Mod+ What's the value in misrepresenting your opponent's position?

[fls]

In the Shermer show thread, bishop made an insightful point to Alex:

This is what I mean. It's like saying "Christians believe you are a puppet to the whims of a homicidal, all powerful jerk, and I would welcome anyone to straighten me out." No one can ever straighten that question out, because it doesn't even make sense to begin with. Christians don't believe that.

I tune out most of the anti-materialism/anti-naturalism/anti-skeptic/anti-mind=brain arguments put forth by proponents because they almost always start by misrepresenting the position of materialism/naturalism/skeptic/mind=brain which renders the remainder of the argument invalid. I don't think I'm alone in this. As bishop points out, nobody is inclined to engage with any arguments which follow from "why believe in a sadistic attention-whore?" I think that it is foolish to take this approach. If I engage in discussion, it's because I want to understand a different perspective, on the way to understanding my own or changing it. This necessarily starts with the recognition that I have to regard my opponent's perspective as valid and reasonable because that is how they will perceive it. There is no point in presenting a perspective no one would regard as valid. What can you possibly learn from that?

Yet I doubt that Alex is naive in regards to winning hearts and minds. So I'm curious about why he goes ahead and does this? What value is there in this approach? This isn't a rhetorical question. I'm looking for some insight/suggestions. I noticed much the same problem when I was on the JREF forum (similarly, I doubted that Randi was naive about methods which were sure to alienate). I came to the conclusion there that it's about preaching to the choir and building a support base, rather than open inquiry. Any other ideas?

Linda

(mod+ refers to http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/does-it-matter.1240/page-5#post-33913 )

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

To give Alex the benefit of the doubt, could it be that he truly believes that having meaning in my life is only possible given some definition of meaning related to god? So anything else that I might call "meaning" isn't really meaning, but meaninglessness with a veneer of self-delusion. I've simply fooled myself into believing that I have meaning in my life. So any argument from me about really have meaning is false.

If it's not that, then the only other thing I can think of is what you said in the second paragraph: It's a political technique to expand an ideology.

~~ Paul

 

[fls]

To give Alex the benefit of the doubt, could it be that he truly believes that having meaning in my life is only possible given some definition of meaning related to god? So anything else that I might call "meaning" isn't really meaning, but meaninglessness with a veneer of self-delusion. I've simply fooled myself into believing that I have meaning in my life. So any argument from me about really have meaning is false.

~~ Paul

Except that proponents go to great lengths to insist that an argument which assumes everyone is operating under a delusion is not valid (at least, they insist it's not valid if applied to them). I doubt that he would suggest that anyone who believes differently from him must be deluded. After all, that argument easily works for any side in a discussion, which makes it too obviously fallacious.

Linda

 

[brooke]

It's a political technique to expand an ideology.

I think it's often this, sadly. Once you're 100% sure you're right, there isn't room for much else besides politics.

 

[fls]

I think it's often this, sadly. Once you're 100% sure you're right, there isn't room for much else besides politics.

???

What about trying to convert others? That's what I'm having trouble understanding - why do Alex, and many other proponents, present their arguments in a way which will only appeal to the converted? Why forego the attempt to bring others around to your point of view?

Linda

 

[brooke]

???

What about trying to convert others? That's what I'm having trouble understanding - why do Alex, and many other proponents, present their arguments in a way which will only appeal to the converted? Why forego the attempt to bring others around to your point of view?

Linda

Because they aren't arguing any more. As you know, the ideology includes a severe disdain for those who haven't bothered to look at the data...as for those who have looked at the data, read the papers, and remain unconvinced...I suppose it's easier to just call them "silly" and their ideas "nonsense" and leave it at that.

As I've said many times, I think it stems from a deep mistrust of a skeptical community who ridiculed and belittled the ideas for many years, oftentimes without any real attempts to actually engage with the research that was taking place. Add to that the vicious ridicule aimed at psychics and healers and experiencers, and you can appreciate why proponents would feel it's a lost cause and basically resort to insults and name-calling. It's a response to similar treatment at the hands of basically everyone else in academia and intellectual circles for many, many years.

 

[fls]

Because they aren't arguing any more. As you know, the ideology includes a severe disdain for those who haven't bothered to look at the data...as for those who have looked at the data, read the papers, and remain unconvinced...I suppose it's easier to just call them "silly" and their ideas "nonsense" and leave it at that.

