227. Continued... Here' the new direction

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow... What sort of time frame you looking at Craig? I've started a thread on the BvS about a post materialist world, would like your input....

I don't know. This kind of fast populist scientific sea change is a direct result of the Internet and has never happened before in the history of mankind. The change just in the last five years has been phenomenal. We're witnesses to something truly unique.
 
Last edited:
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".
and what do we call the people who didn't like 226? and what about the psi/super-psi folks, what do we call them?
 
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
.
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
sure, but these are the kind of conversations I want to avoid. Linda's comment was out of line... we don't want that stuff around here.

I think we can acknowledge that we have two difference conversations (mind=brain and other) without lobbing grenades at the other forum.
 
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.
then I got you wrong, sorry. then again, this is my larger point. I don't want to shut down the conversation with you. I don't want to tell you where you can and can't post. But I do want to tell you that there are some places where (based on a bunch of past interviews) we're gonna make certain assumptions and not be open to re-hashing the same stuff over and over.
 
Well, it can't be about that since all of us are open to the idea that mind/=brain and survival and psi are real.
yea, but we gotta acknowledge that there's a history here... there's a real world where folks profess to be "open" about a variety of things but demonstrate otherwise. In this case, after a lotta, lotta shows on conscoisness, it's ok to draw this distinction.

I was taking the hint from Alex, who earlier stated that Arouet was obliged to regard van Lommel's conclusions as correct, if Arouet did not identify any fatal flaws in van Lommel's performance of the research.
you got this completed wrong. I said that one can't re-interpret someone's research without considering the researcher's conclusions (like Shermer and Arouet did). but he should start another thread if we gonna have that discussion).
 
The label in bold does not describe me nor most of the people who have been labelled "associates" here. I don't know why I'd want to be required to buy into your label of my views in order to post here any more than you'd like it if I did the same to you.
your posts say otherwise.
 
Why?, is that not a bit stating the obvious?
Don't you think the better way to learn where someone is coming from is to read their posts?
In a way it is an insult to the intelligence of your public, i think people on this forum are smart enough to make up their own mind.
Please reconsider this, i do not think there was ever moment in history that something good came from labeling people in this way.

And even if you know where someone is coming from, you can not know where they are going to end up.
a bit over-dramatic, isn't it? :) If someone changes, then we can just change the designation, right?
 
Last edited:
yea, but we gotta acknowledge that there's a history here... there's a real world where folks profess to be "open" about a variety of things but demonstrate otherwise. In this case, after a lotta, lotta shows on conscoisness, it's ok to draw this distinction.
There's a history of people making unwarranted assumptions. I don't see any particular reason to encourage this practice.

you got this completed wrong. I said that one can't re-interpret someone's research without considering the researcher's conclusions (like Shermer and Arouet did). but he should start another thread if we gonna have that discussion.
I'm fine with that description. It leads to the same conclusion I presented to bishop - if he is going to question Targ and Puthoff's conclusions (about whether the video of Geller shows psi), then he should post in BvS.

Linda
 
There's a history of people making unwarranted assumptions. I don't see any particular reason to encourage this practice.



I'm fine with that description. It leads to the same conclusion I presented to bishop - if he is going to question Targ and Puthoff's conclusions (about whether the video of Geller shows psi), then he should post in BvS.

Linda
If you could avoid disagreeing while agreeing, your posts would be easier to understand.

AP
 
Arouet said:
Not being convinced that psi is genuine is not the same as believing it can't be genuine.
alex.tsakiris said:
thank you for reminding everyone why we might want to encourage you to stay clear of some forums :)
I swear you just said that a certain set of beliefs is required for the Skeptiko forum.

~~ Paul
and thank you Paul for doing likewise :) I mean, each of you guys have 1000s of posts here... and it's clear that you both adhere to mind=brain thing. but you both just like to argue (although in different ways). that's cool... but don't spit on my cupcake and call it frosting... or do it over in the BvS (soon to be less moderated) forums where we can be a little more clear about where you're coming from.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top