Skepticism as a tool instead of a way of life

[Keneke]

I have seen many comments to people about how skepticism is a way of life. I'd like to talk a bit about this. Like I said in a previous thread, to CFLarsen:

"I don't see skepticism identifying myself. I see it as a tool: if I need to debate something, I pull it out. That's the reason I don't post too often on these boards: I have much greater interests in my life. Music, engineering, Disney. These things sustain me. Skepticism is like getting my college degree: it's something I need, I use it every day, and I had a lot of fun getting it (paaaarty!), but I don't want to be in college forever."

This relates to a thread that Flaherty started, I forgot where it was, where he said the three boards he was on (JREF, RR and some other one) were like three points on a scale, and that JREF and RR are on extreme ends. In the middle, people don't care. I don't want to care, either.

Now then, this doesn't mean I accept any sort of woo-woo. Any time something of that ilk pops up, my inner alarms go off. But it's almost like a war; in the end, I want to put my gun down. I don't mind being eternally vigilant, and carry my gun when the need arises, but I'm just not a career soldier. How can we resist the overcoming tide of woo-woo without having a siege mentality?

[Flaherty]

All I want is a reliable BS meter.

[Nyarlathotep]

I don't think one needs to be the central focus of ones life to have an impact. There will of course, be varying degrees of agressiveness in pursuing it. From people like Micheal Shermer and James Randi who make slapping down pseudo-science and other silliness their lifes work to people like me who don't go looking for battles but try to point out silliness when they see it on a personal level, and everything in between. All can have an effect and I really think it's a matter of ones personal tastes and interests where one falls on that scale.

[Clancie]

Posted by Nyarlathotep

There will of course, be varying degrees of agressiveness in pursuing it. From people like Michael Shermer and James Randi who make slapping down pseudo-science and other silliness their life's work to people like me who don't go looking for battles but try to point out silliness when they see it
Hi Nyarlathotep,

I just wanted to interject that, personally, I don't see Shermer and Randi's as defining the farthest end of the spectrum.

In terms of their commitment to skepticism, yes. In terms of their tactics, no.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Clancie

Hi Nyarlathotep,

I just wanted to interject that, personally, I don't see Shermer and Randi's as defining the farthest end of the spectrum.

In terms of their commitment to skepticism, yes. In terms of their tactics, no.

It's a matter of opinion I suppose. However I was primarily talking about their commitment anyway.

What do you consider the farhtest end of the spectrum, just out of curiousity?

[Clancie]

Posted by Nyarlathotep

What do you consider the farthest end of the spectrum, just out of curiousity?
Well, I think I would make a distinction between those who make commitment to presenting skeptical reasoning and supporting skeptical causes and those whose primary commitment to skepticism seems to be in "bashing and trying to personally attack 'believers' whenever and wherever possible".

I may disagree with them on a few issues, but I have no problem with Shermer or Randi's diligence in promoting skepticism and critical thinking. I -do-, however, object to skeptics who routinely embrace the tactic of "personal attack and smear on believers in the name of my (fill in the blank) cause."

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Clancie

Well, I think I would make a distinction between those who make commitment to presenting skeptical reasoning and supporting skeptical causes and those whose primary commitment to skepticism seems to be in "bashing and trying to personally attack 'believers' whenever and wherever possible".

I may disagree with them on a few issues, but I have no problem with Shermer or Randi's diligence in promoting skepticism and critical thinking. I -do-, however, object to skeptics who routinely embrace the tactic of "personal attack and smear on believers in the name of my (fill in the blank) cause."

Well, all I can say is that there is plenty of that on both sides of the fence. For that matter there is plenty of that on both sides of every fence; sceptic vs. believer, Republican vs. Democrat, atheist vs. theist, tastes great vs. less filling, you-name-it. I think it speaks more to human nature than any flaw with scepticism or anything else.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Keneke
Now then, this doesn't mean I accept any sort of woo-woo. Any time something of that ilk pops up, my inner alarms go off. But it's almost like a war; in the end, I want to put my gun down. I don't mind being eternally vigilant, and carry my gun when the need arises, but I'm just not a career soldier. How can we resist the overcoming tide of woo-woo without having a siege mentality?

Well, for Randi, Shermer, Penn & Teller, et al, it's a career. Not their only careers, of course: any reasonably bright person can be expected to have a half a dozen or so careers.

For me it's sort of a hobby. I've spoken for a few groups; often they'll pay for a motel room, and once I got fifty bucks as an honorarium.

However, I think in addition to this commitment stuff there is another axis, that of skepticism as an attitude. One of my careers was as a research scientist, and skepticism was obviously essential there. But ultimately it's also about how you approach life. I've known many highly skeptical individuals who have never heard of organized skepticism. I've also met some people who were attracted to organized skepticism but really didn't have a skeptical attitude.

[Chupacabras]

Originally posted by Flaherty
All I want is a reliable BS meter.

