Phil Plait, "Don't Be a Dick" (Part 1 of 3)

An internet atheist has a video about not being a dick. That's a good one.

Bart Sibrel Would crush you in a conversation. You don’t have the guts to take him on.

Funny Phil Plait worked for Slate who supports pedophiles and gives them a platform...all I'm saying Phil Plait is a fucking scumbag.

Although I’m mostly interested in astronomy and physics, my favorite scientific theory (although it’s a fact) is evolution, and Richard Dawkins is my favorite skeptic scientist of this century because he cuts the bullshit and calls bullshit anything that doesn’t have any evidence, like religion and creationism.

Not bad... Smart.. Intelligent...!

Please consider just how outraged the incredibly PC Mr. Plait would be, had someone made a lecture called "don't be a pussy". He would go out of his way to argue that openly using the word "pussy" in such a manner displays an obvious contempt for women in general. Notice the double standards we would see him embrace right before our eyes. Phil's astronomy stuff is good enough, but his absurd level of political correctness should not be embraced by anyone.

Would you believe that it was a hoax if it was demonstrated that the footage of astronauts on the moon can be shown to be in conflict with the laws of physics? There is NEW evidence which confirms that is the case.

I guarantee you that this is not an analysis with which you are already familiar. Take a look at the video called "MB ENHANCED: Gravity Analysis of Falling Sand". It is a part of a series of videos in which the Apollo footage is subjected to forensic analysis.

The video demonstrates unequivocally that objects and sand don't free-fall at the same rate as the astronauts (because they are suspended with cables), that the frame rate is inconsistent, along with some other catastrophic divergences with reality.

If God does not exist, why are all these people bothering to discuss or debate the question? Personal attacks do not a science or philosophy make.

I hate his looks: Bald, big nose, long and narrow face, specs. Barf.

Funny think is... Quantum physics is showing that "enter your random argument here"

Hmm... So this major DICK gives a talk about not being a dick. Ok everyone if you want to contribute to this world do not be anything like this dickhead Phil Plait who is just an unproductive pawn and mouthpiece

Im skeptical of skeptics who think their skepticism is right.

Oh come on, Data is an android with a positronic processor for a brain. Everyone knows that.

Andrew Wakefield was not discredited by science. In fact it was the persecuting media that were discredited. Vaccines are a dangerous thing and carry the polio the man speaks about and the whooping cough vaccine gave whooping cough to plenty of people in California. The guy is obnoxious and not much of a sceptic.

I take it as a personal badge of honor that Mr. Plait took the time to block me from his BA Twitter, and for the relatively minor offence of questioning some of his political barbs. Douchebags are douchy, and Phil's one of the douchiest.

It is interesting that he complains about sceptics being 'dicks' but still defends people who have attacked idiotic belief systems...and takes a sarcastic, scathing tone with his audience lol. I think that the more venomous attacks on belief are very necessary. Richard Dawkins and particularly the late (and missed) Hitchens have the right approach to counter the vitriol from the other side. Beliefs corrode our species. They damage our progress, and should be countered accordingly.

I love how Quantum physics gets used more and more by pseudo-scientists as an argument for almost anything.

"What The Bleep Do We Know" has been slammed and debunked as New Age woo-woo framed in junk/pseudo-science. The question is not how many scientists have been ostracized for new ideas. It's how many of those ideas have turned out to be wrong? Science requires rigorous, evidence based proof of anything it considers to be true.

LOL, there is a plethora of people with above average IQ's who hold religious beliefs, it's called compartmentalization. Fact is, people are capable of recognizing this flaw and rectifying it (look at Matt Dillahunty). I suppose you don't support rehabilitation either, because like, fuck trying to help those who stumble reach their potential and raise the collective well-being of society. Brilliant. No, I was lucky enough not to be indoctrinated at an impressionable age.

A good portion of rational atheists today were once believers of some kind. Hmmm... someone who has no interest in improving the world, yep sounds like another weak minded parasitic moron.

the only way we will ever move forward is to understand that we are all idiots ,granted some to a lesser degree than others . then and only then we might find truth when we stumble upon it !

Sadly we aren't making progress. Religious folks tend to reproduce in greater numbers than secular thinkers, if they raise 7 devout believers for every 2 openly thinking children, the war is slowly being lost a little more each day. Frankly, and this is just me, I've given up hope that our species will most past the fantasy and grasp reality, it does not benefit those in power and thus will never be openly supported in the public square.

