How times change

Craig Weiler said:
It's not as problematic as it appears. I'm willing to engage in a conversation -if I think it's going somewhere. Too much of this is of the "black is really white" variety where no agreement can be reached because the skeptics are fighting for an ideology. If you substituted the bible for skeptical sources you'd have a hard time telling them from evangelicals. The evidence for psi is there, it's completely convincing for anyone willing to look at it closely and why should I waste my time arguing about that with people whose beliefs are too strong to overcome?
Click to expand...

Really? I see very little to no "Skeptical Evangelism" on this forum. I see much questioning of the proponent position (or rather, the umpteen various proponent positions!) but this is often met by ill temper and anger when the questions become harder to answer. I also see much excellent questioning of the materialist position.

I know how every conversation is going to play out before I even start. Where is the fun in that?
Click to expand...

Yes, probably best for you to back out of those. However, for new members joining (and a vibrant community) those conversations have to be replayed on a regular basis (IMO).
 
Far.From.Here said:
Gabriel could have returned at any time. This site is either loosely moderated or self moderated depending on your viewpoint. Anyone who has ever been banned could return. Some would need to return with different behavior. But Gabriel wouldn't be one of those. Even MU could lurk here incognito.

I agree with Typoz about personal experience. I find such accounts interesting. What I would find interesting would be dedicated threads to different subjects that would be maintained as archives of anomalous experiences. Kind of like the NDE documentary thread. But there would be one thread for Shared Death Experiences for example. In the thread could be any links to such experiences on the web. Links to books or PDFs, etc. Discussion about those experiences would be in a related but different thread. That would be a place you could go to peruse any anecdotes or experiences related to that phenomena. There could be one for UFO, one for dreams or OBEs with any kind of veridical nature, etc.

Having been here for a couple of years my interest in a lot of this stuff has run it's course. Now I just consider it all part of the larger mystery. One that won't be solved.

I still maintain an interest in altered states of consciousness of any type.
Click to expand...

I love this idea! Centralize the research, streamline the examinations! It should have its own subforum: The Online Hub for Anomalous Research and Evidence (OHARE) subforum!
 
Craig Weiler said:
It's not as problematic as it appears. I'm willing to engage in a conversation -if I think it's going somewhere. Too much of this is of the "black is really white" variety where no agreement can be reached because the skeptics are fighting for an ideology. If you substituted the bible for skeptical sources you'd have a hard time telling them from evangelicals. The evidence for psi is there, it's completely convincing for anyone willing to look at it closely and why should I waste my time arguing about that with people whose beliefs are too strong to overcome? I know how every conversation is going to play out before I even start. Where is the fun in that?
Click to expand...

Well, it's a great way to gain XP so you can get to level 80 and evolve into Weilermon.
 
Doppelgänger said:
Hi Arouet - love the reference btw. Everyone loves a good beat-down by the French "Enlightenment"!
Click to expand...

Yep! He was a favourite of mine back in my university days!

I also think we should spend more time on making people define their definitions, don't you think? No one wants to get lost. Right?
Click to expand...

I agree. So many many MANY disagreements on this forum stem from people meaning different things by the same word. This causes us to talk past one another - basically having two separate discussions.
 
Saiko said:
It is, on the levels you're referring to, often not doable. It's also easier to state it than to even want to do it across the board . And there's the rub . . .when someone states something that is far outside one's purview more often than not one will move to dismiss or marginalize it. The default belief that one's "reality tunnel" is the all of reality and the only reality is very strong and has many influences from the micro to the macro
Click to expand...

Actually, I wasn't even at the "dismissing or margializing" point with my comment. I'm talking about at the point of just understanding the other person's post.
 
Arouet said:
Yep! He was a favourite of mine back in my university days!



I agree. So many many MANY disagreements on this forum stem from people meaning different things by the same word. This causes us to talk past one another - basically having two separate discussions.
Click to expand...

Maybe someone should start a thread where we can discuss , compromise, and settle on meanings as we use them here? Want me to start it up?
 
Types With Fingers said:
Maybe someone should start a thread where we can discuss , compromise, and settle on meanings as we use them here? Want me to start it up?
Click to expand...

I get the idea, but I'm not sure its doable. There are just too many different personal variations and we'll just end up in semantic debates.

It's easy to forget sometimes that the purpose of having words is to convey meaning. It is an imperfect method of doing so. For pragmatic reasons, we take shortcuts. We categorise. We stereotype. We do this in order to manage the vast amounts of data that come at us on a day to day basis. It would be very difficult to manage our day to day communications without it. Unfortunately, these shortcuts often fail us when it comes down to in depth discussions. The general definitions, good for broad categorisation, will often fail to take into account the subtle differences of opinion amongst the people using the word.

In this case more discussion is needed.
 
Types With Fingers said:
Maybe someone should start a thread where we can discuss , compromise, and settle on meanings as we use them here? Want me to start it up?
Click to expand...

You could start with "easy" things like feelings. I noticed in some of the threads in this forum in the last few days that there are disagreements on the definition of them aswell.
wait, now that ithought about this one more time... the thread would need to include every forum member, huh. i can think of atleast 2 people that would derail the thread at the first argument. nevermind then.
 
Last edited:
Arouet said:
I get the idea, but I'm not sure its doable. There are just too many different personal variations and we'll just end up in semantic debates.

It's easy to forget sometimes that the purpose of having words is to convey meaning. It is an imperfect method of doing so. For pragmatic reasons, we take shortcuts. We categorise. We stereotype. We do this in order to manage the vast amounts of data that come at us on a day to day basis. It would be very difficult to manage our day to day communications without it. Unfortunately, these shortcuts often fail us when it comes down to in depth discussions. The general definitions, good for broad categorisation, will often fail to take into account the subtle differences of opinion amongst the people using the word.

In this case more discussion is needed.
Click to expand...

Yikes, maybe we should be speaking in mathematics.
 
Craig Weiler said:
It's not as problematic as it appears. I'm willing to engage in a conversation -if I think it's going somewhere. Too much of this is of the "black is really white" variety where no agreement can be reached because the skeptics are fighting for an ideology. If you substituted the bible for skeptical sources you'd have a hard time telling them from evangelicals. The evidence for psi is there, it's completely convincing for anyone willing to look at it closely and why should I waste my time arguing about that with people whose beliefs are too strong to overcome? I know how every conversation is going to play out before I even start. Where is the fun in that?
Click to expand...

Let me be clear. I was not suggesting that you should do anything. What I stated is that if you don't want some people tossing the food out or griping about its taste, don't put it on the table. :)

That said, to claim that "it's completely convincing for anyone willing to look at it closely " is, no offense meant, also kinda silly. Plus in every post you are expressing your own strong beliefs/opinions. Sure my perspective matches up more with yours than with that of the nay-sayers but that's not the point.
 
Ok, I'm getting brave here and exposing my ignorance...what is the Deep State?

And I guess I would qualify as a newbie. I've been listening to Skeptiko for a few years but only really started posting. I think we are all here in various phases of our own evolution, and speaking for myself, this is really the only place I have found where you can toss out ideas, and no matter how far fetched, most people are kind enough to discuss it with you. The vast majority of people do NOT think about the existential questions to the level most people on this forum do, so it's hard to find others to discuss these things with, without them looking at you like you've lost your mind.

I've learned a lot from this forum, both in discussing my own ideas and just lurking about, reading but not commenting. I agree with Malf. New members (like me) are going to come in and not necessarily know about the years of discussions that have taken place, so certain ideas or concepts are going to come up again every so often. I for one am grateful for those who have been patient with me and engaged in discussion, even if it is the billionth time they've had that same discussion.
 
Far.From.Here said:
What I would find interesting would be dedicated threads to different subjects that would be maintained as archives of anomalous experiences. Kind of like the NDE documentary thread. But there would be one thread for Shared Death Experiences for example. In the thread could be any links to such experiences on the web. Links to books or PDFs, etc. Discussion about those experiences would be in a related but different thread. That would be a place you could go to peruse any anecdotes or experiences related to that phenomena. There could be one for UFO, one for dreams or OBEs with any kind of veridical nature, etc.
Click to expand...
That is a valid idea but not one appropriate for the forum itself. What you're referring to is much what is already done with the interviews. They are stored and categorized on the skepiko.com and them a linked thread is made on skeptiko-forum.com. There are "many" sites that have categorical storage of experiences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top