How to Get from New Age to Skepticism - Building the Bridge

[tamiO]

According to the bio, Karla McLaren is someone I can identify with.

"A former leader in the New Age culture - author of nine titles on auras, chakras, "energy," and so on - chronicles her difficult and painful transition to skepticism. She thanks the skeptical community and agonizes over how the messages of scientific and critical thinking could be made more effective in communicating with her former New Age colleagues.

I found this article by Karla McLaren lover at SkepticalCommunity.com (http://www.SkepticalCommunity.com). It was in a post by linked to by a member who goes by the screen name diddidit. He found it over in the May 2004 archive of Skeptical Inquirer Magazine on the CSICOP (http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-05/new-age.html) website.

The article is named, "Bridging the Chasm between Two Cultures," and that's a good name. It is a chasm with no bridge. I am not sure that there is no bridge, but I have never seen one. All I saw when I was on the other side was a bunch of closed minded intellectuals that pointed and made fun in my general direction.

Somewhere near the middle of the article I saw a familiar name. James Randi. Turns out she got the same impression of Mr. Randi that I had and still have.

My first real contact with someone in the skeptical culture was watching James Randi on television, just tearing Geller to bits. I didn't understand what was happening. Uri Geller appeared on the Mike Douglas show and on the Merv Griffin show, and you could clearly see him perform his paranormal feats right there on television. Surely Mike and Merv wouldn't be involved in lying to the public? I really didn't understand what Randi's problem was with Geller, and my friends and I thought Randi was very vitriolic. I didn't learn about critical thinking from Randi - what I learned was that some people just had it in for healers and people with paranormal gifts. I know he would not like to hear this, but it's still true: James Randi's behavior and demeanor were so culturally insensitive that he actually created a gigantic backlash against skepticism, and a gigantic surge toward the New Age that still rages unabated.

Yes, she describes exactly how Mr. Randi comes across to new agers and even normal people who don't obsess in either direction in a formal way. Then I started to read the next paragraph and had to wonder, what the heck?

I certainly understand and support James Randi's anger, frustration, and even vitriol now (especially after having lived through the New Age for so many decades), but all I could see then was a very sarcastic man who seemed to attack Geller personally. Now, after having been a regular visitor to Randi's Web site (www.randi.org), I can see him as a deeply caring man who works tirelessly for an important cause. I also see that he is very concerned about some of the unbalanced New Agers who write to him in barely legible missives. I empathize with Randi, because people like that write to me, too (though I take on the role of hero in their fevered fantasy lives, while Randi is treated as a villain). Now that I can see him as an individual and understand his culture, I can see James Randi as the excellent (and intense) man he is-but it took me a while. Had Randi understood the New Age culture back when Uri Geller was becoming popular, he could have easily spoken in a way that might have been heard - or at least in a way that wouldn't have caused such a violent backlash. Or perhaps I'm being too idealistic.

She said she understand and support James Randi's anger. I can see how she undertands, I understand his anger. I just don't think his anger helps, I think it hurts. Just like the author noted years ago, I think he actually drives the believers away. He mainly preaches to the choir. And just like the author, I want to make a difference and help believers come to their senses.

I don't mean the people who believe in UFO's or think they saw bigfoot. I am talking about people who think they are part of the Ashtar Command and the fleet is in orbit around the Planet Earth but on a different dimension and donate part of their check and base important decisions on the fact that they won't be here long. I am talking about single mothers who have chronic illnesses and take part of their disability check each month to go get Reiki treatments; the widows who donate hundreds of dollars at a time to help spread the light around the world and help us shift into the 5th dimension. These are the true victims in all this new age stuff.

I do understand how they got there in thier thinking, because like the author, I was in the new age business for a while. I didn't write books, I designed websites for some people who make a lot of money off gullible and delusional people. When you design someones website, you really get to know them. Trust me, even most the leaders in the new age business are delusional. I say most, because there have got to be some that are doing it, knowing full well they are full of doodoo.

The author is going to go get her masters in sociology and behavioral sciences. That sounds like a good idea. Me, I am going to do what I do best and create a website that attracts a lot of people. I will "get up" with
Karla McLaren and let her know she is not alone. Hopefully, she will say she knows that because she has met some others like we.

I have experienced both cultures now. I dove into the JREF because I found intellegent people. I had missed that when I was in the new age business. They shun thinking. It was truly crazy. The hard core skeptics I have dealt with over the last year or so are just too cold and seem to run on hate.

Not all of the people here at JREF are randi-bot hard core skeptics that make fun of believers. I met some really cool, imaginative, fun and clever people along the way. You can look in the current member list if you want to know who some of those people are. ;)

Somebody has to build a bridge and it might as well be me. Anyone with me on this?

[jj]

This is a point I've made to various people, including those at JREF and CSICOP.

