New article on Swift

[Careyp74]

What do you think about this article?

************ Artist? (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/781-bull-artist.html)

************ Artist?
Swift
Written by Brandon K. Thorp
Friday, 20 November 2009 23:20

A rawtha angry letter by Rupert Sheldrake will appear in the next issue of Skeptic, in response to Chris French's ("reverential") interview of James Randi in the summer issue.

The letter has its points -- for example, when it accuses Randi of occasional grumpiness (It's true! He can be grumpy!) -- but the bulk of the thing is an attack upon Randi's character and qualifications.

Mostly, Sheldrake seems discomfited by a document passed out by Randi, Andrew Mayne, and Michael Shermer at The Amaz!ng Meeting 3, entitled "Communicating Skepticism To The Public." We have no copies of this document. Perhaps you can help us.

Does the document say, as Sheldrake claims, that it's "easy" to become a media skeptic? And what about this:

Becoming an expert is a pretty simple procedure; tell people you're an expert. After you do that, all you have to do is maintain appearances and not give them a reason to believe you're not.

Did Randi really write that? If so, nobody at the JREF, and nobody we've been able contact, has any recollection of it. And if Randi did write these words, in what context did they appear? We'd really like to know. If you were at TAM3 and still have a copy of the document, please tell us.

(Incidentally, the idea in quotes has merit, whether it's a Randi quote or not. It is extremely easy to become an "expert" in telepathy, telekinesis, dowsing, channeling, prophecy, scrying, cursing, spell-casting, acupuncture, and homeopathy. In those fields, the master and the novice are on precisely equal footing. Fantasy, like punk rock, is democratic that way.)

I was shocked first of all to see a title that would get a warning for many in the forums. Something about Rule 10 and the autocensor.

Then, I was a little amused that there is a question about whether or not anyone has the document mentioned in the article. This is a document produced and distributed by JREF, correct? Why then would there be no such document?

BTW, what is the meaning of the word rawtha? I couldn't find one.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

If you read the comments following the article in Swift, you will find that the quote is a typical example of selective quoting as practiced by Creationists. The following sentence goes on to essentially say "until a real expert comes along".

Click on Swift Blog at the top of any page.

Nothing to see here folks. Move along. :th:

[Wowbagger]

I happen to have a copy of the document. The quote is about six pages in, (including the cover), under the heading "How to be a media authority". I can photograph the page, if anyone wants.

The way it is worded does not make the context or intention terribly clear. I could see how someone could interpret this as "advice on how to be sneaky". But, I don't think that was its intention.

The document also states:

...Have a legitimate reason for being entitled to your opinion (besides the fact that you are a clever person)...

It is certainly NOT suggesting that you fake your credentials.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

@Wowbagger

Does your version go on tp say: "I could be one of the leading experts on 19th century Bavarian Monkey Chess up until the moment I say something that totally contradicts what you know about this noble and lost game of strategy."?

[Wowbagger]

@Wowbagger

Does your version go on tp say: "I could be one of the leading experts on 19th century Bavarian Monkey Chess up until the moment I say something that totally contradicts what you know about this noble and lost game of strategy."?Yes, it does.

Perhaps the message is that it pays to do research before declaring yourself "an expert". Maybe.

Though, perhaps my own standards of how much research should be conducted, before declaring oneself an expert, might be higher than what the document seems to imply.

[Wowbagger]

Curiously, most of the document's components do not seem to have authors listed.

Only the last section has a specific author listed (Andrew Mayne), but that does NOT include the text about "experts" in question, here.

I can't remember exactly who gave the workshop, anymore. But, I suspect someone at JREF could probably point to them, and then we can determine who actually wrote most of this stuff.

(Parts of my memory seem to recall Jamy Ian Swiss and Michael Shermer as the workshop hosts, but don't quote me on that.)

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Yes, it does.

Perhaps the message is that it pays to do research before declaring yourself "an expert". Maybe.

Though, perhaps my own standards of how much research should be conducted, before declaring oneself an expert, might be higher than what the document seems to imply.

IMHO the point being made and the point being misrepresented is similar to the Darwin quote that Creationists use:
To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.

Without quoting what Darwin said next (and then continued on for several pages of explanation).

When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["the voice of the people is the voice of God "], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certain the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.
Context is everything.

