UFO Conjecture(s)

Sunday, February 09, 2014

French Uber-Skeptic Gilles Fernandez will hate this!




  • ...so after reading this:


    ...I now understand the inspirational role models for Bragalia's 'research' articles.

    By Blogger Kurt Peters, at Sunday, February 09, 2014  

  • Hello Rich,

    I dont hate it, Rich. I have already commented in French "medias". To be short, all providing from pseudo-archeologist Brien Foerster and pseudo genetician Melba Ketchum is RED FLAG and doubtfull.

    Remember Ketchum's past: http://doubtfulnews.com/2013/02/ketchum-bigfoot-dna-paper-released-problems-with-questionable-publication/

    BTW: http://doubtfulnews.com/2014/02/foerster-pye-and-ketchum-collaborate-paracas-elongated-skull-exposed-its/ as Kurt provided
    or : http://www.paranormalpeopleonline.com/paracas-elongated-skull-dna-results-what-results/



    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Monday, February 10, 2014  

  • Rich,

    There is a funny irony here... what is good for the goose is good for the gander so to speak--- I read the "Doubtful News" piece and realized that one of it sources was "LiveScience.com" and I had to laugh.

    What is the problem with that? LiveScience hosts several articles which try to prove the historicity of Jesus... by quoting Christian Theologians and Christian Historians saying: "Most historians believe Jesus was a real man. To test the veracity of biblical claims, historians typically compare Christian accounts of Jesus' life with historical ones recorded by Romans and Jews, most notably the historians Flavius Josephus and Cornelius Tacitus."

    Most which historians? The texts of Josephus have been shown to have been tampered with by Christians.. and All Tacitus does in confirm that there was a Christian religion that Nero persecuted.

    When examining the evidence LiveScience says "The best argument in favor of Jesus as a once-living person is, of course, the Holy Bible itself."

    Say What?

    Yes indeed I got a good laugh out of a "Skeptic" site quoting a site who Science is dubious too put down another site who in turn is dubious.

    One man's Science is indeed another man's belly laugh.

    By Blogger JHC, at Monday, February 10, 2014  

  • I don't understand JHC's objection. Skeptics quote from and reference dubious works not in agreement with them but in order to show what the believers are saying (just as he does above with the bible). Did the Doubtful news item accept a dubious claim, if so, what was it?


    By Blogger Lance, at Monday, February 10, 2014  

  • @Lance

    The issue is one of "credibility" -- Would you quote a source that has been shown to be unscientific as supporting "scientific facts" in favor of a skeptical or scientific position? It turns out LiveScience is one of those sites who are more interested in advertising clicks than actually doing science reporting.

    I make no claim that my father's writings are "hard science fact". He thought he had some testable ideas. Unfortunately he was unable to do so. To his mind most of the claims of EM effects are not "EM" in the view of Science as an expert in electromagnetics... but were I to quote "AboveTopSecret" or one of the other "iffy" sites in support of his untested speculations you would call me on the carpet for being deceptive.

    What is wrong then in pointing out one of the "supporting sites" for a Skeptical article is in fact questionable source of information? Skeptics can't have it both ways.

    Until LiveScience retracts those articles I'll happily laugh at anyone that uses it as a source of "facts".

    By Blogger JHC, at Monday, February 10, 2014  

  • Jhc, I don't see the reference you make. What point were they buttressing at doubtful by using this dubious site?

    By Blogger Lance, at Monday, February 10, 2014  

  • @Lance

    Hmmm... Let me put it this way: How do you, as a Skeptic, pick your factual information sources in support of your position? Do you glean your 'facts' from reputable sources who can be shown to be connected to reality or do you just grab the first thing that comes to hand? Which is preferable: Encyclopedia Britannica or Wikipedia?

    Like the "chain of evidence" used in criminal proceedings "skepticism" needs to keep clear of tainted information sources and tainted information otherwise it is effect no different than the most blatant of the unprovable hearsay of "believers".

    That is the problem with LiveScience as a "factual news source". It has passed off religious speculation and hearsay as Science. Need proof? Go search "Jesus" on LiveScience and read the "articles". This calls into question ANY reporting provided by LiveScience not just the "Jesus Science" articles.

    Now DoubtfulNews has made mistake of using an information source which has shown itself to be factually 'untrustworthy'... which may possibly call into question the other information sources used they used and maybe even the whole "Skeptic World-view" as something "made up" on the basis if false or misleading information... simply because they did not do their homework. In other words their "proof" that this is 'bogus" falls apart because they used a "tainted" source.

    As I said before, were I to present some speculations as "real" and "the Truth" but have only unreliable information sources to back up my "Truth", you would be happy to laugh long and hard at my presumption and then you'd cut my story to ribbons.

