Setting the proper standard of evidence

How should we think about weird things?
Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26775
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Bedtime stories for Omniverse

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed May 10, 2017 7:08 am

Omniverse wrote: Dean Radin says he has the evidence, Sam Parnia and Pim van Lommel say they have the evidence, Stuart Hameroff says he has the evidence, and the list goes on here.
Set out any of these people's evidence.

You can't can you?
:lol:

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Bedtime stories for Omniverse

Postby Omniverse » Wed May 10, 2017 7:13 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Omniverse wrote: Dean Radin says he has the evidence, Sam Parnia and Pim van Lommel say they have the evidence, Stuart Hameroff says he has the evidence, and the list goes on here.
Set out any of these people's evidence.

You can't can you?
:lol:


Actually, the type of discussion I was wanting to engage in was the discussion I was having with Poodle.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26775
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Bedtime stories for Omniverse

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed May 10, 2017 7:15 am

"Last edited by Omniverse on Wed May 10, 2017 5:04 pm, edited 3 times in total"
That didn't take long. :D

What's wrong Omniverse aka Matt MSV7 aka Cobalt6 aka MarkGAB5, aka Aphrodites Child aka Mile Cordon aka Mirror86?

Are you saying all nine of you can't post one example of an NDE story?
:lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26775
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Bedtime stories for Omniverse

Postby Matthew Ellard » Wed May 10, 2017 7:17 am

Omniverse wrote: Actually, the type of discussion I was wanting to engage in was the discussion I was having with Poodle.
Yes. I'm sure Poodle is laughing at you as much as I am. Keep up the good work.
:D

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Bedtime stories for Omniverse

Postby Omniverse » Wed May 10, 2017 8:01 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Omniverse wrote: Actually, the type of discussion I was wanting to engage in was the discussion I was having with Poodle.
Yes. I'm sure Poodle is laughing at you as much as I am. Keep up the good work.
:D


Actually, if Poodle is absent, then I would like you to carry on the discussion I had between him and me.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8241
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Poodle » Wed May 10, 2017 10:40 am

Don't speak from the arse, Omniverse. Being British, I'm a tad more polite than is Matthew - he's a wild man from the colonies. But there's absolutely nothing that Matthew has said in this thread with which I would take issue. We both know very well what you're doing here. It's how we play with you which differs slightly.

God bless the Empire and all who sail in her!

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Omniverse » Wed May 10, 2017 2:35 pm

Poodle wrote:Don't speak from the arse, Omniverse. Being British, I'm a tad more polite than is Matthew - he's a wild man from the colonies. But there's absolutely nothing that Matthew has said in this thread with which I would take issue. We both know very well what you're doing here. It's how we play with you which differs slightly.

God bless the Empire and all who sail in her!


Well, if you are not going to continue on with the discussion we have been having, then I cannot trust your rejection of the notion that these nde/paranormal researchers have research that is worthy of thorough investigation.

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Omniverse » Wed May 10, 2017 4:11 pm

Poodle wrote:Don't speak from the arse, Omniverse. Being British, I'm a tad more polite than is Matthew - he's a wild man from the colonies. But there's absolutely nothing that Matthew has said in this thread with which I would take issue. We both know very well what you're doing here. It's how we play with you which differs slightly.

God bless the Empire and all who sail in her!


Just why is it that you reject this notion I mentioned in my previous post? Is it because you think that these researchers don't have good skill and, therefore, their research should just be dismissed just like how you should dismiss little children telling wild mystical stories? If this is the case, then why do you think that these researchers are not good? Doesn't that require thorough investigation to find that out? Remember, I think even this is a debatable issue that requires thorough investigation and not just some simple google search.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8241
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Poodle » Wed May 10, 2017 4:35 pm

It's because I recognise crap when I see it. What more can I say?

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Omniverse » Wed May 10, 2017 4:45 pm

Poodle wrote:It's because I recognise crap when I see it. What more can I say?


