How to bake a funda-science/cms belief system

[bsmurph83]

HOW TO BAKE A FUNDA-SCIENCE/Close-Minded Sceptic BELIEF SYSTEM

Take;

A pinch of partisanship,
A splash of credulity,
A sprig of denial,
A cup of fiat,
A dash of ad hominem
A quart of rationalism, and
A comfortable chair (you won’t be doing much leg work)

Mix thoroughly in a large bowl and leave to settle (indefinitely). Be sure to shoo away any Novelty Bugs or Inconvenient Facts should they pass by too closely (they are known to rapidly devour this dish). It is best served cold - preferably without humour or mirth (and don't forget to garnish with conceit). As an added extra you could throw in some dodgey connections (the CIA should spice things up a bit) and conflicting interests, but these are usually reserved for special occasions. For parties and entertaining, try throwing in a magician or two and be sure to make lots of references to ‘conjuring tricks’, ‘credulity’ and ‘pseudo-science’. Note: Be sure to retain a straight face for added effect.

[bsmurph83]

I've posted this in reference to all those pseudo-sceptics and debunkers who constantly rant that there is "nothing to the paranormal - it doesn't exist," all the while lying and misrepresenting data to the public (and each other) to further their agenda.

I'm satirising their mindset. Ok, admittedly it isn't difficult, but why shouldn't we have some fun at the expense of vitriolic, rapacious and belligerent twats who treat those with a different, broader outlook with contempt?

More to come... :cool:

[bsmurph83]

...that 'sceptics' don't lie to make a point, as they are 'impartial.'

If only.

Rupert Sheldrake speaking of some of James Randi’s assertions about his work with animal precognition:

“Randi also claimed to have debunked one of my experiments with the dog Jaytee, a part of which was shown on television. Jaytee went to the window to wait for his owner when she set off to come home, but did not do so before she set off. In Dog World, Randi stated: "Viewing the entire tape, we see that the dog responded to every car that drove by, and to every person who walked by." This is simply not true, and Randi now admits that he has never seen the tape.” (http://www.dailygrail.com/features/the-myth-of-james-randis-million-dollar-challenge) [my emphasis]

Amazing. The sheer brazenness is incredible. This recalls Shermer’s ‘review’ of Sheldrake’s book – which Shermer hadn’t read. It makes you wonder what passes for small talk in the world of the pseudo-sceptic...

“Hey did you see that film on the weekend?”
“No. You?”
“Neither. Wasn’t it just awful?”
“Absolutely. Wanna go burn some parapsychology literature?”
“Sweet. Maybe there’s some Reich left in the public library too...”
“What’s a library?”

What IS it with these ‘sceptics’ (should we drop the ‘c’)? Clearly their target demographic is the pseudo-sceptical fraternity whom they obviously assume will not bother to check the accuracy of their Priesthood’s pronouncements, so long as they are in alignment with their cherished beliefs. Ain’t faith just swell?

*Note: All of this is copyrighted (as is any original work the moment you create it)

[veritasvoice]

You've hit the nail on the head, mate.

As with science, religion and the media, skepticism has developed a mainstream fundamentalist aspect, that cannot be challenged.

A little skepticism is healthy, but the mainstream skeptics take it to an unhealthy ignorant extreme, dismissing anything that isn't "scientific" or "rational", which in itself isn't a rational action.

[bsmurph83]

'unhealthy' is a good word for it!

cheers!

[bsmurph83]

This test illustrates one way in which the pseudo-sceptic edits information out due to their preconceptions and narrow attention. They never see any evidence for things they ardently disbelieve in, because their limited perception edits it out (not to mention repeated refulsals to study evidence offered them).

Excellent stuff this is, you'll kick yourself heheh

See here:

http://www.personalgrowthcourses.net/video/perceptual_experiment