An edge in my voice
Dave Palmer
rut...@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Chris Rutkowski)
was kind enough to post a follow-up explaining that, by:
>>I love it. An overly-zealous debunker beaten at his own flame game!
>>It's usually the UFO idiots who make knee-jerk statements!
>>Everyone makes mistakes!
He REALLY meant:
>Shooting ourselves in the feet certainly does not help our public
>position, and certainly doesn't help our cause.
...and
>I was actually
>supporting you when I wrote that "Everyone makes mistakes!" I
>recognized your error and was pointing out to other readers that you
>had good reasons for making your earlier statements. Maybe YOU should
>try and read the "whole story".
Well, if he'd said that to begin with, I wouldn't have been so "testy," as
he put it later. I have neither the desire nor the intention of wasting
further bandwidth on a pointless flame war, but I do have a nit or two to
pick with the rest of his followup.
So:
>My goodness, we're testy!
No, I'm not testy, I'm angry. Pissed off. To grab a line from Harlan
Ellison, there's An Edge in My Voice. Some people consider skepticism
just an interesting philosophical exercise. That's fine.
But there are others who know that there is a nasty, dark side, and we
are all angry, to one degree or another. James Randi knows it, so do
Martin Gardner and Harlan Ellison. So did Isaac Asimov, though someone
of his eloquence could make a snarl sound like a compliment.
We're angry that, with truth available, people are bypassing honest
ignorance, and going straight for willful stupidity.
We're angry that large percentages of adults believe in astrology, devil
possession, back masking, and alien abductions.
We're angry that children, still innocent enough to believe what adults
tell them, are being taught in classrooms that there are four elements,
that ancient Egyptians used aircraft, and that evolution is "only a
theory,"
on an equal footing with any loony idea put forth.
We're angry (and afraid) that the former Soviet Union is on the verge of
social and economic collapse, and that they are welcoming with open arms
every loonytoon new-age fringer with a cause to push. And that they still
have nuclear weapons.
We're angry that there is a building full of poor saps in Texas who might
well die because their lives were so empty they chose to believe that a
a nutcase with a rifle was Jesus Christ.
>Your argument is flawed beginning at Fact #4. You're reasonably
>well-informed, but not fully informed, yet you felt you were
>knowledgeable enough to make a pronouncement that turned out to be
>incorrect.
Say WHAT? Can you name one area of science, indeed, of human endeavor,
in which the practitioners are "fully informed?" before they make
pronouncements? Particularly, pronouncements labeled 'hypothesis?'
How can you astronomers go on about that Big Bang thing when you ADMIT
that you don't have a clue what happened before the first
ten-to-the-minus-thirtysomething-of-a-second?
>You could
>have replied to the message directly, and queried the sender, rather
>than making a public statement.
I dunno, that seems a bit naive. What do you suppose a bogus poster
would have replied? Perhaps you have more faith in your fellow man
than I.
>I would assume you are classifying me as a "fruitcake-fringer" by your
>remark.
Er, no. Why, did you think you SHOULD be classified as one?
Hey, we've ALL got our own tin foil hats. If they aren't a filter for
"secret rays," they're a filter for perception, culture, or taste.
>Calling me a fool doesn't help restore confidence.
Um....don't suppose I could convince you I was actually saying "foo!,"
could I? :-)
It's just that phrases like "knee-jerk statements" hurled at me
sound sorta like fighting words. Sorry if you were offended.
>Please become more skeptical.
If I did THAT, I'd be skeptical of my own sanity. %-}
--
************************************************************************
"To free a man of error is to give, not to take away.
Knowledge that a thing is false is a truth." --Schopenhauer
*************************************************************************
Chris Rutkowski
[Peace Pipe Smoked at this Point]
In <C3p71...@csulb.edu> dpa...@csulb.edu (Dave Palmer) writes:
>rut...@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Chris Rutkowski)
>was kind enough to post a follow-up explaining that, by:
>>>Everyone makes mistakes!
