• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Show suggestion...bring on the sceptics

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Capnkumquat

Capnkumquat

Skilled Investigator
If it would be possible to have a round table discussion with some dyed in the wool skeptics without having a knock down drag out fight I would love to hear it. An honest discussion of the pros and cons of the paranormal might be a real eye opener...on both sides

The guys from Skepticality would be some great guests. They are the Amazing Randy's henchmen, they are the official spokespeople for Skeptic Magazine, they seem to have brains on their shoulders, they are well spoken and not prone to fits, and they seem to delight in bursting the balloons of all things paranormal.

Anyhow, just a thought.
 
Great avatar!
I use the exact same underdog image on a different discussion board, what are the chances of that?
I grabbed it from some site, is it being spread on an avatar site?
I better stick with "el tio"
 
I'd like Seth Poostack to be on. And when he talks about how ufology has nothing to show for it, then say, "And SETI does? Why not take your piss on SETI?"
 
underdog said:
If it would be possible to have a round table discussion with some dyed in the wool skeptics without having a knock down drag out fight I would love to hear it. An honest discussion of the pros and cons of the paranormal might be a real eye opener...on both sides

The guys from Skepticality would be some great guests. They are the Amazing Randy's henchmen, they are the official spokespeople for Skeptic Magazine, they seem to have brains on their shoulders, they are well spoken and not prone to fits, and they seem to delight in bursting the balloons of all things paranormal.

Anyhow, just a thought.
Click to expand...

I second that suggestion.

It gets unproductive when everyone starts to think the same way.

More importantly you'll never learn anything if you keep regurgitate the same information that is spoon fed to you by like minded people. If anyone claims to seek the truth then both sides of any topic should be researched.
 
According to what I've seen on this forum, the listeners of the Paracast ARE skeptics by and large. I don't think we need to be reined in by our current self-appointed authorities on reality.

The "skeptics" you're speaking of discount all phenomena that go against the reigning western mythology. Their importance is measured by their level of indocrination and loyalty to the institution. I'm hard pressed to find a better description of a primitive mind.

But if we're going to go in that direction, I say we stay with the theme and bring on Pat Robertson and perhaps the new pope, if he's available.

Just my opinion of course. But I really have no interest in listening to such people.
 
I guess what caused me to make this suggestion is that every time I have heard a head to head discussion between the two sides, the moderators of the discussion have looked around to find the biggest crackpot available to represent the side of belief in the chosen paranormal event. This constantly seems to favor the side of Skeptics (with a capital S). The Paracast may be a better venue for getting a fair hearing...as long as Gene doesn't compare everything to a movie he saw 30 years ago. ;^)

I agree with you that this forum and the moderators are pretty skeptical about many of the claims put before them by some of the show guests. That kind of skepticism may actually go a long way in disarming the rabid kind of Skepticism that the Michael Shermers of the world profess. Furthermore, you are correct that the Skeptic world view has to deny every single form of paranormal event or it crumbles...well, seems like a perfect forum to begin to crack the Skeptics armor of cynicism.

There are several podcast out there now that are specifically geared toward "debunking" the paranormal, and as said before they bring some of the biggest Cranks on the planet and show them off to the world. Why not bring some respected Skeptics on the show and find out why 10,000 years of reported paranormal events isn't enough to say....hmmmm...something might be happening that I just don't understand.

Anyhow, I'm just a newbie here and would be happy for the show to continue in its current formula, but maybe this would shake things up a bit.
 
Randy's "sceptics" are none of the sort. They are cynics that simply discount the evidence for anything outside the norm. They ignore testimonies by credible individuals, such as pilots and governmental officials. When you show them UFOs on video tape, their eyes may see them, but their minds cannot comprehend them. Similar to religious fanatics, they approach the world from an angle of self-righteousness and obtuse certitude. In short: Dealing with them is an utter waste of time.
 
Just as I like seeing Horn be made a fool of, I would like to see the debunkers have the same thing happen. There's hardly any follow up questions or points made when these guys/gals are on, so they get to say things that are erroneous and idiotic without anyone pointing it out.
 
Yeah get Archie DeBunker (the amazing randolph), Michael Spermer, Joe Knuckle, and James McGahaven't got a clue to come on in and make them all sit in the corner and discuss the alien baby with Steven G. Rear while listening to last weeks interview with Bruce Goldberg. If they start getting out of line, threaten them with a loop of the Boyd Bushman interview.
 
I had an email exchange with James Randi a few years ago. I asked him why he didn't believe that it was possible that someone be able to talk to the dead, ala John Edward. He stated that I should read his website, which I did, and then reiterated my question.

He stated that he never said it wasn't possible for someone not to talk to the dead, that it was people who post articles on his website representing him that say it.He can't be responsible for the articles posted. (these are not forum items I am speaking of. They were actual white papers and articles posted by his group).

I replied asking him then why did you direct me to your website to get the answer to the question I asked you, when you won't take responsibility for the content. He then wrote me back saying that I was a paranazi (yup thats what he called me) and that it didn't matter what he said, and that we would still walk around like sheep.

