Need Inspiration - Writing a speech Skepticism and Critical Thinking

[Yahweh]

I have currently began writing a speech on Skepticism and Critical Thinking, it is being written for a 4th period Forensics class. To clear up the immediate question that has formed in your head, "Forensics" has nothing to do with dead bodies, instead it is "competitive speech writing and interpretive acting/drama/poetry", speeches fall under catergories such as:

Entertainment - Which in a nutshell means "be funny", its not necessary to adhere much to reality, in fact, absurdity is a plus! Any kinds of visual/audio aids are acceptable.
Informative - Its self-explanatory, just pick a topic and teach people about it. These speeches must include sources. Visual Aids are allowed.
Oratory - An Oratory speech means you pick a problem, describe why it is bad, then solve the problem. Oratory speeches must include sources. No visual or auditory aids, just a speech to recite.

(Forensics includes dozens more events outside of speeches including http://216.218.248.155/datastore/bd/70/b/bd70edcc7ea7861a19a5071a11ed6404.jpgHumorous/Dramatic Interpretation of literature, Improv Comedy, etc. etc. etc.)

Extra Info: Last Saturday, my School's Forensic's team won 3rd in the state (I think it was a state competition). A nice gal from my class made it to finals with a speech on exposing Psychics, it was a fun speech to watch, the best line from the Psychics speech was "I'm not saying psychics are evil and should be squished, I'm just saying they should use their 'powers' for good, instead of evil".


To answer the second question: Yes, I do have psychic powers, and you're thinking of the Seven of Hearts.

The inspiration I am looking for is specifically to answer the question "Should we correct fallacious beliefs if they dont hurt anyone". Sure, it doesnt hurt anyone at all to believe the sun revolves around the earth, or that they will be rewarded with a blissful afterlife for feeding the hungry. No, I cannot attack religion or call people names like "creduloids", that's a no-no in Forensics.

I have not figured out if I will commit myself to writing the speech, I'm saving that decision until tomorrow.

I have a fairly unique writing style and I' always willing to make use of humor in my speeches. I am limited by time constraints, my speech cannot be anymore than 10 minutes in length.

My speech will probably be named "Thinking Critically So As Not To Go Completely Nanners" (as opposed to speeches I will be competing against named "Dangers of Truancy", "Judging http://216.218.248.155/datastore/68/4f/b/684fef962fc21249f70f8b0bc7c2a8e5.jpgPeople By Their Appearence", or "Not Wasting Time"... I'll freely admit, Oratory Speeches are one of the most boring to listen to... I have this crazy idea that if I can deliver a speech that is fun to listen to and does not make the judge want to die in boredom, I'll have a chance at winning). The aim of my speech to encourage people to think critically, I'm not trying to debunk anything, I have no intentions of telling another "your beliefs are wrong and you are ignorant for having them".

I've never seen one of Mr. Randi's lectures, I dont expose myself to the skeptic scene as much as I'd like (I have too much dedication to never leaving this forum anytime I'm connected to the internet). If anyone has any information to provide that might be helpful, I would appreciate it (I'm not asking anyone to do research for me, I've already got that pretty well taken care of). If anyone has any links to provide, I'm sure my Favorites List, even if already plastered with years of accumulated links and essays, would easily accomodate them.

I'm currently pouring through all my Favorites, all the links JREF finds useful (http://www.randi.org/education/links.html), CFLarsen's SkepticReport.com (http://www.skepticreport.com), Australian Skeptics (http://www.skeptics.com.au), Bad Astronomy (http://www.badastronomy[/url), and everything else I can get my hands on.

If there is any inspiration that I would have that I would have to write a speech like this, it wouldnt be because I'm required to participate in this uncoming tournament to so I dont fail the class, it would be because Mr. Randi is an outstanding person and rolemodel. And skepchicks love him. I would like very much to see myself as a future James Randi.

