-
Skepticism is a good, healthy thing… except if you’re questioning one of my pet theories (like tarot, psychic abilities or UFOs).
-
I’m skeptical that fuzzy thinking morons will ever learn to break up their ramblings into digestable paragraphs with topic sentences that can give us all a clue as to what the hell they’re rambling about.
Douglips: that is what I was saying all along. It seems if you are a skeptic you can’t see what I am saying because the word “tarot” gets in the way. I believe if I said that I sit around until ideas come to me rather than use the cards to initiate a line of thinking it would have been completely accepted, thus my point about skeptics being close-minded being proved.
WALLYM7: FUCK YOU! I am sure you have been stuck in a rut thinking about things in one way. I use tarot when I get in that rut to get me to think “outside the box” when possibilities are not forthcoming.
dhanson said, “But when hard evidence appeared in the form of iridium in the KT boundary layer, scientists looked at it again, and now it is considered as a leading probable cause.”
So essentially skeptics disregarded something that was true because they were not open to new ideas. Yes, there are a few examples where ideas were accepted from their initiation, but the general assumption that something is false because it does not fit with one’s world view is close-minded indeed. Thank you for your unwitting support to my initial statement.
Since you mention Randi (I looked him up on another thread), I believe that he is so skeptical that whatever he sees he will simply find something to debunk it. It does not matter what the Hell it is. For example, a psychic says, “the sky is blue”. Randi responds, “the sky is not blue, it is actually clear, the reflection of the ocean on the undersurface of the atmosphere makes it have the appearance of blueness, but the sky itself is not blue.” You can prove or disprove practically anything by thinking about it in a different way. (notice the use of practically)
Sqrl
Move over Satan. Now there’s something meatier. http://smallwonder.simplenet.com/COC.html
You need a deck of cards to get you to think outside the box?
You’re right. Fuck me.
This space for rent.
Sqrlcub, if I told you that there were giant space turtles that send us psychic messages, you would think I was crazy, right? What’s your evidence that this isn’t true? Why so skeptical?
I’m not knocking your tarot card reading the way you use it; however, for all intents and purposes you might as well be using the magic 8 ball to make your decisions.
There’s a difference between being gullible and having an open mind. Lack of evidence to the contrary does not necessarily mean there is evidence for it.
No, they didn’t accept it because there was no supporting, observed evidence. When there was, it began to be taken more seriously. However, there are still those who believe competing theories, despite the iridium evidence.
At the risk of being called something derogatory, I will point out that what you believe and what may be true are two different things; and that it is usually the gullible and the con artists who have a problem with Randi, or any other debunker.
That is not why the sky is blue. It is because of the light-scattering effects of the atmosphere, and the wavelengths which actually reach your eye.
“Practically” or not, it’s still an untrue statement.
“I love God! He’s so deliciously evil!” - Stewie Griffin, Family Guy
WallyM7, do you know how to read? I said when I am in a rut, I use them to help me alleviate that circumstance.
Pldennison, I was only giving an example. I don’t really think Randi is a skeptic but more a confrontationalist. And from what I have seen in the pit, it seems that everyone is a confrontationalist.
Mojo, I understand your analogy to the magic 8 ball; however, the 8 ball only has twenty sides. The combinations that can arise from a tarot deck can number into the hundreds of thousands, or if you do a 78 card reading…is that 78 factorial…(i.e. 7877767574…ad nauseum?)
I will end right here. I know that there is no sort of argument that will ever win with skeptics, even with proof and obviously since it is here, it will be a constant attack. I must admit that I enjoyed seeing how many people really don’t read. I never once said that I use the tarot for magical purposes, but people assumed that I did. I did say that I did readings in order to illicit insights into myself that I may not have originally thought about.
Sqrl
Move over Satan. Now there’s something meatier. http://smallwonder.simplenet.com/COC.html
BTW, WallyM7, I refer you to this thread, dedicated specifically to you. http://www.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000260.html
Sqrl
Move over Satan. Now there’s something meatier. http://smallwonder.simplenet.com/COC.html
Elelle: Ummm . . . “majick???”
Wally: How DARE you imply that the Cub might not be running on all 12 brain cells?? Fuck you, indeed.
Squirrel: “And from what I have seen in the pit, it seems that everyone is a confrontationalist.”
Well, yes. It’s a flame pit. That’s what it’s for. Get over it.
If you wanted a debate or a rational discussion, you sure shouldn’t have started off with “skeptics (sic) breed closed minds.” Just a little insulting, no?
-andros-
Why don’t you do your own talking, SqrlCub?
You posted an OP in the pit that was incomprehensible to me, and you get in a huff?
May the Ace of Spades take up permanent residence in your back pocket.
Wally said, “May the Ace of Spades take up permanent residence in your back pocket.”