I think that Shermer and his organization do a better job. Some days when I read SI, I get an intense feeling that they're just patting each other on the back.

The thing is, I think that CSICOP, JREF, the Skeptics org, etc are fighting not just one battle, but at least two, those being:

The very common anti-intellectual attitude of US society

and

The battle against the unsupported paranormal

(No, I don't mean I know of any supported paranormalism, but I'll allow provisionally that such can be hypothesized, although to date as the JREF prize shows, it's not been supported.

Both the hard use of the scientific method and the means used to argue often run up against the first problem, that of the generally anti-intellectual attitude of this country, and its accompanying anti-scientific attitude, one that I saw strongly in the 1960's as a reaction to atomic weapons, that was first left-wing, anti-nuke, and is now right-wing anti-evolution.

If we can't get past that point, there's no way we get to the second point, that of debunking the creeps, frauds, quacks, and cheaters that push stuff like magic water to cure cancer, etc.

I can't help but wonder if there's a Karla McLaren foundation.

[jj]

BUMP.

Hey, this is a *&(*& good question, ladies and boys.

[ceptimus]

Flaherty started a thread on this a week or so ago.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42198

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by tamiO
Somebody has to build a bridge and it might as well be me. Anyone with me on this?

You can't build a bridge if you deny the stability of the other side. Show respect for their beliefs. Find common agreement at a higher level of abstraction (e.g., wanting to improve the "human condition"). Listen to their points, don't dismiss personal experience as meaningless. In fact, don't dismiss anything they meaningfully say as meaningless.

I do like Shermer, I think he's more thoughtful and tactful than Randi. But my liking Shermer could be because he disagree's with Randi's position on hypnosis.....

[tamiO]

Originally posted by jj
BUMP.

Hey, this is a *&(*& good question, ladies and boys.

I think people are more into learning about the secret affairs of members, sock spotting and fighting with each other than this boring stuff. :(

Even Flaherty's post got a whopping 4 replies.

I got so excited when I read her story. The compassionate skeptic movement needs to have a leader and no one else seems to want to step up to the plate and make some noise.

I am and I am interested in finding people who are just as interested in actually helping people instead of making fun of them.

There really isn't much to say about the article itself, is there. It's good. It's not controversial. Even on the Randi forum people think Randi is too harsh to really reach anyone.

Ho-Hum

:)

[tamiO]

Originally posted by Suggestologist


You can't build a bridge if you deny the stability of the other side. Show respect for their beliefs. Find common agreement at a higher level of abstraction (e.g., wanting to improve the "human condition"). Listen to their points, don't dismiss personal experience as meaningless. In fact, don't dismiss anything they meaningfully say as meaningless.

I do like Shermer, I think he's more thoughtful and tactful than Randi. But my liking Shermer could be because he disagree's with Randi's position on hypnosis.....

Exactly. There are some very good things that beliefs do for us. Our beliefs govern our attitude and the attitude sets the mood, the mood goes to crap resulting in stress, stress weakens the immune system, disease sets in.

Some beliefs kick in as a coping mechanism and help the person deal with things that are too stressful otherwise.

I have my theories as to how the internet made things worse for people who were engaging coping mechanisms in the new age direction. I also have my theories as to how the internet can help educate people so they don'
t get taken by every other seminar offering entity channeling weasel out there.

But you are so right, there can be no bridge if we see the believers as a bunch of fruitcakes. They aren't fruitcakes. Even the ones with real metal illnesses should be treated with more respect.

Many of them are very intelligent and have had some strange coincidences, weird experiences and seemingly precognitive dreams and vsions. If all those things happen at once you can't deny a metaphysical world.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by tamiO
If all those things happen at once you can't deny a metaphysical world.

Excuse me?

[jj]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Excuse me?

Me too. How does a probabilistic happening prove anything except that s**t happens sometimes?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by jj

I think that Shermer and his organization do a better job. Some days when I read SI, I get an intense feeling that they're just patting each other on the back.


I like a lot of what Nickell writes especially in SI. I think he is the skeptic that impresses me the most with actual content.

[Oleron]

Also discussed:here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39866&highlight=karla)

As I mentioned in this thread, the article made me examine my own opinions and how I had been communicating them.

I agree mostly with what Karla had to say about Randi.

I think that any abrasiveness that he shows now and then is, while usually understandable, not helpful for the skeptical cause. On the other hand Randi is one of a small group of people who are tireless in their efforts to promote critical thinking. No-one's perfect.

Dawkins and Shermer are perhaps more measured and controlled in their manner but both have a literary and academic background.

[tamiO]

Originally posted by jj


Me too. How does a probabilistic happening prove anything except that s**t happens sometimes?

When you are in a certain state of mind you honestly believe all sorts of crazy things. Seeing the number 1111 all over is one of the "signs" to new agers.

