't read the books...really it's because it bores me...but they say in order to be truly skeptical or whatever I have to look at everything, and I know that's not true, it's ridiculous that they would expect that of me, but how can I respond to this???

I think there are rules about posting links here, but the blog post in question is called something like "SCEPCOP...A Steaming Pile of Kookiness", so if you googled that it would probably come up...if you're curious...but the comments are a pain in the ass to read so you might want to just not lol
 
http://struckbyenlightning.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/scepcop-a-steaming-pile-of-kookiness/
I looked at one or two of the links. Nothing but nonsense. Plus links to his own site. You can lose some IQ points for going there.

Edit. One link is about an alleged error made by Randi about 9 years ago. If they have to go back that far to find an error made by Randi he cannot make many mistakes! A load of these people think that to get legitimacy they must get past Randi. Yet there are many other alternatives, which they ignore. This shows how weak they are.
 
Last edited:
Maybe you guys could help me out with something...they've been giving me all of this "evidence" and recommending books etc. but I have no inclination to read it. They've said that I'm not being skeptical because I haven't looked at their stuff and because I won't read the books...really it's because it bores me...but they say in order to be truly skeptical or whatever I have to look at everything, and I know that's not true, it's ridiculous that they would expect that of me, but how can I respond to this???
Click to expand...
Debate by verbosity. Throw an overwhelming amount of reading material at your opponent and demand he goes through it, because otherwise he doesn't understand the topic. Creationists do it by writing long (and I mean long) papers, other dubious individuals across the Web do it by spamming links and book titles.

Tell them to compress their points into a single post, which you can then address.

I magic missile the darkness!
Click to expand...
It is pitch-black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
 
LinzeeBinzee said:
I think that single post would be 10 pages long...maybe I should ask for a debate by Twitter...
Click to expand...

No, you actually WANT that 10 page response. It is playing into your hands. Remember his case and others like it are very weak, so the 10 pages will be full of weak arguments.

How to counter such posts
1. Find something that can be shown to be wrong.
2, Show that it is wrong.
3. For bonus points repeat steps 1 and 2.
4. Then put in a point about saying that you assume the rest of the post is of the same quality and not worth looking at. If they give you any more material ask if it is any better then the first post. Point out that you demolished the first one.

Lesson. Unless you are an expert and are giving a lecture keep your posts short and to the point. Otherwise someone else who knows the above tactic will use it. The weak points exposed could be the only weak points in the entire response. Hardly anyone reads a long post.

For en example of the above look at my previous post. Did I reassure you that his long posts were rubbish? I was using the above tactic or something very close to it.

You may also find that this is one of my longer posts in this forum.
 
rjh01 said:
No, you actually WANT that 10 page response. It is playing into your hands. Remember his case and others like it are very weak, so the 10 pages will be full of weak arguments.

How to counter such posts
1. Find something that can be shown to be wrong.
2, Show that it is wrong.
3. For bonus points repeat steps 1 and 2.
4. Then put in a point about saying that you assume the rest of the post is of the same quality and not worth looking at. If they give you any more material ask if it is any better then the first post. Point out that you demolished the first one.

Lesson. Unless you are an expert and are giving a lecture keep your posts short and to the point. Otherwise someone else who knows the above tactic will use it. The weak points exposed could be the only weak points in the entire response. Hardly anyone reads a long post.

For en example of the above look at my previous post. Did I reassure you that his long posts were rubbish? I was using the above tactic or something very close to it.

You may also find that this is one of my longer posts in this forum.
Click to expand...

Good advice...there's just one problem...I'll actually have to read his 10 page post!

^^^see how short I kept it?
 
Great. I forgot to say that if you have a short post, make sure it is right. You only need to skim the 10 page post, looking for something you know you can verify as false easily. Once found...
 
To be quite honest, these people do have a point. Psuedo skepticism is something you need to remain vigilant for, as 'sensible skeptics'. Hopefully the stereotype they have stood against should start to wear thin and die down, for lack of actual pseudoskeptics.
 
leafman91 said:
To be quite honest, these people do have a point. Psuedo skepticism is something you need to remain vigilant for, as 'sensible skeptics'. Hopefully the stereotype they have stood against should start to wear thin and die down, for lack of actual pseudoskeptics.
Click to expand...

