Call it a lost cause

[circumspice]

You guys have become insufferable boors.

Your 'discussions' have degenerated into nothing more than juvenile flame fests. You vie with one another to deliver the most insulting set down possible.

Grow up.

[Tiompan]

Note , one side provides content e.g. evidence , which is not a red herring or insulting .

[uniface]

You guys have become insufferable boors.

Your 'discussions' have degenerated into nothing more than juvenile flame fests. You vie with one another to deliver the most insulting set down possible.

Grow up.

When did you become Miss Manners ?

Any of these sound familiar ?

To understand uniface, you must remember that he is a Neo Nazi, White Supremacist, aluminum foil hatted conspiracy theorist & hate monger. If you understand his ideology, you understand why he keeps spewing all that nonsense.

Good job uni...

Your misogynistic drivel compliments your white supremacist ethos quite well.

Even a charlatan, if he makes enough 'predictions' will have a small percentage appear to 'come true'. It's called the shotgun approach...

Case in point: Edgar Cayce.

Oops!

One of your heroes uni?

Not to overlook the classic

[Tiompan]

You have produced damning evidence Uni .

If there's anything more pathetic than the single lol smiley
It's the "classic "

[kbs2244]

It is boring

[Minimalist]

Most of the threads that generate any sort of reaction are fringe stuff. Pseudo-archaeology, pseudo-science, etc. Would be nice to talk about actual archaeological finds but I guess that is too boring.

[Tiompan]

Of course it's tedious ,but should we allow the pseudo stuff to go unchallenged ?

[uniface]

Should we allow the pseudo stuff to go unchallenged ?

Somebody appoint you Moses the Lawgiver ?

Anybody I know ?

If you can't distinguish between content and the site/source it was found in, you've no business wading in. If all you can do is judge by source, every government press release will meet the gold standard of credibility (until it turns out to be another self-serving lie) while anything critical of the establishment version of any field will be damnable heresy (until it turns out to have been the truth).

Brand loyalty is out of place.

[Tiompan]

Challenging is not law giving .

There are however some laws of logic ,and they are often contravened by the pseudo crowd .

[uniface]

T -- everybody purports to worship at the shrine of Logic. But then most of them turn right around and ignore it without missing a beat.

Is it logical to write off the possible value of information/ideas that are found in other-than-current-mainstream venues because they are out of step with the current parade ?

By 1900 the possibility of manned, heavier-than-air flight had been lumped with perpetual motion machines and discussion of it banned by the serious journals (Scientific American included).

A great many more could be adduced. Like Continental Drift . . .

[Minimalist]

By all means, if you find evidence for some of your loonier ideas be sure to let us know.

[Tiompan]

T -- everybody purports to worship at the shrine of Logic. But then most of them turn right around and ignore it without missing a beat.

Is it logical to write off the possible value of information/ideas that are found in other-than-current-mainstream venues because they are out of step with the current parade ?

By 1900 the possibility of manned, heavier-than-air flight had been lumped with perpetual motion machines and discussion of it banned by the serious journals (Scientific American included).

A great many more could be adduced. Like Continental Drift . . .

U ,

If someone is being illogical it can be easily highlighted .
Ader had achieved manned heavier-than-air flight before 1900 , he was a scientist .Wegener was a scientist .
Scientists make mistakes and always will , often others scientists point out these mistakes . That is not a reason to abandon the method .

On the whole it has been a success .
That is not the case with pseudoscientists ,and pseudoarchaeologists .
As long as they twitter on about non falsifiable stuff like , "maybe there was a civilsation that had nuclear power 2 million years ago but just because we can't find the evidence doesn't mean it didn't happen " then
they cover their tracks , get them to make falsifiable claims ,like real scientists , and their results are pitiful .

[uniface]

Wilhelm Reich had little sympathy or patience with his fellow physicians whose idea of "medicine" boiled down to stuff like urine analysis. Similarly Jack Hranicky with those he calls "arrowhead archaeologists" who, in the absence of point types, dismiss site discoveries as mere "lithic scatters" because they have no idea how to identify the people who produced them.

News Flash : The very Theory of Evolution you take as gospel is an idea incapable of proof.

The problems Denton outlined more than thirty years ago are still there.

First, the pattern of life is discontinuous. Organisms can be grouped according to their defining characteristics, with groups like classes and phyla having no fossil intermediates. There is no partly limbed fish, with half-formed feet (see the book for a thorough discussion of this -- I know some of you are thinking, "ButTiktaalik!"), no hairy reptile, and no partly placental marsupial.

The second reason for holding this view is the inability of neo-Darwinian theory to account for anything other than small-scale change. Extrapolation from microevolution to macroevolution cannot be observed and is merely a hypothesis . . .

Book review @
http://www.sott.net/article/311156-Evol ... -in-crisis

[uniface]

T : my point is that they were so cocksure that their assumptions & calculations were correct that the major publications did ban the topic as feebleminded daydreaming.

It isn't about what they should have done. It's one example of them doing exactly what I'm citing. In their view, upholding the integrity of "science." In retrospect, being pompous idiots.

[Tiompan]

T : my point is that they were so cocksure that their assumptions & calculations were correct that the major publications did ban the topic as feebleminded daydreaming.

It isn't about what they should have done. It's one example of them doing exactly what I'm citing. In their view, upholding the integrity of "science." In retrospect, being pompous idiots.

U

the whole point about science is that it is never "right " , only more right than the previous model , but you can show that others are wrong .
It is always in crisis and will never achieve "truth " .
That's for the pseudos .