Specifically based on this comment, I would add that for me skepticism is a tool for critical thinking. I don't go around challenging everything others say, but I do try to put it under different lights and see how they stand. Sure, the more learned you are, the more suited you are as a critical thinker and skeptic.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, I think I would make a distinction between those who make commitment to presenting skeptical reasoning and supporting skeptical causes and those whose primary commitment to skepticism seems to be in "bashing and trying to personally attack 'believers' whenever and wherever possible".

I may disagree with them on a few issues, but I have no problem with Shermer or Randi's diligence in promoting skepticism and critical thinking. I -do-, however, object to skeptics who routinely embrace the tactic of "personal attack and smear on believers in the name of my (fill in the blank) cause."

I am delighted that you feel this way! Such a fantastic turn-about! Clancie, I am impressed!!!

This means no more snide remarks from you.

This means that you will concentrate exclusively on addressing skeptical and paranormal issues, instead of personal ones.

This means that you will listen to arguments from everyone, and judge them based solely on their skeptical value.

Or...does this only apply to skeptics and not believers, such as yourself? I sure hope this is not a one-way street.

Nah. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and save this post of yours. I am sure I will never have to bring it up again, if you embrace the tactic of "personal attack" on anyone.

Tidings of comfort and joy to all.

[BillHoyt]

Well, I think I would make a distinction between those who make commitment to presenting skeptical reasoning and supporting skeptical causes and those whose primary commitment to skepticism seems to be in "bashing and trying to personally attack 'believers' whenever and wherever possible".

I may disagree with them on a few issues, but I have no problem with Shermer or Randi's diligence in promoting skepticism and critical thinking. I -do-, however, object to skeptics who routinely embrace the tactic of "personal attack and smear on believers in the name of my (fill in the blank) cause."

Some examples:

Ex, 1: “What is ridiculous, imo, is that the head of this tax-exempt, educational foundation would tell people to "go to Florida" if they want to know about the challenges given and the results.”
Randi 1 (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1869911774&highlight=Randi#post1869911774)

Ex 2: “I have always pictured Randi as rather gruff and curmudgeonly...”
Ranid 2 (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1869903563&highlight=Randi#post1869903563)

Ex 3: “Its not that skeptics exactly impede research, imo (other than Randi having those two guys ruin the university research by intentionally skewing the data).”
Randi 3 (Its not that skeptics exactly impede research, imo (other than Randi having those two guys ruin the university research by intentionally skewing the data).)

Ex 4: “I think its very sloppy of Shermer to mix them up, especially as he's quite familiar with JVP's work.”
Shermer (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870033509&highlight=Shermer#post1870033509)

Ex 5: "I hope its more than just the tired old clip of van Praagh pumping the woman for information at the commercial break and then showing him using it later. (That, plus Nickells...yep, that's new and exciting. And. what else? Shermer, Kurtz, O'Neill and Jaroff? My eyes are glazing over already...)

Ex 6:But one can hope there'll be some research to it, something original rather than just "old wine in a new bottle"...."
Shermer (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=303153&highlight=Shermer#post303153)

Ex 7:"So, if Shermer can do this, why isn't it videotaped so others can learn from it? Why would skeptics just continiue to rely on heresay that (other?) cold readers can duplicate what JE does--or do it even better?

I can't understand why the claim that cold readers do this persists, the opportunity to document it is there, and no one provides evidence of doing it."

And...Shermer?! It doesn't get more accessible to taped documentation than that. (btw, where'd you see him?)"
Shermer (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=437373&highlight=Shermer#post437373)

Ex 8:"Shermer doing a "mediumship demo better than JE" on television????"
Shermer (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=437417&highlight=Shermer#post437417)

Ex 9: "I appreciate people who have made the effort on their own to look into this, as you describe doing, not just accept and repeat a preconceived idea-- or whatever Shermer, Jaroff, Randi, etc. have said about it."
Shermer (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1869991188&highlight=Shermer#post1869991188)

Ex 10: "Shermer's Conclusion: I have no psychic ability and there's not a shred of evidence it's real. That I could do so well with only a day's preparation shows how vulnerable people are to these effective techniques.
...
Note: The day of taping was set weeks in advance. Shermer chose to prep 24 hours ahead rather than for "a couple of weeks". Intentionally lowering the bar? You decide.
Shermer (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870001167&highlight=Shermer#post1870001167)

Ex 11: "It sounds like he was good at fishing for info and finding out things through conversation (not hard to do, imo), and also occasionally got good mileage out of Rowland's list of "generalities for everyone", but other than that...not much, imo."
Shermer (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870001320&highlight=Shermer#post1870001320)

Ex 12: "Obviously he thought his readings were very successful and he believes he has the potential to be a successful cold reader with a tv show just like JE, but I saw nothing impressive at all about them."
Shermer (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870002164&highlight=Shermer#post1870002164)

Ex 13:"Shermer thinks he's done a great job. It's his smugness in the face of these "nothing much" reading (imo) that that particularly annoys me. But then, that's nothing new with cold readers' claims about how easy it is to give good readings."
Shermer (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870003010&highlight=Shermer#post1870003010)

[Clancie]

Now where did that come from, Bill? ROFL.

