I’m just curious — The Paradigm Symposium was held last weekend in Minneapolis, featuring such remarkable stars of the wacky contingent as Erich von Däniken, Giorgio Tsoukalos, and George Noory. This is the conference I was invited to attend, but didn’t bother.
For such a glitzily publicized event and a large collection of weird “stars”, though, there isn’t much appearing on the web about it. Maybe everyone who attended was sworn to secrecy as they left, or the Men in Black showed up and wiped all their memories.
Anyway, if you were there and would care to submit a guest post, I’d probably put it up here.
I’ve been told that Eve Siebert attended, and also tweeted about it. Surprise, surprise, the speakers didn’t understand evolution.
I didn’t attend, I don’t know anybody who did, but I DO know people who have attended things like this. And your description of what happened at your “debate” sounds very familiar:
Had you accepted that invitation for another ‘debate’ at this conference I predict the same damn thing would have happened. Nobody would have wanted to argue on any of the facts. That’s divisive. Instead, they would have immediately tried to steer the subject to how you and they have different, yes, paradigms. There’s no common ground.
You see, skeptics are different kinds of people than the open-minded are. We are shut. They are accepting. And they would have pushed long and hard on what they imagine is a fundamental difference in character, philosophy, world view, paradigm. Anything and everything to avoid the actual subject — and get into details. As you say, they prefer “gelatinous gooey non-statements.” Deeeep.
That’s why they like skeptics to come: to be propped up as strawmen and used as smug examples of what kind of person they are NOT. It would have been fun if you had attended … as long as you made sure it was more fun for you than them.
I was expecting some funny stories and so far – nothing.
Paradigm, the wafer-thin barrier between you and chaos.
Erich von Däniken?
Maybe Ridley Scott was there to get ideas for a Prometheus sequel.
I would love to go to something like this.
I’d be guaranteed some laughs, and I could treat receiving good information as if I had won the lottery. 6 times. Consecutively.
No need to call in the Men in Black – chemtrails are good enough for that job.
You should have attended, PZ. You could have forced the issue about where Art Bell has actually disappeared to.
You could have forced the issue by virtue of knowledge, wit and tentacles. You could have established that he couldn’t have, oh, let’s say, decided he got tired of the schtick and had enough money to just not care anymore. He must have actually gone, let’s say, away.
You could have done humanity a great service by discovering just exactly where away is by following his spoor!
Then you have brought back the coordinates so that we could all go there and needle him endlessly. He and Dick Hoagland.
Man, I’m so bummed.
They wouldn’t let me in. I didn’t have a pair’a’dimes. I only had four nickels. :(
That, and people presenting woo like it was heavy with any sort of legitimacy makes me call people horrible, horrible names. I haven’t mastered control of the ad hominem, and probably never will.
No, it won’t help to say quit acting like a twelve-year-old. I haven’t advanced that far yet.
Never trust people who like to say “paradigm”!
How about “paradigm shift??”
I see the History Channel was one of the sponsors because of their “Ancient Aliens” series. Whenever I am channel surfing and catch a glimpse of this program, it makes me wish they had more programs that dealt with actual history.
The History Channel is history. Looking at all of the cable learning channels, they have all essentially become history. Selling out to cheap production and virtually zero writing and research is the new mantra. The only channel that still maintains a legitimate educational impact is PBS, likely because there are no shareholders to impress with dollar signs at the parties with the little shrimps and wienies (and those aren’t the appetizers, those are the channel execs).
Sastra,
I don’t recall “protesting” anything. I simply was attempting to prep people for the fact that I hadn’t been informed I was entering into a “formal debate” – which is very different than the “open discussion” I was told it would be.
Nor was I given any idea that I’d be debating an evolutionary biologist and a PhD in archaeology, so I did not come prepared for anything other than what I thought would be a casual discussion on the topic.
PZ led off by misquoting me from my own book, utterly misrepresenting the point I was making in the passage he read. This tactic of stating incomplete context is utilized to misinform and keep the opponent defending the misquote rather than moving into other topics.
In the first few minutes, PZ referred to me as a “Nephilimer, ass-plucker and a denialist” – not to mention the inference that someone “like me” couldn’t figure out how to use an iPad. My response was to say, “I deny that…” and I went on to correct PZ’s incorrect characterizations. My book presents the Nephilim as Hebrew mythology, not fact, and then the book goes on to make comparatives with other cultural tales and religious mythologies.
Further, I was not at all unwilling to talk about facts. But something I did notice was that if I said, “This is so,” I would be booed and jeered by PZ sychophants, while his “No it isn’t” would be applauded. Definitely a loaded crowd that smacked of having the feeling of a set-up.
That is precisely why I said, publicly, that I’d be ready for a re-match next year, in which, if this is a formal debate, we’ll both have opportunity to prepare for specific questions. I did not hear an acceptance of the challenge from PZ, who seems to thrive on being the nay-saying curmudgeon, but becomes quite toothless and limp when challenged off-stage.
When I invited PZ to come to the Paradigm Symposium for a similar debate, he resorted to what most do when relying solely on his audience to bolster his case, He mumbled back, “Well, I don’t know, I’d be in the enemy camp, then wouldn’t I?” I told him not any more than was in an enemy camp, especially if what we both seek is fact and solid answers despite our respective theories on varying topics.
I contend that there are “Big ‘S'” Skeptics and “small ‘S'” skeptics. I classify myself as the latter in that I do not deny offhandedly and without consideration. I have an open mind that wants to know facts.
Bob Blaskiewicz of the Skeptical Inquirer attended the Paradigm Symposium on a press pass. I suggest you ask him his take on the information being disseminated.
As for the name “Paradigm Symposium,” it was in reference to the “shifting paradigm in the ufological field of research.”
No longer is it about lights in the sky and waiting for benevolent aliens to rescue me from my mother’s basement apartment, taking me to some better planet in some distant galaxy. It is about researching the theory of pale-contact as seen through the filters of archaeology, anthropology, cosmology and, yes, philosophy. Hence, “The Paradigm Symposium.”
Our speaker list not only included guys like von Daniken, but also Laird Scranton talking about his latest book on Immanuel Velikovsky, “The Velikovsky Heresies.” Also speaking was my good friend Dr. John Ward of Hereford, England (GB), archaeologist/anthropologist living in Luxor, Egypt. He spoke on ancient symbols, and is very much an opponent to the “ancient alien” theory.
There were several presenters who approached the topic from a very different point-of-view, offering up not a “know everything” approach, but differing views for people to hear and assimilate.
As my partner in this effort said, “I would love to correspond with (PZ Meyers) and share ideas. He, on the other hand, looks like he would run screaming, and attempt to deconstruct what he presupposed to be my “positions” with misquotes and verbal banter, well-wielded by those of his own kind, which root themselves amidst the cult of “skeptical debunkers.” But for goodness sake, if the guy ever DOES find out who I am, please don’t tell him that I, in truth, am a skeptic as well. After all, I’m not sure I’d want to deal with his biologically-oriented ejaculatory paroxysms…”
Paleo-contact, not “pale”*
scottyroberts
“Meyers”
try harder
The event was a wonderful learning experience! People were able to ask questions and they were answered. The speakers were incredible. You could network with everyone there. Scotty Roberts, Raini Roberts and Micah Hanks did a great job putting it on. I look forward to next year’s Symposium.
I attended and I loved it. It wasn’t a place where people preach at you and say you can only see things their way. It was all about putting a lot of information out there and having people research stuff on their own. After reading most of the comments on here, I am very happy that you did not attend. Don’t bother coming next year either or there may be duct tape and a pillar in your future.
Chigau>> Bingo.
I dunno, PZ. You said above, “This is the conference I was invited to attend, but didn’t bother.”
Was it an issue of not bothering, or was it something completely different? You were invited, personally, by me. I invited you to a debate and to also have an opportunity to present your research and views to a crowd not unwilling to listen and learn.
Your response to me seemed less the stuff of offhanded brandish of our “ridiculousness,” but more a quiet, limp cowardice. Your mumbled reply to me was, “Well, I don’t know… I’d be in the enemy camp, then, wouldn’t I?”
I lightheartedly responded to you that you would then be under the same conditions you seemed comfortable for me to be under at your debate.
I believe you are great with an audience, PZ. Your brand of dismissive Skepticism, however, is nothing short of revealing what you truly are: a grizzled Cynic. Skepticism allows for questions and seeks answers – it isn’t about simply denying that all other ways of thinking are silliness. Hard boiled cynicism, on the other hand, denies everything without question.
Again, I invite you to present your research at the next Paradigm Symposium, October 17-20, 2013. We can also have a debate, but if you feel you would do poorly in front of the opposite sort of audience of the sort you were quite comfortable having me face at your debate, then I can accommodate and help you slip out quietly under the radar. ;)
Cheers, PZ!
Scotty
PZ,
In another thread in which you gave your take on the debate of last July, you said that you “purchased” and gave my book a quick “speed read.”
First, thanks for buying my book. You have helped elevate it in numbers in a small way.
Second, your “speed read” obviously gave you some great,quick quotes, but missed the entire point of the book – as well as some very salient details. NEVER have I said I adhere to the “ancient alien” theory. As a matter of fact, I stated more than once in my book, that the jury was quite out, for me, on paleo-contact theory.
“The Rise and Fall of the Nephilim” was a book exploring comparative ancient mythologies of creation and “non-human” contact, the Hebrew religion’s Book of Genesis being the source point for the word “Nephilim.” I did not promote the Nephilim as anything but ancient mythology.
Never did I say, either, that I adhere to the notion that “ancient aliens” built the pyramids or monoliths of antiquity. And, further, while some adherents to the paleo-contact theory are proponents of that line of thinking, most presenters at the Paradigm Symposium were not, but are open to the theory and its research, despite being strong proponents of evolutionary doctrine.
Not a single one of them adhered to “creationism,” including me. So, if you picked that up from your speed read of my book, you missed some things.
As for the claim that there are over 600 ancient cultures and tribal tales of flood accounts, this is simply fact. Do your research. And making that claim has absolutely nothing to do with some sort of tacit racism, as you, Dr. Greg Laden and many of your sycophants suggest. The vast number of ancient flood accounts was something I explored in my book, enumerating several of them by culture – which spanned not just African and the “brown” peoples (as you put it), but into Celtic, Norse, Iberian, Asian, Indian and Native American cultures.
I look forward to opening more dialog with you, as this is how we learn beyond skepticism, brow-beating and arrogant acamedicians who have elevated their particular view of science to the lofty doctrinal/theological position of “surrogate religion.”
When you decry all other faiths and religions as “mindless ass pluckers,” and elevate your own scholarship and personal atheistic views above theirs, you, in a very real sense, have created the New Religion; the new standard; the new “god;’ the New Theology.
Do consider being part of the Paradigm Symposium next year. I am sure no one will treat you rudely or laugh you out of the house for your views. I have found that those who don’t have a handle on the universe and its workings, tend to be fairly open minded to god thinkers.
Cheers!
Perhaps my last line of the last post was a bit Freudian… I meant to say “good thinkers,” Not “god thinkers.” ;)
http://www.intrepidmag.com/blog/paradigm-symposium-the-million-year-event/
snottyroberts,
You’re a pompous ass*. The fact that your ludicrously titled “Paradigm Symposium” (it would be hard to pack more pomposity into two words – I really must congratulate you on that) invited participants to take seriously the ludicrous piffle of von Daniken and Velikovsky, tells any rational person that its only possible value would be for amusement.
*In the British sense.
So, Nick, what do you know about WHY we named it the “Paradigm Symposium…?”
And, Nick, now that you’ve declared me a “pompous, irrational ass,” please tell me more about what you know about me and the Paradigm Symposium…
what do YOU know about what a “paradigm” even is?
because man, does your symposium completely NOT resemble one.
Was it an issue of not bothering, or was it something completely different?
funny, I read that as HE SNUBBED you.
deservedly so from the limited view you’ve given of yourself here so far.
You think PZ Meyers (who’s that, by the way) will hold a private discussion with you? Highly unlikely. Do you have a point? I haven’t seen one other than your ego.
Well, with the god-like status to which you are elevating the vaunted PZ Meyers, I suppose I would have to do some obeisance of some sort that would make me worthy of a conversation.
I think, however, what Ichthyic and Nerd of Redhead illustrate very well is the ability to insult rather than dialog. But I wear my big boy pants, so I can handle it.
You ask me what MY point is, when I thought I made several. I have yet to see any of you engage here in anything substantive, unless this blog is to be a lesson in incivility and diminutive repartee as an avoidance tactic to honest dialog.
And Nerd, if I have a point to make, it would be that PZ is very comfortable when his audience is there to bolster his charm and wit before a crowd, but shies from (or “snubs”) debate in a crowd where he would have to stand ion his own and dialog fairly.
I also find it amusing that you have to come in and throw insults for him. I think he could do that pretty well all on his own.
Now, tell me, when PZ writes about me and my symposium, why is it left to you to attempt diminishment rather than engage in decent dialog. My hypothesis – which can be tested over and over again with somewhat of a scientific methodology – that you are incapable of substance, opting, instead, to pre-pubescebt pedagogy and the hurling of unsubstantiated insult to avoid having to make intelligent, polite conversation or dialog.
But I don’t care. It doesn’t bother me at all, its just fun to watch the substantiation of my hypothesis. Because never once have I seen anyone whom you collectively disagree with, get anything substantive from any of you, other than substantive diminutives.
But, then again, that is your tactic. More power to ya.
As for the meaning of “Paradigm” and the reason I used it in my symposium, I think you all aren’t quite as silly as you come off. What IS obvious, also, is that you have never bothered to ask before hurling insult – a trait of the small minded. But that doesn’t bother me, either. It merely, again, establishes my hypothesis.
Here’s to the arrogant power of anonymity.
Cheers!
Scotty
Oh, and PZ, you are still invited to speak at Paradigm 2013. You will find that no one who disagrees with you would treat you anything less than gentlemanly and respectful.
I think you could hold your own very well – hell, you can even bring a crowd, if you’d like – and you will most probably find a very willing audience with an ear to hear what you have to say.
Well, with the god-like status to which you are elevating the vaunted PZ Meyers
LOLwut?
and would you fucking at least get his name right, please. It’s bloody irritating.
It merely, again, establishes my hypothesis.
what a complete fuckwit you are.
You have invited PZ Meyers. Don’t expect PZ Myers to show up loser.
Ichthyic
Yer just a nattering nabob of negativism, ain’cha?
As long as you guys speak for PZ Myers (I get confused with all the Meyers, Meiers, Myers and Miers I know), I guess he wouldn’t need to answer me on his own, would he?
And I can hurl the “fuck-wads, fuck-nutz, fuckin’ douche bags, ass fucks and fucky McFuckerstons” just as well as you two micro-brains demonstrate, but I choose a little higher course of dialog when I’m not sitting at the local pub, drinking my Guinness.
Tell you what… on the day you guys graduate from middle school, come look me up. I’ll buy you a soda pop and we can discuss what its like to get laid.
Cheers!
Scotty
Yes immature fuckwitted idjit, I did that forty years ago. You, like all your ideas, is too late to be relevant. Maybe if you actually obtained a degree and used it properly.
So that is the key to learning about Ancient Aliens™: drink soda pop and discuss what its [sic] like to get laid.
I’ve been doing it all wrong. :(
Why don’t they ever mention that on the History channel?
Thank you, Spiro Agnew. ;)
Nerd of Redhead… just for the sake for mental gymnastics, please tell me which of “my ideas” are/is late coming to the table.
And I only ask because I contend that you actually know very little about me and/or my ideas.
And do tell me… what is “fuckwitted?” (I am assuming you don’t mean that I have a great sense of comic timing regarding the act of fucking.) And I am also curious to know how you think your pedantic diatribes add to any sort of constructive dialog… or are you simply incapable of having substantive conversations with someone who may hold differing views to yours?
Man-oh-man, your world must be pretty cloistered and boring… and by the looks of your heated epithets, probably celibate.
consciousness razor >> you guys sure have a great way of twisting conversations. Again, I understand the tactic very well… twist the onversation enough and you never actually have to engage in anything substantive.
Do you all work for the Democratic Party?
And let me understand you correctly, Nerd of Redhead… I am immature for making fun of YOUR immaturity? I started with pretty decent dialog which resulted in very little other than name calling and fuck-laced epithets from you guys.
And – just so I get this straight – for responding to you in like manner (and rather tongue-in-cheek) I am the one who was being immature…? *smirk*burgeoning*guffaw*
Ok. Just letting that one sink in…. ok, got it now.
Wow! You are just so clever!
Who remembers this?
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2012/07/09/did-ancient-aliens-visit-the-earth-and-guide-human-evolution
Wow stupid and politically abhorrent! So sad we missed that conference
Chigau, there is so much that I forget. I think I should be grateful for that. I just skimmed over that thread and took a quick look at cl’s blog (Cl was the less than intelligent troll who stopped by for that thread. Seriously, check out the blog. *eyeroll*)
So many memories that I keep suppressed.
You gotta admit, Janine and Ing, it was much more clever than “fuckwitted douchebag.” Wow, you are sure a humorless lot. You can dish it, but can’t take it in return. Says a lot for the efficaciousness of your skeptical/scientific stances – “not open for dialog with those we have deemed below us.”
You can hurl every epithet in the book but can’t handle a little politically based humor. Do you all realize how well you’ve derailed any of the original intent of this thread? Bravo.
Good thing I am not the timid, mealy-mouthed sort who cowers at such bullying. As I said earlier, I wear my bog boy pants and can handle my own – even with people with whom I disagree.
I would be willing to bet that you can only act the way you do because you can hide in the anonymity of the internet. Put on your web bravado, but you’d be hard pressed to NOT act with any sort of gentility and mutual respect in a public setting, and face-to-face dialog.
You guys sure have the handle on disseminating fact and honest research.
@Scottyroberts
Going down the check list of wrong and assheaded ad homs and non sequitors?
Ing, just take a look at Scotty’s FaceBook page. Explains a lot. For favorite television, Faux News is among the listed.
Now I am wondering if Liberals are actually Lizard People.
Chigau >>
I remember that very well. I even commented on it in this thread. Was there something you wanted to say about it…?
Is that what that smell is?
Chigau, just refer to post #13 in this thread regarding the link you posted.