[Careyp74]

If you read the comments following the article in Swift, you will find that the quote is a typical example of selective quoting as practiced by Creationists. The following sentence goes on to essentially say "until a real expert comes along".

Yes, I had a feeling that was what was intended by the quote, but not what I was asking.


Click on Swift Blog at the top of any page.


I already gave a link to the article and comments, but thatnk you for pointing out another way to get there.


Nothing to see here folks. Move along. :th:

Who is it that you are directing these comments towards?

If you don't wish to contribute anything meaningful, go away. Don't presume that you have any incite into what anyone else is intending by asking the opinion of everyone else.

[Careyp74]

I happen to have a copy of the document. The quote is about six pages in, (including the cover), under the heading "How to be a media authority". I can photograph the page, if anyone wants.

The way it is worded does not make the context or intention terribly clear. I could see how someone could interpret this as "advice on how to be sneaky". But, I don't think that was its intention.

The document also states:

...Have a legitimate reason for being entitled to your opinion (besides the fact that you are a clever person)...

It is certainly NOT suggesting that you fake your credentials.

I think that more than the one page might be needed to get the full context of that one quote, could you possibly scan the whole document into an article?

Back to the OP. What do you think about the chosen title and admitted lack of documentation inside the JREF?

[Wowbagger]

I think that more than the one page might be needed to get the full context of that one quote, could you possibly scan the whole document into an article? I might not have copyright approval to post the whole thing. But, I will try to post the relevant page, soon.

Back to the OP. What do you think about the chosen title and admitted lack of documentation inside the JREF?
It was a handout given to participants of an optional workshop. My best guess is that one of the workshop hosts put it together, and not a JREF staffer. I don't know that for certain, but that would explain why JREF might not have copies of it.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I was shocked first of all to see a title that would get a warning for many in the forums. Something about Rule 10 and the autocensor.


The SWIFT blog is not the forums. As far as I know, Jeff Wagg and the others don't have to agree to abide by the forum rules in writing their blog entries.

I suspect the need for rules in the forum is that it's a place for back-and-forth discussion. The only place that happens--to a limited extent- in the blogs are in the comments; and you do have to agree to these terms to post a comment:
By submitting your comments we reserve the right, at our sole discretion, to change, modify, add, or delete your comments and portions of these Terms of Use at any time without further notice.

[Wowbagger]

The following is the text from the page in question. Note that it was OCRed, so character recognition errors may be present. I have also attached a JPEG of the scanned page.


Part 3. The Media Skeptic: Encouraging a skeptical media attitude

The media both promotes the ideas of science and detracts from them with its often uncritical promotion of nonsense. Skeptics are often used to get ideas for stories, perspective and as talking heads. The media isn’t any one thing or person. It’s the
thousands of pieces of information that are generated every day in the form of news. A skeptic acting alone or in a group can have a large impact when they focus their efforts.

It’s a commonly ignored fact that many of the spokesperson on television that represent “family groups” or other certain public policy organizations don’t represent vast
memberships. They’re talking heads working out of small offices speaking on behalf of a handful of people, some of them with money to burn.

How to be a media authority

Becoming an expert is a pretty simple procedure: tell people you’re an expert. After you do that, all you have to do is maintain appearances and not give them a reason to believe you’re not. I could be one of the leading experts on 19th century Bavarian Monkey Chess up until the moment I say something that totally contradicts what you know about this noble and lost game of strategy.

The media wants to talk to an “authority”. Have a legitimate reason for being entitled to your opinion (besides the fact that you’re a clever person).

Talking heads are usually:
• Authors
• Professors
• Spokespersons for groups
• Survivors

As head of your local skeptic club you’re entitled to call yourself an authority. If your other two members agree to it, you can be the spokesperson too.

Managing the media
Often experts are interviewed by field producers who ask lots of questions so the producer can choose which ones support the opinion they already hold. The local networks and the big ones all use manipulative tactics to tell the “story”. Sometimes they want a genuine skeptical viewpoint. Often they just want to provide a false sense of balance. Don’t let them lead you into serving a purpose other than the one you intend.


This is only the most relevant page. The "Part 3" section does go on for one more page.

Author remains unkown, at least for me. If anyone does know who actually wrote it, they can let us know.

[Dunstan]

The SWIFT blog is not the forums. As far as I know, Jeff Wagg and the others don't have to agree to abide by the forum rules in writing their blog entries.