As I've said many times, I think it stems from a deep mistrust of a skeptical community who ridiculed and belittled the ideas for many years, oftentimes without any real attempts to actually engage with the research that was taking place. Add to that the vicious ridicule aimed at psychics and healers and experiencers, and you can appreciate why proponents would feel it's a lost cause and basically resort to insults and name-calling. It's a response to similar treatment at the hands of basically everyone else in academia and intellectual circles for many, many years.

That makes sense. It's unfortunate. I don't really see any way out of it. I get the sense that the parapsychological community is becoming increasingly insulated. What's your impression?

Linda

 

[Saiko]

In the Shermer show thread, bishop made an insightful point to Alex:



(mod+ refers to http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/does-it-matter.1240/page-5#post-33913 )

Please stop making a mockery of Mod+. It was made precisely for the use of those perspectives you rail against. If Alex validates your co-option of it for pro-materialist viewpoints fine. Till then just stop! You're acting much like the Guerrilla Naysayers who twist Wikipedia to their aims.

WHAT IS Mod+

Now that we've been at the Skeptiko forum thing for a while we've noticed there are some discussion that need special moderation. People who accept that scientific materialism isn't a workable idea generally will be a good fit for these threads as the discussions generally explore what lies beyond the assumption that "consciousness is an illusion created by biological robots"

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/forum-rules-please-read-before-posting.4/

 

[Saiko]

I tune out most of the anti-materialism/anti-naturalism/anti-skeptic/anti-mind=brain arguments put forth by proponents because they almost always start by misrepresenting the position of materialism/naturalism/skeptic/mind=brain which renders the remainder of the argument invalid. I don't think I'm alone in this.

Of course you tune it out. It's oppositional to your most strongly held beliefs.. There are some who I suppose are concerned with wanting to have you see how limited and limiting your beliefs are. There are others, like myself, who for the most part simply can't be bothered. Once in a while, I attempt but only you can take off your blinders and you don't want to do that. As I've stated before you don't get that everything you believe as indicators of truth adds to a very small subset of actuality. And of course you're not alone in that.

 

[fls]

Of course you tune it out. It's oppositional to your most strongly held beliefs.. There are some who I suppose are concerned with wanting to have you see how limited and limiting your beliefs are. There are others, like myself, who for the most part simply can't be bothered. Once in a while, I attempt but only you can take off your blinders and you don't want to do that. As I've stated before you don't get that everything you believe as indicators of truth adds to a very small subset of actuality. And of course you're not alone in that.

Well, this is a good example of what I was talking about in the OP. I stated that I tune out some of the arguments because they start with invalid premises, which renders the rest of the argument invalid (I'm not a materialist or any of those things on the list to begin with, but at least I mostly understand those positions). I did not state that I tune them out because they are oppositional to my most strongly held beliefs (I don't even particularly have any strongly held beliefs, nor do I avoid challenging the tentative, wishy-washy beliefs I do have).

So you've started your post by misrepresenting my position. What I'm asking is, what did you expect to accomplish by doing that? Do you really think that I will see "how limited and limiting my beliefs are" if you start your argument by indicating that you won't be addressing my actual beliefs? You complain that you "can't be bothered", but yet you showed up here to state this. Why?

To give an example you might relate to - in the "New Precognition Study Supports Skeptical View" thread, when you saw that the study supposedly (I agree that it doesn't) contradicted the validity of precognition and you noted that "The National Center for Biotechnology Information is a great source for open studies on things beyond the materialist corral" (said sarcastically), is it likely that you will engage with Pantheist as having put forward a valid argument against precognition?

Please note, none of my questions are rhetorical. I'm curious about how you see this, and answering them would help me understand your perspective (and possibly Alex's).

Linda

 

[DasMurmeltier]

In the Shermer show thread, bishop made an insightful point to Alex:



I tune out most of the anti-materialism/anti-naturalism/anti-skeptic/anti-mind=brain arguments put forth by proponents because they almost always start by misrepresenting the position of materialism/naturalism/skeptic/mind=brain which renders the remainder of the argument invalid. I don't think I'm alone in this. As bishop points out, nobody is inclined to engage with any arguments which follow from "why believe in a sadistic attention-whore?" I think that it is foolish to take this approach. If I engage in discussion, it's because I want to understand a different perspective, on the way to understanding my own or changing it. This necessarily starts with the recognition that I have to regard my opponent's perspective as valid and reasonable because that is how they will perceive it. There is no point in presenting a perspective no one would regard as valid. What can you possibly learn from that?