Janine, didn’t you know?!? Liberals and the royal families of Europe are Reptilians from the Draco Star System, living in cloned human skin disguises.
@Bog boy
Look I literally have no interest in trying to debate with a hysterical moron who has abandoned all pretenses of reason. We’re not playing with the same rules much less the same deck so you might as well piss off.
So, pointing out that an attempted joke is not funny is a sign that ?
What out, Rachel Maddow just might unhinge her jaw and swallow you whole.
@52
It’s sad that that might not be a joke. I’m sure we’re part of a liberal science conspiracy, the Knights of Tipper, or the Inebriati
Well terminal idiocy deserves only mocking.
Fucking offering for the Typo Monster.
Stupid monster does not have to work for any food, it just stays at my feet, waiting. And never too long.
scottyroberts
The original intent of this thread was to make fun of you and your Meeting of the BigBoyPantses.
I think it’s working.
@Chigau
That’s BOGboypantses
Meeting of the BigBoyPantses.
LOL
I think it’s working.
yup. most indubitably.
I demand a debate between scottyroberts and Vox Day. I know it will make me stupid just to witness it but I would be so amused.
Why, yes my humor is rather warped.
again, LOL.
snottybob ends up brightening my day after all, albeit completely unintentionally.
I demand a debate between scottyroberts and Vox Day.
can’t we have a cagematch instead?
and then lose the key and turn out the lights?
Hey, now, Janine, I don’t just like FoxNews. I also like “Dances With Wolves,” “Football,” “Scrabble,” “Thomas Jefferson” and “Sword Fighting.” I think those all put together count as being fairly well-rounded.
@Bog Boy Pants
I have to admit I am impressed: It’s no mean feat carrying peat within your seat
Ichthyic, I don’t know who “Vox Day” is, but if we can add mud, I’m there.
Shit, I am now hearing “bog boy” as if Keith Moon were singing it.
BOG BO_OY!
Can’t you just take off your pants?
Thank you, Spiro Agnew. ;)
or the headless body of Agnew, anyway.
It could be a “sword fight” between those two.
I will say nothing else about that.
*snort*
It looks like we are all getting our geek on.
Ichthyic, I don’t know who “Vox Day” is, but if we can add mud, I’m there.
oh, no worries, with Vox there is always plenty of mud slung about.
we’ll set up the cage.
Wouldn’t be a fair fight, pretty sure Vox day would kick Bog Boy’s morass
Shit, I forgot all about his Flaming Sword!
Dammit! Now I see his bad haircut!
So many suppressed memories!
“Sword Fighting.”
I bet Obama’s comment about decreased reliance on bayonets really chapped your soggy butt, eh?
Wouldn’t be a fair fight, pretty sure Vox day would kick Bog Boy’s morass
wouldn’t care, so long as nobody ever unlocked the cage.
Ichthic,
Not to take it to a serious note, but why would you want to see me “locked away” in a cage? Is it so there would be no one who thinks differently than you? Would it be to lock me away for my subversive views? Would be an inquisition type of thing that prevented me from speaking just because I did not align with your particular science or politic?
What is it that drives, seemingly, most of you here to prefer insult to dialog, crassness to respect, belittlement to conversation, name-calling to civility?
Is it because you disagree with me? And if so, can any of you state what it is you actually dislike about my views. Hell, can you even delineate what my views actually are?
or is it just a “Follower-of-PZ-Myers-Thing” to berate and belittle above substance and dialog?
Sorry, Ichthyic. I wasn’t deliberately misspelling your pseudonym.
Were we being uncivil, so sorry.
PLEASE, go fuck yourself
Not that you’re actually being polite or civil.
Civility is what tone trolls hide behind to show their lack of honest evidenced argument. Just like you do…
Oops. I like my single malt highland scotch peaty, not my pants. I’m with Janine… damned typo monster.
Scottyroberts, is it really that difficult to cut and paste a name that you cannot spell properly?
Also, is it really that fucking difficult for you to realize that you are being mocked. Or does it make it easier to think that Ichthyic, because you do not think like him, wants to see you harmed?
Contrary to your protests, you are not a well rounded person.
And the mocking will continue. Because, well, you know, we all have lizard brains.
scottyroberts @46
Yeah wtg Janine and Ing, you’ve completely derailed this important topic with your repeated quadruple- and quintupleposting. For shame.
scottyboberts
Oh how sufistimacated. Could ancient astronauts have brewed the first malt liquor!?
*whistles and stares blankly at the ceiling*
Nerd of Redhead, I was waiting for that one. I would counter than incivility is what the insubstantive hide behind.
Something I’ve noticed in these types of forums… it does no good to call people on their incivility, because, mostly, it just prompts them to act even worse. So, for the most part, I tend to roll with it and try to exchange humor for tactless jibes.
Seriously though, the smell. Boggy you have to drain your quagmire
Um Boggy Creek Creature you do realize that your jibes actually got more people who previously simply did not care to actively think you were a jackass and respond?
And your linked evidence, not your mouthy OPINION, which can and will be dismissed without evidence, is found where?
I chose to imagine Bog Boy Pants thusly
Shit, I responded to the stupid political crack and was later directed to the “debate” between scottyroberts and PZ by chigau. Like I said, I forget so much, especially when it is stupid.
Ing,
I have no idea what ancient astronauts brewed or drank. I don’t adhere to the ancient astronaut theory.
Nerd of Redhead, my evidence for what, exactly…? That people under the guise of anonymity in public forums are generally less civil than they would be in a face-to-face meeting?
@94
Be a good start
Janine, refer to post #13 in this thread.
Yes we read 13. We all read frelling 13.
Seriously, Nerd, that’s the best you got?
Um you might want to give someone more than two minutes jackass
True enough!
Oh come on, guess.
Everyone knows ancient astronauts drank Tang
Tang is ancient astronauts
Ing
Who are you calling “ancient”?
(I’m not an astronaut but I drank Tang.)
*slaps forehead*
Tang! Of course! Sheesh. And NASA got the formula for Tang from the Roswell crash.
Formula? Do you have any idea how many aliens were in that ship? *slurp slurp slurp* we’re set for life.
*metallic echoing sound*
Ing,
There weren’t any aliens at all. They were crash test dummies from the early 1950s.
Are you trying to say that Tang is powdered crash test dummies? Because that’s just ridiculous.
Oh c’mon,
guysgalsfolksfellow soclpuppets.scottyroberts Tang/Roswell jape was funny!
Guys, its been fun, but I have to go clean up the pumpkin carving mess from my kids, and get the pre-pubescent 5th grader to bed.
Looking forward to more substantive dialog in the near future.
You can get hold of me anytime.
Cheers!
Scotty
(651) 468-8115
[email protected]
sock
no ‘l’
Oh frell. PZ you might want to clean up 110 where Scotty was stupid enough to put his real e-mail and number?
I thought you meant “cl”.
He fucking left his phone number???
He totally fucking did!!!
Janine
Possibly.
But then I wouldn’t have known what I meant.
Y’know what I mean?
So, did ancient aliens kick start the civilizations that made the ancient aliens that kick started human civilization? Was there an ancient alien prime mover, the unmoved but moving prime ancient alien?
Last note: my phone number and email are all over the internet and have been for years with Intrepid Magazine and my other endeavors. I figure if i get crank calls, I can simply hang up.
It hasn’t been a problem in five years.
@Janine
It’s tang all the way down
You are too stupid to be online
The best you have your hand on your mental penis.
Ing,
My number was public when I was the editor-in-chief of a magazine, as well as my own rag. It’s been public for the Paradigm Symposium and my illustration and design business for years.
Its a phone number.
It also lets people know that I am accessible. I don’t hide behind anonymity, nor do I eschew contact from anyone, albeit sometimes I deal with people offering up crazy ideas.
Crank magnet.
Nerd, at least my mental penis is exponentially larger than my other one.
And back to sword fighting.
Janine,
Unless you see this as a gauntlet, I have not had a single crank call in all those years, despite some of the cranks who try to offer up weird shit.
Translation: I am shit at detecting prank calls.
A cursory glance at Google led me to multiple places where people are invited to post numbers for people to call and harass.
Tang built the mass relays
@nms
Let’s not go near that berserk button of mine. Tang would be an improvement.
heh heh heh
I vaguely remember the President saying something about NASA not formulating Tang, ALL the aliens formulated it… or something like that…
@Bog Boy
Don’t you have a family you’re currently neglecting?
scottyroberts
Does the “pre-pubescent 5th grader” ever answer the phone?
Is the “pre-pubescent 5th grader” anonymous?
Ing >> Nope. They are all in bed. My wife and I are just about to settle down to “The Walking Dead.”
Chigau >> My pre-pubescent 5th grader never answers my phone. But he IS anonymous.
scottyroberts
You really are too stupid to be online.
Well, Ing, that phases me almost as little as being called “fuckwitted.” haha.
I’ve been working and developing and designing on the internet since 1996. I’ll be fine.
FFS, I am at a serious moral cross roads here. When someone keeps insisting on eating the cat turd no matter how many times you try to smack them out of their hands, do you just let them?
Ing, some people make coffee out of that.
Civet cats, that is.
Ing
I think we need to keep smacking.
scotty is not alone.
Poor missus as your mental one is minimicroscopic. After all, you are delusional, believing without evidence in everything.
Humanity is not alone.
*ancient aliens*
Janine
I meant that scottyroberts is involving innocent bystanders in … whatever crusade he thinks he’s on.
I think that’s his personal cell phone number, not a home phone.
nms #143
OK.
Still not ‘safe’.
I’ve been working and developing and designing on the internet since 1996. I’ll be fine.
are you sure you didn’t help Al Gore invent it?
…cause that was a new paradigm.
sometimes I deal with people offering up crazy ideas.
how on earth can you tell?
“After all, you are delusional, believing without evidence in everything.” ~ Nerd of Redhead
Now, now, Nerd, what is it I have stated that I “believe in?” I have said that there are topics and subjects that intrigue me, but placing my “belief in them” – that’s just simply not something I do.
I like these words from Richard Fyneman…
“…we should look to see what’s true and what may not be true, once you start doubting – which I think, to me, is a very fundamental part of my soul is to doubt and to ask – when you doubt and ask, it gets a little harder to believe.
“You see, one thing is, I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about different things but I’m not absolutely sure of anything. And then many things I don’t know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask, “Why we are here?” and what that question might mean. I might think about it a bit and then if I can’t figure it out, then I go on to something else.
“But I don’t have to know an answer, I don’t have to. I don’t feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose – which is the way it really is as far as I can tell possibly. It doesn’t frighten me.”2
~ Richard Fyneman
Ichthyic,
Al Gore invented the internet long before 1996. I simply started building rudimentary websites in 1996.
I like these words from Richard Fyneman…
who the hell is Richard Fyneman, you crazy dyslexic motherfucker?
perhaps you meant Richard Feynman?
…and his remarks were in response to the godbesotted, who he was convinced were little more than frightened children, clutching a security blanky.
You strike me in a similar fashion; instead of accepting that you don’t know, you’d rather actually substitute your inane fictional “paradigms” where the future is concerned.
bah.
Regarding the “Paradigm Symposium:”
As I stated earlier – since that topic has come up in this thread several times – I used the word “paradigm” to describe what was happening in the ufological field. The paradigm has shifted, in that that field no longer is about lights in the sky and abductions that involve alien anal probes. It is more about looking into archaeology, anthropology, cosmology to see if there is any efficacy to the claims of paleo-contact.
The “paradigm” I speak of is within that field of study.
Ichthyic,
Attribute my “dyslexic motherfuckedness” to my not yet being coffees-up. haha.
As to what FEYNman was talking about: I know precisely what his context was. It was about “belief.” My purpose in using that quote was in response to Nerd of Redhead, who charged that I would “believe anything without evidence.”
So, the quote was quite apropos and quite accurate in the way I used it.
“coffeed-up”
I don’t speak English before coffee.
Have you considered, giving up coffee?
Then you don’t do anything other than worthless mental masturbation. Either you can evidence ideas or they are meaningless “vaporware”.
And you speak gibberish after coffee.
Nerd of Redhead, are you truly that obtuse? You took me to task for believing in things that have no evidence. I replied that I never said I believed in them, but was intrigued by them. NOW you are taking me to task for not believing in them. Which is it you want to take me to task for?
Again, I ask YOU, what is it I have placed my belief in without evidence? Let’s stick to your direct question instead of you attempting to find any little rabbit trail you can to attempt to derail your asinine statement.
Are you able to stay within the thread you started? Or is it incumbent upon you to attempt to distract rather than be substantive?
Nerd of Redhead… please quantify your “gibberish” remark. Unless, of course, its just a menas to insult rather than be substantive…
means*
“Masturbatory” connotes self-pleasuring. That sounds precisely like what you are doing, Nerd.
When is the last time any of you got some pussy/cock? You all are just a bunch of old, fat geeks/nerds! Get out there and away from your computers, go to a coffee shop, leaving the bitter skeptic bullshit at home. You need to find some happiness and leave the mean crochety disposition behind you. Please, go out and get laid, you over-bloated circle jerking ninnies!
How is that for substance?
I tried to be just like the skeptical, faithless, wanna be scientist, fat heads on this page.
No, that is you, where you get nowhere in your thought processes beyond your pleasure of being an asshat. Me, I do real science.
If you’re going to quote me, shit-for-brains, do it accurately: my term was simply “pompous ass”.
I know you invited the participants in your silly meeting to take the ludicrous piffle of von Daniken and Velikovsky seriously, and I know you are a pompous ass because you called your silly meeting a “Paradigm Symposium”. That’s quite enough.
Dang, blockquote borked in #165. Should be
Example, quantify means measure. I believe you meant qualify, which is explain. Which I just did. You spoke gibberish, not English in that sentence. It’s the old I recognize the words, but they don’t make sense in their present order.
Your ideas are gibberish. Show evidence they aren’t. We are waiting…
Ah, having followed your link, I know now you’re a complete scumbag as well, since you’re a fan of Faux News and Ronald Raygun.
..oh, and the slaveowning hypocrite and rapist Jefferson.
@ichthyic
Gee thanks for that jackass -_-
I cannot recall ever seeing the term paradigm used in way that is not pretentious.
And as for “shifting paradigm in the ufological field of research.”
Why not call it a meeting about the changes that have taken place in UFOolgy ? There is clearly serious academic study that can be done into such changes, but of course such study would be in the field of sociology. How groups, such as those interested in UFOs change over time might be quite interesting.
Nick Gotts, your words are vapid. I didn’t misquote you. You said I was a “pompous ass,” then further you referred to me as the opposite of “rational.”
I find that you have little substance.
Matt Penfold, good thoughts.
Nerd of Redhead, whatever floats your boat. You have established yourself as being much more important.
I meant Quantify, not qualify. Take measure of my words and tell me where they are gibberish.
The people commenting in this blog are MASTERS of exchanging the substantive with the obtuse and ridiculous. You are people who major on the minor typos and nonsensical rabbit trails.
Where facts fail you, personal invective always suffices.
@173
Wow sure as hell proving that pompous part was accurate huh?
Nick Gotts, you are certainly welcome to your opinions on Thomas Jefferson and Ronald Reagan and anything else.
@174
Youbetchya, Ing.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Now, take some of the other people in here to task for their inanity.
It’s not an opinion on Jefferson. It’s undeniable that his views ran contrary to his actions and he committed rape via exploiting said hypocrisy.
@165
Nerd of Redhead,
AGAIN, what ideas of mine are you referring to? I have LOTS of ideas. Which ones are you calling “gibberish?”
I’d be happy to answer your question if you can simply – after several requests – tell me what the hell you really want to know. hahaha.
Don’t be so perpetually obtuse, man!
You’re either an ignoramus or a liar. When you put words within quotation marks, that indicates that you are quoting the exact words of the source – unless an ellipsis or clarification is specifically indicated within the quotation. Moreover, I did not in fact refer to you as “the opposite of rational”. I said:
So I’m clearly referring to those hearing or reading about your silly little meeting, and specifically, noting that any among them who are rational, would deduce that its only possible value was for amusement.
Ing,
Maybe we can discuss Jefferson sometime.
As for differing views on politics, only the threatened have to refer to those with differing opinons as “scumbags” and the like.
When you have nothing, personal invective is the best course… right?
Surely you are a better people that what you all seem to be in a public, anonymous forum. The lack of civility and mutual respect is appalling. And you see yourselves as being “better?” Perhaps you approach this all as fun and frolic, but what do you really do to advance ideas and mutual respect in seeking answers, when your only course seems to be insult and injurious types of behavior.
Of course, I will NOW be taken to task for saying any of that. Because that is what you all seem to do best: criticize, belittle, excoriate, insult and decry, all while maintaining that you hold some sort of fantastical “higher ground.”
And that is certainly not lost on all of those watching this thread.
Either step up to the table with respect, or back away, admitting that you have no intent of ever stepping outside the doctrines, theology and dictates of your surrogate religion.
Nick Gotts,
Thanks for the mini-lesson in the proper usage of quotation marks.
Snottyroberts,
I notice you have no substantive response to my characterization either of Jefferson, or of the ludicrous drivel you invited people to take seriously at your silly little meeting. Since your “inspirational people” are a slaveowning hypocrite and rapist, and a racist liar who nearly got us all killed with his fuckwitted rhetoric; and your preferred TV channel is that home of racist liars, Faux News, I deduce that you are very probably a racist liar yourself.
I don’t have to refer to you as a scumbag, but I like to tell the truth.
Respect for fallacious and refuted ideas? Where is your evidence to support your claims? Ideas and OPINION aren’t evidence. They are mental wankery without evidence to ground them in reality.
What religion? Quit lying to yourself, then quit lying to the world.
Scotty Robersts,
You talk about this ting called respect, but it is not clear you understand the concept. Däniken spoke at your “symposium”. Now unless you think he had anything worth saying, in which case you are treating your attendees as if they are idiots, he was there to be laughed at, which would not be very nice of you.
So which is it, was Däniken there to be laughed at, or did you think it was an excuse to con the gullible ?
That what we in a public anonymous forum a better people all seem to be like.
While I’d love to chat some more, I have to go get some work done. I am in the midst of edits on my new book, The Secret History of the Reptilians: The Pervasive Presence of the Serpent in Human History, Religion and Alien Mythos.
