Denial

The following mostly relates to an article in New Scientist, State of Denial (15 May 2010 pp 35 - 45).

I am a sceptic, but I'm not a denier (Michael Shermer, pp 36 - 37)

"When I call myself a sceptic, I mean that I take a scientific approach to the evaluation of claims. A climate sceptic, for example, examines specific claims one by one, carefully considers the evidence for each, and is willing to follow the facts where ever they lead.

A climate denier has a position staked out in advance, and sorts through the data employing  "confirmations bias" - the tendency to look for and find confirmatory evidence for pre-existing beliefs and ignore or dismiss the rest." (pp 36)

Whose conspiracy? (Debora MacKenzie, pp 38 - 41)

"What ever they are denying, denial movements have much in common with one another, not least the use of similar tactics.

All set themselves up as a courageous underdogs fighting a corrupt elite engaged in a conspiracy to suppress the truth or foist a malicious lie on ordinary people." (pp 38)

"He (Greg Poland) believes that instigators of denialist movements have more serious psychological problems than most of their followers "They display all the features of paranoid personality disorder", he says, including anger, intolerance of criticism, and what psychiatrists call a grandiose sense of their own importance." (pp 39)

"People who buy into one denialism may support others." (pp 40)

Giving life to a lie (Jim Giles, pp 42 - 43)

"Cascades can drive the popularity of everything from YouTube videos to medial procedures. They also mean that falsehoods can come to be believed  simply because others believe in them." (pp 42)

How to be a Denialist (paraphrased pp 39)
1. Allege there's a conspiracy.
2. Use fake experts to support you story.
3. Cherry-pick the evidence.
4. Create impossible standards for your opponents.
5. Use logical fallacies.
6. Manufacture doubt.

Psychological evaluation of FER's has been done before on this discussion board, but it is good to have some reference material. This does seem all too familiar to anyone who has been on this discussion.

FEers are not in denial.  Instead it could be easily seen that some REers may be in denial of the overwhelming facts there is a conspiracy.  Perhaps this denial is because they are afraid of these negative labels you mention?

FEers are not in denial.  Instead it could be easily seen that some REers may be in denial of the overwhelming facts there is a conspiracy.  Perhaps this denial is because they are afraid of these negative labels you mention?

How to be a Denialist (paraphrased pp 39)
1. Allege there's a conspiracy.
2. Use fake experts to support you story.
3. Cherry-pick the evidence.
4. Create impossible standards for your opponents.
5. Use logical fallacies.
6. Manufacture doubt.

You just did all the bold bits. You alleged a conspiracy. You cherry picked the evidence (you only used the conspiracy theory). Then you continue with fallacies: hyperbole and neglecting to back up any of your statements with sources etc.. You then end your post by manufacturing doubt with a rethorical question.

The OP seems to be right. I would like to present to you (the OP)......a medal!

Would you be kind enough to link to the overwhelming facts on the conspiracy? I'm having trouble finding them.

Would you be kind enough to link to the overwhelming facts on the conspiracy? I'm having trouble finding them.

It's quite simple.  In his seminal masterwork, Earth Not a Globe (available free on line), Samuel Birley Rowbotham has proven the earth to be flat beyond any possible doubt, therefore anyone who says that it's round is either lying or has been tricked into believing otherwise. 

(available free on line)

It wasn't free, I had to pay in coins, coins of trust in humanity. Seeing as I had very few of those very precious coins left, I feel like I was mugged by a text ;__;

Quote

(available free on line)

It wasn't free, I had to pay in coins, coins of trust in humanity. Seeing as I had very few of those very precious coins left, I feel like I was mugged by a text ;__;

Then you went to the wrong place.  Try here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm

Quote from: Raver on June 18, 2010, 11:24:09 AM

Quote

(available free on line)

It wasn't free, I had to pay in coins, coins of trust in humanity. Seeing as I had very few of those very precious coins left, I feel like I was mugged by a text ;__;

Then you went to the wrong place.  Try here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm

*insert coins please* I ran out of my humanity coins

Quote from: markjo on June 18, 2010, 11:34:35 AM

Quote from: Raver on June 18, 2010, 11:24:09 AM

Quote

(available free on line)

It wasn't free, I had to pay in coins, coins of trust in humanity. Seeing as I had very few of those very precious coins left, I feel like I was mugged by a text ;__;

Then you went to the wrong place.  Try here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm

*insert coins please* I ran out of my humanity coins

No coins required.  Voluntary suspension of disbelief will suffice.