It used to be maybe you would think, "Oh, that's weird." Now you can just sign on plop 1111 into Google and voila. Links pop up and they lead to sites explaining this 1111. There's many different versions of what it means. The fact that there are many different reasons is rationalised as "it means whatever you think it means."

Your search may land you in a new age forum. Like the one on this site: http://www.lightworker.com
(forums are temporarily down for a bit)

Sign up, and when you can post, tell them you have been seeing 1111 every where and you want to kno what it means. People will reply with welcomes and give you some reasons, some links and lots of hugs. If you have just been through a lot of stress, you may already be searching for a reason all this happened. (It's a normal thing for the brain to search for reasons things happen.)

Thanks to the internet, people who think there is something special about seeing 1111 all the time can join up with hundreds if not thousands who all see 1111 all the time. That's when you figure out there is a reason you were all brought together. This is where the new age seminar giving delusional slimeball comes in.

You go to his seminars or call him up for a phone session and learn how you are part of a special group of people called by something divine to do something important in the world. All of this feeds the needs of the person who has been through tragedy, grief, trauma, etc.

If you have an extra $144, you can call up and see what these phone sessions are like. I was blessed with freebies from Steve Rother since I worked for him. He told me all kinds of crap. That's when I went from just peeved to really pissed off.

He was telling people that their family members were going to die soon and to move closer to them, or at least get in touch with them and be there for them. When the people didn't die, he would tell you how your light helped change time lines or some ****. IOW, thanks to you he didn't die.

He doesn't tell everyone that, but I know he told one lady this just so she wuld move to San Diego (to be with her brother who would die soon) to get her to work/volunteer for him. He doesn't do this consciously, he just says whatever pops into his head and instead of calling it a vivid imagination, he calls it speaking with "The Group."
http://lightworker.com/beacons/private.shtml

This is the same man who explained to me that he became a 501c3 in order to get big donations from the rich widows who had too much money. He actually felt he was doing them a service. Apparently you can have so much money you have to donate it and get a tax break.

Yes. You can donate money to Lightworker and get a tax break.
:mad:

[tamiO]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Excuse me?

What did you do Bill? :D

I see you quoted something. Do you have a question?

[tamiO]

Originally posted by Oleron
Also discussed:here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39866&highlight=karla)

As I mentioned in this thread, the article made me examine my own opinions and how I had been communicating them.

I agree mostly with what Karla had to say about Randi.

I think that any abrasiveness that he shows now and then is, while usually understandable, not helpful for the skeptical cause. On the other hand Randi is one of a small group of people who are tireless in their efforts to promote critical thinking. No-one's perfect.

Dawkins and Shermer are perhaps more measured and controlled in their manner but both have a literary and academic background.

I think what's missing is a compassionate Skeptic that has stage presence, showmanship. We have Mr. Randi, but he's grouchy and insulting, and Dawkins and Shermer who are not boring, but... you know.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by tamiO


I think what's missing is a compassionate Skeptic.

Look who is talking. Mwahahahahaha.

This post and the next one by Cleopatra have been reported. Please try to refrain from personal attacks.

[jj]

Originally posted by tamiO


When you are in a certain state of mind you honestly believe all sorts of crazy things. Seeing the number 1111 all over is one of the "signs" to new agers.


Yes, I understand that. It validates their internal belief system, but does not make the belief "valid" in the sense that it actually has any internal support.

Have you ever seen 'A Beautiful Mind'?

Sign up, and when you can post, tell them you have been seeing 1111 every where and you want to kno what it means. People will reply with welcomes and give you some reasons, some links and lots of hugs. If you have just been through a lot of stress, you may already be searching for a reason all this happened. (It's a normal thing for the brain to search for reasons things happen.)


Indeed, most religions make a very offensive practice of trying to brainwash the stressed. I do understand the recruiting methods you're talking about, indeed.


This is where the new age seminar giving delusional slimeball comes in.


Yup, right there with you on that one, down to the way you describe the slimeball.


If you have an extra $144, you can call up and see what these phone sessions are like. I was blessed with freebies from Steve Rother since I worked for him. He told me all kinds of crap. That's when I went from just peeved to really pissed off.


Henh. Having a good ************ meter can be a drag, sometimes, even if it does do the rigt thing foryou.


He was telling people that their family members were going to die soon and to move closer to them, or at least get in touch with them and be there for them. When the people didn't die, he would tell you how your light helped change time lines or some ****. IOW, thanks to you he didn't die.


Yep, understood. I've seen stuff like this, so transparently manipulitive that I wanted to scream. Rather I said "ok, ok, I hear what you said, um, the water for my tea is boiling" "What water, what tea" "You're the psychic you figure it out" (walk 2 3 4 walk 2 3 4 )

But yes, I do understand how this works. I've watched it happen to people who were otherwise reasonable, and I've gotten more than one or two to think hard about what was going on. I hang out mostly (previously) with Bell Labs research scientists, and now with direct, fast-thinking software types, so all it takes is a hint.


He doesn't tell everyone that, but I know he told one lady this just so she wuld move to San Diego (to be with her brother who would die soon) to get her to work/volunteer for him. He doesn't do this consciously, he just says whatever pops into his head and instead of calling it a vivid imagination, he calls it speaking with "The Group."
http://lightworker.com/beacons/private.shtml

This is the same man who explained to me that he became a 501c3 in order to get big donations from the rich widows who had too much money. He actually felt he was doing them a service. Apparently you can have so much money you have to donate it and get a tax break.

Yes. You can donate money to Lightworker and get a tax break.
:mad:

Yeah, I know. I wonder if someone should just start a religion of "I believe other people should give me money, tax-free"... :mad" indeed.

Yes, Tami, I've met these people. I've been exposed to their seminars, I've gone to some, had to deal with people who had been brainwashed by some of them, etc. That's why I'm so hard on keeping the line between "real evidence" and what they do. At least for the people I know, it seems to be the wedge you can drive between the quacks and the people. BUT I know (*&(*& well I dont interact with the "normal" population very much.

[jj]

Originally posted by Cleopatra


Look who is talking. Mwahahahahaha.

Give her credit for understanding, at least.

[tamiO]

Originally posted by jj


Give her credit for understanding, at least.

Cliques of emotional gossip driven young women don't know what the word compassion means. They mistake their tribal passion for compassion, but their compassion is only for each other.

Women can be vicious creatures when they run in packs. Anytime I hear, "As a woman you should take the side of the woman," I understand that that person hasn't learned to be independent, yet.

Those groups tend to turn on each other, eventually. When one member of the group is not around, you can bet the rest are talking about her.

I understand all too well. The emotional damage these groups do in high school produces outcasts. These kids couldn't bring themselves to hate anyone, let alone the target of the month. Young outcasts do crave belonging to a group and it makes them ripe for the picking by cults.

The group of new agers I worked for coined the term "Indigo Children." The kids that joined up had a common background. They were outcasts; full of compassion but feeling alone in a world of heartless people.

It was quite heartening to see a number of secure young outcasts that merely popped in long enough to tell the new agers they didn't appreciate the label of Indigo Kids. They may have had weird experiences that led them searching for meaning, but they didn't appreciate any label. You can understand why the label "Bright" is just as offensive to this genre as "Indigo Children" was to theirs.

[Cleopatra]

Thus spoke Tami the Blackmailer.

[tim]

Tami, to be brutally frank, if you dislike this forum and it's members so much, the answer is clear. Leave.
I would like to say you would be missed, but my parents taught me not to lie.
If you don't like it, just go. Please.
Tim, this is the CT forum. Please stay on topic.

[RonZ]

I too was extremely moved by McLaren's article. I'll be very interested in future articles from her.

In the meantime, how can bridges be built between skeptics and new agers (or any similar group)?

Skeptics rely upon and value rules of logic and objective standards of proof. New Agers do not, and in many cases (most cases?) don't understand either, let alone value them.

If this is true, what would it even mean to build a bridge between the groups?

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by RonZ
I too was extremely moved by McLaren's article. I'll be very interested in future articles from her.

In the meantime, how can bridges be built between skeptics and new agers (or any similar group)?

Skeptics rely upon and value rules of logic and objective standards of proof. New Agers do not, and in many cases (most cases?) don't understand either, let alone value them.

If this is true, what would it even mean to build a bridge between the groups?

What would it mean to not build a bridge? It might mean lobbing missiles across the divide, pushing both sides apart; and perhaps this results in a desertion on one side or the other, once in a while. But it won't result in mass migrations.

You've stated your impression of what New Agers Don't value. I'd like to know what your impression is of what they Do Value. What do New Agers value? Think about it.

As I've written in this thread, you build a bridge with mutual respect -- that means you show respect first. Respect is not the same thing as approval; it is showing understanding of their views and values. I've asked, in the previous paragraph, for you to demonstrate part of this.

And you build a bridge by diffusion -- meaning establishing a common purpose at a higher level of abstration which both sides can agree to: for example, "Improving the 'human condition'" or something, depending on particular context this can be less abstract.

[Keneke]

::peeks in:: Hm, a moderated thread, excellent.

::looks at first post:: Um, what's the position being stated here? That Randi is mean? That a bridge needs to be built? What's the starting argument?

::looks at the rest of the posts:: well, without a specific position stated in the first post, I can see how this could turn into a love-fest. So, starting over: what position is being stated in this thread? Then, I'll know whether to argue against or for it. As it is, there's just too many topics in this thread.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Keneke
::peeks in:: Hm, a moderated thread, excellent.