But that is simplistic and close minded. As I said before, what often appear to be flaws on the surface are actually not flaws at all upon further and thorough investigation. We have plenty of evidence for that because it is often the case that people judge things for what they appear to be on the surface, but that these judgments were not true. Therefore, the skeptics have plenty of evidence here that their mindset towards this research is close minded and dismissive.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8241
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Poodle » Wed May 10, 2017 5:44 pm

So you'll be able to direct me to lots of cases of "flaws on the surface" turning into sure-fire right-on bits of evidence of just about anything. I'm not going to hold my breath. When you come up with real evidence of anything, I (and the entire population of this forum) will pat you on the head and acclaim you as the next best thing to Jesus. Unfortunately (and as is so so common) you are incapable of doing that.
It ain't difficult, you know? Just put up your evidence rather than your wishful thinking. What could be easier? YOU do the research rather than insisting that the onus is on me, or anyone else. Stop being so blatantly lazy - get the work done and then report back.
I await your report with bated breath. (Not really - there's no chance of you actually arguing your case, is there?).

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Omniverse » Wed May 10, 2017 7:22 pm

Poodle wrote:So you'll be able to direct me to lots of cases of "flaws on the surface" turning into sure-fire right-on bits of evidence of just about anything. I'm not going to hold my breath. When you come up with real evidence of anything, I (and the entire population of this forum) will pat you on the head and acclaim you as the next best thing to Jesus. Unfortunately (and as is so so common) you are incapable of doing that.
It ain't difficult, you know? Just put up your evidence rather than your wishful thinking. What could be easier? YOU do the research rather than insisting that the onus is on me, or anyone else. Stop being so blatantly lazy - get the work done and then report back.
I await your report with bated breath. (Not really - there's no chance of you actually arguing your case, is there?).


This is just my personal method here. Tell me if you think it is rational or not. If there were a group of researchers claiming that they are good researchers and that they have evidence for any given claim, then what I would do here is thoroughly investigate whether these are good researchers in the first place. If they are, then there is a likely chance that whatever flaws appear on the surface in their research would become resolved. That is, there would be a likely chance that there would be no flaws and that there would be actual evidence regardless of the fact that it seemed like there were flaws at first. However, if I have found out that these researchers were not good through thorough investigation, then that is when I would dismiss them just like how I would dismiss little children making up wild mystical stories. I think this is a very rational mindset. I do not think that the mindset you have and many other skeptics have is rational here.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7634
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby TJrandom » Wed May 10, 2017 7:53 pm

Omni...

If,if,if,if,if,if... lets pretend, let`s shift the burden of proof. Please give it up.

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Omniverse » Wed May 10, 2017 8:04 pm

TJrandom wrote:Omni...

If,if,if,if,if,if... lets pretend, let`s shift the burden of proof. Please give it up.


That's not what I am talking about anymore. The discussion has taken a turn with me and Poodle now and I am now discussing something that is very worthwhile to discuss and shouldn't be dismissed. If all I did was demanded that skeptics prove their materialistic model, then that would be shifting the burden of proof. But I am not shifting the burden of proof in any sense now. All I am saying is that if we have good researchers, then that means any flaws that appear on the surface in their research have a likelihood of resolving through further and thorough investigation.
Last edited by Omniverse on Wed May 10, 2017 8:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19792
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Wed May 10, 2017 8:18 pm

By now we all know this is a sock, right?
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
TJrandom
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7634
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.
Contact:

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby TJrandom » Wed May 10, 2017 8:48 pm

Omniverse wrote:
TJrandom wrote:Omni...

If,if,if,if,if,if... lets pretend, let`s shift the burden of proof. Please give it up.


That's not what I am talking about anymore. The discussion has taken a turn with me and Poodle now and I am now discussing something that is very worthwhile to discuss and shouldn't be dismissed. If all I did was demanded that skeptics prove their materialistic model, then that would be shifting the burden of proof. But I am not shifting the burden of proof in any sense now. All I am saying is that if we have good researchers, then that means any flaws that appear on the surface in their research have a likelihood of resolving through further and thorough investigation.


