Skeptics are sometimes wrong... but why?

[Brattus]

Originally Posted by gambling_cruiser

Pure BS. Argument from ignorance.

It is impossible to rig a building with demolition explosives with the offices full of people and nobody notices the work in progress.
It is impossible to hush the explosions. If you have ever watched a controlled demolition by explosives you would know it's impossible the WTC towers could have been exploded and nobody heared it.

Not if all the "workers" were the ones planting the explosives. They all could of been paid to fill their briefcases and lunch bags with super nano thermite. The gubment just went floor by floor telling the "workers" they would get out and only the people on the floors above them would die.

The gubment was doing pretty good too, until they started getting to the top.





I hope your not buying any of this. Pure BS is correct!

[gnome]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

See, that just isn't an accurate use of the word. And while I'm all for the evolution of language, you can't just co-opt words to mean what you think they should mean and still retain the ability to be understood.

I agree. I need to look at the more intended definition...that's more one that I've picked up from context.

[Cuddles]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

See, that just isn't an accurate use of the word. And while I'm all for the evolution of language, you can't just co-opt words to mean what you think they should mean and still retain the ability to be understood.

Except that that is a perfectly valid meaning for the word:

Quote:

Definition of DOGMA:
1c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

Sure, it can also mean simply an opinion stated as fact, but that's not how people usually mean it when talking about skeptics or scientists being dogmatic. It's almost always used, as in this case, to accuse them of holding to faith-based beliefs rather than relying on evidence. It's rather silly to accuse people of using non-stanard definition when you're the only one struggling to understand the standard dictionary definition.

[doctoratlantis]

Originally Posted by AmyStrange

.
My roommate believes (no matter how improbable), that anything is possible. String theory may one day prove this correct..

Does your roommate believe that it is possible that Romeo and Juliet was written by a bottle of milk collaborating with an electric toothbrush named Eunice? I do have some quantum evidence that this might be the case.

[Bikewer]

When Herr Heisenberg uttered his "uncertainty" principal, every woo- enthusiast on Earth pricked up their little ears.

[Max_mang]

Originally Posted by Hazel

How can a skeptic be wrong when all a skeptic is doing is doubting what someone else says? He can't be wrong until he starts making definite statements of facts himself. Then, he is no longer a skeptic.

This is why I've never liked the term 'skeptic' and prefer 'critical thinker' instead.

[mike3]

Originally Posted by Cuddles

Very well.



Also generally received very well, although more so by scientists than the general public.

See, if you'd been more skeptical you might not have fallen for the common belief that so many well known scientists were ridiculed and dismissed before later being accepted.

So does this mean that there is pretty much no case where scientists laughed at an idea and then later it became accepted? And so that if you're getting laughed at by scientists, you are extremely certainly wrong -- so certainly that, in fact, at essentially no time in the history of science have laughed-at people like you been right?

[BravesFan]

I'm sure there are multiple cases of this happening. But generally, scientists change their opinions once they see irrefutable data. Granted, during some of the earlier eras any science at all was viewed as heretical.....so , that's kinda hard to use as proof because the scoffers weren't scientists they were just religious figures.

[BravesFan]

Not to mention that by nature being a skeptic is to be wrong quite a bit. If you refuse to buy into anything (and postulate alternative possibilities) most of your alternatives will be wrong and sometimes one of them will be correct(and sometimes the original idea you were skeptical of is in fact true).

However, when it comes to things like UFO's are aliens and the paranormal , a skeptical viewpoint has , so far, been proven to be consistently correct according to the evidence.

Maybe one day evidence will surface that proves alien visitation and ESP...etc I don't suspect there will be (though I think the possiblity for an alien race to eventually figure out how to fold space or something exists, I find it very remote that this discovery would coincide with the existence of humans on earth as well as that they would choose to come here).

[quarky]

There doesn't seem to be a biological advantage in being skeptical. If anything, i suspect that critical thinkers are reproducing less than our wooish brethren.

Consider the U.S., once a world leader in science...there is essentially no chance of a non-religious person being elected to the presidency.

There's even a fair chance of a Mormon becoming the leader of the so-called 'free-world'.
Talk about some whackadoodle. Yet, it doesn't seem to matter much. What matters is one's biological significance, in the long run.

Churchy gals put out.

[Garrison]

Originally Posted by mike3

So does this mean that there is pretty much no case where scientists laughed at an idea and then later it became accepted? And so that if you're getting laughed at by scientists, you are extremely certainly wrong -- so certainly that, in fact, at essentially no time in the history of science have laughed-at people like you been right?

