Articles <<
Return to Articles
(SIX
SKEPTICAL FALLACIES: SEE BELOW):
DETECTING SKEPTICS’ BALONEY
THE REAL 'CRITICAL THINKING'!
by Attorney Victor Zammit
Just because a skeptic may be a scientist,
does not mean he is correct in his argument. Don’t
let a skeptical scientist or a skeptical magician or an
academic or a professor use baloney to fool you that just
because they are ‘professionals’ they cannot
be wrong. Those who are uninformed or uncritical often fall
victims for these skeptics’ traps. How can you detect
these skeptics’ baloney?”
See below the false reasoning of these skeptics –
and learn how to detect their invalid reasoning. (The skeptics
I refer to in this article are the ‘closed-minded
skeptics’. There are other highly intelligent afterlife
researchers who are ‘open-minded skeptics’.
As I stated elsewhere, as an afterlife investigator using
Scientific Method, I am an open-minded skeptic): (Week
Sept.20-13)
SIX SKEPTICAL FALLACIES:
1.
'PROFESSIONAL STATUS' as authority in science to
mislead and persuade you there is no afterlife
(e.g. when medical doctors in the fifties and sixties were
paid to go on television and their statement published in
glossy magazines stating
that smoking is not bad for your health): For example skeptical
Professor Stephen Hawking used this kind of baloney to fool
the uninformed: “anyone who believes in the afterlife
is afraid of the dark.” An attorney in a courtroom
situation will tear this Professor’s statement to
shreds and would make him look silly and ridiculous. Why?
These professors use their status as university
professors – as 'authority' – that what they
say is true and cannot be challenged. Yet, when I sent them
the substantive areas of evidence for the afterlife they
could not show the evidence was not right. Naturally, the
closed minded skeptics, without evidence, without thinking,
just blindly supported these professors who violated the
sacred rules of professional debate - something no one gets
away with in the highest level of professional debate -
in the Supreme Court.
Continues from editorial: (Week
Sept.27-13) Second fallacy:
2.
'Conclusions
before investigating' fallacy:
Flamboyant and other skeptics come to conclusions before
they investigate. This is very common with these said closed-skeptics:
they come to conclusions BEFORE they investigate.
These scientists may be professionals in their own narrow
field of physical science, but when it comes to professional
debate, that is the exclusive area of attorneys. Under close
scrutiny, the record shows that these closed skeptics do
not understand the rules of professional debate. Any conclusion
shown to be made before is itself invalid ab initio (from
the beginning).
<< Return to
|