Yes - it seems I missed this whole new page of posts... but it doesn`t change anything - just a few words. You still haven`t presented anything.

And I do agree - when researchers make mistakes and publish the results of their research in peer review scientific journals, other researchers will find those mistakes. You have examples of course - right?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26775
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu May 11, 2017 1:26 am

Omniverse wrote:Then I cannot trust your rejection of the notion that these nde/paranormal researchers have research that is worthy of thorough investigation.
Well you can trust me. I've read them. :D

Quote and link us to one "NDE researcher" who you think has a valid claim. You can't can you? You never read any NDE books or papers.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26775
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu May 11, 2017 1:43 am

Omniverse wrote: But that is simplistic and close minded.
.....how can you accuse someone else of being closed minded when you haven't read any "NDE research" yourself?

We have an pro-NDE expert researcher on this very forum. His name is Gorgeous.
Gorgeous wrote:my relative visited with our dead relatives when traveling out of body...it is real..
Gorgeous wrote:people are fully conscious out of body...and there are also lucid dreams where people direct and interact with the objects and people
Gorgeous wrote:learning about nde's is great...you can also learn how to travel out of body if you like...Robert A. Monroe taught thousands of people it including govt people...they experience the non-physical beings and dimensions..


Gorgeous get's his information from a 5000 year old alien, called Seth, channelled by an alcoholic named Jane Roberts. Gorgeous also supports the views of NDE expert Joseph_McMoneagle who claims we evolved from otters. (I'm not kidding).

Shall I ask Gorgeous to come and give his supporting evidence for your claim?
:lol:

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26775
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Bedtime stories for Omniverse

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu May 11, 2017 1:48 am

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:By now we all know this is a sock, right?
Yep. It's his tenth sock puppet name.

(MattMSV7, Cobalt6, MarkgaB5, Aphrodites Child, Mirror93, Miles Cordell, Kyle Connor, and so on.)
:D

Omniverse, despite being 31, basically trolls children's video game forums. He posts really bad music videos on these forums. Matt MSV7 then came to our forum to complain that no one was taking his music videos seriously. :lol:
viewtopic.php?f=32&t=26899&p=518371&hilit=compositions#p518371

Here are three video game reviewers discussing Omniverse (Matt MSV7) and his videos under his children's trolling name Matt MSV7. It is an extremely funny review.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cDsX0R8kYE

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8241
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Poodle » Thu May 11, 2017 5:05 am

See what you've done now, Omniverse? I think it's probably a good idea at this point in time to remind you that, in fact, we were not discussing anything at all. You were advocating crap and I was telling you that you were wrong. Hardly a discussion. For it to have been a discussion, one of us would have had to put forward something to discuss. Neither of us has done that. Here's the script ...
Omniverse: Blatant rubbish.
Poodle: Hold on. Let me check that. Oh - what a pile of {!#%@}.
Omniverse: But ... but ... but ...
Poodle: No - it's definitely {!#%@}.
Omniverse: But ... but ... but ...
Poodle: It's definitely, definitely {!#%@}.
Hardly a discussion. In the meantime, you have incurred the wrath of the Australian Avenger. Don't blame me - I gave you warnings aplenty.

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11442
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Major Malfunction » Thu May 11, 2017 6:06 am

I don't know how Matt does it. I sniff BS, and I walk around. Matt just dives in and rolls around doing backstroke.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8241
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Poodle » Thu May 11, 2017 6:15 am

Major Malfunction wrote:I don't know how Matt does it. I sniff BS, and I walk around. Matt just dives in and rolls around doing backstroke.
:lol:
Yeah - that's the one.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26775
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Matthew Ellard » Thu May 11, 2017 6:45 am

Major Malfunction wrote:I don't know how Matt does it. I sniff BS, and I walk around. Matt just dives in and rolls around doing backstroke.
To me, its like going to see a surrealist movie......but with audience participation. :D

