Dammit, I thought my post would be on the top of the page. Should have posted a filler post first. Um, I mean, should have let someone else post first. Filler posts would be wrong.
[nitpick]
Actually, picking other people’s nits is much more fun than picking one’s own nits.
For some reason, they’re much easier to see.
[/nitpick]
I think then that your attitude on this question differs from the vast majority of this board. No wonder you perceive these discussions differently.
Of course not. Once we start requiring specifics and facts and all, this won’t be such a wunnerful place to be. :dubious:
Here’s a proposition for you (from this terrific site):
CHEMTRAILS AND THEIR PECULIAR EFFECTS
These days, anyone who looks up will notice that there are jets flying under 20,000 feet, laying thick white trails, which slowly spread out instead of fading out. I believe these are made up of genetically engineered mycoplasma in a kerosene matrix, on which it feeds and grows until it reaches people’s lungs. I also believe that the intended goal is to reduce the vital energy of the population and create fabulous wealth for the medical/drug cartel in the process. I’d tracked a huge increase in diseases such as Fibromyalgia, hepatitis C, multiple sclerosis, chronic fatigue syndrome, etc., since the chemtrails became a regular phenomenon in the skies over all populated areas in early 1999.
I cannot disprove this theory (and nobody can until they have analyzed all them chemtrails for Mycoplasma in a kerosene matrix). And yet somehow, it seems eminently justifiable to regard such a claim as flaming lunacy rather than to “sit on the fence”. YMMV, IMHO and all that.
Jackmannii, proud member of the Cartel since 1989.
In fairness, I think that ghosts, NDEs, various “psionic” abilities, etc. are rather easier issues on which to suspend judgment than chemtrails and Tug Ahoys (or the need for the latter).
For someone who may lump Judaism in with the Heaven’s Gate group as deserving equal respect, chemtrails and ghosts may be equivalent, but I would say that there is a continuum of plausibility and the willingness to accept the possibility of ghosts, (for example), is not generally equivalent to accepting races of hot babes on distant planets.
You find the latter less likely than the former? You’ve obviously not been reading the right science fiction*.
What this all comes down to is the fact-valuing, skeptical mind (the foundation of the SDMB) vs. the Judy Tenuta School of Pseudoscientific Inquiry (It could happen!).
*I’ll sit on the fence regarding the standards of someone who apparently finds Sasha Cohen a “hot babe”. 
The Planet of the Hot Babes issue raises what I think is a necessary third category in logic systems. Propositions can be true, false, or totally freakin irrelevant.
If there is a Planet of Hot Babes which we’ll never ever find out about, who cares? For my purposes, whether it exists has no bearing at all on my life, and discussing its reality is uninteresting, in the truest sense of “uninteresting.”
Yes, it may exist. It may not. There’s no percentage in my disproving it or in my proving it.
I think fence-sitting is a perfectly respectable position here, but a more apt metaphor is fence-getting-up-from-and-wandering-off-to-explore-more-interesting-fields.
That’s ultimately my position on a lot of stuff: the literality of the Jesus story, the Easter Bunny, chemtrails, souls, etc. If you can neither prove nor disprove what you’re claiming, then I don’t care about it. Many folks misinterpret that as my denying its reality, but that’s not really the same as failing to be convinced by your arguments.
Daniel
The discrepency between post numbers in the actual thread and number of replies shown in the forum page probably fooled you.
On the forum page, the replies are counted, the OP not being a reply. In the thread itself, the posts are numbered. It’s like the No Zero Year Rule, you gotsta keep on your toes!
