Science is the philosophy of empiricism. Truth is a metaphysical quality. Science therefore cannot make truth claims. A scientist may say, “Insufficient evidence has been presented thus far to support the existence of ghosts,” but a scientist may NOT say ghosts don’t exist. Of course, you’re not a scientist, you’re a naive materialist (and therefore a rationalist).
Do you even know what a “no true Scotsman” argument is? People (rudely) demanded that I produce citations for my claims, suggesting that I was stupid, ignorant, or uneducated. I wasted my time doing so, only to be told now that citing some of the best-known psychologists and anthropologists of the 20th century doesn’t count because “everyone know they’re flakes.”
Setting aside the issue of dismissing every citation which happens to disagree with your personal beliefs, can you see why I might be loathe to waste any more of my time finding citations for the “CITE OR IT NEVER HAPPENED!!!” crowd?
This is why you can’t have nice things. Your mocking, disrespectful tone does nothing to make me want to continue any kind of exchange; a cynical man might suspect this is done deliberately to discourage contradiction.
I’m afraid I don’t understand why what you’ve claimed here is in any way contrary to what I originally wrote. My contention was that modern Western culture has taken away the traditional roles from schizophrenics, to their detriment and ours.
I have no personal experience with the phenomenon, so I can’t speak to its accuracy. This was simply the example used in the DSM-IV Casebook while discussing the relative nature of mental illness to culture.
Actually science can and does label claims as unfounded, particularly the most moronic and ludicrous. “Insufficient evidence has been presented thus far to support the existence of __” is the sort of language reserved for possible though undocumented phenomena.
Smash, we don’t need any proof that you’re wrong - demanding proof would be scientific. We all just believe you’re wrong and, by your own standards, our belief that this is true makes it so. Stop denying our metaphysical consensus reality.
I’m glad this became a debate thread as I’ve read almost all of his books, most of which don’t seem to be in the library catalog anymore.
First read him with the 911 book.
I seriously doubt he is crazy. Is he making it all up for profit? Not sure.
Whats he been doing lately? He seems to have read about every conspiracy theory written and conglomerated them.
He cites a Cathy O"Brien as one who was forced into mind slavery at the mercy of many famous ‘reptiles’. Has anyone heard of her? How credible is she?
What do you want us to say? Are we supposed to present the credible evidence that Icke used to arrive at his conclusion that the world is secretly controlled by a lizard calling himself Boxcar Willie?
Can you explain why you don’t think “David Icke is mentally ill” is the real answer?
If I was going to sum up the attitude of the people around here, I could not ask for better than this. If science consists in “pointing fingers and laughing,” then you are all scientists indeed. And more’s the pity.
Several actual answers, mostly along the lines of “he’s a crazy person who thinks that the Godhead tells him to do things.” It’s like asking where the homeless guy on the corner who rants about the CIA monitoring the fillings in his teeth gets his ideas. Crazy people get crazy ideas from crazytopia.
They’re shipped via Crazy Express.
They get paid for with Crazybucks.
They’re wrapped in, well, you get the idea.
The other option, of course, is that he’s sane and knows exactly what he’s doing but figures that the money he makes by playing to racists and lunatics is worth the price of his dignity and self respect. Could go either way, I guess.
It depends on how the word is used. Its both a culture/ethnicity and a religion. The context will tell you how it’s being used. Generally.
“It’s all the fault of [del]them Jews and the Jewish vote[/del], I mean them Zionists.”
It’s an old slur. In order to be considered to have “single loyalty”, Jews can’t hold certain opinions. Support Israel a bit too strongly? You’re a perfidious Dual Loyalty having traitorous Zionist conspirator working to take down your own government. Believe in civil rights/sexual permissiveness/relaxed drug laws? You’re part of the nefarious Elders Conspiracy to dilute the pure White Christian values that our nation is based on. Etc, etc, etc…
The idea that Jews aren’t really Jews is offensive enough (and to see its most common use as a slur, google “khazars, fake jews”), the idea that Jews are only innocent of the global plot to do [insert nutty conspiracy theory] if they’re not “Zionists” is the lowest and most foul form of political blackmail out there. To say nothing of the loony conspiracy theory that Zionists (and why does only one nation on the planet have a special word for those who think it should exist, anyways?) are some nefarious force bent on global domination. Being bigoted against a nation isn’t somehow better than being racist against a people.
Didn’t Boxcar Willie die? or do reptiles incarnate in new bodies as needed?
He cites people who have ‘seen’ people shape shift before their eyes. No one has seen a person shape shift into a rabbit have they? Maybe theres credibility in this reptiles thing then?
No, i am just kidding. Reptiles are perceived as uncaring, unlike bunnies, thast part of why they may have been chosen as the shape shifted into.
There are probably crazy people who rant about the Illuminati because they are crazy. This doesn’t mean they got the idea of the Illuminati only from their insanity. The idea came from somewhere else. They read it in a book or something.
I take it the OP is asking for a similar source of the “reptilian” idea.
The Illuminati was an actual organization founded in Ingolstadt, Bavaria, in 1776 and held considerable influence in the court of several nations. Of course, you’d know this if you bothered to research the subject, but why bother? If it was important they’d have shown it on Mythbusters, right?