Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Cherchez la Femme

(2,488 posts)
4. Is that supposed
Fri Dec 9, 2011, 11:36 PM
Dec 2011

to be some final, all-encompassing skeptical 'explanation' for (what you consider to be) anomalies?

Is that supposed to refer to ALL scientists?
--with that argument, you've "proved" that, let's say, Evolutionary Scientists are also easily fooled

therefore proving Creationism! Yay!

And is it only scientists who are easy to fool, not laypeople?
Or both?

But, by that tone, YOU are not easy to fool;
therefore not a scientist? Or not a scientist NOR a layperson?
But then what? Oooh my head hurts.
Or is it that you're just too clever for such naughty people?


Surely you can't mean only scientists with theories that you have a problem with who are "easy to fool" and the rest are perspicacious & legit; can you?
Are they CSICOPeans all? --an org which, BTW, was NOT created and led by "scientists" but, by profession, by Secular Humanists (Which I have no problem with... just sayin')
Are those scientists who are quite aware of rife fraud especially in fields intersecting with the paranormal, people such as Susan Blackmore stooges
and one should think
don't belong to an org such as CSICOP alongside the true rarities such as Randi, Kurtz, Loftus, Tyson, Sagan along with the many pseudoskeptics: debunkers-for-debunking's-sake, deliberately ignoring evidence when it doesn't fit their contentions, goalpost-moving...

...those self-regarded rarities , these legends in their own mind
akin to, just to mention a few: Nickell, Hyman, even Klass?

Truly, how fair is it to be "biasing odds against" testing subjects,
claiming this was completely "appropriate because (subjects) claims were unlikely to be true" instead of designing fairly and letting the quantum chips fall where they may?
(replication a given)


Oh but wait: Blackmore IS a member!
Nor is she, and many members with her, known for debunking but for rigorous scientific testing and also happen to be as knowledgeable regarding methods of fraud as any other colleague?

Crap, now it's a migraine. Thanks bub.

Seriously though!?
Gotta ask: Did you forget a sarcasm tag?


Highly amusing post, any road!

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Skepticism, Science & Pseudoscience»Anyone care to discuss Sk...»Reply #4