227. Continued... Here' the new direction

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bart V

straw materialist
Member
#62
As I replied to Larkin, you have no idea how I might behave on the new Skeptiko forum. Perhaps I'll behave as in the Haven.

~~ Paul
And maybe the new forum will go the way of the Haven, i think there is a good change that the "A" game is going to take place at the BvS forum.
It would surprise me if the members who now proudly claim to ignore you could resist to go over there and discuss with you if the right topic comes along.
 
#63
Oh. This isn't anything I haven't told you before. I am not questioning your politeness. I just don't think you're the impartial consensus builder that you make yourself out to be. As others have pointed out, you go out of your way to defend the skeptical position on this board and based on your history, you don't seem to be open to the existence of psi . . . at all. You do nothing but question all the evidence over and over again.

You don't have the nastiness of many hardline skeptics, but I haven't seen any behavior I would call open minded either.

Regarding rationalwiki: The comment has been there quite awhile. Feel free to have it removed.
See, you evaluate whether someone's mind is open by what their conclusion is. I evaluate it based on how they arrive at their conclusion.

I have biases just like everyone else. The way I try and control those biases is through the methods of analysis I use. the way I push my mind to be open is to force myself to give reasons for positions I have and to respond to the points made against my position. I don't do so perfectly and never have claimed to. I'm as fallible as the next person. I do the best that I can.

The way I try and build consensus is yes 1) try to always be polite and respectful, and 2) try and put in a structure designed to give as best a chance as possible to identify areas of agreement. This means trying to be as specific as possible when stating my position and trying to really delve into the issues involved to see if something can be resolved.

Re: rationalwiki - I'm not sure I have any basis for asking for the post to be removed. While this guy has been trying to pass himself off as me, its only based on my handel and as far as I'm aware I don't have any right to it on any site I'm not already registered on. He's got the right to sign up as "Arouet". Again, I take it as flattery - but its pretty easy to tell its not me.
 
#64
This must have been Alex's intention all along, there's certainly nothing in the "your help needed..." thread that would have lead to this option....

It might work though.... Arouet, please hang around, even if it's mainly on the "fun" forum, rather than the "sterile, gently stroke each other" forum
not true. read Robert's post.
 
#65
See, you evaluate whether someone's mind is open by what their conclusion is. I evaluate it based on how they arrive at their conclusion.

I have biases just like everyone else. The way I try and control those biases is through the methods of analysis I use. the way I push my mind to be open is to force myself to give reasons for positions I have and to respond to the points made against my position. I don't do so perfectly and never have claimed to. I'm as fallible as the next person. I do the best that I can.
Good skepticism requires good critical thinking skills. Good critical thinking allows one to see the errors in someone else's thinking and your own thinking process. Many practice skepticism, but not as many seem to be good at critical thinking. You practice both, Arouet.
 
Last edited:
#66
And maybe the new forum will go the way of the Haven, i think there is a good change that the "A" game is going to take place at the BvS forum.
It would surprise me if the members who now proudly claim to ignore you could resist to go over there and discuss with you if the right topic comes along.
That would be great. And that's kind of the point. If those discussions occur outside of the podcast forum we won't need to put people on ignore. If you think that you can provide a better discussion, I'm all for it.
 
#67
I think we need to test this out rather than speculate all night long about it. Let's start two conversations, one in the podcast forum and the other in the debate forum and see how it goes.

AP
 
#69
not true. read Robert's post.
Fair enough, but even Andy seemed to come out against this two forum approach...

I appreciate I'm relatively new and haven't witnessed the full history at the other place, but as someone who sees some good arguments on both "sides", the appearance is one where the strong proponents are becoming more fringy, more suspicious, more defensive, and more fragile. I'm really not sure how this helps the whole wiki situation, either.

We'll see how it goes...
 
