2% The Two Percent Company
[ - ]
| Large Type Edition |
[ - ]
[ - ]
| Navigate the Rants




Categories

Special Collections
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
Subscribe to the
2%Co Rants:



Syndicate this site:
ATOM
RSS 1.0
RSS 2.0
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
| The Usual Suspects
On Hiatus
Carnivals
Carnival of the Godless
Skeptics' Circle
Tangled Bank

Gone But Not Forgotten
Lost to the Mists of Time
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
| Archives (Weekly)
% 2016.11.06 » 2016.11.12
% 2009.04.05 » 2009.04.11
% 2009.03.15 » 2009.03.21
% 2009.03.08 » 2009.03.14
% 2009.03.01 » 2009.03.07
% 2009.02.15 » 2009.02.21
% 2009.01.25 » 2009.01.31
% 2009.01.18 » 2009.01.24
% 2009.01.04 » 2009.01.10
% 2008.12.21 » 2008.12.27
% 2008.11.16 » 2008.11.22
% 2008.11.09 » 2008.11.15


Archives (Monthly)
% 2016 November
% 2009 April
% 2009 March
% 2009 February
% 2009 January
% 2008 December
% 2008 November
% 2008 October
% 2008 September
% 2008 July
% 2008 June
% 2008 April
% 2008 January
% 2007 November
% 2007 October
% 2007 August
% 2007 July
% 2007 June
% 2007 May
% 2007 April
% 2007 March
% 2007 February
% 2007 January
% 2006 December
% 2006 November
% 2006 October
% 2006 September
% 2006 August
% 2006 July
% 2006 June
% 2006 May
% 2006 April
% 2006 March
% 2006 February
% 2006 January
% 2005 December
% 2005 November
% 2005 October
% 2005 September
% 2005 August
% 2005 July
% 2005 June
% 2005 May
% 2005 April
% 2005 March
% 2005 February
% 2005 January
% 2004 December
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
« Good News on James Randi The RantsOn Skepticism: A Reply to Francois »

Skeptics' Circle #28, Carnival of the Godless #34
2006.02.19 (Sun) 22:07

The twenty-eighth edition of the Skeptics' Circle was published on Thursday for your perusal over at Unused and Probably Unusable. In this edition, we particularly liked Austin Cline's entry fisking a column by staggeringly thick-headed Lorraine Daston who clearly has no concept of what it means to be a skeptic. Go check out the posts!

In addition, the thirty-fourth edition of the Carnival of the Godless is available as of today at Goosing the Antithesis. We'd like to mention, though, that while we were checking out the host's site, we noticed a post from a few days ago that addresses a typical statement from James Randi in which Randi says:

Yes, I'm a materialist. I'm willing to be shown wrong, but that has not happened — yet. And I admit that the reason I'm unable to accept the claims of psychic, occult, and/or supernatural wonders is because I'm Iocked into a world-view that demands evidence rather than blind faith, a view that insists upon the replication of all experiments — particularly those that appear to show violations of a rational world — and a view which requires open examination of the methods used to carry out those experiments.

We agree wholeheartedly with Randi on this. However, the author, Francois Tremblay, does not:

Well, a few months ago I would have agreed completely, but now Randi's skeptical views somewhat annoy me. I don't think it's possible to prove that the supernatural exists, even in principle. I have yet to see any skeptic prove that the possibility remains. And yet they keep looking...

Isn't the skeptic's quixotic quest rather like those studies that keep cropping up to try to prove or disprove that prayer has a medical effect ? What is the point to these millions of dollars wasted ? Let's devote our energy to better things, people...

Sorry, but we really have no idea what Francois is talking about here. What quest is he referring to as silly and useless? Randi isn't on a quest to prove that the paranormal exists — truly such a quest would be an awful lot like tilting at windmills. Instead, Randi (along with many other good skeptics) stands ready and willing to have someone prove via the scientific method that their specific claim of the paranormal exists. There's a big difference. If it were the former, Randi would be acting much like Dr. Venkman's initial perception of his colleagues in Ghostbusters — he'd be meeting and greeting every freak in the world who claimed to have a paranormal experience. Truly, that would be a waste of his time. If the latter — which is the reality of the situation — Randi's door is simply open to such claims, and when he is approached, he listens with an open mind, and designs scientific tests to verify the claims.

