Up In Arms
by MikeGeneIf you ask me, Shalini, the self-described "pro-Dawkins evangelical atheist," is becoming increasingly confused. In response to "Don't Call Me Miltant!!," Shalini has this to say:
Over at Telic Thoughts, MikeGene is apparently up in arms over my anti-appeaser post.
This is a classic example of projection.
Shalini is obviously the one "up in arms," as she lashes out at the "appeasers," "cowards," and "spineless pushovers" who won't do what they are supposed to do in the war (don't forget she is complaining about other atheists). All I did was showcase some of her rhetoric on a lazy Sunday, as it is somewhat amusing, at least to me, to see someone aggresively complaining about the "cowards" while also complaining that others perceive this type of posturing as militancy.
As much as I love basking in the love hate of those morons, I had to laugh when the I saw how alike the ID-iots and the appeasers are.
Dawkins has clearly inspired a lot of name-calling among his fans. All of this is part of the intimidation strategy among the New Atheists, where militants seek to bully their opponents into silence with belligerent rhetoric, nasty accusations, name-calling, and ridicule. But that's not the significant fact. Note here that Shalini lumps the "ID-iots" with the "appeasers." When you see yourself as being in a war against all religious people, and then go on to accuse many non-religious people of being cowards and appeasers for not adopting the war strategy, this makes you an extremist.
Yup, you've guessed it. I am described (for what seems like the billionth time) as a 'fundamentalist, militant atheist'. Are the ID-iots and their appeaser bedfellows really that out of ideas?
Isn't it odd how some people can so effortlessly call other people "IDiots," "morons," "cowards," "spineless pushovers," and "appeasers," yet seem so awfully thin-skinned when others liken this name-calling to militancy or fundamentalism?
Some of the the questions I have always posed to ID-iots are: How do their rants against atheism (or their beloved term 'New Atheism') benefit ID?
First, a clarification. The dictionary defines rant as follows:
"to speak or declaim extravagantly or violently; talk in a wild or vehement way"
Now, this is not a rant.
This is what a rant looks like. 
Second, as far as the term "New Atheist" goes, it's not mine, as I did not invent it. While some may opt for the distinction between atheist and appeaser, I prefer atheist and New Atheist.
Third, let's answer the question. Chuckling at the rants of militant atheists or critiquing the extremism of Richard Dawkins does not "benefit" ID. I agree, as I never claimed it did.
Furthermore, if ID isn't religious in nature, why bother with those rants (which make up most of their UD and TT posts) in the first place?
Clearly, as any TT reader knows, such "rants" do not make up most of the TT posts. Shalini is just peddling stereotypes. So why bother? I'm intrigued with the manner in which Dawkins seems to inspire his fans. While we hear all this talk about being "pro-reason" and "pro-science" on the internet, he seems to better inspire a form of belligerent bullying.
July 24th, 2007 at 1:39 am
Maybe it's just me, but somehow I don't think Shalini is that serious. It almost seems like a show. I don't sense real anger or malicious intent, not like what I sense from Larry Moran, Richard Dawkins, Daniell Dennett, and Peter Singer.
Reminds me of somone trying to be manipulative, but not truly meaning what they say. She said:
Reminds me of someone suggesting a breakup when they really in their heart want to hold on. Shalini deep down loves those Chamerlainite appeaser atheists. She's just saying she wants to split with them, but she likes them.
But deep down she loves those spineless cowards, and quitely hopes her milk-toast companions will act in a little more manly manner, and be the hero instead of the coward, that's all. She's trying to manipulate them into being more studly about their cause, she really doesn't want to part with them, she wants them to change.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 24, 2007 @ 1:39 am
July 24th, 2007 at 9:30 am
Samuel,
Actually, she would have done much better by exposing her friends to a few print-outs from "OverwhelingEvidence.com". I challenge anybody to maintain neutrality after experiencing ID directly from it's finest advocates.
OE is surreal even by ID's quite extraordinary standards. Does anybody have a favourite article? This one is mine:
http://www.overwhelmingevidenc...