If I can deliver a speech of any amount of worth, I'll consider the information presented on Scholarships (http://www.randi.org/education/index.html):
Scholarships

The Foundation recognizes excellence in student work. We offer several scholarships for students. The newsletter Swift from time to time publishes scholarly papers and essays from students. We invite student readers to send contributions, and we encourage instructors to bring student work to our attention.

Email Scholarship submissions to randi@randi.org.

http://216.218.248.155/datastore/96/56/b/9656e08d6b541161c23f132c08edcf3d.jpg

I wrote this post rather quickly, and I'll have to complete a rough draft of the speech by tonight, any inspiration appreciated.

[thaiboxerken]

No, I cannot attack religion or call people names like "creduloids", that's a no-no in Forensics.

Why?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
No, I cannot attack religion or call people names like "creduloids", that's a no-no in Forensics.

Why?
It is potentially offensive, its controversial. And yes, a lot of judges' scores will be influenced by their bias, if present a speech titled "Christianity: Personification of Ignorance on Acid", no judge (regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof) will rate me higher than last place. If I develop a reputation as someone who is anti-religion (which is not equivelant to pro-Critical Thinking), I would only hurt my team (yes, "reputation" has significant influence between 1rst place and 4th place).

Someone had already tried an Oratory on "Creationism should be taught alongside Evolution" speech (it was based on the "well, their both theories" illogic), I dont think the speech would have ever made it passed everything described here (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA040.html).

[Brown]

Shoot, when I practiced forensics in intercollegiate competition, "Entertainment" was called "After dinner speaking." Such presentations had to be light and had to have a discernable theme. The judges mysteriously preferred strings of bad puns to clever one-liners or Jay Leno-type monologs. People say they hate puns, but punsters always made it to the finals.

"Informative" speaking was known back then as "informative" speaking. Duh. (I won a state award in Informative speaking for describing the physics behind making a hydrogen bomb go boom.)

"Oratory" was called "Persuasive" speaking, if I recall.

We also had extemporaneous and impromtu events, some of which were rather fun. And we had dramatic readings, too.

Anyway... the subject of whether we should correct fallacious beliefs if they don't hurt anyone seems to fall into the "persuasive" or "oratory" category. Therefore, take a two-pronged attack:

1. Seize the factual high ground. Have some facts demonstrating that what seem like "harmless" beliefs often aren't harmless at all. You can cite Randi, Shermer and Sagan as sources.
2. Seize the moral high ground. Intentionally holding on to a false view of reality is immoral. There are plenty of great thinkers who have argued that there is intrinsic evil in false beliefs. Regardless of whether such beliefs result in comfort or a sense of well-being, it is far more important and ethical for a person to have an understanding of reality.

It is not beyond the realm of possibility to turn this topic into a humorous one with a powerful message... but that would take a lot of work. Better to stick to straight oratory.
Edited: Darn typos.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
No, I cannot attack religion or call people names like "creduloids", that's a no-no in Forensics.

Why?

In forensics you have to give an intelligent presentation, not a tantrum.

[T'ai Chi]

Hi Yah,

Good luck with the presentation. My suggestions are:

-that it is probably more important to give a fair presentation of each side (if you present this vs. that type of speech) than anything else. For example, there clearly are harmful beliefs. However, there clearly are beliefs that are not harmful at all. Harm also can mean a lot of different things and has a huge range from 'nothing' to 'death'.

-use visuals and hands-on demonstrations that involve someone from your audience

-don't name drop Randi, Sagan, Shermer, etc., just for the sake of name dropping. Be original, and do something people have never seen and knock their socks off.

-Relax when speaking and moving, and be sure to breathe

[Brown]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Good luck with the presentation. My suggestions are:

-that it is probably more important to give a fair presentation of each side (if you present this vs. that type of speech) than anything else. I couldn't disagree more. The point of a persuasive speech is to persuade, not to engage in a one-man debate. Presenting both sides of an issue is seen as wishy-washy and very poor speaking style.