Due back into my publisher by Wednesday.
You’ll all find this one very interesting (but I’m pretty sure you’ll have it pre-judged before you even know what its about).
Talk later, my friends!
Cheers!
Scotty
Nerd of Redhead,
I am beginning to believe you really don’t understand plain English.
Tell me what MY claims are. You don’t even know what MY claims are, yet you take them to task.
Once more – slowly this time:
What. Claims. Of. Mine. Are. You. Referring. To?
I have asked this repeatedly, yet you never answer the question.
*face palms*
224 pages.
One page would be too long. One does not need much paper to write “No”.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Secret-History-The-Reptilians-Pervasive/dp/1601632517
You are not my friend.
How does anyone producing such drivel to cash in on the credulous get say we have a lack of respect.
Nick Goats… hahahahahahahahahaha. Dop you really take yourself seriously? What a diatribe of unmitigated distractionary blether.
If you want to open a thread on Thomas Jefferson and political viewpoints, go right ahead and invite me in. We can have a go.
I’m very disappointed that scottyroberts has spent this whole thread ineffectually defending himself and lecturing about civility rather than trying to advance any ideas.
The latter would have been far more entertaining.
You know what’s very uncivil? Insisting I am not who I say I am or refusing to believe that my personality is genuine.
You haven’t really grasped this site, I take it.
That you are to be taken seriously without evidence, and respected for being an evidenceless fuckwitted idjit. That you do claim.
The fact you don’t claim to believe in what you hold a conference for means you a blitherding idjit without any respect due them. Do keep up. You apparently are divorced from reality.
Matt Penfold, are you asking why anyone should make money promoting their ideas? Seriously?
Go ask The Amazing Randi, Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer the same question.
nms #193
If scotty offered his ideas here, for free, none of of would buy his snaky book.
and we are all planning on doing that.
Right?
Nerd of Redhair,
Careful. Your ignorance is showing.
No he’s not
He says you make your living by disrespecting people’s intelligence and passing off psuedointellectualism as scholarly work (you’re selling a lemon) and then talk down to people about a lack of respect.
Chigau,
Tell that to anyone who writes a book. I am more than happy to discuss the topic.
All your statement reveals is a new way to criticize. Seriously. Enough already.
Pure projection. This is a thread about you and your silly little meeting, which is what I have been talking about. Come on, you might at least tell us whether you take the ludicrous drivel of von Daniken and Velikovsky seriously, or are just using their fame to pull in the suckers.
Matt Penfold, are you asking why anyone should make money promoting their ideas? Seriously?
No, I not asking that. I am asking, given your ideas are figments of your imagination but you are not writing fiction, how you can demand respect.
As far as I am aware none of those has promoted the figments of their imagination as being real, and none of them are dishonest and unethical enough to con money from the gullible.
Now you know, and we know, that you cannot actually believe what you right is true. Please show us some respect in that regard, You con people and you can live with yourself. Be honest about that at least.
I might point out that the “uncivility” here is an actual example of ad hom. You do not act in a certain way ergo you have nothing of value to say.
Whether they should do so depends on whether they have any ideas worth promoting. It is abundantly clear that you do not.
I’d suggest a price check on Shermer :-p
teehee
Why aren’t you, then? I am desperate for this thread to be illuminated by your thoughts about reptile aliens, and yet you deprive me.
He happens to be the only one of those I have not read!
The only recent times I see paradigm used are when someone is trying to give credence to some sort of wackadoodle by claiming it’s just another way of knowing.
@Rev. Bigdumbchimp
No no I used it way way way back when we were talking about hard/soft scifi and fantasy pointing out that the paradigm has changed so much from the dark ages that even supernatural things are often treated in fiction as following the empirical rules of science. IE the paradigm has shifted sufficiently.
Back in the 90s it used to be used a lot in articles in the IT trade press, with talk of leveraging the paradigm. Since the articles were always long on conjecture and short on specifics, I always assumed it was code for “don’t bother reading this”.
OT you know what would be awesome? A RPG game that had the mechanic of “paradigm shift” where players and enemies could shift and change the game mechanics of combat.
Two great tastes that don’t taste great together
@nms
I actually prefer magic a is magic a over dues ex machina
If you were all my supporters and sycophants, I would have stepped in and told you to shut the fuck up a long time ago.
I would have told you to embrace people who might not think the way we do in hopes of shedding light or giving them information.
I would have told you that the worst sort of support for my ideas would be to have you act as incredibly childish, untoward and uncivil as the bulk of the people in this thread have acted, and that insult and malicious behavior do not represent my ideals.
As I am sure is quite clear, I am not opposed to debate and dialog – hell, I can even engage in a good brawl now and again, but you guys are simply not out to learn anything about what I am all about. You already have me pegged and pigeon-holed in your own view of things.
I have deliberately not stated what I “believe” simply to see how far you’d take to berating and decrying me for something you do not know. You “believe” I am what you think I am, yet you break your own rules and hold to this without evidence or fact-in-hand.
You can take me to task for holding the Paradigm Symposium, but which of you was there? Which of you has knowledge of what went on? Which of you has anything but second and third handed evidence? Which of you has gaged the Paradigm Symposium other than by what you dislike about a couple of its speaker’s previous works?
None of you.
So your “belief” about what took place there is based on your belief about one or two of the 18 speakers who were present. That reveals bias, prejudice and ignorance, as well as faulty scholarship and dishonest research. Try to present a hypothesis or theory based only partially in personal opinion while ignoring all the rest of the facts, and see how far that hypothesis perpetuates.
I am happy to discuss anything you want to discuss. But dispense with the idiocy and move into decent behavior.
Really, you are like a bunch of unruly kids who’s moms never taught them how to act.
You know, this is something I forgot about. It was used a lot in IT, still is in some instances.
My now ex-boss is/was one of those captain catchphrase guys. He used the “shift the paradigm” phrase. A lot.
Along with a list of about 60 other ones.
We’d go into a meeting and he’d want to do all the talking. All the talking meant uninterrupted paragraphs of strings of catchphrase after catchphrase.
I swear the people in the meeting must have thought we were complete morons.
He’s gone now, thankfully.
NMS,
My thoughts on reptile aliens is that they do not exist. It’s hogwash and nonsense. They are a modern version of ancient mythology.
I take the likes of Zechariah Sitchin and David Icke to task in my book, as purveyors of mythology. Sitchin, in particular, based many of his views on faulty linguistics of ancient Sumerian texts. While he may have some great theories, he cannot substantiate them by anything factual, and his scholarship was completely faulty and sloppy.
That’s my simplistic answer. I can get a lot more detailed, if you’d like.
I, for one, have no interest in discussing anything with someone who misuses such basic terms as “hypothesis” and “theory”.
Ing
Well, sure, but I much prefer fictional worlds in which magic is unpredictable and inexplicable to ones in which it is thoroughly consistent and classified. If you can study the supernatural scientifically, then it’s hardly the supernatural any more. To my mind, it kind of kills the mood.
–
scottyroberts
Make up your mind already.
Poor Thomas Kuhn. Whether you agree with his approach or not (and it must be admitted he was not terribly clear about exactly what he meant by “paradigm”) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was a serious piece of scholarship. Now just about every pseudo-scientific crank and con artist babbles about “paradigms” in an attempt to impress.
Scotty Roberts,
And I was you, I would stop writing fiction and passing it off as being real. But then it seems when it comes to ethics, I have some and you don’t.
Scotty Roberts: Stop whining about how rudely you’re treated. It’s like chumming the water around here — we love to tear into our prey at the first sign of blood, and there you go, feeding our instincts.
Here’s the deal: Next time you have a “Paradigm Symposium”, I’ll go. I’ll even do a debate. I’ll let your crew try to persuade me. Just send me an invite when it’s going to happen.
Hey, you can even use my name in your advertising, in order to brag about how open-minded you are in inviting a skeptic.
Oh, yes please. Which faultly Sumerian linguistics specifically?
No, it doesn’t. It indicates simple commonsense: a meeting at which ludicrous drivel is represented as worth listening to has been organized either by a fool, or by a con artist. Which are you?
I already asked him that. He ignored the question, so feel free to decide for yourself.
PZ,
You are a gentleman and scholar. Don’t let that go to your head, though. ;)
Paradigm Symposium 2013 will be held October 178-20 at the Hilton Double Tree Park Place in St. Louis Park.
I will send you a formal invitation via email.
As to the blood in the water, it was my pleasure to stir the instincts.
Cheers!
Scotty
Sorry for that typo… October 1`7-20, 2013. Damned fingers.
Jesus… October 17-20.
There.
Matt Penfold,
I didn’t ignore, I simply didn’t see the question, or forgot about it while answering others.
ANSWER: I am neither a fool nor a con artist.
You have to be one or the other. Why the lack of respect in failing to give a proper answer ?
It seems you are quite happy to demand respect, but see no reason to offer any. I reckon that puts you in the con-artist camp. You know you peddle bullshit, but it makes you money, so you don’t care.
scottyroberts stop writing to these fucktards. They are all anal retentive and need a good ass fucking and you are not the one to give it to them. These people are no better then the Inquistion and there is no way to win.
Ah the intellectual power house of “dingus”
The website for the “Paradigm Symposium” PZ linked to is hilarious. I particularly recommend the speaker’s blurb for “Dr” John Ward, the only speaker referred to as an “archaeologist”, or indeed as any kind of scientist or scholar. His “doctorate” appears to be a piece of paper from the “Knights Templar of Britannia” – or at least, if he has a real one, there is no reference to it, nor to any peer-reviewed publications. The only “Knights Templar of Britannia” known to Prof. Google are the Hereditary Knights Templar of Britannia, a rather obvious scheme for separating fools from their money.
So “Dr” Ward is a fraud. Actually, is it not illegal in the UK to claim to have a doctorate if you in fact do not ?
I’m tending towards the same conclusion.
@Matt Penfold
I don’t know but it probably is illegal in the UK to claim that someone’s doctorate is fraudulent.
Well, you definitely do not fit in with the anti-sex brigade.
Yet an other person who cannot tell the difference between people who use harsh words and wield no political power with those who used torture and death to further a political goal.
We have not even tried to convert you yet.
As I do with my magazine, Intrepid Mag, I do with the symposium. Its stuff I like and enjoy talking about. And I didn’t make a thin dime, so your postulations would be inaccurate.
Actually there is. Provide conclusive scientific evidence to back up all your ideas. Oh, that’s right, you want all ideas to be respected without having to provide that pesky evidence required fore respect…
Google Scholar seems to have nothing by the John Ward in question. Which is a bit odd for an academic researcher.
Maybe Scotty could give us a list of papers authored by Ward.
Not as far as I know. Given the wide range of foreign institutions that claim to award doctorates, it would be tricky to decide where to draw the line. I think if you represent yourself as medically qualified when you are not, that is illegal; but most of the medically qualified people who call themselves “Dr.” don’t actually have a doctorate!
OK then, given you know what you peddle is bullshit, and you don’t get paid for it, that would make you a fool.
Why not just say so in the first place ?
Would a con artist answer any differently?
If you take von Daniken and Velikovsky seriously, you’re a fool. If you are merely using their fame to pull in the suckers, you’re a con artist.
Matt Penfold,
Get inb contact with John. He’d be more than happy to converse with you, I’m sure.
He and his associate, Dr, Maria Nilsson, have lived in Luxor, Egypt for the last ten years, and have been cataloging sites in the western desert that have been never before cataloged, and they recently ended their first government sanctioned dig and cataloging expedition at Gebel el Silsila.
Dr. Maria Nilsson was also invited to speak at the Paradigm Symposium, but she could not due to the “controversial” nature of the event and her peer review status.
You can find them both through The Sirius Project… http://thesiriusproject-sp.blogspot.com
I see the council on lead paint chip snacks has weighed in.
I was not clear enough. I should have clarified that I thought it was illegal to claim to have a doctorate awarded by a UK institution when you didn’t. Same with a first degree.
Don’t think examples are prosecuted much, as it makes more sense to go after organisations that “awarded” such degrees.
Is that a way of saying she has not done any peer-reviewed research ?
I looked at the Sirius Project website, but it clearly is not part of any academic institution, although it claims to be an institution and invites donations. The only trustees seen to be Ward and Nilsson, but an academic institution would have external trustees. In fact, trustees should never be involved in the day to day running of an academic institution they are a trustee of.
Nor could I find any info on where Ward got is PhD, or even a list of published papers.
Matt Penfold,
Dr, Nilsson is in the midst of peer review. And I do believe they have seven trustees.
Perhaps Dingus is engaging you in like manner as they see you responding to me. That’s just a guess on my part.
When you throw out the insults, you should be ready to accept them just as wholeheartedly as they are given. You aren’;t the only “scientifically/skeptically-minded” that can use the word “fuck” creatively as an insult. Sheesh.
scottyroberts
What does “peer review” mean?
More gibberish. If you want your ideas respected show us via links (don’t explain as your word is considered bullshit) to the evidence to back up your ideas. So far, nada, nothing, nil, zero, zip. Almost like you are playing a con-game on us. Which does deserve any and all insults directed your way.
Scottyroberts, I pointed out the problem with what dingus said.
Oh well.
Nerd of Redhead,
Did I just get lost in the repartee, or did you actually ask me any direct questions? What IS it you want to know? Spit it out, man!
Nick of Redhead,
If my word is just “bullshit” to you, then you are free to stop talking to me.
scottyroberts
What do you think “peer review” means?
Nick of Redhead?
*snort*
So, spit it out scottyroberts! Why are you defending a dingus who cannot tell the difference between harsh words and actual torture and death?
Or is that just a bit too fucking complex?
Chigau,
Peer Review is practically self-defining, give or take some details and definitions of “Peers” as pertaining to equal or greater/broader status in the reviewee’s field.
It doesn’t matter what I “think” peer review is. It is what it is and we both know what it is. Well, I am only certain that I know what it is. Do you…?
groan
So, scottyroberts, have we used The Pear Of Anguish on you as dingus implied?
He sure is good at evading, ain’t he.
The same thing form my first post. The EVIDENCE to justify your inane ideas. Otherwise, all I see is you avoiding real evidential discussion by responding to how things are said, not is is actually being said and the evidence being asked for.
Janine,
I don’t think there were problems, per sé, with Dingus’ remarks – unless you are being overtly literal. Take the analogy for the spirit in which it was being offered, and you’ll see the person’s point.
I honestly doubt you were being compared literally to the historic Inquisition. But you probably already knew that.
Sometimes the points of detailed minutia people waste the time making here are so overtly pedantic as to range into the comical.
The thing is, your use of the term doesn’t appear to make sense; and the fact that you refuse to define it further raises the suspicion that you don’t understand what it means.
*That’s how you indicate a clarification within a quotation.
Nice hand waving, dipshit.
He only compared us to murderous thugs but did not call us murderous thugs.
Scottyroberts, you are a slimy pile of shit.
I guess it helps you keep the illusion that you are the heretic in the Church Of Scientism.
Peer Review is practically self-defining, give or take some details and definitions of “Peers” as pertaining to equal or greater/broader status in the reviewee’s field. Nice evasion by an idjit that allows/requires for the peers to be as looney as the author of a nonsensical paper. If the author is an undegreed fuckwitted idjit writing nonsense, so should the reviewers also be idjits by this definition. Not the the degreed experts they are for truly scientific papers. Proving one again the con-man aspect of this exchange.
Dang, borking blockquotes from work today. First sentence in #267 is SR. The rest is my response.
scottyroberts
What is a peer review “status”?
How can a person have one?
Dick Goats (formerly KG),
My use of the term wasn’t incorrect. Keep in mind, we are chatting in an internet forum, not submitting documentation for peer review.
My use of the phrase, “she is in the midst of peer review,” (if that’s the phrase you’re talking about [and, by the way, this is the correct way to type a parenthetical within a parenthetical, for the record]) was meant to be a simplistic way of saying she has certain work and documentation of theory that is currently undergoing a peer review process, which is informal but wholly necessary for her work.
But thanks again for the grammar/punctuation lesson.
Now, would you like to dissect the way I match my colors and patterns when wearing a suit and tie…? Or perhaps tear apart my usage of the word illustrator in contrast to cartoonist? Or maybe you would find fault in calling myself ambidextrous only with the use of a lawn rake versus my inability to write in cursive with both my left and right hands… by all means, have at…
Then, maybe, you can take me to task for saying I am an historian when I have only studied Tudor and 18th dynasty history rather than Meso-American or Xiao dynasty?
Dick Goats?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…
*gasp*
…HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Chigau,
Are you suggesting an individual scientist, archaeologist, author or other researcher cannot undergo peer review for their work?
Unless you are separating work from worker, they are one in same.
Well, Janine, for being full of shit, at least I made you chuckle… ;)
More on “Dr” John Ward. He has a page on a site called Academia.edu, which lists 55 books and 14 papers. however, few of the papers and none of the books I looked at are by Ward (he doesn’t claim they are, so possibly he simply doesn’t understand that it’s things you wrote you are supposed to list, not things you’ve read. Of the papers that are his, none appear to be from peer-reviewed journals or even conferences. His collaborator, Maria Nilsson, does appear to have a real doctorate – she’s apparently a postdoc at the University of Lund – but none of the papers listed under her name at Academia.edu appear to be with peer-reviewed journals.
I am not laughing with you, I am laughing at you.
Janine,
Well, then that’s fine too. I highly suspected that would be your response, based on everything else you’ve said.
I figure if he can call me “snottyroberts,” he wouldn’t mind my distorting his name, either. :)
Let me put you out of your misery: “peer review”, at least when used by someone in the academic world, refers to the process by which a paper submitted to a journal or conference is sent by the editor to independent reviewers, who should be experts in the field, and who may recommend acceptance, rejection, or a request for revisions. No-one in the academic world would be likely to say that the author is under peer review, and I’ve no idea what “informal” peer review would mean, unless it’s just giving the paper to colleagues for comment before submitting it. There is no way that speaking at your silly little meeting should affect the process of peer review: to take such a thing into account when reviewing a paper would be a gross breach of academic ethics.
By the way, “KG” is a shortened form of “Knockgoats”, a pseudonym I used here and elsewhere for a while.