Galileo.

@standauffish (+/-) "They tell you one thing just to proves that it's wrong tomorrow" Yep. That's called honesty, it's fine to admit you don't know rather than relying on absolute answers you either can't or don't want to prove wrong. NOT ONE theory is proven to be right. But they work better than everything else. Albert Einstein was a cool guy, a physicist, not an ass. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Dishonesty is worse than both. Or maybe you're just a trollfish.

@standauffish Oh, and if you want to hear my principles on the nature of reality and what is true in a philosophical setting, let me know, I was more operating under the principles you sue, namely the relativism of knowledge etc. I also think it would be senseless of me to simply sit here defending him, as it is quite obvious that you should deny ideas that make no sense today, and change your mind tomorrow, if it then does make sense, not a second before.

@standauffish I can philosophically accept your factual relativism (barely) but the current knowledge and understanding of truth is that homeopathy and faith healing does not do anything beyond a placebo effect. And our only way to relate with the world is to accept the current best understanding, even if it turns out not to be true. And as a scientist, it is his work to present and argue for the current best explanation for how the world works. This is "truth"; our understanding of the universe

@standauffish No, you don't, you know of plenty of cases were people have gotten better due to their own bodies being awesome, and blaming it on something with a documented effect of nil. I'm sorry to be so harsh but I've had my monthly share of antu-science. I'm pretty sure saying that new things should not currently be accepted as truths is the dictionary definition of skepticism. Yes, it is good we have free speech, maybe we can actually manage to come to conclusions about truth.

@standauffish What The Bleep Do We Know seem like an awful pile of bullshit from the first 20 minutes I've seen. Do yourself a favor and watch "Lecture 1->10 | Modern Physics: Quantum Mechanics".

@TheAtheologian - Well, I wasn't trying to criticize skepticism as I'm a skeptic myself. I was just criticizing the oversimplified view that all of the church has always been monolithically opposed to scientific discovery and that scientists welcome new discovery with open arms. Albert Einstein's new physics got quite a bit of resistance in the scientific community as did some of Darwin's theories originally. Unfortunately some scientists can be traditionalists instead of skeptics.

@A86 I can accept that, but honestly I don't think you view that as a valid criticism of skepticism. For every genius who gets lucky, there are thousands of crazy people who get it wrong. Paraphrasing from Shermers book, I can't remember the exact quote.

@TheAtheologian - Actually, there were a lot of Christians back in Galileo's day who supported him and some scientists who didn't who were convinced of Aristotelian crystal spheres and such. The storyline of Galileo being a lone voice in the wilderness among the church while scientists universally jumped on board with what he had to say is a gross oversimplification.

If you say you always end up backing up what you were just trying to disprove, then maybe you are the one not thinking clearly.

@standauffish Plus the fact that once Phil is faced with someone who he ignores or runs from because of being caught lying....As Phil is very good at....He runs like a coward! Cowardly skeptics are the worst!

The Lord is not my shepherd for I am not a sheep

@standauffish Skepticism is what keeps homeopathy at bay. Skepticism is what stops faith healers. Not to mention that science itself is an exercise of skepticism. If we were to reject an old view and accept a new one on circumstantial evidence, then why is CERN rerunnning the neutrino tests? And Galileos skeptics were the church, not scientists. These were not rational criticisms because he used a crappy telescope (he did btw, he got lucky) but ideological critics.

@standauffish Skepticism isn't about saying no to new ideas, it's about not saying yes immediately. And then there is science, which is about finding out why to say yes or no, and unanimously the skeptic has to show that we say no until we can, honestly and ethically, say yes.

Cottingley fairies ftw! Cottingley is less than 10 miles from me! Those fairies are mischeivious bastards, setting off car alarms in the night and breaking into my flat and hiding my socks before I get up. The bastards!

@Whisper6911 It's certainly not just a matter of persuading people. The ones that leave religion behind are usually already reaching out for the discussion. Plait just advises to keep that discussion viable and welcoming. Social events are changing people's perspective. Modern society requires science and is thus a material reality that provides the survival incentive to defer to critical thinking rather than superstition. There's no return to before technology. Clarity is a need, not a virtue

@Whisper6911 True that people change not just as a matter of persuasion and usually only when they're already reaching out for support to make that decision. However, massive events tend to create the conditions for change that otherwise seem impossible. Modern society is irreversibly based on science, and there's no way back, so that inevitable condition alone creates the material incentive to replace superstition with reason. Plait just advocates meeting that challenge maturely and sagaciously

@Whatistobe maybe, but i think we delude ourselves if we think we have any control over these things.