All set themselves up as a courageous underdogs fighting a corrupt elite engaged in a conspiracy to suppress the truth or foist a malicious lie on ordinary people." (pp 38)

This is more or less how I view FEers.

The following mostly relates to an article in New Scientist, State of Denial (15 may 2010 pp 35 - 45).

I am a sceptic, but I'm not a denier (Michael Shermer, pp 36 - 37)

"When I call myself a sceptic, I mean that I take a scientific approach to the evaluation of claims. A climate sceptic, for example, examines specific claims one by one, carefully considers the evidence for each, and is willing to follow the facts where ever they lead.

A climate denier has a position staked out in advance, and sorts through the data employing  "confirmations bias" - the tendency to look for and find confirmatory evidence for pre-existing beliefs and ignore or dismiss the rest." (pp 36)

Whose conspiracy? (Debora MacKenzie, pp 38 - 41)

"What ever they are denying, denial movements have much in common with one another, not least the use of similar tactics.

All set themselves up as a courageous underdogs fighting a corrupt elite engaged in a conspiracy to suppress the truth or foist a malicious lie on ordinary people." (pp 38)

"He (Greg Poland) believes that instigators of denialist movements have more serious psychological problems than most of their followers "They display all the features of paranoid personality disorder", he says, including anger, intolerance of criticism, and what psychiatrists call a grandiose sense of their own importance." (pp 39)

"People who buy into one denialism may support others." (pp 40)

Giving life to a lie (Jim Giles, pp 42 - 43)

"Cascades can drive the popularity of everything from YouTube videos to medial procedures. They also mean that falsehoods can come to be believed  simply because others believe in them." (pp 42)

How to be a Denialist (paraphrased pp 39)
1. Allege there's a conspiracy.
2. Use fake experts to support you story.
3. Cherry-pick the evidence.
4. Create impossible standards for your opponents.
5. Use logical fallacies.
6. Manufacture doubt.

The following mostly relates to an article in New Scientist, State of Denial (15 may 2010 pp 35 - 45).

I am a sceptic, but I'm not a denier (Michael Shermer, pp 36 - 37)

"When I call myself a sceptic, I mean that I take a scientific approach to the evaluation of claims. A climate sceptic, for example, examines specific claims one by one, carefully considers the evidence for each, and is willing to follow the facts where ever they lead.

A climate denier has a position staked out in advance, and sorts through the data employing  "confirmations bias" - the tendency to look for and find confirmatory evidence for pre-existing beliefs and ignore or dismiss the rest." (pp 36)

Whose conspiracy? (Debora MacKenzie, pp 38 - 41)

"What ever they are denying, denial movements have much in common with one another, not least the use of similar tactics.

All set themselves up as a courageous underdogs fighting a corrupt elite engaged in a conspiracy to suppress the truth or foist a malicious lie on ordinary people." (pp 38)

"He (Greg Poland) believes that instigators of denialist movements have more serious psychological problems than most of their followers "They display all the features of paranoid personality disorder", he says, including anger, intolerance of criticism, and what psychiatrists call a grandiose sense of their own importance." (pp 39)

"People who buy into one denialism may support others." (pp 40)

Giving life to a lie (Jim Giles, pp 42 - 43)

"Cascades can drive the popularity of everything from YouTube videos to medial procedures. They also mean that falsehoods can come to be believed  simply because others believe in them." (pp 42)

How to be a Denialist (paraphrased pp 39)
1. Allege there's a conspiracy.
2. Use fake experts to support you story.
3. Cherry-pick the evidence.
4. Create impossible standards for your opponents.
5. Use logical fallacies.
6. Manufacture doubt.

I missed the part where this is relevant.

Quote from: Atom Man on June 19, 2010, 06:33:40 AM

The following mostly relates to an article in New Scientist, State of Denial (15 may 2010 pp 35 - 45).

I am a sceptic, but I'm not a denier (Michael Shermer, pp 36 - 37)

"When I call myself a sceptic, I mean that I take a scientific approach to the evaluation of claims. A climate sceptic, for example, examines specific claims one by one, carefully considers the evidence for each, and is willing to follow the facts where ever they lead.

A climate denier has a position staked out in advance, and sorts through the data employing  "confirmations bias" - the tendency to look for and find confirmatory evidence for pre-existing beliefs and ignore or dismiss the rest." (pp 36)

Whose conspiracy? (Debora MacKenzie, pp 38 - 41)

"What ever they are denying, denial movements have much in common with one another, not least the use of similar tactics.