Further, the "possibility" always remains to prove the existence of the supernatural, inasmuch as anything is theoretically conceivable. Skeptics aren't, however, "looking" for evidence to support this possibility. They're testing those who claim such phenomena to see if their claims hold up. Just one instance in which a paranormal claim was supported by methodical, verifiable testing would, in fact, prove that the claimed phenomenon exists at least in this instance; which would, in fact, prove that "supernatural" phenomena in general are possible, regardless of whether any specific cases are true or false. The fact that not a single one of these phenomena has been successfully verified simply goes a long way toward supporting the hypothesis that none of them exist. Skeptics remain open (despite what credulous detractors assert) to further testing, but — as with any scientific theory — the preponderance of evidence currently available lends credence to a solid theory: in this case, the nonexistence of paranormal phenomena.

So, unless we're missing Francois' point, we have to say that he just doesn't seem to be getting it. We would have posted this on his site, but his comment software demanded blogger registration which we don't have. If Francois stumbles upon our entry here, we'd love to hear what he has to say on this subject.

Anyway, that aside aside, check out the godless posts.


— • —
[  Filed under: % Bullshit  % Religion  ]

Comments (21)

Adam Scanlan, 2006.02.20 (Mon) 02:07 [Link] »

Regarding testing of the supernatural, I came across an argument from a creduloid recently (sorry, can't remember where). He basically stated that science is ill equipped to test such things because it excludes supernatural explanations by definition, in that it looks for explanations in the natural world. However, if such 'supernatural' things do exist and have a measurable impact on the universe, wouldn't their existance, once proven, remove them from the supernatural world? Wouldn't they then be defined as natural?



Michael McCarron, 2006.02.20 (Mon) 08:37 [Link] »

Hi guys,

I dropped off your comments re: Randi and the "quest" to the comment box at Goosing the Antithesis. Hope you don't mind, but I am quite curious as to what Francois' thoughts/answer will be.

As always, you have a fantastic site - keep up the great work.



Michael McCarron, 2006.02.20 (Mon) 08:40 [Link] »

Hi guys,
I dropped off your above comments to the box at Goosing the Antithesis. I hope you don't mind, but I am quite curious as to his answer to your points.
As always, a great entry. Thanks and keep up the stellar work - it's like a sweet pumpkin pie for my brain.



Francois Tremblay, 2006.02.20 (Mon) 14:47 [Link] »

Hello !

I wrote a reply to your post. It will be posted on the 23rd (I have a policy of trying to keep it to one post per day, and I already had some stuff scheduled).

Also, I didn't mention this on my entries (because it just wasn't topic-relevant), but another reason why I am not a skeptic is because I am in favour of prudent predation.
(and no, let me pre-empt what you're going to say - I am not an evil right-wing Social Darwinist ;)



GH, 2006.02.20 (Mon) 15:02 [Link] »

Francois,

I don't think you are making any sense whatsoever.

'but another reason why I am not a skeptic is because I am in favour of prudent predation.'

What would that have to do with anything? Either you can prove your case or not. a skeptic isn't out there trying to debunk, just testing those who make a claim. You seem very confused.



Francois Tremblay, 2006.02.20 (Mon) 15:13 [Link] »

"I don't think you are making any sense whatsoever."

It's happened before. ;)


"What would that have to do with anything?"

Um... it's a reason why I'm not a skeptic, as mentioned ?


"Either you can prove your case or not. a skeptic isn't out there trying to debunk"

There is plenty of debunking being done by skeptics, however, and some of them think that it's an implicit aspect of skeptic activity. Furthermore, I have never met any skeptic who was in favour of prudent predation. So while I agree with you about the strict definition, I would say that debunking and skepticism go hand in hand.


"You seem very confused."

I'm not confused. I just made a side-comment that you thought was an integral part of my main comments. As I said, it's just another reason why I am not a skeptic. Nothing more.



Gh, 2006.02.20 (Mon) 15:39 [Link] »

Then what are you?

Credulous?

And let's say just for the sake of argument that you did some debunking as a skeptic. Wouldn't that be productive and an important service? why wouldn't one want to be a skeptic if your succeeding in this purpose.



Francois Tremblay, 2006.02.20 (Mon) 16:24 [Link] »

"Then what are you? Credulous?"

No, I am what skeptics mockingly call a "cynic", i.e. someone who holds that all extraordinary claims are false and a waste of time.


"And let's say just for the sake of argument that you did some debunking as a skeptic. Wouldn't that be productive and an important service?"

No, I wouldn't see it as productive.



The Two Percent Company, 2006.02.20 (Mon) 22:29 [Link] »

Adam: That's it exactly. The moment that someone's claim to be able to read minds through telepathy is proven to be true, their telepathy ceases to be supernatural; if we can detect it by natural means — which are the only means we have — then it falls under the umbrella of "natural." Basically, people who make the argument that your creduloid du jour did are just playing semantic games to try to explain why their "true stories" of the paranormal never seem to pass scientific muster.