That doesn't mean that you mischaracterize or otherwise treat other points of view unfairly. It means that you craft your presentation to compel the listeners toward your point of view.

[Vitnir]

www.csicop.org was not listed among your sources. I read an article Why bad beliefs don't die (http://www.csicop.org/si/2000-11/beliefs.html) there, pretty informative. Inspiration?

[Jeff Corey]

The notion that the sun revolves around the earth could have dire consequences for an astronaut.
Think Apollo 13.

[Clancie]

Posted by Brown

Seize the moral high ground. Intentionally holding on to a false view of reality is immoral
Hmmmm....frankly, I think this is a persuasive weak point and it would be difficult (not to mention a sure loser with judges) to go ahead to argue (or even imply) that all religion is immoral.

Maybe it would be useful to distinguish between the dangers of following a false belief--and holding one which we don't -know- is true or false?

Humor-wise, have you looked at the writing some of the professional curmudgeons/critics/humorists? I'm thinking of Andy Rooney, because he does well with irony in his time constraint. But I'm sure there are others.

Good luck! I'm sure you'll do well! (And, personally, I -hate- puns in speeches. :p ).

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Yahweh
It is potentially offensive, its controversial. And yes, a lot of judges' scores will be influenced by their bias, if present a speech titled "Christianity: Personification of Ignorance on Acid", no judge (regardless of religious affiliation or lack thereof) will rate me higher than last place. If I develop a reputation as someone who is anti-religion (which is not equivelant to pro-Critical Thinking), I would only hurt my team (yes, "reputation" has significant influence between 1rst place and 4th place).

Then perhaps you should choose another subject. If you are afraid of pissing people off, and you are concerned with being even potentially offensive and/or controversial, then talk about something else.

Some people have no ability to see why their beliefs can be funny, or even dangerous.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
In forensics you have to give an intelligent presentation, not a tantrum.

False dichotomy. It is quite possible to give a spirited speech, where you tell it like it is. Would you give a speech about Jim Jones and refer to him as being "quite possibly a little off on the mental side"? No, you'd call him a nutcase. Crazy. Mad.

You should most certainly hear Randi and Shermer speak. Very intelligent, very funny and spot on. They don't mince words, and still make their points beautifully.

Originally posted by Clancie
Maybe it would be useful to distinguish between the dangers of following a false belief--and holding one which we don't -know- is true or false?

Which beliefs do we know are true? Once they reach a stage of certainty (as far as we can be certain, of course), they become facts. E.g. belief in evolution is wrong - we know that evolution is true (http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/believeevolution.htm).

Choosing a subject that also has a serious side to it will most likely have a positive effect on the judges: Hey, this guy can address some serious issues, and make sense at the same time!

Originally posted by Clancie
Humor-wise, have you looked at the writing some of the professional curmudgeons/critics/humorists? I'm thinking of Andy Rooney, because he does well with irony in his time constraint. But I'm sure there are others.

Never, ever copy the comedy of others. Somebody will surely have heard the original material before, and that somebody will be - according to Murphy - at least one of the judges. Using irony is very risky business, especially in an audience that you are not 100% sure will accept it being used.

(Clancie, shouldn't you change your sig to "You're now back on my "Ignore" list (of one) - until the next time I find an opportunity to slam you"? I mean...it reflects reality much better...)

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

False dichotomy. It is quite possible to give a spirited speech, where you tell it like it is. Would you give a speech about Jim Jones and refer to him as being "quite possibly a little off on the mental side"? No, you'd call him a nutcase. Crazy. Mad.


There is no false dichotomy. This has to do with sounding academic and professional rather than amateurish and childlike in a presentation/debate.

I'd refer to Jones probably as a cult leader, etc., and give a 'mental disease' term from psychology instead of saying "nutcase" or "crazy".


You should most certainly hear Randi and Shermer speak. Very intelligent, very funny and spot on. They don't mince words, and still make their points beautifully.


