Mod+ 229. The 5 Things You Need to Know About Skeptiko

Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by alex.tsakiris, Nov 12, 2013.

  1. Harry Parshall

    Harry Parshall New

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2013
    Messages:
    4
    This podcast inspired me to rejoin the forum. I enjoy listening to Alex's interviews and marvel at Alex's ability to keep the discussion going when guests are stuck in a mental loop. I'm looking forward to hearing interviews that move beyond the "stuck on stupid" debates. I see how easily discussions involving spiritual elements become intellectually top-heavy since our culture reveres rationality. I was stuck in intellectual rationality until some experiences allowed me to compare the slice of reality I normally used vs what is available for me to access. Intellect accesses such a tiny slice of reality it is insufficient as a spiritual tool. A microscopic taste of reality has changed my life, a glimpse into infinity. What strikes me is the subtle shift of scope; via intellect reality can be understood, we need only acquire sufficient data and more comprehensive algorithms. Shift out of the intellect and subtly different rules become visible which have a qualitative difference. It becomes obvious that intellect alone can only encompass an infinitesimal part of reality, but this cannot be seen from an intellectual viewpoint hence the endless arguments.
     
    K9!, rosebud and Ian Gordon like this.
  2. David Bailey

    David Bailey Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,468
    Don't forget that unfortunately science doesn't exactly go searching for ψ-related phenomena to explore! NDE's have been happening back in antiquity, yet I understand that there are psychology textbooks that never even mention them! If LBL hypnotic regression turns out to be telling us something meaningful, science will only grudgingly explore it after others have studied them.

    I shall be extremely interested to hear how Alex gets on with LBL.

    I think it is entirely valid to explore a single psychic detective 'hit' if it is impressive enough. Again - science will only explore these if they are publicised sufficiently. Clearly psychic detectives only get a look in when the police are stumped, so successes like this are really remarkable and reasonably well documented. Science could explore this field if it wanted. Imagine taking a psychic detective, and assigning them an unsolved murder at random to solve - perhaps a murder with DNA evidence so that the result would be easy to confirm.

    David
     
    rosebud likes this.
  3. The Ethical Skeptic

    The Ethical Skeptic New

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2013
    Messages:
    57
    Home Page:
    A great post overall and I agree. But let's remember that the scientific method does not, nor does the "data," begin with the experimental method. The first steps in the scientific method are field observation (by serendipity, amateurs and professionals), data aggregation, necessity and problem formulation. Of those four, EM may or may not come into play at all.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2013
  4. Saiko

    Saiko Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2013
    Messages:
    2,181
    Rofl. That's beautiful. I'm amazed that you don't see how silly those statements are. Let's break it down for you.

    - How do you know it's worked well? The only way anyone could validate that would be if they had a "control civilization" at a similar level of development that had employed different methods. Your assertion is contrary to the very scientific principles you think you're supporting.

    - Offhanded? gripe? Please. The fact that you cling tightly to your assumptions doesn't make other perspectives either.
     
    rosebud likes this.
  5. Saiko

    Saiko Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2013
    Messages:
    2,181
    All the replies to my post have done naught to challenge the the assumption that "scientific data" is the best or only guide to knowing more of reality. Regurgitating the assumptions doesn't make them any less assumptive. My fave:
    I luvvvv that! I'd suggest that the author seek out and avail himself of some of the writings that opposed early science. He/she will find similar sentiments echoed. Which is not surprising as it's a perspective echoed by many when they encounter anything that threatens the status-quo they adhere to.
     
    rosebud likes this.
  6. conceptualinertia

    conceptualinertia Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    111
    I am recent listener to the show (only a few months) but I really like the older shows where interviewees would get to respond to previous interviews and then the first one would get to respond back. I am listening now to the episode which is a debate between Wiseman and Sheldrake and it's great.

    I agree with fabkebab, even if Alex himself has moved on, not all of his audience has. As far as I can tell Skeptiko was the only podcast and forum that brought "skeptics" and "believers" together and it would be a shame to lose that. Maybe once in a while Alex can have an old style show for those that appreciate a full on debate.
     
    Arouet likes this.
  7. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,049
    This is the sort of problem I'm referring to. You seem to be saying that the early critics of "science" were wrong, but aligning yourself with them at the same time.

    The critics of early science had their own data, largely informed by anecdote, parable, myth and superstition. Unless I misunderstand, you appear to be in favour of a move away from "science" in order to allow that sort of data to carry more weight.
     
  8. Reece

    Reece Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,261
    Home Page:
    I don't know Saiko's thoughts, but something more subtle comes to my mind.

    Blake couldn't stand religion or science; science because it cut things up to understand them using intellect. I mean, there are other ways of knowing, and ultimately - despite all the cutting and dividing things up - all we can say is "everything causes everything." Nietzsche questioned how one separated the observer from the observed. I believe he was certainly skeptical of science as the be-all-end-all to epistemology. And this from the man who said "God is dead," mind you. These aren't shoddy thinkers.
     
