Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by Alex, May 31, 2016.
Some great stuff w/ Braude, thanks to users who've posted these elsewhere:
These lead to a bunch of further discussions w/ Braude.
First video. I've been hearing the same talking points for a heck of a long time, talk is cheap.
Do you have an actual refutation to any of the points?
@Stephen Braude is a member of the forum after all, perhaps he can address any criticisms you have.
Yes, don't talk about poltergeists, get first hand evidence.
He's talking based on investigations of evidence that [have] been done.
And he does have first hand evidence from his own life. IIRC he even mentioned it in that video?
What I mean by first-hand evidence is video. There's no practical way to verify someone's experience from the past.
So every scientific experience-experiment needs to be filmed, otherwise it should be rejected?
Even if something is filmed, pseudo-skeptics would just claim the footage is doctored.
I wonder if it would help to start a new thread (possibly sticky) to discuss moderation concerns. Comments burried in other threads probably don't achieve much.
That's not what I imply or state. You've posted a story which cannot be verified in any practical way. As a skeptic what can I do with it? I do with it as I do with any other story or new physical theory to explain some speculative idea, I shrug my shoulders and wait to see what develops.
Yes, every scientific experiment is documented, if not, then it is not science.
No, goal posting has been done. I await for evidence, not stories. This has been my position for a very long time.
Some probably would, but not all.
So anthropology and to some degree sociology aren't really academic disciplines?
To say nothing of history...
Curious...what are the qualifications one needs to be called a skeptic? Because it seems many skeptics have no college level experience with STEM, no professional experience with research, cursory-at-best knowledge of logic, and the list of deficiencies goes on...I mean perhaps you've taken the time to self-teach, but it's rather unclear what it actual means to be a "skeptic"?
Each discipline has it's own standard for documenting. In Braude's case he was describing physical phenomena such as rocks materializing out of thin air, that requires a stricter level of documentation over and beyond a recitation.
Only one, to think critically.
There's one you have forgotten. Immersing ones self into the paranormal.
STEM is useful, but one can still be a skeptic without them as a foundation.
Skeptics have their faults, but so do folks that are not skeptics.
You seem to be confusing "skeptic" with "PHd level scientist". One needs no qualifications to apply skepticism in evaluating claims. Though of course those with certain knowledge can take the analysis of certain propositions to deeper levels than those without.
For myself, skepticsm is the withholding of belief in a proposition absent sufficient reliable evidence. What can be considered suffiicient or reliable can be up for debate, of course - two people can disagree on those issues and still be considered skeptics (at least as far as I'm concerned). And of course applying skepticism in some claims does not entail that the person applies skepticism in all claims. Note that there are pragmatic limitations to the depth of skepticism that one can apply - few have the time to fully research each and every claim. To some extent everyone has to rely on the work of others.
What do you consider being skeptical to be?
Seems like "skeptic" is just a label anyone can take on so long as they maintain a religious faith their views are the rational ones?
Makes me wonder about pass-rate if tests in science & introductory logic were administered as pop-quizzes among those with memberships at the varied skeptical organizations...
Scofftic was the term coined by another poster - I rather like it. Of course it's always easier to criticise research rather than actually do some.
Guess you probably got some giggles from your intended audience. I walked into that one. I'll leave your posts alone. Thanks for some good discussions though.
Separate names with a comma.