All set themselves up as a courageous underdogs fighting a corrupt elite engaged in a conspiracy to suppress the truth or foist a malicious lie on ordinary people." (pp 38)

"He (Greg Poland) believes that instigators of denialist movements have more serious psychological problems than most of their followers "They display all the features of paranoid personality disorder", he says, including anger, intolerance of criticism, and what psychiatrists call a grandiose sense of their own importance." (pp 39)

"People who buy into one denialism may support others." (pp 40)

Giving life to a lie (Jim Giles, pp 42 - 43)

"Cascades can drive the popularity of everything from YouTube videos to medial procedures. They also mean that falsehoods can come to be believed  simply because others believe in them." (pp 42)

How to be a Denialist (paraphrased pp 39)
1. Allege there's a conspiracy.
2. Use fake experts to support you story.
3. Cherry-pick the evidence.
4. Create impossible standards for your opponents.
5. Use logical fallacies.
6. Manufacture doubt.

I missed the part where this is relevant.

Granted, this belongs in the general forum. as for relevance, lets play a game. list the numbers that apply to FEH
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
yep they're all there

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on June 19, 2010, 08:48:58 AM

Quote from: Atom Man on June 19, 2010, 06:33:40 AM

The following mostly relates to an article in New Scientist, State of Denial (15 may 2010 pp 35 - 45).

I am a sceptic, but I'm not a denier (Michael Shermer, pp 36 - 37)

"When I call myself a sceptic, I mean that I take a scientific approach to the evaluation of claims. A climate sceptic, for example, examines specific claims one by one, carefully considers the evidence for each, and is willing to follow the facts where ever they lead.

A climate denier has a position staked out in advance, and sorts through the data employing  "confirmations bias" - the tendency to look for and find confirmatory evidence for pre-existing beliefs and ignore or dismiss the rest." (pp 36)

Whose conspiracy? (Debora MacKenzie, pp 38 - 41)

"What ever they are denying, denial movements have much in common with one another, not least the use of similar tactics.

All set themselves up as a courageous underdogs fighting a corrupt elite engaged in a conspiracy to suppress the truth or foist a malicious lie on ordinary people." (pp 38)

"He (Greg Poland) believes that instigators of denialist movements have more serious psychological problems than most of their followers "They display all the features of paranoid personality disorder", he says, including anger, intolerance of criticism, and what psychiatrists call a grandiose sense of their own importance." (pp 39)

"People who buy into one denialism may support others." (pp 40)

Giving life to a lie (Jim Giles, pp 42 - 43)

"Cascades can drive the popularity of everything from YouTube videos to medial procedures. They also mean that falsehoods can come to be believed  simply because others believe in them." (pp 42)

How to be a Denialist (paraphrased pp 39)
1. Allege there's a conspiracy.
2. Use fake experts to support you story.
3. Cherry-pick the evidence.
4. Create impossible standards for your opponents.
5. Use logical fallacies.
6. Manufacture doubt.

I missed the part where this is relevant.

Granted, this belongs in the general forum. as for relevance, lets play a game. list the numbers that apply to FEH
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
yep they're all there

What is this FEH you speak of?

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 19, 2010, 09:09:24 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on June 19, 2010, 08:48:58 AM

Quote from: Atom Man on June 19, 2010, 06:33:40 AM

The following mostly relates to an article in New Scientist, State of Denial (15 may 2010 pp 35 - 45).

I am a sceptic, but I'm not a denier (Michael Shermer, pp 36 - 37)

"When I call myself a sceptic, I mean that I take a scientific approach to the evaluation of claims. A climate sceptic, for example, examines specific claims one by one, carefully considers the evidence for each, and is willing to follow the facts where ever they lead.

A climate denier has a position staked out in advance, and sorts through the data employing  "confirmations bias" - the tendency to look for and find confirmatory evidence for pre-existing beliefs and ignore or dismiss the rest." (pp 36)

Whose conspiracy? (Debora MacKenzie, pp 38 - 41)

"What ever they are denying, denial movements have much in common with one another, not least the use of similar tactics.

