Credulity and skepticism

Not true. I'm willing to listen to any opinions or scientific theories that I don't necessarily agree with...as long as the person citing them is willing to play by the rules of science (which most of these conspiracy threads and pseudoscience threads are NOT).

For example, I'm a strong supporter of the Big Bang theory (with the addendum of Guth's Inflation Theory). But if you say "The Big Bang theory is wrong, here is my experimental evidence, and here is my alternate theory that works better", I would listen.

But when I hear baseless, unfounded claims posing as science, such as "The US Government causes tsunamis" or "I saw an alien UFO", I can just shake my head at the credulity.

Again, not true. The theories of relativity and quantum mechanics seem downright bizarre to me, but I believe them to be true because the overwhelming evidence indicates that they are.

My motive is not to get people to agree with me on every single opinion I hold. It is merely to get people to think CRITICALLY. On legitimate scientific questions of our time, there are many different opinions with some degree of credibility, and I'd never presume that mine are all correct. On pseudoscientific issues of our time such as those I mentioned above, the only credible opinion is one of extreme skepticism.

 

That's an awfully ironic statement coming from somebody that said:

 

The media do a fair job. Yes they are open to being brought like pretty much everyone else on this planet but nothing new there. Anyone who thinks the media just spout constant lies is about as dilusional as anyone who thinks that everything that comes out of the TV is pure truth. Critical thought is the ability to read between the lines, spot crucial caveats, and remove unesessary emotion. Just taking everything on tv and reversing it has all the hallmarks of someone in a state of complete cognitive surrender. Listen to any interview with a politician, the idea isn't to lie and get away with it, the idea is not to answer the question you've just been asked.
If you have a theory provide evidence. Baseless theories such as the Philadelphia experiment and the events at Roswell have destroyed any hope we have of discovering the truth behind them. This shows the damage that consipary theories can do to real attempts to solve mysteries.

 

As would I. However, I would not put forth effort to stifle the opinions of those who believed that. These are absurd and extreme examples btw. You cannot possibly compare aliens and ufos to the attacks of 9/11. That is truly irresponsible. Hence I have to question your drive. I don't get it.
I'm sure there are many websites that discuss aliens, UFOs, etc....but I don't go there. I don't care. You do. Why?
People like you don't want to discuss 9/11. You just want people to shut up about it. As I said, I don't get it.

 

I don't think I've really mentioned 9/11 very much, at least not any time recently...

I believe there are sociological benefits to educating people in critical thinking.

Not at all. I'd be more than happy to discuss the underlying motives the hijackers had, the psychology of committing suicide and taking 3,000 people with you, what the appropriate response by the United States should have been, etc.

What I won't entertain are the unfounded claims that the United States knew about 9/11 ahead of time, or that all of the Jews stayed home from the World Trade Towers that day, or that the Pentagon was never attacked at all. If you want to convince me of something like that, you'll have to show some evidence...evidence which does not exist.

 

You wouldn't know what critical thinking was if you shit it out of your ass.

 

How can you be so obtuse? What stupidity!

I hardly ever agree with Kandahar because I think he errs on the side of the safe and the normal, "inside the box" if you will, but I respect his opinion and he argues and defends it well, and like a gentleman I should add.

But you lose all respect and credibility when you descend into this kind of response. What is wrong with your mind man?

 

What is wrong with you? I wasn't talking to you!

Yes, it was rather obtuse. Frankly, I don't care. I rarely get rude like that, but I am now. It's the internet, so who really cares? Apparently you do.

I am sick of people attacking others because of THEIR (the former) lack of research and knowledge, and lack of having an open-mind. There is a core about about 5 people at this website who have long been attacking me and others for what we believe.

I have a reason to be obtuse and it does not concern you.

 

It matters not whether we are on the Internet or the star system Sirius pal.

It is wrong and dumb to destroy your credibility so easily and quickly.

Lose your temper but take a walk and think it over before you respond so that you don’t behave like a fool.

And please don’t tell me when I can or can not enter into a public argument; I don't need your approval! I always butt into fights and arguments on the net and in real life, and you can say yes or no and I don’t care … this is a public forum - if you have a personal thing with Kandahar then take it to the personal posts.

If you have a public point to make then make it. Otherwise bow out gracefully without disparaging your opponent.

 

OK ref!

I don't think any credibility was lost. What he said was that, -in other (less offensive) words- Kandahar is not familiar with critical thinking. I must agree. It was not an insult, but a fact.

 

well, I can't keep track of everyone here, there is a group that does what I mentioned.

In this we are in agreement, but we apparently disagree as to what critical thinking is.

sigh.

You won't "entertain" these claims? Now, what was that about critical thinking? And just what do you know about it?

 

Let me explain how you go about making a claim. First you make a hypothesis this can be as stupid or amazing as you like , something like grasss is blue, today is yesterday, the Pentagon wasn't attacked whatever flicks your switch. Then you gather evidence, usually along the lines of an experiment or a piece of investigative journalism, or indeed looking at before after photos of the Pentagon. You then proceed to anaylse your data, at all time bearing in mind your hyposthesis, are you at all times critically looking for evidence supporting or otherwise. In the case of the Pentagon this would be pictures of a nice clean building followed by a plane, followed by clouds of smoke, then piles of rubble. The final step is to draw a conclusion. Based on the evidence it would seem likely that the damage to the Pentagon was in fact caused by the plane that hit moments before.
Did America know more about sept 11th than it let on? Possibly. Was there some backhand deals to get people out of the country. Probably. Though I suspect neither of those questions will be definitively answered. Was the Pentagon hit? C'mon, I'm trying to stay objective but to say the least the evidence suggests that this isn't necessarily a winner.
I'd be lying if I said I liked this extreme form of conspiracy theory I've already stated why I feel its harmful. But what worries me more is this apaprent lack of scientific method. Whether people take their beliefs from a major news source or some conspiracy website stuck in the far flung corners of the web is not important. Its the fact they do so taking it at face value without exploring the evidence, espiecially if it supports a view point they agree with. In the UK I rarely read the standard left wing newspaper because I will tend to broadly agree with most things it says reducing teh amount I think about my reading. Instead I often read the newspaper of choice for conservative voters (main opposition party for Blair, nominally similar to the republicans in the US). Not because I agree with it but precisely because it challenges my beliefs and forces me to think critically about the articles. If I can't find a flaw it forces me to consider my point of view on that issue, if an issue seems black or white it usually means you havent considered it enough.