Bad Science on the OBOD forum!

[cursuswalker]

YO SKEPTICAL DRUIDS!

There is a bit of faulty research here:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=38029

Feel free to join in

[Dendrias]

That seems to be pretty filthy, doesn't it?

[cursuswalker]

That seems to be pretty filthy, doesn't it?

Ironically my posting it to a skeptics forum has resulted in a lot of constructive feedback, which seems to have been taken on board.

[Dendrias]

When You say "ironically", what was Your intention when You called Your gang to bully someone?

[cursuswalker]

When You say "ironically", what was Your intention when You called Your gang to bully someone?

That's hilarious.

Ignoring your hyperbolic use of the nouns "gang" and "bully" are you suggesting that science or social studies should not be subjected to critical scrutiny? Especially when it is badly designed in a way that would seem to bias it towards a conclusion that a group is more closed minded than an objective study might reveal?

If you can't take critical scrutiny DON'T get into the business of trying to draw conclusions about huge groups of people.

[Bracken]

Ahem!

[Arth Frown]

When You say "ironically", what was Your intention when You called Your gang to bully someone?

There are a few of us who feel the same way.

[cursuswalker]

When You say "ironically", what was Your intention when You called Your gang to bully someone?

There are a few of us who feel the same way.

Please feel free to elaborate.

[cursuswalker]

Ahem!

Yep. LOTS of critical scrutiny all over that thread

Which I duly took

[Dendrias]

Ignoring your hyperbolic use of the nouns "gang" and "bully" are you suggesting that science or social studies should not be subjected to critical scrutiny? Especially when it is badly designed in a way that would seem to bias it towards a conclusion that a group is more closed minded than an objective study might reveal?
If you can't take critical scrutiny DON'T get into the business of trying to draw conclusions about huge groups of people.

You misunderstood me in the most important aspect: I'm not the least against scrutiny; I'm not the least in favour of biased pseudoscience. I'm against ... well, what "gang" and "bully" hyperbolicly stand for: while scrutinising in one thread, going to another thread (a thread that seems to be the place to gather certain people, let's call it the peer-group) and calling not for help but for people (in-people, it seems "YO SKEPTICAL DRUIDS!") to join in the funny game of ... scrutinising? No, the funny game of ... I dunno ... ridiculing, perhaps?

Feel free to join in

As this is The Skeptical Druid, cursuswalker, do You think that my interpretation of Your action is plausible? If not, why not?
As this is The Skeptical Druid, how comes You interpret my "going for the throat at" You as rejection of scrutiny?
As this is The Skeptical Druid, how comes You are rejecting scrutiny of Your actions? I must admit that I was "in a mood" and voiced in a quite rude way what had been fermenting in me for some days, and I want to apologise for that.

[I owe some of the quotations to Nico from another thread. Whom I want to thank for his understanding tone in telling me off. That bettered my mood.]

[cursuswalker]

Ignoring your hyperbolic use of the nouns "gang" and "bully" are you suggesting that science or social studies should not be subjected to critical scrutiny? Especially when it is badly designed in a way that would seem to bias it towards a conclusion that a group is more closed minded than an objective study might reveal?
If you can't take critical scrutiny DON'T get into the business of trying to draw conclusions about huge groups of people.

You misunderstood me in the most important aspect: I'm not the least against scrutiny; I'm not the least in favour of biased pseudoscience. I'm against ... well, what "gang" and "bully" hyperbolicly stand for: while scrutinising in one thread, going to another thread (a thread that seems to be the place to gather certain people, let's call it the peer-group) and calling not for help but for people (in-people, it seems "YO SKEPTICAL DRUIDS!") to join in the funny game of ... scrutinising? No, the funny game of ... I dunno ... ridiculing, perhaps?

Scruntiny can indeed involve ridicule if the subject warrants it and why the hell not? Anything to motivate people to be a bit more thoughtful when deciding to force through their pet theories. Remembering that in this case the pet theory was that "new atheists" are more closed minded than believers. If you find thsat distasteful then you are presumably forgetting the great druidic tradition of satire.

Yes I do play rough from time to time. And I expect nothing less in return.

Feel free to join in

As this is The Skeptical Druid, cursuswalker, do You think that my interpretation of Your action is plausible? If not, why not?
As this is The Skeptical Druid, how comes You interpret my "going for the throat at" You as rejection of scrutiny?
As this is The Skeptical Druid, how comes You are rejecting scrutiny of Your actions? I must admit that I was "in a mood" and voiced in a quite rude way what had been fermenting in me for some days, and I want to apologise for that.

[I owe some of the quotations to Nico from another thread. Whom I want to thank for his understanding tone in telling me off. That bettered my mood.]

Question 1: See above and each to their own
Question 2: where did I use those words?
Question 3: where did I reject scrutiny of my actions? Don't confuse response with rejection.

[Dendrias]

Answer 1: Your choice.
Answer 2: You didn't. That were Nico's words about me. Sorry for the confusion. I should have linked my last paragraph to this one.
Answer 3: You haven't stated Your intentions, when I was scrutinising them. But Your intentions are important when trying to tell the "filthyness" of the OP.

I'm sorry if I made You cross. I'm a bit more appeased, now. My first intention was that You were trying to do something filthy. But now, I think You might just have been a bit ... well, I don't know and don't want to think about You anymore; maybe You're a nice lad. Hence I put "filthyness" in quotation marks. It's not meant to be as hard as it might be. If it is, at all.

Have a nice evening.

[cursuswalker]

Answer 1: Your choice.
Answer 2: You didn't. That were Nico's words about me. Sorry for the confusion. I should have linked my last paragraph to this one.
Answer 3: You haven't stated Your intentions, when I was scrutinising them. But Your intentions are important when trying to tell the "filthyness" of the OP.

I'm sorry if I made You cross. I'm a bit more appeased, now. My first intention was that You were trying to do something filthy. But now, I think You might just have been a bit ... well, I don't know and don't want to think about You anymore; maybe You're a nice lad. Hence I put "filthyness" in quotation marks. It's not meant to be as hard as it might be. If it is, at all.

Have a nice evening.

I assure you I am not cross. See, this is me not being cross ----->

[treegod]

Yes, but when you show your chew-sets like that it doesn't inspire much confidence...