Re: psychoceramics: Kook-bashing

[nathanshumate @ juno.com (Alex N Shumate)]

>I do.  I learn a lot of useful material from it.  And I often laugh at 
>it as
>well.  Frankly, I think several of the more prominent skeptics rank 
>almost
>as highly as our Plutonium-oriented friend in kookery, if in a fashion 
>which
>is much more subtle (and, at least, scientifically accurate for the 
>most
>part).

I agree.  Kookery is not only the beliefs one has ,but also the lengths
to which one will go to defend those beliefs and convince others.  In
some respects, militant skeptics have much more in common with the kooks
than, say, garden-variety Christians do.


Nathan
>
>For a perfect, subtle example: read _The Demon-Haunted World_ and look 
>up
>Sagan's "baloney detection kit" (a kit introduced to me in high school 
>by a
>teacher as a "bullshit detection kit"...).  In my edition the 'kit is 
>on
>page 210.  Now apply Sagan's own baloney detection kit to SETI, one of
>Sagan's pet projects.  Count the failures.  In a quick pass I found:
>1) Arguments from authority.  Most SETI fans, if you challenge their 
>ideas,
>will reverentially speak of the Great Carl Sagan and how he supports 
>SETI,
>ironically unaware that Carl Sagan Himself (sic) disapproves of this 
>very
>argument form.
>2) Falsifiability.  SETI has no negative condition.  If, after an 
>exhaustive
>search of the sky using existing SETI facilities we don't find 
>anything,
>there is SETI II and METI (I think those are the names -- I'll hunt 
>further
>if needed) lurking in the wings for even more comprehensive sweep of 
>the
>sky.  At no point can anyone say "this experiment has failed -- there 
>is no
>extra-terrestrial 'radio civilization' in our galaxy".  Why?  Because 
>the
>instant response will be "we just need more sensitive equipment -- 
>they're
>out there".
>
>Other failures include the following (which I won't expand upon unless 
>asked
>to):  lacking multiple hypotheses, attachment to personal hypotheses,
>argument from adverse consequences (in extreme cases of SETI-philes),
>special pleading, begging the question.
>
>Given that one of the most prominent (former) skeptics features a 
>toolkit
>which overturns his own pet project (obsession?), just how different 
>are
>skeptics from our kooks here?
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: Bruce Ediger <b--@c--.net>
>Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 09:03:38 -0600 (MDT)
>Subject: psychoceramics: Archimedes Plutonium horning in on Abian
>
>Two usenet kooks that previously were in different orbits may now be
>on an inevitable collision course.  Looks like Archimedes Plutonium
>is moving in on Alexander Abian's terraforming territory.
>
>- -----
>From: Archimedes.P--@d--.edu (Archimedes Plutonium)
>Newsgroups: sci.engr,sci.astro
>[1] Moon; HARVEST PROJECT-nuking astro bodies to make Earth2
>Date: Sat Sep 27 11:36:31 MDT 1997
>Organization: PLutonium College
>
>The Moon will be one of the first astro bodies to be rearranged. AS of
>this writing, NASA has never done any really important projects. With
>the start of HARVEST PROJECT, NASA will slowly take over the major
>issue of United States politics. NASA will become the centerpiece 
>issue
>of the US and the world for that matter. Because with NASA is the road
>to HARVEST PROJECT and that is the major proportion of humanities
>future. The New World of Columbus and 1492 was the major issue 500
>years ago. The new frontier and new world of the future is the Solar
>System.
>
>  Imagine the world if another planet , just like Earth existed and
>owned by say Japan or Russia. This entire planet is easy to get to and
>is inhabited completely by Japanese or by Russians. Here on Earth1 the
>US would no longer be the #1 superpower. And although Spain discovered
>the New World, it was England and France that colonialized the New
>World.
>
>  In the Harvest Project, the moon will be one of the first, or early
>astro bodies that is moved or changed. What is the optimal use of the
>moon? Well, it would be nice if it were habitable right now. But it 
>has
>no water, no air or magnetic field to shield from the dangerous Sun's
>radiation. One use would be to mine it and bring the ores to Earth.
>
>  But I think the best use would be to bring all of the moon right 
