ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags winston wu , wwu777

Reply
Old 15th August 2019, 09:25 AM   #1
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
Questioning Winston Wu's 30 arguments

Analysis of 30 site arguments http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Contents.htm


Quote:
Argument # 1: It is irrational to believe anything that hasn't been proven.

This is the main philosophy behind most skeptical arguments. As Dr. Melvin Morse, Seattle pediatrician and author specializing in child Near Death Experiences said:



“The notion that 'It is rational to only believe what's been proven' somehow got twisted into ‘It is irrational to believe in anything that hasn't been proven’.” (Interview from video: Conversations with God)



By "proven" skeptics mean proven according to the scientific method, which they consider to be the only reliable method. There are several problems with this argument:

<snip>

Edited by Loss Leader:  Quotes added to identify this as the writings of another. Lengthy quote snipped for Rule 4. Do not quote lengthy tracts available elsewhere on the web or otherwise subject to copyright.

Last edited by Loss Leader; 15th August 2019 at 03:08 PM.
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 01:10 PM   #2
sackett
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Detroit
Posts: 5,650
You left out baked Alaska.
__________________
Fill the seats of justice with good men; not so absolute in goodness as to forget what human frailty is. -- Thomas Jefferson

What region of the earth is not filled with our calamities? -- Virgil
sackett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 01:16 PM   #3
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 13,900
Wow, we've never heard these arguments before!

I'm giving up my skepticism right away!

*yawn*
__________________
Ideologies separate us. Dreams and anguish bring us together. - Eugene Ionesco
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 01:29 PM   #4
Joe Random
Master Poster
 
Joe Random's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,095
One new thread about Time Cube, and now one about Winston Wu? I think we should scan the area for temporal anomalies, or excess chroniton particles near by. Apparently objects from the past are making their way into our current space-time continuum without realizing there's been a passage of time.

Prepare to do something handwavey with the main deflector dish!
Joe Random is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 01:31 PM   #5
p0lka
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,634
This forum isn't going to get many new members with replies like that.

I think the E out of JREF should have carried over to here.
Taking the piss out of posters instead of addressing the argument; no matter how many times you have heard it before; is not cool.
The option to not reply is a thing.

Last edited by p0lka; 15th August 2019 at 01:32 PM.
p0lka is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 02:54 PM   #6
Jim_MDP
Philosopher
 
Jim_MDP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: N.Cal/S.Or
Posts: 6,972
Originally Posted by p0lka View Post
This forum isn't going to get many new members with replies like that.

I think the E out of JREF should have carried over to here.
Taking the piss out of posters instead of addressing the argument; no matter how many times you have heard it before; is not cool.
The option to not reply is a thing.
There's five tons of straw and debunked charletons there to rebut... what's taking You so long? Have at it already.


The only new member woo I'd like is a return of the dowsers, those guys crack me up.
__________________
----------------------
Anything goes in the Goblin hut... anything.

"Suggesting spurious explanations isn't relevant to my work." -- WTC Dust.
"Both cannot be simultaneously true, and so one may conclude neither is true, and if neither is true, then Apollo is fraudulent." -- Patrick1000.
Jim_MDP is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 03:12 PM   #7
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
Originally Posted by Jim_MDP View Post
There's five tons of straw and debunked charletons there to rebut... what's taking You so long? Have at it already.


The only new member woo I'd like is a return of the dowsers, those guys crack me up.
But of those 30 arguments, none are right for you?
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 03:45 PM   #8
Deadie
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 10
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
But of those 30 arguments, none are right for you?
No, none of them deal with what I would personally consider to be the true gem of the scientific method and the bane of woo artists: Peer review and why it is so god damn important.

The scientific method is a process of acquiring objective, and not subjective knowledge and understanding. It is not some mystic tome of "these particular things are really true and these other things are not, so sayeth the lab coated nerds".

Allowing others to scrutinize your hypothesis is a pretty big deal, because if others can replicate your results again and again then we can probably say that we are pretty close to truly figuring out yet another little thing about our universe with ever greater and greater degrees of confidence.