>He REALLY meant:
>>Shooting ourselves in the feet certainly does not help our public
>>position, and certainly doesn't help our cause.
>Well, if he'd said that to begin with, I wouldn't have been so "testy," as
>he put it later. I have neither the desire nor the intention of wasting
>further bandwidth on a pointless flame war, but I do have a nit or two to
>pick with the rest of his followup.
Save the nits. It's not worth it.
I and others get the message.
>We're angry that, with truth available, people are bypassing honest
>ignorance, and going straight for willful stupidity.
>We're angry that large percentages of adults believe in astrology, devil
>possession, back masking, and alien abductions.
>We're angry that children, still innocent enough to believe what adults
>tell them, are being taught in classrooms that there are four elements,
>that ancient Egyptians used aircraft, and that evolution is "only a
>theory,"
>We're angry (and afraid) that the former Soviet Union is on the verge of
>social and economic collapse, and that they are welcoming with open arms
>every loonytoon new-age fringer with a cause to push. And that they still
>have nuclear weapons.
>We're angry that there is a building full of poor saps in Texas who might
>well die because their lives were so empty they chose to believe that a
>a nutcase with a rifle was Jesus Christ.
Since I'm psychic, I KNEW you would react that way.
8)
>Say WHAT? Can you name one area of science, indeed, of human endeavor,
>in which the practitioners are "fully informed?" before they make
>pronouncements? Particularly, pronouncements labeled 'hypothesis?'
>How can you astronomers go on about that Big Bang thing when you ADMIT
>that you don't have a clue what happened before the first
>ten-to-the-minus-thirtysomething-of-a-second?
[Coming to defense of my fellow astronomers]
Well, for one thing, when we find a new comet, we take a good look at
star charts first and email our report to Marsden for verification
before breaking open our champagne.
As for the Big Bang, Hawking has put out a few papers which show that
the Big Bang might never have occurred at all.
8) 8) 8) 8}
>would have replied? Perhaps you have more faith in your fellow man
>than I.
I certainly do. Why not post your home address here on the net so that
your supporters can all visit you and cheer you on?
8)
>>Calling me a fool doesn't help restore confidence.
>Um....don't suppose I could convince you I was actually saying "foo!,"
>could I? :-)
Not even if you called me "food"!
>>Please become more skeptical.
>If I did THAT, I'd be skeptical of my own sanity. %-}
Now there's an idea for all of us! The Hamlet defense on a large
scale!
**************************************************************************
[flame war ended]
--
Chris Rutkowski - rut...@ccu.umanitoba.ca
Royal Astronomical Society of Canada
University of Manitoba - Winnipeg, Canada
Carl J Lydick
>As for the Big Bang, Hawking has put out a few papers which show that
>the Big Bang might never have occurred at all.
>8) 8) 8) 8}
I thought Hawking's papers said that, while the Big Bang DID occur, if you
model the event in the appropriate coordinates, you don't get a singularity.
Quite different than saying the Big Bang might never have occurred.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Chris Rutkowski
>In article <C3qnp...@ccu.umanitoba.ca>, rut...@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Chris Rutkowski) writes:
>>As for the Big Bang, Hawking has put out a few papers which show that
>>the Big Bang might never have occurred at all.
>>8) 8) 8) 8}
>I thought Hawking's papers said that, while the Big Bang DID occur, if you
>model the event in the appropriate coordinates, you don't get a singularity.
>Quite different than saying the Big Bang might never have occurred.
True. My comment was in reference to the population notion that the
Big Bang started as one giant (infinitely small!) singularity, which
might not have occurred at all.
A further anecdote from Hawking's book: he was presenting such a
theory at a Vatican conference, at which the Pope had cautioned
physicists about trying to probe the "moment" of Creation. According
to Hawking's theory, there never was such a "moment"!
Andrew Culhane
[... lots of stuff deleted ...]
>
>No, I'm not testy, I'm angry. Pissed off. To grab a line from Harlan
>Ellison, there's An Edge in My Voice. Some people consider skepticism
>just an interesting philosophical exercise. That's fine.