>down
>to Earth. In the asteroid belt there exist quite a few number of
>dumbbell shaped asteroids. These came about through "soft collisions"
>where two asteroids softly bumped into one another and stuck in a
>dumbbell shaped object. The Moon likewise can be slowly made to
>approach Earth via precise asteroid H-bombed collisions into the Moon.
>The Moon is moving away from us at a rate of 1 cm per year. Via
>asteroid collisions we can force the Moon to come closer to Earth at a
>average rate of a kilometer per year, until the Moon is given a
>asteroid collision that it makes a soft landing touch with our Pacific
>Ocean. Of course all of the people of the pacific region are 
>evacuated.
>
>- --  The end result is that the Moon and Earth forms a new Earth, 
>call it
>Earth2 and is a dumbbell shaped Earth. The new Moon will be covered
>with water by suction and the new Moon will by suction have a
>atmosphere. The magnetic field of the Earth will change to encompass
>the Moon and Earth2 will be fully habitable.
>
> The asteroid 3753 which comes into Earth's orbit can be nuked to 
>force
>the Moon closer to us.
> 
>Bruce Ediger - 303-965-3986 - 1005 17th Street, Denver, Room 1790.
>This statement is not an official statement from, nor does it
>represent an official position of, USWEST Inc.
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: Tom Easton <e--@t--.thomas.edu>
>Date: Tue, 7 Oct 1997 11:02:44 -0400
>Subject: RE: psychoceramics: Kook-bashing.
>
>See A. K. Dewdney's _Yes We Have No Neutrons_ for a lengthier version 
>of
>this objection to SETI (as well as put-downs of a number of other 
>areas
>of fringe science).
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:	Michael T. Richter 
>[SMTP:m--@m--.on.rogers.wave.ca]
>> Sent:	Tuesday, October 07, 1997 10:46 AM
>> To:	p--@z--.net
>> Subject:	psychoceramics: Kook-bashing.
>> 
>> >Now I think I was wrong. Letting people bash science and spew
>> nonsense as
>> >fact degrades us all and over time gives creedence to the next 
>loonie
>> that
>> >takes one step further out of reality. Read the Skeptical Inquirer,
>> 
>> 
>> I do.  I learn a lot of useful material from it.  And I often laugh 
>at
>> it as
>> well.  Frankly, I think several of the more prominent skeptics rank
>> almost
>> as highly as our Plutonium-oriented friend in kookery, if in a 
>fashion
>> which
>> is much more subtle (and, at least, scientifically accurate for the
>> most
>> part).
>> 
>> For a perfect, subtle example: read _The Demon-Haunted World_ and 
>look
>> up
>> Sagan's "baloney detection kit" (a kit introduced to me in high 
>school
>> by a
>> teacher as a "bullshit detection kit"...).  In my edition the 'kit 
>is
>> on
>> page 210.  Now apply Sagan's own baloney detection kit to SETI, one 
>of
>> Sagan's pet projects.  Count the failures.  In a quick pass I found:
>> 1) Arguments from authority.  Most SETI fans, if you challenge their
>> ideas,
>> will reverentially speak of the Great Carl Sagan and how he supports
>> SETI,
>> ironically unaware that Carl Sagan Himself (sic) disapproves of this
>> very
>> argument form.
>> 2) Falsifiability.  SETI has no negative condition.  If, after an
>> exhaustive
>> search of the sky using existing SETI facilities we don't find
>> anything,
>> there is SETI II and METI (I think those are the names -- I'll hunt
>> further
>> if needed) lurking in the wings for even more comprehensive sweep of
>> the
>> sky.  At no point can anyone say "this experiment has failed -- 
>there
>> is no
>> extra-terrestrial 'radio civilization' in our galaxy".  Why?  
>Because
>> the
>> instant response will be "we just need more sensitive equipment --
>> they're
>> out there".
>> 
>> Other failures include the following (which I won't expand upon 
>unless
>> asked
>> to):  lacking multiple hypotheses, attachment to personal 
>hypotheses,
>> argument from adverse consequences (in extreme cases of 
>SETI-philes),
>> special pleading, begging the question.
>> 
>> Given that one of the most prominent (former) skeptics features a
>> toolkit
>> which overturns his own pet project (obsession?), just how different
>> are
>> skeptics from our kooks here?
>> 
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of psychoceramics-digest V1 #366
>************************************
>
>