Now who is relying on magic here? I like the curse though, but for it to work you have to say it three times.
HUGS!
Sqrl
Move over Satan. Now there’s something meatier. http://smallwonder.simplenet.com/COC.html
Sqrl, your implied definition of “skeptics” is not a very good one.
Someone who practices skepticism, according to M-W is somone who practices “the methods of suspended judgement, systematic doubt, or criticism.”
I understand which kind of person you are talking about, but they are not “skeptics”. If they can never be convinced by an opposing viewpoint, then they have already “passed judgement”, have no doubt that you are wrong and therefore are, by definition, not skeptic.
Back off, man. I’m a scientist.
the mighty SqrlCub writes:
I’m sorry, but I couldn’t tell if you were agreeing with me or flaming me. You start with “That’s exactly what I’m saying” then end with “Skeptics are close-minded: QED.”
Huh?
I, a Skeptic[sup]TM[/sup] agreed with the legitimacy of the use of your cards as long as you weren’t insisting it was some sort of weird extraterrestrial/supernatural/crystal-vibration/intestine-reading thing but rather was, as WallyM7 wrote rather eloquently and acerbically, a way of getting yourself to think outside the box.
You then start to rail again against skeptics who can’t seem to get past the word tarot in response to a post from me in which I did get past the word tarot.
Me thinks the closed-minded one is SqrlCub, who has a hard time realizing that someone who disagrees with him is not necessarily closed-minded. It appears that even people who agree with him are closed-minded in his opinion.
I’m off to sprinkle red pepper in all my birdseed.
SqrlClub and Wally,
Can I watch ?
Ayesha - Lioness
You sound reasonable. Must be time to up my medication.
Ain’t gonna happen. I only have eyes for you, Lioness.
Why, you’re cuter than a hamster in a tux.
This space for rent.
pldennison wrote:
Nonsense. Everyone knows the sky is blue because of orgone energy.
Douglips, I was not flaming you. I did not want for you to take it that way.
Alaphagne: You are right, not every skeptic is close-minded, but as of late irl I have met too many that have faulty beliefs. It becomes tiring and irksome having to tell people that even though they don’t believe in my type of gods, they are still real to me. You can’t imagine how old that gets.
Thank you,
Sqrl
PS. This squirrel likes his food hot. You must have been reading the thread about tabasco in the general questions forum.
Move over Satan. Now there’s something meatier. http://smallwonder.simplenet.com/COC.html
Sqrlcub: You take my example of scientists not accepting the metereorite theory of dinosaur extinction until they had some proof, and claim it shows how close-minded they are?
Do you have any idea of how we make progress in science? I’ll give you a hint: It isn’t done by flitting about from theory to theory, giving each one equal importance, and wasting valuable resources on them. There just aren’t enough resources to do that. When someone comes up with an extraordinary claim, which doesn’t fit with all of the other evidence we have collected, we demand corroboration and evidence. As the evidence mounts for the new theory, we give it more and more consideration.
This is not ‘close-minded’, it’s a disciplined way of filtering information in a way that lets us advance knowledge without being continually side-tracked by wrong notions and outlyer data.
As I said, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity gained pretty much universal acceptance within a few years, even though it upset all kinds of apple carts and knocked over lifetime work by many theoreticians. THAT is open-minded. Let’s see the average professional psychic be willing to throw away a lifetime’s worth of belief if someone produces hard evidence that it doesn’t work.
BTW, there are scientists who have studied psychic phenomena. Duke University has a whole department devoted to it. And guess what? After decades of research, they haven’t come up with any results that are better than chance.
If Psychics are so open-minded, how come so few of them are actually willing to sit down and try to understand the scientific mindset? It’s because they BELIEVE, won’t listen to anyone else, and then accuse their dissenters of being the ones who are close-minded.
Contestant #3 spews:
Oh, no, Connie. There have been quite a few intelligent replies to your fantasies.
However, when gulliblists like you don’t get the proper responses (i.e. those that support your false self-image), you redefine your terms on the spot, hoping to trick people (I use the term loosely) as stupid and ignorant as yourself into thinking (again, I use the term very loosely) that you have a point besides the one on the top of your head. Thus, “intelligent” in your jargon means “bending the knee to you”, and “cowardly” means “disagreeing with you”.
So, why are their beliefs “faulty,” Sqrl? Because they don’t coincide with yours?
<ASIDE MODE> I was shopping the other day and stopped at K-Mart, where I saw some little teddy-bear dolls with human-baby faces. The boxes informed me that the dolls were called “Baby Bears.” I thought about you, and gay slang, and got the biggest laugh of my day. These could replace Tinky-Winky as icons in portions of the gay community!</ASIDE MODE>
“I love God! He’s so deliciously evil!” - Stewie Griffin, Family Guy
I thought Tinky-Winky was a teddy bear with a baby’s face.