Sci-Fi Channel Against Skepticism
Posted: 03 June 2007 08:18 PM   [ Ignore ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  148
Joined  2007-03-07

Alright, it’s possible that the person that wrote this article didn’t actually work for Sci-Fi channel, but this article was on their website in their “Sci-Fi Pedia.” It was extremely biased against skepticism, and since it was like Wikipedia in that anyone can edit it, I did so. This is what it originally said:

Skepticism is a social movement which seeks to counter the uncritical acceptance of claims of the paranormal.

Proponents believe this serves the public good in several ways.

It protects people from deliberate frauds
It is an opportunity to teach the scientific method
It helps people select between options, which means they may choose a more efficacious therapy
The size and organization of the movement might surprise casual observers. There are Skeptics’ societies in many cities and many countries. A typical large bookstore is likely to carry one or more magazines on the subject. Skeptical books have been successful, and there is more than one publishing house dedicated to the viewpoint.

[edit]Opposition
Some Skeptics have been accused of being “true unbelievers”, who will as uncritically accept a mundane explanation as the true believers will accept a paranormal one. Just as some UFO authors or psychics have probably fabricated evidence to support their position and get publicity, some Skeptics have probably done the same.

A truly neutral position would challenge the claims of a hoax with the same concern as claims of a paranormal event.

Marcello Truzzi’s aphorism (often credited to Carl Sagan) that “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof” is a good example. Scientifically, every claim should require the same evidence.

However, that doesn’t mean that the claim that someone has seen a UFO in the sky is as likely to be true as the claim that someone has seen an airplane in the sky. Each claim is actually a combination of claims: the witness saw something; that something was in the sky; and the third significant piece here, that it was either an airplane or a UFO. Since it is well established that airplanes exist and can be seen in the sky, that claim doesn’t need to be proven again. The UFO piece would need to be proven, since it is at least unresolved.

Others find some Skeptics’ rejection of miracle-based religion to be troubling.

Source: http://scifipedia.scifi.com/index.php/Skepticism

Now, to only be fair, it says:

Some Skeptics have been accused of being “true unbelievers”, who will as uncritically accept a mundane explanation as the true believers will accept a paranormal one. Just as some UFO authors or psychics have probably fabricated evidence to support their position and get publicity, some Skeptics have probably done the same even though I have no evidence for it but I’m sure that the government just covered it up.

A truly neutral position would challenge the claims of a hoax with the same concern as claims of a paranormal event. However, it is also true that that many paranormal investigators are more likely to assume that it is a paranormal event and spend less time trying to find alternative explainations.

Marcello Truzzi’s aphorism (often credited to Carl Sagan) that “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof” is a good example of why skeptics tend not to believe in the paranormal. Even though one could find mountains of blury photos and eyewitness accounts, cameras and the eye can be easily fooled.

Even though I may be a little biased in my belief in UFOs, that doesn’t mean that the claim that someone has seen a UFO in the sky is as likely to be true as the claim that someone has seen an airplane in the sky. Each claim is actually a combination of claims: the witness saw something; that something was in the sky; and the third significant piece here, that it was either an airplane or a UFO. Since it is well established that airplanes exist and can be seen in the sky, that claim doesn’t need to be proven again. The UFO piece would need to be proven, since it is at least unresolved.

Others find some Skeptics’ rejection of miracle-based religion to be troubling (even though it is their right to do so, as stated in the Constitution. Afterall, one of the reasons for coming to America was so that people could have their own beliefs.) One must understand, though, that they are equally as troubled (if not more) with the knowledge that Christian Fundamentalists wish to eliminate religious freedom and force their particular notion of God upon the world.

If anyone thinks I left anything out, feel free to change it on your own.

Now, just because I feel a little bad about changing that person’s words, is what I did ethical?

 Signature 

1. God is omnipotent.
Source: Several incidents where I’ve annoyed fundamentalist Christians by challenging God’s power.
2. If God is omnipotent then he can travel faster than the speed of light.
Modus Ponens
3. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
Source: Einstein
Therefore, God is nothing.
QED

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 June 2007 12:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

The guy who wrote the original was confused about what Sagan meant.  The person making the claim had the responsibility of proving it.  Non-theists aren’t (at least most of them aren’t) declaring that god doesn’t exist; rather they are saying that they see no evidence for its existence.  As such, they are just asking the theists to offer clear proof.  And, this doesn’t mean using First Cause or Watchmaker arguments. 

