A case of psi right here on the Skeptiko forum?

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.
:D Nice Michael. You should hang around here more often!

C'mon guys. God knows this place needs cheering up every so often. I was just having a little satirical poke at 1 or 2 3 or 4 5 ...about half a dozen of the proponent posters.

Ok. Back to the serious stuff about ghosts and that....


...WHAT?!
 
I'm having trouble following this thread. I mean, I get it. But I don't understand the traction it has.

It's clear that how Michael explained it is obviously the way it happened. It gels with what we know, and it's a solid first hand account. We could also ask Alex to double check the IP information and user settings to confirm that ML was logged in and in fact able to read the post and/or make the decision to unignore for a much more banal reason than the one Malf is going in about. Of course we could also test ignoring and unignoring functions to double check that posts are visible/"available but hidden" as described, but I don't see any reason to not take ML at his word on that.

All this said, we shouldn't rule out the part that psi may have actually played in his decision.
 
Here's what the first post looks like when I'm ignoring the usual suspects:

upload_2014-5-19_14-6-41.png

At the bottom of the page, I get this:

upload_2014-5-19_14-9-49.png

If I elect to see ignored content, I get this at the beginning of the thread:

upload_2014-5-19_14-12-46.png

BTW, I get the nice blue background using a neat Firefox add-on called Color Transform*. So much kinder on the eyes than glaring white.

*Edit: corrected for American spelling
 
Last edited:
I'm having trouble following this thread. I mean, I get it. But I don't understand the traction it has.

It's clear that how Michael explained it is obviously the way it happened. It gels with what we know, and it's a solid first hand account. We could also ask Alex to double check the IP information and user settings to confirm that ML was logged in and in fact able to read the post and/or make the decision to unignore for a much more banal reason than the one Malf is going in about. Of course we could also test ignoring and unignoring functions to double check that posts are visible/"available but hidden" as described, but I don't see any reason to not take ML at his word on that.

All this said, we shouldn't rule out the part that psi may have actually played in his decision.

Traction? You'd get more on a ski slope. As far as I can see, the insinuation is that I only said I was ignoring nbt, but actually wasn't. Hopefully, my prior post with screenshots will put this to bed. And BTW, trust me: there was no psi whatsoever involved. As I keep on saying, I'm about as psychic as a house brick.
 
I knew something good was going to come out of this thread. Thanks.

My pleasure, bishop. If you install the add-on, it may take a bit of fiddling to get the colour and style you want. If you need help, you can always ask, though a few weeks ago I accidentally uninstalled the add-on and it took a while to tweak it when I re-installed, so I don't claim to be an expert.
 
:D Nice Michael. You should hang around here more often!

C'mon guys. God knows this place needs cheering up every so often. I was just having a little satirical poke at 1 or 2 3 or 4 5 ...about half a dozen of the proponent posters.

Ok. Back to the serious stuff about ghosts and that....

...WHAT?!

When Churchland ended up giving such a pathetic showing and proponents laughed it was the skeptics who didn't have a sense of humor. And that was actually pretty funny when you think about it - how can someone who doesn't believe in free will get so whiny due to an involuntary snicker?

Sort of an Aesop Fable examining how materialist determinism isn't a livable truth - or maybe just a singular example of an established academic acting like a petulant child - but amusing all the same.

So it's a bit silly for people like Arouet to tell others to lighten up now.
 
I did say that people tell me that I should lighten up! Come to think of it, you are one of them! I thought you liked the more sarcastic Arouet?

I do - but if people are calling for a sense of humor it can't just be when the joke's on the other foot.

That's a Churchland type strategy, given how she's happy to poke fun at her opponents in her writings but folded like a wet house of cards when the tables are turned. I'd hope the skeptic representatives here would have more integrity than her.
 
When Churchland ended up giving such a pathetic showing and proponents laughed it was the skeptics who didn't have a sense of humor. And that was actually pretty funny when you think about it - how can someone who doesn't believe in free will get so whiny due to an involuntary snicker?

Sort of an Aesop Fable examining how materialist determinism isn't a livable truth - or maybe just a singular example of an established academic acting like a petulant child - but amusing all the same.

So it's a bit silly for people like Arouet to tell others to lighten up now.

Let's be fair here. That interview was pretty awful, yes. But the many people on this forum accusing her of being an alcoholic was horrendous.
 
Let's be fair here. That interview was pretty awful, yes. But the many people on this forum accusing her of being an alcoholic was horrendous.

Maybe they were just joking around?
 
They weren't. I won't name names, but someone even suggested that she should, in all sincerity, apologize to Alex for being an alcoholic even if it wasn't true just to save face.

That sounds like it might've been a joke - Perhaps your skeptical side simply caused you to misunderstand the tone?

I mean the forum can be pretty serious, and just poking a little fun at one interviewer acting childish and whiny might be a good way to lighten the mood.

You should probably lighten up and not make such a big deal out of it.
 
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.

I realize you're doing an impersonation, but you do raise some interesting points:

-What does it mean to have reliable or unreliable testimony. Randi once said he knew about issues regarding Psi research at SRI because the secret group Broomhilda had told him.

Much of our lives are based on anecdotes, so it's definitely more complicated than dismissing events that did not take place in a lab. Braude goes into this in his article, How to Dismiss Evidence Without Really Trying. I'm not as certain as he is about the cases he mentions but the argument is worth a look.

-Confirmation bias works two ways, as noted in the Nobel Prize winning physicist Josephson's lecture, The Pathology of Disbelief.

-Randi's MDC isn't a good way to prove anything. It not only displays a misunderstanding or just plain ignorance of how invariants determine what phenomena are amenable to scientific investigation - and how mental states might play a role in cases where the Phenomenal seems to pierce the Material - but it's questionable whether Randi would even pay out.

-The inability to separate the politics centered around Creationism from any consideration for design or doubt about evolution. Shermer trying to talk about Sheldrake's morphic resonance ideas is proof of that.

-Wishful thinking is an odd one, since desiring a world without the paranormal is clearly the wish of many skeptics. Braude has discussed the anger at which his explorations into the paranormal have elicited. Coyne seems like he pops a blood vessel anytime someone dares to suggest immaterialistic explanations might have a place in science. Beyond that, as McGilchrist notes the "left brain" goes out of its way to reject evidence against conclusions that might lead us away from materialism.

-On magicians - I think it's useful to show how someone might fool even the most observant scientist who is untrained in such tricks. But this should not be taken as a good indicator that magicians can do good science. Randi got involved in the cold fusion debate as well, though what that has to do with magicians is beyond me. Seems like his skills would've been more useful guarding people against the ID theft his partner committed?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top