Hey, scottyroberts, would it be alright if I compared your words and actions to various thugs and mass murderers, because, well, it should be obvious that I am not actually saying that you are a thug and mass murderer.
Janine,
You could use whatever analogy you wanted. If my demeanor was worthy of that sort of comparison, then I suppose it would bear out as to whether it was a good or poor analogy.
So, you also have a hard time telling the difference between harsh criticism and physical violence.
I cannot trust your judgment. Thank you for confirming that.
What you seem to be missing, Janine, is that these sorts of dialogs can be whatever we choose them to be.
If you bring on an air of friendly communication, that’s what you’d get. If you are heavy-handed and insulting from the get go, you might create a completely different air about your communications.
Janine,
You go right ahead and distort to your heart’s content.
If you do not recognize illustrative analogy from direct comparison – especially in light of the hostility your forum is famous for – then I seriously doubt your ability to be discerning on any topic. Unless, of course, you are merely book read, but completely socially inept.
Why, yes, if I were nice to the bullshit that you are spouting, it would be obvious that I am not like The Inquisition.
Slimy pile of shit.
(Whee! I am on my way, riding the crest of a wave of mutilation!)
Also, done with fuckface.
Have fun with this, PZ. I do not envy you.
Well, then I suppose “slimy pile of shit” ought to be taken to task, as well. Because it certainly cannot be literal. You are incorporating a comparative analogy, correct? You are a bundle of contradiction, Janine.
Janine,
Again, I ask, what bullshit am I spouting. What exactly are you taking me to task over?
I realize you’ve now checked out, but it would be nioce to know what you believe I am espousing that you call “bullshit” on.
Why would we be interested in friendly communication with someone who is either a fool or a con artist?
QFT
Dick Goats and Nerd of Redead,
There’s your out.
I vote con-artist.
The reason I’ve stuck to this thread for so many post is because, like you, I don’t care for bullshit, either. And you are all such a line-up of bullshitters – with a few rare exceptions that entailed actual questions – that all you can focus on is the way I type or the definition of a word or phrase.
As to questions about substance, there is one that I remember distinctly, and without looking back, I can’t remember who exactly posed it, but it was in regard to my giving an example of Zechariah Sitchin’s misuse and misinterpretation of ancient Sumerian language.
Here is a quick answer on that question, directly from the new book…
…despite his mistranslations and abused usages of ancient text, Sitchin did create an intriguing fictional account of the descent of extraterrestrial beings to the earth, housing the Sumerian mythology in updated, vernacular narrative. A prime example is when he forced the word, Nephilim, to mean “people of the firey rockets.” Sitchin, at best, simply mistranslated the word, ignoring – or misunderstanding – the Aramaic usage blended with biblical Hebrew. According to Hebrew mythology, the Nephilim were not the ones who “came down” from anywhere. They were the descendents, the offspring, of those who actually did come down, namely, the Watchers – the “Sons of God,” the bene ha ’elohim [ בְנֵי־הָֽאֱלֹהִים ] of Genesis chapter six.
At worst, Sitchin deliberately ignored linguistics and fabricated meanings in order to substantiate his personal theories. But it is easy to understand how he may have extrapolated word definition from the combination of language and pictographs, as many of the carvings and reliefs from ancient Sumer depict their gods as descending in winged or bowl-like craft.
2) INSERT IMAGE: AnnunakiSpacecraft.jpg
CAPTION:
1st Millennium seal showing “descending Annunaki.” Pictured is a worshipper and a fish-garbed sage before a stylized tree with a crescent moon and the descending “winged disk” set in the sky above it. Behind this group is another plant-form with a radiant star and the Star-Cluster (Pleiades cluster) above. In the background is the dragon of Marduk with Marduk’s spear and Nabu’s standard upon its back.
But the bigger issue is that Sitchin, in desiring to update the mythology and bring it into a more relevant understanding of ancient astronaut theory, simply did not do his homework. He, rather, like much of the theoretical metaphysicists of our age, stated that things were so, based solely on his (mis)interpretation of language, and his continual forcing of the square peg into the round hole. Its like grasping to the farthest possible meaning of a word, the broadest associative definition, and utilizing that obscure definition as the rock solid basis for your hypothesis. That can only end in disastrous interpretation and ultimately faulty conclusions.
When Sitchin refers to the Nephilim as the “people of the firey rockets,” he has gone far out of his way and deep into a misunderstanding of the Sumerian language in order to establish his hypothesis. His argument for “ancient rockets” and “firey space flight” is constructed completely on two ancient Sumerian words, “MU” and “ME,”6 which are the same words as the Akkadian “shamu,” and the Hebrew “shem.” Continuing in his argument to establish the ancient space craft theory, he goes on to contend that the Tower of Babel account in Genesis, in which the people wanted to make for themselves a “shem,” is actually describing the construction of a flying craft or rocket of some sort. In his book, The Twelfth Planet, Sitchin defines the Sumerian word MU as meaning “an oval shaped, conical object,” as well as “that which rises straight.”
The problem is that Mr. Sitchin merely defines the word, but offers up no linguistic etymology to define it within the framework of Sumerian language. He simply states the meaning and continues on building his hypothesis. However, one must note that the ancient Sumerians created their own dictionary,7 and it contains the word MU! The entry in the ancient Sumerian dictionary has the word MU being symonymous with the Akkadian word “shamu,” meaning “heaven, part of the sky, (sometimes) rain from the sky.” This is what the word means according to ancient scribes, who make no mention of flying craft or firey rocket ships. It is a simple descriptive noun for the sky. The Sumerian word ME is used for the same meaning, as part of the heavens.
And that’s just the linguistics. Zechariah Sitchin represents, to me, a man who had a deep-set interest in discovering who we are and where we came from. His research into ancient Mesopotamian culture to look for ancient answers is admirable, while all at once incomplete in scholarship, yet wholly complete in faulty linguistics and far-fetched assertions.
* * *
That’s only a part of the chapter, and since the book is not yet published, I cannot post much more. But that is where I find Sitchin’s work completely flawed.
Every one of the speakers at snottyroberts’ silly little meeting appears to be a fully paid-up crank – either his claims of open-mindedness are dishonest, or every non-crank invited gave the same response as PZ.
A barefaced lie. Every one of the speakers at your silly little meeting is a bullshitter, as you are yourself.
Dick Goats, I disagree.
The reason I’ve stuck to this thread for so many post is because, like you, I don’t care for bullshit, either. Then why are you bullshitting, and not presenting real evidence, with every post? That is what con-men, liars, and bullshitters do. Avoid real scientific evidence at all costs. If you and those you give a forum to can’t provide the scientific evidence, and can’t shut the fuck up, they an you are by definitiion liars, bullshitters, and con-men. If the Foo shits, wear it.
scottyroberts,
Are you familiar with Harry Frankfurt’s essay, “On Bullshit”? It is Frankfurt’s contention that we have become a nation of bullshitters, and that bullshit is in some ways worse than lying, because it is harder to correct.
By providing a venue where fantasy can masquerade as scientific research, you have provided a forum for bullshit, and now those of us who are scientists will be saddled with the messy clean up.
Some of the vitriol directed your way is the buildup of years of living in a culture where bullshit is prized over truth–where climate change or the moon landing can be denied at will, while the lack of evidence for aliens is ascribed to consiracy. Not all of this is your fault. However, you are not making things better.
DAng, another borked blockquote. First sentence #295 is SR.
As you have said yourself in one of the few honest statements you’ve made:
So apart from the publicity for your silly little meeting – which reveals that the speakers were an egregious collection of cranks – there’s been nothing else to go on until your recent comment on Sitchin.
Most browsers have a ‘find on this page function’.
Usually control-f or Ctrl-f.
This allows you to ‘find’ an actual comment rather than “remember[ing] distinctly”.
a_ray_in_dilbert_space,
i accept that. Well stated. My intention was to put on a symposium that presented ideas, and had some presenters who dissented from those ideas.
Next year we are trying to hone in on some more speakers who will offer up more scientific views mixed in with a few who offer up the more outlandish ideas – or are at least viewed that way.
I appreciate your words.
OK, so pick any one of the speakers at your silly little meeting, and demonstrate that they have produced worthwhile and original research in the area of “paleo-contact”.
Would you all be willing to offer up your credentials?
Not that I doubt you are scientists, but for my own information, it’d be nice to know that what appears like bullshitting to me, is just what was stated by a_ray_in_dilbert_space above – years of scientists having to deal with bullshitters.
So, you accept that:
Now, how do you excuse doing so?
Gee, where is the hard core skeptics who show the bullshit your cranks present? Otherwise you lie by not offering true solid scientific skepticism. But if real hard-core skeptics are present, your cranks will vanish. But, you really don’t want that, as you want to give them a forum, so you only want a poor skeptic to make the cranks look good. Typical con-man approach.
snottyroberts,
I use my real name here, and it’s not a common one; I usually appear as N.M. Gotts or Nicholas Gotts on my publications; finding some won’t be hard.
Dick Goats,
I think they all had “worthwhile and original research.” Does it mean that they all have a corner on the “truth?” No. It means I found their research intruiging and invited them to speak.
The guys from H2’s Ancient Aliens were fun to have a the symposium, and offered up their various research, albeit far outside the mainstream. These were von Daniken, Tsoukalos, Noory, Moulton Howe (who I think is even far fringe of the far fringe).
One of the funniest moments for me was, while during the panel discussion, hearing someone like von Daniken – who is considered by mainstream science as a bullshitter – whisper to Dr. John Ward at the panel discussion, “She’s full of fucking bullshit!” (speaking of Moulton Howe). Its funny to me, simply because as I heard that, I was thinking, “Well, Erich, many people think the same of your work, too.”
Laird Scranton spoke of his research on the Dogon and his book that points out some of the vindication of Velikovsky’s theories. He was considered the “Scientist who shall not be named,” but even Einstein was in the midst of validating some of his theories when he died. It was interesting stuff. Reading Scranton’s book, The Velikovsky Heresies, would certainly clear up any notion that Velikovsky was a complete crackpot.
Dr. John Ward spoke on ancient Egyptian symbolism. He, personally, finds the entire ancient alien theory pretty whacky. He made quite the joke out of sarcastically saying, “Oh. Levitation. Of course that’s how they did it.” He was actually the hit of the event, what with his dissenting views from many of the others.
There were several other authors, including Marie D. Jones, Larry Flaxman, Anthony F. Sanchez, Nick Redfern, Paul Von Ward, Micah Hanks and others, all with varying views of the alien theory and conspiracies, Hanks also being a “futurist.”
If you want to see what these people are about, I have some easy bios of each one of them over at http://www.paradigmsymposium.com Just click on their photos to see the bios.
Overall, we presented a very friendly atmosphere, and invited people to think, rather than absorb. In my own lecture, I encouraged people to not take anything they hear at the symposium at face value, but to do the research, ask the questions and seek the answers for themselves. Never did I excoriate science, but I did take what I call “Big ‘S'” skeptics to task.
To say that any of these people had insincere research would be a misnomer. To say they were all accurate would be a hideous inaccuracy. To say they offered up food for thought and fodder for research would be spot on.
And THAT is precisely why I wanted to have someone like PZ present. While I don’t agree with him on every point, I love his candor and what will be, I am sure, forthright presenting of fact.
But also, I like what Carl Sagan said in the introduction to his book, “The Demon Haunted World.” He said that his parents did a wonderful thing for him in both instilling the necessity of the scientific method, while at the same time expressing the need for a sense of wonder.
That’s what I wanted as a goal at this symposium.
Nerd of Redhead,
By your words, I consider you less of a skeptic and more of a hardboiled cynic. There’s a huge difference.
Must go round up the family for dinner.
Thanks, Nick, I appreciate that.
Serious questions…. have you found that taking a scientific approach has led to a deeper skepticism? It seems that there exists this tacit atheism with scientific thinking… is this a truism across the board? Does Science genuinely eschew “religion” and “faith?”
Do you view “God” as non-existent or as an unprovable quantity? Do you think there is any room for ancient alien theory – or at the least paleo-contact theory.
Do these things fly completely in the face of what you know scientifically, or is there room to speculate and research – and is there a good scientific means to go about this kind of thing?
snottyroberts,
I asked you to demonstrate that any of them had done original and worthwhile research, not assert it.
It’s a simple matter of fact – he is a bullshitter, who has never produced anything of any value whatsoever, but has made a great deal of money from his racist pseudoscience.
Repost with correct blockquoting:
snottyroberts,
I asked you to demonstrate that any of them had done original and worthwhile research, not assert it.
It’s a simple matter of fact – he is a bullshitter, who has never produced anything of any value whatsoever, but has made a great deal of money from his racist pseudoscience.
Of course he was a complete crackpot, and the claim about Einstein is preposterous nonsense. here is the Einstein-Velikovsky correspondence – from a crackpot source. Einstein is evidently trying to be kind, but gives no hint whatever of taking Velikovsky’s fantasies about astronomical matters seriously. Einstein, of course, was not an expert in near eastern history, but those who are equally dismiss his fantasies about that.
“Dr” John Ward is a fraud: he does not have a doctorate and has never published in any peer-reviewed journal or conference. His page at the symposium is full of absurd drivel about the Knights Templar, dowsing, “alternative” medicine based on ancient Egyptian ideas, and other crackpottery.
I have; as I’ve already said, from their bios it is clear that every one of them is a crank with absolutely nothing of value to contribute.
The trouble is, to do that productively, they would actually have to have the relevant expert knowledge, and an understanding of what research actually involves.
You quite evidently haven’t the faintest idea what science is; the whole silly little meeting was an insult to science.
No, it would be complete bullshit.
Sagan would have regarded you and your silly little meeting with contempt.
That’s another barefaced lie. Velikovsky was in no sense of the word a scientist, nor was he ever regarded as such by those who saw through his bullshit.
As does any scientist, skeptic, and rational person. Only a liar gives other liar and bullshitters a forum, and simply says “exchange of ideas” or similar nonsense. It’s the evidence that is most important, and the evidence says your guests/speakers are cranks not be believed. There is no evidence backing them up.
Well, the Forum has spoken.
Thanks to Nick for answering my question about his credentials.
If any of you would like to address my last set of questions, I’d be happy to see what you have to say.
Yep, there is no deity, no holy book, no tithes, no nothing. Deities are ignored since there is no evidence for any. Faith is required to believe when there isn’t evidence. Science is all about evidence. So no faith is required, just conclusions based on evidence. But then if you knew anything about science, nobody would need to tell you the obvious, which you could find in the Wiki articles.
God is evidenceless, hence the null hypothesis is non-existence. Subject to change with solid and conclusive evidence for one, like an eternally burning bush. Nothing less will do. The ancient alien theory lacks evidence like a deity. Ergo, it is bullshit until say a crashed spaceship is found. Otherwise, just woo, woo, woo.
There is no science there. Any discoveries will be accidental. There is nothing in old myths to substantiate anything or not have a more parsimonious explanation. Being an extraordinary claim, the wrecked spaceship type evidence is required. Solid, physical, and no other explanation. Until then, woo, woo, woo.
scottyroberts,
I’ve no idea what you’re trying to say here. I’m not sure you have either.
Scottyroberts,
I am a PhD physicist working in a very applied field–radiation effects in semiconductors. My PhD was in experimental particle physics.
As to my attitudes about religion and gods:
I don’t believe that we even know what we mean when we say “god”, other than some guarantor that the Universe gives a flying fuck about our existence. As it manifestly does not care, is utterly indifferent to us, in fact, I see no reason to posit unnecessary entities just to assuage my existential insecurities. Now, that could make me either an agnostic or an atheist.
However, I also believe that as Voltaire said, “If they can make you believe absurdities, they can make you commit attrocities.” It is absurd to believe in that for which there is no evidence, that which is not necessary to explain our experience. And absurd beliefs multiply. Believe in God? Well why not believe the soul–some transcendent entity that “makes us human”? And from there, why not posit a soul that enters the egg at the moment of fertilization and leads to ultimate attrocities–like the idea of “legitimate rape” or rape and pregnancy as God’s will. The attrocity follows the absurdity as surely as day follows night.
For this reason, I believe it is important that our beliefs be, as much as possible, evidence based, and at the very least, falsifiable. It is the only way I see that our belief structure can grow.
Scotty Roberts: “have you found that taking a scientific approach has led to a deeper skepticism? It seems that there exists this tacit atheism with scientific thinking… is this a truism across the board?”
Nick Gotts: “I’ve no idea what you’re trying to say here. I’m not sure you have either.”
Perhaps a simpler way to pose this question would be to ask if you belief science and atheism go hand-in-hand. Since there is no proof of a god, does that eliminate one from the equation? Further, does scientific thinking demand an atheistic approach.
But this has really been answered in some of the other questions.
Thanks, Nick.
Scotty,
Belief in science and atheism in my case arise from the same tendency–the desire to understand the Universe around me. Science facilitates the process. Belief in deities impedes that understanding.
a_ray_in_dilbert_space,
That is probably the most cogent, eloquent answer I have ever seen on that particular question. Thank you for taking the time to write that out.
Yes. Until you show conclusive evidence that your imaginary deity really exists. The null hypothesis is and will remain non-existence. Can’t you read and understand plain American English?
Scotty Roberts,
I think it is important to distinguish between the scientific method and the beliefs of scientists. Yes, some scientists are Christian…and Hindu, and Muslim and Zorastrian…
Deities can play no role in the scientific method, though. If a deity can place a thumb on the balance, then empiricism would always be suspect, and the theories based on it misleading. If a scientist starts to imagine a deity actively involved in the Universe, he can dismiss any undesired result as “a miracle” and get whatever answer he wants (e.g. that “God wouldn’t allow us to kill ourselves via climate change). God is a cosmic divide-by-zero error.
Nerd of Redhead,
With all due respect, what the fuck is your issue, dude? In plain English, when did I say anything about a personal adherence to an imaginary deity?
You have social issues, dude.
a_ray_in_dilbert_space,
In my book releasing in Fenruary, I encourage readers to “step outside the box” of religion and faith to see the comparatives in religious mythologies.
While my book is not about “science,” it is an examination of myth and religion building. And while I tell people that it is not my job to dissuade them from their personal faiths, they would have to separate themselves from a particular faith in order to gain a clearer understanding of what I was writing about.
