Of Skeptics and Bannings

[Jules]

I know everyone has a belief system. I'd take it a step further and say most people (everyone?) have no idea how rigid their own belief system is, or how questionable a lot of their assumptions (that they don't even realise they're making) are.

I'm saying that only a fraction of the assumptions are in the premise, and our culture feeds us various urban legends that are never questioned and which work their way into our opinions about various things, etc and so on.

Many disagreements come from a difference in the "fact base", not the "truths" taken as literally axiomatic.

l can accept that. Foundations in Belief sorta covers that...

Twas just an idea...

 

[Steve]

I don't think of the critical discussions forum as a fortress. I think the skeptical arguements wind up looking weak and impoversished... some will always side with the skeptics... but at the end of the day our sides wins most all of these debates... if one is fair-minded about it.

I meant the Skeptics might look on their place within the forum as a fortress, I see it as a fort surrounded in all directions ?

I wanted to add my voice to those who have reminded us that people enjoying this forum may not be academics, or in my case be able to follow some of the esoteric arguments seen here, not everyone is blessed with a ' brain the size of a planet ', as we used to describe certain individuals ☺. I do however spend a lot of time here as I now have a lot of free time, and have a deep interest in consciousness and associated topics. I hope it does not become an exclusive 'club' ? This might be seen as me having ' a chip on my shoulder ' , and you may be right ? I would prefer it being thought of as a reminder that it may not be as serious as you think, and that the heart might just be 'the real brain'. (See Joseph Chilton Pearce )

 

[JCearley]

The Mainstream Defense Corner? (or just "Defenders of the Mainstream") The Randi Bin? :D

That's belittling some of the conversations that actually go on there. Sometimes people post over there because that is where more of the actual whitepapers get posted, or they are agnostics and would like to see the data. There's a growing sentiment that if you disagree with the OP in a different board, you're just a de-railer because anyone who disagrees with you might as well be a skeptic.

I really don't think there is any "sceptic" on this forum who has a genuine interest in that kind of exploration.

I'm not as convinced as I would like to be; does that make me a skeptic? I've overtly asked in the mod+ forums where to look for "that kind of exploration" and wasn't really given answers.

It's between explorers and infiltrators. What the infiltrators want is to destroy the aims of the explorers, and are pissing and moaning that it's unfair if they're not allowed to do that. Like I said, it's comical.

I've seen some comical events happen, but they aren't the kind you are talking about. One example is when the "skeptics" were complaining about being given a special forum label and the "wink wink" forum signature, and were effectively told to f*** off when they took offense to it. Or when I asked in Saiko's forum how to run an improvement forum without allowing tools which are regularly regarded as analytical learning processes, I was essentially called an arch-skeptic that just wanted to complain about not being in every forum.

All I had actually asked was how a forum for helping people could help people if you weren't allowed to do anything but pat someone on the back.

[..] so that we can thrash out effective and efficient procedures for giving fair warning to infiltrators to mend their ways, and in the event of their failing to do so, to permanently be rid of them.

You're just changing what color cup is sitting over the marble here. That doesn't address the hard problem of determining when someone is an "infiltrator" or a "turqoise cup" against "someone who just disagrees with this topic" or a "cyan cup" when the person viewing the cups is colorblind. You can tell them the colors have different names but they still can't see it.

If infiltrators don't like that idea, I couldn't care less. In my view, they should think themselves lucky to have any place at all here. We have to stop the infiltrator tail wagging the explorer dog.

Re-classify and dehumanize, I guess. It works for skeptic boards so why not do the same in reverse here too?

Maybe so, Alex, but you seem to be assuming you can lift him out of that sticky loop of cognitive dissonance by having these conversations, and I'm not sure that's actually possible.

This is an error. Cognitive dissonance does not a rise from having a single solidified dogma. It arises because two or more potentialities have enough carrying weight that you can't collapse one of them as your truth. So by virtue of saying he is experiencing cognitive dissonance, means that he is considering both sides potentially valid (thus invalidating the "pseudo-skeptic" insinuation.)

 

[Craig Weiler]

I know everyone has a belief system. I'd take it a step further and say most people (everyone?) have no idea how rigid their own belief system is, or how questionable a lot of their assumptions (that they don't even realise they're making) are.