@Whisper6911 In defense of Plait he's fairly clear: we're even genetically wired to "believe;" "skepticism is hard;" we're in an "uphill battle" against overwhelming odds; etc. He establishes that fact because it is folly to take the matter so lightly as to think one can brush the problem off with an insult alone. But the counter-message isn't "you are bullshit." It is "you are a human being, and you need to start thinking critically." Note that atheism IS on the rise. People ARE losing blinders

@Whisper6911 no matter how nicely you say it, the message is: you are bullshit, and you need to be taken apart and redesigned in order to be a real human being. and this to people who have poked out their eyes and ears and taught themselves thought blocking techniques without anyones help, just to avoid your marketing. it is far easier to sell an actual physical death with illusions, then it is to sell life with truth. suicide bombers are a good example of that.

@Whatistobe these people are so deeply invested in their delusions, that they derive their entire self image from it. if their faith falters, their identity falters, and no matter what you try the only result will be not simply the ego defending itself, it will be the ego fighting for its very survival. so ultimately what you are selling is an identity crisis that is absolute, in that it leaves nothing intact whatsoever.

@Whatistobe no dude, he utterly fails to adress, or perhaps even realise, that these people are not thinking clearly, they never wanted to think clearly! u can bring a horse to water, but dude if it doesn't drink... ...you might have to kill and eat it. there is no way to prevail, this is the fallacy. people who reject reason are not sensitive to reason, period. u may sway them for a moment, trying to make truth more attractive, but that only works until they see something shiny.

@Whisper6911 In fact, this is exactly what Plait is addressing: "how do you convince someone that they're not thinking clearly when they're not thinking clearly?" There are strong incentives to be irrational. But Plait doesn't suggest "turning the other cheek." He only suggests that taking the high road is the ONLY way ultimately to prevail. When we merely call others *ahem* "morons," we burn bridges to resolution, and we're better off building them even if most "morons" won't cross them... yet

oh yeah, lets use reason on people who rejected reason a long time ago and life their life in complete ignorance of it. yeah thats a debate thats going to make a difference. seriously i cannot think of a more futile and thankless exorcise. these people are religious FOR A REASON you moron! truth scares the shit out of them, delusion offers them everything they ever wanted. these people are simply not buying what you are selling no matter how nice you are.

@DwknsDnnttHtchnsHrrs Thanks for illustrating the point Plait failed to make with you. . . and mine too. He wouldn't have made abuse his topic for TAM 8 if it wasn't for embarassing commentary exactly like what you just posted. You're supposed to convince me with logic, remember? What he doesn't understand is that if abuse was taken out of "skeptic" commentary, there'd BE no commentary! If you don't want it in this part of the lecture, you don't need to get insulting, just disable it! ;-)

Here's another example. Plait is the president of an organization led by a man (Randi) who offers unilaterally to give $1M for "proof" of any number of things he & Plait don't believe in, such as homeopathy. They claim there's no logical explanation for the action of its remedies, therefore it's a scam. But now MD Anderson (Houston), the nation's #1 rated cancer clinic, is offering homeopathic treatment, citing scientific evidence for its effectiveness in treating cancer. Where' the $1M now?

Granted, I'm assuming that you're taking the usual TAM position on homeopathy, but Plait does speaks of it as an example of pseudoscience & he regurgitates his own faith based talking points. Allow me to illustrate a video of me was shown at one of these TAMs, after which Randi refers to me as "this idiot Benneth." Now, if TAM represents balanced objectivity, why wasn't I there for the kind of dialogue Plaitt is calling for, to tear me apart in person? Afraid of the facts? Want more?

I can give you plenty of "cases in point." But you can't reasonably evaluate them. Take the homeopathic remedies you say are inert for example. When confronted with in vitro tests that show their biochemical action, you won't be able to accept them. Your belief in the impossible is so strong you may not be able to even confront contradictory evidence, much less accept it. You're too committed to it being impossible. "Skepticism" is really just an excuse to dismiss what you don't want to believe.