Remember to read all the comments, that is the joy of OE!
Comment by salimfadhley — July 24, 2007 @ 9:30 am
July 24th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Hi salim,
A perpetual motion machine? Please tell me OE is a parody site.
Comment by Aagcobb — July 24, 2007 @ 9:45 am
July 24th, 2007 at 10:07 am
OE is owned by William Dembski but effectivly managed by Samuel Chen who also manages a number of ID advocacy web-sites aimed at college age kids. I'm pretty sure it is not a satirical site, unless somebody has been forging all of those Denyse Oleary blog-posts. OE run a moderation system, so this post had to be approved by Sam in order to be visible.
As a strict materialist, I'm certain that any claims of a "free energy" machine are either lies or the result of self-delusion compounded by earnest wishful thinking. It's pretty safe to dismiss these claims without any further investigation. Do you agree?
Comment by salimfadhley — July 24, 2007 @ 10:07 am
July 24th, 2007 at 10:14 am
Another OE gem…
http://www.overwhelmingevidenc...
William Dembski did all the voices!
Comment by salimfadhley — July 24, 2007 @ 10:14 am
July 24th, 2007 at 10:15 am
Hi salim,
Of course; only an idiot would give even a single penny to someone claiming to have invented a perpetual motion machine. You might as well give your bank account number to a Nigerian who wants you to launder millions of $ for him.
p.s. I wonder when the investors in Steorn will figure out they have been conned? Its funny, apparently you can post any claim on OE as long as you rail against materialism.
Comment by Aagcobb — July 24, 2007 @ 10:15 am
July 24th, 2007 at 10:36 am
The same could be said for almost any ID / New-age site. Take for example Stunney and MCromer's claims regarding the authenticity of psychic phenomena. On any other site these would be dismissed as obviously bogus prank postings.
Psychic and religious frauds are even older than perpetual motion frauds.
Comment by salimfadhley — July 24, 2007 @ 10:36 am
July 24th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Does the fact that Piltdown Man was a fraud mean that all evolutionary science is fraudulent? Does this case indicate that all cloning and stem cell research is bogus?
Are you simply too dogmatic to consider that there are both fraudulent and genuine psi phenomena?
In any event, your opinion on the matter is completely worthless, since you are utterly unfamiliar with the evidence. Evidence which caused Carl Sagan, a tireless promoter of materialism, to remark was strong enough to deserve further investigation. That's because he actually looked into the evidence a bit — which you have failed to do.
Comment by mcromer — July 24, 2007 @ 10:59 am
July 24th, 2007 at 11:13 am
If Stoern ever gets their promised demo machine running, I think it would be extremely worthwhile for scientists to take a look and see what is going on.
It seems likely that they are either
1) frauds
or
2) unintentionally tapping into some normal source of energy such as powerline electro-magnetic fields, etc.
rather than
3) have created an over unity machine
but in any case it would be good science to investigate and demonstrate which of the three is correct.
Refusing to investigate is simply a sign of fear and/or laziness.
Comment by mcromer — July 24, 2007 @ 11:13 am
July 24th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Wow.
I guess that's the difference between people who are open to the possibilities, and those who already "know" what is real and whose minds cannot be changed.
Between dogmatism and real science.
Comment by mcromer — July 24, 2007 @ 11:17 am
July 24th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Piltdown-man was not a fraud perpetrated by evolutionary scientists, it was a fraud detected and debunked by evolutionary scientists.
The piltdown story shows how easily confirmation bias can cause people to mis-interpret evidence. The same can be said for believers in perpetual motion who hailed Steorn's "discovery" as a genuine scientific advance without actually understanding any of the basic physics that proves this is impossible.
I think my opinion on perpetual motion is perfectly adequate to dismiss the extraordinary claims made without a detailed review. As one noted biologist recently remarked: "Do I need to be fully familiar with fairie-lore in order to dismiss the notion that there are farie-folk at the bottom of my garden?"