Yes, I disagree with Randi about the Challenge and Shermer about mediumship and his claim to be able to duplicate the effect himself via cold reading. And, yes, I think much of his criticisms of specific mediums are uninformed.

Never said otherwise!

But, that doesn't change the fact that I think Randi does a lot of good work...and has exposed charlatans...and raised consciousness about thinking criticially about things. Shermer, too (and I've bought/read a couple of their books as well as a couple of Skeptic mags and a tape).

Being critical of their ideas in some areas doesn't mean discounting everything they do or say. (Think about that one, Bill!).

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie
Yes, I disagree with Randi about the Challenge and Shermer about mediumship and his claim to be able to duplicate the effect himself via cold reading. And, yes, I think much of his criticisms of specific mediums are uninformed.

Never said otherwise!


Who are you arguing with? I didn't say anything. I simply provided examples of your quotes.

[Clancie]

Lol, Bill. May I recommend that advice to you?

Here's just one example of the reason I find these excerpts extremely deceptive and don't usually respond to the "lists" out of context.

But, as you're new to this tactic, here's an example of how you've misleadingly edited them here, (example provided below for your edification....).
Bill Hoyt quoting Clancie

..I have always pictured Randi as rather gruff and curmudgeonly...

However, Bill, "you" neglect to include the rest of my sentence which, in its entirety reads.....


I have always pictured Randi as rather gruff and curmudgeonly, but Brown's account of their enjoyable evening made me think that those appearances with Sylvia and Rosemary Altea on LKL must not tell the whole story.....
Really, Bill.....
:rolleyes:

[thaiboxerken]

Skepticism IS a way of life for me. I can't just stop being skeptical at will. For some reason, I just can't (most of the time) accept ideas without the evidence or logic that backs it up. Maybe that's why I'm in a scientific/technical field of work.

I find it a good thing, though... although sometimes I fail my skepticism.. Like the time I bought a timeshare. Even the most skeptical of people can be scammed. Unlike a believer, I'm willing to admit that I was tricked.

I definitely would consider Clancie a woo-woo and not a skeptic.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Skepticism IS a way of life for me. I can't just stop being skeptical at will. For some reason, I just can't (most of the time) accept ideas without the evidence or logic that backs it up.

Nor, so it seems, can you accept ideas with the evidence or logic that backs them up. Nor can you relinquish ideas you currently hold for which you don't have the evidence or logic to back them up.

[thaiboxerken]

Nor, so it seems, can you accept ideas with the evidence or logic that backs them up.

Actually, I accept all ideas that have the evidence and logic to support them........... as long as that evidence and logic is credible.

Nor can you relinquish ideas you currently hold for which you don't have the evidence or logic to back them up.

Such as?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie
Lol, Bill. May I recommend that advice to you?

Here's just one example of the reason I find these excerpts extremely deceptive and don't usually respond to the "lists" out of context.

But, as you're new to this tactic, here's an example of how you've misleadingly edited them here, (example provided below for your edification....).


However, Bill, "you" neglect to include the rest of my sentence which, in its entirety reads.....

Really, Bill.....
:rolleyes:

Why are you arguing with yourself, kaffee klatch?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Skepticism IS a way of life for me.


Then it is your philosophy, your belief system.


Like the time I bought a timeshare.


You woo-woo. ;)

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Clancie

However, Bill, "you" neglect to include the rest of my sentence which, in its entirety reads.....


As long as we're quoting...I think someone once posted that he'd beat the living crap out of another poster. ... ... ... but then edited it about a day later to say beat the living crap out of that posters' pap. Despite a moderator saying it wasn't a credible or literal threat of violence (somehow) ... I wonder why the poster decided to edit his post?

I think we all have posts we are not especially proud of! Let's not get into the 'I'll repost your worst posts' battles. :)

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Skepticism is the only way to truth and skeptics are the only ones who support the truth (materialism) rather than attacking it! All non-skeptics are lost and doomed to being inferior and not nearly as smart as we are!

[Clancie]

Bill, your dishonesty doesn't bother you at all, does it? What do you think of the quote you partially posted? Compare the two versions and see if you notice a difference:
Posted by Bill Hoyt, (attributed to me with the idea I'm somehow insulting Randi in the post)

I have always pictured Randi as rather gruff and curmudgeonly
But, as you know, Bill my full and accurate quote has quite a different meaning. I've bolded the part you conveniently omitted....
The real quote posted by Clancie

I have always pictured Randi as rather gruff and curmudgeonly, but Brown's account of their enjoyable evening made me think that those appearances with Sylvia and Rosemary Altea on LKL must not tell the whole story.....
Making up quotes, Bill....Intentionally leaving parts out of quotes in order to change the intent of posts...

What dishonest little tactic will you try next, I wonder?

[Clancie]

T'ai Chi,

Yes, I remember Bill's post about "beating the cr*p" out of believers. He changed it because it violated the rules, and he had to add "out of your pap" so it didn't sound like threatening violence.

I agree with your general idea that quotes out of context are pointless to throw back at people. However, in this case, he has changed the meaning of what I said by intentionally leaving out part of the sentence.

That's blatant dishonesty from him (again) and I apparently need to point it out to him (again).

