Critical look at zetetics

General scientific debates. Presentations of new technologies (not directly related to renewable energies or biofuels or other themes developed in other sub-sectors) forums).
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: A critical look at zetetics




by Janic » 18/02/19, 11:07

All this to demonstrate that opinion debate is excluded from zetetics.
difficult to answer this reflection! What can we know about this "sect"? His videos? which, for the most part, are not debates but critical points of view, which is their right as for all different opinions, therefore without direct confrontation. His writings? equally, one way! What remains that can be called debate?
In this domain of the "paranormal", the blah drowns the fish, but the statistics proven by real facts do not lie.
not being connected to what is said to be paranormal (a big catch all for that matter!) in the sense that they define it, according to THEIR criteria and only these, difficult to determine the way in which these statistics are established and interpreted. If I stick to the few subjects that I have been following for decades, I have simply noticed that the more people ignore a subject (and do not want to know it) the more they have strong opinions on it.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

Re: A critical look at zetetics




by izentrop » 18/02/19, 12:04

You can turn it in all directions, as long as you are interested in opinions and not in facts, you will not understand zetetics :!: : roll:
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: A critical look at zetetics




by Janic » 18/02/19, 12:29

You can turn it in all directions, as long as you are interested in opinions and not in facts, you will not understand zetetics
except that their supposed facts are only opinions, it actually goes in circles.
re-example Wakefield. The facts, entirely invented by the journalist BEER and which the courts have recognized as such, were taken back as such by your Zététique, without any verification, but because it reinforced their beliefs, and only their beliefs.
So the facts ... seen by this sect !!!! :(
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: A critical look at zetetics




by Janic » 18/02/19, 14:49

A very interesting conference on critical thinking in a zetetic way.

especially since virginie Bagneux regularly uses, not for everything, what she criticizes. : Shock:
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: A critical look at zetetics




by Janic » 19/02/19, 08:23

"SCIENTIFIC" ANALYSIS OF THIS VIDEO
Some examples on what this charming young lady says, after having, it is important, displayed on screen, a newspaper title which will last until she displays everything she does not believe by bulking up elements which have no real or supposed link between them, but which by sublimination will influence the possible judgment of the listeners (in so far as they are not all already aficionados of zetetics) like 900 homeo prescriptions, intended to discredit this last.
"7'07" One doctor in 10 has reservations »
But also and above all his comment: " we are not ready to question, what we thought we knew Hoop! she can no longer be right, except that she does not feel concerned by this reflection as shown in the rest of her conference and that she continues with “ what we should do is check the veracity of the information, try to find the source, but we don't always do it… »Re-houpi! and finally:" because we are not close either, to question what we think we know »
Amen! which obviously it does not apply to itself since, according to the dogma of zetetics, they have the sacrosanct truth beyond which there is no salvation.
*
At 10'10 '' taking these examples as an image, on the I believe:
« I believe in evolution as I believe in homeopathy, in ghosts, in IT or in god. »
Interesting mixture because putting on the same level the belief in evolution and the belief in god. Indeed, evolution being only a theory and nothing else, it can be put on the same level as all other beliefs and why not in god. And pay attention to the following: (…) on the other hand she can slice on the shroud of her son Science has not and still cannot decide, despite its attempts, to determine the why and how of this linen in question and as to declare the shroud of his son, as Muslims and Jews would say unanimously: god has no sons. (but that's just a detail!)
More interesting the passage on cognitive bias and the frame effect to which she does not escape more than we do, by comparing the choice based on the emotional rather than the reason. She could have taken the example, one could not be more concrete, of cancer currently. (Not crazy the wasp!) Thus we say to the population that medicine saves 150.000 patients from cancer, which underlines this effect of emotional framework, but this medical community never presents the 150.000 dead from this same cancer, highlighting their incompetence to solve a problem as simple as this pathology, other than with violence and consecutive trauma.
And the end of the end, this zetetic mantra that his aficionados repeat in a loop "56'28" '
"We tend to confuse correlation and causality »With that all is said or rather nothing because a high number of causes are not known for lack of knowledge and means and there are only correlations available (genus glyphosate among others) until their sacrosanct science ends up come across this evidence that there was indeed a link between correlation and causality finally recognized.
1H 00'50 ''
Case of the placebo effect. Too bad she did not develop the subject, too delicate, because it can turn against those who use it. For example, why this placebo effect is not used for vaccines and why these placebos are only used for H, mainly and never for A, who is also dependent on it. (frame effect?)
In conclusion ! Skull stuffing under a scientific-looking varnish, and which is in some respects, but which is ultimately only the result of prior beliefs that this sect seeks to lend credibility to self-justify.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: A critical look at zetetics




by Janic » 19/02/19, 15:52


"Zététique: critical spirit and intellectual self-defense" by Richard Monvoisin [Entire]

