ATS Troll or Enemy of Ignorance?

Yes - objective, healthy open minded scepticism is all well and good (and should of course be applauded)...the trouble is that many folks who hide behind this title are actualy cynics - there's a huge difference.

Heres a handy comparative chart to spot 'wilfully ignorant true believers' -whatever side of the fence they are on.

True skeptics / open-minded skeptics

*Has honest doubt and questions all beliefs, including their own

*Seeks the truth, considers it the highest aim

*Seeks open inquiry and investigation of both sides

*Is nonjudgmental, doesn't jump to rash conclusions

*Weighs evidence on all sides

*Asks exploratory questions about new things to try to understand them

*Acknowledges valid convincing evidence

*Possesses solid sharp common sense

*Is able to adapt and update their paradigms to new evidence

Pseudo-skeptics / closed-minded skeptics

*Automatically dismisses and denies all claims that contradict materialism and orthodoxy

*Is not interested in truth, evidence or facts, only in defending orthodoxy and the status quo

*Ignores anything that doesn't fit their a priori beliefs and assumptions

*Scoffs and ridicules their targets instead of providing solid arguments and giving honest consideration

*Has a know-it-all-attitude, never asks questions about things they don't understand, never admits that they don't know something

*Insists that everything unknown and unexplained must have a conventional materialistic explanation

*Is judgmental and quick to draw conclusions about things they know little or nothing about

*Uses semantics and word games with their own rules of logic to try to win arguments

*Is unable to adapt and update their paradigms to new evidence

SCEPCOP ~ Debunking pseudo-sceptics.

i believe ats forum admins favor some people i have noticed as well they don't listen to some people and point them and not the responsible party.
its a mugs game here

reply to post by conar


And the same can be said of psuedo truthers. Sorry but I see a big lack of empirical evidence in many of the 'truths' and yet we are expected to instantly believe. The truthers have practically all the same problems as your list says we the skeptics do.

-Kyo

S+F and general back-slappery... because US skeptics here are doing our jobs of blindly refuting even the most grounded and logical claims.

Alternately...

I've seriously been doubting ATS of late, there seems to have been an exodus of some members I consider credible, articulate, intelligent and interesting.

I have never seen a flying saucer or aliens - I DO believe in the possibility (and probability) of their existence and that our planet has been visited by them, I also believe 9/11 was SOME KIND of inside job. We're yet to see hard and fast proof, I don't know if we will - I hope we do. Yet, there are far too many people on here claiming "Proof", there seems to be a glut of members claiming various things without a shred of proof, other than they believe it... it's a little tedious, when I come here - as I kinda use this site as an alternative news forum - for it to be riddled with Indigo-type stories etc.

I have seen some brilliant speculative arguments that strongly favour the case put forwards, with lots of research - I see some amazing flights of fantasy with little to no research.

I honestly believe some of the more "fanciful" posts to be trolling - I have no problem with speculative posts, I quite like them, the discussion of ideas is a brilliant thing - we're not always seeing that... less often of late I feel.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by munkey66

 

Initially they agree with most things written, sometimes starting their own threads to which they gain a following. before long they throw little comments in here and there which agree with the majority, soon the worm turns and you start to see comments like, I am just waiting to hear what ******** has to say. as much as I agree that we need skeptics, we also have to be aware of making a skeptic a forum super hero.

That can only be Phage...you can say his name out loud

His hit-rate and accuracy is so high some guys are scared to voice an opinion until he's spoken. More fool them. Another, more logical reason is that his subject knowledge area is more insightful than many others...he sticks to what he knows. Therefore, it's reasonable to wait for his opinion.

I'm not suggesting you are, but I've seen a few jealous snipes from time to time. The amount of people that have added him as a friend possibly makes some members feel left out or over-looked. He's killed a few threads and some guys take that personally. He's killed one of mine and I'm on his friend list! We can only guess at why some guys resent what basically amounts to a guy posting facts with supporting links. He knows his stuff...how can that be perceived as a negative?

anyone who waits to give an opinion until the "head keyboard cowboy" has spoken is....

fantastic

like people have said before... the difference between a troll and a 'debunker/skeptic' is often the presentation. skeptics stem from not believing the 'official story'. that means in events such as 9/11, 'truthers' or people who dont believe the OS are the skeptics, and the government is the conspiracy theorist. its interesting how things turn about like that.

I understand the point in the OP. Perhaps I may have missed some of the humour but a sceptic (or is that, skeptic?) may be uninformed, disinformed, misinformed or informed. Now, bare with me, I'm just making this up as I go along. Depending on ones state of being informed, the debate can escalate into an argument.

All the 'science' related examples are a good one. Like that one poster said about us believing in a flat-earth and what not, and with the other poster about quantum physics. It's true - skepticism (or is that, scepticism?) is at the heart of ATS, but more so in the heart of science. If a scientist were to believe everything he reads in a book of science, we would have quite a different take on the whole affair.