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Some examples:

Ex, 1: “What is ridiculous, imo, is that the head of this tax-exempt, educational foundation would tell people to "go to Florida" if they want to know about the challenges given and the results.”
Randi 1 (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1869911774&highlight=Randi#post1869911774)
And the other half of the quote:

The information Alexander mentions should be public knowledge, publicly posted here for educational purposes. I find Randi's refusal to do this--and his defensiveness about a very reasonable suggestion--very troubling.

Ex 2: “I have always pictured Randi as rather gruff and curmudgeonly...”
Ranid 2 (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1869903563&highlight=Randi#post1869903563)
Here is the complete quote:

I have always pictured Randi as rather gruff and curmudgeonly, but Brown's account of their enjoyable evening made me think that those appearances with Sylvia and Rosemary Altea on LKL must not tell the whole story :)....

Ex 3: “Its not that skeptics exactly impede research, imo (other than Randi having those two guys ruin the university research by intentionally skewing the data).”
Randi 3 (Its not that skeptics exactly impede research, imo (other than Randi having those two guys ruin the university research by intentionally skewing the data).)
The link is a little disorganized.

Ex 4: “I think its very sloppy of Shermer to mix them up, especially as he's quite familiar with JVP's work.”
Shermer (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870033509&highlight=Shermer#post1870033509)
Criticism comes in many forms. (This doesnt appear to be a personal attack to me).

Ex 5: "I hope its more than just the tired old clip of van Praagh pumping the woman for information at the commercial break and then showing him using it later. (That, plus Nickells...yep, that's new and exciting. And. what else? Shermer, Kurtz, O'Neill and Jaroff? My eyes are glazing over already...)

Ex 6:But one can hope there'll be some research to it, something original rather than just "old wine in a new bottle"...."
Shermer (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=303153&highlight=Shermer#post303153)
I dont understand you objection...

Ex 7:"So, if Shermer can do this, why isn't it videotaped so others can learn from it? Why would skeptics just continiue to rely on heresay that (other?) cold readers can duplicate what JE does--or do it even better?

I can't understand why the claim that cold readers do this persists, the opportunity to document it is there, and no one provides evidence of doing it."

And...Shermer?! It doesn't get more accessible to taped documentation than that. (btw, where'd you see him?)"
Shermer (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=437373&highlight=Shermer#post437373)
Its a criticism of what I would call "double standards", and a legitimate criticism at that.

Ex 8:"Shermer doing a "mediumship demo better than JE" on television????"
Shermer (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=437417&highlight=Shermer#post437417)
Its a quote alright...

Ex 9: "I appreciate people who have made the effort on their own to look into this, as you describe doing, not just accept and repeat a preconceived idea-- or whatever Shermer, Jaroff, Randi, etc. have said about it."
Shermer (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1869991188&highlight=Shermer#post1869991188)
A gal who appreciates integrity... ooh, the scoundrel!...

Ex 10: "Shermer's Conclusion: I have no psychic ability and there's not a shred of evidence it's real. That I could do so well with only a day's preparation shows how vulnerable people are to these effective techniques.
...
Note: The day of taping was set weeks in advance. Shermer chose to prep 24 hours ahead rather than for "a couple of weeks". Intentionally lowering the bar? You decide.
Shermer (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870001167&highlight=Shermer#post1870001167)
Clearly this quote was so significant that it just had to be mentioned...

I feel I'm a little slow tonight, would you explain why you chose this quote?

Ex 11: "It sounds like he was good at fishing for info and finding out things through conversation (not hard to do, imo), and also occasionally got good mileage out of Rowland's list of "generalities for everyone", but other than that...not much, imo."
Shermer (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870001320&highlight=Shermer#post1870001320)
Yep...

(Refer to above commentary...)

Ex 12: "Obviously he thought his readings were very successful and he believes he has the potential to be a successful cold reader with a tv show just like JE, but I saw nothing impressive at all about them."
Shermer (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870002164&highlight=Shermer#post1870002164)
I hope you're not choosing your quotes because they have keywords like "Shermer" in them...

Ex 13:"Shermer thinks he's done a great job. It's his smugness in the face of these "nothing much" reading (imo) that that particularly annoys me. But then, that's nothing new with cold readers' claims about how easy it is to give good readings."
Shermer (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870003010&highlight=Shermer#post1870003010)
Uh-huh...


BillHoyt, you strike me as the type who is feverish in his skepticism. However, for whatever reason you chose sacrifice your integrity (intentionally or unintentionally, I wouldnt know) by demonstrating exactly the point Clancie stated when she said "I -do-, however, object to skeptics who routinely embrace the tactic of "personal attack and smear on believers in the name of my (fill in the blank) cause".

Why you chose to make yourself the example of what Clancie said she doesnt appreciate in your post is beyond me...

Now play nice.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Why are you arguing with yourself, kaffee klatch?
And stop the name-calling.

[BillHoyt]

Yahweh,

Where did I say anything about kaffee klatch's quotes? Where did I say one word on this thread? Please point me to that post. Please point me to the words.

