Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
It's funny.  Laugh. Science

Why Are Skeptics Such a Negative Bunch? 74

Makin Waves asks: "Skeptics are very good at 'disproving' things that can't be proven in the first place, so, how about offering me a reasonable, rational explanation for all the cattle mutilations in Argentina instead? (200 at last count). A decent explanation must include the following...Where did all the blood go? What portable instrument does the cauterized cuts? Why won't scavengers touch the dead bodies? Why are there no tracks or blood around the bodies? Why do they take tissues that have a lot of nerves? Last but not least, if not aliens....then Who, Why and How? A Google search will get you all the info you need. For the lazy, this place has a lot of stories. C'mon skeptics, put your money where your mouth is. Maybe it was 'auto-suggestion' eh?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why Are Skeptics Such a Negative Bunch?

Comments Filter:
  • Sigh (Score:2, Informative)

    by Guspaz ( 556486 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2003 @08:29AM (#5637286)
    A bunch of cows die and nobody claims responsibility, so it MUST be aliens? Please.
  • Link (Score:4, Informative)

    by tsa ( 15680 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2003 @08:47AM (#5637342) Homepage
    By the way, the link doesn't work. Try this [crystalinks.com].
  • by arthurs_sidekick ( 41708 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2003 @09:49AM (#5637636) Homepage

    FWIW, the, uhh, classical source (in western "civilization", props to Gandhi) of the argument about the strength of testimony required to establish an extraordinary claim stems back to David Hume. Amongst his diverse interests were arguments concerning the existence of a deity, and here's his encapsulated response to attempts to establish the existence of a deity by appeal to testimony about miracles:

    That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavours to establish... [ An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding ]
  • It's a tautology? (Score:3, Informative)

    by HughsOnFirst ( 174255 ) on Tuesday April 01, 2003 @10:47AM (#5637920)
    skeptic also sceptic

    1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
    2. One inclined to skepticism in religious matters.
    3. Philosophy.
    1. often Skeptic An adherent of a school of skepticism.
    2. Skeptic A member of an ancient Greek school of skepticism, especially that of Pyrrho of Elis (360?-272? B.C.).

    [Latin Scepticus, disciple of Pyrrho of Elis, from Greek Skeptikos, from skeptesthai, to examine. See spek- in Indo-European Root
    s.]

    Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
    Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
    Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

    On an entirely other angle, I grew up on a farm and have seen a lot of dead things.
    These cattle mutilations always sounded a lot like a few dead cows and some insect scavengers. It's pretty amazing how some insects will completely devour one organ and leave the rest.

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Working...