Albert Einstein defied science. It could be argued that every great scientist defied science. Newton? Galileo? Tesla? Jeez name any great scientist from any high-school science text book and most of these guys completely defied science.

The problem, one may say, is in the proof itself. What constitutes proof? A few mathematical formulas or a pretty photo-shopped picture, is that proof? Or an edited video, is that proof? So-called 'top secret declassified government documents', is that proof? Heck I could write down a few things that sound like MKULTRA or what-have-you and scan it on my (rather bad condition) scanner and say it's top secret declassified HAARP exists omgomg braincontrolcommunistnazi government is going to get us!

It's not hard to fabricate proof. But you simply CANNOT fabricate TRUTH. I noticed an interesting signature from someones user (and then looked up the name, Robert Evans)
"There are 3 sides to a story; my side, your side and the Truth" (paraphrasing, btw)
And then a skeptic and these so called, naive fools who will believe anything they read (you make it sound so terrible, really...) can go on debating - or arguing - about the meaning of truth forever and ever, because there is no resolution to that argument.

Much like there isn't much of a resolution to this post. I WANT to answer what is truth but how can I? A few internet sites that say what is truth and bam there you go.

LususNaturae

There's a pretty fine line dividing skeptic, from a**hole.

Mr. Mask, some of your posts I find myself in complete agreement with, and yet there are other times (more often than not it seems like), that you, and the other more well known skeptics here on ATS, cross that line.

Please, keep on being skeptical. Because you're right, the skeptics keep this site grounded and interesting. But for the sake of all our little egos, keep that line in mind.

Thanks!

Originally posted by the way

This is a conspiracy website- people are entitled to believe what they want and others are free to debunk, its just the way that the debunking is done sometimes that really annoys me.

Someone posts something in for instance Science and Technology about Acoustic levitation and Phage weighs in confidently and patronisingly quoting the standard, status quo version of physics telling them they are wrong.

But of course it wasn't that long ago that quantum physics was regarded as paranormal/pseudo science and its followers ridiculed. Now we know different, although it has yet to be reconciled with Newtownian physics-but who knows, I suspect maybe both those paradigms will be replaced with a newer far more stranger one in the future?

Quantum computers, nano machines and even mobile phones would not have been possible if scientists had not ignored the mocking Know it alls who said-"thats ridiculous, doesn't fit in with physics-can't be done!"

So yes, I do find it odd that intelligent people with scientific backgrounds are so quick to firmly debunk that which doesn't fit in to their world view?They do not know it all-they just think they do!

For the record, I'm not having a go at Phage, he has some brilliant posts, just using him as an example.

[edit on 19-2-2010 by the way]

that seems to be the problem.

so hastily is the scientist to make new discoveries and right the worlds wrongs, that once they find something that is more true than the last, they hold on to that truth as though it is unthinkable for another truth to be found in the future, rendering this truth false.

it happens.

reply to post by Mr Mask


you are just a bit over-zealous on this matter.

its not as though without smart-ass skeptics (not the 'good ones') everyone would just believe whatever they want on this site.

thats like saying if weed were legalized, everyone would smoke it

you are taking the rationality out of the hands (or minds) of the individual and placing it, along with praise, to people who largely dont deserve it.

most 'debunkers/skeptics' on here are little more than smart-mouthed twits who like to get people riled up and post incendiary things on forums... thats it,

cheers for the skeptics (and the hip hip hurary stuff too)

without skeptics any idiot would fill his/her ideas on this site and have someone believeing in it, human beings are VERY gulible, and they tend to give skeptics a bad name.

But really where would anyone of us be without skeptics? not anywhere good

so once again cheers to the skeptics and the overlord of the skeptics XD

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by the way

 

Someone posts something in for instance Science and Technology about Acoustic levitation.

What was the context for the acoustic levitation? A few weeks ago Ancient & Lost Civs area had a few posts about acoustic levitation being the method of constructing the pyramids. Naturally, I weighed in with some orthodox, status quo evidence to indicate otherwise. I was polite, but it's a crazy idea. What's clearly ridiculous to some skeptics (through experience, education, employment, field of expertise etc), isn't as apparent to other members.

i wouldnt go so far as to say even some of the skeptics on here have acquired their skepticism through experience, education, employment or FoE.

just me though.

Originally posted by 814ck0u7
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

thats like saying if weed were legalized, everyone would smoke it

yea if it were legalized, less people would smoke it, because the only reason so many of them do because its against the law, and people seem to have this urge to break rules, its all the workings of the sub-conesious, or your jsut a fag trying to look cool lol

sorry for the double post i aplogize

reply to post by the way


saying something 'cant' be done means that the person has examined every possible outcome, all the variables of the experiment, EVERYthing about it, and has determined that such a result can not occur...

that cant (haha, how ironic) be done, certainly not by Phage on ATS.com

it makes much more sense to argue that PROBABILITY of something, over the POSSIBILITy of it.