I'm saying that only a fraction of the assumptions are in the premise, and our culture feeds us various urban legends that are never questioned and which work their way into our opinions about various things, etc and so on.

Many disagreements come from a difference in the "fact base", not the "truths" taken as literally axiomatic.

This is generally true in the general population, but becomes less so for people who examine their own beliefs or who question the cultural norms or who are simply multi-cultural through experience. By definition, proponents are questioning cultural norms and not coincidentally, many are multi-cultural.

 

[Michael Larkin]

Re-classify and dehumanize, I guess. It works for skeptic boards so why not do the same in reverse here too?

 

[john.sundog]

IMHO, here is one primary separation that should at least be considered in the reorganization. If you go back to the old forum and look at the discussions for a few podcasts you'll generally see two distinct discussions which are intertwined.

• Discussion 1: Is the interviewee incompetent? Lying? Is the work based on false premises? Valid in any way?
• Discussion 2: If we assume the interviewee is competent, truthful, and the work is based on sound premises, what are the implications to humanity and to us as individuals? What other research or phenomena might tie in? So forth.

I noticed in some cases those participating in Discussion 2 seemed cowed and defensive because of the dogmatic assertions from Discussion 1 - they evidently were inhibited from expressing themselves freely. In the case of the recent Jacobs threads I found both discussions interesting but they stumble all over each other.

 

[Craig Weiler]

That's belittling some of the conversations that actually go on there. Sometimes people post over there because that is where more of the actual whitepapers get posted, or they are agnostics and would like to see the data. There's a growing sentiment that if you disagree with the OP in a different board, you're just a de-railer because anyone who disagrees with you might as well be a skeptic.

I'm not as convinced as I would like to be; does that make me a skeptic? I've overtly asked in the mod+ forums where to look for "that kind of exploration" and wasn't really given answers.

I've seen some comical events happen, but they aren't the kind you are talking about. One example is when the "skeptics" were complaining about being given a special forum label and the "wink wink" forum signature, and were effectively told to f*** off when they took offense to it. Or when I asked in Saiko's forum how to run an improvement forum without allowing tools which are regularly regarded as analytical learning processes, I was essentially called an arch-skeptic that just wanted to complain about not being in every forum.

All I had actually asked was how a forum for helping people could help people if you weren't allowed to do anything but pat someone on the back.

You're just changing what color cup is sitting over the marble here. That doesn't address the hard problem of determining when someone is an "infiltrator" or a "turqoise cup" against "someone who just disagrees with this topic" or a "cyan cup" when the person viewing the cups is colorblind. You can tell them the colors have different names but they still can't see it.

Re-classify and dehumanize, I guess. It works for skeptic boards so why not do the same in reverse here too?

I generally see these kinds of comments from people who are thoughtful, but haven't seen enough of the literature to realize it's convincing nor engaged the more hard core skeptics for long enough to realize that they're actually ideologues. I realize that these things take time and can be hard to sort out, but the people who have already gone through this process should not be penalized for having all reached the same conclusion. It is up to each of us to do this in our own way and I invite you to consider what could have pushed all of us to be so uncompromising.

This is an error. Cognitive dissonance does not a rise from having a single solidified dogma. It arises because two or more potentialities have enough carrying weight that you can't collapse one of them as your truth. So by virtue of saying he is experiencing cognitive dissonance, means that he is considering both sides potentially valid (thus invalidating the "pseudo-skeptic" insinuation.)

There are several interpretations of cognitive dissonance, such as this one:

Leon Festinger (1957) proposed cognitive dissonance theory, which states that a powerful motive to maintain cognitive consistency can give rise to irrational and sometimes maladaptive behavior.

According to Festinger, we hold many cognitions about the world and ourselves; when they clash, a discrepancy is evoked, resulting in a state of tension known as cognitive dissonance. As the experience of dissonance is unpleasant, we are motivated to reduce or eliminate it, and achieve consonance (i.e. agreement).

Cognitive dissonance was first investigated by Leon Festinger, arising out of a participant observation study of a cult which believed that the earth was going to be destroyed by a flood, and what happened to its members — particularly the really committed ones who had given up their homes and jobs to work for the cult — when the flood did not happen.

While fringe members were more inclined to recognize that they had made fools of themselves and to "put it down to experience", committed members were more likely to re-interpret the evidence to show that they were right all along (the earth was not destroyed because of the faithfulness of the cult members).

 

[Jules]

I meant the Skeptics might look on their place within the forum as a fortress, I see it as a fort surrounded in all directions ?

I wanted to add my voice to those who have reminded us that people enjoying this forum may not be academics, or in my case be able to follow some of the esoteric arguments seen here, not everyone is blessed with a ' brain the size of a planet ', as we used to describe certain individuals ☺. I do however spend a lot of time here as I now have a lot of free time, and have a deep interest in consciousness and associated topics. I hope it does not become an exclusive 'club' ? This might be seen as me having ' a chip on my shoulder ' , and you may be right ? I would prefer it being thought of as a reminder that it may not be as serious as you think, and that the heart might just be 'the real brain'. (See Joseph Chilton Pearce )

I completely agree. I don't have a problem with debates becoming very focused and specialised at times because sometimes you have to go into a good deal of detail to get to the core of the reason why you don't agree. But anyone should be able to put forward an idea who is not a specialist and have that idea treated with the respect it deserves. I have no expertise in philosophy and I have been ridiculed on the thread in a way which is completely unacceptable. And hero-worship of some individuals only demeans the contribution we can all make - I find it cringe-worthy. Nobody has a monopoly on truth and insight. I have my fair-share of it, as do you Steve.

 

[Alex]

I'd just replace Believer with Proponent, but otherwise it's fine.

The reason is that I'm not a believer. I'm a convinced-by-the-evidence guy.

If you want to keep it simply I'm all for "The Rehash Forum"

ok

 

[Alex]

Leon Festinger: When Prophecy Fails

thx for the reminder :)

 

[JCearley]

I generally see these kinds of comments from people who are thoughtful, but haven't seen enough of the literature to realize it's convincing nor engaged the more hard core skeptics for long enough to realize that they're actually ideologues.

I'll just agree to disagree with that. I agree that there is enough evidence to warrant looking in to the topic and taking it seriously, I disagree that a chain of disparate 8-subject studies makes it a done deal.

I realize that these things take time and can be hard to sort out, but the people who have already gone through this process should not be penalized for having all reached the same conclusion.

I agree with that in general.

I disagree that part of the forum is penalizing you for reaching the same conclusion; there was already a Haven forum with a semi-well defined rule (no 'debunking') and most proponents who are complaining about skeptics in their threads failed to actually use that board.

It is up to each of us to do this in our own way and I invite you to consider what could have pushed all of us to be so uncompromising.

I don't need an invitation; I can see why someone who is convinced would be upset about the people who are not. However, I think most of this talk of the "you can't convert skeptics" sentiment is a massive cop-out and move by some proponents here to engage in cult-like behavior. There is evidence within the same literature that skeptics can be convinced but it requires a continual stream of good evidence (see some of the 1900s skeptical converts.)

I can also see why someone who isn't convinced will be aggravated or confused, because terms like "MOD+" are meaningless across the internet and its very frustrating to be shown the same meta-analysis over and over when even proponent researchers (e.g. Kennedy) demonstrate that its pretty normal to remain unconvinced by a retrospective study throughout the entirety of scientific history. When they bring out a new standard for studies (and ask how proponent literature holds up) they're beaten down for shaking the tree and not just believing in it, so they're going to be just as unhappy as you are.

I'm aware of both side's arguments; I think we need to acknowledge them as people however and stop shoving them behind a label. There seems to be more posts and threading since the Sheldrake incident which does nothing but kick around the divide between both sides than there are actual attempts to communicate between them. Andy telling skeptics he's "not going to talk" about policy is one such example of setting a bad precedent.

I'll agree that more skeptics should be engaged in the evidence (all though the ones here are at least familiar with a lot of it), and proponents need to properly acknowledge the limitations of that research. People don't need to be getting shoved off the forum because they asked someone to cite their sources, and then said "your source isn't actually an experiment" or "that study is promising but horrendously underpowered."

 

[Jules]

I'll just agree to disagree with that. I agree that there is enough evidence to warrant looking in to the topic and taking it seriously, I disagree that a chain of disparate 8-subject studies makes it a done deal.



I agree with that in general.