Yeah but if you actually read what they say on their website about what a pseudoskeptic is, they're criticizing the wrong people.

Ok there's a thing blinking here saying I have a PM or a notification but I can't click on it...anyone know the problem?
 
skeptigirl said:
I think if someone wants to make an absurd claim such as claiming they have been living off water and no food for several years, they should be able to provide some evidence before taking up the MDC. They could lock themselves up in a clear box with just water (like a David Blaine stunt) and provide something more than a ridiculous claim to enter the challenge. I mean, honestly.

It seems to me that one wouldn't need Randi or the MDC to prove they didn't need food. It is absurd and yes, some claims actually are absurd.
Click to expand...

I think the reason given for not getting involved in the water experiment was safety; going without water is such an obviously dangerous thing to do that testing the claim is quite potentially lethal.
 
leafman91 said:
To be quite honest, these people do have a point. Psuedo skepticism is something you need to remain vigilant for, as 'sensible skeptics'. Hopefully the stereotype they have stood against should start to wear thin and die down, for lack of actual pseudoskeptics.
Click to expand...

No. They do not really have a point. The accusation of 'pseudo-skepticism' to actual cases of PS ranks at about 1000 to 1. Believers, woos, and credophiles have been crying "pseudo-skeptic!!!!!" at every scrap of criticism leveled at them for ages. The credibility bank has been run dry by the overuse of the term.

Is there pseudo-skepticism in the world? Certainly! But it is rarely found where the believers think they have found it. PS is rarely seen in organized skeptic groups, or online skeptical forums. Its domain is usually elsewhere.

For this batch, the cry of pseudo-skepticism is nothing but the cry of ones whose arguments are found to be bankrupt and rather than admit any defeat on any grounds they simply try to find a way to demonize those who point out their failings.
 
I just got mentioned BY USERNAME in a post at that forum. It was by a person that was banned here some time ago. He still has the same writing style and as a result has received a one week ban (suspension). A few others have received final warnings.

The strange thing is I am only lurking there. He must remember me from when he was here.

Put your tin foil hat on.
Warning. Stand by to lose 20 IQ points.
This thread is bad.



 
Last edited:
rjh01 said:
I just got mentioned BY USERNAME in a post at that forum. It was by a person that was banned here some time ago. He still has the same writing style and as a result has received a one week ban (suspension). A few others have received final warnings.

The strange thing is I am only lurking there. He must remember me from when he was here.

Put your tin foil hat on.
Warning. Stand by to lose 20 IQ points.
This thread is bad.



Click to expand...

He tried to spam Swift with that link today. He got blocked or banned or whatever.
 
leafman91 said:
To be quite honest, these people do have a point. Psuedo skepticism is something you need to remain vigilant for, as 'sensible skeptics'. Hopefully the stereotype they have stood against should start to wear thin and die down, for lack of actual pseudoskeptics.
Click to expand...


Except they use a reasonable-sounding starting point to try and support points completely unrelated to it.

Wu started his screed on usenet; I saw his posts and links in sci.skeptic a bit. A number of people went over his list and the errors on them, but he would simply repeat the same talking points (cutting and pasting) without any real engagement. He got the term originally from Dan Kettler, IIRC, a psychic who wanted to criticize the Randi challenge (there were 2-3 psychics active and making similar argument, so I won't say it was DK for sure). Searches in usenet for their name should turn up any number of amusements.
 
Did Vinstonas Wu ever come here? I know he went to several other forums. Why not this one? Or did he get banned? But I cannot see his name in pubic notices.
 
Typical crock of crap. Even paranormal as a concept makes no sense. It is meaningless.
 
I checked out the SCEPCOP site. It's a great site to l earn how not to lay out an argument. It mixes issues instead of separating them. The best has to be where their so-called rebuttals do not address the issues they are rebutting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom