March 2004 Issue of SkepticReport is out [Archive]

Interesting Ian

1st March 2004, 10:35 AM

Pseudoscientists vs Paranormalists
By Marc Berard

. . . PEAR (Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research) researches the idea of humans telekinetically influencing machines. These experiments include random number generators, fountains, pendulums, robots, and other devices. Essentially the problems with one of these experiments can be found in all the others. Questionable events counted as ‘hits’, questionable analysis to calculate probability of such ‘hits’. Rather than fix them a new experiment is designed, a new device to use is found. They repeat the same problems but that is hidden by making it look like a totally new experiment.

OK Claus. What questionable events were counted as hits? What questionable analysis was there?? Please provide details.

Nyarlathotep

1st March 2004, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by Valmorian

What I want to know is, how long before Interesting Ian comes in here and proclaims it all "bollocks!"

Six minutes (from the time you made your post)

CFLarsen

1st March 2004, 10:45 AM

Ian, T'ai Chi,

Allow me to refer you to the page on SkepticReport where you can read about how to submit a paper:

"The Skeptic Report is not responsible for the content but serves only as an open forum."
Source (http://www.skepticreport.com/general/submit.htm)

Similarly, to the terms, of which two rules apply:

"You are solely responsible for the content of your material."
"You are the sole owner of your material. Skeptic Report publishes, but does not own."
Source (http://www.skepticreport.com/general/papersdisclaimer.htm)

I've explained it to you before, but you apparently did not understand it then.

If you want to ask a question about the contents of an article, you have to ask the author.

Do you understand it now?

Interesting Ian

1st March 2004, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Ian, T'ai Chi,

Allow me to refer you to the page on SkepticReport where you can read about how to submit a paper:

Similarly, to the terms, of which two rules apply:

I've explained it to you before, but you apparently did not understand it then.

If you want to ask a question about the contents of an article, you have to ask the author.

Do you understand it now?

Right, so you're saying you don't know . . hmmmm. Why am I not surprised.

CFLarsen

1st March 2004, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Right, so you're saying you don't know . . hmmmm. Why am I not surprised.

Simply incredible....he really doesn't understand.

Interesting Ian

1st March 2004, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Simply incredible....he really doesn't understand.

:rolleyes: What's the point of this "skeptic report" if anyone can just say what they like without having to substantiate what they say?? How do I know what they say is true? I might as well contribute to it and saying there is irrefutable proof for micro-psychokinesis, and yet not give any details!

If people can do this then the "skeptic report" is completely worthless.

Suezoled

1st March 2004, 11:06 AM

All we need now is Clancie and Cynical checking in....

CFLarsen

1st March 2004, 11:09 AM

Interesting Ian

1st March 2004, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

If you only want to complain, then I thank you - again - for your input.

Don't mention it. But since you're so pleased with me I'll make sure I keep up the good work and keep complaining where I see there to be a need.

Clancie

1st March 2004, 11:30 AM

Posted by Suezoled

All we need now is Clancie and Cynical checking in....
Don't you have any worthwhile comment about the point being raised, Suezoled? :rolleyes:
Posted by T'ai Chi

Regarding the part I highlighted in blue, what analyses specifically?

Can you point out which papers said analyses are in?
That is a very important point. It would not be acceptable for a believer to argue this way (make a statement about analyses supporting or refuting a particular point...yet provide no information, no footnote...no documentation...that any such analyses exist)
Posted by Interesting Ian

What's the point of this "skeptic report" if anyone can just say what they like without having to substantiate what they say?
I agree, Ian. It's wouldn't be acceptable methodology for a "believer" to argue that way and it shouldn't be considered acceptable methodology for a "skeptic" either. Its not okay to accept statements like this without the needed specifics just because one agrees with Marc's point.

CFLarsen

1st March 2004, 11:40 AM

Simply incredible....

Cleopatra

1st March 2004, 11:43 AM

What about trying to test the ideas that have been posted lately regarding discussions and ignore those that they will attempt to derail the thread? :) Claus will you moderate your thread? I offer my croc... I mean my services if you wish.

Suezoled

1st March 2004, 11:47 AM

Is Cynical gonna check in? I'm getting worried... here, let me fill in until the real thing gets back

Cynical mode: *ahem* Cantata it's a beautiful day out don't you have anything better to do than sit around pushing your report? Lol [insert rolleyes smiley here] /end Cynical mode

CFLarsen

1st March 2004, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
What about trying to test the ideas that have been posted lately regarding discussions and ignore those that they will attempt to derail the thread? :)

Well, technically, nobody has tried to derail the thread. There are, however, a few who seem unable to understand plain English.... Strange that it seems to be the very same who want to complain without ever doing anything themselves.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Claus will you moderate your thread?

Nope. At least, not yet.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I offer my croc... I mean my services if you wish.

Hmm....stop derailing this thread, please! :)

asthmatic camel

1st March 2004, 11:59 AM

Cleopatra

1st March 2004, 12:06 PM

Yeah Claus I guess you are right. Let's wait for Cynical to appear.

Toastrider

1st March 2004, 12:22 PM

Since Ian and others seem intent on suggesting 'there is no evidence', I will happily help them out. Let's do a remote viewing experiment.

My room has a desk. The desk has a computer on it (tower, flatscreen, keyboard, etc). Sitting on top of the tower is a paperback novel. If you can tell me the title and author, or find someone who can perceive it, I will email Mr. Randi and tell him we have a live one who might qualify for the million.

Admittedly, this requires you to trust in my integrity; I am, however, trusted with larger secrets, and I have no real axe to grind (unlike some of the posters here) with you.

If you require locational data (address/city/state/country), I will PM it to you.

Alternately, you could use telepathy to pick the book's name and author out of my head as well. Simply post on this thread, and I'll reply as to if you're correct or not.

--Toasty

jcon96

1st March 2004, 12:46 PM

My room has a desk. The desk has a computer on it (tower, flatscreen, keyboard, etc). Sitting on top of the tower is a paperback novel. If you can tell me the title and author, or find someone who can perceive it, I will email Mr. Randi and tell him we have a live one who might qualify for the million.

Skeptics and the WooWoos who love them by I. M. Weird?

sorry,could not resist....

!Xx+-Rational-+xX!

1st March 2004, 12:48 PM

!Xx+-Rational-xX!’s favorite non-!Xx+-Rational-+xX! quotes!

“Science tells us that death is the end” (Susan Blackmore)

“Open minds are empty minds.” (Dr. Lewis Wolpert)

“Paranormal abilites are impossible” (Pyrrho)

Clancie

1st March 2004, 12:54 PM

I'm going to add a few more criticisms/questions/comments about Marc's article "Pseudoscientists vs. Paranormalists" (and, btw, Toastrider, did you even read the article or the questions about it? Your comments make no sense in the context of this discussion):

It would have been appropriate to use the term "parapsychologist", or at least acknowledge its existence;

Marc asks, "After the news made by Schwartz's books on his study of mediums is he headed for the same fate? [i.e. failure and professional obscurity]

First...what "books" about his study of mediums? I thought there was only one book, "The Afterlife Experiments". What are the others?

Marc's comments seem all about the book (still). That research was completed in 1999. How can someone speculate that a man's career has reached a "dead end" if they don't have any idea what kind of research and results he's done for the past 5 years?

Marc, Did you actually contact Schwartz and see what he's been working on all this time? Isn't that the responsible approach?

If you didn't, it hardly seems fair to state, "It appears Dr. Schwartz has reached the dead end. ...Will he continue in this line only to find negative results, which would likely never see the light of day?

If the main question of this article is (I'm paraphrasing), "What's happening to Schwartz's (flawed) research and his (probably tanking) career?", maybe we'd all have a -better- idea of what the -real- answer might be if the author had at least found out what Schwartz had been doing for the past five years.

Interesting Ian

1st March 2004, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by Toastrider
Since Ian and others seem intent on suggesting 'there is no evidence', I will happily help them out. Let's do a remote viewing experiment.

My room has a desk. The desk has a computer on it (tower, flatscreen, keyboard, etc). Sitting on top of the tower is a paperback novel. If you can tell me the title and author, or find someone who can perceive it, I will email Mr. Randi and tell him we have a live one who might qualify for the million.

Admittedly, this requires you to trust in my integrity; I am, however, trusted with larger secrets, and I have no real axe to grind (unlike some of the posters here) with you.

If you require locational data (address/city/state/country), I will PM it to you.

Alternately, you could use telepathy to pick the book's name and author out of my head as well. Simply post on this thread, and I'll reply as to if you're correct or not.

--Toasty

Why do you think I claim I am able to do this? You see, this is the strawman that skeptics set up. They adopt this amazingly illogical position that if remote viewing, and other psi phenomena, can sometimes take place, then anyone should be able to do it whenever they like, and there is no limit to what one can achieve with such psi abilities!

Basically skeptics take the position that if anomalous mental abilities exist, they must be stupendous in their scope and power, or not exist at all!

It seems to me that most skeptics are not prepared to have a rational reasoned debate.

CFLarsen

1st March 2004, 01:06 PM

Clancie,

I'm not going to answer for Marc regarding possible errors in his article. He can do that himself. However, I will point to a crucial part of your criticism:

What has Schwartz been doing for the past 5 years?

T'ai Chi

1st March 2004, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Let me know what Marc said.

I'm confused here; you put the article on your page without asking that question?

Oh well, Mark hopefully will give us some examples.

T'ai Chi

1st March 2004, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by Toastrider
My room has a desk. The desk has a computer on it (tower, flatscreen, keyboard, etc). Sitting on top of the tower is a paperback novel. If you can tell me the title and author, or find someone who can perceive it, I will email Mr. Randi and tell him we have a live one who might qualify for the million.

What don't you understand about the need to test psi stuff scientifically in a lab?

CFLarsen

1st March 2004, 01:24 PM

T'ai Chi,

Did you read my post about the terms and how to submit a paper?

Nyarlathotep

1st March 2004, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

What don't you understand about the need to test psi stuff scientifically in a lab? [/B]

Of course the thing is many believers in "psi stuff" claim that is can't be tested scientifically in a lab. Though I will admit that I have never heard YOU make such an assertion.

Clancie

1st March 2004, 01:29 PM

As for Ron Strong's article, "A History of Spiritualist Fraud in the 19th and 20th Century", well, sorry to say, I'm not impressed by the research of this one either. Some quotes should make the problems rather obvious....
From "A History of Spiritualist Fraud in the 19th and 20th Century"..

...science has taught us much about the way the world works and such beliefs [speaking to the dead] have no basis in fact. Despite this, such beliefs persist, and there are many who would take advantage of people who cling to these ideas.
Later, his bias again is stated as fact...

This idea [spiritualism] has attracted many frauds from the Fox sisters of the 1840's to John Edward today."
No mention of SPR studies of mediums who were -not- found to be fraudulent (for example, Mrs. Piper, Mrs. Leonard, DD Home)....

In fact, despite the title of the article, there is nothing about mediums "of the twentieth century" from 1926 (when Houdini died) to the 1980's when the author talks of channeling.

With very little "evidence", the conclusion sums up unequivocally...

Spiritualists and their ilk prey on grief and use fraud to exploit bereaved people for money.

The likes of John Edward are despicable charlatans who the world would be better off without. Only by knowing their tactics can we hope to combat these frauds and combatting these frauds is one way to make the world a better place.

What -is- the premise of Skeptic Report, anyway? Is it basically just an Op/Ed concept?

Cleopatra

1st March 2004, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Can you be a Christian and a skeptic?
By Per Johan Råsmark

A History of Spiritualist Fraud in the 19th and 20th centuries
By Ron Strong

Enjoy! [/B]

I really enjoyed those two articles. I recognized Mark and Jeff as authors of the other articles but do we know those two authors from this forum, not that it matters but out of curiosity.

CFLarsen

1st March 2004, 01:32 PM

Clancie,

Would you say that Schwartz is unbiased, with regards to ADC?

Cleopatra

1st March 2004, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
As for Ron Strong's article, "A History of Spiritualist Fraud in the 19th and 20th Century", well, sorry to say, I'm not impressed by the research of this one either. Some quotes should make the problems rather obvious....

I wouldn't call it a research Clancie but an introduction to the History of the Spiritualist Frauds. As such is really good.

CFLarsen

1st March 2004, 01:34 PM

T'ai Chi

1st March 2004, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

:rolleyes: What's the point of this "skeptic report" if anyone can just say what they like without having to substantiate what they say?? How do I know what they say is true? I might as well contribute to it and saying there is irrefutable proof for micro-psychokinesis, and yet not give any details!

It is apparently enough to instill a seed of doubt and not substatitiate in certain cases.

For example, the same sort of thing occured when an article writer offered the critique of Radin using 65% confidence intervals (when in other places in the Conscious Universe Radin used 95% confidence intervals).
http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/radinbook.htm :

Radin uses 95%-confidence intervals on most of his graphs (and this is the standard practice), but for some reason he switches to 65%-confidence intervals in some graphs ......................., and furthermore it seems that he tries to make the results look more convincing by using 65% instead of 95%.

This is a good issue to raise, however probably not a great critique as it stands, as it just instilled doubt, but presumably didn't ask Radin why, do any follow-up, or provide sensible (or any in this case) reasons why someone might want to use smaller confidence intervals.

My question of 'did you ask Radin why he used 65% confidence intervals?' seemed sensible to me, but got rather beat down in the thread which I asked it in. If they did, then they could get some more interesting information, and in addition update the article.

That would be more useful, to me at least, than a statement of doubt.

Clancie

1st March 2004, 01:44 PM

Posted by Cleopatra

I wouldn't call it a research Clancie but an introduction to the History of the Spiritualist Frauds. As such is really good.
Well, I'm sorry, but I don't think either of these articles is very good at all (unless they're supposed to be Op/Ed type pieces, which wasn't what I thought SR was).

I'm sorry to be so critical, too, because I like Marc and I have a feeling that Ron Strong is also a poster here who is very likeable. But...I'm just going from the printed word so, even if this is the case, hopefully, they'll both take it in the spirit intended.

If Ron Strong was going to give a few examples of fraud...okay. (Although since he included JE both as a fraud--and not proven as a fraud, but "caught cheating"--he really should have elaborated on the details of the "cheating" incident. Otherwise, its just an unsupported allegation one could say about anyone).

But, if you're going to have such an ambitious title (the history of fraud in two centuries) then I think the author should deliver. I don't think it's acceptable to skip over the period from the 1920's to the 1980's. (I mean, yes, there were frauds during that period, too. Let's hear about them, if you're covering "the twentieth century"). And Colin Fry and his trumpet might have been a better example for the present than just saying "John Edward is a despicable fraud" without giving any examples of why.

An author should deliver on what is promised, imo. And I also find the blatant bias (which I quoted some of above) not very responsible...unless, as I say, this is all just Op/Ed material, and supposed to be taken as such by the reader.

CFLarsen

1st March 2004, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
My question of 'did you ask Radin why he used 65% confidence intervals?' seemed sensible to me, but got rather beat down in the thread which I asked it in. If they did, then they could get some more interesting information, and in addition update the article.

That would be more useful, to me at least, than a statement of doubt.

Then, pray tell, why didn't you simply ask the author?

T'ai Chi

1st March 2004, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

Of course the thing is many believers in "psi stuff" claim that is can't be tested scientifically in a lab.

If many believers say it can't be tested scientifically in a lab (evidence for that claim Nyarlathotep?), or can't, or might be, or if many skeptics say it can't, it can, it might be, I feel those opinions are irrelevant to actually scientifically testing it in a lab, which is what I'm interested in.

CFLarsen

1st March 2004, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, I'm sorry, but I don't think either of these articles is very good at all (unless they're supposed to be Op/Ed type pieces, which wasn't what I thought SR was).

I have several times invited you to write an article for SkepticReport. If you think you can do better, let's see it.

Originally posted by Clancie
If Ron Strong was going to give a few examples of fraud...okay. (Although since he included JE both as a fraud--and not proven as a fraud, but "caught cheating"--he really should have elaborated on the details of the "cheating" incident. Otherwise, its just an unsupported allegation one could say about anyone).

Whoa...wait a second. We know JE was caught cheating, OK? Yes, Tony the Cameraman. That's not fraud? Cheating is not fraud?

Originally posted by Clancie
But, if you're going to have such an ambitious title (the history of fraud in two centuries) then I think the author should deliver. I don't think it's acceptable to skip over the period from the 1920's to the 1980's. (I mean, yes, there were frauds during that period, too. Let's hear about them, if you're covering "the twentieth century"). And Colin Fry and his trumpet might have been a better example for the present than just saying "John Edward is a despicable fraud" without giving any examples of why.

Write something better yourself, then.

Originally posted by Clancie
An author should deliver on what is promised, imo. And I also find the blatant bias (which I quoted some of above) not very responsible...unless, as I say, this is all just Op/Ed material, and supposed to be taken as such by the reader.

"Blatant bias" is not necessarily a bad thing, Clancie. Schwartz has it in abundance...

Cleopatra

1st March 2004, 01:50 PM

Clancie

While your criticism is legitimate --meaning that every criticism is acceptable-- it's not proportionate of your expectations from the author that I hope that he identifies himself.

Do you claim that the frauds he chooses to decribe were not frauds? Do you think the opposite? Or you criticize him for not being so severe towards the frauds?

Nyarlathotep

1st March 2004, 01:56 PM

Ron Strong is me.

Cleo hit it right on the head, it is meant more of an introduction than anything.

As for Clancies criticisms, let me say two things.

1) Are there biases? Sure. I think anyone who writes anything of this nature is going to have biases one way or the other. Would you rather have the biases laid out on the table so they can be taken into account by the reader, or hidden away with the author pretending that they are not there? I don't know about you but I study history and I think it is a pain in the butt when I am reading something about historical events and the author does the latter.

2)As for points skipped. That's a valid criticism. Given the length of the article I skipped and glossed over a lot of things. I should have either concentrated on a more specific subject (i.e. the Fox Sisters) or written a whole book. Which I could probably do if Ihad the time and the energy, because the material is certainly there.

Clancie

1st March 2004, 01:56 PM

Posted by Cleopatra

Do you claim that the frauds he chooses to decribe were not frauds?
Did I say that? No. Please re-read my criticisms if you think I did.
Or you criticize him for not being so severe towards the frauds?
He should have explained why/how JE was "caught cheating" since it was a claim he made and the only one that might support the idea (which he stated repeatedly) that JE was a fraud. Yet he gave absolutely -no- details of the "cheating". None. I think that's irresponsible.

My second major area of criticism is the "disconnect" between what is promised by the title and what is actually delivered by the article. A gap of 60 years does -not- give the promised "history of spiritualist fraud in the twentieth century".

Basically, I think the author should have been more familiar with his subject--or chosen a less ambitious scope for the article.

Nyarlathotep

1st March 2004, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by Clancie

Did I say that? No. Please re-read my criticisms if you think I did.

He should have explained why/how JE was "caught cheating" since it was a claim he made and the only one that might support the idea (which he stated repeatedly) that JE was a fraud. Yet he gave absolutely -no- details of the "cheating". None. I think that's irresponsible.

Time out, I never calimed he was caught cheating. I said his methods are consistant with cold reading. In fact I even said that he has never been conclusively proven a fraud.

Marc

1st March 2004, 02:00 PM

Sorry, but it has been very busy for me lately, I will try to get to some questions.

Regarding the part I highlighted in blue, what analyses specifically?
Well one issue specifically is the use of meta-analysis. Keep in mind I was not writing an in-depth analysis of all of PEAR's work. I was simply using them as an example. There are other people here than can provide much better answers as to the issues of their research.

It would have been appropriate to use the term "parapsychologist", or at least acknowledge its existence;
Parapsychologist would be too limiting a term. There are pseudoscientists in many fields that have nothing to do with the paranormal. For example the argument could be made that Pons & Fleischmann are deserving of that label.

First...what "books" about his study of mediums? I thought there was only one book, "The Afterlife Experiments". What are the others?
His earlier book Living Energy Universe, which also covered some of his work with mediums.

How can someone speculate that a man's career has reached a "dead end" if they don't have any idea what kind of research and results he's done for the past 5 years?
As Claus stated, yes what has he done? I do not know of any other papers that have made any big news. It might be he has already 'faded to obscurity'. Contacting Schwartz would likely be rather futile. After my reviews of his books he is not likley to answer any of my questions. Then again I could be wrong.

The main point of the article was no on what Schwartz is doing. It is what those who practice bad science do to keep themselves in the limelight. "Publish or die" you know, and how they cannot rest on one trick like the paranormalist. Schwartz and PEAR were merely used as examples in this musing.

CFLarsen

1st March 2004, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Time out, I never calimed he was caught cheating. I said his methods are consistant with cold reading. In fact I even said that he has never been conclusively proven a fraud.

(cough)

Yes, and no.

"Edward has never been conclusively proven a fraud, although he has been caught cheating."

In my book, that's fraud. But hey, you're the author.... :)

Clancie

1st March 2004, 02:02 PM

Posted by Nyarlathotep

Time out, I never claimed he was caught cheating. I said his methods are consistant with cold reading. In fact I even said that he has never been conclusively proven a fraud.
Well, I was thinking of this sentence, "Edward has never been conclusively proven a fraud, although he has been caught cheating."

CFLarsen

1st March 2004, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by Marc
Well one issue specifically is the use of meta-analysis. Keep in mind I was not writing an in-depth analysis of all of PEAR's work. I was simply using them as an example. There are other people here than can provide much better answers as to the issues of their research.

Incidentally, PEAR will be the issue of the top story in the April issue... ;)

TLN

1st March 2004, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, I was thinking of this sentence, "Edward has never been conclusively proven a fraud, although he has been caught cheating."

And? You've never heard of Edward cheating from examples posted on this board? No one's ever show you an example of this?

Clancie

1st March 2004, 02:10 PM

TLN,

What is it exactly that you didn't understand about these sentences I posted?

He should have explained why/how JE was "caught cheating" since it was a claim he made and the only one that might support the idea (which he stated repeatedly) that JE was a fraud. Yet he gave absolutely -no- details of the "cheating". None. I think that's irresponsible.

Nyarlathotep

1st March 2004, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by Clancie

Well, I was thinking of this sentence, "Edward has never been conclusively proven a fraud, although he has been caught cheating."

Okay, I'll admit that one slipped past me. I originally was going to mention the whole "Dateline" episode, but due to the murkiness of the issue I cut out all references to it......or so I thought. That part of that sentence slipped by me.

TLN

1st March 2004, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
What is it exactly that you didn't understand about these sentences I posted?

Oh, I understand it perfectly. You're nit-picking the presentation and completely ignoring the fact the Edward has indeed been caught cheating before. Should the example have been place in the article? Probably. But the more important point is, Edward has been caught cheating.

Hasn't he?

T'ai Chi

1st March 2004, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Then, pray tell, why didn't you simply ask the author?

Huh? Why didn't the author and/or you ask the original author? Afterall, you're the one who ok'd the article to be on the webpage, and the author is the one who wrote the criticism in the first place.

I'm not going to do your work for you.

T'ai Chi

1st March 2004, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

If you think you can do better, let's see it.
Write something better yourself, then.

Where did she claim she could do better?

Moreover and most importantly, if she critiques something on your site, how is it anything but a non-sequitor on your part to then respond to her to write something better?

Clancie

1st March 2004, 02:20 PM

Okay, Nyarlathotep, your replys have all been so gracious and I've made my points so....what more can I say? :confused:

I -was- glad to see that you included the part about Margaret Fox recanting. Not that her earlier confession couldn't have been true anyway, but those kind of things just add to (imo, if not yours) the general murkiness and uncertainty of the history surrounding -all- spiritualism.

Nyarlathotep

1st March 2004, 02:21 PM

By the way. I don't know where Claus got the picture of that jolly looking fat man to put next to my name. I actully look EXACTLY like my avatar.

Really....

And I eat puppies.

T'ai Chi

1st March 2004, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by Marc

There are other people here than can provide much better answers as to the issues of their research.

I see...

CFLarsen

1st March 2004, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Huh? Why didn't the author and/or you ask the original author?

OK, you obviously didn't see it. Let me repost it, yet again, in the hope that you understand it this time:

Allow me to refer you to the page on SkepticReport where you can read about how to submit a paper:

"The Skeptic Report is not responsible for the content but serves only as an open forum."
Source (http://www.skepticreport.com/general/submit.htm)

Similarly, to the terms, of which two rules apply:

"You are solely responsible for the content of your material."
"You are the sole owner of your material. Skeptic Report publishes, but does not own."
Source (http://www.skepticreport.com/general/papersdisclaimer.htm)

I've explained it to you before, but you apparently did not understand it then.

If you want to ask a question about the contents of an article, you have to ask the author.

T'ai Chi, do you understand it now?

T'ai Chi

1st March 2004, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Incidentally, PEAR will be the issue of the top story in the April issue... ;)

Great!

Make sure that if you critique the statistics to be sure to be very specific (instead of saying 'crap smear' or 'flawed analysis', or 'noise', for example).

Nyarlathotep

1st March 2004, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
Okay, Nyarlathotep, your replys have all been so gracious and I've made my points so....what more can I say? :confused:

I -was- glad to see that you included the part about Margaret Fox recanting. Not that her earlier confession couldn't have been true anyway, but those kind of things just add to (imo, if not yours) the general murkiness and uncertainty of the history surrounding -all- spiritualism.

I'm not gracious, I eat puppies, remember.

Actually my recent lack of graciousness towards certain people (i.e. Ian) was an abberation. I'll just say that there were certain factors at work that made me not myself. Usually I try to be nice, even to people I in no way agree with.

CFLarsen

1st March 2004, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Make sure that if you critique the statistics to be sure to be very specific (instead of saying 'crap smear' or 'flawed analysis', or 'noise', for example).

I didn't write the article.

You just wait.

RichardR

1st March 2004, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Don't mention it. But since you're so pleased with me I'll make sure I keep up the good work and keep complaining where I see there to be a need. Ian, you kill me. Thanks for the best laugh I've had all day. :)

Jeff Corey

1st March 2004, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
By the way. I don't know where Claus got the picture of that jolly looking fat man to put next to my name. I actully look EXACTLY like my avatar.
Really....
And I eat puppies.
Yeah, me too, I had one for lunch, but I objected to the fact that no Wu Wus objected to my article. And I object to the obviously false picture Claus put next to it. Where is the real picture of me channelling Eric Anklebitersen?

Marc

1st March 2004, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

I see... [/B]

Yes, I bet you see what you want to see, and conclude what you want regardless of what I say. Now I could do a lot of research and try to provide all the information you want.. my question is would it be worth my time. Sure it would make the article better, but debunking Schwartz and PEAR were not the point of it. Also from some of the threads I've seen on here I wonder if providing the information would be just an act in futility, as you and Ian would likely continually find something with which to claim fault with the article. I do wish to make corrections for legitimate criticism. I'm just on the fence on if addressing your questions will be all that fruitful.

Suezoled

1st March 2004, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by Clancie

Don't you have any worthwhile comment about the point being raised, Suezoled? :rolleyes:

(snipped).

Ouch. The gentle good natured Clancie smacking me out.

Clancie dear, it's not a monthly Skeptic Report without you coming in with questions. And mentioning John Edward. It's just not an issue without your prescence (and mention of John Edward). You are the butter on the grilled cheese sandwich, Clancie, you and Ian and Cynical.

Toastrider

1st March 2004, 07:18 PM

Alright, let me address the complaints made to my gauntlet.

Ian, I'm shocked. I admit, I probably shouldn't have tossed my challenge at you, but don't you know anyone who could do it? Seriously. All you have to do is get THEM to find out what book is sitting on my tower. It's still there, incidentially, face up. The author and title are in big letters in a non-bizarre font, as well.

Let me know if you need any other data for your viewer.

Tai Chi: You're kidding, right? Just... go have a soda or something, and let me play for a bit.

--Toasty

T'ai Chi

1st March 2004, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Allow me to refer you to the page on SkepticReport where you can read about how to submit a paper:

Huh? What does me submitting a paper have to do with me critiquing papers that were already submitted and put up on a webpage? Perhaps you could clarify for me.

If you want to ask a question about the contents of an article, you have to ask the author.

I posted it to a thread about Skeptic report. The author can respond if he/she wants, as can other people who are interested in the article.

T'ai Chi

1st March 2004, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I didn't write the article.

You just wait.

Well duh, since it won't be put on the page until the end of March or the beginning of April I'll have to. :)

T'ai Chi

1st March 2004, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by Toastrider

Tai Chi: You're kidding, right? Just... go have a soda or something, and let me play for a bit.

--Toasty

Kidding about what?

T'ai Chi

1st March 2004, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by Marc

Yes, I bet you see what you want to see, and conclude what you want regardless of what I say. Now I could do a lot of research and try to provide all the information you want.. my question is would it be worth my time. Sure it would make the article better, but debunking Schwartz and PEAR were not the point of it. Also from some of the threads I've seen on here I wonder if providing the information would be just an act in futility, as you and Ian would likely continually find something with which to claim fault with the article. I do wish to make corrections for legitimate criticism. I'm just on the fence on if addressing your questions will be all that fruitful.

I see....

;)

Well I was just asking for specific and examples of "questionable analysis to calculate probability of such ‘hits’." that you claimed exist, and where I could find them.

From what I've read, the actual statistical analyses seem fairly sound. There may be faults elsewhere though like in the designs, etc.

CFLarsen

1st March 2004, 10:50 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Huh? What does me submitting a paper have to do with me critiquing papers that were already submitted and put up on a webpage? Perhaps you could clarify for me.

(groan)

Yes, T'ai Chi. I will gladly clarify for you. I did not mean "you" as in "you, T'ai Chi", but "you" as in "you, people generally". I am sorry if the English vocabulary uses the same kind of "you".

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I posted it to a thread about Skeptic report. The author can respond if he/she wants, as can other people who are interested in the article.

I see.... The problem is, that the authors are far from always from JREF. E.g., when you complained about Scott Teresi's article not being "current", Scott was not a member here. Yet, you fully expected him to - somehow - discover that you posted this complaint here, despite the fact that you had ample opportunity to contact the author himself directly. All it would take was a click with the mouse. But no. And then, you even repeat this technique with the next issue of SR.

Again, you complain about the contents of an article. Again, I explain to you - without using too many 3-syllable words - that questions about the contents of an article must be directed at the author. Again, you refuse this, only to repeat your complaints.

Marc is right: You are not at all interested in the answers to the questions you ask. Now, I don't think for a moment, that either you, Clancie or Ian are particularly obtuse or unintelligent. I really think you all understand what is explained to you. You just ignore it, for the chance to make cheap shots at skeptics, no matter how ridiculous or unfounded the shots are. You merely want to ask questions, only to somehow sow doubt about skeptics. If you can't make any progress regarding the evidence, hey, why not simply claim that their articles are "worthless"? But when challenged to do better yourselves, you immediately back down, barking like little dogs, to shift focus from the fact that all you can do - is bark.

All of you three have more than enough knowledge about paranormal subjects to enable you to write your own articles. Yet, you prefer to yap at the works of others. That's what I don't understand. I understand perfectly your frustration, but given just how deep your beliefs are in paranormal phenomena, I don't understand why you repeatedly refuse to put those beliefs in words and argue why you have them, in a more comprehensive form.

What is holding you back? You sure can't feel the need not to put those beliefs in words, because all three of you write quite a lot here - Clancie even on several other boards. So, why not write those articles, where you argue your own case - instead of nipping at others'?

deBergerac

1st March 2004, 10:57 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra

I really enjoyed those two articles. I recognized Mark and Jeff as authors of the other articles but do we know those two authors from this forum, not that it matters but out of curiosity.

Cleopatra, I am one of the two and I am not Ron and if you had bothered to show up in Vegas you would not only know me from the Forum. :)

I also want to add that in the article I am completely biased in my opinions about what I think. :)

deBergerac

1st March 2004, 11:10 PM

Cleopatra:
Where are my manners, I forgot to say that I am pleased that you liked my small essay.
/deBergerac

T'ai Chi

2nd March 2004, 12:00 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I am sorry if the English vocabulary uses the same kind of "you".

Oh come on, your English is very good, you know better. :)

I see.... The problem is, that the authors are far from always from JREF.

All authors whose articles I mentioned happen to be JREF bulletin board members.

E.g., when you complained about Scott Teresi's article not being "current", Scott was not a member here.

Wrong, steresi, join date 12-31-2003.

I posted my comments ("complained") on 2/1/04.
http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&action=showpost&postid=1870298150#1870298150

And then, you even repeat this technique with the next issue of SR.

You mean the technique of being skeptical? The first writer left out a lot of 'current' work, especially that by non-CSICOP people. The second author mentioned flawed analytical techniques that supposedly exist yet when asked so far doesn't actually present any.

I'm really surprised you call this "complain"ing Claus, really.

You merely want to ask questions, only to somehow sow doubt about skeptics.

You should really apply for the challenge with your psychic powers.

, why not simply claim that their articles are "worthless"? But when challenged to do better yourselves, you immediately back down, barking like little dogs, to shift focus from the fact that all you can do - is bark.

Nice non sequitor.

Being critical of an already written article and being able to write an article have nothing to do with each other.

Something which you should understand very well, given that you are critical of several scientists' works but, as far as I know, have yet to do any scientific research yourself.

Yet, you prefer to yap at the works of others. That's what I don't understand.

Next time I'll take all of it on faith. :rolleyes:

.. words, because all three of you write quite a lot here - Clancie even on several other boards. So, why not write those articles, where you argue your own case - instead of nipping at others'?

Oh good, you mentioned her again. Your N(CFLarsen, Clancie) count is ever increasing...

BTW Claus, you write much more than me here. Again, compare post counts.

CFLarsen

2nd March 2004, 12:05 AM

Cleopatra,

You have to forgive deBergerac - he is a Swede. Ergo, he is by definition drunk, rude and still thinks Hepstars is the greatest band ever..... ;)

CFLarsen

2nd March 2004, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Oh come on, your English is very good, you know better. :)

I didn't say that my English was bad, I pointed how "you" is used in English. You don't need to pin everything on me, you know...

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
All authors whose articles I mentioned happen to be JREF bulletin board members.

But you expect them to read your posts?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Wrong, steresi, join date 12-31-2003.

I stand corrected.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I'm really surprised you call this "complain"ing Claus, really.

Yes, it is complaining. Because you never seem to want to do anything with the answers you get. You want to nitpick at the works of others, but you never want to do anything yourself.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Being critical of an already written article and being able to write an article have nothing to do with each other.

But you are in a pretty good position to set things straight, aren't you? Yet, you refuse... You don't even want to email the authors with your complaints. Why not?? It's ridiculous to expect them to read your posts.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
BTW Claus, you write much more than me here. Again, compare post counts.

Oh, I probably do. But I also write articles. I also investigate claims. I am also a board member of New York Area Skeptics. I am also a member of Skeptica, the Danish network of skeptics.

I do things, T'ai Chi. You just complain.

T'ai Chi

2nd March 2004, 12:44 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Oh, I probably do. But I also write articles. I also investigate claims. I am also a board member of New York Area Skeptics. I am also a member of Skeptica, the Danish network of skeptics.

I do things, T'ai Chi. You just complain.

I investigate claims too. In fact, the last one I attempted to investigate was the claim of questionable analyses and the specifics about them. Before that, I investigated the claim that Clancie is supposedly obsessive.

I'm sorry that you seem to believe looking for evidence is complaining.

In short, I "do things" too.

I guess we'll just agree to disagree here. :)

CFLarsen

2nd March 2004, 12:58 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I investigate claims too. In fact, the last one I attempted to investigate was the claim of questionable analyses and the specifics about them.

Emphasis on "attempted", yes.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Before that, I investigated the claim that Clancie is supposedly obsessive.

And your investigation was based on faulty methods, yes.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I'm sorry that you seem to believe looking for evidence is complaining.

You consider looking for evidence that Clancie is obsessive an investigation of a paranormal claim? You seem more focused on people here. You want to get "even". You don't take the answers you get and do anything with them. You merely move on to something new.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I guess we'll just agree to disagree here. :)

Guess we do. Guess I won't see an article from your hand anytime soon. Or ever.

Cleopatra

2nd March 2004, 03:34 AM

Congratulations Nyarlathotep and deBergerac. :)

Today I read the rest of the March's issue. The topics are very interesting and they encourage you for a further exploration on the issues.

Clancie, to return to our discussion I think that Nyarlathotep's article was introductory on the subject and you cannot expect from an introductory article to provide you with analytical evidence.

It's like composing an introductory article on the question of death penalty in which the author mentions a series of famous cases and you require from him to present you analytically the evidence that was presented in court during the listed trials in order that you form an opinion.

We expect from articles like that to provide us with a series of cases or examples that are related to the topic in a chronological order. Maybe you find his article weak to this point but you cannot suggest that it is weak because it doesn't provide evidence as to why JE is a fraud.

I believe that the purpose of the article that is to put today's fraud in the historical context and show that today's mediums follow the long tradition of known frauds is accomplished and certainly it made me want to learn and explore more.

Marc

2nd March 2004, 04:29 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I investigate claims too. In fact, the last one I attempted to investigate was the claim of questionable analyses and the specifics about them.

and it appears that some of that evidence has been presented to you before (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33310). Or a quick look at other discussions finds this article (http://www.btinternet.com/~neuronaut/webtwo_features_psi_two.htm) or this article (http://www.tricksterbook.com/ArticlesOnline/PEARCritique.htm)

Congradulations, your investigation has been fruitful as some of the information has now been presented to you. (as if it would change your complaints)

Interesting Ian

2nd March 2004, 04:48 AM

Originally posted by Toastrider
Alright, let me address the complaints made to my gauntlet.

Ian, I'm shocked. I admit, I probably shouldn't have tossed my challenge at you, but don't you know anyone who could do it? Seriously. All you have to do is get THEM to find out what book is sitting on my tower. It's still there, incidentially, face up. The author and title are in big letters in a non-bizarre font, as well.

Let me know if you need any other data for your viewer.

--Toasty

Toasty, I have no idea what you are talking about. Why do you imagine anyone can remote view your book? When have I claimed that I can do this, or indeed that anyone can do this? In fact who on this forum has claimed that anyone can do this?

2nd March 2004, 05:24 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

.

I'm not going to do your work for you.

Irony meter broken.

CFLarsen

2nd March 2004, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I believe that the purpose of the article that is to put today's fraud in the historical context and show that today's mediums follow the long tradition of known frauds is accomplished and certainly it made me want to learn and explore more.

Yeps. We are often very quick to forget our history, and if you want a quick primer, Ron Strong's article is a very good place to start - or simply recap what happened.

We also often forget that the world of supernatural is littered with frauds. Ergo, also victims. I fail to see why this should be criticized, especially by someone who is not exactly warm to people like Sylvia Browne.

Originally posted by Marc
and it appears that some of that evidence has been presented to you before (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33310).

That's precisely my point: T'ai Chi does not want answers. He wants to complain.

Clancie

2nd March 2004, 11:25 AM

Posted by T'ai Chi

Huh? What does me submitting a paper have to do with me critiquing papers that were already submitted and put up on a webpage? Perhaps you could clarify for me.
Hi T'ai Chi,

I know what could have avoided this mistake that you and I both made. Claus could make it all clear with just a few words on his masthead....something like this...

"This is a Skeptic Report! Keep your criticism and questions to yourself!"

:p

CFLarsen

2nd March 2004, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
Hi T'ai Chi,

I know what could have avoided this mistake that you and I both made. Claus could make it all clear with just a few words on his masthead....something like this...

"This is a Skeptic Report! Keep your criticism and questions to yourself!"

:p

Quite contrary: I have invited both you, Ian and T'ai Chi many times to present your criticism and questions and have them published in SkepticReport.

You have refused. Instead, you choose to invent a fabrication - let's be polite and call it that - that I seek to suppress criticism and questions.

Go on repeating this, until you believe it yourself, Clancie. The evidence proves you wrong.

But, what the hell do you care about evidence?

T'ai Chi

2nd March 2004, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

And your investigation was based on faulty methods, yes.

I wanted descriptive statistics in the form of counts. I counted. I wasn't aware counting was a faulty method.

You seem more focused on people here. You want to get "even". You don't take the answers you get and do anything with them. You merely move on to something new.

I'm sorry you believe that.

Guess I won't see an article from your hand anytime soon. Or ever.

Yet another non sequitor.

T'ai Chi

2nd March 2004, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by Marc

Congradulations, your investigation has been fruitful as some of the information has now been presented to you. (as if it would change your complaints)

Thanks Marc. That last link was the type of statistical arguments I was looking for.

T'ai Chi

2nd March 2004, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Quite contrary: I have invited both you, Ian and T'ai Chi many times to present your criticism and questions and have them published in SkepticReport.

Non sequitor.

A person can critique a writeup from a webpage. Why do you believe that means they have to write one and get it put up on the same webpage?

CFLarsen

2nd March 2004, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
A person can critique a writeup from a webpage. Why do you believe that means they have to write one and get it put up on the same webpage?

If you feel entitled - and educated enough - to criticize articles on SR, then it follows that you should be able to write articles that address the points you make here.

Or perhaps you are saying, that you want to criticize the articles, but are not able to back it up with an article?

Gee...I never would have guessed you would back down from actual work, T'ai Chi....

Thanz

2nd March 2004, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Quite contrary: I have invited both you, Ian and T'ai Chi many times to present your criticism and questions and have them published in SkepticReport.

You have refused. Instead, you choose to invent a fabrication - let's be polite and call it that - that I seek to suppress criticism and questions.

Go on repeating this, until you believe it yourself, Clancie. The evidence proves you wrong.

But, what the hell do you care about evidence?
I am quoting this so that Clancie can read it even if she has Claus on ignore. I assume that if Clancie wants to write an alternate history of mediumship to complement the article that you would publish it?

I'd also like to point out to you, Claus, that you do bear some responsibility for what gets published in Skeptic Report. If people have questions about why you post X and not Y, I think that those are legimate questions for you. I agree, however, that if people want specific clarification of specific points raised in articles they should contact the authors. You have a greater repsonsibility than Randi, for example, as you alone decide whether an article gets printed or not. Randi has nothing to do with what I post.

In terms of the issues in this thread, Clancie has raised some questions, and I think that they have been dealt with by the authors as have T'ai Chi's. I don't really see any suppression of ideas going on by you saying refer to the authors.

I do think, however, that you have some responsibility to answer questions relating to the content of your site. I agree that it doesn't extend to "what did the author mean by X", but you can't just wash your hands of it completely.

Just my 2 cents.

Clancie

2nd March 2004, 12:26 PM

Posted by T'ai Chi

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by CFLarsen

Quite contrary: I have invited both you, Ian and T'ai Chi many times to present your criticism and questions and have them published in SkepticReport.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non sequitor.

A person can critique a writeup from a webpage. Why do you believe that means they have to write one and get it put up on the same webpage?
Yes, and why is the only way to express comments, by writing one's own article? (Not that I'm ruling out writing one, btw. But, yes, it is a non sequitor in this context).

I've always wondered why SR doesn't have a "Letters to the Editor" section. Since I imagine more people read it than will read this thread -about- it, it would be nice if the authors had the opportunity to respond to a question or two more "publicly", in a "Letters" section.

Additionally, there might be interesting -supplemental- information shared there as well (maybe, for example, GS could fill us in on the "lost years"....)

Its not enough to provide an email address for the webmaster. An actual "Letters" section is the way to encourage people to respond to what they've read (and not all constructive responses actually would -warrant- articles of their own, anyway).

btw, I actually -do- appreciate the time and effort that the writers (including Claus) volunteer to research and inform people about these topics. But, that said, once an article is published and "out there", it needs to be analyzed and evaluated--even argued over--just like any other piece of writing would be. An attitude like (paraphrasing), "Don't criticize other people's work. If you know so much, write something of your own!" is neither intellectually productive...nor very skeptical.

CFLarsen

2nd March 2004, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by Thanz
I am quoting this so that Clancie can read it even if she has Claus on ignore. I assume that if Clancie wants to write an alternate history of mediumship to complement the article that you would publish it?

I'd also like to point out to you, Claus, that you do bear some responsibility for what gets published in Skeptic Report. If people have questions about why you post X and not Y, I think that those are legimate questions for you. I agree, however, that if people want specific clarification of specific points raised in articles they should contact the authors. You have a greater repsonsibility than Randi, for example, as you alone decide whether an article gets printed or not. Randi has nothing to do with what I post.

In terms of the issues in this thread, Clancie has raised some questions, and I think that they have been dealt with by the authors as have T'ai Chi's. I don't really see any suppression of ideas going on by you saying refer to the authors.

I do think, however, that you have some responsibility to answer questions relating to the content of your site. I agree that it doesn't extend to "what did the author mean by X", but you can't just wash your hands of it completely.

Just my 2 cents.

I extend my invitation to you, then: Write an article about how I have a greater responsibility than Randi.

Originally posted by Clancie
Yes, and why is the only way to express comments, by writing one's own article? (Not that I'm ruling out writing one, btw. But, yes, it is a non sequitor in this context).

Oh, you have changed your mind about writing for SR? I am most delighted!

Originally posted by Clancie
I've always wondered why SR doesn't have a "Letters to the Editor" section. Since I imagine more people read it than will read this thread -about- it, it would be nice if the authors had the opportunity to respond to a question or two more "publicly", in a "Letters" section.

Which is exactly why the authors provide their email addresses, Clancie.

Originally posted by Clancie
Additionally, there might be interesting -supplemental- information shared there as well (maybe, for example, GS could fill us in on the "lost years"....)

Yes, he should. Thanks for acknowledging, btw, that you have no idea what he's been up to for the past 4-5 years either. I wonder why you make a point of criticizing others for not knowing either...

Originally posted by Clancie
Its not enough to provide an email address for the webmaster. An actual "Letters" section is the way to encourage people to respond to what they've read (and not all constructive responses actually would -warrant- articles of their own, anyway).

Yes, it is, Clancie. Email is by far the "killer app" of the Internet: It enables us to get in touch with those we only could dream of reaching before. I can contact Schwartz, Shermer, Randi, or whoever puts their email addresses out there. And you, T'ai Chi and Ian - to name a few - can do it, too. The difference is that you don't.

Originally posted by Clancie
btw, I actually -do- appreciate the time and effort that the writers (including Claus) volunteer to research and inform people about these topics. But, that said, once its "out there" I still think it should be analyzed and evaluated--even argued over--just like any other piece of writing. An attitude like (paraphrasing), "Don't criticize other's work. If you know so much, do your own!" is neither intellectually productive...nor skeptical.

You are most welcome to write your thoughts on this, and have it published on SR.

Oh, and...if you are going to respond to my posts, just do so. Drop the pretense of having me on ignore, Clancie. It's really, really stupid....

Thanz

2nd March 2004, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I extend my invitation to you, then: Write an article about how I have a greater responsibility than Randi.
To be honest, I don't think that it is something that is really worthy of an article. I will, however, try to flesh out my argument here.

As I understand it, the procedure for publishing something in Skeptic Report is to submit a proposal to you, and then you decide whether or not you want the article. There may be some dialogue between you and the author to refine a proposal as well.

Once the proposal has been approved, the author writes the article and then you decide whether to publish it or not. I don't know if you do any editing or refing after the article has been written in consultation with the author. In any event, you then publish the article in a sort of online magazine format.

Contrast this with the JREF board. Anyone can, upon provision of certain information, join the Board and can thereafter post whatever they want within some fairly relaxed rules. There is no prior approval of any posts on the board, in terms of topics or any sort of content. It is a very hands off process.

My point is simply that as you have greater control over what appears or doesn't appear in your online magazine, you therefore have a greater responsibility for that content than Randi does for these message board posts. So if someone asks you why you posted a certain article, or what ever, I see those as legitimate questions.

CFLarsen

2nd March 2004, 01:03 PM

Originally posted by Thanz
To be honest, I don't think that it is something that is really worthy of an article. I will, however, try to flesh out my argument here.

Why not? I am the editor, remember? Why not get it out to the very same people who reads SR, instead of keeping it here?

Originally posted by Thanz
As I understand it, the procedure for publishing something in Skeptic Report is to submit a proposal to you, and then you decide whether or not you want the article. There may be some dialogue between you and the author to refine a proposal as well.

Once the proposal has been approved, the author writes the article and then you decide whether to publish it or not. I don't know if you do any editing or refing after the article has been written in consultation with the author. In any event, you then publish the article in a sort of online magazine format.

Contrast this with the JREF board. Anyone can, upon provision of certain information, join the Board and can thereafter post whatever they want within some fairly relaxed rules. There is no prior approval of any posts on the board, in terms of topics or any sort of content. It is a very hands off process.

My point is simply that as you have greater control over what appears or doesn't appear in your online magazine, you therefore have a greater responsibility for that content than Randi does for these message board posts. So if someone asks you why you posted a certain article, or what ever, I see those as legitimate questions.

Many words, yet no article.

If you see those as legitimate questions, and those questions pertain to SkepticReport, then I cannot see why you refuse to write an article about it.

But you do. Just as Clancie does. Just as Ian does. Just as neofight does. Just as T'ai Chi does. Just as Steve Grenard does. You know what? I have a hard time finding believers who will write for SkepticReport.

Humans are supposed to be pattern-seeking animals. Guess what I just spotted?

Thanz

2nd March 2004, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Why not? I am the editor, remember? Why not get it out to the very same people who reads SR, instead of keeping it here?

Many words, yet no article.

If you see those as legitimate questions, and those questions pertain to SkepticReport, then I cannot see why you refuse to write an article about it.
Simply put, the only issue I am commenting on here is what I see as your responsibity in answering questions that come out of the articles in your magazine. I think that you have a responsibility to answer questions relating to editorial decisions that you make. I do not think that you have a responsibility to elaborate on or explain the viewpoints expressed in the articles - I agree that those questions should be put to the authors of the articles.

Do you disagree with this position? It is really more pertaining to the issues in this thread rather than Skeptic Report as a whole. I don't see how this would really make for interesting reading for Skeptic Report.

But you do. Just as Clancie does. Just as Ian does. Just as neofight does. Just as T'ai Chi does. Just as Steve Grenard does. You know what? I have a hard time finding believers who will write for SkepticReport.
Mr. Larsen, I know that we clash frequently here, but I am not what you would term a "believer" (except in God). I do not think that JE is talking to the dead. I do not think that we can predict anything about our lives by looking at the stars, tarot cards, or crystal balls. I don't think that homeopathy works. I think that we would agree more than disagree on these substantive points. So, I know that you don't like me, but don't just lump me in as a "believer", as I simply am not.

T'ai Chi

2nd March 2004, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

If you feel entitled - and educated enough - to criticize articles on SR, then it follows that you should be able to write articles that address the points you make here.

Utter non sequitor.

It might follow that I know stuff about the topics the articles pertain to, but nothing about writing anything follows.

T'ai Chi

2nd March 2004, 01:34 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I can contact Schwartz, Shermer, Randi, or whoever puts their email addresses out there. And you, T'ai Chi and Ian - to name a few - can do it, too. The difference is that you don't.

Um, how exactly would you know if we do or do not contact Shermer, Randi, or anyone else for that matter?

What a joke.

T'ai Chi

2nd March 2004, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

If you see those as legitimate questions, and those questions pertain to SkepticReport, then I cannot see why you refuse to write an article about it.

Non sequitor.

You know what? I have a hard time finding believers who will write for SkepticReport.

I'd say you found quite a few.

CFLarsen

2nd March 2004, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by Thanz
Simply put, the only issue I am commenting on here is what I see as your responsibity in answering questions that come out of the articles in your magazine. I think that you have a responsibility to answer questions relating to editorial decisions that you make. I do not think that you have a responsibility to elaborate on or explain the viewpoints expressed in the articles - I agree that those questions should be put to the authors of the articles.

Do you disagree with this position? It is really more pertaining to the issues in this thread rather than Skeptic Report as a whole. I don't see how this would really make for interesting reading for Skeptic Report.

But I do. And I'm the goddamn friggin' editor, right? Write that article, instead of wasting your efforts here.

Originally posted by Thanz
Mr. Larsen, I know that we clash frequently here, but I am not what you would term a "believer" (except in God). I do not think that JE is talking to the dead. I do not think that we can predict anything about our lives by looking at the stars, tarot cards, or crystal balls. I don't think that homeopathy works. I think that we would agree more than disagree on these substantive points. So, I know that you don't like me, but don't just lump me in as a "believer", as I simply am not.

You are a believer in a paranormal phenomenon called "God". And, as you might have noticed, SR also accepts articles from believers in "God". "Liking" has nothing to do with it, you would save us both time by dropping that lame excuse.

Write that article, Thanz. I really cannot understand why you refuse.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
It might follow that I know stuff about the topics the articles pertain to, but nothing about writing anything follows.

As I said to Thanz, I'm the goddamn editor. I decide what goes. So why not write that article?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Um, how exactly would you know if we do or do not contact Shermer, Randi, or anyone else for that matter?

Please. You have not done any work of your own. But, hey, I'm not above asking for evidence: Have you contacted Shermer, Randi or Schwartz?

Just yes or no, T'ai Chi.

TLN

2nd March 2004, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Non sequitor.

Ummm... are you going to say how?

Jeeze, you're just not even trying anymore.

T'ai Chi

2nd March 2004, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by Thanz

Mr. Larsen, I know that we clash frequently here, but I am not what you would term a "believer" (except in God). I do not think that JE is talking to the dead. I do not think that we can predict anything about our lives by looking at the stars, tarot cards, or crystal balls. I don't think that homeopathy works. I think that we would agree more than disagree on these substantive points. So, I know that you don't like me, but don't just lump me in as a "believer", as I simply am not.

Ditto.

In fact, I've made it very explicit that I'm only interested with studying such things scientifically in a lab setting, and analyzing the data using sound statistical methodology found in other sciences to draw conclusions.

Other than that, since I consider myself a philosophical Daoist, one could say I believe in dao if they like.

Clancie

2nd March 2004, 01:44 PM

Posted by T'ai Chi

Um, how exactly would you know if we do or do not contact Shermer, Randi, or anyone else for that matter?

What a joke.
Indeed. And, not that it matters, but I've emailed all three of them in the past (and also Jim Underdown). And....so what? :confused:

Why such intense resistance to the suggestions and questions raised in this thread? Are they really so bad? :confused:

TLN

2nd March 2004, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
...instead of wasting your efforts here.

Speaking of wasted efforts, c'mon Claus, you can't win here. Even if you did have a letters to the editor section, you undoubtedly couldn't print them all. Then TC and Clanice would be in here bitching that you're "suppressing the truth" by not printing letter x, y, or z.

Let me show you how the "thought process" of these two folks works: Claus did it, therefore it's bad. It's as simple as that.

Thanz

2nd March 2004, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

But I do. And I'm the goddamn friggin' editor, right? Write that article, instead of wasting your efforts here.
But here is where the issue is! I don't see my efforts as wasted here. This thread is where certain posters asked you some questions, and this thread is where you threw up your hands and said to ask the authors and that you are not responsible for the content, and that it is just like an open forum. It is in the context of that discussion that I made my comments, and that is where they belong.

Again, I ask you, do you really disagree with my position on the types of questions you have a responsibility to answer, or are you just bustin my chops?

T'ai Chi

2nd March 2004, 01:50 PM

CFLarsen

2nd March 2004, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
In fact, I've made it very explicit that I'm only interested with studying such things scientifically in a lab setting, and analyzing the data using sound statistical methodology found in other sciences to draw conclusions.

Then, write about those findings. I'll publish them, T'ai Chi.

Originally posted by Clancie
Indeed. And, not that it matters, but I've emailed all three of them in the past (and also Jim Underdown). And....so what? :confused:

What did you find out?

Originally posted by Clancie
Why such intense resistance to the suggestions and questions raised in this thread? Are they really so bad? :confused:

Clancie, please stop lying, OK? I am really, really tired of reading your lies. There is no "resistance" to the suggestions and questions raised in this thread. I offer you (and others) an opportunity to state your case in the very forum you criticize so much.

But you refuse. Instead, you lie. You lie, you lie, and then, you lie again.

Why? Why do you need to lie so much?

TLN

2nd March 2004, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Where did I ever say that because Claus did it it is bad??? I don't promote that strawman at all.

I don't judge folks based on their words but on their actions. When you post "non sequitur" with absolutely no elaboration you're not pursuing a genuine debate or conversation, you're simply foot-stomping. Anything and everything Claus does you bash, regardless of the specifics of any particular situation. You're not objective and never have been.

CFLarsen

2nd March 2004, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by TLN
Speaking of wasted efforts, c'mon Claus, you can't win here. Even if you did have a letters to the editor section, you undoubtedly couldn't print them all. Then TC and Clanice would be in here bitching that you're "suppressing the truth" by not printing letter x, y, or z.

I am perfectly aware of that. I do get letters that are not fit to print, simply because they contain threats, not just to me, but also to the authors.

Originally posted by TLN
Let me show you how the "thought process" of these two folks works: Claus did it, therefore it's bad. It's as simple as that.

Yep. Note how they avoid any responsibility themselves. They only want to bark.

Originally posted by Thanz
But here is where the issue is! I don't see my efforts as wasted here. This thread is where certain posters asked you some questions, and this thread is where you threw up your hands and said to ask the authors and that you are not responsible for the content, and that it is just like an open forum. It is in the context of that discussion that I made my comments, and that is where they belong.

How can I throw up my hands, if I offer you - and others - to publish your complaints about articles in SkepticReport? On the contrary, I offer you an opportunity to voice those complaints. You refuse.

Originally posted by Thanz
Again, I ask you, do you really disagree with my position on the types of questions you have a responsibility to answer, or are you just bustin my chops?

Write the goddamn article, Thanz. Why are you so afraid to do this?

TLN

2nd March 2004, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Write the goddamn article, Thanz. Why are you so afraid to do this?

It's work...

Thanz

2nd March 2004, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

How can I throw up my hands, if I offer you - and others - to publish your complaints about articles in SkepticReport? On the contrary, I offer you an opportunity to voice those complaints. You refuse.
All I am saying is that you refuse to answer those questions that should be directed to the authors. For example, when Tai and Ian asked you for details of what analysis Marc was referring to. I agree that these should be directed to the author.

My only point, however, was that in your explanations of why the questions should be directed to the authors, you seemed to be disavowing any responsibility for the content. I disagree with this, and feel that you have responsibilities as editor. And, further, if you are asked questions regarding your responsibilites or decisions as editor, you have a responsibility to answer them.

The issue is one that came up in this thread. It doesn't relate to skeptical issues at all, simply editorial ones. I ask you again - do you disagree with my position? I have asked you three times now. Please do me the favour of an answer.

Oh, and TLN - it has nothing to do with it being "work". Do you actually think that there is an issue here worthy of an article?

TLN

2nd March 2004, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by Thanz
All I am saying is that you refuse to answer those questions that should be directed to the authors.

What is wrong with this exactly?

Originally posted by Thanz
Oh, and TLN - it has nothing to do with it being "work". Do you actually think that there is an issue here worthy of an article?

And what is wrong with this exactly? (Asking for criticisms in article format that is.)

CFLarsen

2nd March 2004, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by TLN
It's work...

No. It's not just "work". It's also about actually putting your belief into words, and trying to make an argument for it. It is so easy to write scattered posts, small snippets of thoughts, vapid arguments. But when you have to condense your thoughts into a comprehensive article, that is quite another matter. Then, you have to think. You have to consider your point. And, you have to make it stick.

That's why I don't get any articles from believers.

Watch them squirm. Lots of banging on drums, lots of excuses. But nothing that holds up to scrutiny.

CFLarsen

2nd March 2004, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by Thanz
All I am saying is that you refuse to answer those questions that should be directed to the authors. For example, when Tai and Ian asked you for details of what analysis Marc was referring to. I agree that these should be directed to the author.

I do not "refuse", because I cannot answer for others.

Originally posted by Thanz
My only point, however, was that in your explanations of why the questions should be directed to the authors, you seemed to be disavowing any responsibility for the content. I disagree with this, and feel that you have responsibilities as editor. And, further, if you are asked questions regarding your responsibilites or decisions as editor, you have a responsibility to answer them.

Write the article, then.

Originally posted by Thanz
The issue is one that came up in this thread. It doesn't relate to skeptical issues at all, simply editorial ones. I ask you again - do you disagree with my position? I have asked you three times now. Please do me the favour of an answer.

Write the article. You criticize the way I run my forum, I would like for your criticism to appear there.

Originally posted by Thanz
Oh, and TLN - it has nothing to do with it being "work". Do you actually think that there is an issue here worthy of an article?

I do. And I'm the goddamn editor, so I decide, right? There is an issue worth of an article here.

Please let me know if I am wrong. Because if I am wrong, I cannot possibly see how you have any point at all.

Thanz

2nd March 2004, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by TLN

What is wrong with this exactly?
Nothing at all. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

And what is wrong with this exactly? (Asking for criticisms in article format that is.)
Well, first, I am not criticizing the content of SR. I am commenting on what I see as appropriate questions for Claus to answer. If I were, for example, commenting on Marc's piece, then yes - ask for an article. It could be interesting reading.

But I don't think that "Claus shouldn't be expected to answer specific questions about articles, but should be expected to answer questions about his editorial decisions" is what SR is about. This board is already cluttered with he said and she said type crap. Do we need it everywhere else, too?

Clancie

2nd March 2004, 02:51 PM

Is the Skeptic Report supposed to be an online skeptics' magazine, with factual, well researched articles that promote critical thinking?

Or is it supposed to be an online forum like JREF, built around a longer format of posts (aka articles)?

It certainly looks like the former. But if its the latter, basically an open Op/Ed forum for writers who are skeptics....shouldn't that be made clearer?

T'ai Chi

2nd March 2004, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by TLN

I don't judge folks based on their words but on their actions. When you post "non sequitur" with absolutely no elaboration you're not pursuing a genuine debate or conversation, you're simply foot-stomping. Anything and everything Claus does you bash, regardless of the specifics of any particular situation. You're not objective and never have been.

Do you understand what a non sequitor is TLN? I asked for evidence of some things in an article. Claus, in response, tells me to write my own article. :D

That, is a non sequitor. His response simply doesn't follow from what I said first.

TLN

2nd March 2004, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Do you understand what a non sequitor is TLN? I asked for evidence of some things in an article. Claus, in response, tells me to write my own article. :D

That, is a non sequitor. His response simply doesn't follow from what I said first.

Which is a non sequitor of your own as Claus has already stated many times that if you'd like evidence for a particular article to take it up with the author.

CFLarsen

2nd March 2004, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by Thanz
But I don't think that "Claus shouldn't be expected to answer specific questions about articles, but should be expected to answer questions about his editorial decisions" is what SR is about.

Please allow me to decide what SR is about, Thanz. I put up the money, I put in the effort, I put in the time. Sorry if I don't live up to your expectations, but you cannot blame me for it.

Originally posted by Thanz
This board is already cluttered with he said and she said type crap. Do we need it everywhere else, too?

This board and SR are two different things. You are free not to read SR, or to be here. Nobody is forcing you.

Originally posted by Clancie
Is the Skeptic Report supposed to be an online skeptics' magazine, with factual, well researched articles that promote critical thinking?

Or is it supposed to be an online forum like JREF, built around a longer format of posts (aka articles)?

It certainly looks like the former. But if its the latter, basically an open Op/Ed forum for writers who are skeptics....shouldn't that be made clearer?

...sigh...

Let's take it from the top again, shall we?

SkepticReport is an online forum for skeptical and critical thinking. If you can write about a subject from a skeptical point of view, you are always welcome to submit your paper to Skeptic Report.

The point of putting your "stuff" out there is to have it read by others. If those readers find factual errors, they can simply email the authors, and they will in turn send me a new version. That's skepticism when it works: Errors are corrected. Step by step, we move closer to truth.

However, what SR is not about is catering to your desires. You can complain about it, but you do not decide who writes for SR, or in what manner they do it.

Are there writers from this board? Sure! It would be very odd if there weren't. This board is the meeting place for skeptics from all over the world, and it is natural that if I find someone with knowledge about a subject, and is able to put two words together, I will most likely contact them for an article. It's called "networking", Clancie, and it works beautifully.

What makes your criticism invalid is that far from all writers are from this board. There are a lot of good authors out there, who either have written good articles or are just waiting for a small - sometimes not so small - kick in the butt. If you took time to go through the many articles (I think more than a hundred by now), you will find writers like Bob Riggins, John Baez, Jeffrey Shallit, Preston H. Long, Paul Lee, Dan Garvin, Brady J. Phelps, Elizabeth C. Wogen, Scott C. Pedersen, Bryan Farha, John Reese, Brian Hudson, Trevor Blake, Dr. W. Sumner Davis....the list is long, Clancie.

And don't forget, Scott Teresi, Dann Simonsen, Mogens Winther and Morten Monrad Petersen were not members of JREF before they wrote for SR.

So, sorry, Clancie - your criticism is invalid: SkepticReport is not an extended version of this forum.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Do you understand what a non sequitor is TLN? I asked for evidence of some things in an article. Claus, in response, tells me to write my own article. :D

That, is a non sequitor. His response simply doesn't follow from what I said first.

If you have criticism about the contents of an article, please contact the author. That's what you don't seem to understand. Or want to.

T'ai Chi

3rd March 2004, 01:11 AM

Originally posted by TLN

Which is a non sequitor of your own as Claus has already stated many times that if you'd like evidence for a particular article to take it up with the author.

Good, you admitted Claus commited a non sequitor.

We are all just non sequiting like crazy today. :)

CFLarsen

3rd March 2004, 01:25 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Good, you admitted Claus commited a non sequitor.

We are all just non sequiting like crazy today. :)

So, now you are "even"?

Thanz

3rd March 2004, 06:08 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Please allow me to decide what SR is about, Thanz. I put up the money, I put in the effort, I put in the time. Sorry if I don't live up to your expectations, but you cannot blame me for it.
Please, Claus, take a deep breath and try to understand what I have been saying. I have not criticized the content of SR at all. Not once. I have never said that it didn't live up to my expectations either. And I have agreed with you that detailed questions about the content of articles should be directed to the author.

The only questions that I said I feel you do have a responsibility to answer are those related to your editorial decisions. You still haven't said if you agree with this or not, despite repeated requests for an answer.

This board and SR are two different things. You are free not to read SR, or to be here. Nobody is forcing you.
Of course they are two different things! I never said otherwise. In fact, my point was that they ARE different. Sheesh.

SkepticReport is an online forum for skeptical and critical thinking. If you can write about a subject from a skeptical point of view, you are always welcome to submit your paper to Skeptic Report.
This is why I will not be writing an article on what questions I think you should probably answer. I don't think that it has anything to do with "skeptical and critical thinking". My point has nothing really to do with the content of SR, or what should be in it or not. My point was about what questions (here or otherwise) it is reasonable to expect you to answer.

If, however, you want me to write an article based on other things that I have posted here, let me know.

CFLarsen

3rd March 2004, 06:29 AM

Thanz,

Of course I am responsible for what articles go in. That's what an editor do.

What questions do you have regarding my editorial decisions?

Thanz

3rd March 2004, 07:00 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Thanz,

Of course I am responsible for what articles go in. That's what an editor do.

What questions do you have regarding my editorial decisions?
I don't think that I have any. We've gone round and round on this, and I don't think that we actually have a dispute. Your replies to other posters led me to believe that you would not answer any questions regarding the content of SR. I was simply pointing out that there is an area of legitimate inquiry - an area that doesn't exist for Randi and this board ecause of the the lack of editorial decisions for these posts. That's all.

CFLarsen

3rd March 2004, 07:14 AM

Originally posted by Thanz
I don't think that I have any. We've gone round and round on this, and I don't think that we actually have a dispute. Your replies to other posters led me to believe that you would not answer any questions regarding the content of SR. I was simply pointing out that there is an area of legitimate inquiry - an area that doesn't exist for Randi and this board ecause of the the lack of editorial decisions for these posts. That's all.

You don't think you have any??? You just wanted to know if I - as editor - would answer questions about editorial issues?

Well...http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/smilies/slap.gif

Thanz

3rd March 2004, 07:21 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Well...http://www.skepticreport.com/resources/smilies/slap.gif
My sentiments exactly. I think you just didn't get what I was clumsily trying to say. I couldn't figure out why on earth you would want an article on this. It does seem to be a shockingly obvious point that we have wasted bandwidth on.

Interesting Ian

3rd March 2004, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Originally posted by Clancie
I've always wondered why SR doesn't have a "Letters to the Editor" section. Since I imagine more people read it than will read this thread -about- it, it would be nice if the authors had the opportunity to respond to a question or two more "publicly", in a "Letters" section.

Claus

Which is exactly why the authors provide their email addresses, Clancie.

Huh? Did you bother to read what Clancie wrote? :rolleyes: I think you're being unreasonable in the extreme if you don't think Clancie's suggestion is a good one.

Interesting Ian

3rd March 2004, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Claus
I can contact Schwartz, Shermer, Randi, or whoever puts their email addresses out there. And you, T'ai Chi and Ian - to name a few - can do it, too. The difference is that you don't.

Tai
Um, how exactly would you know if we do or do not contact Shermer, Randi, or anyone else for that matter?

What a joke. [/B]

I've contacted quite a few people, especially NDE researchers. I've even had an e-mail exchange with Susan Blackmore (and Randi as well come to think of it, but that wasn't so friendly! LOL)

CFLarsen

3rd March 2004, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Huh? Did you bother to read what Clancie wrote? :rolleyes: I think you're being unreasonable in the extreme if you don't think Clancie's suggestion is a good one.

I am not being "unreasonable in the extreme". The emphasis is on the articles. It's that simple.

If someone has a problem with an article, or merely a question, contact the author. It's that simple.

If someone wants to ask the editor - me - something, they can email me. It's that simple.

If, for some reason, they want their email to appear on SR, I would not likely comply, since the emphasis is on the articles. I certainly do not want a mix between a magazine and a message board. It will take a lot more of my time, which I don't have enough of as it is. And it also would blur the borders between both formats. I think it will be a mess. And I run the show. It's that simple.

SkepticReport is an online magazine for skeptical writers. A magazine with articles. It's that simple.

Deal with it.

TomStockholm

3rd March 2004, 10:13 AM

SkepticReport is an online magazine for skeptical writers.

Maybe I am being a little bit dense here, but how does a so called "believer" like Clancie or Tai Chi get their articles published in the Skeptic Report if this quote from the editor is true?

Have they somehow become "sceptical woowoos"??? (God I hate that word...)

I think that if you are going to build your concept on the idea stated above by Claus, then it is advisable to have some kind of question and answer page. Otherwise things get very insular, it seems to me. This kind of critisism, whether well constructed or otherwise, is better out in the open than in the private email boxes of individuals...

But I guess that if The Skeptic Report doesn't want to have it then the JREF is a pretty good alternative...

CFLarsen

3rd March 2004, 10:31 AM

TomStockholm,

Good question. It comes down to evidence, and challenging it.

When you have your article published in SR, you can expect it to be challenged. If your facts are not sound, you will be challenged. If you claim evidence, but doesn't have it, you will be challenged. But if you believe, and claim no evidence, not a problem. It's actually a very interesting standpoint.

A good example is the recent article by Per Johan Råsmark. He is a Christian, but also a skeptic. Does he point to real evidence that his belief is real? Nope. I find it interesting to learn more about people who are both skeptics and have a religious belief. We saw at TAM1 and 2 that quite a number of skeptics also were religious. See also Justine Retford's article in the Jan 2004 issue. So, let's look into that aspect of skepticism.

Now, another example is Clancie. I've offered her many times now to present her evidence that at least some psychic mediums are real. She does not merely come out and say "Hey, I believe, but I haven't got any evidence whatsoever". She claims that she has evidence. I am sure that quite a lot of people would love to see that evidence of hers.

So why doesn't Clancie take me up on the offer? Because she knows her evidence will be challenged.

Marc

3rd March 2004, 10:49 AM

ummm..... isn't anyone going to bother discussion the actual articles? We got several pages of complaints on article selection, percieved editorial bias, and other vague insinuation. Very little talk about what was in any of them.

CFLarsen

3rd March 2004, 10:59 AM

Clancie

3rd March 2004, 11:12 AM

Posted by Marc

Very little talk about what was in any of them.
Well, its certainly pertinent to add, that -most- of the comments on content, so far, have been from so-called "believers". Will there be any additional salient points on content offered from -skeptics- here, I wonder?

hawkins_anderson

3rd March 2004, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by Marc
ummm..... isn't anyone going to bother discussion the actual articles? We got several pages of complaints on article selection, percieved editorial bias, and other vague insinuation. Very little talk about what was in any of them.

"The paranormalist claims to have a power or ability. The only thing they need to do is to demonstrate this 'ability'. There is no other demand on them other than to provide this demonstration. In this way, people like John Edward can perform the exact same act over and over with no complaints. It is what is expected of him. Over a long period of time the fascination might wear off, but the belief in the act likely will not. It would be more of a surprise if they stopped performing the same tricks."

My inquiries are as follows:

1
What form(s) of pure scientific methodology do you propose to which paranormals be made subject sans pseudoscientists in order to demonstrate and prove said abilities to be conclusive rather than transitory in nature?

2.
Do you believe John Edwards to be a fraud in the field of the paranormal, and what is the real slide of hand trick per say do you find he is performing on national television for all to bear witness?

Caveat – If the general public metacognitively apperceives his ‘demonstrations’ of second sight as fradulous schematically, then why has not the general publics’ fascination with him worn off?

3.
Why did you write this article?

Marc

3rd March 2004, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by hawkins_anderson
1
What form(s) of pure scientific methodology do you propose to which paranormals be made subject sans pseudoscientists in order to demonstrate and prove said abilities to be conclusive rather than transitory in nature?
The exact methodology would depend on what the claimed ability is, and what claimed range and limitations it as.

2.
Do you believe John Edwards to be a fraud in the field of the paranormal, and what is the real slide of hand trick per say do you find he is performing on national television for all to bear witness?

Caveat – If the general public metacognitively apperceives his ‘demonstrations’ of second sight as fradulous schematically, then why has not the general publics’ fascination with him worn off?
Yes I believe he is a fraud. He has never shown any indication that he is anything other than that. Why people remain fascinated with him is more a subject of psychology. An astronomer is facinated by stars and drawn to study them, some people are facinated by the paranormal and drawn to study it. That their belief in the paranormal is unfounded is a bit beside the point.

Of course both these questions have nothing to do with my article and I wonder why you even ask them apparently in response to my question if anyone will discuss the articles themselves.

3.
Why did you write this article?
Because it was an interesting idea that occured to me. I wanted to share it and Claus has been threatening to kick me again if I don't write another article for him. :D

CFLarsen

3rd March 2004, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by Marc
Because it was an interesting idea that occured to me. I wanted to share it and Claus has been threatening to kick me again if I don't write another article for him. :D

Kick you? You have no idea what I can do with a wet celery, a comfy chair and a painting of a fallen Madonna with the big boobies... :)

Incidentally, I think it is an interesting question: Why don't we see more of those "real scientists" who claim to have found "real evidence" of paranormal phenomena?

Schwartz is not the only one. Brian Josephson is another. Jahn, Dunne, Rhine, Keen... When they proclaim their findings, the luckiest get to be on the talk show circuit. But all seem to disappear like...well, a ghost....shortly hereafter....WHOOOSH!

Kinda makes you think, doesn't it?

Your next article, Marc, will be about why this happens. Deadline's the 26th. Yeah, I'm a bitch to work for....but I promise you that your reward will be waiting for you in Heaven. Really! I guarantee it... ;)

hawkins_anderson

3rd March 2004, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by Marc

Of course both these questions have nothing to do with my article and I wonder why you even ask them apparently in response to my question if anyone will discuss the articles themselves.

In all actuality, they have much to do with your article. From this reader's interpretation, those are just some of the matters for discussion your article addresses, and this includes the psychological aspect of why people adhere to those like John Edwards and Swartz. The psychological aspect is just one of many determinants and factors that you inadvertently connote in your article in trying to formulate an answer to your original inquiry.

"After the news made by Schwartz's books on his study of mediums is he headed for the same fate?"

Both Edwards and Schwartz serve as both parodies and modes of pastiche deconstructionist thought in relation to said skeptic subject matter. Hence in turn my third question, "Why did you write this article?"

"There is no other demand on them other than to provide this demonstration. In this way, people like John Edward can perform the exact same act over and over with no complaints. It is what is expected of him. Over a long period of time the fascination might wear off, but the belief in the act likely will not. It would be more of a surprise if they stopped performing the same tricks."

In order to for one to determine whether or not Schwartz’s career is over, one must first begin to look at those defining factors that will lead to his downfall – the strength of the public’s “fascination” with him and the “tricks” they both play on society or rather that society allows both gentlemen to play on them and how long will it be before "over a long period of time the fascination might wear off, but the belief in the act likely will not."

In any event, I look forward to reading your next article. Besides Dude, you’ve been threatened with “wet celery.” I would get going if I were you.

Just a piece of advice….. “Worker’s Comp.!” LOL. J/K.
;)

magicflute

3rd March 2004, 04:17 PM

You say you don't agree with an article in Skeptical Report? You don't think it is correct? Maybe it is lacking? It does not present enough evidence for the conclusions it reaches? How do you correct that?
I think it is a question of venue. If you want to refute an article that you don't agree with, and you want share your views, then you should try to reach the people that read the article. In order to accomplish this, it makes sense to respond in the same venue. If that means writing an article yourself making a point by point refutation and including documentation then by all means do it!! This way asures you that you will reach the audience that the original article reached. It is always easy to critisize, it is much more difficult to refute. Maybe that is why it is often a road not taken.

Clancie

4th March 2004, 07:04 AM

Posted by magicflute

I think it is a question of venue. If you want to refute an article that you don't agree with, and you want share your views, then you should try to reach the people that read the article. In order to accomplish this, it makes sense to respond in the same venue.

Yes, that's why "Letters to the Editor" pages exist, magicflute.
If that means writing an article yourself making a point by point refutation and including documentation then by all means do it!!
Well, not only would that be an extremely boring premise for most articles, a comment or two hardly seems to warrant more than a paragraph-long "Letter to" on a page given to that purpose. (And, after all, how informative is it to keep comments/suggestions going back and forth via email? The general reader might never have the advantage of seeing some very interesting points raised by knowledgable readers.

And as for the author going on to correct the article based on email after the fact.....that's just a funny approach to corrections. How many people would keep re-reading an article they've already finished in order to see if it's had any changes? That's just silly.

But....Claus obviously doesn't want open criticism and discussion in a "Letters" format. He'd rather bury comments in emails which the author can respond to privately or ignore as he wishes, even if the comments received are valid--or deserve public response or clarification.

Frankly, I find this editorial choice very unskeptical, but--yes--it's certainly his right to make it......

CFLarsen

4th March 2004, 07:24 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
Yes, that's why "Letters to the Editor" pages exist, magicflute.

But with SkepticReport, you get direct access to the authors. Far better, IMO.

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, not only would that be an extremely boring premise for most articles, a comment or two hardly seems to warrant more than a paragraph-long "Letter to" on a page given to that purpose. (And, after all, how informative is it to keep comments/suggestions going back and forth via email? The general reader might never have the advantage of seeing some very interesting points raised by knowledgable readers.

The emphasis in SkepticReport is on the articles. Deal with it.

Originally posted by Clancie
And as for the author going on to correct the article based on email after the fact.....that's just a funny approach to corrections. How many people would keep re-reading an article they've already finished in order to see if it's had any changes? That's just silly.

Quite contrary, that is what skepticism is about: You admit your errors, fix them, and move on.

Originally posted by Clancie
But....Claus obviously doesn't want open criticism and discussion in a "Letters" format. He'd rather bury comments in emails which the author can respond to privately or ignore as he wishes, even if the comments received are valid--or deserve public response or clarification.

No, I'd rather have open criticism and discussion in an "Articles" format. And I don't "bury" any comments in emails, because, if I do get questions about an article, I send it on to the author.

Originally posted by Clancie
Frankly, I find this editorial choice very unskeptical, but--yes--it's certainly his right to make it......

It is the exact opposite: Very skeptical.

I don't mind listening to suggestions, but I would appreciate it, if you did not invent intentions or actions I have no part in.

magicflute

4th March 2004, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
Yes, that's why "Letters to the Editor" pages exist, magicflute.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR exist to give a quick outlet to the reader because most publications do not offer the opportunity to write an article unless you are an established writer. SR gives you that opportunity. What a great way to respond in kind! Hmmm... but then again to write an article means you have to do research... and if it is rebutal then you have to try and disprove the original... You need facts, evidence, proof that shows where they are wrong and you are right, etc. You have to take greater responsability for an article that you do for an e-mail since it is a more formal forum... Lots of work!
Could that be the real reason that most people are not willing to take up the challenge?

CFLarsen

4th March 2004, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by magicflute
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR exist to give a quick outlet to the reader because most publications do not offer the opportunity to write an article unless you are an established writer. SR gives you that opportunity. What a great way to respond in kind! Hmmm... but then again to write an article means you have to do research... and if it is rebutal then you have to try and disprove the original... You need facts, evidence, proof that shows where they are wrong and you are right, etc. You have to take greater responsability for an article that you do for an e-mail since it is a more formal forum... Lots of work!
Could that be the real reason that most people are not willing to take up the challenge?

That might just be the case. However, I am always willing to be shown wrong.

Clancie

4th March 2004, 11:29 AM

Posted by magicflute

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR exist to give a quick outlet to the reader because most publications do not offer the opportunity to write an article unless you are an established writer. SR gives you that opportunity. What a great way to respond in kind! Hmmm... but then again to write an article means you have to do research... and if it is rebutal then you have to try and disprove the original... You need facts, evidence, proof that shows where they are wrong and you are right, etc. You have to take greater responsability for an article that you do for an e-mail since it is a more formal forum... Lots of work!
Could that be the real reason that most people are not willing to take up the challenge?
Or, magicflute, could it be that a constructive critical comment or two "does not a worthwhile article make"?

Of course the basic flaw of your post is this....Why does it have to be an "either...or" situation? Couldn't readers benefit from -both- the short ("Letters") commentary as well as the long ones (articles), depending on the content? If Schwartz wants to tell us what he's been doing for the past five years, why can't he just write a paragraph or two about it to respond to what Marc left out? Why does he need to write a whole lengthy article about himself or, alternatively....absolutely nothing?

And the idea of expecting readers to go back and re-read old articles just to see if authors have used any emailed corrections to make changes to them is just, editorial-policy-wise, very...silly.

_______

And, I'm still unclear if SkepticReport is established to be a forum (magazine-style) for skeptics who are writers...or not? And, as Tom from Stockholm mentioned, If the answer is "yes", then on what basis would woowoos like myself (:rolleyes: ) have to be writing articles for it at all? Are -all- woowoos welcome? Just JREFers who are "believers"? Or no "believers" at all? And if "everyone", then what happens to the idea of showcasing skeptical writers? :confused:

CFLarsen

4th March 2004, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by Clancie
Why does he need to write a whole lengthy article about himself or....absolutely nothing?

Who said anything about an article being "lengthy"? You really can't refrain from distorting facts, can you?

Originally posted by Clancie
And the idea of expecting readers to go back and re-read old articles just to see if authors have used any emailed corrections to make changes to them is just, editorial-policy-wise, very...silly.

Of course it isn't. That's how skepticism works, Clancie. Why let an error stand? Why not fix it?

Originally posted by Clancie
And, I'm still unclear if SkepticReport is established to be a forum (magazine-style) for skeptics who are writers...or not? And, as Tom from Stockholm mentioned, If the answer is "yes", then on what basis would woowoos like myself (:rolleyes: ) have to be writing articles for it at all? Are -all- woowoos welcome? Just JREFers who are "believers"? Or no "believers" at all?

Incredible. You complain that I have not made it clear, yet you claim to have me on ignore.

That is one lame excuse, Clancie....

magicflute

4th March 2004, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by Clancie
Well, I'm sorry, but I don't think either of these articles is very good at all (unless they're supposed to be Op/Ed type pieces, which wasn't what I thought SR was).

I'm sorry to be so critical, too, because I like Marc and I have a feeling that Ron Strong is also a poster here who is very likeable. But...I'm just going from the printed word so, even if this is the case, hopefully, they'll both take it in the spirit intended.

If Ron Strong was going to give a few examples of fraud...okay. (Although since he included JE both as a fraud--and not proven as a fraud, but "caught cheating"--he really should have elaborated on the details of the "cheating" incident. Otherwise, its just an unsupported allegation one could say about anyone).

But, if you're going to have such an ambitious title (the history of fraud in two centuries) then I think the author should deliver. I don't think it's acceptable to skip over the period from the 1920's to the 1980's. (I mean, yes, there were frauds during that period, too. Let's hear about them, if you're covering "the twentieth century"). And Colin Fry and his trumpet might have been a better example for the present than just saying "John Edward is a despicable fraud" without giving any examples of why.

An author should deliver on what is promised, imo. And I also find the blatant bias (which I quoted some of above) not very responsible...unless, as I say, this is all just Op/Ed material, and supposed to be taken as such by the reader.

By your comments above you indicate that you possess the knowledge of how an article is properly written, perhaps you would be willing to regale us with an example of your own

And the idea of expecting readers to go back and re-read old articles just to see if authors have used any emailed corrections to make changes to them is just, editorial-policy-wise, very...silly.

It's called ERRATA and they can be published in the same issue if the error is found in time or on a follow-up issue. You will often see it in JREF commentaries whenever Randi is shown to be wrong about something.

Clancie

4th March 2004, 12:48 PM

magicflute,

I'm going to drop this soon, but first I just have to ask....Let's suppose the SkepticReport -did- have a "Letters to the Editor" section where readers could comment on past issues. Would you think that was....

(a) a good thing
(b) a bad thing
(c) totally unnecessary and should be eliminated.

Just curious. Because, frankly, I don't understand where you're coming from at all.

magicflute

4th March 2004, 03:04 PM

Clancie,
Letters to the editor would be fine, but that is up to the publisher. It is his vehicle and his decision.

Frankly, Clancie I don't know what you are running from. If you strongly dislike an article as you expressed in your post, which of the following would you consider to be the best course of action and venue for your opinion?

(a) complain about it in an unrelated forum
(b) write a letter to the editor
(c) Write your own article showing where the original went wrong.

Originally posted by Clancie
I'm going to drop this soon,

When the going gets tough.......

Clancie

4th March 2004, 03:29 PM

Posted by magicflute

If you strongly dislike an article as you expressed in your post, which of the following would you consider to be the best course of action and venue for your opinion?

What I normally do...(b) write a letter to the editor.

And, fyi, I didn't "strongly dislike" either article. I raised a factual question about them each (for example, if Marc says Schwartz's career has gone nowhere for 5 years, shouldn't he at least know what he's been working on all that time and what the outcome has been?) It hardly seems fair to speculate that he's done nothing...is going nowhere...just because you yourself don't know what he's working on and he hasn't released another popularized book about his research since AE.

When the going gets tough.......
Yes. I notice you didn't actually answer my question....