I suspect the need for rules in the forum is that it's a place for back-and-forth discussion. The only place that happens--to a limited extent- in the blogs are in the comments; and you do have to agree to these terms to post a comment:

But the justification that has been offered for the prohibition on "profanity" in the forums is that the JREF wants to make sure that schools don't block the site for using "bad language." It's hard to see why the same rationale wouldn't apply to SWIFT.

[arthwollipot]

BTW, what is the meaning of the word rawtha? I couldn't find one.It's almost certainly intended as a humourous misspelling of the word "rather".

[athon]

But the justification that has been offered for the prohibition on "profanity" in the forums is that the JREF wants to make sure that schools don't block the site for using "bad language." It's hard to see why the same rationale wouldn't apply to SWIFT.

It's an old debate that has long been concluded to be a case of 'Randi's sandbox'. The 'school filter' excuse was shown to be nonsense before that horse even got out of the stalls.

Essentially, there is nothing rational or reasonable about this one. It's just his decision, end of story, basically.

ETA: I was surprised the JREF didn't have this on file themselves somewhere. Seems odd to have a SWIFT blog article asking about a document that was produced by the JREF.

Athon

[Gord_in_Toronto]

<snip>

If you don't wish to contribute anything meaningful, go away. Don't presume that you have any incite into what anyone else is intending by asking the opinion of everyone else.

Pardon?

[JoeTheJuggler]

But the justification that has been offered for the prohibition on "profanity" in the forums is that the JREF wants to make sure that schools don't block the site for using "bad language." It's hard to see why the same rationale wouldn't apply to SWIFT.
The title did not use profanity.

I think the concern was about using something that violated Rule 10 by trying to get around the auto-censor (like using the @ instead of an "a" in swear words).

BTW, where was that justification for the rules on profanity given? (I don't see that in the rules (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=25744), so it must've been given elsewhere. The reason I gave--to promote lively but civil use of the forum--is given on the rules page.)

[Wowbagger]

I was surprised the JREF didn't have this on file themselves somewhere. Seems odd to have a SWIFT blog article asking about a document that was produced by the JREF. It might not have been produced by the JREF. It may have been put together by those who ran the workshop, mostly independently of the JREF.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Seems odd to have a SWIFT blog article asking about a document that was produced by the JREF.

From what I've heard (just here in this thread), it wasn't produced by JREF.

At any rate, I don't think Sheldrake's criticism is legit, even if you hold Randi responsible for the content of the document (since, apparently he was distributing it). It sounds like the meaning of the piece is that it's easy for any self-important yahoo to be cited as an expert by the popular news media. (I keep thinking about that guy who took a "Nessie" photo about a year or so ago--many of the news articles referred to him as a "researcher" and a "scientist". He worked as a lab tech, and was an "amateur Nessie investigator".)

BTW, Thanks for posting the OCRd text and scan of the document, Wowbagger.

[Dunstan]

The title did not use profanity.

I think the concern was about using something that violated Rule 10 by trying to get around the auto-censor (like using the @ instead of an "a" in swear words).

Fair enough.

BTW, where was that justification for the rules on profanity given? (I don't see that in the rules (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=25744), so it must've been given elsewhere. The reason I gave--to promote lively but civil use of the forum--is given on the rules page.)

I'm recalling the lengthy discussions in Forum Management a year or two ago that led to the creation of the "Members Only" sections. That may have had more to do with "sexual innuendo" and similar adult topics than profanity per se, but I recall some posters asking why a board about skepticism would have a problem with "dirty words," and that was the rationale given.

ETA: Here you go. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2806034&postcount=71)

I have not made this policy, but it's my job to see that it's enforced. Randi's position on this is that there's no reason why people can't discuss things without the use of swear words.

We've received complaints from schools who wish to have their students view the forum. Randi would like them to feel safe doing so, hence the changes.

My personal opinions aside, I can't see how this substantially changes the forum. If you want to accuse the JREF of backing down to the PC police, well, I suppose you can. But the fact is that Randi wants the forum available to school kids, and schools won't allow that material on their computers.

[JoeTheJuggler]

ETA: Here you go. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2806034&postcount=71)
Thanks. I figured it was from a conversation like that. I don't keep up with a lot of that kind of stuff.

[rjh01]

I have put the link to this thread onto the comments for SWIFT.

[Careyp74]

But the justification that has been offered for the prohibition on "profanity" in the forums is that the JREF wants to make sure that schools don't block the site for using "bad language." It's hard to see why the same rationale wouldn't apply to SWIFT.