[Clancie]

Posted by Bill Hoyt

Yahweh,

Where did I say anything about kaffee klatch's quotes? Where did I say one word on this thread? Please point me to that post. Please point me to the words.
Well, Bill, what was your purpose in reposting my comment here about Shermer and Randi, then following it with a long list of my quotes (misleadingly excerpted by you) from the past?

Either it was to use my own words to show your support for what I said--or to try to imply that the past quotes contradict what I've said here.

Which do -you- think your purpose was?

[Keneke]

Guys, please take your feud elsewhere. Get out of my thread! :P

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Anecdotes are lies unless if they support the skeptical view! Skeptics must use anecdotes if they are in line with the materialist view but anecdotes that aren't must be treated as false because skeptics have science!

A perfect example of this can be found in the great skepticdic! They dismiss anecdotal experiences as being worthless!
http://skepdic.com/testimon.html

But use Susan Blackmore's NDE!
http://skepdic.com/obe.html

See people this proves that anecdotes are only valid when skeptics can use them!

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by !Xx+-Rational-+xX!
Anecdotes are lies unless if they support the skeptical view! Skeptics must use anecdotes if they are in line with the materialist view but anecdotes that aren't must be treated as false because skeptics have science!

A perfect example of this can be found in the great skepticdic! They dismiss anecdotal experiences as being worthless!
http://skepdic.com/testimon.html

But use Susan Blackmore's NDE!
http://skepdic.com/obe.html

See people this proves that anecdotes are only valid when skeptics can use them!

You - ALMOST - had a point. Read the NDE page again and find out were you went wrong.

Barkhorn.

PS = when will you tire of your charade??
PPS = who's sock-puppet are you??

[Clancie]

Keneke,

I have no "feud" with Bill, but I -do- object to his brand of "attack and smear" tactics. I'll stop responding to him, as you wish, but not without noting that I -do- think the tactics you see in this thread directly relate to your question....
Posted by Keneke

How can we resist the overcoming tide of woo-woo without having a siege mentality?
I hope Bill (and others who agree with what he does) will also share with you their answer to your question. After all, imo, honest and effective debate tactics should be the centerpiece of "overcoming the tide of woo-woo". But, apparently, not everyone here agrees with that....

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
After all, imo, honest and effective debate tactics should be the centerpiece of "overcoming the tide of woo-woo". But, apparently, not everyone here agrees with that....

Absolutely not. To "overcome the tide of woo-woo", it is necessary to look at evidence. Facts. Data.

Not everything is opinion, Clancie.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x


You - ALMOST - had a point. Read the NDE page again and find out were you went wrong.


If you want another case where a skeptic uses an anecdote to support their view Randi did! This link is wrong because it's attacking the great Randi but it shows where Randi came to conclusion based on his anecdotal claim to have gotten inside information about fraud from someone in order to dismiss this irrational experiment! There is no denying that this is an anecdote and that Randi uses it but the thing is that Randi has to be right since he is the skeptic!

http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/FlimFlam.htm

Randi's take on this series of experiments is withering. He skewers Targ and Puthoff as "bunglers." He reports that their experiments were conducted in a chaotic atmosphere conducive to cheating. He says that a hole in the wall of Geller's isolation room enabled him to spy on the scientists during their ESP experiments. He says that Targ and Puthoff falsified the results of the tests by omitting failed experiments that would have lowered Geller's averages to the level of chance. Further, he says that the scoring of Geller's performances was mishandled, generating higher scores than Geller deserved.

The question naturally arises: How does Randi know all this, since, as he admits, "I've never even set foot on the sacred grounds of SRI [Stanford Research Institute, where the experiments were conducted]"? He explains that he was given inside information by "an individual" who claimed to represent dozens of SRI scientists. This group, which worked in secret and even adopted a code name (Broomhilda), passed the information to Randi.

Unfortunately, Randi never names this individual or any other members of the Broomhilda group. He says that "Broomhilda verified for me much of the information that I had been holding on to for years," but where did he get this earlier information in the first place? "That data," he says, "now moved from the status of hearsay to documented fact." But documented is hardly a term applicable to either the initial information, which is never specified, or the Broomhilda information, which came from an anonymous source. He adds, "Additional facts were elicited during conversations and correspondence with individuals. Many of these persons were not aware of Broomhilda and were acting on their own. Their completely independent input supported Broomhilda's charges. Taken together," he concludes, "the information from all sources amounted to quite an indictment."

[Nyarlathotep]

Rational, you remind me of my daughter who once she gets a laugh out of a joke will proceed to retell it until she has ran it into the ground and everyone is tired of hearing it. She, however, is 10 years old. What's your excuse?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Keneke
Guys, please take your feud elsewhere. Get out of my thread! :P
Sorry about that.

*Taking the bickering to PM now...*

[Clancie]

Posted by Nyarlathotep (the pronunciation helps, btw)

Rational, you remind me of my daughter who once she gets a laugh out of a joke will proceed to retell it until she has ran it into the ground and everyone is tired of hearing it. She, however, is 10 years old. What's your excuse?
Skewering hypocrisy, double standards, buzz words, and flawed reasoning is hardly a one note joke! I predict !Xx-Rational-xX! will have comic material that will last for years to come.....

