Of Skeptics and Bannings

I can't unless they see debate as entertainment. Their "being upset" is nothing more than a drugless high which for some odd reason (pride? cough) feel compelled to argue.

Well they may not want their social media or personal life clogged with garbage about how they're a dupe/dope. Kind of like if you're part of a disaster recovery crew-gone-wrong and people hate you for things that you didn't intend to screw up, or like LGBTs don't want to deal with being told they're a monster every day.

Some people have put in a lot of thought and want their line of reasoning to be respected. I can get behind that.
 
You just proved my point. You aren't all that familiar with the evidence.

I've posted about some of the EEG-based psi studies on the forum before. I've read them. They are interesting, promising, but they are underpowered and they are pilot studies. That's fine because those papers didn't claim to be the end-all-be-all.

I'm not sure where you get this strange idea that I don't bother reading the whitepapers comes from.

If you're talking about the Ganzfeld there are six meta analyses, two of which were by skeptics.

I'm aware. I've actually talked about the analysis in the Ganzfeld thread.

When you refer to "new standards" this is Orwellian Newspeak for mangling Bayesian statistics and omitting positive studies in order to get that Golden Null Result.

I was not actually talking about the Wiseman-esque cherry picking of results.

You don't get shoved off the forum if you can back up your statement, you get shoved off if you've been proven wrong over and over again and still insist that you're right.

Tell that to berkelon.
 
I've had some minor experiences (which is why I ended up here in the first place.) There doesn't seem to be a huge psychic community where I live, so that pretty much leaves reading whitepapers.

Its akin to trying to convince someone how awesome a food tastes with words; that is, very clunky.
I've stopped trying. They have to find there own way to Wonderland. Kiwis are very here and now people - not into any weird stuff but the great when you're in a fix.
 
I've posted about some of the EEG-based psi studies on the forum before. I've read them. They are interesting, promising, but they are underpowered and they are pilot studies. That's fine because those papers didn't claim to be the end-all-be-all.

The important question here is whether you're looking at research because it's interesting, which would include EEG studies, or whether you're looking for proof, which would include the staring studies, the Ganzfeld and the RNG studies which all are widely replicated, come with relevant criticism and have been performed by different researchers.

I'm not sure where you get this strange idea that I don't bother reading the whitepapers comes from.

I'm sorry if I gave that impression. I didn't mean to imply that you haven't done any research, only that you haven't done enough.

I'm aware. I've actually talked about the analysis in the Ganzfeld thread.


Ok.

I was not actually talking about the Wiseman-esque cherry picking of results.

Ok.

Tell that to berkelon.

I'm not familiar with the details of that one.
 
In the UK, if you drive badly you can get points on your license (as well as a fine usually), the points decay with time, but if you get 12 or more points, you get banned from driving. I can't help wondering if this sort of scheme might deal with the problem here. If, for example, someone interjects in a discussion in a pointless and irritating way, and this is brought to the attention of a moderator, maybe they would earn a penalty point - maybe 2 if it was a Mod+ thread, etc.

The exact details might need tuning, but the idea would be that people could actually see their banning coming and use more care for a bit!

I'd suggest that because this scheme would incorporate plenty of warning, violators would be banned for good.

Having said that, I'd say we already have a situation which is free of the worst offenders that plagued the old board for a while.

David
 
In the UK, if you drive badly you can get points on your license (as well as a fine usually), the points decay with time, but if you get 12 or more points, you get banned from driving. I can't help wondering if this sort of scheme might deal with the problem here. If, for example, someone interjects in a discussion in a pointless and irritating way, and this is brought to the attention of a moderator, maybe they would earn a penalty point - maybe 2 if it was a Mod+ thread, etc.

The exact details might need tuning, but the idea would be that people could actually see their banning coming and use more care for a bit!

I'd suggest that because this scheme would incorporate plenty of warning, violators would be banned for good.

Having said that, I'd say we already have a situation which is free of the worst offenders that plagued the old board for a while.

David

Hang on to your hat, David, and wait for the forthcoming conversation. I'll say no more about that for now, but if you think we are free of the worst offenders, I beg to differ. With a fair wind, we may soon be so, however.
 
Can someone explain briefly whether the 'haven' was considered a success in the old forum? I see it has 2,600 posts vs 127,000 in the main area or 2% the size. I know it was a later addition.

Might the fact that the podcast episode threads were not posted there have caused it to be largely neglected? Any other opinions?
 
