Help needed in setting the tone: Who's in favor of abrasive behavior?

#61
How can you not love such a caring and sympathetic crowd?

~~ Paul
I think you guys should be more grateful here. Alex not only tolerates your opposing POV, but he has even provided you with your own forum for expressing it in. You should be thanking him!

As for Arouet, I'm not sure why he believes we are here for him to aim irrational rants at. That isn't something one does in "real life", so why it is acceptable here? There are real people on the other side of the computer screen.
 
#62
I think you guys should be more grateful here. Alex not only tolerates your opposing POV, but he has even provided you with your own forum for expressing it in. You should be thanking him!
I have a somewhat different idea of what it means to "tolerate" a POV. For example, it doesn't involve blanket censorship or calling someone "stupid" based on not bothering to read what they said. YMMV.

Linda
 

Alex

Administrator
#63
K9, I appreciate that you are unfamiliar with the background and so may not realize that your posts are a bit unwarranted. Alex asked for the van Lommel study to be analyzed and then made some dismissive remarks when Arouet went through the trouble to do so. This isn't coming as a demand for attention out-of-the-blue.

It was nice of you to suggest some pleasant activities for Arouet. And I thank you for staying away from discussions which aren't interesting to you (re: your comment about the B vs. S forum).

Linda
It is and in the spirit of this thread let me explain. I responded to Arouet's post. He then tracked me down in another thread wanting more of a response (not a problem). I responded again. Now, he's doing the same and saying the same... i.e. I have not "really read" his post (again, no prob, I get the frustration... and I think it relates to this thread in terms of not feeling heard). But the reality is that I did read his post... I just thought his arguments were pretty lame. It was really classic stuck-on-stupid debate stuff in the sense that it was an obsessive analysis of van Lommel's Lancet paper in order to discern what his position on NDEs really is. I insisted that all one needs to do is look any of his other public writings on the topic... i.e. we don't have to limit ourselves to ONLY what he wrote in this one paper 20 years ago. So, I think this point pretty much handles a lot the stuff that Arouet and Fls were going on and on about... of course they may not agree, but that explains why I didn't feel a need to respond any further to that thread.
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#64
I think you guys should be more grateful here. Alex not only tolerates your opposing POV, but he has even provided you with your own forum for expressing it in. You should be thanking him!
I thank him for providing a forum for discussion. I'm not sure why I need to thank him for allowing skeptics on Skeptiko.

As for Arouet, I'm not sure why he believes we are here for him to aim irrational rants at. That isn't something one does in "real life", so why it is acceptable here? There are real people on the other side of the computer screen.
No kidding. And they'd better play perfectly every time, because they will be cut no slack.

~~ Paul
 
#65
Moment of weakness, born of stress and frustration, which I regret happened since that stuff is really none of anyone's business. But what's done is done.
 
#66
It is and in the spirit of this thread let me explain. I responded to Arouet's post. He then tracked me down in another thread wanting more of a response (not a problem). I responded again. Now, he's doing the same and saying the same... i.e. I have not "really read" his post (again, no prob, I get the frustration... and I think it relates to this thread in terms of not feeling heard). But the reality is that I did read his post... I just thought his arguments were pretty lame. It was really classic stuck-on-stupid debate stuff in the sense that it was an obsessive analysis of van Lommel's Lancet paper in order to discern what his position on NDEs really is. I insisted that all one needs to do is look any of his other public writings on the topic... i.e. we don't have to limit ourselves to ONLY what he wrote in this one paper 20 years ago. So, I think this point pretty much handles a lot the stuff that Arouet and Fls were going on and on about... of course they may not agree, but that explains why I didn't feel a need to respond any further to that thread.
Huh? That isn't the question which arose (which led to your request), or what Arouet was attempting to answer. What a pointless exercise.

Good thing I'm in a good mood (just finished perusing People's Sexiest Men issue). :)

Linda
 
#69
I just thought his arguments were pretty lame. It was really classic stuck-on-stupid debate stuff in the sense that it was an obsessive analysis of van Lommel's Lancet paper in order to discern what his position on NDEs really is.
I'm trying to figure out what you mean by "obsessive analysis." Did you mean that I took notes as I went through it? That I looked closely at the methodology and set out how it linked or not to the conclusions rather than simply reading the conclusion portion of the paper?

And no, as fls pointed out, my intention was not in the slightest to discern what Dr. Van Lommel's position on NDEs really is. I'm sorry but you are either deliberately misconstruing what I wrote or you have not understood it. My purpose was to take a close look at the methodology used and see how they related to the authors' conclusions including an analysis of the carefully controlled parts of the experiment.

I am sure I'll get some more dislikes from posters who have also not bothered to carefully read the original paper or my analysis of it. Dislike my post if you want, but please take a couple minutes to go over to my thread, read what I actually wrote, and tell me what you think. http://www.skeptiko.com/forum/threads/the-van-lommel-lancet-nde-paper.110/
 
#70
It is and in the spirit of this thread let me explain. I responded to Arouet's post. He then tracked me down in another thread wanting more of a response (not a problem). I responded again. Now, he's doing the same and saying the same... i.e. I have not "really read" his post (again, no prob, I get the frustration... and I think it relates to this thread in terms of not feeling heard). But the reality is that I did read his post... I just thought his arguments were pretty lame.
Agreed.

It was really classic stuck-on-stupid debate stuff in the sense that it was an obsessive analysis...
A little, no, actually, a lot of obsessive analysis. SOS? A perfected example.
 
#71
I'm trying to figure out what you mean by "obsessive analysis."
I find that interesting/telling. The analysis you performed was actually less than the analysis which would be done for a typical Journal Club (an analysis of a medical paper, the results of which are then presented to a group of physicians). When exposed to 'science as usual', the extent of analysis and criticism is so foreign to Alex and others, that it is characterized as "obsessive". From that, one starts to understand the source of the Stuck on Stupid meme.

Linda
 
#72
Agreed.

A little, no, actually, a lot of obsessive analysis. SOS? A perfected example.
As I said in my thread, I am completely open to my analysis having flaws - the problem is no one has pointed any out so it doesn't help me figure out where I might be off. Could you do me a favour and post in the thread or by PM if you prefer what specifically you think I got wrong?
 
#73
I find that interesting/telling. The analysis you performed was actually less than the analysis which would be done for a typical Journal Club (an analysis of a medical paper, the results of which are then presented to a group of physicians). When exposed to 'science as usual', the extent of analysis and criticism is so foreign to Alex and others, that it is characterized as "obsessive". From that, one starts to understand the source of the Stuck on Stupid meme.

Linda
Yeah, I didn't think I did anything particularly extraordinary in my efforts to review that study. I don't think I did much more than the minimum required to get a handle on the material from the lay perspective and for discussion purposes and nothing near what a scholarly review would entail. Maybe some people can take everything in without taking notes but for me I find that breaking it down that way forces me to try and understand every part as I have to synthesize it - and highlights for me the parts I don't understand. It also makes it much easier for me to do the analysis and draw the links. It's basically the approach I developed over 8 years of university.

I guess I didn't need to post the notes but since they were already done I thought some people might have found them to be useful so just posted them.
 
#74
Maybe some people can take everything in without taking notes but for me I find that breaking it down that way forces me to try and understand every part as I have to synthesize it - and highlights for me the parts I don't understand. It also makes it much easier for me to do the analysis and draw the links. It's basically the approach I developed over 8 years of university.
What I learned from doing qualitative analysis (Google it) was that you miss a surprising amount of information (in the form of unnoticed connections) when you don't break/write it down and just keep it all straight in your head. It's a good habit to have. Don't let those who want to keep the conversation SOS discourage you.

Linda
 
#76
Yeah, I'm the same. My mind's pretty much fog-bound but when I write, things become clear for me. Relatively.:eek:
Well, my mind is sharp regardless, and it's still helpful to go through the process. (I don't want to leave the impression that those who think themselves clever enough can forego the process.)

Linda
 
#77
When exposed to 'science as usual', the extent of analysis and criticism is so foreign to Alex and others, that it is characterized as "obsessive". From that, one starts to understand the source of the Stuck on Stupid meme.
I have to disagree somewhat. I'm intimately acquainted with what it means to be obsessive in scholarship - it can be effective but not necessarily fun. I'm also acquainted with being stuck on stupid, always temporarily, I hope.

Alex, lucky guy, is not a scientist but he's got a first-class mind - his work has certainly been valuable for me. As to being obsessive, he's produced 231 thoughtful podcasts whether you agree with his views or not. If you figure 30 hours per episode, including reading, watching videos and listening to other interviews, mulling, organizing, and contacting people, (and 30 hours might be low - it would probably take me longer) that's about 7,000 hours, just for the podcast. How many people on this thread have put in more time than that on this general topic area?
 
#78
Well, my mind is sharp regardless, and it's still helpful to go through the process. (I don't want to leave the impression that those who think themselves clever enough can forego the process.)
“A true genius admits that he/she knows nothing.” ― Albert Einstein

Speaking of sharp minds.
 
Last edited:
#79
I have to disagree somewhat. I'm intimately acquainted with what it means to be obsessive in scholarship - it can be effective but not necessarily fun. I'm also acquainted with being stuck on stupid, always temporarily, I hope.

Alex, lucky guy, is not a scientist but he's got a first-class mind - his work has certainly been valuable for me. As to being obsessive, he's produced 231 thoughtful podcasts whether you agree with his views or not. If you figure 30 hours per episode, including reading, watching videos and listening to other interviews, mulling, organizing, and contacting people, (and 30 hours might be low - it would probably take me longer) that's about 7,000 hours, just for the podcast. How many people on this thread have put in more time than that on this general topic area?
I wasn't talking about the number of hours (30? Really?), but about the kind of activity - in-depth analysis - which seems foreign to some.

Linda
 
Top