Alfred Wegener and continental drift. His idea was poorly recieved when he put it forward. However this was a reasonable reaction at the time. Wegener couldn't offer any mechanism for his idea and his evidence wasn't compelling, thus scientists rejected it. It was only after his death that an increasing body of evidence allowed the development of 'plate tectonics' as a viable theory and put continental drift on a sound footing.
There is also Doctor Barry Marshall, his idea that stomach ulcers were caused by bacterial infection. It was strongly resisted but unlike Wegener Marshall eventually found the evidence to support his idea and became a Nobel laureate.

[George 152]

Or the scientist who put forward the Table of Elements and the rule of eight.
He was ridiculed by the scientific community for years until others vindicated the work..

[gnome]

Originally Posted by quarky

There doesn't seem to be a biological advantage in being skeptical. If anything, i suspect that critical thinkers are reproducing less than our wooish brethren.

Consider the U.S., once a world leader in science...there is essentially no chance of a non-religious person being elected to the presidency.

There's even a fair chance of a Mormon becoming the leader of the so-called 'free-world'.
Talk about some whackadoodle. Yet, it doesn't seem to matter much. What matters is one's biological significance, in the long run.

Churchy gals put out.

Serious response on that point though--I'm betting critical thinkers use more birth control, if only because thinkers, full stop, use more birth control.

*We're birth-controlling ourselves out of existence!!! Throw out your condoms!!!*

[StarSeed]

Originally Posted by Montag451

My thought

Non skeptics try to fit evidence to their belief, skeptics the evidence is their belief

This is a never ending misconception about 'believers', and it will continue until skeptics make the effort to understand how believers get to where they are.

No believer ever starts (at least in the very beginning) with zero evidence, and/or zero suspicious activity, and jumps straight to the idea of a conspiracy. A conspiracy based on what?

No, the theories are always based on evidence and actions. People may disagree on the evidence and meaning of the actions, but they are there none the less. If one starts immediately in with the idea of a conspiracy, then it is because there is a history of distrust, which puts a person on guard for future events.

There are always building blocks and/or history that precedes the theory. Always.

Originally Posted by gambling_cruiser

Pure BS. Argument from ignorance.
It is impossible to rig a building with demolition explosives with the offices full of people and nobody notices the work in progress.

In the context of a conspiracy, you're making a lot of assumptions there. The most obvious, people tend to work the day shift in office buildings. Lots of free access at night. Secondly, it would be easy as pie to block off areas at night for 'legitimate work', i.e., maintenance, inspections, safety issues, whatever.

The work would not have to be done all in one night, although with proper planning, I'm sure they could pull it off.

Quote:

It is impossible to hush the explosions. If you have ever watched a controlled demolition by explosives you would know it's impossible the WTC towers could have been exploded and nobody heared it.

They weren't hushed up. There's plenty of ear witnesses that talked about explosions in the building. I get the feeling youtube isn't popular here, but unless you think these people were lying, then they definitely heard explosions of some kind.

Originally Posted by quarky

Consider the U.S., once a world leader in science...there is essentially no chance of a non-religious person being elected to the presidency.

You can get pretty darn close with Ron Paul.

[BravesFan]

Originally Posted by StarSeed

This is a never ending misconception about 'believers', and it will continue until skeptics make the effort to understand how believers get to where they are.

No believer ever starts (at least in the very beginning) with zero evidence, and/or zero suspicious activity, and jumps straight to the idea of a conspiracy. A conspiracy based on what?

No, the theories are always based on evidence and actions. People may disagree on the evidence and meaning of the actions, but they are there none the less. If one starts immediately in with the idea of a conspiracy, then it is because there is a history of distrust, which puts a person on guard for future events.

There are always building blocks and/or history that precedes the theory. Always.



In the context of a conspiracy, you're making a lot of assumptions there. The most obvious, people tend to work the day shift in office buildings. Lots of free access at night. Secondly, it would be easy as pie to block off areas at night for 'legitimate work', i.e., maintenance, inspections, safety issues, whatever.

The work would not have to be done all in one night, although with proper planning, I'm sure they could pull it off.



They weren't hushed up. There's plenty of ear witnesses that talked about explosions in the building. I get the feeling youtube isn't popular here, but unless you think these people were lying, then they definitely heard explosions of some kind.



You can get pretty darn close with Ron Paul.

really? You think in one night they could not only rig 60 or 70 floors with explosives, but then return the area to it's prior condition? The Govt? The same govt that can't change a tire without filing 6 piece of paper and having it countersigned in triplicate?

That's that craziest thing I've ever read on this forum (Yes, let that sink in for a minute or two)

[Kingfisher2926]

Proper skepticism is indispensible to the search for truth. But good skeptics need to avoid becoming so zealous they throw out the baby with the bath-water.