In a way, that is similar to what you say must be a prerequisite to scientific research – you can’t let faith dictate the outcome. The outcome of the research is what it is.
As I say, quite tongue-in-cheek when i lecture… quoting that great sage, Indiana Jones: “Archaeology is not the search for ‘truth,’ it is the search for fact.”
You do to. What the fuck is this all about anyway, other than your stupidity? All this talk about science can be found in the Wiki article, or you shutting the fuck up and actually listening.
Yet you are letting your faith in ancient myths being anything other than pure myth dictate your inability to understand science.
A brief message to me today from Bob Blaskiewicz of the Skeptical Inquirer, regarding the Paradigm Symposium…
“I had a BLAST. I can’t believe this is my job, honestly.
“Yes, there was some hooey, but there was also community and sincerity, and it got me thinking about the types of public relations work that academics should be doing.
“There seemed to be a lot of common themes among the speakers — distrust of the establishment, etc., that scholars should be taking seriously. I was thinking that there really needed to be someone to stand up and set forward a path for how alternative researchers can enter the mainstream.
“I thought of writing up something about that for my blog, but I’m not sure it would reach the intended audience there.”
Bob Blaskiewicz is also a regular blog contributor at http://skepticalhumanities.com
I took several Comparative Religions courses as an undergrad.
They were moderately interesting and not at all difficult.
Chigau,
I found the similarity in religious mythologies very intriguing. One culture borrows from the other and builds off the previous.
Nerd of Redhead,
Ah, Wikipedia. That bastion of higher learning and factual information.
Aaaaah, buzzwords.
When I was still in chemistry, “nanotech” was one.
I went to a conference once where you had a hard time finding a talk or poster that didn’t have that damn word on it.
It didn’t mean a damn thing then, and I suspect it’s still meaningless in the materials / chemistry world now. The things people call nanotech were simply things they called other, more significant names before.
Just to try to extract funding with the latest fashionable word everybody uses and think is cool and sciencey-sounding without actually knowing what it means.
Neither. Pondering on the existence “God” is just as pointless as pondering on the existence of invisible unicorns, leprechauns or this new invisible, undectectable creature I just made up who lives in the truck of my car that if it could speak would have a voice like that of SpongeBob SquarePants. I call it HBlhergh.
There are many different definitions for god.
Those who make it a bit too corporeal and capable of influencing the physical universe, i.e., detectable, have already been proven wrong. Repeatedly and resoundingly. To no avail.
The others – deists, who rob their gods of all meaningful way to interact with the universe, have defined a meaningless and pointless creature. The universe is the same whether it is in it or not, and therefore it is the height of useless endeavor to speculate about it.
There is no difference between god or any other delusion that might pop into someone’s head on a fine evening LSD trip.
Without proper evidence ?
No.
Why should there be ? Should the existence of HBlhergh be carefully studied by serious people with more significant and relevant problems to work on ?
scottyroberts
I took those courses in the 19070s.
I expect your book will have nothing new.
chigau,
Perhaps.
I think snotty has set up his symposium right here, in River City…
no need, the work has already been done, sucker.
Compared to anything you write, yes.
Nerd of Redhead,
Good morning, my friend!
Y’know, Ichthyic… that’s not a bad idea…
How’s the new chew toy working out for everyone? Not too tiresome, I hope?
Very tiresome.
If you lie about that, what else will you lie about? That’s your problem in dealing with us. Honesty is required. You being honest with yourself comes first.
Well, I’m not buying you a new chew toy until you’ve completely masticated and mangled this one. They’re expensive and hard to come by!
PZ Myers: “Well, I’m not buying you a new chew toy until you’ve completely masticated and mangled this one. They’re expensive and hard to come by!”
Hahahaha! I’ll take that as a compliment, PZ. Thanks for letting me be here.
Nerd of RedDead,
Are you suggesting that I am lying when I say “Good morning, my friend?” Hahahaha.
Careful PZ.
You’ll be ‘debating’ him in person next year.
Get your shots.
SR, why ar you still posting lying drivel?
Nerd of RedDead,
Why are you still tooting that tinny horn?
I think you will all be pleasantly surprised. PZ and I will debate and get along just fine.
I don’t bite, so his “shots” will only need to be for contagions carried on the air and atmosphere of the Paradigm Symposium – which is ultimately respectful and overtly friendly and sincere.
You may not agree with everything presented, but we are decent folk.
So, Nerd of Redhead,
What do you do? What part of the sciences are you engaged in? What are your credentials, if I may ask – politely and with due respect?
A few tiresome things going on.
Yawn, still talking to itself like it has something to say.
1) What did you hope to accomplish?
2) Are you getting anywhere toward that goal?
3) If not, why are you still here?
Nerd of DeadHead asks:
Yawn, still talking to itself like it has something to say.
1) What did you hope to accomplish?
Getting YOU to answer any of MY questions, or at the very least clarify what it is you THINK you know about me. Which you have so far avoided.
2) Are you getting anywhere toward that goal?
So far, nothing but language and demeanor that would have him labeled as a “bully” if I were gay. Which I’m not… not that there’s anything wrong with that…
3) If not, why are you still here?
For the healing waters.
An appropriate answer.
To an appropriate fellow.
Of course lurkers, if SR was interested in a real discussion, it would be saying “this is what I believe, and this (link) is the evidence to back it up.” But then, since it doesn’t believe in anything, it should have nothing say. But it says it anyway…
Nerd of Deadhead,
By the title of the thread, I didn’t realize I was here to defend anything and present links.
I originally responded, here, to talk about the Paradigm Symposium. Most of what ensued from that point resembled nothing remotely close to constructive dialog from the members of this community. In fact, most of it was deconstructive in nature.
But I ain’t whinin’ or complainin’, I’m just sayin’.
As for your inane diatribes of vapid vitriol, you still have never stated what it is you take issue with me over – other than to misstate by assumption what it is you think I believe and or advocate.
You, sir, are a prime example of what you decry in others. You spout off as if you know something before you hold any shard of evidence in your hands. You speak to me from a vacuous limbo, charged only with what you *think* you know. You’re the little boy running alongside the parade, flag in hand, unaware of its significance or history, as its just a toy that everyone else is waving in the air so why shouldn’t you, too, before you drop it to the ground in exchange for the next piece of sugar-coated something.
You scree at me about the inaccuracies and ignorance of my beliefs, then in the next breath ask me what it is I believe. If you didn’t know in the first place, how can you decry me for them in advance? That’s just pure and simple dumbass.
Your inability to ever, once delineate what it is over which you take issue with me – oh, except for the times you grasped at something out of the ether, thinking that was what I stood for, but you were mistaken – reveals in you a band wagon mentality that has deep trouble thinking on its own. Now, THAT’S pretty damned ign’rnt.
Of course, you will now say something akin to, “It speaks again…” then add your blithering idiot, explative-ridden nonsense. But in reality that simply reveals your inability to discourse. You’re a cop-out, a remedial, a flunky in the class of intelligent discussion.
But I digress.
What the hell do you want to know, Nerd? Is it that hard for you to articulate? And, no, I am not going to post lengthy statements of belief and links to back up what I believe. What an exercise in ridiculousness. If you don’t already know, why don’t YOU go do the research? It ain’t that hard to find out what I believe and where I stand on issues.
But that’s oh so much more difficult than simply attempting to deconstruct me out of ignorance, isn’t it…?
You and the young earth creationists have a lot in common, Nerd… espousing idiotic claims without any real knowledge.
But, for the record, I believe there might be a God, but I’m not so sure anymore.
I believe the universe is an intricate place, and we are only just beginning to understand the tiniest tip of the iceberg.
I believe the idea of paleo-contact is intriguing and not outside the realm of possibility, but nowhere near the point of evidentiary provability. Doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be considered. There are plenty of scientists out there to cover all the bases. Reducing it to a level of nonsensical waste of time is, I believe, nonsensical and arrogant.
I believe there need to be bridges built between academia and alternative researchers.
I believe in single malt highland scotch, not as a tool of inebriation, but as a repast to be shared with fellow hob-nobbers and fireside bantering pedagogues.
I believe that when you cross a dyslexic theologian with a philosophical insomniac, you end up with a guy who stays awake all night pondering whether there is or is not a Dog.
I believe that’s a start.
So you admit that there is no evidence for palaeo-contact? Good news. For a while, as a teen, I started reading about palaeo-contact and, after about six months, I realized that every single theory amounted to, basically, the same thing: I cannot imagine how these primitive (and usually brown) people could possibly have created x therefore it must be aliens. Which, at the age of about 16, came across as incredibly racist.
So, with, as you admit, no evidence to back up any of these theories, and lots of evidence to show that the Nazca lines were created by indigenous peoples, that the pyramids of Giza were built by the Egyptians, etc, why keep alive the idea that those black/brown/yellow people were obviously too dumb/ignorant/stupid/non-white to have done anything amazing?
Ogvorbis,
Most of the theorists I know in the ancient alien field are quick to admit that they do ascribe to the brand of thinking that professes mankind did not have the ingenuity to build those structures on their own WITHOUT outside “alien” assistance.
There are some of them who WILL go so far as to say that examination of structures and tools needed to perform such tasks *may* imply greater technology than we attribute to them. But it doesn’t fall only to the brown, yellow and non-white races. They also include in that mix the Norse, Celts and Indo-Europeans and their megalithic structures.
What I see most of them focusing on is the interpretation of images, carvings, reliefs and the like that fall outside a certain cultures normal depictions of similar things. Sure, they extralate a helluva lot of speculative data to establish their claims, but I think they may be on to something worth further exploration.
Even the rock star ancient alienist, Giorgio Tsoukalos (and his hair) have said directly to me that his view of ancient alien contact lies more on the level of viewing them as explorers in, what he calls, “nuts and bolts space craft,” as opposed to some beneficent supreme alien intelligence sent here to educate humanity.
I can adhere to the possibility of “paleo-contact,” under those terms, what with what we know of the exponential numbers of billions of galaxies, etc. The big question for me is that if the universe evolves at an equal rate, would anyone anywhere else out there have sufficient technology to make such explorative endeavors?
It is all so speculative as to be difficult to believe. But the notion that we are alone in the inverse is something i don’t adhere to, but i have to put limitations on where I think it crosses-over into science fiction. Yet, I am open to hearing more about the research and open to seeing it accepted as a viable field of study.
After all, most of we know scientifically, today, began as an idea – many times flying in the face of the “scientific” nomenclature of the day, and many more times facing the consequence of being burned at the stake by religious hierarchies.
I put all of this stuff into the realm of “things that interest and intrigue me.” And I would like to see bridges built with acamedicians to test the newer theories and/or notions and “evidences” uncovered. of course, to do this properly, it would have to be entered into without bias and pre-established notions. Do the things used as the basis for ancient alien theory/notion demand closer archaeological considerations, or are they immediately lumped into old school trains of thought and established ways of viewing things, never given the time to explore other theories?
So, I think there is some efficacy in researching, as long as it is kept out of the realm of woo woo.
Ogvorbis,
SORRY… the opening line of my response to you, should have read:
“Most of the theorists I know in the ancient alien field are quick to admit that they do NOTascribe to the brand of thinking that professes mankind did not have the ingenuity to build those structures on their own WITHOUT outside “alien” assistance.”
Sorry for my typos, today.
extralate = extrapolate
Then why were you here, if not to defend your ideas and present data to convince real scientists you have something? Who gave a shit about your idiotic conference other than to laugh at it?
The dialog was constructive based on the fact you had to present evidence and defend your ideas. You didn’t do either, and without making claims to be discussed, there was nothing to discuss. This is you hiding from the real scientists. So we mocked your improper response and bullshit ideas that you had nothing to present or defend.
Gee, what a load of I am right until I am proven wrong. But that is ass-backwards as to how science is done, where you are wrong until you provide the right evidence you are right. Which we were waiting for. And got nothing but mouth from you for demanding evidence.
Gee, I think as a 40 year practicing scientist and a 30 year practicing skeptic I understand a lying bullshitter when such bullshit and attitude is presented.
Why should it even be considered without a shred of evidence available? As a skeptic I’ve seen the “evidence” *snicker* for the concept. Nothing but speculation and mental wanking. That is unscientific thinking. That is irrational, wishful, and presuppositional thinking. Evidence comes first.
A start for what? Personally, what I see a pseudoscientific wanker trying to pretend it has a serious scientific idea even though it admits it has no evidence. But science isn’t about just ideas, unless those ideas can shown to be right or have better power to explain solid evidence. Otherwise, the null hypothesis, which is no alien astronauts, wins. Pseudoscientific folks think the wacky ideas are more important than the evidence. You appear to be in that camp. as shown by:
Oh, the brave heretic. Except you are wrong. The ideas the best explained the evidence won, and they were properly evidenced to be accepted. Without evidence, you lose. You admit you have no evidence. All you have is presuppositional cranks, liars, and bullshitters. And you are one of them, if you support them. Welcome to science.
scottyroberts #362 wrote:
My understanding is that experts in the relevant fields dismiss the claims of the ancient alien hypothesis because it’s unnecessary: the more you know of the topic, the less “extraordinary” the discovery or issue, and the less one needs to invoke a highly extraordinary assumption. What you are calling bias and preconception, then, is what others would call understanding the all the relevant details.
I’ll admit (and apologize) that I haven’t read most of the comments here. I thought the thread had died several days ago. So what exactly do you think requires that we need to assume ancient aliens? Aside, of course, from a natural desire to be an interesting and intriguing person who’s not afraid to think outside the box?
Shasta said:
“So what exactly do you think requires that we need to assume ancient aliens? Aside, of course, from a natural desire to be an interesting and intriguing person who’s not afraid to think outside the box?”
I don’t think anyone needs to assume ancient aliens for anything. But if the serious question arises – not simply the fanciful scifi fan – is it worth research?
Nerd of DeadHead,
Let’s meet for a beer and talk about it. Beer’s on me.
scottyroberts #367 wrot:
I think you’re simply rephrasing my question.
When, then, is the serious question arising? When is “ancient aliens” the most parsimonious and explanatory assumption?
When someone without any experience in the field does not understand how ‘primitive’ peoples could have done something. ‘Ancient aliens’ is to archaeology what ‘irreducible complexity’ is to evolution. An argument from ignorance.
Fuckwitted idjit, where is the crashed spaceship. Without that level of evidence, your idea is nothing but bullshit…and you know that. So, why are you going on about something without evidence requiring it to be seriously considered? Only presupposition and fuckwittery on your part…
Why would I want to waste my time talking to a fuckwitted idjit? Not happening, and you would know that if you had even a quarter of a functioning mind.
I recognize this as a classical missionary tactic of trying to befriend the person most critical of them. Pathetic attempt by an abject loser to not admit they are defeated by the intellectual argument. Shutting the fuck up is your best option. But then, liars and bullshitters, who have no honesty and integrity, keep showing their losership by such inane activities.
Nerd
You may be missing an opportunity.
“Beer’s on me.” can have more than one meaning.
Well, it is more parsimonious than “god”.
But that’s about it.
To be serious the question would be accompanied by a piece of confirmed spaceship wreckage with radioisotypic signature demonstrating origin of manufacture outside of the solar system and/or a body/fossil with biochemical composition demonstrating nonterrestrial abiogenetic origin, such as the genetic material not being DNA or RNA, proteins made of amino acids other than the 20 used by life on earth, or a substantially different genetic code for those amino acids.
Absent such evidence, the question isn’t serious.
Why does “paleo-contact” hafta be about space-aliens as opposed to leprechauns?
I’m going to page Nerd here for a bit.
You’re the one making claims, you provide the evidence. Until then, we are under no obligation to take your arguments seriously.
A lot of evidenceless things are “possible”, but honest people call them sci-fi, not science.
Sorry, no evidence, no dice. That’s how big man science works, and if you children want to play, you have to follow the rule.
The bridge is there. It’s called “actually bringing some evidence to the table instead of arguments from ignorance, bullshit and pointless speculation”. That’s all “alternate” researches need to do in order to be taken seriously.
Let me spell it to you.
“I’m not racist! I think aliens built Stonehenge too! But you see, Europeans actually outgrew needing aliens way back in the Stone Age, while the stupid Meso-Americans kept depending on them well into the 14th century!”
He doesn’t have evidence for either of these conjectures, so they’re equally irrelevant.
If you want to make science instead of sci-fi, FIRST you collect some evidence that aliens were here, THEN you start speculating on their origins (and THEN you try to find evidence of that). Otherwise, you’re doing it bass-ackwards.
Careful, do not open your mind so much that your brains fall off.
Take your Galileo gambit and shove it, jackass. You don’t get to compare those cranks to people who actually did the hard work to explain things that actually happen.
Those “ideas” won out because they explained the evidence better. Evidence is precisely what the woo-meisters you welcome lack.
We’re waiting on that “evidence”…
Ah, the “no bias” canard. Which in woo lingo means “accepting what we assert at face value”. Don’t question too hard, or else you’re a closed-minded dogmatist.
Things that don’t breach the basic requirement of falsifying the null hypothesis don’t need to be considered by serious scientists. They have better things to do with their time.
Why are you accepting woo woo on the pretense of being “open-minded”, then?
Nerd of DeadHead said:
“I recognize this as a classical missionary tactic of trying to befriend the person most critical of them. Pathetic attempt by an abject loser to not admit they are defeated by the intellectual argument. Shutting the fuck up is your best option. But then, liars and bullshitters, who have no honesty and integrity, keep showing their losership by such inane activities.”
Nerd,
Wow. I don’t know how you do it, Nerd, but you keep stabbing me right to the heart.
*smirk*
You sure hold yourself and your criticisms in pretty high esteem. You are by far, NOT the most critical person I have ever encountered. I’ve dealt with your types long ago when I was working with middle and high school kids.
So, don’t hurt yourself over there while stroking yourself so hard.
You might want to consider that I my have invited you to a beer because when face-to-face, most people like you who are unnecessarily foul and abrasive behind the virtual anonymity of typing in an internet forum, drop the bravado and start acting as if their mama taught them something about life.
There is also the the element of guys like you knowing that if you ever talked like that to someone’s face, you would end up having the other person look you in the eye and say, “What the fuck did you just call me, asshole?” And the outcome would probably be far less pleasant than stroking yourself behind your computer screen for your smarmy, middle school vocabulary and demeanor.