All set themselves up as a courageous underdogs fighting a corrupt elite engaged in a conspiracy to suppress the truth or foist a malicious lie on ordinary people." (pp 38)

"He (Greg Poland) believes that instigators of denialist movements have more serious psychological problems than most of their followers "They display all the features of paranoid personality disorder", he says, including anger, intolerance of criticism, and what psychiatrists call a grandiose sense of their own importance." (pp 39)

"People who buy into one denialism may support others." (pp 40)

Giving life to a lie (Jim Giles, pp 42 - 43)

"Cascades can drive the popularity of everything from YouTube videos to medial procedures. They also mean that falsehoods can come to be believed  simply because others believe in them." (pp 42)

How to be a Denialist (paraphrased pp 39)
1. Allege there's a conspiracy.
2. Use fake experts to support you story.
3. Cherry-pick the evidence.
4. Create impossible standards for your opponents.
5. Use logical fallacies.
6. Manufacture doubt.

I missed the part where this is relevant.

Granted, this belongs in the general forum. as for relevance, lets play a game. list the numbers that apply to FEH
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
yep they're all there

What is this FEH you speak of?

Flat Earth Hypothesis of course.
Because the original theory is long since superseded.
it is the hypothesis of this forum against Geology

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on June 19, 2010, 03:11:11 PM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 19, 2010, 09:09:24 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on June 19, 2010, 08:48:58 AM

Quote from: Atom Man on June 19, 2010, 06:33:40 AM

The following mostly relates to an article in New Scientist, State of Denial (15 may 2010 pp 35 - 45).

I am a sceptic, but I'm not a denier (Michael Shermer, pp 36 - 37)

"When I call myself a sceptic, I mean that I take a scientific approach to the evaluation of claims. A climate sceptic, for example, examines specific claims one by one, carefully considers the evidence for each, and is willing to follow the facts where ever they lead.

A climate denier has a position staked out in advance, and sorts through the data employing  "confirmations bias" - the tendency to look for and find confirmatory evidence for pre-existing beliefs and ignore or dismiss the rest." (pp 36)

Whose conspiracy? (Debora MacKenzie, pp 38 - 41)

"What ever they are denying, denial movements have much in common with one another, not least the use of similar tactics.

All set themselves up as a courageous underdogs fighting a corrupt elite engaged in a conspiracy to suppress the truth or foist a malicious lie on ordinary people." (pp 38)

"He (Greg Poland) believes that instigators of denialist movements have more serious psychological problems than most of their followers "They display all the features of paranoid personality disorder", he says, including anger, intolerance of criticism, and what psychiatrists call a grandiose sense of their own importance." (pp 39)

"People who buy into one denialism may support others." (pp 40)

Giving life to a lie (Jim Giles, pp 42 - 43)

"Cascades can drive the popularity of everything from YouTube videos to medial procedures. They also mean that falsehoods can come to be believed  simply because others believe in them." (pp 42)

How to be a Denialist (paraphrased pp 39)
1. Allege there's a conspiracy.
2. Use fake experts to support you story.
3. Cherry-pick the evidence.
4. Create impossible standards for your opponents.
5. Use logical fallacies.
6. Manufacture doubt.

I missed the part where this is relevant.

Granted, this belongs in the general forum. as for relevance, lets play a game. list the numbers that apply to FEH
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
yep they're all there

What is this FEH you speak of?

Flat Earth Hypothesis of course.
Because the original theory is long since superseded.
it is the hypothesis of this forum against Geology

So if a theory evolves over time, it ceases to be a theory?

What is this FEH you speak of?

Flat Earth Hypothesis.  Please try to keep, up will you?

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 19, 2010, 03:39:19 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on June 19, 2010, 03:11:11 PM

Quote from: Thevoiceofreason on June 19, 2010, 09:09:24 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on June 19, 2010, 08:48:58 AM

Quote from: Atom Man on June 19, 2010, 06:33:40 AM

The following mostly relates to an article in New Scientist, State of Denial (15 may 2010 pp 35 - 45).

I am a sceptic, but I'm not a denier (Michael Shermer, pp 36 - 37)

"When I call myself a sceptic, I mean that I take a scientific approach to the evaluation of claims. A climate sceptic, for example, examines specific claims one by one, carefully considers the evidence for each, and is willing to follow the facts where ever they lead.

A climate denier has a position staked out in advance, and sorts through the data employing  "confirmations bias" - the tendency to look for and find confirmatory evidence for pre-existing beliefs and ignore or dismiss the rest." (pp 36)

Whose conspiracy? (Debora MacKenzie, pp 38 - 41)

"What ever they are denying, denial movements have much in common with one another, not least the use of similar tactics.

