227. Continued... Here' the new direction

Status
Not open for further replies.
#81
Hey. I like the look and feel of the new forum, it's growing on me. I'm a little unsure of the two sub forums though, but mostly because some of the posts I make ride a certain line. For someone in the middle, having to choose one or the other feels like I'm being forced to polarize my thinking a bit. It's not a big deal, but if I'm going to make a new thread based on a discussion I was having with Frankmat about problems with the SRI Geller experiment video for example, and I'm going to put time and effort into it, where does it go?
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#82
I can hear the violins, Paul.
Hey. I like the look and feel of the new forum, it's growing on me. I'm a little unsure of the two sub forums though, but mostly because some of the posts I make ride a certain line. For someone in the middle, having to choose one or the other feels like I'm being forced to polarize my thinking a bit. It's not a big deal, but if I'm going to make a new thread based on a discussion I was having with Frankmat about problems with the SRI Geller experiment video for example, and I'm going to put time and effort into it, where does it go?
It depends on whether you want skeptics' input, apparently.

~~ Paul
 
#83
Hey. I like the look and feel of the new forum, it's growing on me. I'm a little unsure of the two sub forums though, but mostly because some of the posts I make ride a certain line. For someone in the middle, having to choose one or the other feels like I'm being forced to polarize my thinking a bit. It's not a big deal, but if I'm going to make a new thread based on a discussion I was having with Frankmat about problems with the SRI Geller experiment video for example, and I'm going to put time and effort into it, where does it go?
Yeah. Interesting point. I suppose that the Skeptiko podcast discussion threads will be posted in the Skeptiko forum. Otherwise, people with access to both forums will have the option of where to post. If you want a (possibly) spirited discussion, but without diversions into areas that proponents take as read, then I suppose the Skeptiko forum is the appropriate place. If you want to challenge sceptics, then the BvS thread would be more appropriate.

As someone pointed out, resident sceptics didn't contribute much to the last Skeptiko podcast thread on Acharya, but we still had a challenging discussion between proponents, who by no means are monochromatic in their views. I'd hate to see the Skeptiko thread become bland! I have lots of disagreements with proponents even though I'm one myself.
 
#85
Hey. I like the look and feel of the new forum, it's growing on me. I'm a little unsure of the two sub forums though, but mostly because some of the posts I make ride a certain line. For someone in the middle, having to choose one or the other feels like I'm being forced to polarize my thinking a bit. It's not a big deal, but if I'm going to make a new thread based on a discussion I was having with Frankmat about problems with the SRI Geller experiment video for example, and I'm going to put time and effort into it, where does it go?
you can post in either... subject to moderation... and more importantly subject to your judgement. Bishop, I see you as one who supports the status quo materialist science perspective... most of your posts would probably be a better fit for BvS, but you can decide.
 
#87
again, we can change "associate" or switch with "member", but I like telling folks where you're coming from.
I feel more than a little uneasy about this. I tend to tell myself where I think people are coming from, but I don't like to categorise people. Sometimes I put people on "ignore", proponents as well as sceptics, simply because a particular topic doesn't interest me. But I also undo that "ignore" from time to time too.

I guess where I'm coming from is that the way someone else chooses to label the forum members doesn't really interest me, and I'd prefer it was something softer, for example an individual member could choose to tag him- or herself with a certain label, if they so wished, rather than having handed down from on high.
 
#88
Hey. I like the look and feel of the new forum, it's growing on me. I'm a little unsure of the two sub forums though, but mostly because some of the posts I make ride a certain line. For someone in the middle, having to choose one or the other feels like I'm being forced to polarize my thinking a bit. It's not a big deal, but if I'm going to make a new thread based on a discussion I was having with Frankmat about problems with the SRI Geller experiment video for example, and I'm going to put time and effort into it, where does it go?
That one pretty clearly goes into BvS, since you are looking at the evidence, rather than looking at the conclusions of Targ and Puthoff.

Linda
 
#89
I feel more than a little uneasy about this. I tend to tell myself where I think people are coming from, but I don't like to categorise people. Sometimes I put people on "ignore", proponents as well as sceptics, simply because a particular topic doesn't interest me. But I also undo that "ignore" from time to time too.

I guess where I'm coming from is that the way someone else chooses to label the forum members doesn't really interest me, and I'd prefer it was something softer, for example an individual member could choose to tag him- or herself with a certain label, if they so wished, rather than having handed down from on high.
would have to give everyone admin priv... not workable. I think we can get there by just allowing individual feedback from folks. this all seems like MTDAN.
 