>But there are others who know that there is a nasty, dark side, and we
>are all angry, to one degree or another. James Randi knows it, so do
>Martin Gardner and Harlan Ellison. So did Isaac Asimov, though someone
>of his eloquence could make a snarl sound like a compliment.
[... lots more stuff deleted ...]
and you have just described the reason why, at 50+, Harlan Ellison
still sounds and reads like a spoiled child, in my opinion.
We are all angry about one thing or another. Part of growing up, in
my opinion, is dealing with that anger and not translating it into
someone else's problem.
--- adc
Bill Riggs
(Preliminary rational thoughts deleted - we'll cut to the chase, where
ranting and raving follows.
>
>
>So:
>
>>My goodness, we're testy!
>
>No, I'm not testy, I'm angry. Pissed off. To grab a line from Harlan
>Ellison, there's An Edge in My Voice. Some people consider skepticism
>just an interesting philosophical exercise. That's fine.
>But there are others who know that there is a nasty, dark side, and we
>are all angry, to one degree or another. James Randi knows it, so do
>Martin Gardner and Harlan Ellison. So did Isaac Asimov, though someone
>of his eloquence could make a snarl sound like a compliment.
This man is no Isaac Asimov.
>
>We're angry that, with truth available, people are bypassing honest
>ignorance, and going straight for willful stupidity.
What does this man mean ? See examples below (?!).
>
>We're angry that large percentages of adults believe in astrology, devil
>possession, back masking, and alien abductions.
So what ? Astrology, devil possession, and even alien abductions
are hardly innovations in human thought.
So why is this man mad ? Why not be simply condescending, and forget
the anger ?
>
>We're angry that children, still innocent enough to believe what adults
>tell them, are being taught in classrooms that there are four elements,
>that ancient Egyptians used aircraft, and that evolution is "only a
>theory,"on an equal footing with any loony idea put forth.
I thought we had made some real progress when Carl Lydick admitted
that scientific education in secondary school was more or less a regurgitation
of facts. Dave Palmer seems to think that what the schools need is a "facts
filter", the better to protect the minds of the innocent young from
pollution.
How else will he train the young in evolutionary doctrine, than as a
fact, not a theory ? What other "facts" will he allow through his filter ?
And where, in fact, is the school which teaches ALL THREE of the
examples listed above ?
>
>We're angry (and afraid) that the former Soviet Union is on the verge of
>social and economic collapse, and that they are welcoming with open arms
>every loonytoon new-age fringer with a cause to push. And that they still
>have nuclear weapons.
Some additional data would allow us more latitude in understanding
precisely what Dave means here.
It is factually correct that the Soviet government sponsored research
into paranormal phenonomena, not in 1989, when the USSR had gone off on the
deep end, but certainly in the 1970s. The atheist and materialist virtues
of socialism were unable to quench the Soviets' interest in the abnormal - as
superstitious as this might seem to Western scientists. So if, indeed, the
former Soviet Union is being overrun by new-agers (to say nothing of Christian
evangelists), I think this says a lot about the repressed spirituality of
the "New Soviet Man".
As far as nuclear weapons are concerned - it strikes me as the height
of skeptic arrogance to equate belief in UFOs with the moral incapability to
avert nuclear war. This line of thought does not track logically.
>
>We're angry that there is a building full of poor saps in Texas who might
>well die because their lives were so empty they chose to believe that a
>a nutcase with a rifle was Jesus Christ.
One does marvel at the ability of the human mind to suspend disbelief,
and as the Good Book says, to "believe a lie". Only the Antichrist has the
power to make men believe lies.
Fear is part of the equation. So is evil.
And so is lawlessness. I heard on the radio this evening how all
sorts of radical right and libertarian groups were demandin the right to
mediate between Koresh/Howell and the Feds. These people all hate our
constitutional government, some for religious and cultural reasons, some
because they are nothing but lawless bandits.
Explaining irrational behavior is one of the challenges of
psychology.