    So all I'm saying here is simply DoubtfulNews has used a site that believes in "Jesus Science" as an information Science source to criticize someone's dubious and less than scientific speculations... For me that is "the pot calling the kettle black"

    By Blogger JHC, at Tuesday, February 11, 2014  

  • Hmm...seems hard to get you to answer a question. Can you simply (without a lecture) point out what exactly Doubtful a News used the Jesus Science site as a reference for? You talk in generalities instead of specifics. I understand your argument, I am just trying to understand the offense.

    And can you provide a link or a quote or something?



    By Blogger Lance, at Tuesday, February 11, 2014  

  • @Lance

    Forgive me, Lance, partly my bad... LiveScience was not used in this particular article but DoubtfulNews isn't off the hook--

    The articles below link to "unreliable" information sources which would probably be fine for non-skeptical purposes but "Mundane Explanations" of unusual phenomena requires vetted, untainted mundane information sources. [Kinda the inverse of "Unusual claims requires unusual proof"] To do anything else is unscientific and springs from pure laziness.

    If Skeptics are going to claim they have the "rational and scientific" high ground on a subject to reveal a hoaxer, liar, or Deluded Snake-Oil Seller then it's better use a "scientific" source. This may also call into question the practice of linking to other skeptical sites as backing proof rather than actual scientific sources... There is already too much among the "believers".

    I don't mind skeptics poking holes in stuff that needs lots of holes... but come on... Science is as Science does. Do you really want to use information sources that cannot be proven to actually be traceable to real scientific sources? Do you want to depend on a Skeptic that does not follow the scientific method? Some "famous debunkers" seem to fall into that category much to the detriment of all Skeptics and those who promote ideas that are at the "edge of science". After all it is supposed to be about Science right? or is it just about feeling superior?


    http://doubtfulnews.com/2014/02/an-earth-shaking-kaboom-rattled-maryland/ -- LiveScience

    http://doubtfulnews.com/2014/02/seti-scientist-ventures-an-eta-for-et-contact-by-the-year-2040/ -- Wikipedia

    LiveScience and Wikipedia

    http://doubtfulnews.com/2014/02/virgin-mary-statue-weeps-like-we-havent-heard-this-before/ -- Wikipedia

    http://doubtfulnews.com/2014/02/raelians-help-fund-fgm-reconstructive-surgery-in-africa/ -- Wikipedia

    http://doubtfulnews.com/2014/02/tiger-continues-to-terrify-locals-in-indian-state-as-9-victims-fall-prey/ -- Wikipedia

    http://doubtfulnews.com/2014/02/a-result-ten-times-fishier-than-expected/ -- Wikipedia

    http://doubtfulnews.com/2014/02/the-great-debate-science-trumps-creationism/ -- LiveScience

    http://doubtfulnews.com/2014/01/plum-island-animal-disease-lab-uproots-to-kansas/ -- Wikipedia

    By Blogger JHC, at Wednesday, February 12, 2014  

  • Sigh...


    You know if you're gonna rag on someone else's citation of sources, you might want to have your own sources correct before you post!

    It was unnecessary to again (!) state your premise.

    Sharon posts tons of short items related (sometimes vaguely) to the paranormal, frauds, hoaxes and that sort of thing. Often she is simply relating what has been claimed at another site. By necessity, she HAS to reference the other sites.

    You also (now for the first time) bring up the use of wikipedia. In the few links I checked, the Wikipedia articles were well referenced and used simply as background for anyone interested in more information--not as an argument for the truth of a matter.

    I can't imagine anyone mistaking these brief items as the foundation of all skeptical belief as you (quite pedantically) state over and over above.

    For instance, she ran an item (you link above) discussing various reactions to the recent creationism debate. In that item she cited several other sites that demonstrated the reaction to the debate--one was from LiveScience . That is how that kind of story is written! For you to somehow think this is improper is completely misguided.

    Additionally, Sharon is happy to make adjustments or corrections to a story as required and does so often. She tries to get it right.

    In short, while I appreciate your desire for accurate scientific sources, your premise about Doutbful news is quite flawed.


    By Blogger Lance, at Wednesday, February 12, 2014  

  • @Lance
    Correct me if I'm wrong here, then what you are saying is that what is "Not Okay" for a "believer" to do, i.e. use sloppy references, use circular links to other "Believers", and failure to use vetted labs / tests / researchers is alright for a "Skeptic" to do because it is easier than actually using the proper scientific methods to disprove nonsense?

    Either you do Science with a full air-tight proof of the case or the "Skepticism" you advocate is not science or reason based. It is just as irrational and just as much "belief and cult-of-personality based" as those you oppose and wish to expose. It lowers you down to their level.

    good luck with that...



    By Blogger JHC, at Wednesday, February 12, 2014  

Post a Comment

<< Home