In the UK, if you drive badly you can get points on your license (as well as a fine usually), the points decay with time, but if you get 12 or more points, you get banned from driving. I can't help wondering if this sort of scheme might deal with the problem here. If, for example, someone interjects in a discussion in a pointless and irritating way, and this is brought to the attention of a moderator, maybe they would earn a penalty point - maybe 2 if it was a Mod+ thread, etc.

The exact details might need tuning, but the idea would be that people could actually see their banning coming and use more care for a bit!

I'd suggest that because this scheme would incorporate plenty of warning, violators would be banned for good.

Having said that, I'd say we already have a situation which is free of the worst offenders that plagued the old board for a while.

David
Or just use the system which is already in place - maybe assign a point for every 10 disagrees/dislikes.

Linda
 
Can someone explain briefly whether the 'haven' was considered a success in the old forum? I see it has 2,600 posts vs 127,000 in the main area or 2% the size. I know it was a later addition.

Might the fact that the podcast episode threads were not posted there have caused it to be largely neglected? Any other opinions?
Iyace (iirc) mentioned that sooper sekrit Haven was busier than the Haven, so maybe between the two the exercise can be regarded as successful? And maybe the quality was high?

Linda
 
Or just use the system which is already in place - maybe assign a point for every 10 disagrees/dislikes.

Linda
I think you might find that someone - such as yourself - might clock up 100 dislikes in a very short period of time and be banned - after that everything would degenerate into a war of clicks! I don't want that - and I don't want to see skeptics removed from this forum. What I would really like would be for skeptics to present their position clearly, and at some length, and then try to honestly explore how that position fitts in the facts. Fore example, I'd love to know what you believe NDE's and OBE's really are. We all know of a few skeptical theories, and I'd really like to know if you sign up to any of those - after all, as a medical doctor who has had some OBE's your views would be valuable.

What irritates me, is a sort of verbal fencing that doesn't get to the heart of things. For example, you are very fond of discussing various statistical issues relating to experiments and other data, and I'd really like to know if you actually believe that these issues explain all the data in certain areas - e.g. Ganzfeld. You know far more statistics than I do, but it is important to use knowledge for a purpose. Hopefully you use yours to argue for what you believe in, and in that case it would be good to know exactly what you do believe - even though that itself might be probabilistic. For example, I often say that I am 90% sure that mind != brain.

David
 
Hang on to your hat, David, and wait for the forthcoming conversation. I'll say no more about that for now, but if you think we are free of the worst offenders, I beg to differ. With a fair wind, we may soon be so, however.

That sounds good!

Memories seem to be short because I can think of some much worse disruptors in the past, but I won't name them in case they are reading, and might gain encouragement!

David
 
Let's get back to the basic problem here. Dedicated materialists have nothing to say on the matter of consciousness. They regard us as meat puppets and dismiss all other theories a priori. So they should not be on this forum at all. If they are going to explore all evidence within a materialist framework then they need to find a place where that is acceptable.

Then we have the people whose doubt is so strong that they either cannot be convinced to change their minds or they are unreasonably difficult to persuade. If you are on this forum you must be either persuaded already or be willing to be persuaded to adopt a consciousness centric philosophy. It is not fair to the rest of the forum members if threads are consistently dragged into the realm of unreasonable doubt. I believe that most of our problems are in this area.

We also don't want strong ideologues of any sort on this forum, either proponent or skeptic. Ideologues are reactionary, generally angry and always attacking something. And they rarely admit that they're wrong.

Of the three, doubt is the hardest to moderate. What constitutes unreasonable doubt? It's something that only a moderator can decide and it obviously takes time to sort out. I don't think any system of rules can adequately cover this. It's ultimately a judgement call.
 
  • Like
Reactions: K9!
Well, doubt is a feeling, or an internal state.
It's the behavior that would need to be censored/moderated, and the "behavior of doubt" is curiosity. I really do think that a free survey on surveymonkey could be used to screen out the undesirables there. "Cognition scientists" at Stanford and Carnegie Mellon use such screening tools all the time in their research.
 
I think you might find that someone - such as yourself - might clock up 100 dislikes in a very short period of time and be banned - after that everything would degenerate into a war of clicks!

Isn't that what you suggested though? People complain to Alex and he awards points based on receiving complaints? You think it makes much difference to the clickers whether the button they click on is "disagree" or "report"?

I don't want that - and I don't want to see skeptics removed from this forum. What I would really like would be for skeptics to present their position clearly, and at some length, and then try to honestly explore how that position fitts in the facts. Fore example, I'd love to know what you believe NDE's and OBE's really are. We all know of a few skeptical theories, and I'd really like to know if you sign up to any of those - after all, as a medical doctor who has had some OBE's your views would be valuable.

