From: "Rev. Ivan Stang" <stang@subgenius.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Date: Thu, Jan 16, 2003 10:14 AM
Message-ID: <160120031014564510%stang@subgenius.com>
In article <b72d2v49fll3n9vit3njkim6nmn68u54qc@4ax.com>,
Modemac
<modemac@modemac.com> wrote:
> I am not the author of this review.
>
> Susan Granger's review of "Penn & Teller:
Bullshit!" (Showtime TV
> presentation)
The series
> premieres on Friday, Jan. 24, at 11 PM with new
episodes every Friday
> night. So how gullible are you?
I am so proud of Rev. Jillette I could bust!! This
is GOOD news for a
change.
--
4th Stangian Orthodox MegaFisTemple Lodge of the Wrath
of Dobbs Yeti,
Resurrected (Rev. Ivan Stang, prop.)
P.O. Box 181417, Cleveland, OH 44118 (fax 216-320-9528)
A subsidiary of:
The SubGenius Foundation, Inc. / P.O. Box 204206, Austin,
TX 78720-4206
Dobbs-Approved Authorized Commercial Outreach of The
Church of the SubGenius
SubSITE: http://www.subgenius.com
For SubGenius Biz & Orders: call toll free to 1-888-669-2323
or email: jesus@subgenius.com
PRABOB
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Penn & Teller: "Bullshit!"
From: Modemac <modemac@modemac.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Date: Thu, Jan 16, 2003 7:14 PM
Message-ID: <skie2vs1cuiehfu15e73fl0lha2ruen78h@4ax.com>
On Thu, 16 Jan 2003 10:14:56 -0500, "Rev. Ivan
Stang"
<stang@subgenius.com> wrote:
>I am so proud of Rev. Jillette I could bust!! This
is GOOD news for a
>change.
Even so, I daresay that in their episode where they
focus on the End
of the World, the Church of the SubGenius will probably
be left out
again. Dammit.
Is it too late to contact them and offer video footage
from X-Day?
--
First Online Church of "Bob"
http://www.modemac.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Penn & Teller: "Bullshit!"
From: Gib Bogle <bogle@ihug.co.nz>
Newsgroups: alt.slack,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Date: Thu, Jan 16, 2003 3:24 PM
Message-ID: <3E271517.3E2D9EC1@ihug.co.nz>
Modemac wrote:
>
> I am not the author of this review.
>
> From: Susan Granger <ssg722@aol.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews
> Subject: Review: "Penn & Teller: Bullshit!"
(2003) [TV-Series]
> Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 20:34:12 -0000
> Message-ID: <v2bhe4senlqe90@news.supernews.com>
>
> Susan Granger's review of "Penn & Teller:
Bullshit!" (Showtime TV
> presentation)
This is the kind of worthwhile TV that doesn't make
it to remote places
like NZ, where we are drowning in a flood of Hollywood
pap.
Gib
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Penn & Teller: "Bullshit!"
From: Cardboard Box <fatcontroller@come.to>
Newsgroups: alt.slack,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Date: Thu, Jan 16, 2003 8:34 PM
Message-ID: <Xns93069417CC114cometofatcontrolleri@202.20.93.13>
Some time between the hours of March 10th and Friday,
Gib Bogle
<bogle@ihug.co.nz> committed the following:
> Modemac wrote:
>>
>> Susan Granger's review of "Penn &
Teller: Bullshit!" (Showtime TV
>> presentation)
>
> This is the kind of worthwhile TV that doesn't
make it to remote places
> like NZ, where we are drowning in a flood of Hollywood
pap.
>
> Gib
Except for those of us who have forsworn (at) watching
TV altogether.
---
Rev. Cardboard Box, hoping there isn't a cure
E Motel (emotel.keenspace.com)
Tactical Nuclear Bubblebath (tacnukebubblebath.tripod.com)
Curator of the Unofficial Guide to Elf Life
(tacnukebubblebath.tripod.com/el/)
"God's not only dead, He's stinkin' up the basement.
Pheewwyyy!" (Hellpope
Huey)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Penn & Teller: "Bullshit!"
From: Matt Giwer <jull43@tampabay.rr.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Date: Fri, Jan 17, 2003 1:46 AM
Message-ID: <lFNV9.5268$o8.93376@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
Modemac wrote:
> I am not the author of this review.
>
> From: Susan Granger <ssg722@aol.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews
> Subject: Review: "Penn & Teller: Bullshit!"
(2003) [TV-Series]
> Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 20:34:12 -0000
> Message-ID: <v2bhe4senlqe90@news.supernews.com>
>
> Susan Granger's review of "Penn & Teller:
Bullshit!" (Showtime TV
> presentation)
Reebo and Zooty make good.
--
The proliferation of weapons around the world is truly
a terrible
thing. Between 1992 and 2002 the US has proliferated
$142 billion
dollars worth of weapons around the world.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 2275
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Penn & Teller: "Bullshit!"
From: nenslo <nenslo@yahooX.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Date: Sat, Jan 18, 2003 4:32 AM
Message-ID: <3E291F23.A663C7DA@yahooX.com>
Modemac wrote:
>
> I am not the author of this review.
>
> So how gullible are you?
>
I read in Skeptic magazine an essay by Penn Gillette
telling how he
came to be a skeptic. He said that as a kid he got
the Amazing
Kreskin's ESP "game," (I had one too) which
was a set of Rhine ESP
test cards and a pendulum, with instructions for doing
ESP tests. He
was unable to make any of it work (I couldn't either)
and he said it
made him so frustrated and angry he's been a "skeptic"
ever since.
That's his rational basis for skepticism, being disappointed
and
resentful over not having ESP. Now THAT is bullshit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Penn & Teller: "Bullshit!"
From: quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Date: Sat, Jan 18, 2003 11:34 AM
Message-ID: <MPG.18932fed6efb4cb4989827@news.cis.dfn.de>
In article <3E291F23.A663C7DA@yahooX.com>, nenslo@yahooX.com
says...
> Modemac wrote:
> >
> > I am not the author of this review.
> >
> > So how gullible are you?
> >
>
> I read in Skeptic magazine an essay by Penn Gillette
telling how he
> came to be a skeptic. He said that as a kid he
got the Amazing
> Kreskin's ESP "game," (I had one too)
which was a set of Rhine ESP
> test cards and a pendulum, with instructions for
doing ESP tests. He
> was unable to make any of it work (I couldn't either)
and he said it
> made him so frustrated and angry he's been a "skeptic"
ever since.
> That's his rational basis for skepticism, being
disappointed and
> resentful over not having ESP. Now THAT is bullshit.
It doesn't really matter whether his personal basis
for accepting a
skeptical stance is sound. It still turns out that
skepticism in general
is well justified philosophically (not that I am saying
you necessarily
implied otherwise, at least yet). Besides, it certainly
isn't any worse
than believing in ESP because you grand mother used
to stare into a bowl
of cornflakes while standing on her head and claimed
to see spooky
visions of future events swirling around in the milk
:). IOW, most
people who believe in ESP don't have rational justification
for their
beliefs either. But at least some skeptics have more
rational
foundations, whereas I'm not sure that any paranormalists
can claim a
coherent or logical position.
--
______________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to
evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith
is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the
lack of evidence." (Richard Dawkins)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Penn & Teller: "Bullshit!"
From: nenslo <nenslo@yahooX.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Date: Sat, Jan 18, 2003 6:49 PM
Message-ID: <3E29E81A.901071C4@yahooX.com>
quibbler wrote:
>
> In article <3E291F23.A663C7DA@yahooX.com>,
nenslo@yahooX.com says...
> > Modemac wrote:
> > >
> > > I am not the author of this review.
> > >
> > > So how gullible are you?
> > >
> >
> > I read in Skeptic magazine an essay by Penn
Gillette telling how he
> > came to be a skeptic. He said that as a kid
he got the Amazing
> > Kreskin's ESP "game," (I had one
too) which was a set of Rhine ESP
> > test cards and a pendulum, with instructions
for doing ESP tests. He
> > was unable to make any of it work (I couldn't
either) and he said it
> > made him so frustrated and angry he's been
a "skeptic" ever since.
> > That's his rational basis for skepticism,
being disappointed and
> > resentful over not having ESP. Now THAT is
bullshit.
> It doesn't really matter whether his personal basis
for accepting a
> skeptical stance is sound. It still turns out
that skepticism in general
> is well justified philosophically (not that I am
saying you necessarily
> implied otherwise, at least yet). Besides, it
certainly isn't any worse
> than believing in ESP because you grand mother
used to stare into a bowl
> of cornflakes while standing on her head and claimed
to see spooky
> visions of future events swirling around in the
milk :). IOW, most
> people who believe in ESP don't have rational justification
for their
> beliefs either. But at least some skeptics have
more rational
> foundations, whereas I'm not sure that any paranormalists
can claim a
> coherent or logical position.
>
True, a person may have valid points and still use specious
reasoning
or logical fallacies, like the Amazing Randi often does.
Rationality,
however, is a TOOL of thought, not an inherent quality
of the
universe. We use it to measure and quantify just like
we use a meter
stick. The fact that rationality and the meter stick
are useful
doesn't mean the world is inherently metric or rational,
and there are
times in people's lives when rationalism doesn't fit
the facts.
Rationality simply does not have any actual existence
except as an
illusion in people's minds, a pattern which they apply
to their sense
perceptions. I am skeptical of Capital S Skeptics who
try to
represent their emotional bias as superior because it
is dressed in
the trappings of science or rationalism. Paranormalists
don't have to
claim a coherent or logical position because the alleged
phenomena are
non-linear, non-scientific, and irrational. They just
don't have
negative reactions to those terms or automatically discard
things
which are described that way. Paranormalism and Skepticism
can't be
used to measure each other - that is the root of their
conflict.
Small s skepticism is a useful framework for approaching
analysis of
events or objects. Capital S Skepticism is a lifestyle
reference
group with heroes and villains, preconceptions and biases
like any
other belief system. That's not a bad thing or a good
thing, it's
just a thing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Penn & Teller: "Bullshit!"
From: William Barwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.munged.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Reply-To: wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com
Date: Sat, Jan 18, 2003 6:03 PM
Message-ID: <3e29ee42@news3.mylinuxisp.com>
nenslo wrote:
> quibbler wrote:
>>
>> In article <3E291F23.A663C7DA@yahooX.com>,
nenslo@yahooX.com says...
>> > Modemac wrote:
>> > >
>> > > I am not the author of this review.
>> > >
>> > > So how gullible are you?
>> > >
>> >
********************
>> people who believe in ESP don't have rational
justification for their
>> beliefs either. But at least some skeptics
have more rational
>> foundations, whereas I'm not sure that any
paranormalists can claim a
>> coherent or logical position.
>>
>
> True, a person may have valid points and still
use specious reasoning
> or logical fallacies, like the Amazing Randi often
does.
OK, list them.
Cite them, Randi has a large corpus of written works.
If he errs, point to it, and I mean, real, obvious specious
reasoning, not
just something somebody who uses specious reasoning
will falsely
attribute as specious reasoning on Randi's part.
I'm calling you on this one.
Mind you, Randi also has a large collection of materials
on
ESP and other similar claims, actually, so do I. I
delved
deeply into the false mediums, fake psychics and attempts
to prove any of this since it all became a craze in
1840
when the Fox sisters started the medium craze, and I
dug into all
of this over 20 long years.
We both have very good reasons to doubt all of this
stuff,
including the failure over a century and a half of believers
to scientifically prove any psychic ability exists,
much
less that we can know anything about the fine points
of
all of this.
Its not just a matter of rationality, but also a deep
understanding
of the history of this, the effort of various well meaning
and
intelligent people to find a way to demostrate that
psychic abilities
exist, that failed, the long history of fraud, incompetence,
ritualistic
psychic scientific investigative incompetence, and utter
lack of
reasonability of pro-believer investigators over a century
or more.
Randi was indeed at the center of the Uri Geller fiasco
that pretty much sunk psychic research as any sort of
trustworthy scientific effort, and Project Alpha that
put
the final nail into psychic research in America to this
day.
I also was at that time recieving a number of obscure
little parapsychology journals where the sceptics gave
the believers a final challenge, show us the top 10
cases that prove ther eis anything to any ESP or similar
abilities. The results were grim, cases, some a century
old,
that had long been abandoned as useless, not well documented
and in no way proof for anything.
After all this, parapsychology hit the skids and a
lot
of obscure little journals where real experimenters
argued,
faded away.
For 20 years, Randi has had his famous standing offer,
and Geller
and the rest of the fakes avoid him like the plague
because they
know they will be caught.
An occasional kook gets disillusioned.
We have no more really successful testers, or super
psychic stars who can put up.
All we see is angry mouth flap and empty, angry claims.
--
Cheerful Charlie
Rationality,
> however, is a TOOL of thought, not an inherent
quality of the
> universe. We use it to measure and quantify just
like we use a meter
> stick. The fact that rationality and the meter
stick are useful
> doesn't mean the world is inherently metric or
rational, and there are
> times in people's lives when rationalism doesn't
fit the facts.
> Rationality simply does not have any actual existence
except as an
> illusion in people's minds, a pattern which they
apply to their sense
> perceptions. I am skeptical of Capital S Skeptics
who try to
> represent their emotional bias as superior because
it is dressed in
> the trappings of science or rationalism. Paranormalists
don't have to
> claim a coherent or logical position because the
alleged phenomena are
> non-linear, non-scientific, and irrational. They
just don't have
> negative reactions to those terms or automatically
discard things
> which are described that way. Paranormalism and
Skepticism can't be
> used to measure each other - that is the root of
their conflict.
> Small s skepticism is a useful framework for approaching
analysis of
> events or objects. Capital S Skepticism is a lifestyle
reference
> group with heroes and villains, preconceptions
and biases like any
> other belief system. That's not a bad thing or
a good thing, it's
> just a thing.
--
Cheerful Charlie
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Penn & Teller: "Bullshit!"
From: William Barwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.munged.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Followup-To: alt.slack
Reply-To: wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com
Date: Sun, Jan 19, 2003 2:08 AM
Message-ID: <3e2a5fec@news3.mylinuxisp.com>
MRvDC wrote:
>
>
> William Barwell wrote:
>> nenslo wrote:
>>
>>
>>>quibbler wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <3E291F23.A663C7DA@yahooX.com>,
nenslo@yahooX.com says...
>>>>
>>>>>Modemac wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>I am not the author of this
review.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So how gullible are you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>> ********************
>>
>>>>people who believe in ESP don't have
rational justification for their
>>>>beliefs either. But at least some skeptics
have more rational
>>>>foundations, whereas I'm not sure that
any paranormalists can claim a
>>>>coherent or logical position.
>>>>
>>>
>>>True, a person may have valid points and
still use specious reasoning
>>>or logical fallacies, like the Amazing Randi
often does.
>>
>>
>> OK, list them.
>> Cite them, Randi has a large corpus of written
works.
>> If he errs, point to it, and I mean, real,
obvious specious reasoning,
>> not just something somebody who uses specious
reasoning will falsely
>> attribute as specious reasoning on Randi's
part.
>>
>>
>> I'm calling you on this one.
>>
>> Mind you, Randi also has a large collection
of materials on
>> ESP and other similar claims, actually, so
do I. I delved
>> deeply into the false mediums, fake psychics
and attempts
>> to prove any of this since it all became a
craze in 1840
>> when the Fox sisters started the medium craze,
and I dug into all
>> of this over 20 long years.
>> We both have very good reasons to doubt all
of this stuff,
>> including the failure over a century and a
half of believers
>> to scientifically prove any psychic ability
exists, much
>> less that we can know anything about the fine
points of
>> all of this.
>>
>> Its not just a matter of rationality, but also
a deep understanding
>> of the history of this, the effort of various
well meaning and
>> intelligent people to find a way to demostrate
that psychic abilities
>> exist, that failed, the long history of fraud,
incompetence, ritualistic
>> psychic scientific investigative incompetence,
and utter lack of
>> reasonability of pro-believer investigators
over a century or more.
>>
>> Randi was indeed at the center of the Uri Geller
fiasco
>> that pretty much sunk psychic research as any
sort of
>> trustworthy scientific effort, and Project
Alpha that put
>> the final nail into psychic research in America
to this day.
>>
>> I also was at that time recieving a number
of obscure
>> little parapsychology journals where the sceptics
gave
>> the believers a final challenge, show us the
top 10
>> cases that prove ther eis anything to any ESP
or similar
>> abilities. The results were grim, cases, some
a century old,
>> that had long been abandoned as useless, not
well documented
>> and in no way proof for anything.
>> After all this, parapsychology hit the skids
and a lot
>> of obscure little journals where real experimenters
argued,
>> faded away.
>>
>> For 20 years, Randi has had his famous standing
offer, and Geller
>> and the rest of the fakes avoid him like the
plague because they
>> know they will be caught.
>> An occasional kook gets disillusioned.
>>
>> We have no more really successful testers,
or super
>> psychic stars who can put up.
>>
>> All we see is angry mouth flap and empty, angry
claims.
>>
>
> _Does a Bee Care?_
>
>
>
No, just kooks who can't grasp the facts, don't have
the backround knowledge to understand any of this,
and who won't shut up, indoctrinating the next generation
of kooks.
I wasted 20 years of digging into parapsychology, there
ain't
nuttin' to it and it finally got boring. All that was
left to do was
to try to rescue young fools from the clutches of frauds
and kooks,
but after awhile, that palls mightily.
>
--
Cheerful Charlie
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Penn & Teller: "Bullshit!"
From: kersplosh@aol.comnojunk (KERSPLOSH)
Newsgroups: alt.slack
Date: Sun, Jan 19, 2003 3:53 AM
Message-ID: <20030119035353.01107.00000085@mb-fb.aol.com>
>MRvDC wrote:
>>
>> William Barwell wrote:
>>> nenslo wrote:
>>>
>>>>quibbler wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <3E291F23.A663C7DA@yahooX.com>,
nenslo@yahooX.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>>>Modemac wrote:
>>>>>>
<snip>
>>> All we see is angry mouth flap and empty,
angry claims.
>>>
>>
>> _Does a Bee Care?_
>>
>No, just kooks who can't grasp the facts, don't
have
>the backround knowledge to understand any of this,
Well, Ray Hyman has the backround knowledge and can
grasp the facts, and he
says:
-------------------------------
"I agree with Jessica Utts that the effect sizes
in the SAIC experiments and in
the recent ganzfeld studies probably cannot be dismissed
as due to chance. Nor
do they appear to be accounted for by multiple testing,
filedrawer distortions,
inappropriate statistical testing or other misuse of
statistical inference. So,
I accept Professor Utts' assertion that the statistical
results of the SAIC and
other parapsychologists experiments are far beyond what
is expected by chance.
"The SAIC experiments are well-designed and the
investigators have taken pains
to eliminate the known weaknesses in previous parapsychological
research. In
addition, I cannot provide suitable candidates for what
flaws,if any, might be
present. Just the same it is impossible in principle
to say that any particular
experiment or experimental series is completely free
from flaws." (Hyman, R.
Comment. Statistical Science, 6:389-92).
-------------------------------
And he hates parapsychology.
>shut up, indoctrinating the next generation
>of kooks.
Healthy skeptism is a good thing, but Randi is a fraud.
And he breeds his own
kind of kooks.
>I wasted 20 years of digging into parapsychology,
there ain't
>nuttin' to it and it finally got boring. All that
was left to do was
>to try to rescue young fools from the clutches of
frauds and kooks,
>but after awhile, that palls mightily.
Who will rescue the young fools from the clutches of frauds like Randi?
>>
>--
>Cheerful Charlie
By the way, the whole "_Does a Bee Care?_"
thing by brthrn@dangermedia.org was
really dumb in my opinion. The man has an opinion of
his own, if you don't
agree with it, provide a valid argument. Or at least
be funny.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Penn & Teller: "Bullshit!"
From: quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Date: Sat, Jan 18, 2003 11:29 PM
Message-ID: <MPG.1893d7a11cfd1115989835@news.cis.dfn.de>
In article <3E29E81A.901071C4@yahooX.com>, nenslo@yahooX.com
says...
> quibbler wrote:
> >
> > In article <3E291F23.A663C7DA@yahooX.com>,
nenslo@yahooX.com says...
> > > Modemac wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I am not the author of this review.
> > > >
> > > > So how gullible are you?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I read in Skeptic magazine an essay by
Penn Gillette telling how he
> > > came to be a skeptic. He said that as
a kid he got the Amazing
> > > Kreskin's ESP "game," (I had
one too) which was a set of Rhine ESP
> > > test cards and a pendulum, with instructions
for doing ESP tests. He
> > > was unable to make any of it work (I
couldn't either) and he said it
> > > made him so frustrated and angry he's
been a "skeptic" ever since.
> > > That's his rational basis for skepticism,
being disappointed and
> > > resentful over not having ESP. Now THAT
is bullshit.
> > It doesn't really matter whether his personal
basis for accepting a
> > skeptical stance is sound. It still turns
out that skepticism in general
> > is well justified philosophically (not that
I am saying you necessarily
> > implied otherwise, at least yet). Besides,
it certainly isn't any worse
> > than believing in ESP because you grand mother
used to stare into a bowl
> > of cornflakes while standing on her head and
claimed to see spooky
> > visions of future events swirling around in
the milk :). IOW, most
> > people who believe in ESP don't have rational
justification for their
> > beliefs either. But at least some skeptics
have more rational
> > foundations, whereas I'm not sure that any
paranormalists can claim a
> > coherent or logical position.
> >
>
> True, a person may have valid points and still
use specious reasoning
> or logical fallacies, like the Amazing Randi often
does.
I agree that he has valid points, though the specious
reasoning remains
to be seen.
> Rationality,
> however, is a TOOL of thought, not an inherent
quality of the
> universe.
It doesn't have to be inherent. It just has to be a
tool that gets
results consistently and often. It does.
> We use it to measure and quantify just like we
use a meter
> stick.
It can use quantifiers. So what?
> The fact that rationality and the meter stick are
useful
> doesn't mean the world is inherently metric or
rational,
Whoa, nellie, don't ya think you've beaten that dead horse enough?
>and there are
> times in people's lives when rationalism doesn't
fit the facts.
Like when?
> Rationality simply does not have any actual existence
except as an
> illusion in people's minds,
Rationalism has as much existence as any other concept
of mental tool.
It doesn't have be somehow physically real.
>a pattern which they apply to their sense
> perceptions.
Yep. A pattern that works.
> I am skeptical of Capital S Skeptics
It's a standard error for people to declare themselves
skeptical of
skeptics. Unfortunately, being skeptical of skepticism
only validates
the stance, though strangely many such critics seem
to see it as an
effective attack on skepticism. I guess this fits with
their penchant
for irrationalism.
>who try to
> represent their emotional bias as superior because
it is dressed in
> the trappings of science or rationalism. Paranormalists
don't have to
> claim a coherent or logical position because the
alleged phenomena are
> non-linear, non-scientific, and irrational.
Sorry, that doesn't cut it. Language itself is inherently
rational. It
would be impossible to communicate if words were not
used rationally.
Thought also seems to require some kind of symbolic
language and it would
be impossible to carry this out without rationality.
You cannot produce
any results without rationality. The best one could
say is that at any
moment, anything could happen and that there was never
any way to explain
why or how, etc.
> They just don't have
> negative reactions to those terms or automatically
discard things
> which are described that way.
That's because they don't fathom what is at stake.
Dismissing
rationalism means never being able to construct a meaningful
or valid
argument. It would be entirely impossible to even talk
about a non-
rational thing. It would equally be a waste of time
to study it. Besides
that, there is no evidence that the things you assert
to be irrational,
non-linear and non-scientific are really such. Where
did you get that
idea? Something can be non-linear and still be rational.
I'm not sure
what it even means to be non-scientific, but I imagine
that it doesn't
matter, because it would be impossible to test or understand.
You can
keep your irrational, non-scientific, mystical mumbo-jumbo.
> Paranormalism and Skepticism can't be
> used to measure each other - that is the root of
their conflict.
> Small s skepticism is a useful framework for approaching
analysis of
> events or objects.
OK, but that's just one of the qualities. What is small
"s" skepticism
precisely?
> Capital S Skepticism is a lifestyle reference
> group with heroes and villains, preconceptions
and biases like any
> other belief system. That's not a bad thing or
a good thing, it's
> just a thing.
That's real helpful...not. Actually philosophers talk
about a category
of skepticism called "deep skepticism" which
is skepticism to the
extreme. However, such a view ultimately ends up being
solipsistic and
unable to conclude anything. Therefore, modern skepticism
backs away
from this extreme form because it seems to be a dead
end. That is not to
say that a person should not try to be skeptical, but
merely that being
skeptical of everything doesn't seem possible. We should
still question
things and look for foundations of knowledge and inter-relationships
between things in the schema that we use to represent
reality. But we
should do so with an eye on gaining knowledge or building
a more
effective, comprehensive system. Some times we can
do this, for example,
because we can discover that it is not always justified
to keep asking
the question "why" to each new answer we develop
ad infinitum. But at
least this form of skepticism might achieve some epistemological
closure.
Deep skepticism can't really tell us anything, and unfortunately,
neither
can irrationality. I highly suspect that you have a
loaded definition of
rationality which leads you to reject it perfunctorily.
I suspect that
the things you claim cannot be explained with reason
either do not really
exist (like contradictory stances) or actually can be
explained with
reason. I also suggest to you that "I don't know"
is an acceptable reply
to many questions and that by and large this is what
a skeptic is
ultimately saying. It just happens to be the case that
while skeptics
don't always know what the right answer is, they do
occasionally
recognize answers that cannot possible be right and
criticize the people
putting forward those "solutions".
--
______________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to
evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith
is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the
lack of evidence." (Richard Dawkins)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Penn & Teller: "Bullshit!"
From: nenslo <nenslo@yahooX.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Date: Sun, Jan 19, 2003 4:29 AM
Message-ID: <3E2A700B.62186@yahooX.com>
quibbler wrote:
>
> In article <3E29E81A.901071C4@yahooX.com>,
nenslo@yahooX.com says...
> >
> > True, a person may have valid points and still
use specious reasoning
> > or logical fallacies, like the Amazing Randi
often does.
>
> I agree that he has valid points, though the specious
reasoning remains
> to be seen.
Pay attention to what he says and writes. I was surprised
at some of
the things he gets away with.
>
> > Rationality,
> > however, is a TOOL of thought, not an inherent
quality of the
> > universe.
>
> It doesn't have to be inherent. It just has to
be a tool that gets
> results consistently and often. It does.
Ignore the word inherent then. Rationalism is not a
quality of the
object, it is an artifact of the observer.
>
> > We use it to measure and quantify just like
we use a meter
> > stick.
>
> It can use quantifiers. So what?
No, WE use IT to quantify. Rationalism itself has no
volition or
ability to act. We measure things with it, but it doesn't
define
reality. It only defines our measurement of what we
are capable of
measuring with that tool.
>
> > The fact that rationality and the meter stick
are useful
> > doesn't mean the world is inherently metric
or rational,
>
> Whoa, nellie, don't ya think you've beaten that
dead horse enough?
Nope. See, some people actually believe that the universe
itself is
rational. They don't seem to realize that it is only
they who are
rational. They see the world through the colored lens
of rationality
and make a false assumption, in very much the same way
that people see
order and proportion in randomly distributed objects
simply because
their means and method of observing them is orderly.
>
> >and there are
> > times in people's lives when rationalism doesn't
fit the facts.
>
> Like when?
Like when we fall in love, when we lie to ourselves,
when we make
choices we know will hurt us; we rationalize things
so they appear to
us to make sense.
>
> > Rationality simply does not have any actual
existence except as an
> > illusion in people's minds,
>
> Rationalism has as much existence as any other
concept of mental tool.
Yes, it's a picture in your head, as real as any other picture in your head.
> It doesn't have be somehow physically real.
>
> >a pattern which they apply to their sense
> > perceptions.
>
> Yep. A pattern that works.
A thing may work well or poorly.
>
> > I am skeptical of Capital S Skeptics
>
> It's a standard error for people to declare themselves
skeptical of
> skeptics. Unfortunately, being skeptical of skepticism
only validates
> the stance, though strangely many such critics
seem to see it as an
> effective attack on skepticism. I guess this fits
with their penchant
> for irrationalism.
I disagree that it is an error to be genuinely skeptical
of anything.
You misinterpret my skepticism of the type of person
who tends to be a
self-proclaimed "Skeptic" and being skeptical
of skepticism. This is
an important difference which should not be glossed
over simply for
the sake of making a point.
>
> >who try to
> > represent their emotional bias as superior
because it is dressed in
> > the trappings of science or rationalism.
Paranormalists don't have to
> > claim a coherent or logical position because
the alleged phenomena are
> > non-linear, non-scientific, and irrational.
>
> Sorry, that doesn't cut it. Language itself is
inherently rational. It
> would be impossible to communicate if words were
not used rationally.
Language is a product of reason, but quite a lot of
human
communication is emotional, not rational and depends
on other factors
beside word content. Animals, insects and even plants
convey
information to each other by non-verbal means. This
has been
demonstrated scientifically.
> Thought also seems to require some kind of symbolic
language and it would
> be impossible to carry this out without rationality.
You cannot produce
> any results without rationality. The best one
could say is that at any
> moment, anything could happen and that there was
never any way to explain
> why or how, etc.
It seems to me that one of the major differences between
Rationalists
and Paranormalists is that the former often demand production
of
results and the latter suggest observing what may or
may not occur.
Each is useful in certain situations and useless in
others.
>
> > They just don't have
> > negative reactions to those terms or automatically
discard things
> > which are described that way.
>
> That's because they don't fathom what is at stake.
That is an assumption on your part which more nearly
resembles
opinion. Any assertion about the state of knowledge
of an entire
undefined class of people must be a fiction.
> Dismissing
> rationalism means never being able to construct
a meaningful or valid
> argument. It would be entirely impossible to even
talk about a non-
> rational thing. It would equally be a waste of
time to study it.
I do not in any way dismiss rationalism, but I have
observed its
limitations and the fact that it is not omnipotent and
omnipresent.
I hesitate to use analogies and examples because people
so often get
distracted by the details and end up arguing over their
applicability.
I think we can agree that reason cannot exist in an
object which does
not have a mind, and that just about everything we know
of but humans
lacks a reasoning mind as we accept the term. Insects,
for instance,
or weather. Unless we posit the existence of a rational
mind creating
and operating weather systems, it seems to me we ought
to agree that
weather does not have a mind and is thus non-rational.
And yet we can
talk about it, study it, and watch the weather report
on TV every day.
> Besides
> that, there is no evidence that the things you
assert to be irrational,
> non-linear and non-scientific are really such.
Where did you get that
> idea? Something can be non-linear and still be
rational. I'm not sure
> what it even means to be non-scientific, but I
imagine that it doesn't
> matter, because it would be impossible to test
or understand. You can
> keep your irrational, non-scientific, mystical
mumbo-jumbo.
I don't really follow your statements here. I was not
asserting
anything other than that Paranormalists claim the phenomena
they
believe in are non-linear and irrational and that they
don't have
negative reactions to those terms. I have not at any
time taken any
standpoint other than my usual one of remaining, to
the best of my
ability, skeptical of all claims until they are confirmed
to me by my
personal experience, and I don't consider the type of
word-juggling so
often resorted to by people who are trying to prove
things as a
personal experience.
> > Paranormalism and Skepticism can't be
> > used to measure each other - that is the root
of their conflict.
> > Small s skepticism is a useful framework for
approaching analysis of
> > events or objects.
> OK, but that's just one of the qualities. What
is small "s" skepticism
> precisely?
In my opinion, skepticism is choosing not to accept
claims without
investigating them, and investigating them without preconceptions
as
to the result of the investigation, since that creates
bias. Knowing
the difference between "proving" things with
a lot of words and
demonstrating things with genuine evidence. Not discarding
evidence
which doesn't fit our previous conclusions. Some people
call it
Scientific Method.
>
> > Capital S Skepticism is a lifestyle reference
> > group with heroes and villains, preconceptions
and biases like any
> > other belief system. That's not a bad thing
or a good thing, it's
> > just a thing.
>
> That's real helpful...not. Actually philosophers
talk about a category
> of skepticism called "deep skepticism"
which is skepticism to the
> extreme. However, such a view ultimately ends up
being solipsistic and
> unable to conclude anything. Therefore, modern
skepticism backs away
> from this extreme form because it seems to be a
dead end. That is not to
> say that a person should not try to be skeptical,
but merely that being
> skeptical of everything doesn't seem possible.
We should still question
> things and look for foundations of knowledge and
inter-relationships
> between things in the schema that we use to represent
reality. But we
> should do so with an eye on gaining knowledge or
building a more
> effective, comprehensive system. Some times we
can do this, for example,
> because we can discover that it is not always justified
to keep asking
> the question "why" to each new answer
we develop ad infinitum. But at
> least this form of skepticism might achieve some
epistemological closure.
Interesting points, but I was referring more to the
people to whom the
word Skeptic is a personal definition in the way other
groups use such
terms as Lesbian, Christian, Kayaker, Poet etc. A lifestyle
reference
group which provides a type of self-definition and a
group of peers.
>
> Deep skepticism can't really tell us anything,
and unfortunately, neither
> can irrationality. I highly suspect that you have
a loaded definition of
> rationality which leads you to reject it perfunctorily.
I assure you I do not reject rationality and regret
having erroneously
given you the idea that I did. I pointed out that some
people believe
that irrational is not a pejorative which automatically
invalidates
anything so labeled, and that reason does not exist
separately from a
mind which uses it as a tool for measuring and comparing
observations
of its sensory perceptions.
> I suspect that
> the things you claim cannot be explained with reason
either do not really
> exist (like contradictory stances) or actually
can be explained with
> reason.
You are free to have any suspicions you choose. I am
tempted to ask
you to explain love.
> I also suggest to you that "I don't know"
is an acceptable reply
> to many questions and that by and large this is
what a skeptic is
> ultimately saying.
Yes, that is the ideal. The reality of human personalities,
unfortunately, is that we are driven more by emotional
reaction than
reason and allow our preconceptions and opinions to
influence us more
than a reserved and rational skepticism.
> It just happens to be the case that while skeptics
> don't always know what the right answer is, they
do occasionally
> recognize answers that cannot possible be right
and criticize the people
> putting forward those "solutions".
I believe that to speak of an entire class of people
as if they were
all the same is a fundamental error. Skeptics are people
and every
person is different. Some people are very good at being
skeptics and
do the world a great service. Some are very bad at
it and are an embarrassment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Penn & Teller: "Bullshit!"
From: nenslo <nenslo@yahooX.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Date: Sun, Jan 19, 2003 4:44 AM
Message-ID: <3E2A737E.ADE70E52@yahooX.com>
Happy Dog wrote:
>
> "nenslo" <nenslo@yahooX.com>
>
> > Rationality simply does not have any actual
existence except as an
> > illusion in people's minds, a pattern which
they apply to their sense
> > perceptions.
>
> Take a dep breath and try again. This is textbook
solipsism.
so.lip.sism: a theory holding that the self can know
nothing but its
own modifications and that the self is the only existent
thing.
Sorry, I just don't see it. I think you use the word
to condemn
things with which you do not agree, without actually
knowing its
meaning. There is absolutely no resemblence between
what I said above
and this definition cut and pasted from the Merriam-Webster
website.
Rationality is the function of reason and does not exist
in any
non-reasoning thing. It is a way of thinking. Thoughts
"exist" when
we think them, and not in things. No thought has any
existence
outside of a mind. To use the terms of the definition
above, the self
uses rationalism to know things other than itself, the
exact opposite
of solipsism. Now you take a dep breath.
>
> > Paranormalists don't have to
> > claim a coherent or logical position because
the alleged phenomena are
> > non-linear, non-scientific, and irrational.
>
> And non-demonstratable. You forgot this.
Thank you. To demonstrate something one must be able
to cause it to
occur on demand.
>
> > They just don't have
> > negative reactions to those terms or automatically
discard things
> > which are described that way. Paranormalism
and Skepticism can't be
> > used to measure each other - that is the root
of their conflict.
>
> No. The root of the conflict is the fact that
many paranormalists make
> testable claims and then run away from any serious
testing.
> erf
We each have our own opinions about this.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Penn & Teller: "Bullshit!"
From: nenslo <nenslo@yahooX.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Date: Sun, Jan 19, 2003 5:14 AM
Message-ID: <3E2A7A6D.9FDB792E@yahooX.com>
Flagship1 of the Paranormal wrote:
>
>
> Just think of how quickly the skeptics' opinion
could be changed by ONE
> honest paranormalist being able to perform as claimed.
I am skeptical about that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Penn & Teller: "Bullshit!"
From: ridetheory <ridetheory@notmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Date: Sun, Jan 19, 2003 2:11 AM
Message-ID: <BA4F8F9B.26991%ridetheory@notmail.com>
> True, a person may have valid points and still
use specious reasoning
> or logical fallacies, like the Amazing Randi often
does.
I'm willing to wager a shiny new penny that he has a
*much* better record on
that score than, say, Sylvia Brown.
Also, being a rational man, he catches himself and admits
he got his facts
wrong more often than the paranormalists. Not VERY
often, but certainly
MORE often.
These examples are from the last few months:
http://www.randi.org/jr/011703.html
"I thank Mr. Deutsch for sharing his opinion with
us, and for making me
re-think my opinion..."
http://www.randi.org/jr/110802.html
"Apologies, Cameron. You're quite correct, and
I appreciate the input."
http://www.randi.org/jr/071902.html
"The good Professor is indeed right... I humble
myself and apologize."
> ...there are
> times in people's lives when rationalism doesn't
fit the facts.
And in those times, some people find it much easier
to make up an irrational
story rather than say, "I don't know why that happened."
iggy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Penn & Teller: "Bullshit!"
From: "nu-monet v5.0" <nothing@succeeds.com>
Newsgroups: alt.slack,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Reply-To: like.excess@sex.org
Date: Sat, Jan 18, 2003 12:21 PM
Message-ID: <3E298D6D.660B@succeeds.com>
nenslo wrote:
>
> That's his rational basis for skepticism, being
> disappointed and resentful over not having ESP.
> Now THAT is bullshit.
But it *does* bring to mind an interesting group
of theories about the brain.
First of all, for years, psychiatric patients were
often divided into two major groups (with of course
a lot of unrelated minor groups.) The two major
groupings were "paranoids" and "schizophrenics."
And while there was occassionally an overlap, for
the most part these two groups seemed to be strangely
exclusive--you were either in one or the other--to
whatever degree.
Now, paranoids might be delusional, but they are
almost *never* hallucinogenic; in other words, they
don't see the pretty pictures while wandering around
in a semi-dream state. If anything, they have a
crystal-clear focus on reality, their problem being
how they interpret what they see. Paranoids also do
not exhibit the obvious brain damage seen in
schizophrenics, which is what often makes
schizophrenia a lethal disease.
All of these people, to be institutionalized or under
treatment, have to be at the extremes of their disease.
So it can reasonably be said that most everybody else
leans *either* to schizophrenia *or* to paranoia; but
that they are still functional in their day-to-day
lives. They are just a little one way or the other.
So offhand, one can say that half of society can't see
hallucinations, even if they take hallucinogens. And
I would suspect that only the schizophrenic-leaning
ones can ever be "true believers" in such
things as
ESP. Paranoids could only rationalize their belief,
if at all. I imagine some paranoid-leaning could
become upset at their inability to see the pretty
pictures.
I will also add some other interesting differences:
Schizophrenics almost *never* develop Alzheimer's.
Schizophrenics have very high concentrations of naturally
occuring nitrous-oxide blood gases in their brains,
while
Alzheimer's patients have almost none. Plus, there
are
several other biochemical "mutually exclusives"
between
these two groups.
--
"I don't trust common sense."
--Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Penn & Teller: "Bullshit!"
From: hellpopehuey@subgenius.com (HellPopeHuey)
Newsgroups: alt.slack,sci.skeptic,alt.paranormal
Date: Sat, Jan 18, 2003 8:34 PM
Message-ID: <8cc8cffc.0301181734.2ea36e5c@posting.google.com>
"nu-monet v5.0" <nothing@succeeds.com> wrote in message news:<3E298D6D.660B@succeeds.com>...
> Schizophrenics almost *never* develop Alzheimer's.
> Schizophrenics have very high concentrations of
naturally
> occuring nitrous-oxide blood gases in their brains,
while
> Alzheimer's patients have almost none. Plus, there
are
> several other biochemical "mutually exclusives"
between
> these two groups.
So if you huff plenty of nitrous, you will always remember
who you
are and be able to hold onto the voices like a champ.
Breathe DEEP,
little SubGenius, breathe DEEEEEP......
--
HellPope Huey® hellpopehuey@subgenius©.com
If some hick says "I love my dawg" and
the dog whimpers,
you know somebody's cotter pin done come loose
real bad.
If we can stand up
when all else falls down
we'll last through the winter
we'll last through the storms
- Peter Gabriel, "Ovo"
Don't look up here, you're pissing on your shoes.
- from a men's room wall, natch
Original file name: Re- Penn & Teller- "Bullshit!" - converted on Monday, 21 July 2003, 13:39
This page was created using TextToHTML. TextToHTML is a free software for Macintosh and is (c) 1995,1996 by Kris Coppieters