Personally, I find his posts very funny--and he's quite inventive to find the new twists (plus a great avatar to go with them, too. :) ).

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Rational, you remind me of my daughter who once she gets a laugh out of a joke will proceed to retell it until she has ran it into the ground and everyone is tired of hearing it. She, however, is 10 years old. What's your excuse?
Maybe its the fact that it doesnt take much to amuse me (mirrors, shiny objects, things that smell pretty will generally keep my attention for a long time), but if there is anything to say about Rational, its this:

In the words of Ratman_tf "Cutest Troll Evah!"


(Pillory has been pulling the same charade - is it charade or not? - since he's been a part of JREF...)

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Clancie

Skewering hypocrisy, double standards, buzz words, and flawed reasoning is hardly a one note joke! I predict !Xx-Rational-xX! will have comic material that will last for years to come.....

Personally, I find his posts very funny--and he's quite inventive to find the new twists (plus a great avatar to go with them, too. :) ).

If he were doing a similarly lame impersonation of a believer I would still find him to be an annoying one joke wonder.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Rational, you remind me of my daughter who once she gets a laugh out of a joke will proceed to retell it until she has ran it into the ground and everyone is tired of hearing it. She, however, is 10 years old. What's your excuse?

Do you have a problem with what I posted about skeptics and anecdotes?! It's clear that skeptics reject all anecdotes outside of their views and they are correct for doing this but I have showed where Randi clearly used an anecdote to dismiss an experiment and he was right for doing this!


Join me everyone most of the current skeptics aren't hard enough on the believers so we will start a new skeptical movement to attack the kooktards! We will call it skeptiscientisuperioristism!

This will create new career fields like matieralismisf*ckingcorrectyoudamndeludedquakslabo ratorists and sciencef*ckingdisprovesallirrationalwoowoobeliefss obequietyouliarsandfraudslaboratorists.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


If he were doing a similarly lame impersonation of a believer I would still find him to be an annoying one joke wonder.

Join skeptiscientisuperioristism and improve your life while doing away with nonsense like dreaming!

Anyone still have objections to what I have been saying about anecdotes here!?

Worship my rants without looking to divine nonsense!

[Nyarlathotep]

Yep, exactly like my 10 year old

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Yep, exactly like my 10 year old

Wow your 10 yr old is fighting a materialistic holy war against quakery! I'm impressed!

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Who will be rational enough to join skeptiscientisuperioristism!?

Also who will argue against what I just posted about skeptics and anecdotes!? Who will provide evidence for dreaming!?

[Keneke]

http://home.comcast.net/~kennethbarnes/threadeject.jpg

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

I will post this for no real reason!

http://www.student.smsu.edu/s/san232s/hardfunnypics/angrywetcatnotamused.jpg

That cat is probably mad because someone tried to tell him about dreaming!

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Keneke
I have seen many comments to people about how skepticism is a way of life. I'd like to talk a bit about this. Like I said in a previous thread, to CFLarsen:



This relates to a thread that Flaherty started, I forgot where it was, where he said the three boards he was on (JREF, RR and some other one) were like three points on a scale, and that JREF and RR are on extreme ends. In the middle, people don't care. I don't want to care, either.

Now then, this doesn't mean I accept any sort of woo-woo. Any time something of that ilk pops up, my inner alarms go off. But it's almost like a war; in the end, I want to put my gun down. I don't mind being eternally vigilant, and carry my gun when the need arises, but I'm just not a career soldier. How can we resist the overcoming tide of woo-woo without having a siege mentality?

There's no need to have a siege mentality. Neither does that mean you shouldn't care. Not caring amongst biologists got them into the current situation vis-a-vis creationism. It wasn't confronted squarely and aggressively from the beginning. It continues to grow. Its influence is spreading to other countries, and has hopped from fundamentalist christianity to fundamentalist islam. And biology is no longer the sole target. Geology, chemistry, physics, astronomy and cosmology are all under attack as creationists have caught onto the fact that the basic facts of these sciences all converge on evolution as an answer.

But something else far more worrisome has happened over the last thirty years. Creationists, new agers and postmodernists have all converged to go after science in a big way. In academia, the postmodernists call it The Strong Programme. It is an all-out assault on the veracity of science, a deliberate attempt to impugn its motives, deny its credibility; moreover, to question the very existence of truth.

So what do we do? Let this unholy alliance keep whittling away at the truth? Let the textbooks continually water down? Let them usher in a new dark age?

Don't despair. They're not worth it. But neither should you give up the fight. Why not? Because they're not worthy of winning the hearts and minds of humanity.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Clancie

Skewering hypocrisy, double standards, buzz words, and flawed reasoning is hardly a one note joke! I predict !Xx-Rational-xX! will have comic material that will last for years to come.....

Personally, I find his posts very funny--and he's quite inventive to find the new twists (plus a great avatar to go with them, too. :) ).