This is what I had been informed of also. I think the forum was mentioned and not swift because no one would expect that kind of language in swift. But, here we are.....

It's almost certainly intended as a humourous misspelling of the word "rather".

That is what I gathered, but knowing that Swift is an educational blog, from an educational foundation, I thought it might be an ACTUAL word that I didn't know.

Pardon?

exactly.

ETA:
I have put the link to this thread onto the comments for SWIFT.

Thanks, I didn't want it to appear like shameless self promotion.

BTW, how does everyone feel about them getting rid of the comments portion of swift, and creating a section in the forum where threads would serve as the comments section? They could link the thread in the article, and that would lead to more members.

[Psi Baba]

Even though it has by now been shown that Sheldrake took a quote out of context to distort his readers' perception of Randi or the JREF, even a little common sense should have suggested that it would have been prudent to procure a copy of the document before publishing a scathing article that comes just short of implying that Sheldrake made the whole thing up and that no such document ever existed. Sadly, a lot of the SWIFT articles are more reactionary than educational.

[Careyp74]

Even though it has by now been shown that Sheldrake took a quote out of context to distort his readers' perception of Randi or the JREF, even a little common sense should have suggested that it would have been prudent to procure a copy of the document before publishing a scathing article that comes just short of implying that Sheldrake made the whole thing up and that no such document ever existed. Sadly, a lot of the SWIFT articles are more reactionary than educational.

well said. What do you think about the title? Also, do you feel as I do that there should be a call for making Swift more educational? If you are an atheist, or skeptic, how well do you feel JREF does at representing your views?

[Darat]

...snip... If you are an atheist, or skeptic, how well do you feel JREF does at representing your views?

Badly - but I shouldn't complain too much - after all I don't do much of a better job representing my views!

[lippard]

Isn't it generally the case within organized skepticism that it is thought that anyone can easily become an expert/authority on fringe claims and pseudoscience without professionally studying such claims, at least to the extent of representing skepticism in local media? And isn't that what the "Media Skeptic" document is suggesting? It is encouraging people to start local groups and engage the media, isn't it?

It seems to me that, at least with regard to the more blatant cases of fringe and pseudoscience, skeptical groups have encouraged a kind of Francis Bacon/Rene Descartes view of science, that it's easily within the power of the average person, with a little bit of understanding of science and critical thinking, to be able to authoritatively respond to such claims. (Ironically, this is also a view of science encouraged by creationists about evolutionary biology, and by other forms of "denialists"--where the argument is a bit more difficult to accept, to say the least. The main anthropological study of creationists that offers this diagnosis of their view of science if Christopher P. Toumey's _God's Own Scientists_, 1994, Rutgers Univ. Press.)

[Careyp74]

Isn't it generally the case within organized skepticism that it is thought that anyone can easily become an expert/authority on fringe claims and pseudoscience without professionally studying such claims, at least to the extent of representing skepticism in local media? And isn't that what the "Media Skeptic" document is suggesting? It is encouraging people to start local groups and engage the media, isn't it?


I like how Penn & Teller go out of their way to point out what exactly makes a person they are interviewing an "expert" of something claimed. From president of a society (based out of their home that includes three members) to leading expert (no one else thinks the same way therefore they are the expert)

I would keep this in mind when forming a club just to claim expertise in something.

[fls]

Wowbagger,

Thanks for posting that part of the document.

What was the context for this advice? Was it tongue-in-cheek, or was it describing ways to get the media to quote you (and thereby give you a soapbox for skepticism)?

Linda

[Wowbagger]

What was the context for this advice? Was it tongue-in-cheek, or was it describing ways to get the media to quote you (and thereby give you a soapbox for skepticism)? The intention of the workshop was more towards the later.

Near as I can tell, I don't think it was meant to be "tongue-in-cheek". Though, it was probably poorly worded, and easily misinterpreted, for what it was trying to say.

As a skeptic, especially if you are a leader, you could do research on something, and claim to have some level of expertise on it; perhaps just enough good arguments to fight off the woo-woos on the other side of something. There is nothing wrong with that!

The way it was written, it could easily be taken as advice on how to be sneaky or underhanded about it. But, it is important to reflect that the document also tells you to "Have a legitimate reason" for being entitled to your opinion.

