• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Scientific Publications

I would ask the mod to step in at this point, but he is a self confessed sceptic too.
It still seems that this is reallty just an idea you have about how things are, perhaps influenced by a grudge against science rooted in bad teachers/schooling from a point earlier in your past.
If this is not ad hominem then I'm at a loss to think what would be

As I recall, my own question remains unanswered and no it has not been discussed by anyone but myself. An explanation is required or your accusations are invalid. Can it be that scepticism has its own agenda and uses science as a cover?:
Formal logic is our word based gift from nature that helps us understand what's going on.
Science and scientific mathematics avoid formal logic because science is not logical. An idea of what physics thinks of logic can be found here:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/logic.htm

It is in the nature of science that something being proved must also be able to be disproved.

The sceptical view of science is that it will someday reach a mythical pinnacle where everything will be explained - a theory of everything, contrary to the idea of disproof.

This is, first not science and second illogical, as a theory of everything is impossible because it's impossible to be sure that you know what everything is.

The prevailing opinion on this forum is directed towards not seeming to believe or denying the very quintessence of the science it supports.

It may be a good idea to sort out where we all stand regarding such things? ;)
Not a peep, not a protestation, not an answer from anyone? ;)
 
Ghostisfort said:
Not a peep, not a protestation, not an answer from anyone? ;)

Apart from the forty-one pages of responses in this thread alone, none at all.
 
Ghostisfort said:
I would ask the mod to step in at this point, but he is a self confessed sceptic too.

...
I have been keeping an eye on things, but since the rudeness and discourtesy seems so evenly spread, it's hard to tell who's worse. No one actually complains in a proper fashion and the argie-bargy continues.

P_M :lol:
 
gncxx said:
Ghostisfort said:
Not a peep, not a protestation, not an answer from anyone? ;)

Apart from the forty-one pages of responses in this thread alone, none at all.

To this...not a peep:

Formal logic is our word based gift from nature that helps us understand what's going on.
Science and scientific mathematics avoid formal logic because science is not logical. An idea of what physics thinks of logic can be found here:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/logic.htm

It is in the nature of science that something being proved must also be able to be disproved.

The sceptical view of science is that it will someday reach a mythical pinnacle where everything will be explained - a theory of everything, contrary to the idea of disproof.

This is, first not science and second illogical, as a theory of everything is impossible because it's impossible to be sure that you know what everything is.

The prevailing opinion on this forum is directed towards not seeming to believe or denying the very quintessence of the science it supports.

It may be a good idea to sort out where we all stand regarding such things?
It requires a declaration in support of real science or pure dogmatic scepticism
It indirectly asks the question: is your science a religion or a research tool?

PM This is what it's really about.

This problem will persist as long as you let the sceptics call the shots on a Fortean forum.
This problem will persist as long as you encourage the sceptics to drive true Forteans off the forum.

In support of the above, there is a post by cherry-b that says, 'We've had people like you before, but they don't last long'.

This is blatant sceptic infiltration for the sole purpose of destroying Fortean philosophy.
You and the other mod's are directly responsible for allowing the destruction of the only Internet based Fortean Times message board.
Shame on you all!
 
You are confusing those who are sceptical of your views as being sceptics about everything else too. It also seems that you are unfamiliar with the posting history of the people you berate for being sceptics, and about the discussions they've been involved in.

This forum is not overrun nor controlled by sceptics. All that is happening is that some people don't share your ideas and have been challenging them on various levels. Why did you expect otherwise, if you post such things on a public internet forum? Were you perhaps expecting everyone to agree with you? Was this all perhaps an exercise in self-aggrandisement on your part?
 
This thread seems more than a little fractious at the moment, so I'm temporarily closing it (in order both to catch up and to let things cool down), then we'll decide how to carry on.
 
End of Skeptic Magazine (U.S)?

Pat Linse of Skeptic (US) magazine died a few months ago. Just yesterday, Daniel Loxton who wrote the Jr. Skeptic insert for the mag was let go. Being that Michael Shermer doesn't seem to give a crap about the publication, it's possible this is the end of it. I would bet their subscribers were on the downswing and will hemorrhage with this news. Shermer doesn't seem to have set up anything past himself for the Skeptic Society based in California. And, he's been out of the loop when it comes to mainstream discussions of typical skeptical-themed topics, and, one could say he's out to lunch on most science topics as well.
 
Saw this weblog, it looks very interesting:
https://arbesman.substack.com/?sort=new

Example:
The Philosopher’s Stone was an elusive goal of alchemists, ostensibly capable of producing the elixir of life and transmuting lead into gold. Or maybe it was itself the elixir of life? When it comes to the ideas in alchemy, I find things to be a bit hazy (it also doesn’t help that the Philosopher’s Stone doesn’t actually exist). But unlike the Stone itself, a presumed precursor for the Stone was actually able to be made: the Philosopher’s Tree.

Example:
I love glitches. Obviously not all the time or in every case. In many situations, technological failures can be dire and these should be rooted out. But when they don’t have drastic consequences, or affect essential services, technological glitches can be more than just annoying; they are also beautiful and funny, sources of delight, or even sources of unintentional art or discovery.

https://arbesman.substack.com/p/-in-praise-of-glitches
 
Back
Top