I disagree that part of the forum is penalizing you for reaching the same conclusion; there was already a Haven forum with a semi-well defined rule (no 'debunking') and most proponents who are complaining about skeptics in their threads failed to actually use that board.



I don't need an invitation; I can see why someone who is convinced would be upset about the people who are not. However, I think most of this talk of the "you can't convert skeptics" sentiment is a massive cop-out and move by some proponents here to engage in cult-like behavior. There is evidence within the same literature that skeptics can be convinced but it requires a continual stream of good evidence (see some of the 1900s skeptical converts.)

I can also see why someone who isn't convinced will be aggravated or confused, because terms like "MOD+" are meaningless across the internet and its very frustrating to be shown the same meta-analysis over and over when even proponent researchers (e.g. Kennedy) demonstrate that its pretty normal to remain unconvinced by a retrospective study throughout the entirety of scientific history. When they bring out a new standard for studies (and ask how proponent literature holds up) they're beaten down for shaking the tree and not just believing in it, so they're going to be just as unhappy as you are.

I'm aware of both side's arguments; I think we need to acknowledge them as people however and stop shoving them behind a label. There seems to be more posts and threading since the Sheldrake incident which does nothing but kick around the divide between both sides than there are actual attempts to communicate between them. Andy telling skeptics he's "not going to talk" about policy is one such example of setting a bad precedent.

I'll agree that more skeptics should be engaged in the evidence (all though the ones here are at least familiar with a lot of it), and proponents need to properly acknowledge the limitations of that research. People don't need to be getting shoved off the forum because they asked someone to cite their sources, and then said "your source isn't actually an experiment" or "that study is promising but horrendously underpowered."

I do agree to an extent that as Mandela said, we have to make friends with our enemies. To be honest though that can take a lot of energy. Some days I can do it, others I can't. I don't see it as my responsibility to change anyone's mind. What they believe is their choice. My responsibility is to respect them as people. And except for those who behave with disrespect to others, I do. From my point of view I have been through some stuff which is incontrovertible-such is the power of experience. Those who haven't had the experience are left with research, ethnography and histories etc from which to get off the starting block. That's the way the world works. I don't need that which is one of the paybacks for having to live life with more sensitivity. So what is my responsibility to others? If I can be helpful I will because its part of being human. But I also come here to meet my own needs. So I need different types of discussions. But these discussions can get blocked by people who won't let the debate progress. I appreciate you're not convinced and I respect that. But some of us are and we want to go deeper in the dialogue. That's why I think we should meet all those needs. State your presumptions at the start of the thread. Everyone respect them. Play nicely in the sandpit. Shouldn't be hard - all needs can be met. Different strokes for different folks.

Jules

 

[Ian Gordon]

ok

Thanks for this change, Alex.

 

[Craig Weiler]

I'll just agree to disagree with that. I agree that there is enough evidence to warrant looking in to the topic and taking it seriously, I disagree that a chain of disparate 8-subject studies makes it a done deal.

You just proved my point. You aren't all that familiar with the evidence. I've been knee deep in it for several years and I'm really well versed in some of the major stuff and I've gone through all the important skeptical papers. That's why I know what I'm talking about. I see no need to rehash that with people who have strong opinions but can't be bothered to examine the evidence in detail and challenge their own assumptions.

I disagree that part of the forum is penalizing you for reaching the same conclusion; there was already a Haven forum with a semi-well defined rule (no 'debunking') and most proponents who are complaining about skeptics in their threads failed to actually use that board.

It's not the proponents that belong in the ghetto because we actually know what we're talking about.

I don't need an invitation; I can see why someone who is convinced would be upset about the people who are not. However, I think most of this talk of the "you can't convert skeptics" sentiment is a massive cop-out and move by some proponents here to engage in cult-like behavior. There is evidence within the same literature that skeptics can be convinced but it requires a continual stream of good evidence (see some of the 1900s skeptical converts.)

Again, lack of experience on your part. I've been dealing with irrational skepticism since 2008. It does not take me long to tell who can be convinced and who can't. If you really want an example of skeptics-gone-wild, check out the talk page for Rupert Sheldrake's biography on Wikipedia. There are definitely quite a few skeptics out there who cannot be convinced.