I have seen Randi speak and heard Shermer speak, and I agree, they don't mince words, and they do make points. However, I think any time one resorts to clear name calling, especially in a public presentation, it detracts from professionalism.

[Cynical]

Claus, for Heaven's sake, go have that beer. Or several. And I'm still waiting for you to tell me, what have you got against American beer? Is it because we drink it cold, and it kills the taste?

You need some serious chilling out. You're not only obsessed with sgrenard, you have issues with Clancie as well. In fact, you appear to have a problem with anyone who doesn't agree with you. We have talked about live and let live before. Why can't you? But that's a topic Crowunit should explore.

Of course there is no evidence to prove that JE is talking to the dead, but there is no evidence to disprove it, either. So why don't you just hang it up? You'll never prove your case either. Are you willing to live the rest of your life stewing over a stalemate?

Go get drunk, Claus. And come back over to the JE board, we have more fun over there. Issues are not taken so damn seriously, and that's what you need now. You are headed towards real emotional damage, Cantata.



:v: :v: :v:

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Yahweh
I have currently began writing a speech on Skepticism and Critical Thinking, it is being written for a 4th period Forensics class.

[snip]

I wrote this post rather quickly, and I'll have to complete a rough draft of the speech by tonight, any inspiration appreciated.
I had some great ideas for a speech of this type, but then I realized that they were great for a 3rd period Forensics class, but completely inappropriate for a 4th period Forensics class.

Sorry 'bout that.

:p

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
There is no false dichotomy. This has to do with sounding academic and professional rather than amateurish and childlike in a presentation/debate.

The way you presented it was either-or. Ergo, false dichotomy.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I'd refer to Jones probably as a cult leader, etc., and give a 'mental disease' term from psychology instead of saying "nutcase" or "crazy".

Unless you were qualified to diagnose Jones with the proper psychological term, you would be posing as someone with a knowledge you did not possess.

Better call him crazy.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I have seen Randi speak and heard Shermer speak, and I agree, they don't mince words, and they do make points. However, I think any time one resorts to clear name calling, especially in a public presentation, it detracts from professionalism.

Does that include JREF?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Then perhaps you should choose another subject. If you are afraid of pissing people off, and you are concerned with being even potentially offensive and/or controversial, then talk about something else.
I spent most of my night writing a rough draft. Maybe its just all this JREF, but I kept editing out the parts where I was debunking pseudoscience (for instance, I have no idea if a judge might have a particular interest in Feng Shui).

I'll maintain that I can write a good fun speech on promoting Critical Thinking without going off on tangents on the idiosyncrasies of crazy beliefs. However, if I change my topic from promotion of Critical Thinking to something to do with Scam Artists and Quackery, I could get away with it (lots of good information on Quackwatch.org)...

[Yahweh]

CFLarsen, T'ai Chi,

Yall dont need to debate about what is False Dichotomy and what is not, it really does not matter that much.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Clancie

Hmmmm....frankly, I think this [asserting that intentionally holding on to a false view of reality is immoral] is a persuasive weak point and it would be difficult (not to mention a sure loser with judges) to go ahead to argue (or even imply) that all religion is immoral.Once again, I respectfully disagree.

Let's leave aside the question of religion for a moment. There are many other beliefs that are widely held yet that are known to be false. If a person persists in clinging to a false view of reality, knowing or having good reason to know of its falsity, then that person is lying to himself. There is no shortage of authority that lying to oneself is morally repugant. Shakespeare may have summed it up best with his pithy "to thine own self be true," but he was neither the first nor the last to express the sentiment. This is hardly a weak or losing point.

Turning back to the question of religion now, it is not true as a general matter that all religions are known to be false (although some are). As a general matter, assering the moral superiority of being true to oneself does not necessarily degrade religion. Moreover, many religions (including some flavors of Christianity) agree that it is extremely important to be honest to oneself. Even if one has a great deal "invested" in a belief, one should not persist in the false belief merely to "protect the investment."