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11442
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Major Malfunction » Thu May 11, 2017 6:54 am

So it's kinda like riding a ghost train with live action characters that jump out, but you can slap them on the arse as you go by?
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Omniverse » Thu May 11, 2017 7:10 am

Poodle wrote:See what you've done now, Omniverse? I think it's probably a good idea at this point in time to remind you that, in fact, we were not discussing anything at all. You were advocating crap and I was telling you that you were wrong. Hardly a discussion. For it to have been a discussion, one of us would have had to put forward something to discuss. Neither of us has done that. Here's the script ...
Omniverse: Blatant rubbish.
Poodle: Hold on. Let me check that. Oh - what a pile of {!#%@}.
Omniverse: But ... but ... but ...
Poodle: No - it's definitely {!#%@}.
Omniverse: But ... but ... but ...
Poodle: It's definitely, definitely {!#%@}.
Hardly a discussion. In the meantime, you have incurred the wrath of the Australian Avenger. Don't blame me - I gave you warnings aplenty.


No, that is not the type of discussion we were having. I was instead discussing the standard by which we determine whether someone's research is worthy of thorough investigation. If they are good researchers, then this means their research is worthy of thorough investigation and makes any flaws that appear on the surface in their research likely to resolve through further and thorough investigation of their research. But if they are bad researchers, then we can dismiss their research just like how we would dismiss the wild mystical stories of little children. In the event that we don't know if they are good or bad researchers, then this is still a matter that is worth thorough investigation to find out. Or, if you just don't want to, then you are free to not even bother investigating if the research is nothing important to you. However, such a choice does not give you any rational grounds to deem the research as woo and the researchers as crackpots and/or fools.
Last edited by Omniverse on Thu May 11, 2017 7:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8241
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Poodle » Thu May 11, 2017 7:53 am

Omniverse, it is extremely obvious that you have no idea of the nature of the discussion we may have been having. I - and you - am free to do whatever I want. I can believe whatever I want - as can you. You know - there it is - take it or leave it. Believe away, baby. But some beliefs are comical. Consider that.

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Omniverse » Thu May 11, 2017 7:56 am

Poodle wrote:Omniverse, it is extremely obvious that you have no idea of the nature of the discussion we may have been having. I - and you - am free to do whatever I want. I can believe whatever I want - as can you. You know - there it is - take it or leave it. Believe away, baby. But some beliefs are comical. Consider that.


All I'm saying here is that, as long as you have not adhered to the standard I have pointed out which is the only rational standard, then for you to dismiss the research and researchers as woo and crackpots/fools, then that is not a rational mindset. Skeptics are all about having a rational mindset, right? Well, if this is the case, then that standard needs to be adhered to.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29458
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Gord » Thu May 11, 2017 7:59 am

Omniverse wrote:...the standard I have pointed out which is the only rational standard....

Image
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29458
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Gord » Thu May 11, 2017 8:02 am

TJrandom wrote:
Gord wrote:How do you even get a flat EEG, unless the machine has been disconnected from the patient? Even jello shows a pattern on an EEG: http://io9.gizmodo.com/5946010/why-you- ... brain-dead

Don`t you just put your ear next to the jello to listen to breathing? :roll:

Personally? Yes. Yes I do.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Omniverse » Thu May 11, 2017 8:27 am

Gord wrote:
Omniverse wrote:...the standard I have pointed out which is the only rational standard....

Image


I did not say that it was the only rational standard in the world. If I said that, then I would be wrong. I was saying that it is the only rational standard in the situation I've pointed out. But if you are saying it is not, then please explain this one to me since I don't see how. If there were good researchers and you saw what you thought were flaws at first in their research and you immediately jumped to the conclusion that this research is woo, then that would not be a rational mindset because I would explain to you that since these are good researchers, then there is a likely chance that these flaws would resolve through further and thorough investigation of their research.