Cutting the human race a bit more slack might enhance thy
understanding of human behavior. Prejudice is no excuse.
Bill R.
--
"The only proposals in the Senate that I "My opinions do not represent
have seen fit to mention are particularly those of my employer or
praiseworthy or particularly scandalous ones. any government agency."
It seems to me that the historian's foremost - Bill Riggs
duty is to ensure that virtue is remembered,
and to deter evil words and deeds with the
fear of posterity's damnation."
- Tacitus, _Annals_ III. 65
Carl J Lydick
=>I thought Hawking's papers said that, while the Big Bang DID occur, if you
=>model the event in the appropriate coordinates, you don't get a singularity.
=>Quite different than saying the Big Bang might never have occurred.
=
=True. My comment was in reference to the population notion that the
=Big Bang started as one giant (infinitely small!) singularity, which
=might not have occurred at all.
=
=A further anecdote from Hawking's book: he was presenting such a
=theory at a Vatican conference, at which the Pope had cautioned
=physicists about trying to probe the "moment" of Creation. According
=to Hawking's theory, there never was such a "moment"!
I think you're still misinterpreting it. If you set up your equations in terms
of imaginary time, you don't get a singularity. That doesn't keep you from
having a singularity in real time, which is, last I've heard, the version that
we're capable of perceiving.
Carl J Lydick
=>We're angry that children, still innocent enough to believe what adults
=>tell them, are being taught in classrooms that there are four elements,
=>that ancient Egyptians used aircraft, and that evolution is "only a
=>theory,"on an equal footing with any loony idea put forth.
=
= I thought we had made some real progress when Carl Lydick admitted
=that scientific education in secondary school was more or less a regurgitation
=of facts.
First, I didn't "admit" that, I've been pointing it out for years, and trying
to do something about it whenever possible.
=Dave Palmer seems to think that what the schools need is a "facts
=filter", the better to protect the minds of the innocent young from
=pollution.
Gee. Now that's a real nice approach, Bill. Instead of feeding the kids facts
that have been actually verified, or teaching them to understand how things
work, let's just indoctrinate them with bullshit. That'd be a *REAL*
improvement, now wouldn't it?
= How else will he train the young in evolutionary doctrine, than as a
=fact, not a theory ? What other "facts" will he allow through his filter ?
A, yes. Riggs and his "it's only a theory" mantra. Bill, why don't you go
read Chris Colby's FAQ on evolution, so that you actually know at least a
LITTLE bit about what, you're talking about?
=>We're angry (and afraid) that the former Soviet Union is on the verge of
=>social and economic collapse, and that they are welcoming with open arms
=>every loonytoon new-age fringer with a cause to push. And that they still
=>have nuclear weapons.
=
= Some additional data would allow us more latitude in understanding
=precisely what Dave means here.
= It is factually correct that the Soviet government sponsored research
=into paranormal phenonomena, not in 1989, when the USSR had gone off on the
=deep end, but certainly in the 1970s. The atheist and materialist virtues
=of socialism were unable to quench the Soviets' interest in the abnormal - as
=superstitious as this might seem to Western scientists.
The standard psychic con artists that have been so prevalent in this country
for decades are now catching on in the former Soviet Union. It's getting to be
big business theres.
=So if, indeed, the
=former Soviet Union is being overrun by new-agers (to say nothing of Christian
=evangelists), I think this says a lot about the repressed spirituality of
=the "New Soviet Man".
Why? It says more about the abysmal education their citizens have received.
The fact that exactly the same thing's been going on in this country for
decades doesn't speak well of our educational system either.
= As far as nuclear weapons are concerned - it strikes me as the height
=of skeptic arrogance to equate belief in UFOs with the moral incapability to
=avert nuclear war. This line of thought does not track logically.
Who said anything about "moral incapability"? If you've got people who are
incapable of rational though running things, accidents are likely to increase.
If the accident involves a nuclear weapon, it's likely to be somewhat
noticeable.
=>We're angry that there is a building full of poor saps in Texas who might
=>well die because their lives were so empty they chose to believe that a
=>a nutcase with a rifle was Jesus Christ.