Yet I doubt that Alex is naive in regards to winning hearts and minds. So I'm curious about why he goes ahead and does this? What value is there in this approach? This isn't a rhetorical question. I'm looking for some insight/suggestions. I noticed much the same problem when I was on the JREF forum (similarly, I doubted that Randi was naive about methods which were sure to alienate). I came to the conclusion there that it's about preaching to the choir and building a support base, rather than open inquiry. Any other ideas?

Linda

(mod+ refers to http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/does-it-matter.1240/page-5#post-33913 )

Are you also tuning out arguments from materialism that are misinterpreting other positions?

 

[fls]

Are you also tuning out arguments from materialism that are misinterpreting other positions?

Definitely. As I mentioned in the OP, I didn't really understand why the same practice was used at the JREF, either.

Linda

 

[politicaljunkie]

One great misunderstanding of materialism is to my mind, that matter is somehow this rigid billiard ball stuff. It may look that way to us, but at the fundamental level, it's weird as hell. Read any recent paper on quantum physics and you'll likely see that matter is strange, fascinating, and awesome. So I don't see why we can't have a view of consciousness that is 'physical' when physical stuff is pretty bizarre in itself.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Except that proponents go to great lengths to insist that an argument which assumes everyone is operating under a delusion is not valid (at least, they insist it's not valid if applied to them). I doubt that he would suggest that anyone who believes differently from him must be deluded. After all, that argument easily works for any side in a discussion, which makes it too obviously fallacious.

Perhaps the term delusion is too strong. I think Alex would allow for a different belief if the belief was: I have no meaning in my life. But if I claim that my self-generated meaning is real meaning, he might indeed think that I am fooling myself.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Please stop making a mockery of Mod+. It was made precisely for the use of those perspectives you rail against. If Alex validates your co-option of it for pro-materialist viewpoints fine. Till then just stop! You're acting much like the Guerrilla Naysayers who twist Wikipedia to their aims.

Wait, what? You're claiming that Mod+ is only for use by proponents?

~~ Paul

 

[fls]

One great misunderstanding of materialism is to my mind, that matter is somehow this rigid billiard ball stuff. It may look that way to us, but at the fundamental level, it's weird as hell. Read any recent paper on quantum physics and you'll likely see that matter is strange, fascinating, and awesome. So I don't see why we can't have a view of consciousness that is 'physical' when physical stuff is pretty bizarre in itself.

Agreed. Matter hasn't been "billiard ball stuff" for a hundred years, yet people still present "materialism" as though that's how materialists think of it. Or that the action of a billiard ball is like clockwork, when it is actually chaotic, which also misrepresents materialism as mechanistic.

Linda

 

[brooke]

I get the sense that the parapsychological community is becoming increasingly insulated. What's your impression?

Linda

I agree, though I don't think it's unique to parapsychology. I think every interest group out there is becoming increasingly more insulated as they burrow deeper into their online echo chambers.

 

[fls]

Perhaps the term delusion is too strong. I think Alex would allow for a different belief if the belief was: I have no meaning in my life. But if I claim that my self-generated meaning is real meaning, he might indeed think that I am fooling myself.

~~ Paul

But then it comes back to the central question - is the self-generated meaning (in all its varieties) derived from the ideas of God/reincarnation/Source/idealism/etc. "real meaning" and how would you know? Are you suggesting that Alex doesn't even think the question needs to be asked (the answer is so obviously "yes")?

Linda

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

But then it comes back to the central question - is the self-generated meaning (in all its varieties) derived from the ideas of God/reincarnation/Source/idealism/etc. "real meaning" and how would you know? Are you suggesting that Alex doesn't even think the question needs to be asked (the answer is so obviously "yes")?

I don't know what Alex thinks about that. No one has ever said to me: You don't think your self-generated meaning is a product of what you learned about God/reincaration/etc., but it really is. They just tell me I'm fooling myself and don't have any meaning in my life. And they always ignore my question about how they know that their real meaning is actually real and not just another version of self-fooling.

~~ Paul

 

[Saiko]

Well, this is a good example of what I was talking about in the OP. I stated that I tune out some of the arguments because they start with invalid premises, which renders the rest of the argument invalid (I'm not a materialist or any of those things on the list to begin with, but at least I mostly understand those positions). I did not state that I tune them out because they are oppositional to my most strongly held beliefs (I don't even particularly have any strongly held beliefs, nor do I avoid challenging the tentative, wishy-washy beliefs I do have).

Well then my apologies. I guess I had tuned out the rest of your post. Oh and BTW just because you see something as invalid doesn't make it so. And there's the rub.