In a situation where we don't know if they are good or bad researchers, then to just jump to conclusions would not be a rational mindset either. Therefore, I don't see how it can be any other way. I think this really is the only rational standard to adhere to. Neither can you just jump to conclusions that these are good or bad researchers from simple google searchers or any other simple and quick dirty method. This, too, requires thorough investigation into the debates and whatnot.

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11442
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Major Malfunction » Thu May 11, 2017 8:47 am

Occam's Razor.

We know people hallucinate under anoxic &/or drug-effected conditions. We also know people lie for attention, and we all love a good survival story...

Proposing some whole different realm of existence, without any evidence except a whole bunch of verbiage, doesn't turn a skeptic's mind.

We've told you - explicitly - how to convince us...

Evidence.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Omniverse » Thu May 11, 2017 9:41 am

Major Malfunction wrote:Occam's Razor.

We know people hallucinate under anoxic &/or drug-effected conditions. We also know people lie for attention, and we all love a good survival story...

Proposing some whole different realm of existence, without any evidence except a whole bunch of verbiage, doesn't turn a skeptic's mind.

We've told you - explicitly - how to convince us...

Evidence.


If you want the evidence, then that all goes back to that standard I've talked about in my 3 previous posts. It is through thorough investigation that we find out for ourselves whether there is actual evidence or not. Skeptics are wrong here when they say that no thorough investigation is required in order to come to the conclusion that this nde/paranormal research is woo with no evidence. In regards to what you said in regard to Occam's Razor, there is just so much more to this whole situation than what you are making it out to be. Sometimes, there are situations where Occam's Razor does not become valid. The proponents of the paranormal/afterlife can turn it around and make Occam's Razor support their views or they can explain how it doesn't negate the paranormal/afterlife. If you've really looked into the debates between proponents and skeptics, then you will see this happen.
Last edited by Omniverse on Thu May 11, 2017 10:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11442
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Major Malfunction » Thu May 11, 2017 9:55 am

We have lots of evidence that you're full of {!#%@}.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Omniverse » Thu May 11, 2017 10:05 am

Major Malfunction wrote:We have lots of evidence that you're full of {!#%@}.


I would like to hear your explanation for that. Like I said, I am open minded towards the idea that I really am full of it even though I don't see that right now.

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11442
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Major Malfunction » Thu May 11, 2017 10:32 am

A stupid person is the least qualified to judge their own ineptitude. Read you own posts.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Omniverse » Thu May 11, 2017 10:42 am

Major Malfunction wrote:A stupid person is the least qualified to judge their own ineptitude. Read you own posts.


I'm not seeing it. If you are not going to point out where I am making mistakes, then I will wait for others to point them out and discuss them with me. On a further note, I wouldn't call it stupidity. I would instead call it ignorance. There is a difference between stupidity and ignorance. Someone who just doesn't know is ignorant while someone who does know and does something foolish such as jumping off a cliff knowing that could very well harm him/her would be stupidity.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8241
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Poodle » Thu May 11, 2017 10:59 am

And someone who WAS ignorant but insists upon remaining ignorant is stupid. See how this works?

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11442
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Major Malfunction » Thu May 11, 2017 11:02 am

There's wilful ignorance, which is stupid as well. More stupid than just being naturally stupid, if you ask me.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

Omniverse
Poster
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 2:09 am

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Omniverse » Thu May 11, 2017 11:03 am

Poodle wrote:And someone who WAS ignorant but insists upon remaining ignorant is stupid. See how this works?


I'm not choosing to remain ignorant here. That is why I am having this discussion so that these skeptics can read over those posts I've made in regards to that standard I've recently talked about and for them to point out the mistakes and discuss them with me.

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 11442
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Setting the proper standard of evidence

Postby Major Malfunction » Thu May 11, 2017 11:15 am

You've been learnt. Pony-up, or bugger-off.
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.


Return to “Skepticism and Critical Thinking”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest