A Few Things Ill Considered

Touche

Posted by coby on October 28, 2008
(3)
More »

“Skeptics use a scatter shot approach, using one kind of physics to ‘disprove’ one aspect and an opposing kind of physics to ‘disprove’ another. You need to have an internally consistent argument.”

As Jen’s site [Jennifer Marohasey's site] demonstrates so well, you don’t need anything of the sort.

Check out Eli Rabett’s post about how climate sceptics have no problem believing any number of mutually exclusive theories at one time, as long as they share the common thread of confirmation bias.

I have been wanting to put together an exhaustive list of all the internal contradictions there are in the contrarian science camp to show how there simply is no competing comprehensive explanation for well, reality, out there.

That is quite a task though…One Day Soon!

(3)
More »

Comments

  1. #1 eddie
    November 1, 2008

    You can buy three PCs that’re twice as fast and twice as effective at the work you and your team, family, business needs to do. Or you can buy a mac and have to go through an elaborate startup ritual with a toy interface to get to the real computer hidden inside.

    nes touchez pas les ‘tosh!

  2. #2 paul
    November 5, 2008

    “an opposing kind of physics” – hmmm. Not entirely sure it’s clarifying anything to suggest there are branches of physics which exist that are in ‘opposition’ to others.

    But anyway, it’s easy to assert that, because I’m a skeptic, I just, you know, must be contradicting myself.

    But I’ve written quite a few words on this site. I don’t remember being internally contradictory at any point, I just remember being ignored (on several threads) by people who can’t answer what I ask without getting into a muddle themselves. I’ve seen other fellow evil-denialist-world-hating-skeptic commenters here have the same problem. If you have any evidence of the internal contradictions, feel free to point them out.

  3. #3 coby
    November 5, 2008

    Hey paul,

    The above criticism is of course very general and will not apply to any skeptics that are serious and thoughtful in their opinions, but it is a very fair critique of the majority of skeptical bloggers and media outlets.

    As for your unanswered questions, I would just ask that you persevere a bit. I really do want to address all substantive comments and if I don’t it is only due to limited time. Sometimes these discussions get too tangential and unfocused and I have to give up at that point. I will make every effort to come up with good responses to concise and focused argument.

    So, shorter version: keep it comin’!