Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was in the book store and I saw this magazine for skeptics. Its a magazine claiming to be for science and reason. Upon reading some of the articles, I quickly realized that this magazine is not based on science or reason. Some of it was accurate, most of it.... was so far from the truth that science would deny most of it's claims. It even misquoted quite a few people. I took things out of context and used it to fit their agenda.
Are all skeptics magazines like this? Is this the garbage Atheists and people who claim to be skeptics read?
I do admit when I used to read "Skeptical Inquirer" it seems like they wanted to dismiss acceptable theoretical physics as "woo woo", which turned me off. (I read it online, also read "Free Inquiry" on occasion) In particular they seemed too uncomfortable with some mainstream ideas in cosmology.
I would agree though that it would be good to get a clearer sense what magazine you mean and the problem you had. There are some who call themselves "skeptics" that are more about trying to debunk things they dislike than simply doubting or demanding evidence of claims. The more extreme examples of that being HIV skeptics, Ozone-hole skeptics, carcinogen skeptics (people who doubt cigarettes, or whatever, cause cancer), Quantum-Mechanics skeptics, and the like. And then there are the "skeptics" who are extreme because they demand a level of proof that just never happens with anything. Like the rare physicists who still think the Big-Bang theory isn't confirmed or mathematicians who are still skeptical of set-theory or Godel. Their skepticism being more like intense conservatism as they stay the same unless the evidence is amazingly irrefutable.
Are all skeptics magazines like this? Is this the garbage Atheists and people who claim to be skeptics read?
Yes and no.
We leave it to the theists to lazily pick up one source, read it, and accept what it says as true.
The skeptic has no such easy out road ahead of him however. The skeptic reads all the sources. A number of magazines. Peer review. The original source documents and papers of the people making the claims one is applying the skepticism to.
The skeptic does this while systematically focusing on points of agreement and of contention between the parties, comparing them, and individually exploring further source materials in order to see which party is "right" in each instance.
And after this long, systematic and time consuming process the skeptic comes out with a position of agreement or disagreement on the issue in question. A position that the skeptic must retain and open mind on and be willing to repeat the entire process above from start to finish all over again... should new data become available that was not available on the previous iteration of the process.
It involves work, time, effort, intelligence, self correction, the willingness to do it all again in the light of new evidence and much much more and it most certainly involves basing ones opinion on as many sources as possible.... not picking up a single magazine and taking that magazines word for it just because they decided to put the word Skepticism on the front cover. I repeat, granting a sole and single source authority on any matter is an error we leave to our theistic counter parts.
However I must add a voice to those pointing out that you conveniently leave out any mention of the magazine title or source in your diatribe.
I do admit when I used to read "Skeptical Inquirer" it seems like they wanted to dismiss acceptable theoretical physics as "woo woo", which turned me off. (I read it online, also read "Free Inquiry" on occasion) In particular they seemed too uncomfortable with some mainstream ideas in cosmology.
I would agree though that it would be good to get a clearer sense what magazine you mean and the problem you had. There are some who call themselves "skeptics" that are more about trying to debunk things they dislike than simply doubting or demanding evidence of claims. The more extreme examples of that being HIV skeptics, Ozone-hole skeptics, carcinogen skeptics (people who doubt cigarettes, or whatever, cause cancer), Quantum-Mechanics skeptics, and the like. And then there are the "skeptics" who are extreme because they demand a level of proof that just never happens with anything. Like the rare physicists who still think the Big-Bang theory isn't confirmed or mathematicians who are still skeptical of set-theory or Godel. Their skepticism being more like intense conservatism as they stay the same unless the evidence is amazingly irrefutable.
I take your point. Though I got the impression that the skepticism was more about woo woo or indeed supernatural stuff being presented as hard evidence when it is still rather speculative.
On a TV repeat I saw about dinosaur evolution there was a speaker saying that the idea that raptors could (without the extinction) have evolved into humanoids was fanciful. In the same programme the now nearly proven evolution of dinosaurs into birds was also dismissed as 'fanciful'.
Worse the dinos into greys..ahh humanoids idea was dismissed, not on reason but on an ad hom accusation of bipedal chauvinism, when it's bloody obvious that to use your front paws you need to stand on the hind ones.
Thus, scientists can certainly look dumb when they stray out of their comfort zone and fall into the usual patterns of specious reasoning. At the same time it is probably safer and is a useful check to query everything even when it is pretty well proven (1).
So the OP's objection is probably understandable but rather unreasonable and one suspects that it's just intended to discredit science as being closed - minded to all sorts of selected supernatural claims which OP would like us to accept without much evidence for it.