MCromer, what did you think of the article on OE that we were discussing? Do you feel I am right to dismiss it as obvious bunk from somebody who is either deluded or a prankster? Why did the ID supporters on OE.com find this obviously preposterous story so appealing?
Comment by salimfadhley — July 24, 2007 @ 11:22 am
July 24th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Piltdown was perpetuated by an amateur evolutionary scientist and hailed by many other evolutionary scientists.
Obviously entropy reducing operations are not impossible — the low entropy state of the universe is itself proof of this.
Whether Stoern has managed to find a way to accomplish this is very doubtful, but that doesn't mean their claims should be dismissed. Instead they should be investigated and their fraud exposed, or investigated and their mistake demonstrated. And who knows, there is always the possibility, however remote, that they might have found something very interesting. . .
I'm very intrigued by Stoern. If they are frauds, I want to find out more about what they are trying to do with their fraud. If they are simply mistaken, perhaps tapping into some kind of ambient electromagnetic fields from power switching equipment, etc. , I want to know the details.
If by some chance they have discovered something new about the universe, that's even more interesting, and I want to know about it.
I'm a curious person. I'm intrigued by mystery. Apparently you are quite the opposite. . .
Comment by mcromer — July 24, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
July 24th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
I realized I have to qualify my agreement with salim. Steorn's claim doesn't warrant any further investigation, unless I work for a police agency and a criminal fraud case against them was opened.
mcromer:
Please tell me, exactly how much money should be invested in investigating claims that a ppm has been invented? If you are "open" enough to such claims, you will eventually go bankrupt. PPMs are nothing but cons designed to separate the gullible from their money.
What has been completely worthless, so far, are psi claims. For purposes of contrast, lets compare psi claims to the claim that invisible electromagnetic radiation flows all around us. People have been claiming to possess psi powers for thousands of years, and so far, the only economic activity generated from those claims is taking money from the gullible. In contrast, electromagnetic radiation, a real phenomenon, has, from the humble beginnings of the telegraph, which actually allowed nearly instantaneous transmission of information across great distance, spawned a vast communication industry (a part of which we are utilizing right here) and enabled us to explore the universe. If psi powers were real, by now they would have been harnessed so that we could be having this conversation without having to rely on computers and electricity. Let me know when telepathy companies start going head-to-head with AT&T in providing communication networks to big business; I'm not going to hold my breath.
Comment by Aagcobb — July 24, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
July 24th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
Yeah, someone would have to be a stupid fundamentalist to believe energy can suddenly appear from nothing out of nowhere. Or that one set of matter can influence another set of matter at a distance instantaneously (faster than the speed of light - puhlease).
"Oh, but that's different!" Sure it is, sure it is. It comes out of a completely different set of mouths, therefore it is different.
Comment by angryoldfatman — July 24, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
July 24th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
Hi angryoldfatman,
Predictions based on quantum mechanics have been verified experimentally again and again. Perpetual motion machines remain a fantasy. Thats why they are different.
Comment by Aagcobb — July 24, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
July 24th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
I wouldn't invest any money. But I'd certainly be interested in reading what some disinterested party said about their demo (if they actually ever do a demo, as promised). But then again, I'm curious about things. Apparently the materialists around TT are not very curious. . .
How do you know that? Have you examined the evidence for, say, the mediumship of Leonora Piper? If you have not, then your judgement is worthless.
There is a huge difference between something material and a phenomena of consciousness.
The fact that you judge something without even investigating the evidence shows a tremendous lack of curiosity and intellectual laziness, coupled with a religious flavor of dogmatism.
Comment by mcromer — July 24, 2007 @ 1:43 pm
July 24th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Stoern managed to finance a full-page ad in the economist.
They've apparently gotten some scientists to look at their device.
They've gotten a bunch of buzz.
It's amazing to me that you don't want to know what's going on with them. If it's just a scam, I want to know the details of the scam.
But then again, I'm curious about the world I live in, while apparently you've already figured everything out and are completely jaded and bored with it all. . .
