Users Online Now:
2,032
(
Who's On?
)
Visitors Today:
524,596
Pageviews Today:
836,745
Threads Today:
338
Posts Today:
5,225
09:01 AM
Directory
Adv. Search
Topics
Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
REPLY TO THREAD
Subject
Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
User Name
Font color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
Black
Font:
Default
Verdana
Tahoma
Ms Sans Serif
In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 50% of the source material, provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article.
[quote:Anonymous Coward 758858:MV84MTQ3MzlfMTQwMTQ3NTBfN0NGRThFMDk=] [b]Forteana and mainstream science[/b]Some skeptics and critics have frequently called Fort credulous and naïve, a charge his supporters deny strongly. Over and over again in his writing, Fort rams home a few basic points that were decades ahead of mainstream scientific acceptance, and that are frequently forgotten in discussions of the history and philosophy of science: • Fort often notes that the boundaries between science and pseudoscience are "fuzzy": the boundary lines are not very well defined, and they might change over time. • Fort also points out that whereas facts are objective, how facts are interpreted depends on who is doing the interpreting and in what context. • Fort insisted that there is a strong sociological influence on what is considered "acceptable" or "damned" (see strong program in the sociology of scientific knowledge). • Though he never used the term "magical thinking", Fort offered many arguments and observations that are similar to the concept: he argued that most (if not all) people (including scientists) are at least occasionally guilty of irrational and "non scientific" thinking. • Fort points out the problem of underdetermination: that the same data can sometimes be explained by more than one theory. • Similarly, writer John Michell notes that "Fort gave several humorous instances of the same experiment yielding two different results, each one gratifying the experimenter."[8] Fort noted that if controlled experiments – a pillar of the scientific method – could produce such widely varying results depending on who conducted them, then the scientific method itself might be open to doubt, or at least to a degree of scrutiny rarely brought to bear. Since Fort's death, scientists have recognized the "experimenter effect", the tendency for experiments to tend to validate given preconceptions. Robert Rosenthal has conducted pioneering research on this and related subjects. [/quote]
Original Message
Debunker Talk Live Chat May 15
Feel free to quote
ANY
poster from those silly SOZT...EOZT threads etc etc.
Or just post your thoughts/opinions.
Open Discussion on Zetatalk; Bunkers; and it/their inability, over the last
Six
years to provide
ANY
truthful Facts and Knowledge to support the absurd
Failed
predictions of the "Candy Wrapper Aliens".
Let's see how long the Three "bunker" Amigos can bounce off each other in their little padded room over there on
Zetatalk Jive Turkey Chat!!
PS: If any of you debunkers want to meet in the GLP text/voice chat for some LIVE audio conversation we should set a day/time to meet up in one of the rooms to have a discussion etc.
Would find it a pleasure to converse with some of you guys. I mean there's a wealth of different subjects to talk about besides this silly zetatalk stuff.
Pictures (click to insert)
General
Politics
Bananas
People
Potentially Offensive
Emotions
Big Round Smilies
Aliens and Space
Friendship & Love
Textual
Doom
Misc Small Smilies
Religion
Love
Random
View All Categories
|
Next Page >>