[JoeTheJuggler]

This is what I had been informed of also. I think the forum was mentioned and not swift because no one would expect that kind of language in swift. But, here we are.....

But again, there was no profanity used in the title of that blog piece, so I think the issue is the "mock" profanity (like trying to get around the auto-censor).

My thinking is, they trust the judgment of their blog writers more than they do the likes of you and me.

And while I accept that concern for not getting blocked in schools is part of the rationale for that rule, it's definitely true that the reason given in the rules page is to maintain lively but civil discussions on the forum (which doesn't really apply to the SWIFT blog writers).

Even though it has by now been shown that Sheldrake took a quote out of context to distort his readers' perception of Randi or the JREF, even a little common sense should have suggested that it would have been prudent to procure a copy of the document before publishing a scathing article that comes just short of implying that Sheldrake made the whole thing up and that no such document ever existed. Sadly, a lot of the SWIFT articles are more reactionary than educational.

The "scathing" criticism of Sheldrake's letter seemed to me directed at the parts of the letter that were simply an attack on Randi's character and qualifications. (It was a short entry--that part was one sentence.) The part about the quote was presented as a series of questions, because the writer did not have a copy of the document Sheldrake was talking about.

Was the document written by Randi? Did it really say that? If so, was it in the context that Sheldrake suggested?

These are my paraphrases, but the original was no more "scathing" than that wrt to this document.

[Careyp74]

My thinking is, they trust the judgment of their blog writers more than they do the likes of you and me.
The only difference between us and the writers, is that we haven't submitted any articles yet. Swift has posted a call for contributers, and does not have a set pool of blog writers that are voted on, or accepted as the whole, who can print whatever they want. I think more care should be put into the process.


The "scathing" criticism of Sheldrake's letter seemed to me directed at the parts of the letter that were simply an attack on Randi's character and qualifications. (It was a short entry--that part was one sentence.) The part about the quote was presented as a series of questions, because the writer did not have a copy of the document Sheldrake was talking about.
I look at it this way. If I have to put ANY thought into what the meaning and direction of an article is, there will be others who won't get it at all. Again, there should be more thought put into the articles.


Was the document written by Randi? Did it really say that? If so, was it in the context that Sheldrake suggested?
I still haven't come to a conclusion about anything, but remember, Brandon is the one making claims as to who wrote what. Sheldrake said Randi handed it out, not wrote it.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

<snip>

exactly.


"Exactly" what? I was asking for an interpretation into English.

:bunpan

[JoeTheJuggler]

The only difference between us and the writers, is that we haven't submitted any articles yet. Swift has posted a call for contributers, and does not have a set pool of blog writers that are voted on, or accepted as the whole, who can print whatever they want. I think more care should be put into the process.
You mean SWIFT blogs are automatically posted on submission? I don't think that's true. I think they're the equivalent of a moderated thread. I don't think any blog article gets posted that hasn't been read.


I still haven't come to a conclusion about anything, but remember, Brandon is the one making claims as to who wrote what. Sheldrake said Randi handed it out, not wrote it.
But Brandon did not make any claims as to who wrote it. He asked whether Randi wrote it. They were straightforward questions. ETA: You could prove me wrong by offering a quote from the article where Brandon made claims as to who wrote that document.

I saw nothing "scathing" about the article--at least wrt to this document.

[Careyp74]

You mean SWIFT blogs are automatically posted on submission? I don't think that's true. I think they're the equivalent of a moderated thread. I don't think any blog article gets posted that hasn't been read.

No, I didn't mean that, but you are attributing some kind of aspect to the writers, like that they are actually writers. Asides from them submitting the articles, this doesn't appear to be the case. I got that from this quote " My thinking is, they trust the judgment of their blog writers more than they do the likes of you and me."


But Brandon did not make any claims as to who wrote it. He asked whether Randi wrote it. They were straightforward questions. ETA: You could prove me wrong by offering a quote from the article where Brandon made claims as to who wrote that document.

I misunderstood what you were saying with "Was the document written by Randi? Did it really say that? If so, was it in the context that Sheldrake suggested?"


I saw nothing "scathing" about the article--at least wrt to this document.


scathing? no. Well written? No. Informative? No. Definitely not a piece that should be on an educational website.