Comment by mcromer — July 24, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
July 24th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Hello mcromer,
I have examined the evidence. I just checked my mind, and I haven't received a single offer to replace my telephone, cable tv or cable modem with a nifty new subscription to telepathic service. That tells me telepathy doesn't work and electromagnetic radiation does, because if telepathy was real, smart people would have harnessed it to make lots of money (other than by conning the gullible).
In fact, I have been reading about the orbo today. Like many ppm scams, its based on magnets. I am very interested in what real scientists are learning about the universe, but I have limited interest in scams people have been running for millenia that were debunked by Harry Houdini. As I said, I'll know telepathy is real when American Telepathic Communications Inc. pops an ad into my head offering a subscription to their service.
Added in edit: Man, if you think telemarketers are irritating, wait until we have to deal with telepathic marketers!
Comment by Aagcobb — July 24, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
July 24th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Aagcobb,
The depth and rigour of your analysis is truly enlightening. I can easily imagine you as one of many of my classmates in school, asking the professor "will this be on the test"
Make sure you check the badges of your "real scientists" carefully. You wouldn't want to be taken in by the wrong kind of scientist. . .
Comment by mcromer — July 24, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
July 24th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Hi mcromer,
Fortunately, I am aware of the fact that just because someone calling himself a scientist makes a claim, that doesn't automatically make it accurate. Claims have to be validated by evidence and experimentation. There are a lot of people calling themselves scientists making claims which are unverifiable. Thats why I don't take claims about psychic powers seriously. People have been falsely claiming to have such powers for thousands of years, so until the scientific community takes such claims seriously, I don't see any reason why I should. Not being trained as a scientist, I lack the skills to test fantastic claims myself, but the complete lack of any progress in the field is, IMO, telling.
Comment by Aagcobb — July 24, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
July 24th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Psi phenomena are not (mainly) about people claiming special powers.
Most psi phenomena happen spontaneously to ordinary people, like author Michael Prescott.
Comment by mcromer — July 24, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
July 24th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Unverifiable anecdotes aren't compelling scientific evidence.
Comment by Aagcobb — July 24, 2007 @ 3:39 pm
July 24th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
There's tons of compelling scientific evidence, but you aren't interested in that anyway. . .
Comment by mcromer — July 24, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
July 24th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
As I explained, mcromer, I lack the skill and knowledge to evaluate fantastic claims. So when only a fringe group of true believers find the scientific evidence compelling, it makes me skeptical that the scientific evidence really is compelling. Let me know when the mainstream scientific community finds the evidence for psychic phenomenon compelling. Then again, don't worry about letting me know; everyone will know, because it'll be the biggest news story of the century.
Comment by Aagcobb — July 24, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
July 24th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
What does this mean, Aagcobb? Does the "mainstream scientific community" (what the heck is this and who is in it?) make pronouncements on all things scientific before claims are accepted? Or does it mean no more than this: 'I will believe it when the scientists *I* trust tell me it is true'.
Comment by Jean — July 24, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
July 24th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Hi Jean,
The scientific method works because it allows for the inherent untrustworthiness of people. Its not a question of who I trust, its a question of whether claims prove to be verifiable and repeatable. If there are fringe scientists who you believe because they tell you what you want to hear, you can believe them if you want to, but I'm going to wait until a consensus develops in the scientific community that the claims are holding up to scrutiny, especially in a field as rife with fraud and wishful thinking as psychic phenomenon.
Comment by Aagcobb — July 24, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
July 24th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
You did not answer my question. Consensus, by whom? Physicists? Biologists? Archeologists? Parapsychologists? You seem to dream up images of 'Science' as a single body with one united voice, no such thing exists.
As for "the" scientific method, no such method exists either. Every discipline has their own methods of investigation and analysis. Philosophers of science pretty much agree on that, how's that for consensus, eh?