Interesting speech there again, which is addressed as usual to its skeptical clientele and who gives what everyone can expect a self confirmation that what he says is consistent and from there: true!
In fact it is a simple Scottish shower technique that can be learned in all marketing training.
Attract approval by emitting positive ideas that everyone can naturally approve, then negative ones on the competitor's product, which triggers, by reflex, an approval for this negativism, and immediately revert to the positivism of his own product. So it is clever and is not false in itself, just on the verge of intellectual honesty, but this is not the goal. What his colleague analyzes very well and which he implements and which they consider as necessary: ​​doubt… of the other obviously. This is the whole art of skepticism!
Where it goes wrong is when the roles are reversed and the accuser becomes accused, with the same techniques of doubt, of suspicion of dishonesty or conditioning. And there, zetetic or not the result is the same!
So the question arises can we trust the speech of one or the other of the possible manipulators?
Last point, this permanent recourse to the word science as others do with the word God, as if to recommend himself by a word necessarily credited these speeches.
But what is science in itself? Nothing or rather it is only a concept of the spirit that each one will try to concretize by material examples which, like all those there, depend on the criteria of measurement, comparison used, if that can be measured since the materialism It can only be recommended from it on the basis of materials. For example how to measure the capacities of an individual in terms of dowsing, which he evokes, and on what criteria if not, for him, with material, the exclusive tool of this "science". So, they should not be reserved on the subject, but contest it as unscientific since it cannot be measured by material ... of measurement, it is the snake that bites its tail constantly (although it recognizes that everything depends on the “professional” skills of each one) hence the subjectivity of the appreciations which it carries while playing on the edge of those which have especially failures.

With this hypocritical (but sincere) speech he makes here: "
29'14 '' in fact zetetics is a school of humility (sic) to what extent is my brain able to deceive me and lead me to think that things are true when they are not.
Paranormal phenomenons
Indeed science cannot explain everything, some say for the moment ... in any case science does not aim to explain everything, but the scientific approach aims to describe the world according to what it seems to be, but for that you have to understand the phenomena that happen to us, we are not going to speculate on the sex of the angels and often in the slightly bizarre theories that are brought to us "you see that it is not recognized because the science has not yet discovered, the reasons why "may be but the problem is often in the starting phenomenon, we are missing the starting phenomenon. We are ready to look into the sourcing capacity, the day someone comes up with a real ability that we have been able to show, to draw, before building a theory on this, let's go back to the phenomenon first. If the phenomenon is there, then I can tell you that many of us will be interested in it, it is obvious, the day when we manage to highlight the extra-sensory capacities, we will be tens of thousands to want work on it, that's for sure! but what is missing is the starting point, let's go back to the phenomenon and therefore science may put forward this ability to care, but also that we should be able to see, test, check if there is something else "
Just this piece of bravery is in itself the symbol of this zetetics. Scientifically prove that:
Have we waited for a confirmation of science to breathe? That this science then dissected by the menu, the composition of the air, the role of the lungs, gas exchanges, etc ... it is not useless to understand all these complex mechanisms, but it is not necessary. In the example he takes, therefore, he would like his science to confirm what does not need it, per se. If it works it doesn't matter what will be said to discredit it and if it doesn't work no matter what will be said to credit it. Hence his final stammering on: »We are ready to look into the sourcing capacity, the day someone comes up with a real ability that we have been able to show, to sourcing, before building a theory on this, let's go back to the phenomenon first »What source? He fantasizes deeply, the phenomenon is so old that very clever who could believe to go back to the phenomenon first.
Then and whatever he says: " If the phenomenon is there, then I can tell you that many of us will be interested in it, it is obvious, the day when we manage to highlight the extra-sensory capacities, we will be tens of thousands to want work on it, that's for sure "It's totally illusory! He cites the case of Semmelweiss as a model of questioning (his words are not entirely accurate, but let's move on), but this doctor was prosecuted, denied, persecuted by his colleagues and contemporaries who were sure of their science, the only one, the truth. Hygiene called into question the “scientific” dogmas of the moment and it was only when some, the unofficial from neighboring countries (no one is a prophet in his country) exceeded these a priori that this hygiene (however old of several millennia) ended up being adopted again, as Pasteur who also took it by taking credit for it elsewhere. He should be inspired by it and remember it.
Being on Pasteur, he also says that one cannot trust the testimony of a single person. However, Pasteur precisely, was the only one to bear witness to the (failed) success of his rabies vaccination which did a lot of damage afterwards. So from how many testimonies can a phenomenon become credible? 150.000 cancer cures or 150.000 failures and therefore died from cancer? So no more credible than 1 in 2! It is scientific and highly verifiable!
Clearly, according to his faith, he believes or does not believe and not according to any science.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660