Yes I agree. I value !Xx-Rational-xX!'s contributions here. He's a scream. He so much remind me of certain skeptics! :D And he does a valuable job in reminding skeptics what they sound like to normal sensible people :)

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Yes I agree. I value !Xx-Rational-xX!'s contributions here. He's a scream. He so much remind me of certain skeptics! :D And he does a valuable job in reminding skeptics what they sound like to normal sensible people :)

Isn't it now obvious, folks? C'mon, buy a clue.

[T'ai Chi]

You first say:

Originally posted by BillHoyt

There's no need to have a siege mentality.


Then you go on to say:
(bold added by me, and blue comment added by me)


It continues to grow. Its influence is spreading to other countries, and has hopped from fundamentalist christianity to fundamentalist islam. And biology is no longer the sole target. ...
But something else far more worrisome has happened over the last thirty years. Creationists, new agers and postmodernists have all converged to go after science in a big way. In academia, the postmodernists call it The Strong Programme. It is an all-out assault on the veracity of science, a deliberate attempt to impugn its motives, deny its credibility; moreover, to question the very existence of truth. ...
(yeah, how dare they be skeptical!!!!)
But neither should you give up the fight. Why not? Because they're not worthy of winning the hearts and minds of humanity.


Sounds like you are talking about some siege. :D


Let them usher in a new dark age?


I fail to see how.

Being that evidence is interpreted, collected, etc., by humans, it seems reasonable that sociology plays a VERY large part.

Which of these do you have beef with?

http://www.rpi.edu/~eglash/eglash.dir/cult_inq/strong.html

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

New page added for skeptiscientisuperioristism so join me everyone!

http://www.geocities.com/xx_rational_xx/sk.html

Updated!

http://www.geocities.com/xx_rational_xx/index.html

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Clancie

Skewering hypocrisy, double standards, buzz words, and flawed reasoning is hardly a one note joke! I predict !Xx-Rational-xX! will have comic material that will last for years to come.....

Personally, I find his posts very funny--and he's quite inventive to find the new twists (plus a great avatar to go with them, too. :) ).

That's one view of it.
!Xx-Rational-xX! strikes me as the alter ego of someone else on this board who, when frustrated by logical debate, spouts childish nonsense in the form of an over-caricature of the skepical viewpoint. So far he's added nothing to any debate except for mocking other's viewpoints. Which is what you brought up in this thread, I believe. :p

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


If he were doing a similarly lame impersonation of a believer I would still find him to be an annoying one joke wonder.

Same here. You reduced the sentiment of my previous reply to one sentence. *bow*

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf


That's one view of it.
!Xx-Rational-xX! strikes me as the alter ego of someone else on this board who, when frustrated by logical debate, spouts childish nonsense in the form of an over-caricature of the skepical viewpoint. So far he's added nothing to any debate except for mocking other's viewpoints. Which is what you brought up in this thread, I believe. :p

It's not too late to give up your old woo-woo ways and join the skeptiscientisuperioristism movement!

:cry: :cry:

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Potential new member of skeptiscientisuperioristism!?

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=5549

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf
!Xx-Rational-xX! strikes me as the alter ego of someone else on this board who, when frustrated by logical debate, spouts childish nonsense in the form of an over-caricature of the skepical viewpoint. So far he's added nothing to any debate except for mocking other's viewpoints. Which is what you brought up in this thread, I believe. :p

Of course. If anyone is critical of skeptics, Clancie will be there for support. It doesn't matter how slobbering an idiot it is, or how incoherent the criticism is. Hey, even fun can be made of skeptics, that's OK!

But when Clancie or believers are criticized...or when Clancie or believers are made fun of...then, it's not OK. At all!

Especially if the criticism hits home...

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Larson you must do something positive in SR on skeptiscientisuperioristism or else you will be considered an enemy of science and rational thinking!

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You first say:



Then you go on to say:
(bold added by me, and blue comment added by me)



Sounds like you are talking about some siege. :D

[/b]

I fail to see how.

Being that evidence is interpreted, collected, etc., by humans, it seems reasonable that sociology plays a VERY large part.

Which of these do you have beef with?

http://www.rpi.edu/~eglash/eglash.dir/cult_inq/strong.html [/B]
The fact that a siege is being mounted does not mean one must have a siege mentality. One needn't despair about it. One needn't become paralyzed by it. One needn't drop friends because they are woos. Ed knows I have plenty of those. Ed knows I have to hold my tongue while I wince at idiotic statements.

When you have an understanding of the Strong Programme and can state it here in clear terms, I will address questions you pose. I won't address troll questions wherein you state very weakened versions of the proposition to bait me. Care to play for real, or do you prefer the kaffee klatch technique?

[!Xx-Credulous-xX!]

Originally posted by !Xx+-Rational-+xX!
Potential new member of skeptiscientisuperioristism!?

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/member.php?action=getinfo&userid=5549

Daaaaah!

No way! I believe in EVERYTHING!

Daaaaah!

[!Xx-Credulous-xX!]

Originally posted by !Xx+-Rational-+xX!
Larson you must do something positive in SR on skeptiscientisuperioristism or else you will be considered an enemy of science and rational thinking!