I’m not saying I’d punch you in the face or anything – even though in some settings, your actions would have ended you up in that sort of dilemma long ago, rightfully so. But the anonymity of the internet forum allows you to talk and act in such ways that would be frowned upon in a face-to-face setting. And I would guess that stripped of the virtual anonymity of the internet, you’re a pussy cat, and genuine conversation could actually ensue.
I guess 40 years as a “scientist” means you’re at least 55-65 years old. I would think someone with as much life and respectable career under their belt would have learned long ago how to talk to someone with whom you simply disagree. You must’ve been bullied by kids or something, and you now have found the outlet for expressing your long internalized anxieties and angst.
Did your mama not teach you how to act, Nerd? Did you not get enough teat as an infant?
Suffice it to say, Nerd, that my offer had nothing to do with the missionary position that your brain immediately rushed to. It had to do with finding a modicum standard for civility. Distort that all you like, but in doing so you merely continue to reaffirm my point.
And something I have wondered… it seems that you and most of you consider yourselves Progressives and Liberals. I thought progressive liberals were tolerant and peaceful. seeking conversations across the aisle and all of us “just getting along.” Your actions, Nerd – and those of some of the others here in this forum – has thrown that modality right out the window.
So, pardon the over-long post. I could have said it as simply as: “Shut the fuck up, Nerd.” But I didn’t.
Hey Vaiyt,
Let me respond as best I can…
I’m going to page Nerd here for a bit. You’re the one making claims, you provide the evidence. Until then, we are under no obligation to take your arguments seriously.
I really don’t think I’ve made any claims, Vaiyt. I have said that I am intrigued by ideas. Nerd continues to ask me to back up my claims. I continue to ask him, “What claims have I made?” And it goes round and round and round.
The only real claim I have made is that I do not adhere to the ancient alien theory – or notion. Does it intrigue me and interest me? Sure. But it would require much more evidence.
A lot of evidenceless things are “possible”, but honest people call them sci-fi, not science.
I would agree. I’ve never referred to the study of ancient aliens a “science.”
Sorry, no evidence, no dice. That’s how big man science works, and if you children want to play, you have to follow the rule.
I think you establish here just how “religious” science has become. Its a controversy over who has all the right answers and the right way to find them – and it is as emotionally ridden as talking politics or religion. If you don’t think so, just scroll back and tell me how much vitriol is needed to express something that does not hold the same sort of emotion as arguing a religious cause.
I agree with you 100% on the “no evidence” rule, but “big man science” needs to also start admitting that it’s made of itself a surrogate for religion, complete with its own theology, doctrine and dogma, that if you fall outside, you are excommunicate.
The bridge is there. It’s called “actually bringing some evidence to the table instead of arguments from ignorance, bullshit and pointless speculation”. That’s all “alternate” researches need to do in order to be taken seriously.
The bridge is there, but you guys seem to stand as the troll beneath it. What have you determined – of the evidence ancient alienists say exist – is not evidentiary?
I am not an ancient alien theorist, so I do not present any sort of evidence on their part. But my understanding is that they seem to think they have plenty of evidence to substantiate at least some serious research ought to be done. It seems to me that ‘science” (for lack of a better general term) is the one stonewalling.
Name for me all the claims made by ancient alien researchers, then show me links and evidence that counters all their claims. I think you would find that an impossible task, because from what I understand, there is so much new information that “scientists” won’t even consider, because it falls outside what the already believe they have established beyond a shadow of a doubt. End of story.
Is that real science, or is that academia simply calling itself “so much better?’
I think this is where the bridge has not been constructed.
Let me spell it to you.
“I’m not racist! I think aliens built Stonehenge too! But you see, Europeans actually outgrew needing aliens way back in the Stone Age, while the stupid Meso-Americans kept depending on them well into the 14th century!”
Who are you quoting here…? Certainly not me or anyone I know.
If THAT pseudo-quotation is an example of what science think ancient alienists believe, I think they have proven their inability to properly deduce or stand on solid evidence. If that is what you think ancient alien theory advocates, then you do not know much about the topic you decry.
He doesn’t have evidence for either of these conjectures, so they’re equally irrelevant.
He would claim differently, and also assert that science simply has no interest based on decades-old notions and information.
I would ask you, do YOU know what the current claims are, and if you don’t, why would already deny they are worth your attention? I think it’s because to do so would be inviolate of the religion of science. And don’t take me to task for that, I am just reaffirming my believe that the scientific community is as religious as a church, and everyone outside the double doors is simply wrong and going to science-hell.
If you want to make science instead of sci-fi, FIRST you collect some evidence that aliens were here, THEN you start speculating on their origins (and THEN you try to find evidence of that). Otherwise, you’re doing it bass-ackwards.
Wholehearted agreement with you, there.
Careful, do not open your mind so much that your brains fall off.
Good advice.
Take your Galileo gambit and shove it, jackass. You don’t get to compare those cranks to people who actually did the hard work to explain things that actually happen.
Those “ideas” won out because they explained the evidence better. Evidence is precisely what the woo-meisters you welcome lack.
But how long did it take for that evidence to be “explained better?” It wasn’t overnight.
We’re waiting on that “evidence”…
Me too.
Ah, the “no bias” canard. Which in woo lingo means “accepting what we assert at face value”. Don’t question too hard, or else you’re a closed-minded dogmatist.
See, this is where I think you err greatly. It is no “canard.” I don’t think anyone is asking to be accepted at “face value.”
I think both sides need to have a “no bias” standard. If you enter into the research with an already established idea, you filter all arguments through that bias. It works both ways.
Tell me you don;’t already have a bias established on this issue. I think you are so close to your bias, you cannot see it. So much so that you already have your established responses, “Ah, the ‘no bias’ canard.”
Things that don’t breach the basic requirement of falsifying the null hypothesis don’t need to be considered by serious scientists. They have better things to do with their time.
I think the scientific community needs to stop setting itself up as the standard. Let me explain what I mean… it seems that the scientific community sits at the table, having established itself as the watch dog at the gate, so to speak. And all those with ideas that fall outside the accepted scientific community, need to “form a queue to the left and wait until you are called upon to see if we will give you audience.” Further, “Oh, and your ‘evidence,’ we’ve already disproven and disavowed that, so don’t even bother.”
How do you suggest that gap be bridged?
Why are you accepting woo woo on the pretense of being “open-minded”, then?
As I have already stated, i don’t “accept” the woo, but I think there is room to explore the notion. I don’t deny the notion simply because it does not fit into what I think we already know beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Chigau,
Why does “paleo-contact” hafta be about space-aliens as opposed to leprechauns?
Because we already know that leprechauns are Irish.
No, it just shows how you don’t like your “intriguing” ideas challenged for reality. Then you hide behind “I don’t believe that”. We both know it is nothing but your being duplicitous and lying. I only have a problem with your lack of proper response. Either show the evidence to demontrate there is something to the “intriguing” ideas that explains the evidence, or shut the fuck up about it. But then, honesty and integrity are required for such a response. And you lack that, and blame response you provoke by your duplicity on those responding to you. Tsk, take responsibility for your actions.
Fallacious presuppposition on your part. Just like all your bullshit. Nothing of substance except what you want to hear. Actually, we can be quite forceful in experssing ourselves. Why do you have trouble with that? Oh, that’s right, you want to pretend to be civil, even if you aren’t.
Claim presented without evidence. Hence *POOF* dismissed for utter fuckwittery. Either prove this claim or shut the fuck up about it. That would show your ability to understand where evidence needs to be presented. You also don’t understand the difference between new ideas that are solidly backed by evidence, which get accepted (hot blooded dinosaur theory for example), and those without evidence that are idiocy like your ancient astronaut stupidity. And science treats them differently. The fact that you can’t see that shows why you should not be listened to, and why you lie and bullshit about this.
This isn’t how science is done. Show us the peer reviewed scientific literature that backs up their claims. You know, journals found in the scientific libraries of institutuions of higher learning world-wide with name like Nature and Science. That is what is need by those making the claim. Show us your evidence, or shut the fuck up.
Again, unevidence assertion *POOF* dismissed as fuckwittery. Typical lies told by woomeisters world wide, when they have no evidence. Science is open minded, but not so open our brains fall out, like yours has.
Woo has no room to explore, as it is empty and evidenceless. For example, show me the dose response curve for a homeopathic drug. Likewise, show me memory the “homeopathic” water has by putting in an nmr and checking to see if anything other than one peak is seen due to the memory of a substance being there. Evidence makes the diffence, and only after conclusive evidence should woo be considered.
Nerd of DeadHead,
You said: “No, it just shows how you don’t like your “intriguing” ideas challenged for reality. Then you hide behind “I don’t believe that”. We both know it is nothing but your being duplicitous and lying. I only have a problem with your lack of proper response. Either show the evidence to demontrate there is something to the “intriguing” ideas that explains the evidence, or shut the fuck up about it. But then, honesty and integrity are required for such a response. And you lack that, and blame response you provoke by your duplicity on those responding to you. Tsk, take responsibility for your actions.”
Let me use the Michael Shermer/Big ‘S’ style of responses to your statements:
No it isn’t. Prove it.
No I don’t. Demonstrate where I’ve done that.
No we don’t. Your extraordinary claims require extraodinary evidence.
Why are you asking me to back up somebody else’s claims? All I said was that they were intriguing ideas. Are you asking me to substantiate why I feel they are intriguing ideas?
All you do, Nerd, is throw out charges, but you never show me any evidence to back up your claims.
Nerd said: “Claim presented without evidence. Hence *POOF* dismissed for utter fuckwittery.
For the um-teenth time, Nerd, what claim did I present?
Either prove this claim or shut the fuck up about it.
What claim was that, again?
The claim you are responding to above is when I said the scientific community is like a religion, in that it has its set of dogmas, doctrines and, yes, theology. What proof would you like for that?
In your case I would say it goes far beyond a religious sort of attitude and more into caterwauling little girl – no offense to little girls of the world.
That would show your ability to understand where evidence needs to be presented. You also don’t understand the difference between new ideas that are solidly backed by evidence, which get accepted (hot blooded dinosaur theory for example), and those without evidence that are idiocy like your ancient astronaut stupidity.
What makes this “MY” ancient astronaut stupidity? When did I claim it? (never mind… you won’t answer that question, anyway. Evidence shows that every time I’ve asked you to tell me what claims I have made, you never do.)
And science treats them differently. The fact that you can’t see that shows why you should not be listened to, and why you lie and bullshit about this.”
Demonstrate where in this thread I have proven that I do not understand that.
Fallacious presuppposition on your part. Just like all your bullshit. Nothing of substance except what you want to hear. Actually, we can be quite forceful in experssing ourselves. Why do you have trouble with that? Oh, that’s right, you want to pretend to be civil, even if you aren’t.
I think I’ve been pretty dang civil. Where it become difficult is when you continue to take me to task over and over and over and over again, when the things you take me to task for are never actually claims that I have made.
And when I ask you to clearly revisit your statements and clarify what you say I have claimed, you ignore the point. This is where I contend that you dialog like the people you decry: you ignore facts to continue spouting your brand of the truth.
How scientific is that?
This isn’t how science is done.
Are you suggesting that science is done like this forum demonstrates?
Show us the peer reviewed scientific literature that backs up their claims. You know, journals found in the scientific libraries of institutuions of higher learning world-wide with name like Nature and Science. That is what is need by those making the claim. Show us your evidence, or shut the fuck up.
Why are you telling me to shut up about it? Its not my claim.
Why are you continually asking me to show research for things I have never laid claim to?
And on what basis do you call me a liar? Show me evidence of my lies.
Now, if you have nothing new to add other than to remain on the same tired, repeating track of taking me to task for things I do not believe or claim – and me asking you to tell me what it is I have claimed, etc, ad infinitum, then simply consider our last exchange, because you are simply wasting my time, now.
Simple. Ideas per se can be are bullshit. Evidence makes them more. Without evidence, you bullshit ideas don’t make “intriguing”. They are flat and lifeless. Welcome to science.
NO EVIDENCE. What part of this don’t you understand. It explains nothing either. That makes it stupid.
See this comment in toto.
You make many claims. Including science is dogmatic and “religious”. Put up or shut the fuck up.
I show where you are wrong in your definitions and thinking about science. You don’t ever show evidence to back your claims, including your claim you make no claims. But anybody reading this thread sees you making claims.
Science is put up the evidence to back up your claims or shut the fuck up. Science isn’t an idea debating society like you are pretending it is.
Then shut the fuck up about those things you never lay claim to or find “intriguing”, which is laying a claim.
All those claims you make but pretend you don’t. Many claims are implied, but they are there. Where is your evidence that science is a religion? That was a distinct claim you have made repeatedly without presenting evidence. So, put up or shut the fuck up on that claim.
You were wasting our time thinking you weren’t wasting yours. You haven’t said anything of interest, just the typical vaguries of the woo infested trying like hell not to have to justify their statements. And trying like hell to control the “dialog”. But that didn’t happen here, did it? You haven’t said anything for a skeptic or scientist to do anything other than dismiss you as a woo infested fuckwitted idjit. Which requires more than “intriguing” ideas, it requires real evidence and a spine to back up ideas.
Nerd of DeadHead,
I have concluded that you are completely obtuse.
You make the claim that people like Velikovsky and von Däniken are worthy of consideration, for once.
Yet, you’re happy to give tacit approval to woo-peddlers who have no decent evidence to speak of. Making you a fool.
Sorry. I forget that woo-infested nincompoops like you see no difference between science and sci-fi, and think speculation divorced from the real world has the same weight as truth.
Oh, you think you have a better way to find out about things than science? Science works. No other method so far has proven to be capable of reliably find out things about the world like science. “Pulling things out of your ass”, which is the method preferred by hacks like Von Däniken and Tsoukalos, certainly doesn’t.
Oh, and by the way, you said this
earlier on. Looks like it didn’t take long for the mask to break.
Saying this when you spend the entire rest of your oeuvre trying to smear the scientific method, is the scientific equivalent of “I’m not racist but…”, and almost as stupid.
What is the doctrine? What is the dogma? Spit it out.
“Make testable claims based on evidence or GTFO” is not dogma. It’s a method. A method that works reliably.
Extraordinary claims require equally extraordinary evidence. Without some positive evidence that there were actual aliens on Earth, you don’t have any business trying to discover how many of them can dance on a pin.
I would play the world’s smallest violin for the plight of von Däniken, Tsoukalos and Velikovsky, but I don’t think they even deserve that.
Yeah, and so say the people who believe in Bigfoot, fake moon landings and 9/11 conspiracies.
There’s no bridge to build between science and woo. They’re mutually incompatible. Woo with evidence and method is just regular science, and science that allows itself to accept extraordinary claims without proper evidence is woo.
It’s the underlying assumption, the unfortunate implications of trying to shoehorn aliens into the gaps in our knowledge of historical practices. Ancient Alienists would never propose the Duomo was the work of aliens; one of the earliest proponents did make that claim about the fucking Amazonas Theater.
He can assert all he fucking wants, that doesn’t make it true.
I don’t care.
Because they need some Thor-damn positive evidence. Otherwise, they’re just posturing.
Don’t try to read my mind, you’re not psychic.
What’s that about claiming to not believe anything? You sure made your mind up about science. And this
is a bare-faced lie.
At least there WAS evidence.
You say you don’t, but your entire shtick so far has been to say woo-peddlers should be considered to have equal value as real science because you say they do.
The unbiased stance is the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is no aliens, because it doesn’t add extra entities that are unaccounted for – until someone presents positive evidence of aliens.
I certainly do have biases. I have a bias against bullshit. I have a bias against evidenceless claims. That’s all UFOlogy has produced so far.
The “no bias” canard consists on presenting us as partial because we refuse to accept woo as equivalent to reality, and then setting yourself up as “reasonable” in comparison. Take your Golden Mean and shove it, because one side is clearly wrong and it’s not science.
Not this “other ways of knowing” bullshit again. You want to be a standard? It’s simple. All you have to do is: produce accurate knowledge reliably. Science is the standard because IT WORKS, and no other method so far has got even close to its track record. It gave us modern technology, including the computer you type on; it let us look into the depths of the Earth and the Universe, cure disease, understand our own minds in ways we’ve never dreamed of. What have ancient alienists given us? A bunch of conspiracy theories, conjecture that never helped us explain anything, with a side order of racism.
Holy conspiracy theories, Batman!
Sure, you can believe you’re speaking truth to power when you tell me scientists just should accept bullshit to be as valid as their work, but I’m not going to entertain your delusions of being a brave maverick.
Is it hard to breach the scientific consensus? No shit. Creationists complain about that all the time.
It has been done before, though. Alienists are welcome to try. *snicker* But they don’t, they want to be accepted now, before they got anything substantive to back up their claims.
Also, this
is definitely a lie.
BTFE.
For someone who claims to not believe in woo, you make a good job of strawmanning its opponents.
Yawn, fuckwit can’t stick the flounce. What else will it lie and bullshit about lurkers. It can’t show evidence for its ideas, it can’t show science is a religion, but it can’t shut the fuck up dear lurkers. Those who have honesty and integrity, like all scientists in their professional writing, will either put up the evidence, either from duplicatable experiments they ran, or by third party citations to the peer reviewed literature. And from poor Scotty, anything resembling a link to evidence? No. So how does on determine he isn’t lying and bullshitting? One can’t, so the null hypothesis becomes he is lying until third party evidence shows otherwise….
liar
Chigau,
Precisely. Comparing Nerd to the little girls of the world would be an offense to them.
Vaiyt,
And this is where its a problem. You want to take me to task for giving an audience to people woith whom you find non-credible. To that I say, “So what?”
I am also giving PZ and audience, next time, as well as others that more people will have a problem with.
As for calling me a liar, please demonstrate one instance where I have lied about anything. Unless you’re using it the same way we see it tossed about in the presidential campaign – you can make the claim without substance, then say it enough and it will hopefully catch on.
Nerd of DeadHead,
Backing someone else’s claims…? Not my job. You are obtuse in the sense that you have to ignore what I do say to continue to assert your opinion.
And you still haven’t answered my question as to what you bring to the table. You seem to be avoiding that one, but I’m not sure why. You said you’ve been a scientist for 40 years… what is your area of specialty and what do you do?
