Or even empiricism.
Your first two examples are non-sequiturs. The Smithsonian is not a political organisation, so Randi’s objection (that an anti-science group were trying to hijack the name of a science group) would not have existed.
My response re the flat earthers would be the same as for DI.
Your arguments are moot, there is a great deal of physical proof for some you mention and not so much for others.
Am I really calling for a ridiculously high standard of proof in selective cases, no, I apply that same reasoning to all things, or at least try very hard to do so. I seriously doubt you know anything about my religious beliefs, since I don’t have any religious beliefs. Just read my posts without assuming anything or spinning the words to your own agendas.
Applause, but I doubt many will understand your post, empiricism or logical positivism is good, but our children deserve more options. As many as possible to bring them individual balance and understanding of the world they live in.
Just not in a venue, such as a science class or the Smithsonian, dedicated to the pursuit and advancement of empiricism.
If I would receive any cogent arguments or solid evidence I could be swayed.
You have missed the point, but Pochacco got it. Ridiculously high standards of proof.
You see if you are not shooting for integrity, honesty, and truth, you’re not shooting for anything. Your findings are garbage. Like the latest “trust” spray. Science used to be brutally honest once, now it’s not. If scientists won’t stand up and insist on the highest standards they only hasten the demise of science. So if something is unknown teach unknown instead of theories which are guesses. Here I am talking about the beginnings of mankind.
Your last paragraph doesn’t apply to anything current.
My friend, the world doesn’t consist of just one idea, and our minds have no compartments for keeping separate the many things of this world. It is only by integrating the whole of knowledge that we become wise. Don’t fear learning new ideas, or you will tremble before the dictators.
I fear you have ignored all cogent arguments and solid evidence with which you have been presented on a wide variety of subjects in the time you have been here and in that same time have failed to provide either for any of your contentions. It has reached the point that, were you to claim the sky was blue, I would be forced to go outside with a spectrometer to verify it.
Yes, Pochacco got that you are insisting on a ridiculously high standard of proof for the process of evolution, but you missed the part where he or she noted that you have demonstrated repeatedly that your ridiculously high standards apply only to those things with which you disagree. Were you to apply them across the board you would be paralyzed and would need to borrow my spectrometer to test if a traffic light were truly green and then you could not lift your foot from the brake because the spectrometer may be broken or may not even exist. There is a point at which you have to say, “By all appearances that light is green.”
This, coming from you, is laughable. You have never shown a respect for any of those things. Instead, you continue to portray conventional science as garbage while hitching your wagon to any pseudoscientific claptrap (ghost research) or antiscientific charletan (John Edward) that comes along. You have repeatedly shown yourself to be either intellectually dishonest, stubbornly refusing to accept scientific findings because they go against your worldview, or just the biggest sucker to come down the pike in recent years.
I would like to see what evidence you have for those statements. It is not scientists who lack brutal honesty but the conmen whose words you accept without question.
As people have told you repeatedly for years, evolution is not an unknown but a tested process and theories are not guesses but the best explanation of a process we have at this time. You show your dishonesty by ignoring that.
It was an intellectual exercise; a thought experiment. I find it helpful to test whether my reactions are the result of my own prejudices in regards to that topic or if I am being consistent. I thought some people might like trying it, too.
Randi may not complain but you can bet whoever’s ox was being gored would. And it is not a political organization (officially) but it is a historical one and their rooms can be rented by anybody. Literally anybody, apparently, and it is also apparent that anybody who gives them enough money can buy a co-sponsorship. Imagine that a group of Holocaust deniers were to rent the room with the Smithsonian listed as a co-sponsor. Would you be up in arms that the institution’s soul was for sale and that it seemed willing to deny historical fact because somebody came along with enough money?
Do you belive that George Washington existed?
Your entire post is about me, not the subject of debate. It is totally false on all counts, and not worthy of an answer. Theories will remain theories, teach them as theories, be honest.
As people have repeatedly explained to you, usually several times per thread in a futile effort to get you to understand, “theory” does not mean what you seem to think it means. Either you are incapable of understanding a simple definition or else you have chosen to ignore the truth. Neither option says anything good about you.
Lekatt,
Do you believe that George Washington was a real person who actually existed?
This is a key point. Because you seem to be arguing that the historical past is fundamentally unknowable: Maybe something happened back then and maybe it didn’t, but we’ll never know because we can’t go back and OBSERVE it. It doesn’t matter how much evidence we can pile up that supports a particular version of history … since we can never know WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY which version is correct, we must give equal time to all possible versions.
As I said in a previous post, it seems that you have decided to apply this ridiculously high standard of proof only to historical facts that contradict your basic worldview. You don’t have any problem with George Washington existing so you don’t require outrageous proofs of his existence. You do have a problem with the fact of evolution so you do.
(And yes, I’m assuming that you don’t believe that evolution occurred. If I’m wrong and you believe that evolution is fundamentally accurate please take this opportunity to say so.)
If a group of wealthy crackpots were trying to get school textbooks to include the theory that George Washington was a fiction concocted by a conspiracy of Freemasons, would you also insist that they be given equal time in the interests of fairness?
How is the evolution/creation debate any different? One side has warehouses full of evidence. The other side has nothing. And yet you want to treat them equally.
You know, the correct answer isn’t always a synthesis of the opposing positions. It’s entirely possible for one side in an argument to just be flat-out WRONG.
The Adam Weishaupt hypothesis?
You need to follow your own advice regarding Lekatt, dropzone 
And the answer regarding your hypotheticals is still “wouldn’t care as long as it’s not someone trying to hitch a ride on the Smithsonian’s name”. I don’t think that communists could do that: no one is going to think communism is science because it’s spoken about at the Smithsonian. Not sure about holocaust deniers: I’m not sufficiently sure about their reputation in history.
As to co-sponsorship, you are being unfair. Quite simply, the default is that they co-sponsor functions held there. Except if they don’t want to, as they didn’t with DI once they realised they were being taken for a ride. Which I think they would do if holocaust deniers tried to use their venue.
The suggestion that Randi’s offer was in any serious way an attempt to hold DI out of a public venue holds no water. At the time he made his offer, DI were already booked in. The Smithsonian couldn’t have bumped them out even if they’d wanted to accept Randi’s offer.
It was a stunt and an effective one. That’s all.
I know. I know. It’s just that…he’s such a…I can’t help…When he starts…
(deep, cleansing breath)
So, who do you think will take the World Cup?
But they were listed as co-sponsors before Randi’s “stunt.” I agree it was an effective stunt to call attention to the selling of the Smithsonian’s name and reputation and it didn’t cost him anything.
The Smithsonian’s reputation is built at least as much on history as it is on science.
I know the feeling. I think I need to got to Lekatt Anonymous sometimes (Hello, my name is Princhester and it’s been 6 months since I’ve responded to a Lekatt post).
But as I say, only because by default they co-sponsor everything that goes on at the Smithsonian. They just stuffed up and didn’t scrutinize who they were fraternising with, as I understand it.
Yeah, you WISH!
That’ll teach 'em. I’m not sure if that was one of Randi’s goals but it should’ve been.