  9. steve001

    steve001 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    2,053
    He died in the year 1900 long before QM became a science and there are many things that followed he could never have imagined. I wonder what Nietzsche would think today in light of what we know from pure science and things we've learned and created from applied science? Would he still think the same thoughts?
     
  10. Reece

    Reece Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,261
    Home Page:
    Yes! I don't think he - or Blake - necessarily doubted science on a certain level, on the one you're speaking from. Neither do or have I. I would assume the criticisms are of science as the epistemological final say; the final, go-to arbiter on the nature of reality. And, Nietzsche gets interpreted all which of ways, but I seriously doubt his swooning over technological advances, no matter how impressive.

    It's been a while since I read up on Nietzsche's criticisms, so I don't wanna distort what he said . . . I'm working from old memory.
     
  11. steve001

    steve001 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    2,053
    ok
     
  12. Ian Gordon

    Ian Gordon Ninshub Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,676
    Linda, I had to re-post my "dislike" to this post because it magically disappeared, like at least another one I had given you. This was two days ago, I then checked your negative ratings tally (you had amassed quite a few) and they had gone down to 0 !! Now they've climbed back up again.

    Are you hiding some secret psi skills there? :D

    Be aware you're now on "number of negative ratings watch"! ;)
     
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2013
    K9! and rosebud like this.
  13. fls

    fls Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    2,658
    I couldn't see what there was to "dislike" about my post. Malf suggested that Alex's term ("Stuck on Stupid") may come across as smug and condescending to anyone who happens across the forum. I suggested that how others perceive him may not be Alex's priority. What exactly is there to "dislike"? If you don't think the phrase "Stuck on Stupid" is condescending, then "dislike" the person who suggested it was (Malf). Otherwise, what is wrong with suggesting that Alex's behaviour may not need excusing? That's the problem with these silly ratings. Most of the time it doesn't seem to make any sense (no opinion has been offered, nothing negative has been said, or only something in general agreement has been said), yet people aren't forced to provide any indication whatsoever about what weird interpretation they put onto the post which allowed them to regard it negatively. My only response to most of them has been "huh?"

    You may or may not be aware that ratings can be deleted. There's a troll on the forum called "rosebud" who contributes nothing to the forum but "dislike"ing posts by a few forum members (myself included). I deleted her/his contributions, plus any ratings for which there was no obvious justification (including yours).

    If you think there is something to dislike about a post, I don't see anything wrong with asking for an explanation (otherwise, how on earth can anyone be expected to improve?). If you are worried about it derailing a thread, do it privately.

    Linda
     
  14. Ian Gordon

    Ian Gordon Ninshub Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,676
    Thanks for the info. I've been having a conversation with the mods about this and this will interest them.

    Thanks for using your subjectivity to objectively evaluate my subjectivity.
     
    K9! and rosebud like this.
  15. fls

    fls Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    2,658
    It wasn't an "objective evaluation". I'm pointing out that I haven't the foggiest idea why you "dislike" my post (or any of the others you insist on "dislike"ing). I do not see any "obvious justification". So if you are trying to tell me something, you have entirely missed the mark.

    What is the point of the ratings? To try to convey a message, or to bully people you don't like? If it's the former, it's not working. What is so bad about asking for clarification or an explanation instead? You still haven't explained what it is about my post that you "dislike".

    Linda
     
  16. Ian Gordon

    Ian Gordon Ninshub Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    1,676
    Oh, and I guess since your negatives were down to 0, we can safely conclude your found no justification for any of the ratings received. :D I'll let the mods handle this and answer your questions from now on.
     
  17. fls

    fls Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    2,658
    Correct. If you think I am wrong for any particular example, it would be helpful if an explanation was provided (privately, so as not to further derail the thread). Note, I will not re-delete any of your ratings, even though they are still a mystery to me. All I've deleted are the ratings from the troll.

    Linda
     
  18. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,616
    thx... I didn't realize this was enabled... fixed now. only admins can delete ratings.
     
  19. Arouet

    Arouet Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    3,222
    Alex what is your positiion on rosebudding?
     
  20. Saiko

    Saiko Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2013
    Messages:
    2,181
    That statement about what Blake couldn't imagine is spurious. You have no basis to assert such. In fact, I'll venture that those who think we've learned from "applied science" or are impressed by what we've created so far are much more limited in their imaginings/projections than Blake is. The state of applied science is to my view - basic, backwards even. And I think that even though there's a a fair amount of stuff in materialism that I find interesting. Yes some of what QM is moving into could move things beyond that but there are still few who "go there."

    BTW QM is not considered "a science".
     

Share This Page