Pardon this morning’s typos. Just coffee-ing up.
scottyroberts, I guess one day you could become as Art Bell.
(There’s money to be made!)
It is. Why are you afraid to even try? Maybe you recognize how scientifically empty those claims are. Then you need to shut the fuck up about the ideas being “intriguing”, as they are bullshit.
Notice dear lurkers, it thinks it has something to say. That will only happen when it says “this is what I believe, and this (link) is the evidence to back it up”. Otherwise, it keeps showing the world the vapidity and inanity of its ideas.
How exactly has SCIENCE prevented Von Däniken from, you know, doing his own research? The guy has had roughly four decades, and presumably a pile of money from his crappy books, to produce something other than an argument that these more primitive societies couldn’t have produced the works that have been found. What’s he got? What is it you want science to do, other than apparently accept the notion that aliens have visited earth without anything solid to base that idea on?
For crying out loud–if there was actual, positive evidence that aliens had visited in the past, like an artifact or something that couldn’t be explained in a more mundane way, you really don’t think scientists all over the world would be lining up for their piece of the fame and fortune that would await real discoveries? Do you really think scientists are so attached to their “dogma” that they wouldn’t jump at the chance to make one of the great discoveries in history?
feralboy12,
You make a very good point/points. I have asked the very same questions. One would think that with over 70 million of his original book in print, von Daniken would have had a few bucks to throw into scientific research. But i really don’t know enough about what he’s done – if anything – in that area to talk about it.
Perhaps my approach is entirely wrong-headed, but I am not asking that science accept anything carté blanche. I know so little about the ancient alien theory/notion, that I am not even sure why science has labeled it so much anathema.
I want to know more about the intricacies of the claims being made, so I can make intelligent decisions about it. I have always been intrigued by it, but never had reason to take the time to study it in-depth. Some of the “evidences” they show seem credible, as in archaeological relics re-interpreted against other relics, tooling, styles and art of the same period from the same culture.
What I have found is that there is a lot of conjecture, speculation and comparative statements being made from ancient alien theorists. I have never had the time nor the will of effort to look deeply into the scientific community’s problems with the theory/notion, mostly because it has always seemed to me that there have been efforts made by AA theorists to debunk their own claims.
I have generally seen the scientific community as one that will decry anything it cannot quantify within it’s own established structure – which I believe is a huge mistake. What I see more of from the scientific community is taking non-atheists to task for believing things, rather than finding ways to pull those people over “to the light.” Cqll them liars, bullshitters and asshats before showing what you’ve got to offer that’s better.
It becomes – for many outside either box – an observation of arrogance versus sincerity. And while the scientific community may bristle at that notion, its what people see. And as much as they are turned off by know-it-all fundamentalist preachers, they view the scientific community in the very same light. They both say they have the truth and hold all the facts in hand. But, to them, who is really right?
That is why you have seen the rise of scientists, such as Michio Kaku, Brian Greene and the like. They are looking for ways to make science inviting and interesting to people. I have yet to see either of them call someone a “fuckwit” because they might disagree with someone else’s notion or theory. And they win people over to their thinking, as opposed to building walls by projecting a know-it-all arrogance.
There is something to psychology and the way you present your case. And unless you plan to remain cloistered, the scientific community needs to find ways to build bridges for people who want to know more. Otherwise they will lose them to the ones who know how to interact with people.
And if the scientific community is weary of presenting their best foot forward, they lose the public relations game of winning minds.
Bullshit. You keep expecting other people to do work for you. You either do it yourself or shut the fuck up. You being handfed information is egotism run rampant.
Nerd of DeadHead said:
“Why are you afraid to even try?”
I’m not afraid to try, Nerd, I just don’t know enough about it make any case for or against it. This is what I have been saying all along: I haven’t made any claims, I am just intrigued by the notion.
Conversely, I have asked you several times to tell me why your pedagogic remarks and insults should be held in any esteem by me. You have failed to impress me that your approach is anything short of anonymous internet teenage miscreant braying.
There are times where you sound as if there might be a glimmer of an actual person with intelligence behind your rants, but you shut it down pretty quickly.
Nerd,
I have never asked anyone to any work for me. Did I…?
They have their best foot forward. Everything is backed with solid and conclusive evidence. Why do you want to dilute what works? Because science makes you look like a demented ignorant fool?
[meta]
scottyroberts retorts to Nerd:
So you admit you’re intrigued because you’re ignorant, but not so intrigued as to seek to become educated.
(Pride in one’s ignorance is foolish pride)
Yes, it is implied every time you want science to look at your “intriguing” ideas. That is somebody else doing work you ask for. That is why you are a liar and bullsitter. You make implicit claims on other peoples time and effort. Stop doing that. Keep everything internal to you, no problem. Which means you shut the fuck up and do all your own research….
Perhaps my approach is entirely wrong-headed
*headdesk*
Ner of DeadHead said: “So you admit you’re intrigued because you’re ignorant, but not so intrigued as to seek to become educated. (Pride in one’s ignorance is foolish pride)”
If that’s what you choose to believe.
Ichtyic said:
Scotty: ‘Perhaps my approach is entirely wrong-headed…’
*headdesk*
I knew when I typed that phrase that someone would copy it without relaying the entire context and make a predictable comment such as yours. ;)
Nerd of DeadHead said: “Yes, it is implied every time you want science to look at your “intriguing” ideas. That is somebody else doing work you ask for. That is why you are a liar and bullsitter. You make implicit claims on other peoples time and effort. Stop doing that. Keep everything internal to you, no problem. Which means you shut the fuck up and do all your own research….”
You sure have a way of pulling out precisely what you want me to be saying in order to fit your argumentative criticism, then commenting on it.
Still wondering if you are ever going to answer my question on what it is YOU’VE done in the scientific community for the last 40 years…
Sorry Nerd, I misattributed a quote to you, when it was actually John Morales. Pardon the unintentional error.
John Morales said: “So you admit you’re intrigued because you’re ignorant, but not so intrigued as to seek to become educated. (Pride in one’s ignorance is foolish pride)”
You are making a broad, brash assumption with this comment, John. Where did you glean from my words that I wish to remain uneducated?
Here is a project of mine where I DO make solid claims as to the existence of faeries and sword wielding Irish rabbits…
http://www.tamohare.com
For instance, you have claimed that you didn’t “excoriate science”, while proceeding to do exactly that.
You claimed you didn’t have any particular claims yourself, which is a lie, since you do make several claims, for example:
1) Scientists should give credit to Ancient Aliens woo
2) Science today is like a religion
3) The Ancient Alienists aren’t accepted because the scientific community is made up of closed-minded dogmatists
4) The credibility of the speakers in your event is not your department
Is that enough?
It’s not anathema. It’s simply bullshit. People like us who like real science, react with anger because we regret the undue attention those bullshitters get, and regret that many people – like you – confuse them for real scientists.
AND YET, YOU THINK YOU KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THEIR OBJECTIONS TO PAINT THEM AS CLOSED-MINDED DOGMATIST ZEALOTS.
Fucking dishonest piece of shit.
Tell you what. Some people just don’t want to hear facts. They want to be coddled. They want to hear pretty things that make them feel good. It’s to that feeling that bullshitters appeal. Of course they sound more attractive. There’s no way truth can compete with lies on the PR game, because truth doesn’t change to make people feel more comfortable.
Bullshitters need to be taken to task because they want to appear like real scientists, and drag the credibility of real science down as a result. When Michio Kaku refuses to call Deepak Chopra on his nonsense, he lets Chopra piggyback his woo woo on science. In the long run, that has the effect of making it look like scientists accept taking-it-out-of-your-ass-ism as a valid reserarch method.
Fuck them, and fuck you for being another woo-enabler with the mouth full of cotton.
There, I swore. Feel free to ignore my whole fucking post if you want, I don’t care.
Vaiyt,
It is obvious that you are going to see me the way you have already pigeon-holed me, because most of what you infer and attribute to the intention of my words is NOT what I said.
You said:
You claimed you didn’t have any particular claims yourself, which is a lie, since you do make several claims…
I stated time and again that I did not make any claims as to the ancient alien theory being true. I asserted that I do not lay claim to the ancient alien theory, but only find it intriguing enough to consider the possibility. I stated outright that there exists no evidence that I have personally researched to claim that the theory/notion is true.
1) Scientists should give credit to Ancient Aliens woo
I didn’t say that. I ASKED if the scientific community should see the notion as explorable. I did NOT say you should accept their ideas carté blanch.
2) Science today is like a religion
I absolutely DID compare the scientific community – more aptly what I refer to as the “Big ‘S’ Skeptics within that community, to the same sorts who populate religious communities, in that they have an established doctrine that they adhere to – and it isn’t simply one of seeking only facts and evidence. That is most certainly NOT a lie on my part, it is how I see the scientific community, especially in light of the kinds of reactions even stating the desire to see bridges built is reacted to in this forum.
And you have to admit, even the scientific community has to apply “faith” – call it educated guesses based on hypothesis – for many of the theories they hold as true and factual.
3) The Ancient Alienists aren’t accepted because the scientific community is made up of closed-minded dogmatists
I did NOT say that. I said that the AA’s notions/theories are primarily rejected by the scientific community, offhand, without consideration. That is the same sort of thing I see the Baptists engaging in when they decry the Hindus. It is a Fundamentalism of a different sort, and BOTH sides of the AA argument need to drop the fundamentalism, because not everyone who thinks there might be something to the AA notion is a woo-driven idiot.
4) The credibility of the speakers in your event is not your department
I never said that. I said that in “ain’t my job” to prove what the AA community purports. And that I admittedly had not dug into any of it deeply enough to either make a clim as to its veracity of to call it bullshit. You obviously have… right?
Tell you what. Some people just don’t want to hear facts. They want to be coddled. They want to hear pretty things that make them feel good.
Well, tell YOU what… that isn’t me you are talking about. All you would have to do is see anything I have written about and published to know that I prefer facts to assertions. Srtill doesn’t mean I am not intrigued by it.
There, I swore. Feel free to ignore my whole fucking post if you want, I don’t care.
Swearing’s fuckin’ fine in my fuckin’ book. Its simply that you tend to emotively personalize, which is the first earmark of having had doctrine or theology tread upon.
Drip.
Drip.
Drip.
Janine,
Glad you’re still reading.
For example?
Scotty actually providing evidence and defending it? *snicker*
Simply referring to this hogwash as a “theory” is a lie: “theory” has a specific meaning in science, as has already been pointed out to you, and speculation pulled out of your arse does not conform to that meaning.
No, we don’t, because it’s another lie. I note that you give no examples; that’s because you can’t.
Yes, they are. You’re a good example.
“That which is asserted without can be dismissed without evidence” Christopher Hitchens. Which means almost everything Scotty says can *POOF* be dismissed out of hand. The difference between woo and science is EVIDENCE. Your word isn’t evidence Scotty…
snottyroberts,
No it doesn’t, because this is a barefaced lie.
If you know so little about it, how do you have the cheek to smear scientists as closed-minded for not taking it seriously? It’s because there isn’t a particle of evidence for it, and its proponents are either obvious con artist, such as von Daniken, or sad crackpots such as Velikovsky.
If he had done or funded any real research, wouldn’t he have talked about it at your silly little meeting?
scottyroberts:
Here (my emphasis): “I want to know more about the intricacies of the claims being made, so I can make intelligent decisions about it. ”
So intriguing as to make your admittedly ignorant self spruik its intrigue, but not so much as to give you reason to study it so as not to remain ignorant.
(Because then what your ignorance perceives as an intriguing mystery might be revealed to be wishful thinking in the cold light of knowledge)
I have a vague recollection of reading von Daniken forty years ago. I wasn’t intrigued, just disgusted with the lack of evidence, and vague, vague connections to myths. It started me on the road to being a skeptic…
That’s because they present no evidence. Look, try to get this through the concrete: scientists are busy people – they don’t have the time or the inclination to listen to evidence-free speculation. If your “ancient alien” chums want to be taken seriously by scientists, they must present credible evidence.
More lies. All “ancient alienists” need to do is to present their evidence in the form of a paper submitted to an appropriate journal, and it will be considered. That’s what everyone has to do if they want “the scientific community” to give them “audience”. Why do you keep lying, snottyroberts?
Scotty, this is what a scientist means by evidence. This a paper by Lenski, et al., showing the mutations necessary for a strain of e-coli to be able to metabolize citrate instead of glucose. It details the mutations, and their significance.
Your AA fuckwits need to present a similar level of solid and conclusive physical evidence in a comparable journal. Cite that paper…
Let me ask you all this question…
I have no way of testing it on my own, because I am not a scientist with a lab, nor do I have access to materials even if i did have a lab.
But I have read that there is absolutely no DNA linkage between the individual fossilized stages representing the ascendency of man from lowest order of primate (would that be austioppithicus [SP]?) to modern man.
Now, before you leap into hyper gear and bombast at me for saying there is no evolution – which I am NOT saying – does this little fact of no evidentiary linkage between what have been identified as “stages” in human evolution, cast that theory into the speculative mode?
What say you, oh great, learned scientists…?
I am not a scientist. I am an historian. But I say, “There are shitloads of books, for everyone from the interested layman to the student to the professional, available used and new, which show that your #420 is a pile of shit.
scottyroberts #420
Are you drunk?
scottyroberts:
I’m not a great, learned scientist, but I say that you apparently understand fossilisation about as well as you understand evolutionary theory and genomic theory.
(Hint: The genome and DNA are not interchangeable terms any more than are houses and bricks)
—
PS Using your ignorance to try to show science is not omniscient is no way to buttress your “intriguing” speculations, you know.
Nope, there is DNA linkage and a large amount of common DNA. Why do you keep lying to yourself, then lie to us? We know better. The DNA evidence shows humans and primates are closely related, with the great apes being even closer, and the chimpanzees being our closest relatives. As would be expected from the fossil record. Where is your evidence otherwise? Cite your source, or shut the fuck up as a liar and bullshitter should….
No. Period, end of story. The DNA record confirms the evolutionary linkages. Where the fuck is your mind? It isn’t working on any evidence whatsoever. And you next attempt, either link to your source, or don’t present it. Without a link it will be dismissed as fuckwittery, and you as a fuckwitted liar and bullshitter.
Oh, and Scotty, a couple of chimpanzee chromosomes have fused head to head to make human chromosome 2. Don’t bullshit us. We, unlike you, have evidence to prove what a fool you are.
scottyroberts:
You claim to have read this. Where did you read it? What publication? Who wrote it? When was it written?
Links will stop your OPINION from being dismissed *POOF* without evidence. Why are you so afraid to evidence your claims? Maybe you do know what a liar and bullshitter you really are, and the only way to avoid it is to pretend ignorance? And if you are that ignorant, why are you even bothering us? You should be in your basement, wearing your tin foil hat, sucking your thumb….
And I ASKED what exactly it was that you wanted the scientific community to do.
Archaeologists dig through ancient sites, collecting and cataloging artifacts. Historians peruse written records. Astronomers search the heavens for signs of life. Anthropologists reconstruct the ways ancient peoples lived.
What, you think scientists look at sites of ancient civilizations and just say, “ah, buncha old crap, just toss it?”
Scotty, you can either copypasta the URL for your link on a separate line, or you can use the method I used above for embedding the link in a description, using <a href = “url of the link”>description of link</a>. Not hard, but it is required for you to be taken seriously. Otherwise, you demonstrate you are nothing but a liar and bullshitter.
you people are wasting your time with this dolt.
you can’t explain what is wrong with his approach so that he will understand it.
there’s just too much fucking ignorance.
He’s done a great job of clarifying why nobody with half a brain would want to go to his “paradigm symposium” though.
pathetic wanker will just keep wanking.
I agree my fishy friend. Scotty can’t see he is in over his head; his ego gets in the way. But I have been posting the last day or so for the lurkers. They need to know the depths of Scotty’s dishonesty and fuckwittery, despite his innocuous sounding prose. I think the lurkers are beginning to understand the depths of his lying, and not to trust anything it says.
There ya go, Nerd, if you can’t dialog with civility, just call ’em liars.
There ya go, Nerd, if you can’t dialog with civility, just call ‘em liars.
Hey, snottybobs:
Quantum Quantum!
Quantum quanta Quantum?
Quantum QUANTUM!
quantum.
Ichthyic
Quantum quantum quanta?
Quantorum scottyquant!
And if you can’t put up the links, or shut the fuck up like a person of honesty and integrity, complain about tone….Liar and bullshitter.
And dear lurkers, if Scotty wasn’t a liar and bullshitter the links would have appeared in his last post, as I did tell him how to do such in two ways in my #430. Evidently real evidence and presenting it to convince people is beyond the abilities of poor Scotty. Who has nothing but evidenceless OPINION, the bane of the woomeisters….
Quantorum scottyquant!
Ha! exactly.
The problem with you guys is that you believe anyone who makes the claim that there is room to explore ancient alien theory – or *notions* – are somehow unintelligent, liars (about anything you want to squeeze into that vapid accusation), mentally deficient or lacking in any sort of archaeological, cosmological, historical or anthropological experience or knowledge.
Ancient alien theorists have simply made alternative suggestions, which are not excluded by the archaeological or anthropological evidence, based on the premise that the pool of evidence of history and archaeology (which is an imprecise science) allows for other than standard interpretation of the elite intelligentsia.
When you all get all apoplectic and obtusely degrading, I don’t think it has anything to do with you wanting to warn people that they are being mislead by ancient alien theorists – otherwise you’d incorporate better methodology, beyond telling people they are wrong simply because you are scientists and they are not.
I believe your vitriol and anger demonstrates that you are upset with the notion that ancient alien theory is making people re-evaluate certain…. uh oh, wait for it… “paradigms,” and people like you are all about trying to pretend that we should not do that. People should not question the standard line, but rather toe it.
Talking about ancient alien theory – or notions, or suppositions, or questions – is not the same as claiming it is so. It is merely asking questions, and the arrogance on this board far outweighs anything you can attempt to twist into being a “lie” from me.
But I stay to converse. The reason we haven’t gotten very far or deep into discussion is that I spend 90% of my time backtracking to correct misquotes you have made of things I have said, rather than engage me oin any real discussion of the topic – well, other than to ask a question about my claims than take me to task when i remind you that I never made the claim in the first place.
