The Ills of the Skeptical Movement

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.

491 thoughts on “The Ills of the Skeptical Movement

  1. DNA_Jock: Precisely. That was my point. So when you wrote “one of the cameramen who filmed the test told Randi that he tipped off the dog owner when the other person was about to come home.” you were talking rubbish. I responded: “it was the owner who was returning home, so tipping them off wouldn’t do much good.”

    No. If you had read Sheldrake’s paper, you would realize that Jaytee’s owner, Pamela Smart, acted as Sheldrake’s assistant in the experiments on Kane.

    Well, you also wrote that the cameraman said that it was a lie. Given the non-existence of any cameraman, you were obviously wrong about that. Do try to keep up.
    I have no opinion about what Randi may or may not have said about these experiments. Richard Wiseman is the guy who fisked Sheldrake’s shoddy work, and one of his two main points was about people inadvertently tipping the dog off. It’s called “Sensory leakage”.

    Oh my god, you are nuts. The owner, being the people at home, one of the owners was Pamela Smart and the other owners was the parents who owned the house! It didn’t matter to me WHO called themselves the owner!

    DNA_Jock: Richard Wiseman is the guy who fisked Sheldrake’s shoddy work, and one of his two main points was about people inadvertently tipping the dog off.

    How can anyone tip the the dog off if there was no one there to film it!! So there were people in the house with the dog, JUST LIKE I SAID.

    Are you insane?

    And the reason Pamela Smart was helping Sheldrake, was because she read about Sheldrake and volunteered to help, JUST LIKE I JUST SAID!

    WTF

  2. Okay, I hereby promise to no longer try to explain Special Relativity to people who cannot even comprehend simple English sentences.
    My bad.
    I just have a visceral reaction when people cite Sheldrake.
    Off-topic: where I live, the name Pamela Smart conjures up an entirely different image.
    😮

  3. phoodoo: I guess Randi does too, that he why he has to lie about the studies.

    Here’s a great video showing how not only did Randi lie about the dog experiments to try to discredit them, but Richard Wiseman lied as well.

    I love the quote from the dog owner at the end: “And if there is one thing I have learned, it is to be skeptical of the skeptics.”

  4. walto:
    phoodoo,

    That was enjoyable.Did it convince you that the terrier has telepathic powers?

    It convinced me that Wiseman is a liar.

    I wonder why he lies? I wonder why Randi lies.

    No, actually I don’t wonder.

  5. phoodoo: You know gravity affects light, you think it wouldn’t affect an atomic clock (we are not talking relativity, try to keep thinking for a few more seconds if you can)? Its ok, you can’t know everything.

    How do we “know gravity affects light”? Unless we defer to the Theory of General Relativity that is…

    Nothing that I’m aware of accounts for the bending of light by gravity except the space-time curvature which General Relativity predicts.

  6. RoyLT: Can you give me the basics of how satellites ‘triangulate based on other satellites’?

    Mung: They use triangulation.

    What a helpful description…

    Care to elaborate? In particular, how do they measure the angle to other satellites?

  7. RoyLT,

    There are ways to try to learn about things if you are really interested. I admit Wikipedia is not the best way. Maybe you can find some sources that haven’t been infected by skeptics. Good luck.

  8. phoodoo: I wonder why he lies? I wonder why Randi lies.

    No, actually I don’t wonder.

    So you’re telepathic too, and you don’t ever doubt your own conclusions? How open minded of you.

  9. phoodoo: There are ways to try to learn about things if you are really interested.

    Hey, this is a good opportinity to pretend to be a mindreader like you. Lemme see, what was it you said?

    I wonder why you avoid a substantive answer? I wonder why you make diversions.
    No, actually I don’t wonder.

  10. Rumraket,

    Yea, I get it, you don’t know why Randi and Wiseman would feel the need to publicly lie, to further their agenda. Its a mystery to you.

    I guess some of us have the power and some don’t, what can I say.

  11. phoodoo:
    Rumraket,

    Yea, I get it, you don’t know why Randi and Wiseman would feel the need to publicly lie, to further their agenda.Its a mystery to you.

    I guess some of us have the power and some don’t, what can I say.

    Yeah I feel the exact same way. It is not at all hard to figure out why you don’t want to substantively answer RoyLT. I guess I just have that power.

  12. phoodoo: There are ways to try to learn about things if you are really interested.

    Another non-answer. Try again:

    RoyLT: How do we “know gravity affects light”? Unless we defer to the Theory of General Relativity that is…

    You have, on your other OP, discounted the time dilation effects predicted by both Special and General Relativity. How do you account for the ability of gravity to affect light?

  13. RoyLT: phoodoo: There are ways to try to learn about things if you are really interested.

    Another non-answer. Try again:

    Try learning.

  14. phoodoo: I didn’t discount anything, I said my thought experiment has not been overcome.

    Sorry, I mixed up the OP’s. It was on this thread that you said the comment below:

    phoodoo: The effects of time dilation are not observed in GPS satellites.

    General Relativity predicts that objects at different distances from a gravitational force (i.e. Earth) will experience time at different rates. Do you agree or disagree with this prediction?