What irritates me, is a sort of verbal fencing that doesn't get to the heart of things. For example, you are very fond of discussing various statistical issues relating to experiments and other data, and I'd really like to know if you actually believe that these issues explain all the data in certain areas - e.g. Ganzfeld. You know far more statistics than I do, but it is important to use knowledge for a purpose. Hopefully you use yours to argue for what you believe in, and in that case it would be good to know exactly what you do believe - even though that itself might be probabilistic. For example, I often say that I am 90% sure that mind != brain.

David

Maybe all we need for that to happen is to let the Critical Discussion forum be a "Haven" for non-proponents - no knee-jerk defenders of anti-materialism. :)

Linda
 
Let's get back to the basic problem here. Dedicated materialists have nothing to say on the matter of consciousness. They regard us as meat puppets and dismiss all other theories a priori.
Utter nonsense. Apparently, if we don't agree with your hypothesis, then we "have nothing to say."

~~ Paul
 
Isn't that what you suggested though? People complain to Alex and he awards points based on receiving complaints? You think it makes much difference to the clickers whether the button they click on is "disagree" or "report"?

The process would be subject to a filter - the complainant could not make the change himself, and also complaints about one post would not stack up. My hope is that we end up with a system where people simply behave more constructively (rather than getting banned), and if a slight crack of the whip is needed - so be it!

Maybe all we need for that to happen is to let the Critical Discussion forum be a "Haven" for non-proponents - no knee-jerk defenders of anti-materialism. :)

Why not just post it yourself as a new thread in whatever section you think is most appropriate. I'd certainly read it, and respond with interest - I mean one thing that has amazed me about Skeptiko, is that none of the skeptical contributors seem to want to engage in real discussion as opposed to verbal fencing - usually in the form of short quips.

David
 
I mean one thing that has amazed me about Skeptiko, is that none of the skeptical contributors seem to want to engage in real discussion as opposed to verbal fencing - usually in the form of short quips.

David

What would "real discussion" look like to you?

Like, is there a hypothetical proposition you're surprised self-identifying skeptics don't explore?
 
Maybe all we need for that to happen is to let the Critical Discussion forum be a "Haven" for non-proponents - no knee-jerk defenders of anti-materialism. :)
Linda

I'm not sure if you're serious, Linda, but I sent Alex some suggestions last week that included your suggestion. To provide a 'fair and balanced' forum I suggested three top-level subforums (plus Admin), which might be summarized as having the following discussions:
  • Assuming materialism is largely incorrect (or at best a subset of a larger reality) ...
  • Is Materialism correct?
  • Assuming materialism is largely correct ...
 
I'm not sure if you're serious, Linda, but I sent Alex some suggestions last week that included your suggestion. To provide a 'fair and balanced' forum I suggested three top-level subforums (plus Admin), which might be summarized as having the following discussions:
  • Assuming materialism is largely incorrect (or at best a subset of a larger reality) ...
  • Is Materialism correct?
  • Assuming materialism is largely correct ...

I actually like that idea a lot. I'm not sure what you would do with "other stuff" like apparitions and alien abductions, tho. It would be difficult for staff to unpack all the unstated assumptions (and thus put threads in the right subforum) if the thread starters didn't overtly state something like "Since we know the Pleiadians communicate through telepathy from the quantum dimension,..."
 
The process would be subject to a filter - the complainant could not make the change himself, and also complaints about one post would not stack up. My hope is that we end up with a system where people simply behave more constructively (rather than getting banned), and if a slight crack of the whip is needed - so be it!

At the previous forum, the last time I received any sort of warning it said, "It is difficult to describe exactly how you manage to have the effect, so we will be looking at whether there is a negative reaction rather than to the content of your posts." Explain to me how one goes about "behaving constructively" in response to that?

Why not just post it yourself as a new thread in whatever section you think is most appropriate. I'd certainly read it, and respond with interest -

Because when I have done so previously, it gets stampeded by defenders of anti-materialism. The whole ridiculous ganzfeld thread with Maaneli is one such example. I learned my lesson.

I mean one thing that has amazed me about Skeptiko, is that none of the skeptical contributors seem to want to engage in real discussion as opposed to verbal fencing - usually in the form of short quips.

David

Well, I don't think that's at all true. You have to remember that Alex and Andy had most of my long, detailed posts which engaged with real discussion deleted. I learned from that, too. And I wasn't the only one whose contributions would be made to disappear.

Linda
 
Back
Top