Last edited:

Ian Gordon

Ninshub
Member
#70
My instinct is to ask you Alex, to please consider bringing over the Skeptiko Haven as a place where discussion can take place between like minded individuals who are past the silliness of failed materialism
I disagree. I don't think the Skeptiko Haven should be brought back with the new guidelines in place. I also think creating more than two sub-forums will get confusing. I didn't like the way there was about 5 or 6 subforums over at the old forum. Things get too spread out.

As for the Associates, I'm just wondering if they can still post in the Skeptiko Podcast forum, as long as their posts aren't about "prove-it-all-over-from-the-ground-up"?
 
#71
Get rid of the Associate tags and I'll play along.
I don't know how to do that, but I wrote a couple of new threads to test this out. Keep in mind that the tags do not affect your ability to post in either forum. Maybe if you do that and we can see that everyone abides by the rules, it will be obvious they aren't needed. Arguing at this end isn't going to work. Put your money where your mouth is and show us that you can contribute in the spirit of either forum and I think you'll see those tags melt away.

AP
 

Ian Gordon

Ninshub
Member
#72
And maybe the new forum will go the way of the Haven, i think there is a good change that the "A" game is going to take place at the BvS forum.
I disagree. If you look at many of the recent podcast threads, Paul and Arouet were not major participants, and they were filled with dissent and interesting conversations (I'm NOT saying Paul and Arouet's heavier presences would have made them less interesting!) - and I'm not advocating the materialists be left out of them provided the caveat I mentioned a few posts ago. My 2 cents.
 
#75
I don't know how to do that, but I wrote a couple of new threads to test this out. Keep in mind that the tags do not affect your ability to post in either forum. Maybe if you do that and we can see that everyone abides by the rules, it will be obvious they aren't needed. Arguing at this end isn't going to work. Put your money where your mouth is and show us that you can contribute in the spirit of either forum and I think you'll see those tags melt away.

AP
I'm open to a name other than "associate", or switching associate to member to associate, but I'm really keen making this distinction... and I really think doing so will IMPROVE both lines of dialog.

I mean, this worldview difference regarding status quo scientific materialism (i.e. mind=brain) and what lies beyond is huge (as we've seen). But we also have to acknowledge that it is the majority view... and in that respect we should (and I do) appreciate the Associates who engage in the dialog.
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#76
I'm open to a name other than "associate", or switching associate to member to associate, but I'm really keen making this distinction... and I really think doing so will IMPROVE both lines of dialog.
But you've made the distinction before the fact! Come on, doesn't that strike you as bizarre?

Would you be wiling to tag some posters as hopelessly unscientific and willing to believe anything? Would you be willing to tag some posters as mind-altering drug users? Would you be willing to tag some as rude? If not, why not?

I'm happy to give just about anything a try, but let's not poison the well.

~~ Paul
 
#77
But you've made the distinction before the fact! Come on, doesn't that strike you as bizarre?

Would you be wiling to tag some posters as hopelessly unscientific and willing to believe anything? Would you be willing to tag some posters as mind-altering drug users? Would you be willing to tag some as rude? If not, why not?

I'm happy to give just about anything a try, but let's not poison the well.

~~ Paul
I can hear the violins, Paul.
 
#79
I'm open to a name other than "associate", or switching associate to member to associate, but I'm really keen making this distinction... and I really think doing so will IMPROVE both lines of dialog.

I mean, this worldview difference regarding status quo scientific materialism (i.e. mind=brain) and what lies beyond is huge (as we've seen). But we also have to acknowledge that it is the majority view... and in that respect we should (and I do) appreciate the Associates who engage in the dialog.
I'm not a materialist, though.

Linda
 
#80
I like the idea - not the part where prejudice rules, but the part where the forum is split into the Haven and into an area for ordinary discourse. I think it's a good idea and will improve discussions. Arouet, I've sent you a PM (maybe....presuming I figure out how it works :)) about the "Associate" thing.

ETA: I can't send you a PM Arouet, as I don't have a "start conversation" option on the pull-down menu. Is this an iPad thing? I'll post something on the BvS side.

Linda
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top