Lease this WebApp and get rid of the ads.
SES
Perefect case of "consider the source".
Thu Nov 9, 2017 6:19am
108.171.130.166 (XFF: 198.101.7.220)

Magician and skeptic Mark Edward has written:

"Mr. Tsakiris is not just a believer, he’s clearly a con artist out to sell himself as an 'expert in the field.' He’s not an expert at all. I doubt if he’s really even a believer if you get right down to it. He is playing what he thinks is a shrewd game of playing both sides against the middle and creating a win/win situation for himself. There’s no science at Skeptiko."

Tsakiris likes to sandbag interviewees with sudden changes in plans just before recording, and is unapologetic about doing so. He has a habit of post-editing interviews with voiceovers when things are not going his way.

The skeptiko.com transcripts of the podcasts cannot be trusted. Tsakiris edits the interviewees' words to push his views (e.g. changing every time Coyne said "Newtonian" to "quantum" — 'cos the words sound so similar) or just makes up entire sentences attributed to the interviewees that aren't present in the audio.

Misunderstanding of science

Stuart Robbins of Exposing PseudoAstronomy has analyzed in detail Tsakiris' misunderstandings of how science works:

1. Confusing papers' conclusions and their original data.
2. Confusing argument from authority with scientific consensus.
3. Picking guests from Amazon best-seller lists rather than finding credible scientists with a peer-reviewed track record.
4. Confusing a class of outcomes with a single cause, i.e., not understanding that one effect can have multiple causes (including mundane ones).
5. Telling experts they don't understand the area of their expertise when they don't agree with him.
6. Claiming a phenomenon should be studied before even establishing it exists.
7. Appeal to quantum mechanics.
8. Appeal to an individual researcher's unduplicated results.
9. Relying on eyewitness memories decades after the fact.
10. Not understanding that it's up to the claimant to provide the evidence.

These are down to natural human cognitive biases, which is why science is hard. But when experts in all the scientific areas you deal with tell you that you're full of it, it may be an idea to consider the notion.

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyhZV-LGtJ8
    • Perefect case of "consider the source". — SES, Thu Nov 9 6:19am
      • Doctor Long's data has helped to characterize the experiences of people who felt that they experienced NDEs. For example, after examining the experiences of more than 1,100 patients, he said that 74% ... more
        • you don't quote Parnia. Long's interview was very impressive but your rebuttal is not. you have NO EXPLANATION for any of them. How do you judge the fact they merely felt they had NDE instead of... more
Click here to receive daily updates


Religion and Ethics BBS