(1) gotta have a phootnote. Eg. The fossil evidence for areodynamic dino feathers is very strong for gliding at least. But questions about whether it is actually possible are useful in finding solutions to the problems like ultra - light bones or a denser air at the time.
I was in the book store and I saw this magazine for skeptics. Its a magazine claiming to be for science and reason. Upon reading some of the articles, I quickly realized that this magazine is not based on science or reason. Some of it was accurate, most of it.... was so far from the truth that science would deny most of it's claims. It even misquoted quite a few people. I took things out of context and used it to fit their agenda.
Are all skeptics magazines like this? Is this the garbage Atheists and people who claim to be skeptics read?
Why not do some research since you seem hellbent on assuming this is what atheists even know exists or support.
If it took things out of context and used it to fit their agenda, you're probably talking about religion.
What is the atheist agenda?
I simply don't believe in a god, or any gods.
That's it. Period. Past that issue, no two atheists are alike.
Worse the dinos into greys..ahh humanoids idea was dismissed, not on reason but on an ad hom accusation of bipedal chauvinism, when it's bloody obvious that to use your front paws you need to stand on the hind ones.
I don't stand on anything and I'm using my front limbs. Although I suppose generally you bipeds would have the advantage. I locomote via a combination of elbows and knees (quadruped) or semi-bipedal "scooting" (like some gorillas do), while when outside the house I of course use a wheelchair. Exempting wheelchair they are slow methods of locomotion, albeit adequate for my indoor needs, and in the wild would likely get me eaten by something. Still bipedalism seems so likely to lead one to fall over, by creating a high center of gravity, it doesn't surprise me it was hard to replicate in robots. I'd think something like a centaur design, four legs with two hands, would be more stable but six limbs don't ever seem to occur in vertebrates.
As for raptors turning into humanoids I'd probably think that's "fanciful" too, mostly because we really don't know. And I'd think a raptor could be bipedal without precisely looking humanoid. Ostriches are essentially bipedal. If you had an ostrich like creature with hands and forward-facing eyes and a flexible mouth I suppose you could call it "humanoid" but it wouldn't look like the kind of "humanoids" you'd find on Star-Trek.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chielgirl
What is the atheist agenda?
All kinds of groups can have agendas or members with agendas. I don't know enough to know what he or she meant.
There's atheists whose "agenda", with regard to atheism, is mostly just equality and respect and the removal of any distrust or legal inferiorities.
There's those whose "agenda" is more removing any and all public mentions of God.
There's those whose "agenda" is trying to get theists to abandon theism if possible.
Probably other "agendas" that some atheists tie to their atheism.
There's also "Christian agendas", "Buddhist agendas", "Vegetarian agendas", and so forth.
I don't stand on anything and I'm using my front limbs. Although I suppose generally you bipeds would have the advantage. I locomote via a combination of elbows and knees (quadruped) or semi-bipedal "scooting" (like some gorillas do), while when outside the house I of course use a wheelchair. Exempting wheelchair they are slow methods of locomotion, albeit adequate for my indoor needs, and in the wild would likely get me eaten by something. Still bipedalism seems so likely to lead one to fall over, by creating a high center of gravity, it doesn't surprise me it was hard to replicate in robots. I'd think something like a centaur design, four legs with two hands, would be more stable but six limbs don't ever seem to occur in vertebrates.
Actually after I'd posted it occurred to me that one could squat or crouch and still use the forelimbs. But then it occurred to me that being able to move around with the forepaws free would be an advantage. The point is that there are good reasons to see bipedalism as a very likely evolutionary solution, especially as raptors were well on the way there. So talking about balance isn't relevant. It's not as good a solution as three or four legs plus two hands but well - it's not as though anyone sat down and designed us.
Quote:
As for raptors turning into humanoids I'd probably think that's "fanciful" too, mostly because we really don't know. And I'd think a raptor could be bipedal without precisely looking humanoid. Ostriches are essentially bipedal. If you had an ostrich like creature with hands and forward-facing eyes and a flexible mouth I suppose you could call it "humanoid" but it wouldn't look like the kind of "humanoids" you'd find on Star-Trek.
I was thinking of ostriches too. The point is that without the extinction, the humanoid niche would be open to the life - form of the time. Given bipedalism with forehands (rudimentary wings are evolution another way) and a promising raptor brain size, the argument is (while unproven and indeed rather fanciful) not to be seen as invalid on the grounds of bipedalist pride. That is a false argument and unworthy of a scientist. That was my point.
And to the OP, yes, we would like the name of the mag and some examples of the 'garbage' in it before the swipe at skeptical science is accepted as valid.
If the OP is talking about "Skeptic" magazine, that's EXACTLY the type of magazine I read.
Most of the topics have little to do with religion, but that is a topic that comes up often.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