Last edited by Deadie; 15th August 2019 at 03:47 PM.
Deadie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 05:25 PM   #9
Jim_MDP
Philosopher
 
Jim_MDP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: N.Cal/S.Or
Posts: 6,972
Originally Posted by Deadie View Post
No, none of them deal with what I would personally consider to be the true gem of the scientific method and the bane of woo artists: Peer review and why it is so god damn important.

The scientific method is a process of acquiring objective, and not subjective knowledge and understanding. It is not some mystic tome of "these particular things are really true and these other things are not, so sayeth the lab coated nerds".

Allowing others to scrutinize your hypothesis is a pretty big deal, because if others can replicate your results again and again then we can probably say that we are pretty close to truly figuring out yet another little thing about our universe with ever greater and greater degrees of confidence.
Well, there's some (non-woo) new blood I can welcome, so... Welcome Deadie!


You don't dowse do you?
__________________
----------------------
Anything goes in the Goblin hut... anything.

"Suggesting spurious explanations isn't relevant to my work." -- WTC Dust.
"Both cannot be simultaneously true, and so one may conclude neither is true, and if neither is true, then Apollo is fraudulent." -- Patrick1000.

Last edited by Jim_MDP; 15th August 2019 at 05:27 PM.
Jim_MDP is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 06:25 PM   #10
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,982
First off, he doesn't define "Believe". There is a difference between FAITH and BELIEF. I don't want to have faith in my brakes to stop my car, however I do not believe fairies or angels are responsible for my coming to a stop.

Most of his points are mere whining about how the game is rigged against woo.

Every point he tries to make he complains about or "sneaky" fact-based belief system. He ignores the fact that most paranormal researchers refuse to step up their game to embrace the scientific method, and this is because they are usually starting with the claim that X is true, and then back-engineering the evidence to back it up.

He wants a separate (LOWER) standard for paranormal phenomenon.

Plus he doesn't mention ghosts and as a ghost hunter I'm offended...I mean there's no such thing as ghosts but why are we always treated like second class citizens by the Psychics-Are-Real crowd? Maybe because we don't make any money off our woo?

So the OP has been addressed.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 06:58 PM   #11
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,784
I'm not going to give the site the benefit of my clicks, so I'm only going to address the section quoted in this thread.

Science doesn't deal in "proof". Proof is for mathematics and alcohol. Science deals in evidence, and in determining whether a hypothesis is supported by evidence. Such evidence must be reliable and repeatable by other parties.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 07:56 PM   #12
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,302
The bottom line is what Arth said above: Evidence. And good quality evidence. What woo peddlers always get wrong about skeptics is that we are closed minded, hold science as a religious belief and have impossible standards of “proof.”

I don’t think this is true at all. Tell me you are psychic and all I really want is some good evidence that you are indeed psychic. We can devise a simple procedure that will satisfy that “good evidence” standard well enough to convince me. I don’t really need to see it “proven” in peer reviewed journals.

You can read minds? Awesome! I am thinking of a 5 digit number. What is it?

You can talk to dead people? Wow! Can you ask my father to tell me something that isn’t vague, feel-good Hallmark sentiments?

I would be so easy to convince with the right evidence.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th August 2019, 08:00 PM   #13
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,298
Originally Posted by p0lka View Post
This forum isn't going to get many new members with replies like that.

I think the E out of JREF should have carried over to here.
Taking the piss out of posters instead of addressing the argument; no matter how many times you have heard it before; is not cool.
The option to not reply is a thing.
The ship you're trying to book passage on sailed years ago.

You go to post on the forum you have, not the forum you wish to have, or used to have at an earlier date.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2019, 03:03 AM   #14
Deadie
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 10
Originally Posted by Jim_MDP View Post
You don't dowse do you?
Haha. I'm a plumber by trade and I suppose it was about 10 years ago now that I had a customer in all seriousness ask me what the 'trick' was to witching a buried water well line on his property he needed to dig up. He was genuinely frustrated as his bent rod didn't seem to be working to his satisfaction and I guess he just assumed I had the answer for some reason. I found it pretty humorous at the time.
Deadie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2019, 04:05 AM   #15
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 21,080
Originally Posted by p0lka View Post
This forum isn't going to get many new members with replies like that.