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Brown
Once again, I respectfully disagree.

Let's leave aside the question of religion for a moment. There are many other beliefs that are widely held yet that are known to be false. If a person persists in clinging to a false view of reality, knowing or having good reason to know of its falsity, then that person is lying to himself.
Could you please list some examples? I am having a hard time thinking of any widely held beliefs that fit your criteria here.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Thanz

Could you please list some examples? I am having a hard time thinking of any widely held beliefs that fit your criteria here.

Dowsing.

Astrology.

Flat-Earth folks.

Just for starters...

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thanz
Could you please list some examples? I am having a hard time thinking of any widely held beliefs that fit your criteria here.

Creationism.

[CFLarsen]

Homeopathy.

[geni]

Nessie

[Suezoled]

why don't you buy one of Randi's videos or the new DVD? You'll get an idea on how he presents things. Maybe Moe can even get him to sign it!

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Suezoled
why don't you buy one of Randi's videos or the new DVD? You'll get an idea on how he presents things. Maybe Moe can even get him to sign it!
*Ooohs, ahhhs*

Thats a good idea! :)

[Brown]

Originally posted by Thanz

Could you please list some examples? I am having a hard time thinking of any widely held beliefs that fit your criteria here. Some have already been mentioned, such as astrology. One of my in-laws believes that there have been (and continue to be) visitations to this planet by aliens. She's serious about this, and I wonder whether her kids will grow up being spoon-fed that tripe.

Quite a few folks buy into the phony moon-landing nonsense.

In some cultures outside the USA, it is "common knowledge" that the governments of the USA and Israel were directly responsible for the events of September 11, 2001, and that these governments staged the incidents as part of a nefarious political maneuver.

In the midwest, many people accept dowsing as a scientific and time-tested technique for finding water.

The belief that JFK was shot by multiple assassins is widespread.

There are many out there who think that the talkers to the dead are authentic.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Suezoled
why don't you buy one of Randi's videos or the new DVD? You'll get an idea on how he presents things. Maybe Moe can even get him to sign it!

Just be specific when speaking to Moe to get one of RANDI's DVDs.


Hmm. I wonder if she'd sign one of hers?

[Thanz]

I'll address the ideas posted by all in one post. One question for all who responded: Is simple ignorance the same as self-delusion? Also, here is what Brown posted:
If a person persists in clinging to a false view of reality, knowing or having good reason to know of its falsity, then that person is lying to himself. emphasis added.

It is the "knowing or having good reason to know" that causes me to quibble. Not the fact that it is false empirically.

Originally posted by TLN

Dowsing.
Is this self-delusion or simple ignorance?

Astrology.
Good example, thank you. However, I do feel that for most people a belief in astrology has no greater effect than reading the horoscope once in awhile and asking "what's your sign". For those who truly do let the stars be their guide (or whatever), they are certainly deluding themselves and may be trying to abdicate responsibility for their own actions. [/armchair psychology]

Flat-Earth folks.
Not exactly a widely held belief. Do these people actually exist in the modern age?

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Creationism
I'd put this with religious belief, a separate category.
Homeopathy
I would quibble with how widespread a belief this is, but considering that friends have recommended a homeopathic medicine for our teething baby, I don't think I will.

I will, however, quibble with the idea of lying to oneself vs. simple ignorance. Before I came here, I equated homeopathy with things like herbs, etc., sort of lumping all "alternative medicine" together. I see that as being not accurate now, but my previous position was one of ignorance, not self-deception. So, if some other mother comes to you and says try C for teething pain - it really helped our baby, and you go to the store and it seems to be quite professionally packaged etc. like a normal medication, if you buy it are you lying to yourself or are you simply ignorant?

BTW, what does the abbreviation "CH" mean on a "homeopathic medicine"?