[JoeTheJuggler]

No, I didn't mean that, but you are attributing some kind of aspect to the writers, like that they are actually writers.
No I'm not. My point was that since blog posts don't go up automatically, and the blog articles aren't back and forth dialogue like we see here on the forums, there is no need for the blog writers to agree to the rules we have on the forums.


I misunderstood what you were saying with "Was the document written by Randi? Did it really say that? If so, was it in the context that Sheldrake suggested?"

I don't follow. How does your misunderstanding what I said lead to your statement that Brandon made some claim about who wrote the document:
Brandon is the one making claims as to who wrote what.
But he made no such claim, right?


scathing? no. Well written? No. Informative? No. Definitely not a piece that should be on an educational website.
I disagree. I think he was using the JREF SWIFT blog to respond to a letter put out by Sheldrake and to put out a call to people who might've attended TAM to get a copy of the document in question.

I see nothing inappropriate about it.

FWIW, I would class Sheldrake as an enemy of skepticism and a purveyor of pseudoscience. I think, given his track record, it's entirely appropriate to be suspicious of a letter he wrote attacking Randi's character and qualifications.

[Careyp74]

But he made no such claim, right?
Correct. Again, It was a misunderstanding of what you were saying.


I disagree. I think he was using the JREF SWIFT blog to respond to a letter put out by Sheldrake and to put out a call to people who might've attended TAM to get a copy of the document in question.


Ah, yes, he could have been doing that. Now, the question is, should that be the outlet of such queries? He also could have been a little more informative about the letter.


FWIW, I would class Sheldrake as an enemy of skepticism and a purveyor of pseudoscience. I think, given his track record, it's entirely appropriate to be suspicious of a letter he wrote attacking Randi's character and qualifications.
That is argumentum ad hominem. We have not been given sufficient proof of anything.

[Psi Baba]

The "scathing" criticism of Sheldrake's letter seemed to me directed at the parts of the letter that were simply an attack on Randi's character and qualifications. (It was a short entry--that part was one sentence.) The part about the quote was presented as a series of questions, because the writer did not have a copy of the document Sheldrake was talking about.

Was the document written by Randi? Did it really say that? If so, was it in the context that Sheldrake suggested?

These are my paraphrases, but the original was no more "scathing" than that wrt to this document.
Upon further review, you're right; it wasn't all that bad, but my problem with the article is that it put the cart before the horse and began to stir the **** before most people had the facts at hand. I still think Brandon should have put out a simple call for a copy of the paper prior to revealing why he needed it. Then the article could have had more confidence and a stronger position.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Correct. Again, It was a misunderstanding of what you were saying.
So you said. I still don't understand. How does your misunderstanding something I said lead you to saying, "Brandon is the one making claims as to who wrote what"? I'm sorry, but I don't follow this. You agree Brandon made no such claims, but you also said that he did.


That is argumentum ad hominem. We have not been given sufficient proof of anything.
You want sufficient proof that Sheldrake is an enemy of skepticism and a purveyor of pseudoscience? I can supply that.

As for the argumentum ad hominem charge: if you're saying my statement about Sheldrake is meant as an argument in support of. . .well anything, then I think you misunderstood me. I added those points on as a "For what it's worth" comment.

[JoeTheJuggler]

it wasn't all that bad, but my problem with the article is that it put the cart before the horse and began to stir the **** before most people had the facts at hand. I still think Brandon should have put out a simple call for a copy of the paper prior to revealing why he needed it. Then the article could have had more confidence and a stronger position.
Fair enough. I didn't think it was out of line myself, but that comes down to a judgment call, I guess.

[arthwollipot]

BTW, how does everyone feel about them getting rid of the comments portion of swift, and creating a section in the forum where threads would serve as the comments section? They could link the thread in the article, and that would lead to more members.As far as I am aware, that idea and others have been discussed but decided, for various reasons, against.

[Careyp74]

So you said. I still don't understand. How does your misunderstanding something I said lead you to saying, "Brandon is the one making claims as to who wrote what"? I'm sorry, but I don't follow this. You agree Brandon made no such claims, but you also said that he did.

Again, Yes. More specifically, I said Brandon made the claims, and THEN agreed with you that he didn't, and that I misunderstood what you were saying. Then you asked why I said it then, and I told you again I misunderstood what you were saying. Are you having fun with this?


You want sufficient proof that Sheldrake is an enemy of skepticism and a purveyor of pseudoscience? I can supply that.

No, I want proof that he doesn't have a valid point with the letter. Your Ad Hom doesn't supply that.


