I will challenge James Randi.

[phenomenon]

Hi Donks.

No, skepticism isn't swept under the carpet or specifically kept in the Skpetics Corner.

As the owener I have to find a balance that pleases everyone. I will admit that the site is predominantly one of belivers, but there are more skeptics on the site today than there have ever been. I obviously have no control over who joins and what their beliefs are.

With that in mind the Skeptics Corner was designed for skeptics to create topics regardless of other forums and their relevant topics. That doesn't mean you can't challenge other threads. If the skeptics corner is not enough then we have the furnace, a no holds barred forum with very little moderation.

Either way I encourage skeptics. I guess running the site means I am impartial at times, but if it keeps both sides happy then so be it.

 

[CFLarsen]

Evidence John? What evidence do you offer?

No offense, mate, but since you ask for evidence yourself here, why don't you look at the evidence offered to you on your own forum?

 

[phenomenon]

No offence taken.

I do, and I also look elsewhere, the more dicussion's I read the better of I will be. I would have thought many members on here are members elsewhere.

 

[CFLarsen]

No offence taken.

I do, and I also look elsewhere, the more dicussion's I read the better of I will be. I would have thought many members on here are members elsewhere.

So why did you refuse to look outside your own board for evidence?

 

[phenomenon]

Oh, you're referring to the remote viewing thread.

It's not a case of refusing, it's a case of trying to bring several topics on the same subject in to one forum, hence a debate has been opened for both sides.

I could wade through the posts on my site and the links posted to other sites but to be honest it's one big mess and doesn';t seem to flow.

I have spent many an hour on other sites looking through "evidence" for and against, Being a member of many sites it not something I'm not willing to do.

 

[CFLarsen]

Oh, you're referring to the remote viewing thread.

It's not a case of refusing, it's a case of trying to bring several topics on the same subject in to one forum, hence a debate has been opened for both sides.

I could wade through the posts on my site and the links posted to other sites but to be honest it's one big mess and doesn';t seem to flow.

I have spent many an hour on other sites looking through "evidence" for and against, Being a member of many sites it not something I'm not willing to do.

Bull.

I can't speak for what has gone before on other boards, I only judge an individual by what is offered on here, otherwise the whole issue becomes far to messy to collate.
Source

 

[Azrael 5]

CF can you empty your PM inbox.

 

[Azrael 5]

I can't speak for what has gone before on other boards, I only judge an individual by what is offered on here, otherwise the whole issue becomes far to messy to collate.

But is quite happy to drag things onto other boards,no matter how messy.Equal bull.

 

[phenomenon]

Excellent vocabulary you possess CF.

The thread you refer to seems to have more to it than one person making claims and one debunking those claims. I'm not sure of the history between these two posters but suspect there is more to it than meets the eye.

With regards the thread, it is mentioned in several topics on my site and is about as clear as a frosted window. I've asked them to take it in to a debate forum and then I will be able to read what is on my site is an ordered manner. If there are links to be had then I shall use them.

My blurb about other forums refers to criticisms aimed at luci about past threads on other sites.

I would need years to go through everyone's claims on my site, time I don't have when I spend days on end trying resolve issues with a tempremental server.I've asked for it to be collated in to one topic, my perogative.

I think you'll find John and his references to my site came to this site long before I did. Defending my site and its members is my choice, alas, poor John isn't a member anymore and the site is all the more warmer for it.

 

[Azrael 5]

alas, poor John isn't a member anymore and the site is all the more warmer for it

Evidence?

 

[jmercer]

It seems to me the reason is because the moderators share those whacko beleifs, such as the existence of gods, the existence of chi, paranormal powers, etc.

Regarding "whacko beliefs" - whacko is in the eye of the beholder... and usually means a minority of people who hold unorthodox views, or people who adamently hold demonstrably false beliefs as true. To which I say...

From Adherents.com:

Christianity: 2.1 billion
Islam: 1.3 billion
Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
Hinduism: 900 million
Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
Buddhism: 376 million
primal-indigenous: 300 million
African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
Sikhism: 23 million
Juche: 19 million
Spiritism: 15 million
Judaism: 14 million
Baha'i: 7 million
Jainism: 4.2 million
Shinto: 4 million
Cao Dai: 4 million
Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
Tenrikyo: 2 million
Neo-Paganism: 1 million
Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
Scientology: 500 thousand

According to these guys, only 16% of the world is non-religous. Additionally - if you go to the link I provided and look at the pie chart - there's a comment that half of that "Secular" 16% are theistic, but non-religious.