All set themselves up as a courageous underdogs fighting a corrupt elite engaged in a conspiracy to suppress the truth or foist a malicious lie on ordinary people." (pp 38)

"He (Greg Poland) believes that instigators of denialist movements have more serious psychological problems than most of their followers "They display all the features of paranoid personality disorder", he says, including anger, intolerance of criticism, and what psychiatrists call a grandiose sense of their own importance." (pp 39)

"People who buy into one denialism may support others." (pp 40)

Giving life to a lie (Jim Giles, pp 42 - 43)

"Cascades can drive the popularity of everything from YouTube videos to medial procedures. They also mean that falsehoods can come to be believed  simply because others believe in them." (pp 42)

How to be a Denialist (paraphrased pp 39)
1. Allege there's a conspiracy.
2. Use fake experts to support you story.
3. Cherry-pick the evidence.
4. Create impossible standards for your opponents.
5. Use logical fallacies.
6. Manufacture doubt.

I missed the part where this is relevant.

Granted, this belongs in the general forum. as for relevance, lets play a game. list the numbers that apply to FEH
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
yep they're all there

What is this FEH you speak of?

Flat Earth Hypothesis of course.
Because the original theory is long since superseded.
it is the hypothesis of this forum against Geology

So if a theory evolves over time, it ceases to be a theory?

nope, this one was actually discarded, and itt became a superseded scientific theory. So more appropriately, the original concept should be called SFET (superseded flat earth theory). Now you guys have a completely new hypothesis, which isn't a theory in the least bit, as the scientific community doesn't recognize this at all. Just ask the United States Supreme court or other appropriate authority. They used this jurisdiction to fight Co$ in a murder trial. It's called the Frye standard, at least in America, I can say that this is not a valid scientific theory.

I fail to see the relevance too.

I fail to see the relevance too.

It is not relevant at all to the topic.
it is however relevant to the society

This thread has been merged with another.

In the future, keep off topic posting to a minimum.  This is a warning.

In the future, keep off topic posting to a minimum.  This is a warning.

Ok. this happens a lot in threads, in light of resent talk on S&C, r we supposed to pseudo memberate on these issues?

The whole article falls apart at point1 (allege there is a conspiracy).  The fact there are conspiracies now in the world and in the past means that someone isn't in denial, rather seeking the truth.  Once again, it is the very opposite people this article mention who are denying the very fact conspiracies exist, and could well be called denialists. 

What? No, not at all, Pseudonym. The existence of conspiracies doesn't mean you can invoke one whenever your theory sees clear and obvious contradictory evidence. That's bad logic. It's on the burden of the conspiracy theorist to give evidence in favor of the conspiracy. Otherwise, I mean, you can't easily prove there isn't a conspiracy because that standard is impossible.

What? No, not at all, Pseudonym. The existence of conspiracies doesn't mean you can invoke one whenever your theory sees clear and obvious contradictory evidence. That's bad logic. It's on the burden of the conspiracy theorist to give evidence in favor of the conspiracy. Otherwise, I mean, you can't easily prove there isn't a conspiracy because that standard is impossible.

Lurk moar. James and Tom have both provided evidence for a conspiracy in the past.

Quote from: Pseudointellect on June 19, 2010, 10:25:05 PM

What? No, not at all, Pseudonym. The existence of conspiracies doesn't mean you can invoke one whenever your theory sees clear and obvious contradictory evidence. That's bad logic. It's on the burden of the conspiracy theorist to give evidence in favor of the conspiracy. Otherwise, I mean, you can't easily prove there isn't a conspiracy because that standard is impossible.

Lurk moar. James and Tom have both provided evidence for a conspiracy in the past.

There evidence is vague at best. Hell, most of it is in the wiki and are points that are either easily disproven, already known with good reason, or a random video that could be from a movie.

If he wants conspiracy evidence he better get some bank records.

Their "evidence" amounts to some guy who spent a few minutes making a website or editing a video. The claims made are unsubstantiated, and not reviewed for veracity by an independent source.

Their "evidence" amounts to some guy who spent a few minutes making a website or editing a video. The claims made are unsubstantiated, and not reviewed for veracity by an independent source.

There are no independant sources. There's either the FEers or everyone else.

Their "evidence" amounts to some guy who spent a few minutes making a website or editing a video. The claims made are unsubstantiated, and not reviewed for veracity by an independent source.

The claim that their evidence was falsified is outragous. From where do you base your accusations?