I can also see why someone who isn't convinced will be aggravated or confused, because terms like "MOD+" are meaningless across the internet and its very frustrating to be shown the same meta-analysis over and over when even proponent researchers (e.g. Kennedy) demonstrate that its pretty normal to remain unconvinced by a retrospective study throughout the entirety of scientific history. When they bring out a new standard for studies (and ask how proponent literature holds up) they're beaten down for shaking the tree and not just believing in it, so they're going to be just as unhappy as you are.

If you're talking about the Ganzfeld there are six meta analyses, two of which were by skeptics. When you refer to "new standards" this is Orwellian Newspeak for mangling Bayesian statistics and omitting positive studies in order to get that Golden Null Result. I can say this because frankly, I've done my homework. You've . . . just started.

I'm aware of both side's arguments; I think we need to acknowledge them as people however and stop shoving them behind a label. There seems to be more posts and threading since the Sheldrake incident which does nothing but kick around the divide between both sides than there are actual attempts to communicate between them. Andy telling skeptics he's "not going to talk" about policy is one such example of setting a bad precedent.

These are people with more experience and knowledge than you.

I'll agree that more skeptics should be engaged in the evidence (all though the ones here are at least familiar with a lot of it), and proponents need to properly acknowledge the limitations of that research. People don't need to be getting shoved off the forum because they asked someone to cite their sources, and then said "your source isn't actually an experiment" or "that study is promising but horrendously underpowered."

You don't get shoved off the forum if you can back up your statement, you get shoved off if you've been proven wrong over and over again and still insist that you're right.

 

[Tyler]

I don't need an invitation; I can see why someone who is convinced would be upset about the people who are not.

I can't unless they see debate as entertainment. Their "being upset" is nothing more than a drugless high which for some odd reason (pride? cough) feel compelled to argue.

However, I think most of this talk of the "you can't convert skeptics" sentiment is a massive cop-out and move by some proponents here to engage in cult-like behavior.

I can't speak for the others but frankly my dear, I don't give a damn {about them}. I find my 'entertainment' in much more satisfying, productive ways.

 

[Tyler]

It's not the proponents that belong in the ghetto because we actually know what we're talking about.

Fleas and dogs, Craig, fleas and dogs.

 

[Jules]

You just proved my point. You aren't all that familiar with the evidence. I've been knee deep in it for several years and I'm really well versed in some of the major stuff and I've gone through all the important skeptical papers. That's why I know what I'm talking about. I see no need to rehash that with people who have strong opinions but can't be bothered to examine the evidence in detail and challenge their own assumptions.




It's not the proponents that belong in the ghetto because we actually know what we're talking about.

Again, lack of experience on your part. I've been dealing with irrational skepticism since 2008. It does not take me long to tell who can be convinced and who can't. If you really want an example of skeptics-gone-wild, check out the talk page for Rupert Sheldrake's biography on Wikipedia. There are definitely quite a few skeptics out there who cannot be convinced.

If you're talking about the Ganzfeld there are six meta analyses, two of which were by skeptics. When you refer to "new standards" this is Orwellian Newspeak for mangling Bayesian statistics and omitting positive studies in order to get that Golden Null Result. I can say this because frankly, I've done my homework. You've . . . just started.

These are people with more experience and knowledge than you.

You don't get shoved off the forum if you can back up your statement, you get shoved off if you've been proven wrong over and over again and still insist that you're right.

Points taken. We all get exhausted with the nonsense.

 

[Tyler]

Points taken. We all get exhausted with the nonsense.

Exhausted? As in "have no more energy for"?

Aw, get a good night's sleep, all of you will be back to yet be exhausted once again.

 

[Jules]

Exhausted? As in "have no more energy for"?

Aw, get a good night's sleep, all of you will be back to yet be exhausted once again.

?

 

[JCearley]

State your presumptions at the start of the thread. Everyone respect them. Play nicely in the sandpit. Shouldn't be hard - all needs can be met.

I'd agree with that. Should probably change what the "MOD+" means to require a list of directions be specified for that discussion, because the board-local rules already fulfill the other interpretations of the tag.

I appreciate you're not convinced and I respect that. Why would you be?

I've had some minor experiences (which is why I ended up here in the first place.) There doesn't seem to be a huge psychic community where I live, so that pretty much leaves reading whitepapers.

Its akin to trying to convince someone how awesome a food tastes with words; that is, very clunky.