=
= One does marvel at the ability of the human mind to suspend disbelief,
=and as the Good Book says, to "believe a lie". Only the Antichrist has the
=power to make men believe lies.
Evidence for that? As near as I can tell, every televangelist I've ever seen
has that same power, as do quite a few evangelists of the non-television type.
Is it the antichrist who forces you to continue to believe that evolution is
"just a theory"?
Paul Michael Lewis
I'm a skeptic, but I wouldn't say that I'm angry about this incident. I'm
kind of glad actually. It's a great form of population control. A few bursts
of that .50 caliber machine gun, and we rid the planet of a big chunk of
idiocy.
Call me cold.
--
+-| Paul Lewis | People's Temple, Jonestown: WLVR 91.3fm Mon. 11pm-1am |-+
| 'Who's gonna destroy the Babylonians?' -David Koresh | |
| 'God has shot himself. Now a top floor -Blixa Bargeld | |
| can be renovated.' | Renaissance |
| 'The struggle between God and man breaks -Kazantzakis | Productions |
| out in everyone.' | |
Bill Riggs
Given that I'll be out of town and off the net for the next ten days,
it was undoubtedly a tactical mistake on my part to reference either Carl
or evolution in this thread, which was all in all a more general discussion
of superstitution (and the negative effects thereof).
We seem to have discovered the sci.skeptic equivalent of Godwin's Rule:
In article <1nu0mf...@gap.caltech.edu> ca...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>In article <18...@tecsun1.tec.army.mil>, ri...@descartes.etl.army.mil (Bill Riggs) writes:
>=>We're angry that children, still innocent enough to believe what adults
>=>tell them, are being taught in classrooms that there are four elements,
>=>that ancient Egyptians used aircraft, and that evolution is "only a
>=>theory,"on an equal footing with any loony idea put forth.
>=
>= I thought we had made some real progress when Carl Lydick admitted
>=that scientific education in secondary school was more or less a regurgitation
>=of facts.
>
>First, I didn't "admit" that, I've been pointing it out for years, and trying
>to do something about it whenever possible.
>
>=Dave Palmer seems to think that what the schools need is a "facts
>=filter", the better to protect the minds of the innocent young from
>=pollution.
>
>Gee. Now that's a real nice approach, Bill. Instead of feeding the kids facts
>that have been actually verified, or teaching them to understand how things
>work, let's just indoctrinate them with bullshit. That'd be a *REAL*
>improvement, now wouldn't it?
I think I understand the distinction:
1. When possible, teach by doing, so that the students can verify
the facts for themselves - under appropraite supervision, natch.
2. Else, go ahead and put out the information which is more or
less the consensual position.
3. Here's the rub - how does one handle all the anomalies and
inconsistent data ? Carl's answer - ignore it - doesn't belong in the
classroom. I say - deal with it (but don't let it get to be an
obsession.
>
>= How else will he train the young in evolutionary doctrine, than as a
>=fact, not a theory ? What other "facts" will he allow through his filter ?
>
>A, yes. Riggs and his "it's only a theory" mantra. Bill, why don't you go
>read Chris Colby's FAQ on evolution, so that you actually know at least a
>LITTLE bit about what, you're talking about?
I'll have to put up the white flag here. The very mention of Chris
Colby's name sends shivers up my spine (assuming of course, that I have one).
Not having either the time or the energy to plow up this particular field, I
shall slink away into the night, for not less than ten days :)
Carl J Lydick
=>that have been actually verified, or teaching them to understand how things
=>work, let's just indoctrinate them with bullshit. That'd be a *REAL*
=>improvement, now wouldn't it?
=
= I think I understand the distinction:
=
= 1. When possible, teach by doing, so that the students can verify
=the facts for themselves - under appropraite supervision, natch.
=
= 2. Else, go ahead and put out the information which is more or
=less the consensual position.
