TRANSFERRED FROM: Operation Clambake Forum: Opinions & Debate: Baloney Detection article in Nov 2001 Scientific American Don_Carlo (Don_Carlo) Thursday, October 25, 2001 - 04:39 am Stimpson, being a scientists, you'll like this article. http://www.sciam.com/2001/1101issue/1101skeptic.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Stimpson J. Cat (Stimpson) Thursday, October 25, 2001 - 10:51 am I agree. A very good article. Quoted: When lecturing on science and pseudoscience at colleges and universities, I am inevitably asked, after challenging common beliefs held by many students, "Why should we believe you?" My answer: "You shouldn't." I have expressed this very sentiment on this board, many times. Don't take anybody's word for it. Check out the facts, and come to a conclusion based on the evidence. Apply that principle to Scientology, and it all comes crashing down like a house of cards. Dr. Stupid ``~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Don_Carlo (Don_Carlo) Sunday, November 25, 2001 - 03:38 am Dec 2001 Scientific American has part 2 of Baloney Detection, continuing the essay from November. QUOTE: Is the claimant employing the accepted rules of reason and tools of research, or have these been abandoned in favor of others that lead to the desired conclusion? A clear distinction can be made between SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) scientists and UFOlogists. SETI scientists begin with the null hypothesis that ETIs do not exist and that they must provide concrete evidence before making the extraordinary claim that we are not alone in the universe. UFOlogists begin with the positive hypothesis that ETIs exist and have visited us, then employ questionable research techniques to support that belief, such as hypnotic regression (revelations of abduction experiences), anecdotal reasoning (countless stories of UFO sightings), conspiratorial thinking (governmental cover-ups of alien encounters)... END QUOTE fromhttp://www.sciam.com/2001/1201issue/1201skeptic.html My comment: Skeptics begin with the null hypothesis that OT abilities (like telepathy & telekinesis) do not exist and they need concrete evidence (like Randi's million-dollar challenge). Pro-COS speakers begin with the hypothesis that these abilities do exist and "prove" them by isolated and coincidental events, like "making" a red light turn green, or that OT abilities turn on and off, so that correct guesses are "proof" and wrong guesses are the abilities taking a vacation. E.J. gets emotional when I criticize belief in things like OT abilities, and calls me bigoted. But COS hooks people by peddling unproven hopes of magical power. Everybody since age 4 would like to read minds, move objects with thought, and slip out of the body to roam the universe. Just keep paying money or performing slave labor, and the powers are promised someday. But nobody in COS can demonstrate these powers in front of skeptical magicians. COS recruiters may sincerely believe the abilities will come, or that turning red stoplights green is proof of god-like powers. They may get angry at me for popping their bubble. I guess the truth hurts, but it's less mean than regging people into bankruptcy for false promises. COS management is cynically encouraging the falsehood that this is some new scientifically proven philosophy "beyond physics." Later the student is told it's really about believing what Ron said. By then the critical thinking skills have been dulled by anti-reason auditing sessions, and any criticism becomes "bigotry." This is the hook that traps my relative.

Go Back