It’s a useful distinction, except the claimed existence of the unprovable isn’t really the point. The claim itself is significant, because when you trace it back to its course, you’ll find the original claimant says the knowledge came to him in a dream, or was revealed by an angel or a ghost, or some other method which implies two things:
[ul][li]There are methods of communication unseen and unmeasurable by science; and[/li][li]The claimant is able to access these methods through means denied to normal humans, i.e. the angels favour him; God and/or spirits communicate through him; he is telepathically “in tune” with the universe, he alone can read the mystical signs, etc.[/ul]The second point is critical in forming mystical cults, where even if the followers never receive mystical messages of their own, they truly believe that the cult founder has and will try to spread the second-, third- or even fourth-hand revelation to others. They’ll aggressively preach that their leader has mystical insight and use the revelation itself as evidence of that insight. Whether or not the insight is verifiable in any way is irrelevant; it may even be undesirable, because analyzing the insight suggests doubting its truth, denying the power of the leader and offending the cult.[/li]
The reaction to such offense is fairly consistent, I’ve observed:
[ul][li]Claim the believers are being persecuted. Some believers, it is claimed, have been harassed, arrested or killed, proving that their power is feared.[/li][li]Claim scientists are not sufficiently open-minded and terrified of change. Skeptics are too fearful or too stupid to grasp the obvious.[/li][li]Claim resistance is due to the active efforts of shadowy agencies and the truth would be obvious to all but for these agencies. If the theory being rejected is a racial one, blame the Jews and/or liberal media for propagandizing against it. If it involves a new theory of Christ, the Catholic Church is preaching against it. If it involves an alternative cure for cancer, the American Medical Association is pressuring government to ban it. If it involves aliens, the U.S. Government and Air Force are suppressing the facts to protect whatever they have hidden in Area 51. If it involves a new take on the Kennedy assassination, take your pick from Cuba, the Mafia, the U.S. Army or Marilyn Monroe.[/ul][/li]This board, I find, is more than generous when confronted with such behaviour. Personal insults are actively discouraged by the GD rules, but when their dearest (but unprovable) beliefs are being questioned, I’ve observed that it is the claimant who invariably launches the first personal attack.
If the true believers are offended, they should leave. There is no shortage of safer harbours for them. I’ve stated that I’ll stay out of Aeschines’ next paranormal-themed thread, and I’ll stand by that. The thread after that, though, (assuming there is one) is fair game.
This board is full of very smart people. Aeschines and those like him want us to drop our facilities for critical thinking and deductive reasoning and just blindly accept what he says? No, thank you. No, thank you very much.
I like that. Describes a lot of what I feel about certain topics, too.
Also, it keeps debates running within certain parameters. It’s rude and quite stupid (imho) to jump into a debate about whether Paul or Christ had more influence on Christianity with a post saying “All your non existant Sky Faeries are TEH STOOPID.” Which is what happens to MANY threads in GD, not limited to religious issues either.
I move we elect LHoD to something or other! Do I get a second!?
Thank you! All with me!?
Opposed!?
Motion carries. LHoD is now the official Straight Dope Something or Other™
Oh, no you don’t. If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not something or other.
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
It’s a useful distinction, except the claimed existence of the unprovable isn’t really the point. The claim itself is significant, because when you trace it back to its course, you’ll find the original claimant says the knowledge came to him in a dream, or was revealed by an angel or a ghost, or some other method which implies two things:
[ul][li]There are methods of communication unseen and unmeasurable by science; and[/li][li]The claimant is able to access these methods through means denied to normal humans, i.e. the angels favour him; God and/or spirits communicate through him; he is telepathically “in tune” with the universe, he alone can read the mystical signs, etc.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
ALthough you’re right that the claim (and the evidence for it) is something we should look at, I maintain that we need look at it only briefly. That is, once we discover that the claim is based on evidence that we can’t evaluate, the evidence itself falls into the “Who gives a crap?” category.
In other words, the conversation goes like this:
Cultist: Cthulhu is a many-headed god living in a far-off star system with a penchant for eating Cheetos and will never interact with Earth! Ftaghn!
Me: So? Who gives a crap if this Cthulhu story is true or not?
Cultist: It’s true! Marilyn Monroe told me so in a dream!
Me: So? Who gives a crap if this Marilyn Monroe story is true or not?
In other words, it pushes the not giving a crap one step further, but I still don’t give a crap about a claim that I can’t evaluate.
Daniel
That’s a bunch of crap. Everyone knows that Cthulhu only has one head, lives in the Pacific Ocean, and eats Doritos.
Jayne Mansfeld told me so.
Now THAT’s something I give a crap about.
Daniel
Then this is one heck of an efficient community.
I don’t think you can opt out of your election, LHoD. How about Grand Poobah? Could you go for that?
Really? I’ve always wanted to be Grand Poobah.
Daniel
Not, however, Grand Poobah of Coding.
Daniel
Winnie the Scrooge?
Man, you try to be serious, you try to raise a valid point about critical thinking and what do you get? BAM! The ol’ fork in the eye! 
At least I finally got some press on the snark board. Yay.
<coming in late to the party>
Are we still voting if Aeschines is a worthless plonker or not ?