Originally posted by Brown
Some have already been mentioned, such as astrology. One of my in-laws believes that there have been (and continue to be) visitations to this planet by aliens. She's serious about this, and I wonder whether her kids will grow up being spoon-fed that tripe.
And what is the reason to believe that she is deluding herself? The problem with aliens visiting earth is that there is no evidence for it - not that there is evidence against it - which makes it harder to dislodge from people's heads.

Quite a few folks buy into the phony moon-landing nonsense.
Buzz Aldren can refute any of those arguments..... WITH HIS FIST! :)

Seriously, however, conspiracy theories are full of the type of thinking that you are talking about, I believe.

In some cultures outside the USA, it is "common knowledge" that the governments of the USA and Israel were directly responsible for the events of September 11, 2001, and that these governments staged the incidents as part of a nefarious political maneuver.

[dowsing snipped - addressed above.]

The belief that JFK was shot by multiple assassins is widespread.
Conspiracy theories again. Gotcha.

I will say this though - back, and to the left. Back, and to the left. Back, and to the left.

There are many out there who think that the talkers to the dead are authentic.
I think that this is an odd blend of religion, ignorance and self delusion.

[CFLarsen]

Thanz,

Dowsing:
What do you mean by "self-delusion or simple ignorance"? Are you addressing the dowsers or TLN?

Astrology:
You need to get out more. People who believe in astrology take it very seriously. They even base their businesses on it.

Flat Earth:
True. Not wide-spread. But they do exist.

Creationism:
No, you cannot put this with religious belief, because the creationists do not point to pure belief - they also question the evidence found by paleontologists, geologists, etc.

Homeopathy:
Very widespread, at least in Europe. The British are very fond of it, as are the French and the Germans.

Whether you like it or not, there are plenty of beliefs, known to be false, but that are still held by a large number of people.

Are you saying that homeopaths and creationists are not lying to themselves?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Thanz,

Dowsing:
What do you mean by "self-delusion or simple ignorance"? Are you addressing the dowsers or TLN?
The dowsers, or those that hire the dowsers. Are they self-delusional (more likely for the actual dowsers, perhaps) or simply ignorant (those who hire them)?

Astrology:
You need to get out more. People who believe in astrology take it very seriously. They even base their businesses on it.
I doubt I need to get out more if what I will encounter are people basing their businesses on astrology. I'll stick with my smaller circle of more rational friends, thank you. :)

Flat Earth:
True. Not wide-spread. But they do exist.
They have truly gone over the edge, then.

Creationism:
No, you cannot put this with religious belief, because the creationists do not point to pure belief - they also question the evidence found by paleontologists, geologists, etc.
They do so in an attempt to rationalize thier religious beliefs. But I take your point - for those who attempt to put "intelligent design" on the same "scientific" footing as evolution.

Homeopathy:
Very widespread, at least in Europe. The British are very fond of it, as are the French and the Germans.

Whether you like it or not, there are plenty of beliefs, known to be false, but that are still held by a large number of people.

Are you saying that homeopaths and creationists are not lying to themselves?
Well, as I said before, are the people who think homeopathy will help them lying to themselves or are they ignorant? In my teething example, is the purchase brought about by lying to myself or my own ignorance?

[Clancie]

Posted by Brown

Turning back to the question of religion now, it is not true as a general matter that all religions are known to be false (although some are). As a general matter, assering the moral superiority of being true to oneself does not necessarily degrade religion. Moreover, many religions (including some flavors of Christianity) agree that it is extremely important to be honest to oneself. Even if one has a great deal "invested" in a belief, one should not persist in the false belief merely to "protect the investment."
First, personally, I agree with you in principle about belief. (Although I'm not sure which religions you're saying have been shown to be false and which haven't. Could you elaborate on that?)