Ian Gordon

Ninshub
Member
#90
That one pretty clearly goes into BvS, since you are looking at the evidence, rather than looking at the conclusions of Targ and Puthoff.

Linda
This is a misunderstanding of what the two forums are about. (Can anyone, especially the moderators, back me up on this?) Looking at the evidence is what the Skeptiko Podcast forum is about. The BvS forum is for debates about the evidence between those who are open to the possibility of psi/survival and those who are convinced that mind=brain and psi and (especially) survival cannot be real.

I'll be charitable and interpret this as an honest mistake on your part. But in the old forum, it's statements like these that gave the impression to many folks - especially coming from an obviously intelligent person - that you could engage in dishonest behaviour. (And made many, many people frustrated, and in some way, I would venture, was one of the motivating factors behind creating a new forum and new rules.)

Moderators, if this statement is disrespectful, my apologies, and please strike it out or edit it.
 
#91
That one pretty clearly goes into BvS, since you are looking at the evidence, rather than looking at the conclusions of Targ and Puthoff.

Linda
Linda, don't be a gas-lighter. I'm trying to dampen the Skeptic-bashing... or maybe I should say Associate-bashing (it's ok to bash dogmatic skeptics, just not the non-dogamtic ones we have here :))

avoid "... what those stupid people over in the other forum do" kinda stuff.
 

Ian Gordon

Ninshub
Member
#92
I'm trying to think of a way of distinguishing the two groups without having tags that can possibly connote superiority/inferiority. What about getting rid of "Members" and, for example, call one "Associates" and the other "Collaborators"?

I was looking among these words/synonyms:
fellows
members
associates
collaborators
assistants
companions
joiners
partners
comrades
compeers

On a different note, I would encourage the proponents here to start (some/many) threads on the Skeptiko Podcast Forum if their intent is to show that it possible to debate the evidence for NDEs, mediumship, past life memories, telepathy, PK, etc., etc., without including a position of "none of this can be true because mind=brain and that's it". I've got an idea for one that I'll put up later. The "Associates" ;) (so-called for now) can still join in provided they don't post from that position (if I understand the rules correctly).
 
#93
Hey. I like the look and feel of the new forum, it's growing on me. I'm a little unsure of the two sub forums though, but mostly because some of the posts I make ride a certain line. For someone in the middle, having to choose one or the other feels like I'm being forced to polarize my thinking a bit. It's not a big deal, but if I'm going to make a new thread based on a discussion I was having with Frankmat about problems with the SRI Geller experiment video for example, and I'm going to put time and effort into it, where does it go?
My interpretation of this new format is that if you're going to investigate Geller on the the premise that psi isn't real, then head on over to the debate forum for that. We're done with that line of thinking. If you're going to approach Geller from the standpoint of what you can learn from the experiment given that psi is real, then the discussion belongs here.

I don't think Alex or anyone else knows what this new type of conversation is going to look like. It's never been done before, but it's a good experiment. It demonstrates the changing dynamic. If you can't accept the evidence then you're going to be left behind.
 
#94
I'm trying to think of a way of distinguishing the two groups without having tags that can possibly connote superiority/inferiority. What about getting rid of "Members" and, for example, call one "Associates" and the other "Collaborators"?

I was looking among these words/synonyms:
fellows
members
associates
collaborators
assistants
companions
joiners
partners
comrades
compeers

On a different note, I would encourage the proponents here to start (some/many) threads on the Skeptiko Podcast Forum if their intent is to show that it possible to debate the evidence for NDEs, mediumship, past life memories, telepathy, PK, etc., etc., without including a position of "none of this can be true because mind=brain and that's it". I've got an idea for one that I'll put up later. The "Associates" ;) (so-called for now) can still join in provided they don't post from that position (if I understand the rules correctly).
Why not just call them skeptics? It's not as though they object to that term. This is starting to remind me of the show "The Walking Dead" where they never ever say the word "zombie".
 
#95
It depends on whether you want skeptics' input, apparently.

~~ Paul
This isn't necessarily correct. I don't have a problem with "input" from skeptics as long as they restrain any instinct to regurgitate arguments that are based on speculation and other talking points from debunking organizations. The issue is that in the podcast forum you are expected to accept that psi is genuine, even if only for the sake of argument, but this is not expected in BvS. The reason is that discussion gets stopped in its tracks when you start nitpicking tiny irrelevant details (like the definitions of "tiny" "irrelevant" and "details").