=
= 3. Here's the rub - how does one handle all the anomalies and
=inconsistent data ? Carl's answer - ignore it - doesn't belong in the
=classroom. I say - deal with it (but don't let it get to be an
=obsession.
No, my answer is "first make sure you've got a bona fide anomaly." Sure, there
are a lot of reports of stuff out there which, if true, would be anomalies.
Somehow these reports tend to evaporate under scrutiny. As a case in point: A
year an a half or so ago, sci.skeptic had LOTS of threads involving people
claiming precognition. Fair enough. Maybe precognition exists. In response,
I set up a prediction registry, accessible via e-mail. Guess what happened?
Did we get a flood of predictions that turned out to be accurate, thus
verifying the claims of precognition? Did we get even *ONE* such prediction?
Well the answer is "no." People, faced with actually keeping track of their
"precognitive" experiences apparently decided that their claims weren't
well-founded. Very few posts to the registry, and a sudden dearth of posts
claiming precognitive abilities to sci.skeptic. That sort of thing has
happened with nearly every claim for PSI or for the validity of the Bible, or
whatnot that I've ever seen.
So, if you can find verifiable anomalies, please, teach the kiddies about them
in the schools. Despite the lack (last I've heard) of independent
verification, mention the PEAR studies. But unless you've got verifiable data,
don't treat rumors and innuendos as verified facts. Now, I know you have some
problems with this, Bill. You'd rather have your own unverifiable superstition
taught as if it were in fact the obvious statement of reality you think it is.
If you want me to support teaching of your superstition, though, I'll ask that
you provide some evidence for its validity.
=>
=>= How else will he train the young in evolutionary doctrine, than as a
=>=fact, not a theory ? What other "facts" will he allow through his filter ?
=>
=>A, yes. Riggs and his "it's only a theory" mantra. Bill, why don't you go
=>read Chris Colby's FAQ on evolution, so that you actually know at least a
=>LITTLE bit about what, you're talking about?
=
=
= I'll have to put up the white flag here. The very mention of Chris
=Colby's name sends shivers up my spine (assuming of course, that I have one).
=Not having either the time or the energy to plow up this particular field, I
=shall slink away into the night, for not less than ten days :)
Now, is this intended as sarcasm, or is it an honest admission of your
intellectual bankruptcy? You've never given us any evidence that you've looked
at Chris' FAQ, yet you continually spew your ignorance of matters relating to
evolution over the net. Before you go on vacation, print out a copy of his
FAQ. If nothing else, you can use it as toilet paper if you travel to some
backward area.
Grant Edwards
: >We're angry that there is a building full of poor saps in Texas who
: >might well die because their lives were so empty they chose to
: >believe that a a nutcase with a rifle was Jesus Christ.
If it wasn't for the kids sitting in there waiting for the end of the
world with their nutty parents, I'd vote to give them what they're
waiting for using a few canisters of napalm.
: I'm a skeptic, but I wouldn't say that I'm angry about this
: incident. I'm kind of glad actually. It's a great form of
: population control.
So far, it's been a rather expensive way to off a batch of nut cases:
several million tax dollars and 4 ATF agents.
: A few bursts of that .50 caliber machine gun, and we rid the planet
: of a big chunk of idiocy.
But idiots are like other pests (mosquitos, ants, etc.). Killing them
doesn't do any good unless you can prevent the creation of new ones.
Of course, we all know:
THEY'RE NOT _REAL_ CHRISTIANS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Like Harlan Ellison says on TV... "If you're not insulted, then you
probably weren't paying attention."
--
Grant Edwards |Yow! I'm not an Iranian!! I
Rosemount Inc. |voted for Dianne Feinstein!!
|
gra...@aquarius.rosemount.com |
Carl J Lydick
=Sorry, Carl, you're wrong. I made a predicition which has (will, I
=don't rememebr the time I specified) come true. I predicted that non
=ob the predicition submitted would come true.
Sorry, Gerry, but the rules for the registry stated that the predictions had to
be non-obvious. You don't get any more points for that prediction than you
would for predicting the time of sunrise tomorrow morning.