Francois/Michael/GH: Until we know a little more about Francois' position, there isn't much more we can say. This may turn out to be just a simple disconnect based on semantics, or a disagreement over what is or is not worthwhile, or something else entirely. Somehow, though, we doubt that Francois is a credulous true believer, given what we've read from him (starting with his hosting of the Carnival of the Godless); we'll just have to wait until the 23rd to hear more.



Francois Tremblay, 2006.02.20 (Mon) 22:38 [Link] »

Good news actually. Zachary (one of our co-members) decided to post his own entry early, so I moved up my reply. I will post it after midnight tonight, if I'm up (which I will probably be).



Francois Tremblay, 2006.02.21 (Tue) 00:04 [Link] »

As I promised, my reply is now up :
[link]



The Two Percent Company, 2006.02.21 (Tue) 23:08 [Link] »

Francois,

We have addressed the bulk of your response in a new post — those interested can read our reply there. But as an aside, what are you talking about at the very end of your post?

By the way, I have no enmity with Two Percent Company, they are just way too statist for my tastes (and I thought that even before I became a market anarchist). They should start by being skeptical about that, in my opinion, as the idea that force is criminal when performed by one thug, but perfectly moral when done by a group of thugs calling themselves "government", is the second most extraordinary and absurd claim ever made (if you really need to know, the first one is the Trinity).

Two possibilities spring to mind to explain this statement. We can take your statement that you are a market anarchist to mean that you don't believe that a country should ever go to war, in which case, we simply don't agree with you. We've had the anarchy discussion before, and as much as we might like the idea of anarchy (or radical Libertarianism) on paper, it is simply not at all feasible in reality. Too many people are too stupid, greedy, and violent for us to take government completely out of the picture and rely on the market to fill in all the gaps. Quite honestly, if you believe that we would be better off without a government, then that's something that we would encourage you to be skeptical about. If this is your position, then we really have no desire to get into a discussion on this topic. Suffice it to say that we disagree with you just as much as you disagree with us.

If you think that we're not skeptical enough about the government, then all we can say is that you apparently haven't been reading our site. We think that the government of the United States is pretty fucked up, but we also think that removing it would only create more problems, exponentially so. That latter statement is usually the difference between us and anarchists; we don't like what we have, but tearing it down would only make things worse.

If, on the other hand, you are saying that we condone government use of initiatory force, then it's hard to imagine an intelligent person misrepresenting us as profoundly as you just did; we have no idea where you'd get that idea from. If this is the case, then please do provide us with an example in which we applauded our government's abuse of force, and we'll go from there.

Either way, we disagree.



Francois Tremblay, 2006.02.21 (Tue) 23:21 [Link] »

I'm glad to see you have a reply. I will post about it on its relevant page.

"Two possibilities spring to mind to explain this statement. We can take your statement that you are a market anarchist to mean that you don't believe that a country should ever go to war, in which case, we simply don't agree with you."

Then you are immoral. I am not going to discuss politics with people who sanction organized murder. However, I do want to mention one thing, because it clashes with your skepticism :

"If you think that we're not skeptical enough about the government, then all we can say is that you apparently haven't been reading our site. We think that the government of the United States is pretty fucked up, but we also think that removing it would only create more problems, exponentially so."

You seem to be confused about the skeptical principles you are supposed to espouse. You have the burden of proof, not me. You are the one making the claim. Market anarchy is a tested and proven organizational system. Democratic government has been proven to be a total failure.



The Two Percent Company, 2006.02.21 (Tue) 23:50 [Link] »

We're...immoral? Well, you're welcome to your opinion. We disagree. Luckily, we don't judge ourselves by your misguided standards. Honestly, you come off sounding like a religioso when you make asinine statements of absolute morality like this. Should we be excommunicated for this transgression, or merely burned at the stake?

It's important to note that your assertion on market anarchy is that it is a "tested and proven organizational system." Yeah, so's the Dewey Decimal System, but that doesn't make it a valid form of government. So, let's reframe this into something more useful, shall we? If you think that the burden of proof is on us because market anarchy is a proven system of national government, which would actually be the relevant assertion, then we're sorry to say that you are severely delusional. Sure, it may work like gangbusters for the weekly poker game, but that simply isn't proof of concept to rule the United States no matter how much you may want it to be. In addition, politics is much more about opinion and sociology than it is about empirical measurement. There are too many unscientific factors (such as people and psychological motivations) involved. Many people, some of them otherwise quite intelligent, make the mistake that you have made in trying to apply strict science to a situation that is not strictly scientific. So, your admonishment that our politics clash with our skepticism is quite incorrect, as is your assertion that the burden of proof is on us to disprove your "proven" theory.

