The Ills of the Skeptical Movement

Posted on by

In another post, recent contributor TomMueller stated that GPS satellites use relativistic synchronization to match up their clocks with earthbound clocks.  I explained to him that this was not so, even though its easy to believe, if you don’t think critically, that it is.

Tom followed my post to him with a litany of ad hominem, “Oh, you are a moron, you are a troll, creationist idiots,  I read about it on a credible site, I talked to a physics professor about it…” and on and on he went with his insults and denial.

Now to be fair to Tom, if you just read mainstreams sites, like Wikipedia, or Wired or Salon, or even many science websites, this is the information you will find-that GPS satellites use Einstein’s theory of relativity to sync their clocks to earth clocks.  Its written everywhere, surely it must be true.  But I know why its not true, because I actually thought about it. At first I just had a hunch about it, but again, if you just google it, most sites will tell you its true.  But it didn’t make sense to me, for so many reasons.  What clocks are the satellite clocks syncing with, a GPS’s receivers clock?  Huh?  How precise are they?  For that matter, how precise are any clocks.  Its nearly impossible to ever get ANY two clocks to match.

I also read about the so called Haefele-Keating atomic clocks, where relativistic changes in clocks due to speed was tested and confirmed aboard airplanes going around the earth. Again, everywhere you looked online, they say its true.  It was tested, it worked.  And its bullshit.  But how would one know, if all you did was read what is supposedly credible sources, written by academics and scholars and Wikipedia…

I wouldn’t even bother telling you how I learned it was not true.  I wouldn’t even bother citing sources, because all skeptics do is try to spew the same old defense, “Oh, that source is for cranks, try MY sources, they are the best parrots for information.” I learned by thinking, skeptics will never understand that.

 

And so here’s the thing, I didn’t learn that things are complete bullshit, by just going to the vast amount of sources online that claim they are true, instead I thought about.   But here’s what skeptics, as ironic as it sounds, tell you to do.  They tell you to just accept the common wisdom.  Accept that these science facts must be true, because someone famous says so.  Accept that evolution is true, accept that GMO foods are good for you, accept that Oswald acted alone, accept that alternative medicine is all fake, accept that bigPharm is looking out for your best interests, accept materialism, accept that every time you hear about a study which contradicts strict materialism it must be wrong, accept that every time someone challenges the scientific consensus, then they are by definition quacks, and basically just stop thinking for yourself.  The skeptical movement is founded on the exact opposite principle of be skeptical, instead it means to simply follow whatever the skeptic movement tells you must be right.

 

Its the same everywhere, on podcast like the Skeptics Guide to the Universe, or anything with Seth Shostak, or Michael Shermer, or Phil Plaitt, or Neil Degrasse Tyson or Bill Nye, or any of the whole community of people who identify themselves as skeptics, by virtue that they all believe exactly the same things.  This toxic thought has seeped into virtually every source of information you can find, be it television, news, blogs, everywhere.  They will claim they are deep thinkers, and this is how they found the answers, buts its a con game, they are anything but, they are sheep.  They never have an original thought, ever.  I think I even read Lawrence Krauss repeating this same crap line about relativity and GPS satellites-and he has a PhD in physics, for crying out loud.  But don’t ask him to think, he prefers to just parrot the party line, its so much easier.

So nowadays where do you find truth, it sure as hell ain’t easy, thanks to these brainwashed preachers of the scientific consensus.  Its what leads Allan to make ludicrous statements about what fitness means, its what leads parrots like Tom Mueller to say, “Oh, I read it about it, so how dare you say its not true! Moron!”

 

The skeptic movement is one of the biggest diseases to stifle learning that I can think of.  They cloud every news article, and every attempt at understanding with their atheist based need to preach their worldview.  Its just like Lynn Margulis said, they want to tell everyone what to think, by telling them to stop thinking.  I despise these types of thought Nazis.  They are the worst thing that has ever happened to academia.

492 thoughts on “The Ills of the Skeptical Movement”

  1. GlenDavidson: Not really.

    But seriously, what is all of this “discussion” with phoodoo?What is he but the classic case of someone who doesn’t learn because he thinks that he thinks, and thus knows?

    Jesus told the parable of the beam and the mote, and nobody since then who actually had a beam in his eye (strange image at this time, btw) ever recognized that.Kind of the point, but then it seems pointless to make the point, at least to them.Some people are not teachable, including most of those at UD (Barry and Denyse being especially unteachable).

    Glen Davidson

    Hey man, he noticed some typos I made! Cut him some slack!