As for the argumentum ad hominem charge: if you're saying my statement about Sheldrake is meant as an argument in support of. . .well anything, then I think you misunderstood me. I added those points on as a "For what it's worth" comment.

Here is the whole comment.
"FWIW, I would class Sheldrake as an enemy of skepticism and a purveyor of pseudoscience. I think, given his track record, it's entirely appropriate to be suspicious of a letter he wrote attacking Randi's character and qualifications."

Again, that is Ad Hom. You can't tell me that you aren't saying to dismiss the letter as not having any validity, can you? Just because of his MO? Well, that IS Ad Hom, is it not?

[HypnoPsi]

From what I've heard (just here in this thread), it wasn't produced by JREF.

At any rate, I don't think Sheldrake's criticism is legit, even if you hold Randi responsible for the content of the document (since, apparently he was distributing it). It sounds like the meaning of the piece is that it's easy for any self-important yahoo to be cited as an expert by the popular news media.


The document might not have been penned by Randi himself but it certainly seems to have been produced as an official handout at one of the JREF TAM meetings as advice for skeptics.

Were the shoe on the other foot, I have no doubt that Sheldrake detractors would wish to hold him directly responsible for whatever official handouts are provided at any of his meetings and lectures.

The document should have been properly vetted and if Randi or the JREF wants to distance themselves from the advice given in the document (and explain how it got passed out as one of their official handouts at a TAM meeting) they should say so directly rather than try to wriggle out of it.

And the statement:

"Becoming an expert is a pretty simple procedure: tell people you’re an expert. After you do that, all you have to do is maintain appearances and not give them a reason to believe you’re not."

Is not merely some sarcastic commentry on the average expert that appears on our TV screens - it is clearly advice being given to members of the community on how to present themselves to the media.

Yes, the next sentence does read:

"I could be one of the leading experts on 19th century Bavarian Monkey Chess up until the moment I say something that totally contradicts what you know about this noble and lost game of strategy."

But the document immediately continues...

"The media wants to talk to an “authority”. Have a legitimate reason for being entitled to your opinion (besides the fact that you’re a clever person).

Talking heads are usually:
• Authors
• Professors
• Spokespersons for groups
• Survivors

As head of your local skeptic club you’re entitled to call yourself an authority. If your other two members agree to it, you can be the spokesperson too."

The suggestion that this is quote mining on the part of Sheldrake is absolutely astonishing.

The questionable statement(s) in the above document clearly was the advice given to attendees at the meeting on how to present themselves as an 'expert' or 'authority'.

The final statement in the above quote clearly defines who it is the author was/is addressing - "skeptics".

And many would agree that claiming yourself an 'authority' when you only have the support of two other people (as a spokesperson for their 'group' only) would be to make such claims of 'authority' falsely.

~
HypnoPsi

[rjh01]

I think we need to go back to basics. Please define authority, expert.

One of the most basic questions someone needs to ask when and interviewer confronted with someone who calls themselves an expert or an authority is what qualifications and experience do you have on the subject? Giving a false or misleading answer to that question would be fraud. Giving the answer like 'I am a member of a three person club set up last week' should end the interview then and there. If the question is not asked then it is the interviewer who has made a serious error.

No-one should be able to get away with the advice given in the handout. The fact that sometimes people do is a reflection on interviewers, not anyone else.

[HypnoPsi]

I think we need to go back to basics. Please define authority, expert.


Well checking either on one click Answers certainly doesn't include the definition of 'a skeptic with the support of a couple of friends'...

One of the most basic questions someone needs to ask when and interviewer confronted with someone who calls themselves an expert or an authority is what qualifications and experience do you have on the subject?


Personally, I find the whole idea of anyone actually saying "Hello, I'm an expert/authority on X..." to be rather amusing. :) It just doesn't normally happen.

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what advice the handout was really trying to give to attendees....

On the face of it, it seems to be that skeptics should do whatever they can to make sure they get the 'skeptical' opinion on the airwaves whenever anyone is on claiming anything unusual... even if that means declaring yourself some kind of expert or authority since you have a couple of friends in your skeptical club who declare you their spokesperson.

Basically, the whole thing just doesn't look good - or professional - at all.

If there is to be a debate on any subject then the only real advice to give the skeptic is that they should have actually read the subject/paper they are debating - and know plenty of the details.

