IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts 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.
Reply
Old 16th June 2009, 04:17 AM   #81
dlorde
Philosopher
 
dlorde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,863
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 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 June 2009, 05:11 AM   #82
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 27,861
dlorde. You forgot the link

www.happierabroad.com/Debunking_Skeptical_Arguments/Page2.htm
or for the full works (save $7)
www.psicounsel.com/wwudebunk.html

Last edited by rjh01; 16th June 2009 at 05:19 AM. Reason: links
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 June 2009, 07:57 AM   #83
dlorde
Philosopher
 
dlorde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,863
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
dlorde. You forgot the link
Sorry, I was actually reading the SkepticReport rebuttal analysis of Wu's article.
dlorde 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 June 2009, 04:56 PM   #84
The Man
Unbanned zombie poster
 
The Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
Posts: 18,195
Originally Posted by dlorde View Post
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?

mR/hr (mystical Rationalizations per hour)
__________________
BRAINZZZZZZZZ
The Man 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 June 2009, 05:19 PM   #85
George 152
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,012
Radioactive ghosts?
Might account for the ghostly images on those 'haunted house' photos
George 152 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 June 2009, 05:27 PM   #86
Danton
Student
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 29
Originally Posted by dlorde View Post
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?
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.
Danton 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 6th August 2009, 10:55 AM   #87
LinzeeBinzee
New Blood
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17
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
LinzeeBinzee 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 6th August 2009, 03:41 PM   #88
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 27,861
http://struckbyenlightning.wordpress...-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 by rjh01; 6th August 2009 at 03:54 PM.
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 6th August 2009, 03:47 PM   #89
Safe-Keeper
Penultimate Amazing
 
Safe-Keeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 10,415
Quote:
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???
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.

Quote:
I magic missile the darkness!
It is pitch-black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
__________________
"He's like a drunk being given a sobriety test by the police after being pulled over. Just as a drunk can't walk a straight line, Trump can't think in a straight line. He's all over the place."--Stacyhs
"If you are still hung up on that whole words-have-meaning thing, then 2020 is going to be a long year for you." --Ladewig
Safe-Keeper 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 6th August 2009, 03:51 PM   #90
LinzeeBinzee
New Blood
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
http://struckbyenlightning.wordpress...-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.
lol that's more than I did...I had already lost enough IQ points by browsing his site
LinzeeBinzee 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 6th August 2009, 03:53 PM   #91
LinzeeBinzee
New Blood
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17
Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper View Post
Tell them to compress their points into a single post, which you can then address.
I think that single post would be 10 pages long...maybe I should ask for a debate by Twitter...
LinzeeBinzee 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 6th August 2009, 06:09 PM   #92
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 27,861
Originally Posted by LinzeeBinzee View Post
I think that single post would be 10 pages long...maybe I should ask for a debate by Twitter...
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 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 6th August 2009, 08:10 PM   #93
LinzeeBinzee
New Blood
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
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.
Good advice...there's just one problem...I'll actually have to read his 10 page post!

^^^see how short I kept it?
LinzeeBinzee 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 6th August 2009, 08:37 PM   #94
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 27,861
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...
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 7th August 2009, 01:40 AM   #95
leafman91
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 379
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.
__________________
'Fish pay attention to the moon?'- The Chemical Brothers
leafman91 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 7th August 2009, 09:34 AM   #96
LinzeeBinzee
New Blood
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 17
Originally Posted by leafman91 View Post
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.
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?
LinzeeBinzee 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 8th August 2009, 05:43 AM   #97
Rocko
Thinker
 
Rocko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 227
Originally Posted by skeptigirl View Post
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.
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.
Rocko 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 8th August 2009, 09:46 AM   #98
asmodean
Turing Complete
 
asmodean's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 797
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
If you report yourself maybe a nice Mod will change the spelling error in the thread title.


Ho hum. More Zammit. What a horrid cluttered website.
Ahm, Victor Dammit slår till igen...
__________________
"C code. C code run. Run code, run ... Please?"

Most Christians treat the Bible like a software license. They don’t actually read it, they just scroll to the bottom and click, ” I agree.”
asmodean 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 8th August 2009, 07:22 PM   #99
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,648
Originally Posted by leafman91 View Post
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.
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.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <-
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 9th August 2009, 03:51 AM   #100
LightningStrike
Thinker
 
LightningStrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 177
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
I just clicked your link and got the same chunk of PHP errors. What are you talking about?


It must be a paranormal page.
LightningStrike 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 9th August 2009, 04:44 AM   #101
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 27,861
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.
It makes "makes no coherent sense." (Eteponge)





Last edited by rjh01; 9th August 2009 at 04:46 AM.
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 9th August 2009, 02:14 PM   #102
KingMerv00
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 14,459
Originally Posted by rjh01 View Post
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.
It makes "makes no coherent sense." (Eteponge)




He tried to spam Swift with that link today. He got blocked or banned or whatever.
KingMerv00 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 10th August 2009, 07:59 AM   #103
NoZed Avenger
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 11,286
Originally Posted by leafman91 View Post
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.

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.
NoZed Avenger 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 10th August 2009, 02:45 PM   #104
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,592
Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger View Post
...Wu in sci.skeptic...Dan Kettler... Searches in usenet for their name should turn up any number of amusements.
That's just pure evil to wish that on anybody.

I should report you for irresponsible posting that endangers JREF user's sanity...
__________________
Vote like you’re poor.

A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
EHocking 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 10th August 2009, 03:18 PM   #105
NoZed Avenger
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 11,286
Originally Posted by EHocking View Post
That's just pure evil to wish that on anybody.

I should report you for irresponsible posting that endangers JREF user's sanity...

Was it a secret before that I am an evil bastard?
NoZed Avenger 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 10th August 2009, 03:22 PM   #106
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,592
Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger View Post
Was it a secret before that I am an evil bastard?
ah, but are you an inglorious one with a poor spellchecker?
__________________
Vote like you’re poor.

A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
EHocking 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 10th August 2009, 03:23 PM   #107
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 27,861
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.
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 10th August 2009, 05:09 PM   #108
billydkid
Illuminator
 
billydkid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,917
Typical crock of crap. Even paranormal as a concept makes no sense. It is meaningless.
__________________
Wasting away in Blanchester.
billydkid 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 10th August 2009, 07:21 PM   #109
hokie
Scholar
 
hokie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 119
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.
hokie 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

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 01:12 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2023, 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.