But, as we said, we have no desire to discuss this with you at any length. We've had highly unproductive conversations with anarchists in the past, and in the end, we just have too many fundamental disagreements with such people to ever reach any kind of understanding. Frankly, that's just fine by us. Live and let live, and rock on with your "moral" judgments.



Francois Tremblay, 2006.02.21 (Tue) 23:53 [Link] »

As I said before, I am not interested in discussing politicsl issues with you any more. I do not discuss moral or political issues with the immoral. I will, however, continue to discuss the epistemic issues on which we began - and I am currently writing a reply on that topic.



The Two Percent Company, 2006.02.22 (Wed) 10:20 [Link] »

Yeah, we caught that in the first moral judgment you handed down, but thanks for the reminder. Only we weren't discussing politics with you in our last reply; we were pointing out your sanctimonious bullshit in one place, and correcting your false assertions in another. In both cases, we were addressing not politics, but rather your baseless accusations against us.

You know, the more we hear from you, the less we value your opinion.



Francois Tremblay, 2006.02.22 (Wed) 13:01 [Link] »

And I do not value AT ALL the political or moral opinions of someone so immoral as to explicitly say he supports organized murder.

So that makes us about even.



The Two Percent Company, 2006.02.22 (Wed) 14:39 [Link] »

If you're so abysmally closed minded that you can't even fathom a situation in which the use of force by a nation is an option (or the only remaining viable approach), and if you are determined to label anyone who possesses the requisite critical thinking abilities to disagree with you as "immoral," then no, we're not at all even. If you think that external threats can always be met with diplomacy, boycotts, and sit-ins, or that an unfettered free market would somehow allow us to avoid such issues entirely, that doesn't make you "moral" — it makes you delusional. This isn't politics we're talking about here; it's a grasp of reality.

By refusing to acknowledge reality and choosing instead to live in some form of fantasy land in which we're all anarcho-Libertarians, you are revealing yourself to be nothing but a "true believer." Instead of clinging blindly to supernatural beliefs, you are clinging to your own made-up world view that has no basis in the reality that surrounds you. Bully for you — you're a closed minded creduloid, and we were mistaken in initially defending you against such accusations. Since you apparently have nothing worthwhile to add to an intelligent discussion, other than declaring us to be immoral, please feel free to stop commenting here.



Francois Tremblay, 2006.02.22 (Wed) 15:37 [Link] »

Apparently it's hard for you to acknowledge that I don't want to talk about this issue any more. Why ? What is pushing you to try to justify your absurd position in favour of organized murder ? Do you have some kind of psychological reason for this or what ?


"If you're so abysmally closed minded that you can't even fathom a situation in which the use of force by a nation is an option (or the only remaining viable approach)"

You seem confused. As previously mentioned, I am a market anarchist. I do not believe in the fiction of "nation". Stop using your irrational premises to describe my position.


"and if you are determined to label anyone who possesses the requisite critical thinking abilities to disagree with you as "immoral,""

I am not calling you "immoral" because you disagree with me. I am calling you immoral bceause you are speaking up in favour of government-backed organized murder. I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand.


"If you think that external threats can always be met with diplomacy, boycotts, and sit-ins"

You'd have to define "external threat" first, and then I'd be able to tell you how I think they can be met. Until you do that, you're just making a stupid straw man. (once again, no surprise there)


"By refusing to acknowledge reality and choosing instead to live in some form of fantasy land in which we're all anarcho-Libertarians"

I do not live in such a fantasy land. I am quite aware of the political situation, thank you very much. The difference is that I am also a moral and honest person who does not try to justify murder.


"Instead of clinging blindly to supernatural beliefs, you are clinging to your own made-up world view that has no basis in the reality that surrounds you."

You mean, like the worldview that murder done by a single person is evil, but murder done by a non-existant "nation" is perfectly acceptable ? Yea, that's realistic all right.


"Since you apparently have nothing worthwhile to add to an intelligent discussion, other than declaring us to be immoral, please feel free to stop commenting here."

I am going to post the URL of my latest reply on your newest entry, when I post it tomorrow. That's all. Unless you try to defend your immorality with more stupid straw men and ad homs, I won't reply again to this page. I think that's fair.