    General Relativity also predicts that gravity curves space-time causing light to bend as it travels. Do you agree or disagree with this prediction?

  15. Rumraket: Yeah I feel the exact same way. It is not at all hard to figure out why you don’t want to substantively answer RoyLT. I guess I just have that power.

    Shit. I thought I was special. 🙁

  16. phoodoo:
    RoyLT,

    I don’t have enough information to agree or disagree.

    Neither do you.

    Astronomers beg to differ, they observe gravitational lensing which unless you have a better explanation for the effect demonstrates the warping of space-time by massive galaxies.

  17. phoodoo: I don’t have enough information to agree or disagree.

    Wow, what a stark contrast to your earlier statements:

    phoodoo: 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!

    Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

  18. RoyLT: phoodoo: 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!

    Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

    Now you are making no sense at all. Saying I don’t know is the same as you are wrong?

    You guys and your word usage. I wish we could agree what language this site is using.

  19. Random doesn’t mean random, fitness doesn’t mean fitness, entity doesn’t mean entity, skeptical doesn’t mean skeptical,…

  20. phoodoo: Now you are making no sense at all. Saying I don’t know is the same as you are wrong?

    Here is the previous sentence from the above-referenced post:

    phoodoo: 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 a couple of other comments from earlier in this thread:

    phoodoo: It doesn’t fucking matter, because you made up your mind before you had the faintest idea what you are talking about, fool.

    And Walto went along with you! And why did he go along with you, when you were completely wrong?

    phoodoo: You can believe whatever you want, you will just continue to be wrong.

    You have many opinions about things you know nothing about.

    So despite your certainty that you are right and several of us ‘skeptics’ who believe in the predictive accuracy of Einstein’s theories are wrong, you “don’t have enough information to agree or disagree”.

  21. RoyLT,

    You may want to try going back and reading with conviction. That was a discussion about the validity of the Hafele-Keating experiment.

  22. phoodoo: Lucky accidents.

    So a random variable is a lucky accident variable. And an expected probability means that somebody has expected it. You are most excellent, phoodoo. I’m beginning to think that Neil might be right about you actually being a pumpkin!

  23. phoodoo: That was a discussion about the validity of the Hafele-Keating experiment.

    And? You take the raw data of Hafele-Keating to be proof that satellites don’t experience time-dilation and yet you explicitly state that gravity affects light.

    Unless you are aware of a unified theory that predicts curvature of space-time and does not entail time dilation, then you appear to be arguing (perhaps too generous of a verb) two irreconcilable positions.

  24. walto: You are most excellent, phoodoo. I’m beginning to think that Neil might be right about you actually being a pumpkin!

    A pumpkin process. There is no such thing as a pumpkin.

  25. walto: So a random variable is a lucky accident variable.

    Note that the term ‘random variable’ is something of a misnomer, since a function from one set to another is neither random nor a variable. Even the determination of a random variable’s input need not be random.

    – The Oxford Handbook of Probability and Philosophy

  26. RoyLT,

    So the experiment was a lie. And people keep repeating this lie.

    Relativity may be true, but the experiment would still be a lie.

    I have no way of knowing what other experiments are being lied about.

  27. phoodoo: So the experiment was a lie. And people keep repeating this lie.

    Relativity may be true, but the experiment would still be a lie.

    I have no way of knowing what other experiments are being lied about.

    Different people have repeated the experiment and got the same results, that seems the opposite of a lie. You may disagree with the interpretation but the results are real.

  28. newton: Different people have repeated the experiment and got the same results,

    Wait, different people repeated the experiment and ALSO got wildly different results with each clock? With some of the clocks results so screwed up that they just left the results out?

    Well, how about that.

  29. phoodoo: Wait, different people repeated the experiment and ALSO got wildly different results with each clock? With some of the clocks results so screwed up that they just left the results out?

    Well, how about that.

    I guess they got lucky or had legitimate reasons for their decisions because original results were in line with others performing the same experiment with more advanced equipment in over the years. Do you have any objections to the later results of the same experiment?

  30. walto:
    newton,

    His objections are based on his knowing that the theory is wrong. I mean, he read on another site that it is.

    My objection is based on Hafele-Keating being a lie. And yet it gets repeated so often that Newton can’t even reference these other so called studies. He just keeps saying others that are the same as Hafele-Keating.

    So other fraudulent claims?

  31. phoodoo: My objection is based on Hafele-Keating being a lie.And yet it gets repeated so often that Newton can’t even reference these other so called studies.He just keeps saying others that are the same as Hafele-Keating.

    Sure I can, but these are not studies they are replications of the original experiment with better technology. For instance: http://www.npl.co.uk/news/time-flies. You seemed disinterested in anything other that repeating the original was a lie.

    I do have a question if someone was going to lie and commit scientific fraud about the outcome of an experiment why include things in the raw data which would expose the fraud. As a a true skeptic you do not find that a major question mark about your hypothesis of fraud?

    So other fraudulent claims

    Perhaps ,yet what motivation would others have to risk being exposed and jeopardizing their career. As a true skeptic I am sure you know the larger conspiracy that is required to maintain the belief the more skepticism needs to be brought to bear on that belief.

Leave a Reply