I completely agree that a goal of education should be to prepare people to look critically at their beliefs and to reject the ones that have been shown to actually be false (determining that criteria may be the hard part...but that's a different issue).
Posted by Brown
Seize the moral high ground. Intentionally holding on to a false view of reality is immoral
But back to your quote above. My point is that if your argument is that people who hold onto a false view of reality are doing something "immoral" you can't exclude some "false views of reality" (like religion) as being okay to have. If your premise is what you wrote above, it has to be consistent for -all- belief, even those (like religion) that we might have a bias toward ourselves.

[thaiboxerken]

It is potentially offensive, its controversial. ..

So forensics is all about being PC and pussyfooting around so as to not break any eggshells. I get it.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thanz
The dowsers, or those that hire the dowsers. Are they self-delusional (more likely for the actual dowsers, perhaps) or simply ignorant (those who hire them)?

False dichotomy. Although I don't doubt that there might be relatively few that are not aware of the evidence against them, when you read the dowser sites you will find that most have a section where they address the evidence against them. Therefore, they are generally aware of the evidence.

Originally posted by Thanz
I doubt I need to get out more if what I will encounter are people basing their businesses on astrology. I'll stick with my smaller circle of more rational friends, thank you. :)

Then, you do need to get out more. Living in seclusion, shutting your eyes to the reality around you will do you little good.

Originally posted by Thanz
They have truly gone over the edge, then.

Ah, clever!

Originally posted by Thanz
They do so in an attempt to rationalize thier religious beliefs. But I take your point - for those who attempt to put "intelligent design" on the same "scientific" footing as evolution.

Not just ID, but also Young Earthers and Old Earthers.

Originally posted by Thanz
Well, as I said before, are the people who think homeopathy will help them lying to themselves or are they ignorant? In my teething example, is the purchase brought about by lying to myself or my own ignorance?

False dichotomy again. Read the homeopathy sites, and you will find the same sections where they address the scientific evidence against homeopathy. Therefore, they are aware of the evidence.

So, do you acknowledge that there are, in fact, people with paranormal beliefs who lie to themselves?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
So forensics is all about being PC and pussyfooting around so as to not break any eggshells. I get it.
Its not good form to piss people off and deliver offensive speeches...

The controversy and pissing people off belongs one room to the right: Debate.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Astrology:
You need to get out more. People who believe in astrology take it very seriously. They even base their businesses on it.


Can you name a lot of these businesses?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Can you name a lot of these businesses?

There seem to be a distinct unwillingness among companies to reveal that they run their businesses from an astrological POV. In Europe, it could also have something to do with the fact that it is against ILO (International Labour Organization) regulations, which forbids discrimination.

However, there is no shortage of business astrologers (http://directory.google.com/Top/Society/Religion_and_Spirituality/Divination/Astrology/Financial_and_Business/) (the list is far from complete). So, somebody somewhere must be paying these business astrologers for their service of business astrology....

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

So, do you acknowledge that there are, in fact, people with paranormal beliefs who lie to themselves?
Yes, I believe I acknowledged this in my first reply.

I don't see why you keep referring to a false dichotomy. Do you not accept that some people who entertain what you would describe as paranormal beliefs do so out of ignorance rather than lying to themselves? I come back, once again, to the homeopathy example. Is a mother who buys a homeopathic teething remedy on the advice of a friend lying to herself, or is she simply ignorant? And if it turns out to work in her subjective opinion, is she then lying to herself?

I feel that there is a real difference between lying to yourself and simply being ignorant which you seem to reject. Or do you agree that there is a difference?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thanz
Yes, I believe I acknowledged this in my first reply.

Good.

Originally posted by Thanz
I don't see why you keep referring to a false dichotomy. Do you not accept that some people who entertain what you would describe as paranormal beliefs do so out of ignorance rather than lying to themselves?

Yes, I did. In my post 12-09-2003 05:51 PM.

Originally posted by Thanz
I come back, once again, to the homeopathy example. Is a mother who buys a homeopathic teething remedy on the advice of a friend lying to herself, or is she simply ignorant? And if it turns out to work in her subjective opinion, is she then lying to herself?