AP
 
#96
This is a misunderstanding of what the two forums are about. (Can anyone, especially the moderators, back me up on this?) Looking at the evidence is what the Skeptiko Podcast forum is about. The BvS forum is for debates about the evidence between those who are open to the possibility of psi/survival and those who are convinced that mind=brain and psi and (especially) survival cannot be real.

I'll be charitable and interpret this as an honest mistake on your part. But in the old forum, it's statements like these that gave the impression to many folks - especially coming from an obviously intelligent person - that you could engage in dishonest behaviour. (And made many, many people frustrated, and in some way, I would venture, was one of the motivating factors behind creating a new forum and new rules.)

Moderators, if this statement is disrespectful, my apologies, and please strike it out or edit it.
Ian,

I agree completely with what you've written here. I was going to say something similar in reply to that post, but you've done it for me.

AP
 

Ian Gordon

Ninshub
Member
#97
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 have to, again, strongly disagree with this type of discourse. I hope there's not an agenda behind it: such as trying to engineer the forum to one's purposes. At the risk of being repetitive and tiresome, it appears to me Alex and Andy have set up the Skeptiko Podcast Forum to be an area where the evidence IS what is (primarily) at stake and discussed, but not hijacked by the ideological, dogmatic mind=brain mantra. Proponents are not uniform "believers" who don't have a skeptical and open-minded approach to these matters - especially on a forum like Skeptiko. (And I think I'm probably more of a soft skeptic than many of the other proponents on here.)
 
#98
you can post in either... subject to moderation... and more importantly subject to your judgement. Bishop, I see you as one who supports the status quo materialist science perspective... most of your posts would probably be a better fit for BvS, but you can decide.
I'm trying to bury my frustration on reading this, though I'm sure you don't mean any offense by it. You probably just think you're stating a fact about my position, right? But I think if you took the time to look at many of the things I've written, you'd recognize that I'm fairly clinical in my approach to looking at the evidence, and not blindly driven by some kind of worldview. I am also open to seeking experience, paranormal or otherwise, that may or may not lead to a change in my thinking. In one of our past dialogs/threads I was able to convince you, through evidence, to reverse your position completely on on a topic you were adamant about, and I really respected you for that. Are you looking to close those doors of dialog, or do you see yourself participating in the BvS threads? Just curious.

I understand that you're testing a new system and trying to put an end to the vicious circle of argument between proponent and skeptic. I can't say I blame you really! That stuff can get pretty distracting.
 
#99
I'm trying to bury my frustration on reading this, though I'm sure you don't mean any offense by it. You probably just think you're stating a fact about my position, right? But I think if you took the time to look at many of the things I've written, you'd recognize that I'm fairly clinical in my approach to looking at the evidence, and not blindly driven by some kind of worldview. I am also open to seeking experience, paranormal or otherwise, that may or may not lead to a change in my thinking. In one of our past dialogs/threads I was able to convince you, through evidence, to reverse your position completely on on a topic you were adamant about, and I really respected you for that. Are you looking to close those doors of dialog, or do you see yourself participating in the BvS threads? Just curious.

I understand that you're testing a new system and trying to put an end to the vicious circle of argument between proponent and skeptic. I can't say I blame you really! That stuff can get pretty distracting.
As I wrote earlier, you should just try it out rather than speculating what it will be like. Speculation will only ensure that you never get an answer.

AP
 
I have to, again, strongly disagree with this type of discourse. I hope there's not an agenda behind it: such as trying to engineer the forum to one's purposes. At the risk of being repetitive and tiresome, it appears to me Alex and Andy have set up the Skeptiko Podcast Forum to be an area where the evidence IS what is (primarily) at stake and discussed, but not hijacked by the ideological, dogmatic mind=brain mantra. Proponents are not uniform "believers" who don't have a skeptical and open-minded approach to these matters - especially on a forum like Skeptiko. (And I think I'm probably more of a soft skeptic than many of the other proponents on here.)
It's an experiment. Can we move beyond proof oriented discussions? Do we need to constantly revisit that type of data or can we finally leave that discussion behind and explore a whole new world? None of us really knows what that looks like yet, but I think it's time to try.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top