The Two Percent Company, 2006.02.22 (Wed) 16:22 [Link] »

Huh? It's hard for us to acknowledge that you don't want to talk about this? Here's a fucking thought — if you don't want to talk about this then stop fucking commenting on our site. Are we somehow dragging you to our site and forcing you to comment? We're not sure how that could be so; if nations are a fiction, then surely any authority or coercive capability that we may have is purely imaginary as well. Either you don't want to talk about this, or you want to defend your assertions after we show them to be bullshit. Which is it, Francois? Decide, and act accordingly.

You might want to learn what a strawman is before you toss the term around. Since we didn't know what your particular stance on resolution conflict was, we simply listed some broad possibilities. That is not a strawman argument. Would you like an example of a strawman? How about this statement:

You mean, like the worldview that murder done by a single person is evil, but murder done by a non-existant "nation" is perfectly acceptable ? Yea, that's realistic all right.

See, in this example, you don't have the first fucking clue as to our position, so you just pull this out of your ass and attack it in lieu of our actual point of view. That, Francois, is a fucking strawman.

We also find this statement incredibly laughable:

As previously mentioned, I am a market anarchist. I do not believe in the fiction of "nation". Stop using your irrational premises to describe my position.

Wow, so the fact that you don't "believe in" the concept of a nation means...that there are no nations? That almost sounds religious! Oddly, that statement flies in the face of one of the few correct things we've seen you say:

The truth is the truth, regardless of how many people agree with it. One person could think the Earth is round against everyone's beliefs, but that would not make it false.

And the truth, Francois, is that no matter how how hard you close your eyes and think happy thoughts, the nations of the world are still there. That is precisely what we mean when we say that you are ignoring reality.

But we digress. In order to help remove the gun that we appear to be holding to your head that's forcing you to comment here, we'll refrain from specifically addressing any of the other flawed, asinine and misguided statements in your last comment. Our readers are intelligent enough to see through your thin veneer of pseudo-intellectual bullshit without us wading through it line-by-line. Hey, it's not like you're capable of comprehending why you're so fucking wrong anyway. If you can't see your own logical errors, false accusations, and overall bullshit by now, then you are beyond the help of logic, reason, and common sense.

Whether you see it or not, you are in fact ignoring reality. Frankly, though, we don't give a fuck. Really, dude. Like many of the credulous morons we come across who believe in the supernatural despite all evidence to the contrary, you are so unwilling to consider anything other than your established line of crap that you are beyond reason and logic. Hell, you don't even recognize that your line of crap is a "line" at all. Bully for you.

Now, please: do fuck off. If you decide to post another comment along the same lines as your last one, we will move it to a thread specially designated to hold moronic comments. You should feel right at home there.



JY, 2006.02.22 (Wed) 16:32 [Link] »

Francois does have some rather odd ideas, doesn't he? For a supposed critical thinker, he was pretty quick to engage in argumentum ad labelum. And after pompously declaring that he won't argue with the likes of you, he seems pretty suprised that you have the indecency to come back and refute his nonsense. How dare you not give him the last word!

I wouldn't go so far as to label Francois as an immoral person, although somebody that advocates what amounts to the destruction of civil societies is likely advocating a state of affairs in which murder is one of the most common causes of death. Of course, that's only an inference from too few data points (places where governing institutions have collapsed, or places which simply have never evolved governing institutions, a la some parts of Papua New Guinea). Doesn't seem like a particularly moral position to me, but I don't expect Francois's opinions on morality are in any way rational (based on his behavior on this thread, at least).

I've never seen someone so clearly, quickly, and (apparently) deliberately out themselves as a net-kook.




— • —

|
[ - ]


Terms of Use — • — Privacy Policy — • — FAQ
[ - ]
| Protecting our Civil Liberties
ACLU
EFF: Support Bloggers' Rights!
Individual-i

Bullshit Busters
JREFSkeptic's Dictionary
QuackwatchSnopes.com
SymantecMcAfee
SophosSnopes.com

|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
Buy 2%Co Products
2%Co Stores


Visit the 2%Co Wish List
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
|
|
[ - ]
[ - ]
| Where can you find 2%Co?

Site MeterGlobe of Blogs
Atheism OnlineThe Truth Laid Bear
BlogwiseBlogarama
BlogsharesTechnorati

2%Co Search Rankings

Link to our Rants
2%Co Rants


Link to our Allison DuBois: Debunked! collection
Allison DuBois: Debunked! (2%Co)


The 2%Co Rants powered by
MovableType
|
[ - ]