PDA

View Full Version : [Poll]Plait Vs Hoagland on C2C



CACTUSJACKmankin
2006-Mar-30, 02:47 AM
Come on fellow skeptics and bad astonomers, let's show phil that we want to hear him go toe to toe with that nut Richard C. Hoagland on Coast to Coast AM!!!! This poll is also being taken in the JREF forum (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=54469).

Wolverine
2006-Mar-30, 03:22 AM
Welcome to the forum, CACTUSJACKmankin.

Just so you're aware, our forum rules (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=564845#post564845) are much more stringent than those governing the JREF board. Ad hominems here, even against Richard Hoagland, are forbidden.

As for the topic: Phil's made his position on this issue quite clear, and it's one I strongly agree with. There's no need to add any "legitimacy" to RCH or his claims by engaging him on air, let alone on a program which caters to believers.

Melusine
2006-Mar-30, 03:35 AM
Welcome to the forum, CACTUSJACKmankin.

Just so you're aware, our forum rules (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=564845#post564845) are much more stringent than those governing the JREF board. Ad hominems here, even against Richard Hoagland, are forbidden.
:surprised Really? But Hoagland does sort of resemble a cashew.


As for the topic: Phil's made his position on this issue quite clear, and it's one I strongly agree with. There's no need to add any "legitimacy" to RCH or his claims by engaging him on air, let alone on a program which caters to believers.

I voted 'yes' for grins. Though I understand Phil's reasons for not doing so, in some ways it would be kind of interesting, or funny, or something. Maybe after more Mars images come in....lol. (j.k.)

01101001
2006-Mar-30, 05:07 AM
I want Hoagland to make his claims here in the Against the Mainstream forum. We can all debate him.

Maksutov
2006-Mar-30, 06:04 AM
:surprised Really? But Hoagland does sort of resemble a cashew.[edit]On the other hand, think of the fuss he's made about the Mounds on Mars, then remember the difference with Almond Joy. But, if you visit his site, you soon get the impression he does want "you" to send him "cash".

I voted no. The guy has had enough publicity, and as Phil has pointed out, in an improptu debate the HB/CT has the upper hand by being able to machine gun questions that take more than a few seconds to answer. That's one Mars bar that's had more than enough Hoagland sound "bites" taken out of it.

Let Richard appear alone on C2C and complain to George about his great disappointment at not being chosen NASA administrator. Now there's great radio in a ..., well, encapsulated.

jscotti
2006-Mar-31, 06:55 AM
While I'd love to hear Phil, I don't really care to hear the nonsense that Hoaxland spews. Phil would have to do an exceptional job in order not to be run circles around by the professional quack that is Hoaxland. It takes time to defuse the nuttery that can be thrown out dozens at a time by a crackpot who sounds alot like John Edward throwing out his silly ideas like they were candy to the kids along a parade route.

Jim.

SolusLupus
2006-Mar-31, 08:47 AM
I'd love to hear a debate, whether or not the BA wants to debate it.

ToSeek
2006-Mar-31, 03:42 PM
I just don't want to listen to Hoagland.

SolusLupus
2006-Mar-31, 03:48 PM
I just don't want to listen to Hoagland.

Wuss.

MrClean
2006-Mar-31, 05:31 PM
Nobodies talking when there is nobody listening. RH has his view and Phil has his. It's just unfortunate for RH that Phil has a bunch of science to back up his views and RH has a bunch of overblown JPG's and testimony from little green men.

Vote no. If you stop feeding the stray dog, they'll eventually go away.

SolusLupus
2006-Mar-31, 05:46 PM
Vote no. If you stop feeding the stray dog, they'll eventually go away.

Hoagland's been around for quite a while. People will continually be drawn to him even if he is ignored by everyone else.

The people that are True Believers will never break out of that belief, and continue to preach their views to those that are willing to listen. The people in between can already see how odd Hoagland's claims are, just from the get-go.

My view is, might as well get something amusing out of it.

R.A.F.
2006-Mar-31, 06:37 PM
I just don't want to listen to Hoagland.

Agreed!

Hoagland wants to "debate" on the radio so he can throw out "sound bites" as if they were evidence...

...but that's not the way an actual formal debate "works". There are rules...rules that I can't possibily imagine Hoagland ever agreeing to...

PhantomWolf
2006-Apr-01, 01:38 PM
I'd rather have them debate on a board with specific rules and time to research answers, it'd be far more useful and it wouldn't offer the chances for ambush and 10 sec sound bites that need 5 minutes to explain. Of course if he had to sit down and give a reasoned and rational argument complete with proof and evidence, Hoagland knows he wouldn't stand a chance and so would run a mile. Radio debates are nothing but PR stunts, if he was to debate, let him take up a real scientific debate challange.

Kaptain K
2006-Apr-03, 04:55 PM
I agree with the BA. A radio "debate" with RCH would be a lose-lose situation, especially on C2C with George "may I lick your boots again Richard" Noory as "moderator"!

Gillianren
2006-Apr-03, 06:38 PM
Heh. But imagine if one of us were moderator, especially if a) the participants were all in the same physical location, and b) the moderator got to use a poin-ted stick on whomever slipped into bad science.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2006-Apr-03, 06:40 PM
I agree with the BA. A radio "debate" with RCH would be a lose-lose situation, especially on C2C with George "may I lick your boots again Richard" Noory as "moderator"!
Now, Now ...

No Ad-Hominims ...

Even When it's So RICHLY Deserved!

:naughty:

JohnW
2006-Apr-03, 08:27 PM
Real-time "debates" are a rotten way to do science, which is why the likes of Haogland, Icke and the creationists like them so much. Typically, it takes a couple of minutes to state one's claim, and an hour or two of research and exposition to do a proper refutation. So if the usual "equal time" rules are enforced, we get something like:

Woowoo: The Moon is a potato! Cassini has spotted Elvis on Mimas! Dick Cheney is a mollusc from Mizar! Bulgaria doesn't exist!
Scientist: begins to explain patiently why the Moon is not a potato...
Moderator: Bing! Time's up!
Woowoo: See! See! This proves I am right about Elvis, Dick and the Balkans!

Heh. But imagine if one of us were moderator, especially if a) the participants were all in the same physical location, and b) the moderator got to use a poin-ted stick on whomever slipped into bad science.
I say let's skip the debate, and move straight to the pointy stick.

Melusine
2006-Apr-03, 08:53 PM
I want Hoagland to make his claims here in the Against the Mainstream forum. We can all debate him.
You could debate his math and geometry of Mars. I believe Phil had said that in response to George--the kind of indepth physics/math discussions to refute Hoagland would be neither his area of expertise, and it would play out badly on radio, as John W said. (Those weren't his exact words).

Still, in some imaginary world it would be amusing. But Hoagland is always welcome to come here, right, if he follows the ATM rules. ;)

hilary_155
2006-Apr-25, 04:46 AM
Science is not afraid of debate. Science is not afraid of people making claims that are scientifically wrong. Science is science. The universe works the way it will nomatter how strongly you will it to work some other way.

The only true thing to fear is a world where discourse is frowned upon just because one of the people talking may be wrong.

Gillianren
2006-Apr-25, 04:59 AM
That's not what's being frowned on, you know. What's being frowned on is the concept that science and debate are somehow related, despite the proven tendency of certain people to talk and talk until they sound like they've won, despite no validity in anything they actually say.