A case of psi right here on the Skeptiko forum?

Discussion in 'Critical Discussions Among Proponents and Skeptics' started by malf, May 18, 2014.

  1. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,036
    A thread on another part of the forum:
    A reply:

    As Paul points out:
    Hmmm... Good point.

    Explain that skeptics...
     
  2. Iyace

    Iyace Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,094
    Easy. Some guy responded to nbtruthman and Michael was slightly interested in what was said, so he put him off ignore temporarily and liked what he said.

    Or, Michael browsed the forum before logging in, found the post, read it, and logged in and unignored.

    I thought 'skeptics' were proud of their critical thinking skills? I'm starting to think those may be in short supply among the people who tout them so proudly.
     
  3. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,036
    Nah. That's just debunking.
     
    Arouet likes this.
  4. Iyace

    Iyace Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,094
    You spelled logical wrong.
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  5. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,036
    Look, we can all make wild speculations about what might have happened, I'd rather stick to the facts as I prefer to see them.
     
  6. Iyace

    Iyace Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,094
    And the wild speculation that he claimed he was ignored while he was not ignored is just valid? It seems pretty valid to me that he stumbled on the thread while not logged in. Because I don't auto - login or stay logged in to anything because of trawlers etc that can harvest passwords browser-side, I usually browse the site before I'm ready to type a response. As you can imagine, putting someone on ignore would easily be irrelevant in the case of him browsing the forum while not being logged in.

    This is all very simple, actually.
     
    Sciborg_S_Patel likes this.
  7. Matt²

    Matt² New

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2013
    Messages:
    263
    Oh yeah...I see what you're doing here.

    Clever, this one is....
     
  8. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,036
    I suppose if you're going to rule out a psi explanation a priori, it's easy to hand wave it all away: "There's nothing to see here... the skeptics have it all worked out!"
     
    Kay likes this.
  9. Iyace

    Iyace Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,094
    Nah, but I can truly understand where your embarrassment would be unbearable, and why one would have to attempt to weasel their way out of looking like a moron. I understand you, my friend! It's okay!
     
  10. Michael Larkin

    Michael Larkin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,078
    Good grief. I saw a reply to something. Curious, I switched off ignore for the page. That revealed what nbt had said. That's what made me re-think my earlier decision.

    You might not know--if you don't ignore anyone--that If you do ignore people and the posts of one or more of them appear on a page, you get the option to stop ignoring content for that page. That's what I did. That's what I've done for this page, and how I know that malf raised this thread. Simples.
     
  11. malf

    malf Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    4,036
    What a surprise! Look at the skeptic response: Resorting to mockery rather than engaging with the discussion; labelling someone a moron for daring to challenge the current paradigm. Well let me remind you, Iyace, they laughed at Mister Ed Galileo.
     
  12. Devane

    Devane New

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2014
    Messages:
    125
    Oh we're switching roles, I get it. Let me try and give a skeptic's reply. Keep in mind my skeptic isn't very fluent. Here goes:

    Anecdote anecdote anecdote. Confirmation bias. File-drawer. Randi million dollars Monopoly money. Impossible. Huh? Dennet Dawkins creationist loonies. Braaaaaains! Wishful thinking. Fraud fraudy fraudulent! Magicians! Me like Magicians!

    I know my skeptic isn't very good, but I'm planning on getting the Rosetta Stone for it.
     
    K9! and Formal Dining Room Set like this.
  13. Michael Larkin

    Michael Larkin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,078
    I think malf is just taking the mickey, trying in his own warped way to parody proponents: a pathetic attempt at sarcasm. Yawn.
     
    K9! and Formal Dining Room Set like this.
  14. Iyace

    Iyace Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,094
    Remember, malf is ' agnostic '. There's no way he'd be biased; he's certainly smart enough to catch them!
     
    K9! and Formal Dining Room Set like this.
  15. Iyace

    Iyace Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2013
    Messages:
    1,094
    No need for Rosetta Stone. Just have someone pick you up by your ankles, and drop you straight on your head. Then you can start making falsely incriminating threads on parapsychology forums like the rest of the morons who were dropped on their heads!
     
  16. EthanT

    EthanT Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,013
    Home Page:
    He ain't nothing but a hound dog ...
     
  17. Arouet

    Arouet Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    3,222
    And people say I need to lighten up.... :)
     
    malf likes this.
  18. I think Malf is just taking the piss, but in regards to the above Massimo pointed out that some people want to be part of the skeptical movement in order to heckle/belittle others, yet lack the necessary skills or grounding in multiple disciplines for genuine skeptical inquiry. Probably why so some atheists criticize New Atheism and similar movements as religions in and of themselves.

    Not really. Debunking would, it seems to me, to insist there are materialist explanations even when the immaterialist explanation fits the data better.

    That said, I would agree that there are probably cases where the denial works the other way around and the materialist explanation fits better.

    I think what you mean is you're sticking to the conclusion you've drawn from the facts? I don't think anyone is disputing the facts that've been laid out?

    The problem here is evaluation of evidence for a particular paradigm depends on a variety of factors, so this attempted critique of immaterialists could also apply to materialists.

    I suppose this comes down to another attempt to act out an impression, akin to the one you did of the WBC member? I think this one is even more flawed than that argument via impression, as the joke here assumes that the anyone accepting evidence for the paranormal is taking the definitively worse explanation for any situation.

    Yet I think there's reasons to consider the accusation upon which this current impression depends on is an overreach.

    It seems whether materialism or immaterialism offers the best explanation would seem to depend on the particular study or event? A person can easily reject the example in the OP of being a genuine experience of Psi while accepting another account as legitimate.

    Similarly, I can accept some people have lied about being rape victims while still recognizing sexual assault is a big problem.

    Interesting to see you defending a trolling thread. What about healing the US vs THEM divide?!?!? Perhaps you should put yourself in the shoes of a proponent bothered by this thread and consider how it would make them feel about your position on their position on this thread's position....

    <<insert appropriate smiley>>
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 19, 2014
  19. Michael Larkin

    Michael Larkin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,078
    Yup. I think Massimo was right. In lieu of critical thinking ability, which would enable them to demolish others with devastating wit, some folk adopt one orthodox view or another that gives them the vicarious sense of authority and superiority. You always find some people doing this in various controversies where there is a recognised orthodoxy. Metaphorically speaking, it's over-compensation for a little willy.
     
    Formal Dining Room Set and malf like this.
  20. Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

    Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Nap, interrupted. Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    4,486
    Best. thread. ever.

    ~~ Paul
     

Share This Page