::looks at first post:: Um, what's the position being stated here? That Randi is mean? That a bridge needs to be built? What's the starting argument?

::looks at the rest of the posts:: well, without a specific position stated in the first post, I can see how this could turn into a love-fest. So, starting over: what position is being stated in this thread? Then, I'll know whether to argue against or for it. As it is, there's just too many topics in this thread.

A bridge needs building; and Randi isn't the best bridge architect; what are the qualities of good bridge building? How is it best done?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Suggestologist


A bridge needs building; and Randi isn't the best bridge architect; what are the qualities of good bridge building? How is it best done?
You assert Randi isn't the best bridge architect, but you don't know the qualities of good bridge building or how best to do it. But you assert Randi isn't the best bridge architect. Let's see this again in slow motion, from another camera angle...

[tamiO]

Originally posted by Suggestologist


A bridge needs building; and Randi isn't the best bridge architect; what are the qualities of good bridge building? How is it best done?

Randi is the example that Karla brought up. I am broadening that to include all hardcore skeptics who take the ridicule approach. :)

There is a place for Randi and others' approach, but I see too many bad cops and not enough good cops.

I am building a bridge.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by tamiO


Randi is the example that Karla brought up. I am broadening that to include all hardcore skeptics who take the ridicule approach. :)

There is a place for Randi and others' approach, but I see too many bad cops and not enough good cops.

I am building a bridge.
There were two questions here, neither of which you addressed. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to explicate and address the questions.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

You assert Randi isn't the best bridge architect, but you don't know the qualities of good bridge building or how best to do it. But you assert Randi isn't the best bridge architect. Let's see this again in slow motion, from another camera angle...

Actually, if you'll read the posts in this thread; I have presented some qualities of good "bridge building". However, I am interested in other people's ideas on what makes a good bridge builder.

[Keneke]

Originally posted by Suggestologist
A bridge needs building; and Randi isn't the best bridge architect; what are the qualities of good bridge building? How is it best done?

Thank you, Suggestologist.

So, is this a situation that calls for positive reinforcement (a position supported by TamiO) or tough love (a position implicated, though not explicitly stated, by BillHoyt)?

I first make the assumption that Randi falls into the tough love category. Asking someone to prove their claims, though proper procedure in the scientific world, is naturally confrontational. What other people say is usually correct. This being said, people who try to bring science into the arena of social acceptance, and therefore casual conversation, is going to be seen as a know-it-all or rude. And Randi can certainly appear that way to those people who are not used to debate hardball.

Can a bridge be built at all? Yes, as soon as someone can connect science with another emotion or aspect of life. Bill Nye did a good job harnessing children's natural curiosity; Penn and Teller combine skepticism and black comedy.

Any teacher can tell you that it is very difficult to cram education down the throat of an unwilling participant. Randi does his best with his showmanship, but time and again he has been called aggressive or mean. Perhaps, in his old age, he is dropping showmanship for show-me-ship? For all their jokes, are Penn & Teller better messengers of skepticism? Does their medicine taste sweeter? I'd say yes at this point, because they are more popular, they have a hook, they are younger and more vivacious.

Of course, I use P&T as examples only. I have no idea who should be carrying the torch at this point.

Also, I'd like to state that the bridge needs to be built to the general public, not to woowoos specifically. This isn't an attempt to make peace with woowoos, this is an attempt to reach out to the general public and decimate woowoo's fanbase. (To put it in not so nice terms. :P)

[tamiO]

I think that if we look at the reasons why people turn to new age, then we can fill those needs without the extra fantasies the new age leaders throw in.

My concern is the person who is down to their last nickel and has 200 bucks left on the charge card. Instead of spending the money on a seminar that will teach them to visualise their pockets filling with money and encouraging them to become spiritual healers, they should be shown how to get out of debt.

I once saw a woman telling the lightworker forum that she was homeless and needed help. While they all sent her love and light, I solicited money for her and arranged with someone to get her a job.

This is one of the ways I help new agers.

If I was to laugh at her because her new agey business that was encouraged by the lightworker people fell through and left her on the streets that would have been insensitive and cruel.

I saw another guy on that board talking about how he stared at the sun to gain energy. He even pointed out how his eyesight had changed and considered this proof that his method was helping him see the veil. Others were posting encouragement to him. I found the owner to be grossly negligent in allowing this man to say these things without telling him how dangerous this was and not telling people not to folow his lead.

Even though I was banned from the forum, I arranged to have someone else post a warning to him that he was blinding himself and his veil was actually a loss of vision. That it would take some time before he became blind.

I realised that I couldn't do this sort of patrolling and helping alone. I would only be able to help very few people. Of course, just saving one person is worth it, but if we had a team of people who looked for this sort of stuff, we could help a lot more people.

There is nothing wrong with people having irrational beliefs. It's only wrong when those beliefs impact others and put them in danger. Hardcore skeptics would have us believe that all irrational beliefs should be destroyed.

I have had tremendous success in building websites and marketing them well. I used my power to build the careers of new age leaders; it's time to use my powers for good.

I will be promoting Rational Spirituality and denouncing Skeptical Fundamentalists. I am willing to meet them halfway.

That's my idea of a bridge.

jj, I will answer your questions soon. I just wanted you to know I am not ignoring you. :)

[drkitten]

Originally posted by tamiO


There is nothing wrong with people having irrational beliefs. It's only wrong when those beliefs impact others and put them in danger. Hardcore skeptics would have us believe that all irrational beliefs should be destroyed.

I have had tremendous success in building websites and marketing them well. I used my power to build the careers of new age leaders; it's time to use my powers for good.

I will be promoting Rational Spirituality and denouncing Skeptical Fundamentalists. I am willing to meet them halfway.



This may prove to be something of a sticking point. Aside from the needlessly inflammatory tone you take ("Skeptical Fundamentalists"? Sheesh.), the statement could be made that irrational beliefs per se impact people in a negative way, and that there is something wrong with them. I believe a lot of well-respected "skeptics" hold this position and would not appreciate a "bridge" that started from an axiom where irrationality isn't necessarily bad.

I think a more significant problem is the failure on both sides to distinguish between the statements "X is an irrational belief and therefore there is something wrong with it" and "X is an irrational belief and therefore there is something wrong with the holder." Arguments that start by assuming idiocy on the part of paranormal practitioners are good, if not prototypical, examples of this confusion.

[Keneke]

Originally posted by tamiO I think that if we look at the reasons why people turn to new age, then we can fill those needs without the extra fantasies the new age leaders throw in.

I do have daydreams about new age and religious replacement. I agree that there is something within a person that needs to be filled, that a belief in religion, mystery, or magic can supply, that we are neglecting.

This is one of the ways I help new agers.

If I was to laugh at her because her new agey business that was encouraged by the lightworker people fell through and left her on the streets that would have been insensitive and cruel.


I see! The fact that skepticism is largely populated by males means that the movement itself is harsh (assuming the fulfillment of gender roles). Well, I can certainly see how a caring hand can add depth to our cause. I would certainly welcome an addition like that, overall. Of course, the hidden assumption is that it is an addition and not a replacement, knowing that tough love is often called for.

I myself don't really appeal to a person's emotional side, and I doubt too many of us hardcores would. Yes, I can certainly see how your approach can reach those who could not be reached by logic alone, but it is hard logic which is the foundation of skepticism, so I don't see that side going away either.

The problem is that those people who are very good in logic can sometimes lack tact. (This supports a pet theory of mine: that autists and socially inept males who are good at math may suffer an overabundance of testosterone or deficiency of female hormones, and that in order to have both social graces and a sharp logical mind, you need hormones from both sides of the fence.)

In the end, I know we want to sugarcoat the jagged pill of truth, but it's just like selling something that doesn't need to be sold: it's so hard to make a sale. Hard-edge skepticism will never be supplanted, only changed and softened over time with efforts like yours.

Of course, I am sure there are people that believe being hard-nosed is the only way to go, and that softening the message means compromising truth. I can't totally disagree with that.

[Keneke]

Originally posted by tamiO
Rational Spirituality

The mere existence of this term requires its own thread. Gonna start a new one so as not to hijack this one. :)

[tamiO]

Originally posted by drkitten


This may prove to be something of a sticking point. Aside from the needlessly inflammatory tone you take ("Skeptical Fundamentalists"? Sheesh.), the statement could be made that irrational beliefs per se impact people in a negative way, and that there is something wrong with them. I believe a lot of well-respected "skeptics" hold this position and would not appreciate a "bridge" that started from an axiom where irrationality isn't necessarily bad.

I think a more significant problem is the failure on both sides to distinguish between the statements "X is an irrational belief and therefore there is something wrong with it" and "X is an irrational belief and therefore there is something wrong with the holder." Arguments that start by assuming idiocy on the part of paranormal practitioners are good, if not prototypical, examples of this confusion.

Some irrational beliefs are not that bad, IMO they are a natural coping mechanism that is kicked into gear when the mind needs to rationalise something in order to function.

IMO, It would be the Fundie Skeptic that condemns them all and refuses to build a bridge on that axiom. I think calling people names because they hold a possibility that paranormal things may actually be normal qualifies someone as a Skeptic Fundie.

Someone who recognises that possibility is skeptical of the firm conclusions of hardcore skeptics. In this forum, that position is laughed at and ridiculed in childish ways by more than a couple members.

These people have been ridiculed into silence and have been driven away from skepticism by hardcore skeptics. To share the feeling that hardcore skeptics are just as despised by rational people will create an inviting atmosphere where they might actually examine some of their beliefs and abandon the ones that encourage harm to others.

For instance, there is nothing wrong with someone who follows the example of Jesus Christ and goes about feeding and clothing the poor, doesn't evangelise and believes in tolerance for others' beliefs.

I was most impressed with the leader of the Baptist Association that sat next to Judge Roy Moore before a commitee of Senators discussing Religious expression in public places. He actually agreed that the Ten Commandments did not belong in that Alabama Courthouse.

[Keneke]

Originally posted by tamiO

These people have been ridiculed into silence and have been driven away from skepticism by hardcore skeptics. To share the feeling that hardcore skeptics are just as despised by rational people will create an inviting atmosphere where they might actually examine some of their beliefs and abandon the ones that encourage harm to others.

It is easy to dismiss harmful irrational thoughts, however...

You're assuming that having irrational beliefs is good for your mental health. Yes, psychology shows that coping mechanisms are in place to protect the brain for short periods of time (blackout for trauma, for example), but that overuse of these coping mechanisms result in psychological malfunction. Regression, repression, sour grapes, denial, all of these are coping mechanisms that can go wrong if overused. It is the position of some skeptics that irrational thoughts are overused coping mechanisms, and that an overly protected brain is not a strong brain. You have to break eggs to make omelettes, you know.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by tamiO


Some irrational beliefs are not that bad, IMO they are a natural coping mechanism that is kicked into gear when the mind needs to rationalise something in order to function.



That's an opinion, certainly, but it's neither proven nor self-evidently correct. More seriously, though,....



These people have been ridiculed into silence and have been driven away from skepticism by hardcore skeptics. To share the feeling that hardcore skeptics are just as despised by rational people will create an inviting atmosphere where they might actually examine some of their beliefs and abandon the ones that encourage harm to others.



... is not an argument. More formally, it's a fallacy (appeal to pity, or appeal to consequences, depending on how you look at it). The hardcore skeptics almost certainly consider themselves "rational," so to state that they are "just as despised by rational people" may be a bit misleading. The rock on which things founder is that many things that make people feel better are simply not true, and even worse, many things that make people feel better in the short run will make them feel much worse in the long run. (Nervous? Here, have a cup of coffee and a pack of cigarettes to calm yourself down.)

There's a role for bridge building -- we're not going to help you stop smoking altogether, we're just going to help you not smoke today. Then, call me tomorrow morning. But a bridge built by smokers of a half-pack a day, with the avowed intent of sneering at the Nonsmoking Fundamentalists,.... well, I have my doubts.

[tamiO]

Originally posted by Keneke


It is easy to dismiss harmful irrational thoughts, however...

You're assuming that having irrational beliefs is good for your mental health. Yes, psychology shows that coping mechanisms are in place to protect the brain for short periods of time (blackout for trauma, for example), but that overuse of these coping mechanisms result in psychological malfunction. Regression, repression, sour grapes, denial, all of these are coping mechanisms that can go wrong if overused. It is the position of some skeptics that irrational thoughts are overused coping mechanisms, and that an overly protected brain is not a strong brain. You have to break eggs to make omelettes, you know.

That's so true. I am just saying that when someone is in the throes of grief and tells you at least they are in heaven; that is not the time to explain to them the idea that a heaven exists is irrational.

[tamiO]

Originally posted by drkitten


That's an opinion, certainly, but it's neither proven nor self-evidently correct. More seriously, though,....



... is not an argument. More formally, it's a fallacy (appeal to pity, or appeal to consequences, depending on how you look at it). The hardcore skeptics almost certainly consider themselves "rational," so to state that they are "just as despised by rational people" may be a bit misleading. The rock on which things founder is that many things that make people feel better are simply not true, and even worse, many things that make people feel better in the short run will make them feel much worse in the long run. (Nervous? Here, have a cup of coffee and a pack of cigarettes to calm yourself down.)

There's a role for bridge building -- we're not going to help you stop smoking altogether, we're just going to help you not smoke today. Then, call me tomorrow morning. But a bridge built by smokers of a half-pack a day, with the avowed intent of sneering at the Nonsmoking Fundamentalists,.... well, I have my doubts.

Fallacy or not, it's a way to get them to start examining their beliefs. Dismissing what people say with a wave of the hand and an utterance of fallacy is insulting and does not open communication; quite the opposite.

Your comparison of the bridge to smoking is way off.

BUT, as long as you brought it up, it is indeed better to gradually wean yourself from smoking by going from a pack a day to 3/4 then finally a half a pack a day.