Comment by Jean — July 24, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
July 24th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
A couple of favorite quotations:
"I shall not commit the fashionable stupidity of regarding everything I cannot explain as a fraud." Dr. Carl Jung
"The greatest skeptic concerning paranormal phenomena is invariably the man who knows the least about them." H. H. Price
Another tedious debate over the reality of the "paranormal". The issue is whether or not to passively put up with the pervasive ignorant skepticism regarding parapsychology and the paranormal endlessly perpetuated by dogmatic skeptics, especially skeptic scientists. These are 100% closed-mindedly certain that all claims violating the established scientific world view are false regardless of so-called evidence, are deeply offended by such heresy, and tend to aggressively attack any proponents. This has continued in official Science and the public the myth that there is no valid evidence for paranormal phenomena, and that the only people believing in them are kooks, wierdos and other credulous people taken in by con-men.
Suggestions that psi phenomena are real are rejected out-of-hand by closed-minded materialists, who "know" that paranormal claims are false (without wasting a lot of valuable time looking at evidence) because they violate the supposedly immutable Laws of Science.
This thread seems to rather clearly show the underlying sceptic metaphysical world view, namely
For something to be real it must be measureable (positivism).
To be measurable and therefore real something must consist of matter and energy, and
the only valid way to investigate and form theories about it is science and the scientific method (metaphysical reductionist materialism). All else can be grouped under the general description of "imaginary" and be dismissed.
It is probably a waste of my time for minds completely made up on this subject, but I should at least mention some of the better sources for the truly wide range of scientific evidence for paranormal phenomena that has accumulated, evidence that simply can't reasonably be dismissed as fraud, trickery or self-delusion. Of course you are free to simply scoff and ignore this information since you know it can't be valid.
- The Conscious Universe by Dean Radin
- Best Evidence: An Investigative Reporter's Three-Year Quest to Uncover the Best Scientific Evidence for ESP, Psychokinesis, Mental Healing, Ghosts and Poltergeists, Dowsing, Mediums, Near Death Experiences, Reincarnation, and Other Impossible Phenomena That Refuse to Disappear
- Journal of Scientific Exploration, published by the Society for Scientific Exploration
- Mind At Large: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Symposia on the Nature of Extrasensory Perception (Studies in Consciousness) by Charles C. Tart, Harold E. Puthoff and Russell Targ (Editors)
- The Afterlife Experiments: Breakthrough Scientific Evidence of Life After Death by Gary R. Schwartz
- Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation by Ian Stevenson
- Near Death Experiences in Survivors of Cardiac Arrest: A Prospective Study in the Netherlands by Dr. Pim van Lommel, in British medical journal The Lancet, Dec. 15 2001
I can cite plenty of well-designed studies carried out by researchers at respected institutions which have produced real evidence for the reality of ESP. The results are often more impressive than the outcome of clinical drug trials because they show a more pronounced affect and have greater statistical significance. Here are a few examples:
- Telepathy: 1988-1989 Honorton Ganzfeld ESP Studies. Conducted under very strict guidelines recommended by arch ESP critic Dr. Ray Hyman of University of Oregon. The test procedures were signed off on by two "mentalist" magicians who specialized in simulating ESP. Replicated in a number of studies by other laboratories.
- Perception At a Distance (clairvoyance):
1984-1993 Government(CIA)-Sponsored Remote Viewing Studies. Experimental designs provided extremely tight conditions evolved from extensive criticism of earlier methodologies. The CIA-commissioned final review in 1995 had a large scientific committee including skeptic Ray Hyman. The review concluded that "anomalous cognition" (primarily remote viewing) had unequivocally been demonstrated and had been replicated in various forms in a number of laboratories.
- Psychkinesis: Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research Laboratory Experiments.
- Mental and Faith Healing: Futterman Study on the Effect of Mind on the Human Immune System; 1988 Study on Distant Healing of AIDS Patients.
- Near Death Experiences: The Pam Reynolds case, documented by cardiologist Michael Sabom.
The van Lommel Netherlands NDE Study published in The Lancet, Dec. 2001.
