The Skeptical Inquirer Embarrasses Itself

[davesmith_au]

October 19 ~ Michael Goodspeed

Most people who take an interest in alternative scientific issues have heard of the publication the Skeptical Inquirer (SI). Founded in the mid 1970's by Marcello Truzzi (also the co-founder of CSICOP), SI's purpose is to attempt to debunk non-mainstream views of nature and science. Interestingly, it was Truzzi who wanted to allow proponents of "paranormal" ideas to occasionally contribute material to SI -- an opinion that resulted in a no-confidence vote against Truzzi, and his subsequent resignation. Perhaps this fiasco helped shape Truzzi's view of "pseudoskeptics" -- individuals who, in Truzzi's words, “shout their objections but don't take proper note of what is going on.” ... [More...]

[Redoubt]

I have always held that skepticism is an entirely healthy way to approach most anything that doesn’t approach you in a clear and precise manner. That being said, however, devoting oneself to the singular task of disproving (aka: debunking) takes what could be a positive effort towards discovery and turns it on its ear.

Over the years, I have watched as SI has moved from the purer science of investigation and search for truth, into something of an extremist camp where even the color of a stop sign could be argued until it was quite blue.

Denial for the sake of itself is not science, discovery or even a means to an eventual end. It is simply negativity feeding from its own force.

Understanding this, it is highly unlikely that SI could withstand its own scrutiny right now.

[MGmirkin]

it is highly unlikely that SI could withstand its own scrutiny right now.

From your statements in the prior post, you're probably right.

It's sad when "honest, unbiased investigation" turns into "witch hunting with an apparent agenda"...

~Michael Gmirkin

[dyordy]

I have long since concluded that "Skeptics" magazines are some of the most gullible people around. They embrace "accepted" theories and ideas without question or analysis. A true skeptic weighs both sides carefully without bias or emotion, and presents arguments from both sides honestly. Critical thinking is the ability to weigh two opposing views and then to come to conclusions based on evidence without emotion. When I first found Thunderbolts four years ago, I was absolutely fascinated by the beauty of the Electric Universe theory, but I required it to prove itself to me. Over the next couple of years, I read the Picture of the Day, daily. (I still do most of the time.) Before I would commit myself to EU as accurate, I required that it explain itself clearly to me so that I understood it in a reasonably complete way, and that it provide sufficient ongoing proofs that it was accurate. It has long since done so.

I wanted, then, to raise a question found in this article; that is, that the phenomena experienced by the earth in the past is not happening today. It seems to me that the future of the solar system is written in the flow of currents coming towards the sun. If I understand the explanation of the sun correctly from Scott's book, our sun is at full discharge capacity. Conventional science is reporting that the flow of charged particles around the sun is at its lowest since they have recorded it. As a result, the sun is at its quietest, with no sun spots for many months, and the flow of "solar wind" towards the earth is reduced. If I understand EU correctly, there is simply an ebb and flow, slight variations in the flow of electrical currents down the arm of the galaxy. My question then is, would a surge of electrical flow overwhelm the capacity of the sun to discharge, causing it to create more surface discharge area by blowing a large chunk of itself out (thus creating a new planet)? This is speculative, of course, but it's fun to speculate. The result would be that what was once experienced on this earth would be present experience again.

And both the "skeptics" and most of humanity who believe conventional astronomy, would be very confused indeed.
-DYordy