Everything else, like people who maybe have a question or two or who are 'just skeptical' (or 'just believe') should be left for the phone-ins.


Giving a false or misleading answer to that question would be fraud.


I think most people would just say what their profession is and the average local radio station would be happy to have them on air to state their opinion. Really, there's nothing wrong with that.

Giving the answer like 'I am a member of a three person club set up last week' should end the interview then and there. If the question is not asked then it is the interviewer who has made a serious error.


Yes, and yes.

A set of skeptics does not an authority make - no matter how much the other two support the 'spokesperson'. They could all still be in high school for heaven's sake!


No-one should be able to get away with the advice given in the handout.


This is certainly true - as far as declaring yourself as some kind of expert or authority goes.

And the JREF and Randi's supporters shouldn't try to downplay the fact that the organisers of the meeting and the JREF have responsibility what what handouts are provided in their name - as seems to have been the case here.

If some similar type of handouts were given at an official Sheldrake event by the organisers on behalf of Sheldrakes organisation the skeptics of his work would be going absolutely nuts about the very idea that Sheldrake was trying to get amateurs to proclaim they are experts or authorities on such matters.


The fact that sometimes people do is a reflection on interviewers, not anyone else.


Well, if people can gate-crash the White House :), how hard can it really be to get on the radio with some host who's actively looking to have another voice on the air.

~
HypnoPsi

[JoeTheJuggler]

Again, Yes. More specifically, I said Brandon made the claims, and THEN agreed with you that he didn't, and that I misunderstood what you were saying.

I got it now. I thought you were offering the misunderstanding as the reason why you said Brandon made the claims.


Then you asked why I said it then, and I told you again I misunderstood what you were saying.
Yeah--that's the part I don't understand.
ETA: It sounds more like you misunderstood what Brandon said in the Swift article.


Here is the whole comment.
"FWIW, I would class Sheldrake as an enemy of skepticism and a purveyor of pseudoscience. I think, given his track record, it's entirely appropriate to be suspicious of a letter he wrote attacking Randi's character and qualifications."

Again, that is Ad Hom. You can't tell me that you aren't saying to dismiss the letter as not having any validity, can you? Just because of his MO? Well, that IS Ad Hom, is it not?
No. I wasn't offering my comment about Sheldrake's record as a reason to dismiss his letter. I clearly said it's a reason to be "suspicious of a letter he wrote attacking Randi's character and qualifications."

My point is that Sheldrake's lack of credibility means it's entirely reasonable not to give him the benefit of the doubt. Instead, suspicion of anything he writes is warranted.

The ad hominem fallacy is a form of irrelevant argumentation. Sheldrake's credibility is entirely relevant to an assessment of a letter he wrote.

Similarly, if Sylvia Browne says something that is largely an opinion, I do not assume it is valid either, based on her track record.

[Careyp74]

No. I wasn't offering my comment about Sheldrake's record as a reason to dismiss his letter. I clearly said it's a reason to be "suspicious of a letter he wrote attacking Randi's character and qualifications."

My point is that Sheldrake's lack of credibility means it's entirely reasonable not to give him the benefit of the doubt. Instead, suspicion of anything he writes is warranted.

The ad hominem fallacy is a form of irrelevant argumentation. Sheldrake's credibility is entirely relevant to an assessment of a letter he wrote.

Similarly, if Sylvia Browne says something that is largely an opinion, I do not assume it is valid either, based on her track record.

Was his letter opinion, or was there validity to it? I know what you are describing is necessary in order to keep ones sanity with all the stupid writings by such authors as Sheldrake and Browne, maybe I am a little touchy on this point because of those here doing it, being dismissive, just because it was Sheldrake. Specifically the claims of quote mining, which seem to be false. The quotes were totally in context.

I think there IS more to see here, if people used a little more critical thinking about it, and a little less herd mentality.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I know what you are describing is necessary in order to keep ones [sic] sanity with all the stupid writings by such authors as Sheldrake and Browne, maybe I am a little touchy on this point because of those here doing it, being dismissive, just because it was Sheldrake.

I don't think skeptical is the same thing as dismissive. I think if Brandon were being dismissive of Sheldrake's letter, he wouldn't have bothered writing the Swift blog entry.

Meanwhile. . . claims that Sheldrake has been unfairly treated by the science establishment are being discussed on this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=161054). Sheldrake is a fraud, and he doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt, IMO.