Nerd of DeadHead,
Have you considered that I haven’t responded to your questions and requests, deliberately, simply for the fact that you repeatedly misquote me to make your argument fit, AND you have ignored each request I have made of you?
Scottyroberts
Is the any credible evidence at all anywhere for the ancient alien theory?
Citation, not your fuckwittted OPINION, needed. Your OPINION is dismissed as fuckwitery.
Citation need, or *POOF* dismissed as abject fuckwittery. YOUR OPINION IS IRRELEVANT TO SCIENCE.
Which without evidence, is irrelevant, and you know that. So *POOF* OPINION dismissed as fuckwittery.
What discussion of the topic if you don’t present evidence to back up your claims? So *POOF* OPINION dismissed as fuckwittery.
What are you really saying? I have no evidence, but want my unevidenced OPINION to be taken seriously. Hitchens has your number. Your OPINION is dismissed as irrelevant.
The = there
scottyroberts
Provide a citation.
well, glad we cleared that up. I was afraid you were incapable of learning anything.
minor correction though: that’s YOUR problem, not ours.
…and quantum.
Notice lurkers poor Scotty has be pushed into position that his script is unable to deal with. That of having to actually provide evidence to back up its claims, which can no longer be vague, and must perforce be specific, and which can and will be refuted by real evidence. Also notice it can’t shut the fuck up like a person of honesty and integrity would do. So everything it tries to claim at this point is subjected to extreme skepticism. Which, of course, without solid scientific evidence will be rejected. Its OPINION is dead in the water. It must back up its OPINION with a link to the peer reviewed scientific literature.
AND QUANTUM…
And again: are these “suggestions” supported by any evidence? I can sit here all day and make alternative suggestions: time travelers, magic bunnies, Greek gods, Captain Kirk, eddies in the space-time continuum…not excluded by the evidence.
Dude, a theory requires positive evidence in support of it. Start with a hypothesis that makes testable predictions. Acquire data. If your predictions come out right, you might have a theory with explanatory power.
All you’ve done here is go “whoa, maybe it’s aliens.” Give us evidence, or punt already.
The problem with you is you fail to see that there is no credible case being put forth, but merely facile speculation.
Does it intrigue you to consider that the gods of Olympus were real before the magic went away?
(After all, this alternative suggestion is not excluded by the archaeological or anthropological evidence)
Leaving aside your hopeful (though cute) idea that playing with you is an act of apoplexy and the amusing admission that obtuseness suffices to degrade your claims, what part of Nerd’s quotation (“What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence”) was confusing to you? :)
You do realise the old is a fallacious appeal, no?
(Also, you seriously imagine empiricism is a paradigm worthy of re-evaluation?
Then make a compelling case for it, because your current one (that in your ignorance, you find the concept appealing) is risible and invites the derision you’re enjoying here)
Niven (unlike the loons who intrigue you) didn’t pretend his story-telling was a plausible conjecture worthy of scientific investigation.
(Why did the magic go away?)
What’s to discuss, other than that you feel aggrieved that your nonsensical claims about wishful speculations aren’t taken seriously?
—
I was most amused when you imagined Bob Blaskiewicz’s missive to you was some sort of paean, when really it was what is euphemistically referred to as faint praise.
(heh)
Rev. BigDumpChimp,
That’s the problem… there really is NOT any solid evidence. But, there is existing evidence which has been brought to question and needs reevaluation.
The fallacy with your community is that you hold anyone who questions the current archaeology as somehow dimwitted or liars – because that’s what ancient alienists are, simply liars, not researchers and questioners… right? The label of “liar” really doesn’t even fit the argument.
scottyroberts
Provide a citation.
you don’t even understand what the word fallacy means.
hint:
It doesn’t mean quantum.
get lost, loser.
scottyroberts:
But you wrote above they don’t question the archaeology, but rather its interpretation.
What do you imagine is the utility of speculative interpretations that can’t be falsified and (at best don’t provide additional explanatory power to the known evidence?
You have reversed cause and effect and thus imagine it’s a fallacious inference; it’s because they imagine that unfounded speculation is research that they’re either dimwitted or liars*, not the other way around.
—
* Or deluded.
(Or are you not open to this particular shift in your paradigm? :) )
No, it has been solidly refuted, as any person of honesty and integrity would acknowledge. Why can’t you?
Considering the lack of evidence (where are your links to said evidence), yes, liar is the best description. Why can’t you acknowledge the lack of evidence, and your need to shut the fuck up because of that? Yes, your lying and bullshitting.
There is no amount of questioning of evidence that makes “Ancient Aliens helped brown and black people (but not white people)” a logical conclusion, because there is no evidence that aliens exist at all, let alone that they built us structures.
If you want to see a real archaeological controversy, try this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_of_the_Americas
[Wikipedia is just your starting point. Follow their links.]
Rutee, strictly speaking, there certainly is evidence (indirect as it may be) that aliens probably exist, by the principle of mediocrity, the ubiquity of physical laws, and the phenomenal extent of the known universe.
(Though you’re right if you limit your claim to these speculative aliens having travelled to Earth and interacted with humans)
Oh, dear.
The quantum is leaking.
But I do like the how “quantum fallacy” sounds.
As a band name maybe ?
[OT – addendum to #458]
Actually, back in my salad days the existence of extra-solar planets had much the same scientific status as the existence of alien life now does.
(Goes to show how much technology has advanced, that we can actually image them!)
you don’t even understand what the word fallacy means.
Ichtyic,
Sure I do, and if used in the right context, you could buy one at Fantasy Gifts for yourself.
Chigau,
Oh yeah! Wiki! Now I see how you get all your great sciency shit.
Nerd of DeadHead,
So, what field of science are you in, again…?
Rutee,
What decade are you in? And what ancient alienist are you talking with?
Since you are all asking me for things that would take hours to answer in a forum like this, take a look at this response by Philip Coppens to the “Ancient Aliens Debunked” documentary.
He makes some excellent points addressing some of your specific questions.
http://www.philipcoppens.com/aaq_art5.html
scottyroberts:
Really?
Then you should have no need to take hours to cut and paste but two of these specific questions and the alleged excellent points that address them in the document to which you have linked, since both are available electronically.
(Care to try?)
John Morales,
I have no problem with that, at all, John. But not tonight. I know its only 2am, but I’m hittin’ the hay…
You do seem very interested in defending the credibility of the Ancient Alienists, to the point of smearing the scientific community and the scientific method… even though you admit to have little knowledge of either their “research” or the scientists’ objections. On that point, you’re not technically a liar, just arrogant and suspiciously defensive.
There was no “if” in your assertions. You weren’t asking about anything, you started out in full accusation mode, deploring the scientific community for dismissing the Ancient Alien claims. I quote:
“I think you establish here just how “religious” science has become. Its a controversy over who has all the right answers and the right way to find them – and it is as emotionally ridden as talking politics or religion.”
“‘big man science’ needs to also start admitting that it’s made of itself a surrogate for religion, complete with its own theology, doctrine and dogma, that if you fall outside, you are excommunicate.”
“I am just reaffirming my believe that the scientific community is as religious as a church, and everyone outside the double doors is simply wrong and going to science-hell.”
“it seems that the scientific community sits at the table, having established itself as the watch dog at the gate, so to speak. And all those with ideas that fall outside the accepted scientific community, need to ‘form a queue to the left and wait until you are called upon to see if we will give you audience.'”
“I am not even sure why science has labeled it so much anathema.”
These are not the words of someone who’s asking questions. Fucking liar.
And when you didn’t like our response (which is “IF and WHEN they present positive evidence for aliens”), you dismissed the whole of science as “just like religion”.
Bald assertion without evidence. What is the doctrine? I’ve asked this before.
See, you ARE asking us to take the Ancient Alienists’ claims at face value. You want the scientific community to pretend their reality-free ruminations are valid hypotheses without due evidence.
Put this in your head, genius: science does not need to build bridges with woo. There’s nothing woo can offer to science. There’s nothing the likes of Tsoukalos and von Däniken can offer to our understanding of history until they produce positive evidence that aliens were on Earth.
Such as?
You did. Refer to my quotes of you as shown above. Fucking liar.
And you’re doing it again.
“…when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong.” – Richard Dawkins
Take your Golden Mean and shove it even harder where the sun doesn’t shine.
2010s, and the fool Ancient Alienist that showed up on Pharyngula.
I see Scotty still isn’t getting it. Science only needs to take an idea seriously when there is evidence to back it up. Woo like AA will never be taken seriously until that crashed spaceship is found. Until then, science will rightly ignore such woo.
I also notice Scotty doesn’t talk about him funding anything. Typical passive-aggressive woomeister, investigate what I want you to using your time, money, and reputation. Can’t put his money and time where his mouth is. When funding to look at woo came available from the Center for Alternative Medicine, what it has consistently shown is that the scientist were right, much to the chagrin of Sen. Harkin, who was sure the opposite would happen. Alternative medicine is almost totally bullshit, no better than Placebo.
scottyroberts:
The bit about human evolution and DNA. You claim to have read it. Where did you read it? Who wrote it? What are the authors qualifications (especially as this author is making incredible claims)? Basically, I’m asking you for an annotated citation for your claim that DNA and fossil evidence do not agree in the field of palaeoanthropology.
I made an error here: AFAIK, Velikovsky’s crackpottery did not include ancient aliens: his approach was to assume that all the ancient Jewish myths (flood, Red Sea parting, sun standing still etc.) were reports of actual events, then make up shit to “explain” how they could have happened if planets zipped around the solar system as if in a game of cosmic pool.
You’re so fucking ignorant you don’t know:
1) That “lowest order of primate” makes no sense: evolution is not a progress from “lower” to “higher”, but a process of adaptation to local environments.
2) That if you mean “primates most distantly related to Homo sapiens that would be, according to the best current evidence, the Strepsirrhini (lemurs and lorises).
3) The name of the genus considered to be ancestral to Homo: Australopithecus.
4) That all living primates share large amounts of their genome, with the closest to Homo sapiens being chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus, with over 95% overlap), followed in order by gorillas, orang-utans, gibbons, old world monkeys and new world monkeys.
Not only that, you’re so fucking lazy you can’t be bothered to look these things up – they’re not fucking secrets concealed by the guild of scientists, you don’t even have to consult peer-reviewed journals, all this information is freely available on this thing called the internet.
Tell me, snottyroberts, why the fuck should we take someone as ignorant and lazy as you seriously, or treat you with anything but contempt?
You do realise that Prometheus isn’t a documentary, right scottyroberts?
Then take those hours or shut the fuck up. Welcome to science, not woomeisting.
I did. It presents zero evidence of any “paleo-contact”, just a few entirely unreferenced and unsupported claims of “anomalies”. I’ve never seen the documentary to which it is a response, although if it’s true that it was made by a Christian fundamentalist, it is indeed likely to be full of errors. So what? What is required for “paleo-contact” to be taken seriously is positive evidence: remains of aliens or of what cannot be human technology – and no, crystal skulls of unknown provenance, about the acquisition of which their “discoverer” lied, are no such thing, nor are heavy stones in elevated positions. The fact that we don’t know exactly how or when an artefact was created is not evidence that aliens did it. In the case of heavy stones, of course, they don’t have to be lifted vertically, as Coppens apparently thinks: hauling them up earth ramps, then digging away the support and sliding them into position, is the obvious alternative.
Indeed: you’ve already spent hours on this thread. Why, in all that time, have you not presented a single piece of evidence supporting your claim that science should take paleo-contact seriously?
Answer: because you don’t have any.
Nick Gotts said:
Indeed: you’ve already spent hours on this thread. Why, in all that time, have you not presented a single piece of evidence supporting your claim that science should take paleo-contact seriously?
Answer: because you don’t have any.
I would have disagree with you, Nick.
By writing at this board, I am not writing to “Science.” I am writing to “you guys,” a handful of fairly abrasive people used to being abrasive. As PZ hi’self put it – you have your “chew toys.” Certainly an indicator of how you treat people, historically speaking.
I don’t really care about that for MY sake. I can handle the business. And I think I have at least shown that I don’t go away crying in the corner for being called a name or having my delicate, flower-like feelings hurt.
I am pretty sure the handful of people here do not represent the whole of the scientific community, otherwise you do a pretty bad job of it and don’t do much for your community’s public relations. Unless all scientists are simply asses.
And Nick, do you know why you haven’t had much “presented” to you? Because it took this long to wade through all your guys’ bullshit. Again, something which has left me unscathed, but educated. It gave me the opportunity to see what “real scientists” are like and how gracious they are toward people with whom they disagree. And, here, all along I thought it was just a stereotype. Live and learn.
There isn’t a single thing I could present to you here that you wouldn’t look, first, for ways to tear to shreds. There isn’t a single respected person’s opinion I could present that wouldn’t have you attempting to discredit that person for one thing or another. It’s a political game.
And I get that. I do the same thing to ghost hunters – save for the personal demeaning.
I will gather up the information that I know is available from the research of good people and bring it in here over the next couple of days, and let’s see what you think of some of the material presented.
Nerd of DeadHead,
“Then take those hours or shut the fuck up. Welcome to science, not woomeisting.”
What is it you do in the scientific community, exactly, Nerd? Other than pretend you are a scientist so you can criticize with the big boys…?
Gregory Greenwood said: “You do realise that Prometheus isn’t a documentary, right scottyroberts?”
You are correct, sir! Prometheus is a production studio in L.A.
Dick of Goats,
You said: “Not only that, you’re so fucking lazy you can’t be bothered to look these things up – they’re not fucking secrets concealed by the guild of scientists, you don’t even have to consult peer-reviewed journals, all this information is freely available on this thing called the internet.
Tell me, snottyroberts, why the fuck should we take someone as ignorant and lazy as you seriously, or treat you with anything but contempt?”
Are you really that obtuse? I am not writing some sort of thesis here, Dick, I am in a fucking chat room, typing up quick answers to quick chatroom questions.
This is what I have said all along, you guys must be really hungry for blood if all it takes is a typo or an off-the-top-of-my-head remark or an incorrect characterization made for the sake of brevity to send you into red-faced tizzies.
Jesus, man! Calm the fuck down and don’t pop so many blood vessels. Again, this ain’t a doctrinal thesis I am writing here, it’s a fucking chatroom discussion.
Now watch… you’ll take me to task for referring to this as a “chatroom” instead of a “forum.” Don’t blow out a testicle, this time…
Dick of Gopats,
“You’re so fucking stupid you can’t even get through a comment without contradicting yourself.”
You are pretty socially inept, aren’t you. This is an example of what you guys capitalize on.
One is a statement of how I perceive you. The other is sarcasm. Sarcasm occasionally can seem as if it is a contradictory statement.
Dick of goats,
Note the quotation marks around “real scientists.”
scottyroberts has used “calm down”.
That’s often the signal for end-of-troll, isn’t it?
Dick of Goats,
This is the bullshit you guys throw out there, then take people to task for responding to it. But if they don’t respond to it, you take them to task for not responding and being too weak to handle your onslaughts. If they do respond, you then take them to task for taking the time to respond to your bullshit onslaughts without addressing your “real questions” buried in the steamy center of your bullshit. And you do all this while running your gauntlet of bullshit. Then you claim that the other guy is full of bullshit and a liar.
I think you have pretty much presented unflinching evidence that you are all social fucks.
I completely understand your strategy, mostly because I’m impervious to what I know is bullshit. So why not try dropping the bullshit for a while, and a real discussion/dialog can take place.
Pull your pocket protectors out of your asses and maybe your pursed lips will relax.
chigau (棒や石),
No, that’s me trying to help Dick of Goats not blow out the blood vessels in his neck.
That is one nasty hangover you got there, scotty.
As for Philip Coppens’ article…
His piece, written as a reply to the “Ancient Aliens Debunked” documentary, wasn’t a treatise. He presented his counter-arguments to a guy who based his documentary on counter-arguments.
chigau (棒や石),
I wish. My opportunities to drink enough to result in a hangover are equally proportionate to the number of children I have under the age of five. ;)
Scotty, liar and bullshitter, who the fuck are you to criticize real working scientists? And try to change how science is done? Put up or shut the fuck up.
Wrong again liar and bullshitter, we do a good job of presenting the attitude of scientists to fuckwitted idjits like yourself, who don’t do science, and don’t understand how it is done.
Wrong again liar and bullshitter. This is you spreading lies and bullshit, and us calling you on lies and bullshit. And you never presenting evidence to back up your implicit claims. Which confirms your liar and bullshitter status.
We’re not looking for arguments, scotty. We’re looking for evidence.
Maybe you could beam somebody up, or something.
You keep making claims (ancient aliens, the philosophy of science, anthropology) and then refusing to back up your claims with any references at all.
And this is a comment thread on a blog, not a chatroom discussion.
But other than all that, Scotty, you are right on the money.
snottyroberts,
Liar. You have been asked repeatedly to present evidence for your claim that the “ancient aliens” crowd should be taken seriously.
We’re people who call bullshit, bullshit and liars, liars. mostly, it’s bullshitting liars like you who have a problem with that.
You have nothing of any interest or relevance to say, or you’d have said it already. You’re simply a lazy, ignorant, bullshitting liar.
Here’s an example of Scotty’s duplicity good lurkers. Notice how he keeps trying to get me to define what type of scientist I am. The duplicity and hypocrisy comes from the fact he doesn’t define his credentials to have a discussion on science and how it is done. Until he does so, I see no point in defining my credentials.
What evidence?
Brought to question by whom?
Under what guidelines is it questionable?
First, fallacy, I don’t think it means what you appear to think it means.
I haven’t called you a dimwit or a liar. That’s mostly Nerd. He does that to the point of pain.
However just because something is questioned doesn’t mean they are valid questions. There needs to be some scientifically supported reason for questioning. I could come out and question germ theory but without some valid science to back that up but I’d be a crank and rightly called one.
So what questions are being asked and why are they being asked>
Rev. BigDumpChimp,
A fallacy is incorrect argumentation in logic and rhetoric resulting in a lack of validity, or more generally, a lack of soundness.
Hence: “I think the fallacy (incorrect argumentation; rhetoric; lack of logic) with your community is that you hold anyone who questions the current archaeology as somehow dimwitted or liars…”
The fallacy being
opps…
The fallacy being fairly evidence.
Ah, incoherence.