Going by sheer numbers, the "whackos" of the world are those who don't have a religious belief system.

Going by scientific proof, yes - the belief is "whacko". But scientific proof isn't the be-all and end-all of evidence. And, of course, that means your belief that the mods "share those wacko beliefs" is a whacko belief itself, since you also don't have evidence. Hey - that makes you a whacko too!

Welcome to our little group of whacko's - make yourself right at home, the booze is over there: ---->

 

[phenomenon]

Hey John, how does it feel to be a Whacko?

Great post jmercer.

 

[Azrael 5]

There's whacko and then there's Loulee;who should have been certified long time ago.Spirit pictures......

 

[CFLarsen]

Excellent vocabulary you possess CF.

The thread you refer to seems to have more to it than one person making claims and one debunking those claims. I'm not sure of the history between these two posters but suspect there is more to it than meets the eye.

With regards the thread, it is mentioned in several topics on my site and is about as clear as a frosted window. I've asked them to take it in to a debate forum and then I will be able to read what is on my site is an ordered manner. If there are links to be had then I shall use them.

My blurb about other forums refers to criticisms aimed at luci about past threads on other sites.

I would need years to go through everyone's claims on my site, time I don't have when I spend days on end trying resolve issues with a tempremental server.I've asked for it to be collated in to one topic, my perogative.

I think you'll find John and his references to my site came to this site long before I did. Defending my site and its members is my choice, alas, poor John isn't a member anymore and the site is all the more warmer for it.

I am not asking you to go through everyone's claims on your site. But if you want to participate in the thread where Lucianarchy makes yet another round of his claims, you should at least do a modicum of homework, namely to find out what's behind his claims.

You have shown absolutely no interest in this.

 

[Kimpatsu]

Regarding "whacko beliefs" - whacko is in the eye of the beholder... and usually means a minority of people who hold unorthodox views, or people who adamently hold demonstrably false beliefs as true.

According to whose definition?
Whacko beliefs are those beliefs that are scientifically unsupportable. That a majority of people hold them is irrelevant. 100% of people used to think the world was flat, and that Galileo was wrong. As Thomas Carlyle said, "I do not believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance".
Majority rule is irrelevant. Truth as science reveals it is the key, and denying the science in favour of a personally cosier worldview is really no more than wishful thinking.

 

[jmercer]

According to whose definition?

Well, how about these?

Merriam-Webster Online
Main Entry: whacko
Pronunciation: 'hwa-(")kO, 'wa-
variant of WACKO

Main Entry: wacko
Pronunciation: 'wa-(")kO
Function: adjective
Etymology: by alteration
: WACKY
- wacko noun

Main Entry: wacky
Pronunciation: 'wa-kE
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): wack·i·er; -est
Etymology: perhaps from English dialect whacky fool
: absurdly or amusingly eccentric or irrational :

Not to mention this one:

thefreedictionary.com
wack·o (wk) also whack·o (hwk, wk)
n. pl. wack·os Slang
A person regarded as eccentric or irrational: "a catchy pop portrait of a wacko who talks to himself in French" Phoebe Hoban.
adj.
Wacky.

Or perhaps you'd like to consider Allwords.com 's definition?

wacko (colloq)
adj

1. Mad or crazy; eccentric.

Well, now. According to you, a minimum of 84% of the world's population are either mad, crazy, irrational or eccentric. That's a mighty big claim, Kim. I hope you have scientific evidence to support your position... otherwise, I'll have to continue to consider you a fellow whacko.

Whacko beliefs are those beliefs that are scientifically unsupportable.

According to whose definition? So far, I have yet to find a single definition that even references the word "science", and I sure as heck haven't seen anything remotely resembling your take on it.

100% of people used to think the world was flat, and that Galileo was wrong.

That statement is 100% incorrect. Just read it back to yourself, fellow whacko!

If 100% of people used to think the world was flat, then Galileo and all the people who agreed with him weren't people. Historically speaking, most educated people believed the world was round, not flat. The primary adherents to the flat-earth viewpoint were the ignorant... which is a number that represents far less than 100%.

As Thomas Carlyle said, "I do not believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance".
Majority rule is irrelevant. Truth as science reveals it is the key, and denying the science in favour of a personally cosier worldview is really no more than wishful thinking.

Ah, argument by authority. Gotta love it.