I think the E out of JREF should have carried over to here.
Taking the piss out of posters instead of addressing the argument; no matter how many times you have heard it before; is not cool.
The option to not reply is a thing.
What "argument"? Recycling Wu's debunked crap is not by any standard an argument.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2019, 08:10 AM   #16
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
Skepticism as inertia
Modern science is based on skepticism. On the one hand, science must always be open to new ideas (strange as they may seem) as long as they are supported by scientific evidence, but must do so in a way that they are always properly scrutinized to ensure that their implications are true. and results. Whenever a new hypothesis is formulated or a new claim is made, the entire scientific community mobilizes itself to prove its theoretical and practical viability. As on any other plane, the more unusual new ideas and inventions are, the more resistance they tend to face during their scrutiny through the scientific method. A consequence of this is that several scientists throughout history, when presenting their ideas, were initially greeted with allegations of fraud by colleagues who did not wish or were unable to accept something that would require a change in their established views. For example, Michael Faraday was called a charlatan by his contemporaries when he said he could generate an electric current simply by moving a magnet through a coil of wire.
In January 1905, more than a year after Wilbur and Orville Wright made their first flight at Kitty Hawk (December 17, 1903), Scientific American magazine published an article ridiculing the Wright flight. With astonishing authority, the magazine cited as its main reason for questioning the Wrights that the American press had failed to cover the flight. Others joining the skeptical movement were the New York Herald, the United States Army, and numerous American scientists. Only when President Theodore Roosevelt ordered public attempts at Fort Mayers in 1908 after Alberto Santos Dumont's 14-bis flight on an improved aircraft did the Wright brothers substantiate their claims and compelled even the most zealous skeptics to accept the reality of flying machines heavier than air. In fact, the Wright brothers were successful in public demonstrations of their machine flight five years before the historic flight [lacks sources]. In this context, although the Wright brothers' flight, while not shutting down the skeptics, was perhaps the first where a heavier-than-air ship took off after Otto Lilienthal's pioneering flights. However, the first flight of a machine capable of flying entirely on its own, without the aid of catapults, is however correctly credited to Santos Dumont, who is duly registered and documented .Most modern revolutionary inventions, such as the tunneling current microscope, which was invented in 1981, still find intense skepticism and even ridicule when first announced. As a physicist, Max Planck noted in his 1936 book The Philosophy of Physics: "a major scientific breakthrough rarely makes its way by gradually winning and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that 'Saul' becomes'. What really happens is that your opponents die gradually and the growing generation is familiar with the idea from the beginning. "https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceticismo
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2019, 01:11 PM   #17
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 20,471
Hi Ricardo!

Especially since you seem to be posting a lot of someone else's words here, please use the quote function. That way we can tell which words were written by someone else, and not you. Instructions are here, or you can just highlight the text and hit the little quote window icon if you're using a web browser.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2019, 01:16 PM   #18
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,494
Winston Wu?

Really?