He became very hostile during his last email and would not return any of my other emails.
 
Mothra said:
I had an email exchange with James Randi a few years ago. I asked him why he didn't believe that it was possible that someone be able to talk to the dead, ala John Edward. He stated that I should read his website, which I did, and then reiterated my question.

He stated that he never said it wasn't possible for someone not to talk to the dead, that it was people who post articles on his website representing him that say it.He can't be responsible for the articles posted. (these are not forum items I am speaking of. They were actual white papers and articles posted by his group).

I replied asking him then why did you direct me to your website to get the answer to the question I asked you, when you won't take responsibility for the content. He then wrote me back saying that I was a paranazi (yup thats what he called me) and that it didn't matter what he said, and that we would still walk around like sheep.

He became very hostile during his last email and would not return any of my other emails.
Click to expand...

He type in all caps? Did with me. Not that it matters much, but I found it a little funny.

Paranazi? He acts nazi like at times.

Randi no longer does much discussing via e-mails. He stopped over all, out of arrogance. The last discussion I had with him dealt with the Ouija board. He gave me his home phone number to call him. I never did, because I saw no point at the time, plus I was a really shy person back then. Wish I kept his number, I would call him today probably. I'm less shy about things now.

Randi has said that ALL psychics are charlatan snakes. "all of them". Maybe he didn't choose his words correctly, but I have heard him make absolute statements like that.
 
a bunch of skeptics VS Gene and David would be EPIC!!!

I wonder what David would do when they would act like the UFO he saw in Venezuela along with thousands of others was just something regular and he didn't see what he thought he saw :D

And that paranormal event David had with his mother (or was it someone else? not sure anymore) and the whole butthole surfers CD stuff

Fireworks the entire 2 hours thats gonna be:eek:
If these skeptics underestimate the paracast thinking there gonna debate some regular tinfoil hat wackjobs their gonna get eaten alive LMAO
 
The reason that I suggested the cast of Skepticality come on the show as the defenders of the skeptics view point is, while they tow the skeptic view point they are not what I would describe as combative. Derik is quite smart and the most adamant in his skepticism but Swoopy (yes Swoopy) is a bit more open to the spiritual side of humanity...but only a bit.

James Randy has done some very impressive debunking in the past, any has many stories of people working to get his Million dollar prize, only to be shown to be absolute boobs, charlatans, and fakers. He has probably grown more cynical than would be good for rational thinker should allow. He has become, irrational about rational thought.

Overall, the biggest problem for shows like The Paracast is that skeptics hold a higher level of proof for a stated claim. As they put it, " extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Science doesn't much care for singular events or random events as its very existence relies on the repeatability of any stated fact.

Lets not get sidetracked by the personality of James Randy and concentrate on the way to approach the singular event of seeing something unexplainable and not being counted among the kooks of the world by the "rational" mind.
 
musictomyears said:
Randy's "sceptics" are none of the sort. They are cynics that simply discount the evidence for anything outside the norm. They ignore testimonies by credible individuals, such as pilots and governmental officials. When you show them UFOs on video tape, their eyes may see them, but their minds cannot comprehend them. Similar to religious fanatics, they approach the world from an angle of self-righteousness and obtuse certitude. In short: Dealing with them is an utter waste of time.
Click to expand...
Well said. My thoughts exactly. I hope this show does not waste their time with them.
 
Names people. Give us some names. Like that dweeb who said Charles Halt saw a lighthouse at Rendleshom forest who was on Larry King a couple of weeks ago.

Then we can develop some "questions" for them in the Question Bank. I think it is time for the debunkers to be grilled don't you?

My first question would be this... What are your credentials as compared to Michio Kaku? And, is Dr Kaku crazy for thinking that there very well may be civilizations who have figured out how to travel the cosmos and that it is arrogant of the human race to think that because we have not figured out how to do it then no one has figured out how to do it?
 
I guess I don't really want anyone "grilled". Jumping on a guest with both feet to stomp a mud hole in them may seem like fun at the time but would likely haunt the show for a long time and prove nothing...except we might be assholes as well as kooks.

I would prefer to kill them with kindness and make sure that they are given plenty of rope to hang themselves. When faced with huge numbers of cases with overwhelming first person observation, military radar, etc...absolute denial is not possible without looking idiotic.
 
underdog said:
I guess I don't really want anyone "grilled". Jumping on a guest with both feet to stomp a mud hole in them may seem like fun at the time but would likely haunt the show for a long time and prove nothing...except we might be assholes as well as kooks.

I would prefer to kill them with kindness and make sure that they are given plenty of rope to hang themselves. When faced with huge numbers of cases with overwhelming first person observation, military radar, etc...absolute denial is not possible without looking idiotic.
Click to expand...

Oh, in this case, I disagree. These people have been given free reign in the media for far too long. It is time to hold their feet to the fire now.
 
Back
Top