Ok, fellow whacko - go ahead. Please provide scientific support for your claim that the moderators of these forums share the world's whacko beliefs. Oh, and while you're at it? Please show me why religion and belief in God is whacko... feel free to produce scientific support for that claim, as well.

 

[Katachresis]

logic?

D***, (rule 8)

jmercer, I'll try to never get in a logical debate with you!

Maybe when you say something I don't agree with, but I'm still looking.

 

[Azrael 5]

Originally posted by phenomenon on SNW forum
I'll be honest, with my level of skepticism even I don't give the old guy a second thought anymore. Sorry to burst your little bubble but Randi's test means very little to most believers and they couldn't care less either way. Says it all really!
You hardened skeptics bordering on cynics need to understand something; believers don't feel the need to prove to you, Randi or any other dodgy character that what they believe is real.

So you wont be coming back on here to answer why Skeptic Report/CF Larsen has asked you a question to which you have no answer,despite making a statement against Randi.Oh what the hell have some more.

Originally posted by phenomenon on SNW forum
I actually posted on that forum and had some material removed. Some member actually said to me...don't forget where you are, this aint some two clicks a day site. So bloody what? Who gives a fig who owns the site or who it refers to?
Was I expected to bow down before God Randi and kiss his old feet as thanks for being allowed to even step over the threshold? As a skeptic even I had to laugh at the crap many of those people over there spout.

Would he like a bigger shovel?

 

[Kimpatsu]

Well, how about these?

Ah, argument from authority; gotta love it.

Not to mention this one:

And again.

Or perhaps you'd like to consider Allwords.com 's definition?

And yet again.
And do you know what? They're all wrong... or, more accurately, incomplete.
When I was studying translation, our J-to-E professor told us that you cannot merely meekly accept the dictionary edfinition; pointing to all of us he declared, "The buck stops here". Nowhere is that more evident than when translating contracts, as in Japanese the various parties are referred to by the Japanese "ABC" system, namely "Ko-otsu-hei..." In translating, a good professional will render this not as the dictionary says (i.e., "ABC..."), but according to context. So, in a tenancy agreement, Ko and Otsu will become the landlord and tenant, whereas in a bank loan agreement, Ko and Otsu will become the lender and borrower. But as the dictionary doesn't recommend this, you'd prefer all contracts to universally refer to the parties as A and B, right...?

Well, now. According to you, a minimum of 84% of the world's population are either mad, crazy, irrational or eccentric. That's a mighty big claim, Kim. I hope you have scientific evidence to support your position... otherwise, I'll have to continue to consider you a fellow whacko.

If that's the number of people who believe in a varient of the Great Juju in the Sky, then yes, I do consider them to be whacko. As I quoted, I have no confidence in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.

According to whose definition? So far, I have yet to find a single definition that even references the word "science", and I sure as heck haven't seen anything remotely resembling your take on it.

See above on definitions.

That statement is 100% incorrect. Just read it back to yourself, fellow whacko!

I'll rephrase: with the exception of Gallileo, everyone thought the world was flat.

If 100% of people used to think the world was flat, then Galileo and all the people who agreed with him weren't people. Historically speaking, most educated people believed the world was round, not flat. The primary adherents to the flat-earth viewpoint were the ignorant... which is a number that represents far less than 100%.

Actually, no; they thought if you sailed far enough you'd fall off the end of the world. That arises from a notion of flatness.

Ah, argument by authority. Gotta love it.

Like your dictionary definitions above, right?

Ok, fellow whacko - go ahead. Please provide scientific support for your claim that the moderators of these forums share the world's whacko beliefs.

I never said anything about the moderators being whacko. On these boards, they are, after all, skeptics.

Oh, and while you're at it? Please show me why religion and belief in God is whacko... feel free to produce scientific support for that claim, as well.

See The Meme Machine by Susan Blackmore and Viruses of the Mind by Richard Dawkins.
Or will you regard these as appeals to authority as well?

 

[Katachresis]

translation problems

I am of the opinion that much of the debate between jmercer (and others) and Kimpatsu(and others) recently is purely a matter of wording.

I am sure that if face to face you two would agree more than disagree. Maybe we can move on? Either to the original contention of 杨建东 (I will challenge James Randi.), or to another less voluminous thread, started by either of you two to debate what you seem to be concerned about, be it the definition of "Whacko" or what it means to be one.

Thanks,

Ketyk