I wouldn't trust him to feed my cat.
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2019, 01:30 PM   #19
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 20,471
These guys don't have the balls to question Winston Wolf. So Wu it is.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2019, 02:24 PM   #20
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 24,828
The issue I have with him is that he does not give good examples. He could say that skeptics say anything, but without quotes it is meaningless.
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2019, 04:02 PM   #21
Hungry81
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,229
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
Skepticism as inertia
Modern science is based on skepticism. On the one hand, science must always be open to new ideas (strange as they may seem) as long as they are supported by scientific evidence, but must do so in a way that they are always properly scrutinized to ensure that their implications are true. and results. Whenever a new hypothesis is formulated or a new claim is made, the entire scientific community mobilizes itself to prove its theoretical and practical viability. As on any other plane, the more unusual new ideas and inventions are, the more resistance they tend to face during their scrutiny through the scientific method. A consequence of this is that several scientists throughout history, when presenting their ideas, were initially greeted with allegations of fraud by colleagues who did not wish or were unable to accept something that would require a change in their established views. For example, Michael Faraday was called a charlatan by his contemporaries when he said he could generate an electric current simply by moving a magnet through a coil of wire.
In January 1905, more than a year after Wilbur and Orville Wright made their first flight at Kitty Hawk (December 17, 1903), Scientific American magazine published an article ridiculing the Wright flight. With astonishing authority, the magazine cited as its main reason for questioning the Wrights that the American press had failed to cover the flight. Others joining the skeptical movement were the New York Herald, the United States Army, and numerous American scientists. Only when President Theodore Roosevelt ordered public attempts at Fort Mayers in 1908 after Alberto Santos Dumont's 14-bis flight on an improved aircraft did the Wright brothers substantiate their claims and compelled even the most zealous skeptics to accept the reality of flying machines heavier than air. In fact, the Wright brothers were successful in public demonstrations of their machine flight five years before the historic flight [lacks sources]. In this context, although the Wright brothers' flight, while not shutting down the skeptics, was perhaps the first where a heavier-than-air ship took off after Otto Lilienthal's pioneering flights. However, the first flight of a machine capable of flying entirely on its own, without the aid of catapults, is however correctly credited to Santos Dumont, who is duly registered and documented .Most modern revolutionary inventions, such as the tunneling current microscope, which was invented in 1981, still find intense skepticism and even ridicule when first announced. As a physicist, Max Planck noted in his 1936 book The Philosophy of Physics: "a major scientific breakthrough rarely makes its way by gradually winning and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that 'Saul' becomes'. What really happens is that your opponents die gradually and the growing generation is familiar with the idea from the beginning. "https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceticismo
yeah, so all legitimate psychics need to do is prove their abilities the way Faraday and the wright brothers did. People have been claiming mystical abilities for far longer than people have been flying or generating electricity, but yet today people live with flight and electricity as part of everyday life powering major governments and industry. Psychic powers are not. Your own argument proves that if psychic powers existed we would be exploiting them in the mainstream, like we do for every other useful thing we discover.
Hungry81 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2019, 05:29 PM   #22
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,302
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
Skepticism as inertia
Modern science is based on skepticism. On the one hand, science must always be open to new ideas (strange as they may seem) as long as they are supported by scientific evidence, but must do so in a way that they are always properly scrutinized to ensure that their implications are true. and results. Whenever a new hypothesis is formulated or a new claim is made, the entire scientific community mobilizes itself to prove its theoretical and practical viability. As on any other plane, the more unusual new ideas and inventions are, the more resistance they tend to face during their scrutiny through the scientific method. A consequence of this is that several scientists throughout history, when presenting their ideas, were initially greeted with allegations of fraud by colleagues who did not wish or were unable to accept something that would require a change in their established views. For example, Michael Faraday was called a charlatan by his contemporaries when he said he could generate an electric current simply by moving a magnet through a coil of wire.
In January 1905, more than a year after Wilbur and Orville Wright made their first flight at Kitty Hawk (December 17, 1903), Scientific American magazine published an article ridiculing the Wright flight. With astonishing authority, the magazine cited as its main reason for questioning the Wrights that the American press had failed to cover the flight. Others joining the skeptical movement were the New York Herald, the United States Army, and numerous American scientists. Only when President Theodore Roosevelt ordered public attempts at Fort Mayers in 1908 after Alberto Santos Dumont's 14-bis flight on an improved aircraft did the Wright brothers substantiate their claims and compelled even the most zealous skeptics to accept the reality of flying machines heavier than air. In fact, the Wright brothers were successful in public demonstrations of their machine flight five years before the historic flight [lacks sources]. In this context, although the Wright brothers' flight, while not shutting down the skeptics, was perhaps the first where a heavier-than-air ship took off after Otto Lilienthal's pioneering flights. However, the first flight of a machine capable of flying entirely on its own, without the aid of catapults, is however correctly credited to Santos Dumont, who is duly registered and documented .Most modern revolutionary inventions, such as the tunneling current microscope, which was invented in 1981, still find intense skepticism and even ridicule when first announced. As a physicist, Max Planck noted in his 1936 book The Philosophy of Physics: "a major scientific breakthrough rarely makes its way by gradually winning and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that 'Saul' becomes'. What really happens is that your opponents die gradually and the growing generation is familiar with the idea from the beginning. "https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceticismo


“Put up or shut up,” is the operative dictum and the bottom line is that claims of psychic abilities have failed to “put up.” The problem is, they have never “shut up.”

Aviation? The world depends on it.

Telekinesis? Not so much...
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th August 2019, 11:52 PM   #23
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,011
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
Analysis of 30 site arguments <snip garbage>
Winston Wu? The clue is in the name.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2019, 01:15 AM   #24
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 24,828
I also give you an entire thread discussing this subject from 2004 The Wisdom of Woo WU

NB: He visited our forum and was banned. But all records of this have been lost. Evidence: See the opening sentence of my link.
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2019, 03:24 AM   #25
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,201
Ricardo, you seem to have stumbled on a VERY old website by Winston Wu. It's dated 2011 last revision, which is quite old now.

It has a foreword by one Victor Zammit. Zammit wrote a book called "A Lawyer Presents Proof of the Afterlife", in which he applies the legal definition of "proof" to science. I've researched Zammit (long ago) and he was a crackpot at the best of times. He went a bit unhinged when his beloved mother died, which is not unreasonable. But then he began desperately trying to find a way to communicate with her in the afterlife. In his delerium, he thought he had the answer. And Zammit was a very obstinate man, so he would brook no negatives to his "findings".

So much so that he launched a Challenge to Skeptics which was where I first encountered about him. It was $250,000 for anyone who could completely debunk his thesis scientifically. Of course, he was the only judge in this contest...you can guess how "scientific" that was. But nevertheless a number of applicants did try, and each of them comprehensively dismantled all his claims, in public, and claimed the prize money Zammit had on the table. Naturally, Zammit said they did no such thing and continued to claim he was right. It was clear that he had zero idea of science, scientific levels of proof, and logic. He was, in short, insane.

Zammit then went on to team up with Winston Wu, another nutcase from somewhere on the US west coast. The foreword in Wu's "proof" is the result of that collaboration. Last I heard of Wu (second-hand so I don't know if it was true) was he got ripped off by some Russian con-artists who said they were going to help him with his psychic research. Or something like that. This was at least 15 years ago and I never heard of Winston after that.

Meanwhile, Victor Zammit has since died. You would have thought that his proof would have led to mainstream psychic communication. But unsurprisingly nobody has heard a word from him from beyond the grave. But being skeptics, we wait with bated breath just in case.

Of course, you may already know a lot more about this...if you happen to be Winston Wu yourself...
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2019, 04:34 AM   #26
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 24,828
He currently operates a forum called happierabroad. You can find out about it here https://www.mywot.com/en/scorecard/happierabroad.com. Will not link to the actual forum which is NSFW for obvious reasons.
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th August 2019, 06:42 AM   #27
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,011
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
I also give you an entire thread discussing this subject from 2004 The Wisdom of Woo WU

NB: He visited our forum and was banned. But all records of this have been lost. Evidence: See the opening sentence of my link.
Nope. He went under the handle WWu777 and his crapposts are still there including his 30 objections from 2004. Somehow, he has failed to progress in 15 years.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2019, 07:40 PM   #28
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,282
And of course there’s Winston’s USENET adventures which involved forcing himself on a woman, and then trying to use spells to force her to return to him.

Ick.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2019, 08:04 PM   #29
Norman Alexander
Philosopher
 
Norman Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 6,201
Originally Posted by kookbreaker View Post
And of course there’s Winston’s USENET adventures which involved forcing himself on a woman, and then trying to use spells to force her to return to him.

Ick.
Gosh, that brings back some ancient memories now!

I now recall there was something about Winston going to Russia to meet a Russian bride, then getting dumped along with all his money, and wanting to use spells to get her back. Even Victor Zammit who was his friend told him to leave her alone because he was being very stupid (and witchcraft was pseudo-skeptic nonsense!). And Victor was only bouncing along the surface of reality at the best of times then.

Remember this because I was trying to work on Zammit's challenge at the same time (which became pointless rapidly). And Wu kept cropping up with this nonsense in Victor's conversations.
__________________
...our governments are just trying to protect us from terror. In the same way that someone banging a hornets’ nest with a stick is trying to protect us from hornets. Frankie Boyle, Guardian, July 2015
Norman Alexander is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th August 2019, 10:23 PM   #30
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,982
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
Skepticism as inertia
Modern science is based on skepticism.
No, science is NOT based of skepticism. It's based on investigation and experimentation and observation. From there questions are formed and answered, and those answers lead to more questions.


Quote:
On the one hand, science must always be open to new ideas (strange as they may seem) as long as they are supported by scientific evidence, but must do so in a way that they are always properly scrutinized to ensure that their implications are true. and results.
And it is open to new ideas.

Quote:
Whenever a new hypothesis is formulated or a new claim is made, the entire scientific community mobilizes itself to prove its theoretical and practical viability.
You mean the relative scientific communities "mobilize. Geologists don't get excited about quantum mechanics, and biologists don't get excited about Geology.


Quote:
As on any other plane, the more unusual new ideas and inventions are, the more resistance they tend to face during their scrutiny through the scientific method. A consequence of this is that several scientists throughout history, when presenting their ideas, were initially greeted with allegations of fraud by colleagues who did not wish or were unable to accept something that would require a change in their established views. For example, Michael Faraday was called a charlatan by his contemporaries when he said he could generate an electric current simply by moving a magnet through a coil of wire.
You left out the part where Faraday DID THE WORK AND STUCK TO THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD TO PROVE HIS WORK.


Quote:
In January 1905, more than a year after Wilbur and Orville Wright made their first flight at Kitty Hawk (December 17, 1903), Scientific American magazine published an article ridiculing the Wright flight. With astonishing authority, the magazine cited as its main reason for questioning the Wrights that the American press had failed to cover the flight. Others joining the skeptical movement were the New York Herald, the United States Army, and numerous American scientists
The Wright Bros. were not scientists. They built bicycles. Also - they made an airplane that flew...you know...took off...flew around...and landed without killing the pilot.

All that other nonsense you posted is irrelevant. The airplane was a novelty up until WWI when the armies of the world decided they could put machine guns on them, and later drop bombs from them.

Nothing you've cited as an example moves the ball forward on psychics or paranormal stuff. In fact powered flight and psychic research are about the same age, so hasn't the latter advance at all? There have been some great minds who've done real science and came up empty handed. Why is that?
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha

Last edited by Axxman300; 19th August 2019 at 10:29 PM.
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2019, 11:44 AM   #31
Ricardo
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 484
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
No, science is NOT based of skepticism. It's based on investigation and experimentation and observation. From there questions are formed and answered, and those answers lead to more questions.




And it is open to new ideas.



You mean the relative scientific communities "mobilize. Geologists don't get excited about quantum mechanics, and biologists don't get excited about Geology.




You left out the part where Faraday DID THE WORK AND STUCK TO THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD TO PROVE HIS WORK.




The Wright Bros. were not scientists. They built bicycles. Also - they made an airplane that flew...you know...took off...flew around...and landed without killing the pilot.

All that other nonsense you posted is irrelevant. The airplane was a novelty up until WWI when the armies of the world decided they could put machine guns on them, and later drop bombs from them.

Nothing you've cited as an example moves the ball forward on psychics or paranormal stuff. In fact powered flight and psychic research are about the same age, so hasn't the latter advance at all? There have been some great minds who've done real science and came up empty handed. Why is that?
Axxman300, are you an open-minded skeptic?
Ricardo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2019, 11:57 AM   #32
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,494
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
Axxman300, are you an open-minded skeptic?
Could you cite a source that isn't a fully-blown crackpot?
__________________
Music is what feelings sound like

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus

Last edited by BStrong; 20th August 2019 at 11:59 AM.
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2019, 02:49 PM   #33
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,982
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
Axxman300, are you an open-minded skeptic?
I. AM. A. VETERAN. GHOST. HUNTER.

I've spent 40 years in empty rooms and empty buildings in the dark looking for evidence. This has involved hours of library time looking through old records, and newspapers on microfilm. I have interviewed a couple hundred people from all walks of life.

I also have an A.A. in Marine Science which means I spent time in a college science lab doing basic experiments which reinforced the Scientific Method.