This is a great thread, Mr. Mask, and your opening picture is hilarious. The sad thing is, the men pictured, really are just after money. They have found a niche audience of fringe individuals, and are milking those people for all they are worth.

I must counter though with this; You, as an ATS poster, represent a collective that is questioning common beliefs, everyday norms, and our society as it is. You are of above-average common sense with the ability to discern between semi-fact and semi-fiction. Sadly, this collective is represented by those like Alex Jones, David Icke, David Wilcox and Steve Greer. These once fringe personalities have gone off the deep-end whilst trying to coax their readers/viewers out of a few more dollars.

David Icke, while I like his principles in theory, is just a nutjob. All the stuff about reptilians and ancient Draconian dragon races; is just entertainment, if you can even classify it as such.

Steve Greer started out with the best intentions. To give UFology a place in mainstream science. Where is he now? Sitting on a mountain, "communicating" with aliens.

David Wilcox; lol.

Alex Jones cashed out with Charlie Sheen by his side doing a celebrity endorsement, and gaining advertising revenue for his website.

These are the people who represent your movement. They don't necessarily have to. Even ATS is all about the almighty $ sign.

Originally posted by karl 12
Heres a handy comparative chart to spot 'wilfully ignorant true believers'

Speaking of "wilfully ignorant true believers", I haven't seen a good "I'm an Indigo Child" thread in quite a while.

Originally posted by Anthony1138

Originally posted by 814ck0u7
reply to post by Mr Mask

 

thats like saying if weed were legalized, everyone would smoke it

yea if it were legalized, less people would smoke it, because the only reason so many of them do because its against the law, and people seem to have this urge to break rules, its all the workings of the sub-conesious, or your jsut a fag trying to look cool lol

sorry for the double post i aplogize

see? the statement you just made directly contradicts the post u made before it. that is an astoundingly stupid thing to say,. considering you have absolutely no way to tell why so many people smoke weed.

you sound like some crazy nutbag you hate so much.

you do realize at one time weed wasnt illegal?

you cant truly think fewer people would smoke if it were legal...

im having a hard time finding words that accurately describe how ignorant i think you are at the moment.

Originally posted by ColeYounger
Speaking of "wilfully ignorant true believers", I haven't seen a good "I'm an Indigo Child" thread in quite a while.

No, I'd tend to steer clear of those ones (but that is of course my personal opinion).

If you've not seen it before Jkrog's directory lists some interesting threads:


The ATS UFO/Alien Chronological Thread Directory


As for UFO cynics having far more in common with 'true believers' than they like to think - Kevin Randle makes some excellent points in this clip:



Cheers.

The problem is when you have those really dumb skeptics that think 9/11 official story is real regardless of how much evidence is shown.

This is when the skeptic term is simply changed to ignorant idiot.

There's a point where you have to draw the line.

Question everything, and that's fine.

Ask for evidence, and that's fine.

But when you have TONS of evidence and proof, and you still deny the truth, then that makes the person an ignorant idiot.

reply to post by dwiggen

There's a pretty fine line dividing skeptic, from a**hole. Please, keep on being skeptical. Because you're right, the skeptics keep this site grounded and interesting. But for the sake of all our little egos, keep that line in mind.

Very well said and good advice for us all

reply to post by 814ck0u7

i wouldnt go so far as to say even some of the skeptics on here have acquired their skepticism through experience, education, employment or FoE.

Maybe not. It's likely our definitions of 'skeptic' and the members we associate with skepticism are different. The skeptics I admire on ATS fall within at least one of the four categories mentioned. 'Believers' too. It's the problem raised by labelling each other...we're like the three blind men describing an elephant....

In various versions of the tale, a group of blind men (or men in the dark) touch an elephant to learn what it is like. Each one touches a different part, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then compare notes on what they felt, and learn they are in complete disagreement. The story is used to indicate that reality may be viewed differently depending upon one's perspective, suggesting that what seems an absolute truth may be relative due to the deceptive nature of half-truths.

Link

We are labelled and boxed off, but each of us are individuals with our own thoughts and conclusions. Typical ATS subject matter is approached and discussed just like the blind men and the elephant. Sadly, putting people in brackets is the way human society functions.

reply to post by ColeYounger

Speaking of "wilfully ignorant true believers", I haven't seen a good "I'm an Indigo Child" thread in quite a while.

Well I'd hate you to miss out...us detirmined to wipe out starchildren fact or fiction.

reply to post by Emerald The Paradigm

The problem is when you have those really dumb skeptics that think 9/11 official story is real regardless of how much evidence is shown.

I'm not sure if there's a person alive that believes the official story of 9/11. Passports landing on the top of debris piles is enough to make anyone doubt it. Weedwhacker should be a FSME in the 9/11 section and he's a skeptical SOB with experience, education, employment and field of expertise! His abuse of the ellipsis is also responsible for mine...