  3. FWIW, I knew Tom when he was a student intern in the Mass. State House and I worked for the Commerce and Labor committee. He was very good at fictionary, and later became a champion on Jeopardy.

  4. Alan Fox: I’m still interested to hear phoodoo clarify what his beef is with GPS. It works brilliantly. Is it in spite of relativity, because of relativity or because relativity is a myth?

    I take it back, maybe you are not smart enough. I wrote you an entire post explaining that its not about clocks, its about the poisoning of facts by atheist-skeptic academia invasion. I even went through all the trouble of explaining it to you, pretty clearly I think. Want to try again?:

    Here’s what I do know Alan.Nobody told me the Hafele-Keating experiment was wrong, I figured it out for myself.Which is not very easy frankly.I read about it, like most other people, and usually what you read is the same crap that’s on Wikipedia and the like.But my instincts told me something is wrong there, I didn’t just accept it, like a member of the church of skeptics would do.I thought about it a while instead, and I said no, something is wrong here.So I studied it, and tried to find out as much information about it as I could, which at the time was pretty hard to find, in part because Hafele-keating did their best to hide much of the results as best they could.And because skeptics keep repeating the same horseshit.

    But eventually I found the data, I found out more information about what actually happened, and low and behold I was right, and all the so-called experts were wrong.And they are still wrong, the experiment was a failure, and its still pretty hard to actually find that out unless you really look.

    And that got me thinking about GPS satellites, and what do you know, the same thing happened, again.Everywhere you read, it said you had to factor in relativity or the satellites would never work.But the first GPS satellite was launched in 1978, just a few years after the Hafele-Keating experiment.So if in the mid 70’s you could even get 4 clocks to agree on time, how could you get a satellite clock to agree perfectly with an earth clock?You couldn’t.

    And low and behold, just like my hunch told me, you don’t actually need relativity to make GPS work, there are other ways.Again, I figured this out on my own first.

    And here’s another funny twist to the story.I didn’t have an opinion about evolution one way or another growing up.I assumed it must be true, because pretty much everything you read at that time told you of course its true.But I thought about that as well.I started thinking about irreducible complexity before I ever knew there was such a term. I starting thinking about all this so called evidence.And every time I looked into it further, I found out the so-called evidence wasn’t evidence at all, it was some kid of world based lazy preaching by people who didn’t appear to have an objective bone in their body.The bullshit about Darwin’s finches and selective breeding and the blind-watchmaker.This wasn’t evidence this was the opposite of evidence. Dog breeding was supposed to be evidence of the power of evolution?Finches were evidence for evolution?If that’s what you are trying to sell, I realized you guys are a bunch of shysters.You told me there was evidence.That was a lie.

    So when I researched it further I found out, hold on a second, biologists don’t all believe in Darwin evolution, why was everyone saying they did?Yea, some did, especially those whose careers depended on it, but there were plenty of well educated biologists who didn’t.I had never realized that before.Why was that so hard to find out?Why did some many places try to pretend that there was a consensus?

    After getting to know plenty of biologists and people who work in genetics, I come to find out, almost no one believes in Darwinian evolution anymore.I doubt Dawkins even does anymore. Isn’t that strange.All these hype about what everyone supposedly knows turns out to be crap once again.

    So if I can figure this out, all on my own, despite what you are forced to hear otherwise pretty much everyday in mainstream academia, then there is a serious problem with academia.

    Nowadays I know where that problem originated. In the seeds of the skeptic-atheist movement, that’s where.They are the ones selling the snake oil.They are the ones using their guerilla skepticism to tell people what to think.And its only gotten worse over the years.The Shermers, the Shostaks, the Brian Dunnings, the Krauses, the Degrasse Tysons, the Novellas, the Nye’s, I wouldn’t trust these guys as far as I could throw them.

    And anybody who actually is willing to identify themselves as part of such a thought movement, like Entropy, I know immediately, …more snakeoil salesmen are in town.

    If you conclusion from that is, “What does he have against clocks, I don’t get it” well, then I can’t help you much Alan.

  8. Rumraket: I don’t see why they have to be mutually exclusive. In between periodic re-synchronization, the on-board atomic clock could still apply a small relativistic time adjustment.

    There’s no need.

    Every time you synchronize, you make a record. Then you use that to compute the average clock drift rate. And you can then apply that average clock drift rate in between resynchronization events. It doesn’t matter whether the average clock drift rate is due to relativistic effects or to something else.

    If you are using NTP software in your computer to keep it synchronized, it is already using average drift rate in that way.