You're a meanie! I think your Chakras need alignment! Or maybe some Aromatherapy while listening to Enya to calm your spirit.

[Yahweh]

And now a !Xx-Credulous-xX!, this is the greatest thing I've ever seen!

(Shouldnt that be spelled !Xx+-Credulous-+xX!...)

[!Xx-Credulous-xX!]

Originally posted by Yahweh
And now a !Xx-Credulous-xX!, this is the greatest thing I've ever seen!

(Shouldnt that be spelled !Xx+-Credulous-+xX!...)

Thank you! :)

And no, six crosses in my username would be too close to 6... as in 666 and the symbol of the cross added to the mark of the devil (or the cumulative negative energy field, for you non-Christians) would be too much negative energy for my spirit field.

You can't be too safe in matters of spirit energy, you know! ;)

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by !Xx-Credulous-xX!


Daaaaah!

No way! I believe in EVERYTHING!

Daaaaah!

Nooooooooooooooooooo! You must convert unless if you hate science!

[!Xx-Credulous-xX!]

Originally posted by !Xx+-Rational-+xX!


Nooooooooooooooooooo! You must convert unless if you hate science!

I don't hate anything since that would bring about negative karma but I would like to see science ended in our time then everyone could believe whatever they like! What happiness! No more cancer or bills or stodgy guys in trenchcoats telling us what is and isn't possible! Just magic crystals and psychic powers that could bring the world into concordant harmonance with spirit desire for goodness and wellness!

Think of the paradise!

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by !Xx-Credulous-xX!


I don't hate anything since that would bring about negative karma but I would like to see science ended in our time then everyone could believe whatever they like! What happiness! No more cancer or bills or stodgy guys in trenchcoats telling us what is and isn't possible! Just magic crystals and psychic powers that could bring the world into concordant harmonance with spirit desire for goodness and wellness!

Think of the paradise!

Skeptics this proves what I have been ranting about the believers are trying to put an end to science in place of unproven quackery! There is nothing we can trust outside of science!

[!Xx-Credulous-xX!]

Originally posted by !Xx+-Rational-+xX!


Skeptics this proves what I have been ranting about the believers are trying to put an end to science in place of unproven quackery! There is nothing we can trust outside of science!

I do not want to put an end to science, but it is irrelevant to true knowledge can you not see the difference? Oh yeah, you can't since you're stuck in your materialistic view of the world.

If only you would open your eyes to the infinite possibilities you would see that we (believers) are right and you are wrong! But you don't so you have no true happiness.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by !Xx-Credulous-xX!


I do not want to put an end to science, but it is irrelevant to true knowledge can you not see the difference? Oh yeah, you can't since you're stuck in your materialistic view of the world.

If only you would open your eyes to the infinite possibilities you would see that we (believers) are right and you are wrong! But you don't so you have no true happiness.

Us materialists aren't closed-minded we are only supporting the scientifically proven view! Even though consciousness (as are sensations like pain) is an illusion conscious states can be altered by messing with the brain so this undeniably proves that they are the same thing! If one thing can have an effect on another then they absolutely have to be the same I don’t think any sane person has ever questioned this! Just ask Ocamm's Razor (an infallible scientific law) about materialism and Ocamm's Razor will tell you materialism is the only truth!

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

New quote!

I admit that us skeptics have an inability to bring an argument to an end but this is only because gullible inferior minds have an inability to bring their brainwashing and delusions to an end! This is precisely why skeptics must correct the thinking of non-skeptics because they obviously can’t think in a rational manner for themselves!

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I value !Xx-Rational-xX!'s contributions here. He's a scream. He so much remind me of certain skeptics! :D And he does a valuable job in reminding skeptics what they sound like to normal sensible people :)

You know, I have this sneaking suspicion that !Xx-Rational-xX! wouldn't be here, if you didn't value your ehh.. I mean his contribution :D .

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Drinking beer in the shower can be fun!

??????????

:j1: :hit: :wink8: :v: :r:

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Wait sorry for getting irrational the feeling of fun is just an illusion!

:cry:

?

[Pyrrho]

This thread has been reported on suspicions of illicit sockpuppetry. No specific rule against it, although Hal has said he'd like to discourage the practice. Also, people might not take kindly to having their threads hijacked. I'm pretty sure the two socks are separate people, though.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

!Xx+-Rational-+xX! isn't a sock puppet! I tried to create my own sock puppet a little bit ago but it was denied because they didn't like the sig which was the same as my old irritating one that took up a whole page!

[NullPointerException]

You're really reaching with the 666 correlation.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

We are no more conscious then robots or computers! Unlike most humans robots accept that there is nothing beyond physical matter and they don't look to far out fairy tales to add meaning to life where there is none! They act as they are materialistically programmed through natural laws!

[thaiboxerken]

Then it is your philosophy, your belief system.



Whatever, troll.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

This is proof that woo-woos do more harm then good!

[bignickel]

Thanks to XX_Credulous_XX, this has turned into the best thread so far of the year.

We need to lock these two in the same room together...

I'd pay $5 to see it. :D