Australian Skeptic critiques Winston Wu and SCEPCOP

[Scepcop]

Check out this Aussie Skeptic's critique of me after he saw my posts in the Australian Skeptics Facebook Group.

http://www.bayanimills.com/2012/03/01/w ... ordinaire/

[cecil1]

Bayani Mills says:
March 12, 2012 at 3:59 pm
No worries.
It really needed to be shown that it’s not a matter of semantics, Winston.

You have chosen to accept a belief on poor evidence, and when this point has been raised, you have re-actively rejected it. You are not being skeptical of your beliefs. You are a pseudo-skeptic, and I have laid out why. While whether you accept it or not is up to you, the facts remains the facts.

Your approach to performing science is pseudo-scientific; you have fallen for your own con.

Regards,
Bayani




You can Argue a fact with reason and logic from personal experience however, not sure how someone would argue a fact "scientifically", that sounds like a preset belief structure to me and reeks of bunk semantics. Great masters such as vernon howard and guy finley display perfect examples of arguement from logic and reason. If one is going to argue with semantics then be willing to use the correct semantics for the sentence structure yourself.
my 2 cents

[SydneyPSIder]

The 'critique' didn't say a whole lot of substance. Some fair points around epistemology, but that's about it. Not a lot in it, really...