  9. phoodoo: Especially when it was a reply to his complaint about my typo.

    There was no post of me complaining about your typo. That was Neil. You said it was childish when he did that, but then n you started complaining about non-Neil people’s typos. Not sure why you’re so unpleasant. Maybe you are indeed steamed about something. If it’s Trump, I’m with you–but I don’t think the solution is to start acting like him.

  10. phoodoo: Neil Rickert: There’s always clock drift, whether or not relativistic effects are involved.

    Thank you Neils, I wonder why that was so hard.

    That fact is not inconsistent with them needing to be corrected for relativity effects. If they correct for other stuff too, good for them.

  11. walto: That fact is not inconsistent with them needing to be corrected for relativity effects.If they correct for other stuff too, good for them.

    Oh my heavens…

  12. Rumraket: The atomic clock on the satellite counts a second, then a line of code subtracts a small relativistic effect that has been worked out beforehand.

    Clocks don’t count. Counters count.

    I bet you think that the clocks on these satellites have pendulums and a snooze button.

  13. walto: instead of (in notably Trumpian fashion, incidentally), just telling us how smart he is over and over again and how gullible everybody else is)

    No, no, Walto, I didn’t say that even once. I didn’t say I was smart, I said I was right. That’s completely different.

    And yet you have others, like Rummy and Richard who are perfectly content to say, “Oh, you must be wrong”, EVEN THOUGH they admit they don’t know the first thing about the topic. Because they googled it and the first hit they got said it was right! That’s good enough for them!

    Which completely proves my point in the OP, in case you haven’t noticed.

  15. Jesus told the parable of the beam and the mote

    That was for his followers. It’s not for skeptics. And it wasn’t a parable.

  16. Phoodoo knew “relativistic synchronization” was wrong. Because he thought about it. He can’t articulate that process though, because they were feel-thoughts. Does he believe in relativity? Back-peddle Phoodoo suggests ‘yes’. But there are other factors that also require clock adjustment, so global conspiracy around science.

  17. Mung: That was for his followers. It’s not for skeptics. And it wasn’t a parable.

    And there wasn’t a Jesus.

  18. Neil Rickert: There’s no need.

    Every time you synchronize, you make a record. Then you use that to compute the average clock drift rate.And you can then apply that average clock drift rate in between resynchronization events. It doesn’t matter whether the average clock drift rate is due to relativistic effects or to something else.

    That makes sense, but is that how it actually works?

  19. phoodoo:And yet you have others, like Rummy and Richard who are perfectly content to say, “Oh, you must be wrong”

    Then you will be able to quote any one of us making that statement, right?

    “you must be wrong”. One of us must have said that, right? You wouldn’t just sit there and lie again about what other people say, or think?

    EVEN THOUGH they admit they don’t know the first thing about the topic. Because they googled it and the first hit they got said it was right!That’s good enough for them!

    And here you are, not actually having a clue about what any of us know about anything, or how we found out about it, making up stories about how it must all be happening. Simply because this is the story you tell yourself to rationalize the mere fact that we don’t instantly agree with you on something.

    Which completely proves my point in the OP, in case you haven’t noticed.

    So to sum up: You make up a story in your op about what skepticism is, what skeptical organizations and prominent skeptics say.

    Then you get called on it and asked to support your claims.

    Instead of doing that, you make up another story about the people who ask you to support the previous claim you made.

    Then when the story you’ve made up about the people who ask you to support the previous story, fits perfectly into your previous narrative, all by design and without any connection to observational reality, you claim your second made-up story proves your first story correct.

    Brilliant phoodoo. You are all all assertion, no arguments, no evidence.

  20. Hey phoodoo, will you be supporting any of your claims any time soon? Or aswering questions? The list is growing, but all we get back is just more insults.
    Let me remind you of a small sample.

    Phoodoo: But here’s what skeptics, as ironic as it sounds, tell you to do. They tell you to just accept the common wisdom.

    Give quotes from skeptics or their organizations.

    No actually, I think skeptics generally say that you should read the primary literature if you can, and then think for yourself about what you read. I haven’t met anyone who really says you should just blindly accept and believe what everyone else believes. In fact I find that to be the opposite of what skepticism is about.

    Phoodoo: Accept that these science facts must be true, because someone famous says so.

    I have never EVER heard of any skeptic who says that. I don’t think you can find even a single example of that. Give quotes from skeptics or their organizations.

    Phoodoo: accept that GMO foods are good for you

    Who even says “GMO foods are good for you”? Give quotes from skeptics or their organizations.