Non-theists don’t see the value or function of adding the concept of a god to our understanding of our world.  Although most religions preach morality, it’s obvious that since a) there are a great many unethical religious people, and b) there are a great many non-theists who have been shown to have lived extremely moral and ethical lives, this cannot be used as a reason for religions.

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 June 2007 06:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  148
Joined  2007-03-07

Well, Skiffy took away my edits (and I suppose they had a right to) but I requested that they remove the opposition portion of that article because it was opinionated and not “balanced and thoughtful,” which was the reason they took away my edits.

 Signature 

1. God is omnipotent.
Source: Several incidents where I’ve annoyed fundamentalist Christians by challenging God’s power.
2. If God is omnipotent then he can travel faster than the speed of light.
Modus Ponens
3. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
Source: Einstein
Therefore, God is nothing.
QED

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 June 2007 02:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  19
Joined  2006-10-28

The Sci-Fi channel can really piss me off a lot of the time.

ExCalibur, that one with the leprechauns, Merlin, shit that’s based off of non-scientific myths… IS NOT SCIENCE FICTION!! MAGIC IS NOT THE SAME AS SCIENCE, YOU FUCKTARDS!!!!  And most sci-fi original movies suck ass.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2007 01:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  148
Joined  2007-03-07

And Dresden files is about a wizard and it tends to demonize skeptics…

They have a total of three pseudoscience programs

And they cancelled Stargate: SG-1.

What reason do we have not to be pissed?

 Signature 

1. God is omnipotent.
Source: Several incidents where I’ve annoyed fundamentalist Christians by challenging God’s power.
2. If God is omnipotent then he can travel faster than the speed of light.
Modus Ponens
3. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
Source: Einstein
Therefore, God is nothing.
QED

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 June 2007 02:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

I love science fiction.  So, I tape the Monday four hours of Enterprise (the weakest of the Startrek series) for watching later.  Other than that, I haven’t found the Sci-Fi channel worth very much.

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 August 2007 07:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  2
Joined  2007-08-01

I think the sci-fi channels target audience is pseudoscience fans, or others who want to believe in magic.  True skeptics and rationalists are really not wanted there.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2007 12:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1161
Joined  2007-07-16

its kind of like the history channel. it doesnt have anything to do with history, or at least not much. they should rename it the nazi channel because thats almost all of the programs are on

 Signature 

“Unsustainable systems can’t be sustained.” ~ Robert Jensen

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2007 03:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  459
Joined  2007-06-19
truthaddict - 03 August 2007 12:58 PM

its kind of like the history channel. it doesnt have anything to do with history, or at least not much. they should rename it the nazi channel because thats almost all of the programs are on

I think history channel turned to be more warrior and american propagandist after iraq war. I stoped watching THC a couple of years ago tired of war technology, army enrollment adverstisement, and things like that.

Regarding SciFi Channel it was recently added to my tv chart. I am really disapointed, it has to do with magic and paranormals thing and no with SciFi. I like SciFi, but I tend to agree with the article which triggered the fire of Stanislav Lem ( A Visionay Among the Charlatans ) from the american association of SciFi writers (I’d add Lem itself and Cordwainer Smith with P. Dick to the category of great sci fi writers).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2007 04:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  148
Joined  2007-03-07

No. Sci-fi definitely has a lot of sci-fi programming. They have wrestling on the Sci-Fi channel. That makes perfect sense. Wrestling is definitely sci-fi.

*drowns in sarcasm*

 Signature 

1. God is omnipotent.
Source: Several incidents where I’ve annoyed fundamentalist Christians by challenging God’s power.
2. If God is omnipotent then he can travel faster than the speed of light.
Modus Ponens
3. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
Source: Einstein
Therefore, God is nothing.
QED

Profile
 
 
Posted: 03 August 2007 09:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

Well, I did enjoy the Sci-Fi channel when they had reruns of Dark Angel on.  You may not have thought of that show as being good sci-fi, but who cares if the main character is Jessica Alba?  LOL

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 August 2007 02:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  148
Joined  2007-03-07

I also used to enjoy Dresden Files even though it wasn’t neccesarily sci-fi… But Skiffy cancelled that too.

*sigh*

Oh well. I guess it’s just impossible to get my sci-fi fix anymore…

 Signature 

1. God is omnipotent.
Source: Several incidents where I’ve annoyed fundamentalist Christians by challenging God’s power.
2. If God is omnipotent then he can travel faster than the speed of light.
Modus Ponens
3. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
Source: Einstein
Therefore, God is nothing.
QED

Profile