- Evidence suggestive of reincarnation: The researches of Dr. Ian Stevenson of the University of Virginia, documented in a number of books including Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect, and Children Who Remember Previous Lives: A Question of Reincarnation. This area of research inherently excludes laboratory experiments because of the nature of the phenomena, but it is also totally unreasonable to dismiss it as "unscientific". Stevenson has personally investigated hundreds of cases of spontaneous recall of apparent past life memories, primarily by young children. He visits the town where the child grew up, interviews the family, looks for witnesses, attempts to independently confirm that the apparent previous life memories correspond to a real deceased person (usually in a distant city), and makes sure that the subject could not have gotten his information through normal means. Stevenson has concentrated much of his investigations on birthmark cases where the mark closely corresponds to the wound causing death to the remembered past personality/physical body.
As indicated above, quite a number of well-credentialed professional scientists have successfully demonstrated various paranormal phenomena. There are quite a number of well-credentialed professional scientists who are determined advocates of the reality of psi phenomena - look at the editorial board of the the Journal of the Society for Scientific Exploration. I hope you don't claim that all of these and many other workers in the field are incompetent, deluded or dishonest.
Another objection is that if psi is real, why aren't people exploiting it big time to make millions, maybe billions of dollars?
The reason this isn't happening is the basic nature of psi effects. Although most certainly real, as I have shown through a citing of just the tip of the iceberg as far as evidence is concerned, these phenomena are elusive, generally weak in magnitude, and except in unusual cases not much under conscious control.
It appears to me that most of the effects are too weak to be of much potential use in technological applications, where you presumably need strong, easily controlled and repeatable phenomena. Entrepenourship apparently has been going on for a while in trying to exploit psi, but there is nothing obvious resulting from it in the civilian or military market.
Comment by magnan — July 24, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
July 24th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
I think Aagcobb displays a healthy sceptical attitude. He admits he's not an expert and wants to wait until the grandiose claims made by some people have been verified and accepted by mainstream science. What's wrong with that? I don't see why that means he is not curious. It's so typical that people who buy into exotic claims are impatient. If they are right, time will tell. And if that's not fast enough, do your own fucking experiments again and again until you have convinced the scientists, who are always happy to reject an important theory, because that's how big careers are made in science. Same problem with many ID adherents: they want to know now, right now, say, how life originated. If scientists can't supply the answer right away, then they see this as a vindication of their own views. That's not how science works, folks. Evidence please, and plenty of it.
Comment by Raevmo — July 24, 2007 @ 6:35 pm
July 24th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
No, that's not what he said at all.
He said these things absolutely are not real:
Although perhaps now he has thought better of that level of dogmatism regarding a subject he knows almost nothing about and is backing away from that position. . . That certainly would be prudent of him.
Comment by mcromer — July 24, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
July 24th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
The discussion above has nothing to do with the opening post. Salim is the one responsible for this. He/she has quickly derailed this thread first, by complaining about other ID blogs and personalities and second, by trying to start up fights with other TT members. This type of behavior tends to degrade a blog over time.
Comment by MikeGene — July 24, 2007 @ 6:56 pm
July 24th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
You're quite correct Mike.
My apologies for contributing to such completely off-topic discussion.
Comment by mcromer — July 24, 2007 @ 7:01 pm
July 24th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
That's okay. Like I said, Salim is the one who is responsible. We'll soon see if his Dawkins-like sense of morality entails the ability to apologize for such misdeeds.
Comment by MikeGene — July 24, 2007 @ 7:08 pm
July 25th, 2007 at 5:05 am
Sorry Mike!
An encounter with the Overwhelming evidence writers could derail any conversation. I must stop reading that site.
So who would win in a fight between Richard Dawkins and Denyse Oleary? No, no, only joking.
But how about you make a thread specifically for discussion of these "paranormal" claims. I'd love to see your opinion on the subject. And what about some space devoted to a deconstruction of Oleary's theories. They at least merit discussion, wouldn't you agree?
Comment by salimfadhley — July 25, 2007 @ 5:05 am