    Phoodoo: accept that alternative medicine is all fake

    Who even says that? Give quotes from skeptics or their organizations.

    Phoodoo: accept that bigPharm is looking out for your best interests

    Who even says that? Give quotes from skeptics or their organizations.

    Phoodoo: accept materialism

    Who even says that? Give quotes from skeptics or their organizations.

    Phoodoo: accept that every time you hear about a study which contradicts strict materialism it must be wrong

    Who even says that? Give quotes from skeptics or their organizations.

    Phoodoo: accept that every time someone challenges the scientific consensus, then they are by definition quacks

    Who even says that? Give quotes from skeptics or their organizations.

    Phoodoo: and basically just stop thinking for yourself

    Who even says that? Give quotes from skeptics or their organizations.

    Since you cannot support a single one of these, and since you know it and said it anyway, it is actually YOU who is a LIAR.

    phoodoo: No, by waiting years to publish it in its entirety, instead only publishing the parts that were favorable to their predictions. I guess you didn’t google that part.

    Why even publish the full results then? Why the fuck would they publish it if, as you believe simply because you can fit it into a larger narrative about a conspiracy against your worldview, it undermines their work?

    Why not just outright falsify the raw data then?

    Well, that’s sort of your problem, I have no desire whatsoever to persuade anyone. The experiment failed. That is an undeniable fact.

    No it isn’t. So far all it is, is a claim. And that claim is mirrored in a document that purports to show raw data that later got adjusted. And that’s where you got it from in the first place, and you’ve not been in a position to verify it’s authenticity.

    How do we verify that the raw data is authentic?

    If all it takes for it to constitute an “undeniable fact”, is for you to just state as much, then any idiot can do the same. Here goes: It is an undeniable fact that the experiment was a great success, and it is the guy who wrote the document that claims to contain the raw data, who is a fraud.

    Who are we to believe? You seem to have made your choice that it is fraud. You believe the guy who claims it is fraud. Why? Do you know him? Did you get the original data print outs send to you?

  24. Rumraket: Brilliant phoodoo. You are all all assertion, no arguments, no evidence.

    He’s emulating. You should be flattered. #GoSkepticism!

  27. Rumraket, to Neil:

    That makes sense, but is that how it actually works?

    No. The satellite’s clock is free-running and is never synchronized. It’s designed to run slow to compensate for relativistic effects (the orbits are circular so that these efffects are constant) but is otherwise free to drift relative to ground stations and to other satelllites.

    The accumulated error is tracked on the ground. It’s uploaded to the satellite periodically, but the satellite does not use it to correct the onboard clock; instead, it’s broadcast to the receivers as part of the navigation signal. The receivers apply the correction.

  28. Mung:
    More ill than ill. The SkepticILL Zone

    I wonder what do you think you accomplish by blindly supporting phoodoo. Are you paid for irony points?

  29. Mung: The claims of what he did are the accounts for it. Silly person.

    Oh think Mung. There is but once account if we’re honest, which contains many fabulous claims that should warrant many accounts.

  30. I’m kind of disappointed that phoodoo has failed even to attempt to support a single one of the many claims he has made. Even if he thinks insults are sufficient support, the reader’s understanding of the claims is not improved.

    On the other hand, I’ve learned a great deal about how GPS clocks work. By sheer thought alone, it occurred to me that cumulative relativistic error could lead to inaccurate positioning, but pure thought needs at least some input sometimes.

  31. Entropy: I wonder what do you think you accomplish by blindly supporting phoodoo.

    I don’t blindly support phoodoo. In fact, quite recently, I rather badly insulted him. In Noyau, of course. 🙂

    Are you paid for irony points?

    I am, but so far I’ve been too dumb to figure out how to cash them in.

    Suggestions?

  32. Richardthughes: Oh think Mung. There is but once account if we’re honest, which contains many fabulous claims that should warrant many accounts.

    If there is only one account, then there would be no contradictions. Yet you claim there are contradictions. If we’re honest.

  33. Richardthughes: Phoodoo knew “relativistic synchronization” was wrong. Because he thought about it. He can’t articulate that process though, because they were feel-thoughts. Does he believe in relativity? Back-peddle Phoodoo suggests ‘yes’. But there are other factors that also require clock adjustment, so global conspiracy around science.

    See, Rumraket claimed I can’t back up my statement that skeptics are dumb, really dumb. But that’s not true.

    See Rumraket?

    (btw, what does believing or not believing in relativity have anything to do with this thread? See Rum, dumb and dumber).