It depends if she knows about the evidence against homeopathy.

Originally posted by Thanz
I feel that there is a real difference between lying to yourself and simply being ignorant which you seem to reject. Or do you agree that there is a difference?

I have many times pointed out the difference between lying to yourself and simply being ignorant. Latest occurrence was 12-09-2003 05:51 PM.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I have many times pointed out the difference between lying to yourself and simply being ignorant. Latest occurrence was 12-09-2003 05:51 PM.
I don't want to get into an argument over who said what, especially if we agree on the substance, but I interpreted your post to mean that I was somehow setting up a false dichotomy between lying to yourself and simple ignorance. If that is not right, what is the false dichotomy you were referring to?

[Brown]

Originally posted by Clancie
My point is that if your argument is that people who hold onto a false view of reality are doing something "immoral" you can't exclude some "false views of reality" (like religion) as being okay to have. If your premise is what you wrote above, it has to be consistent for -all- belief, even those (like religion) that we might have a bias toward ourselves. Not all religions hold "false views of reality." Deism, for example, is a religion rooted in reality. Even some versions of Christianity insist upon an honest recognition of the real world. One Christian writer, for example, once said (and I'm paraphrasing) that we can be certain that any interpretation of Scripture that is inconsistent with science is a wrong interpretation. Other Christian writers adamantly disagree with this sentiment, of course; but it would not be fair to say that all Christians are divorced from reality merely because some are.

One giving a speech is perfectly entitled to limit his topic. Even if his rationale might carry over to some aspects of religious belief, he is entitled to exclude religion from the focus of his presentation, in part because what he says might be true for some religions but not for others.

[Yahweh]

UPDATE:

I'll describe the Forensics tournament using the most appropriate word I can find: Miserable.

It was good fun, but for reasons unknown to me, no one (with exception of 2 people) from my school made it to finals. It was unusual, the last tournament my school competed in, we took 3rd in the state. This tournament, we tied with another school from the same district for last.

The writing of my speech was a bit unusual. I wrote a new 10 page speech everyday, but they werent "Oratory material". I just kept writing new speeches... what this translates into is: I wrote a rough draft speech 15 hours before the tournament I had to present it at (I had written so many speeches that I about wrote called "Yahweh's 10 minute rant on Religion"). The speech I wrote was "ok" in terms of what the finished product would have been given more time. The writing evolved from "Critical thinking", to "Quackery", to "Pro-choice", "Importance of Inspiration". The "Inspiration" speech is what I eventually competed in the tournament with.

Why would I compete an event where I wasnt prepared? It was a little inadvertant. My coach said "we've got plenty of people running H.I., D.I., and Poetry, but we need more people doing Entertainment, Informative, and Oratory". So I volunteered for Oratory. I've seen an Oratory round before, they are boring boring boring to sit through, so I thought I would write up something nice that wasnt so boring that you'd want to kill yourself.

Judges like the deliver my speech. I have a very casual conversational way of presenting the things I write. I'm very organized.

I had a lot of positive comments, I think my overall favorite was "So, do you really talk with that Southern accent like all the time?".

Speeches that I competed against included: "What is happening in Tibet right now", "Lying is bad", "Radical Cheerleaders - Voicing your views", "New things arent always acceptable - Specifically Gay Marriage", "Legalizing Marijuana", a few other speeches.

This was only my second tournament (my first tournament, I competed in Entertainment speaking), I'm still a Novice, I'll see how well I perform in the other Forensics catergories. I'll try Informative speaking next, I've been told I'm an excellent technical speaker. (And if it comes down to where I have to purge a little humility to get a few laughs, I'll force myself to don a script, and perform some Humorous Interpretation...)


Thank you everyone who offered advice, it was very helpful. I'm sure, with a little more preparation, and better Karma, I could deliver a 1rst place winning presentation.