Re: A critical look at zetetics




by Exnihiloest » 14/03/19, 18:25

Why this so-called "critical eye" on zetetic ? (which is in fact not a criticism but a condemnation demonstrated from the start by the amalgamation with "scientism")

Because zetetics, by rational thought and the art of doubt applied in an even more pragmatic way than by the scientific method, can easily dismantle the idle assertions of obscurantism and the paranormal. This is the reason why the challenge to highlight the paranormal, launched by University of Nice zetetics laboratory - Sophia Antipolis, has never been reported.
We are therefore not surprised to see the obscurantist denigrate this method and its actors to place us more easily his infused science and his creeds, it is that he feels targeted, the bugger, and he is right.

The funniest thing is that Loïc Chaigneau's video meets the methodological criteria of zetetics, he does zetetics without knowing it.
Any method has its limits, but the fact that a method applied to itself makes it possible to see and show its limits makes it an optimum. The obscurantist shot himself in the foot.
0 x
izentrop
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 13644
Registration: 17/03/14, 23:42
Location: picardie
x 1502
Contact :

Re: A critical look at zetetics




by izentrop » 14/03/19, 23:12

Exnihiloest wrote:Because zetetics, by rational thought and the art of doubt applied even more pragmatically than by the scientific method, can easily dismantle the idle assertions of obscurantism and the paranormal.
But also the denials of climatosceptics : Mrgreen:
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: A critical look at zetetics




by Janic » 15/03/19, 08:34

Why this so-called "critical eye" on zetetics? (which is in fact not a criticism but a condemnation demonstrated from the start by the amalgamation with "scientism")
Exactly like this scientism, zététicien, does it for all which exceeds it and which it does not include / understand
Because zetetics, by rational thought and the art of doubt applied even more pragmatically than by the scientific method,
Completely false as a claim. In fact, THEY DON'T HAVE A DOUBT OF THEIR OWN SPEECH, therefore not applying to themselves what they would like to see applied elsewhere.
can easily dismantle idle claims of obscurantism and the paranormal.
How can they easily dismantle what escapes them and which they do not understand and above all do not seek to understand and even less to verify otherwise than with their unsuitable tools.
This is why the challenge of highlighting the paranormal, launched by the zetetics laboratory at the University of Nice - Sophia Antipolis, has never been taken up.
Fortunately for these "paranormal". Who therefore do not allow themselves to be trapped by incompetent people in fields that escape them.
We are therefore not surprised to see the obscurantist denigrate this method and its actors to place us more easily his infused science and his creeds, it is that he feels targeted, the bugger, and he is right.
The obscurantist in question has asked you many times to provide evidence for your assertions which you have not once presented. It is much easier to denigrate for free in order to self-credit your scientism than to confront a real science, which does not belong to them, because comments like those of Monvoisin, also interesting, showing that it is not not apply to himself what he uses to vilify his opponents. "Look at the stones in your garden, before criticizing the stones in your neighbor's garden."
The funniest thing is that Loïc Chaigneau's video meets the methodological criteria of zetetics, he does zetetics without knowing it.
The methodological criteria proposed by zetetics are not uninteresting, on the contrary, except that they do not apply it to themselves in the same way as a political party criticizes its opponents, but does not criticize itself. even (could it be for that matter?)
Any method has its limits, but the fact that a method applied to itself makes it possible to see and show its limits makes it an optimum. The obscurantist shot himself in the foot.
Except that obscurantism was most often found on the side of those who were limited by their method of the moment.
That's exactly where it goes wrong, they don't self-criticize themselves based on their own methodological criteria. Above I demonstrated it WITH their method.
Exnihiloest wrote :Pbecause zetetics, by rational thought and the art of doubt applied even more pragmatically than by the scientific method, can easily dismantle the idle assertions of obscurantism and the paranormal.
Clearly the zetetic washes whiter than white!
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 5365
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 660

Re: A critical look at zetetics




by Exnihiloest » 15/03/19, 09:42

Janic wrote:... Clearly the zetetic washes whiter than white!


Unfortunately no, the impossible is not impossible, the obscurantists will always remain intellectually filthy.
Zetetics only concerns those who seek to exercise their reason and not their infused science. For others there are sects, religions and conspiracy theories.
0 x

Back to "Science and Technology"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : rpsantina and 155 guests