  34. phoodoo: See, Rumraket claimed I can’t back up my statement that skeptics are dumb, really dumb. But that’s not true.

    Right. I’m a skeptic. You can always use me as an exemplar. Look at Mung. He’s a skeptic. And he is really, really dumb. Just ask keiths.

    🙂

  36. Rumraket: Phoodoo: accept that GMO foods are good for you

    Who even says “GMO foods are good for you”? Give quotes from skeptics or their organizations.

    I did literally EXACTLY that, right on on this thread little Rummy. Right here, where you could read it.

    https://www.csicop.org/si/show/no_health_risks_from_gmos
    https://www.csicop.org/si/show/we_are_all_gmos
    https://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/addressing_the_fear-based_narrative_around_gmos_with_natalie_newell
    https://www.csicop.org/si/show/dont_fear_a_franken_public
    https://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/armed_with_a_misinformation_radar_interview_with_kavin_senapathy

    No health risks from GMOS.
    We are all GMOs
    Addressing the fear based narratives around GMOs
    Don’t fear a franken public….

    Its from the Center for Skeptic Inquiry.

    You couldn’t be more wrong, if you had written, “I didn’t just write that. Prove I just wrote that. Where can you prove I said prove I just wrote that, that never happened. I never said prove I just wrote that….”

    I think maybe I know the problem: You are a GMO! Your brain has been modified and put in something resembling a drunk Sesame Street Muppet puppeteer, trying to fight with his puppet, constantly getting the puppet stuck in his mouth, and then finally knocking himself out with a blow to the kidneys.

    I don’t think there is any way possible to make the point of my post any better by just saying, Look there’s Rumraket, there’s Richard, …..come on guys. Just because they may be genetically modified, that doesn’t make them any less responsible for their atrocious output, does it? Are we to blame Monsanto?

  43. Richardthughes: I have you down more as drive-by toothache.

    How do you explain the alleged contradictions among the various accounts if there is only one account?

    Or does logic not factor in to any of this debate?

  45. Richardthughes: The account is not internally consistent.

    For that to be true the account would have to contain more than one account.

    Don’t they teach that in retail store clerk school?

  47. phoodoo: I did literally EXACTLY that, right on on this thread little Rummy.Right here, where you could read it.

    No health risks from GMOS.
    We are all GMOs
    Addressing the fear based narratives around GMOs
    Don’t fear a franken public….

    Its from the Center for Skeptic Inquiry.

    ??? None of your sources say GMOs are good for you! Just as Rumraket told you. Sure, you can find plenty of sources saying GMOs are not harmful. But that’s not the same thing. No foods are genetically modified to be more healthful, more nutritious, etc. They are modified to be more profitable to grow, without endangering the consumer.

  48. phoodoo: I did literally EXACTLY that, right on on this thread little Rummy.Right here, where you could read it.

    No health risks from GMOS.
    We are all GMOs
    Addressing the fear based narratives around GMOs
    Don’t fear a franken public….

    Its from the Center for Skeptic Inquiry.

    You couldn’t be more wrong, if you had written, “I didn’t just write that. Prove I just wrote that. Where can you prove I said prove I just wrote that, that never happened.I never said prove I just wrote that….”

    I think maybe I know the problem: You are a GMO!Your brain has been modified and put in something resembling a drunk Sesame Street Muppet puppeteer, trying to fight with his puppet, constantly getting the puppet stuck in his mouth, and then finally knocking himself out with a blow to the kidneys.

    I don’t think there is any way possible to make the point of my post any better by just saying, Look there’s Rumraket, there’s Richard, …..come on guys.Just because they may be genetically modified, that doesn’t make them any less responsible for their atrocious output, does it? Are we to blame Monsanto?

    No you didn’t. Literally not one single instance of someone saying “GMO foods are good for you”. All your links essentially say that the dangers and warnings about GMO foods have been exaggerated, and current evidence indicates it is safe for consumption.

    Total and complete failure.

  49. Flint: No foods are genetically modified to be more healthful, more nutritious, etc.

    Gee, another skeptic that has no idea what they are talking about, what do you know.

    Do you care to make a wager on that one?

  50. Yeah that one is simply wrong Flint.

    For example some species of rice are genetically modified to contain the genes that carrots use to synthesize the vitamin A precursor beta-carotene.

    They are literally modified to be more nutritious. Golden rice are a yellow-orange colour exactly because they contain the genes that biosynthesize beta-carotene(which is used by the human body to make vitamin A), that give carrots their orange colour.

Leave a Reply