It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Renowned astrophysicist Carl Sagan once described a "baloney detection kit" — a set of tools that skeptical thinkers use to investigate any new concept. A few of the key tools include a healthy distrust of information that isn't independently verified, critically assessing an idea rather than becoming irrationally attached to it simply because it's intriguing, and a preference for simple explanations over wildly speculative ones.
The waxing obsession with Nibiru, which conspiracy theorists say is a planet swinging in from the outskirts of our solar system that is going to crash into Earth and wipe out humanity in 2012 — or, in some opinions, 2011 — shows that an astonishing number of people "are watching YouTube videos and visiting slick websites with nothing in their skeptical toolkit," in the words of David Morrison, a planetary astronomer at NASA Ames Research Center and senior scientist at the NASA Astrobiology Institute.
Morrison estimates that there are 2 million websites discussing the impending Nibiru-Earth collision. He receives, on average, five email inquiries about Nibiru every day.
If you are aware of this very real threat to humanity (NWO) then you will have noticed a lot of hasty pushes towards the globalist dream in recent years. The tyranny is stepping up a level. This leads me to believe that there is going to be the 'Final push' very soon. Within the next year or two infact. That being said it will obviously not be an easy task, fully implementing this one world government. In order to make the final preparations so that this takeover can be swift and effective, the people and various governments of the world must be extremely distracted so that they are 'Caught with their pants down' when the final globalist push comes. But they must also be distracted in the meantime so that essential preparations can be made. How better to distract everyone than convincing everyone they are going to die?
a set of tools that skeptical thinkers use to investigate any new concept. A few of the key tools include a healthy distrust of information that isn't independently verified, critically assessing an idea rather than becoming irrationally attached to it simply because it's intriguing, and a preference for simple explanations over wildly speculative ones.
Originally posted by spacedoubt
reply to post by TechUnique
What do you think of Carl Sagan's Toolkit?
Is it a good set of analytical skills?
a set of tools that skeptical thinkers use to investigate any new concept. A few of the key tools include a healthy distrust of information that isn't independently verified, critically assessing an idea rather than becoming irrationally attached to it simply because it's intriguing, and a preference for simple explanations over wildly speculative ones.
edit on 8-7-2011 by spacedoubt because: (no reason given)
About 15,000,000 results (0.04 seconds)
Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by spacedoubt
2 million sounds low
It is just an estimate though and when I typed nibiru into google I got...
About 15,000,000 results (0.04 seconds)
Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours. It's only a way station in the pursuit of knowledge.
"The Fine Art of Baloney Detection" is an essay by Carl Sagan in his seminal work against pseudoscience, The Demon-Haunted World.
In this essay, he gives advice for devising conclusions, as well as advice for avoiding logical and rhetorical fallacies. Together, the set of warning signs for common fallacies constitutes what Sagan calls a "Baloney Detection Kit." Sagan categorizes the logical and rhetorical fallacies as below. Here is given the type of fallacy, a definition of each, and an example from the current internet.
if something bad happens to my loved ones on 2012 i'm gonna spend the rest of my life looking for mOrrison..thats a fact
Originally posted by spacedoubt
2 million websites?
What do you think of this Article? Condescending? Correct? Or just some other schmuck's opinion?
"If it [a story] is real, it is likely to be in regular news media, not just posted on some website,"