Of Skeptics and Bannings

I like the name "Critical Discussion" because I think the equivocation works in its favour.
I disagree. I think the name needs to shout more of a warning so that those people wanting to avoid the JREF-type threads will know not to visit that sub-forum. Critical thinking might be what skeptics believe they are engaging in, but typically that is not the case.

As far as Alex wanting to remind everyone what the "status quo" belief system is, I don't see that as being represented by the hard-core fundamentalist skeptics who have been posting here (the ones who Alex sent to the BvsS forum). That group, while being very vocal, is actually a tiny minority. Most scientists I know have no issues with discussing Psi if you bring up the topic. They are usually very interested, and also very surprised that it is an area being actively studied. Many of them would love to study it if they could get the funding to do so. But that's a common lament from scientists these days, the stuff that gets funding isn't always the stuff that's interesting, or even important, to most people.

And if you open things up to the general public... well many people believe in Psi and have had first hand experiences of Psi.

So while there is a certain amount of control of academia by skeptical interests, that doesn't reflect the views of all scientists and it certainly doesn't reflect the public attitude towards Psi.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kay
it will be a forum devoted to what you perceive to be "judging severely and finding fault"?
That isn't how I perceive skeptics at all. They are "stuck on stupid" because they follow a dogma, not the data. They like to put up a pretense of using scientific methods, but when it comes down to it, they don't pay attention to the data at all. The dogma takes over... and they get stuck in a loop. Perhaps it is their belief in being biological robots that makes them act in such a robotic fashion. They aren't able to escape the confines of their programming.
 
And this forum, right? I'm guessing that this discussion is okay. It has been useful.

I agree that the disruptive aspect has to be addressed and that none of us is interested in dealing with disruptions. I realize that some people find me disruptive, and since I don't derive any benefit or enjoyment from engaging with them either, it would be nice to find a way to keep these conversations separate. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm on board with the separate forum area thing for now.

I like the name "Critical Discussion" because I think the equivocation works in its favour. The preamble can make use of that - "If you see these discussions as a "careful, exact evaluation and judgment", then this area is for you. If you see them as "inclined to judge severely and find fault", then it's not." It is also disruptive for me to have to argue about blinding with someone who understands it poorly and regards its mention as a device to "find fault as a last resort". If I no longer have to do that (presumably those posters will stay away from the Critical Discussion area), I'll also be a happy camper (I realize that's not the goal, but a girl can dream :)). I'll see what suggestions the other Thems might have as to the name.

Linda
ok... I like the name... the double meaning of Critical is a nice touch :) I made the change.
 
That isn't how I perceive skeptics at all. They are "stuck on stupid" because they follow a dogma, not the data. They like to put up a pretense of using scientific methods, but when it comes down to it, they don't pay attention to the data at all. The dogma takes over... and they get stuck in a loop. Perhaps it is their belief in being biological robots that makes them act in such a robotic fashion. They aren't able to escape the confines of their programming.
well... I guess that's what we'll hash out :)
 
well... I guess that's what we'll hash out :)
I just look at how difficult your request of Arouet to summarize his reasons for disagreeing with PVL's conclusions in the Lancet paper turned out to be for Arouet. It should be the simplest thing in the world, just a few quick points... but skeptics are often unable to do that. They will change the topic, go on and on about something only vaguely related, or twist things into a knot that not even they understand... all to avoid dealing with the data in an intellectually honest way. I don't think they even realize they are doing it sometimes. Arouet might not understand why your request seemed so unreasonable, but on some level he just couldn't get unstuck from that loop.
 
one point on my "pipe dream"... it's not only that I wish everyone would play nice (I know this is a pipe dream :)) I want to build in a reality check for proponents/believers. I tire of talk of "paradigm change" by folks who are unwilling to deal with the uncomfortable reality of Wiki wars and SOS debates.
I don't share that fear, Alex. I tend, like you, to be skeptical and pessimistic rather than optimistic about a major paradigm shift anytime soon (I hope I'm wrong and that Craig is right about the internet and so on). As you yourself know and have said too, Spiritualistic phenomena and psychic research in the late 1800s had all the right ingredients and nothing happened. So I'm one proponent, and I know I'm not the only one here, who is completely absorbed in this psi material in my free time, but does not have ANY illusions about society becoming transformed in the next decades (or century). So I think your fear may be unfounded.

Also, the Skeptiko forum is known for the intelligence of its members, both proponents and "skeptics", and I see no danger of New Age gushing with them on board, and you at the helm of the podcast interviews.
 
Or one could use the Ignore feature and/or refuse to engage skeptics in the first place.

Grow up. It only takes a mild form of self-control.
I disagree Tyler. That's what happened in the old forum and many members got discouraged or turned off (me included, even with the Ignore full on) and left or reduced their posting dramatically. I wager many people potentially do not join because of what they see.
 
And this forum, right? I'm guessing that this discussion is okay. It has been useful.

I agree that the disruptive aspect has to be addressed and that none of us is interested in dealing with disruptions. I realize that some people find me disruptive, and since I don't derive any benefit or enjoyment from engaging with them either, it would be nice to find a way to keep these conversations separate. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm on board with the separate forum area thing for now.

I like the name "Critical Discussion" because I think the equivocation works in its favour. The preamble can make use of that - "If you see these discussions as a "careful, exact evaluation and judgment", then this area is for you. If you see them as "inclined to judge severely and find fault", then it's not." It is also disruptive for me to have to argue about blinding with someone who understands it poorly and regards its mention as a device to "find fault as a last resort". If I no longer have to do that (presumably those posters will stay away from the Critical Discussion area), I'll also be a happy camper (I realize that's not the goal, but a girl can dream :)). I'll see what suggestions the other Thems might have as to the name.

Linda

You are conflating pathological doubt with critical thinking. How about calling the forum "Ideological Battleground?" It would be more accurate.
 
Hi Paul, I wan't thinking of you in particular. The conversation you and Bernardo are having is very interesting and actually an example of what I think can work well. I am only focused on the behavior not the individual. Take a look at the homeopathy thread and let me know if you can't identify the kind of behavior I'm talking about.
I think oftentimes (occasionally ;)) Paul is an exception that proves the rule. (Some proponents will stone me for saying this.) I don't mind skeptics engaging that sort of philosophical debate in philosophical debate-oriented threads. Like you say, Michael, that isn't the main problem.
 
Last edited:
ok... I like the name... the double meaning of Critical is a nice touch :) I made the change.
I'm not sure I like this. I wouldn't want a title that makes it sound like other discussions are not evidence-based. I'm suspicious of an agenda in those who propose titles like this that make it sound like proponents don't engage the research. That narrative has lately been spun here by a few members.

What about Stuck-on-Stupid Debates? :D:D:D:D (joke)

what about: materialist vs. non-materialist debates (or discussions) or something like that? Or "Prove It From the Ground Up". Or "The Loop" (ok, that one's too sarcastic).
 
Last edited:
One thing that concerns me is that not everyone who might want to help out and signal their agreement to do so may be aware of this thread: I only came to know of it because someone contacted me privately.
Michael, I just privately contacted the following people (whom I didn't see a trace of on this thread) about your post: Jules, Kamarling, Trancestate, john.sundog, Ian Thompson, Frank Matera, soulatman, chuck.drake, Iyace, EthanT, David Bailey, Pollux, Steve, Vortex, Enrique Vargas, Bruce Siegel

Added: Carl Jung, Psiclops, north, Larry, LoneShaman
 
Last edited:
Michael, I just privately contacted the following people (whom I didn't see a trace of on this thread) about your post: Jules, Kamarling, Trancestate, john.sundog, Ian Thompson, Frank Matera, soulatman, chuck.drake, Iyace, EthanT, David Bailey, Pollux, Steve, Vortex, Enrique Vargas, Bruce Siegel

Cheers, Ian.
 
If you go to a forum for fans of cycling and tell them they're a bunch of pansies who should be into cars, you'll get short shrift.

Seriously though... do these wannabe Lance Armstrong's really all need to be in lycra up to their eyeballs?? ;)

But yes you make a valid point. There are even laws in place where it's illegal to antagonise someone because of their belief system... whether that be race or religion.
 
Who are "they", and how do you identify "them"?

It's easy to identify them. Their ratings have more - then + It's a sure fire indication that people are seeing through the motives of posts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: K9!
I think oftentimes Paul is an exception that proves the rule. (Some proponents will stone me for saying this.) I don't mind skeptics engaging that sort of philosophical debate in philosophical debate-oriented threads. Like you say, Michael, that isn't the main problem.

I dunno. My experience with Paul is that he doesn't add anything except doubt and answers all important questions with more questions.

I had a private discussion with Arouet about this very topic. I don't need people to doubt and question for me. I can do that myself just fine. I'm looking for original and interesting contributions to discussions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: K9!
That doesn't really work either. keep in mind there's at least a 5/1 ratio of watchers/posters. It's confusing and counterproductive to have threads of skeptical silliness that everyone just ignores.
Having silly, stupid repartee with pseudoskeptics is like watching pro wrestling. It's all about the entertainment and nothing about the substance.

If that is what you are after, attracting the 5/6th with entertainment, then you're fully on score.
 
We are and normally ignoring them will work with someone who isn't intent on being disruptive to the conversation. Believe it or not, there are certain "skeptics" who never get the point of the debate and will argue in circles and never change. They enter the discussion with the intent to sound off their one note argument which in a nutshell is to claim that it's all just woo under the cover. Having to ignore them is an imposition on the rest of the participants who want to have an honest and open discussion.

An imposition to put them on Ignore?

At some point you need to draw the line between accommodating disruptive behavior and recognizing that type of behavior adds zero value, and keeps others from participating. If that doesn't make sense, check out some of the threads on the old forum and see that simply ignoring them doesn't work.

The old boss
Same as the new boss..

I'm Ignoring the rest of this absurd pseudodebate, hack it out amongst you highly intellectual types. larf
 
I dunno. My experience with Paul is that he doesn't add anything except doubt and answers all important questions with more questions.

I had a private discussion with Arouet about this very topic. I don't need people to doubt and question for me. I can do that myself just fine. I'm looking for original and interesting contributions to discussions.
Anyone that does not have doubt may have a hard landing when reality asserts itself.
 
Back
Top