In 40 years of work I have some cool stories to tell around a campfire and five or six weird photographs. What I don't have is proof that ghosts/spirits/whatever are real. I have mountains of information about plumbing, heating, carpentry, toxic dry-wall, and bad electrical wiring. I have learned how vulnerable EVERYONE is to the power of suggestion. I have learned that you should not trust your own eyes or ears. I am a big advocate of INFRASOUND as the main cause of legitimate ghost encounters and hauntings. I also urge people to install CO2 detectors in their homes because if you are hearing voices you might have an air quality problem which can be lethal.

I have done the work and I have earned the right to say this:

Psychic Powers are crap-ola.

I have stood in rooms with people who claim psychic abilities who remained classless about the bloody suicides and murders which took place in them while later spinning fantastic yarns about things that never happened in other locations. I have seen psychics claim to speak with the dead yet cannot give me that person's address (which I had), and could not tell me what color their house was at the time of their death.

Lets talk about the real problem here. Unlike ghost hunters, psychics tend to charge for their "services", and thus need their "abilities" to be confirmed as real. This is about money, not about science. As long as psychics continue to fail basic scientific experiments they held apart as the CHARLATANS and CON-ARTISTS they really are.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2019, 02:54 PM   #34
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,982
And one other thing.

I'm pretty sure every skeptic on this board would love to have psychic abilities scientifically verified. Just as they would be stoked if someone came out of the mountains of the Pacific Northwest with a Bigfoot in a cage, and cornered the Loch Ness Monster.

They would love all of it because of the new questions each of these events would raise to be explored.

That's what science is all about.

You are the narrow minded one.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2019, 04:23 PM   #35
Wolrab
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,566
Evidence of psychic-phenomenon, spirits, or life after death would be the biggest news in the history of the world. Scientist would absolutely study it.
__________________
"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov
Wolrab is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2019, 05:33 PM   #36
Jim_MDP
Philosopher
 
Jim_MDP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: N.Cal/S.Or
Posts: 6,972
Originally Posted by Wolrab View Post
Evidence of psychic-phenomenon, spirits, or life after death would be the biggest news in the history of the world. Scientist would absolutely study it.
Don't forget... slightest proof of psi and the gaming/casino industry would bust their balls investigating how to block it.
Period, no delay... here's a $20 billion fund for the project.
__________________
----------------------
Anything goes in the Goblin hut... anything.

"Suggesting spurious explanations isn't relevant to my work." -- WTC Dust.
"Both cannot be simultaneously true, and so one may conclude neither is true, and if neither is true, then Apollo is fraudulent." -- Patrick1000.
Jim_MDP is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2019, 06:10 PM   #37
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,784
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
I'm pretty sure every skeptic on this board would love to have psychic abilities scientifically verified.
Actually no. That would be terrifying.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

My mom told me she tries never to make fun of people for not knowing something.
- Randall Munroe
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2019, 09:17 PM   #38
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,982
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
Actually no. That would be terrifying.
Sure, but terrifying in the same way that there are Goliath Bird Eating Spiders on our planet, or microscopic bugs on our skin.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2019, 09:26 PM   #39
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,011
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
Axxman300, are you an open-minded skeptic?
Amusing. When anyone actively reveals themselves to be an open minded skeptic, you drop them and glom onto the next one in the vain hope that the result will be different this time.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th August 2019, 10:29 PM   #40
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,888
Originally Posted by Ricardo View Post
Analysis of 30 site arguments http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Contents.htm
Quote:
Argument # 1: It is irrational to believe anything that hasn't been proven.
Personally, as a skeptic, I don't think I would make the above argument.

It's too binary. Too either/or. Very little in this world can be "proven" to an absolute certainty. So I don't generally use the word "prove" or "proof" regarding my own belief. There are varying levels of evidence for and against different claims, and the more compelling evidence there is to support a given proposition, the more I will tend to "believe" it. So "belief" for me is not a binary choice. There are some things I believe with a high (but rarely absolute) degree of certainty because I believe that the supporting evidence is compelling and abundant, and some things that I doubt with a similar degree of certainty because I believe that the evidence points in the other direction. And then there's things at any point in between these extremes. There may be some evidence, but not enough really compelling evidence to merit a high degree of confidence. In such cases, I neither believe fully nor disbelieve fully, but take the agnostic position and look for more evidence on either side of the question.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:22 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.