I don't propose sneering at anyone, but I do want people to recognise that there is more to the whole than just the extremes. The fence lies in the middle groud. I am proposing we gather at the fence for a cup of coffee.

I think offering cups of STFU is not productive.

[Keneke]

Originally posted by tamiO
That's so true. I am just saying that when someone is in the throes of grief and tells you at least they are in heaven; that is not the time to explain to them the idea that a heaven exists is irrational.

Agreed. I can certainly understand that the process can be softened so as to not chafe the viewing public (something Randi does not do), but I still resist the notion [that some irrational thoughts are more beneficial to no irrational thoughts overall.]

[edited]

[Keneke]

Originally posted by drkitten
There's a role for bridge building -- we're not going to help you stop smoking altogether, we're just going to help you not smoke today. Then, call me tomorrow morning. But a bridge built by smokers of a half-pack a day, with the avowed intent of sneering at the Nonsmoking Fundamentalists,.... well, I have my doubts.

The analogy doesn't quite hold. TamiO is describing more of a gentle process than simply allowing irrational thoughts to the tender mind. (See my last post.)

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Keneke


The analogy doesn't quite hold. TamiO is describing more of a gentle process than simply allowing irrational thoughts to the tender mind. (See my last post.)

Perhaps. That's not entirely clear to me, though. Her statement about .... just a sec, I had it a moment ago, forget my own head next:


I will be promoting Rational Spirituality and denouncing Skeptical Fundamentalists. I am willing to meet them halfway.

is not exactly gentle, at least not in my understanding of the word "denouncing."

I certainly agree that the gruff, curmudgeonly approach where believers in the paranormal are routinely ridiculed in a weekly newsletter is not the best way to approach the uncertain. But tamiO doesn't appear to be objecting only to Randi's lack of manners, poise, and social grace. Her objections seem to go beyond the social to the epistemological, that the middle ground is somehow "better" than the philosophical position espoused not just by Randi, but by Dawkins, Penn & Teller, Dennett, et cetera.

I guess my question is : what does "meet them halfway" mean in this context? The point of a bridge is to bring people across, not to be a spot to share a coffee and bide a while. I applaud the effort to help people cross the bridge, but am deeply concerned about an effort to help people live on it.

[tamiO]

Originally posted by drkitten



but am deeply concerned about an effort to help people live on it.

I'm sorry if I implied anything of that sort. There is no need to be concerned about that as far as I am concerned.

I just looked up the word denounce and I most definitely am not calling hardcore skepticism evil. I usually look up words to be sure they reflect the correct nuance; I suppose in my rush, I was sloppy.

I see they offer citicize as a synonym at Dictionary.com. Criticize would be the word I should have used.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by tamiO



I just looked up the word denounce and I most definitely am not calling hardcore skepticism evil. I usually look up words to be sure they reflect the correct nuance; I suppose in my rush, I was sloppy.

I see they offer citicize as a synonym at Dictionary.com. Criticize would be the word I should have used.

I've probably just been reading too much Scarlet Pimpernel and Tale of Two Cities. "A la guillotine les skeptiques!" (knit one, purl two,...)

[tamiO]

I do feel that the middle ground is somehow "better" than the philosophical position espoused by Randi and Penn & Teller. Penn & Teller did take a moment to admit they were only angry at the purveyors of bunk and not the victims.

I am not familiar with Dennett and from what I can tell, Dawkins is a thoughtful person who was not rude and crude. I admit my experience of him is mainly pertaining to memes, so he may very well come off as too angry to be effective.

I feel there is a place for hardcore skeptics, but I don't think they are as effective as the middle ground when the goal is to actually help people overcome their need for mixing fantasy with reality.

There is a real need for magical feelings, ritual and fantasy, but it should be fulfilled in healthy ways.

People should be playing Ashtar Command the role playing game, not believe there are actually spaceships commanded by Jesus and Buddha orbiting this planet and that they lead a dual existence and actually work on these ships.

[Keneke]

Originally posted by tamiO I do feel that the middle ground is somehow "better" than the philosophical position espoused by Randi and Penn & Teller. Penn & Teller did take a moment to admit they were only angry at the purveyors of bunk and not the victims.

Okey doke, tricky position here again. P&T are not turning their ire on victims, but I am sure they would suggest pure rationality if someone asked. There are two subjects here: a person's belief, and the reaction of skeptics to those beliefs. For example, P&T are not mad at victims, but I assume they would disagree with the victim's beliefs.

There is a real need for magical feelings, ritual and fantasy, but it should be fulfilled in healthy ways.

Yes, and I feel that this is a very important issue that needs to be addressed soon, and in great detail, by the skeptical community.

[tamiO]

Originally posted by Keneke

Yes, and I feel that this is a very important issue that needs to be addressed soon, and in great detail, by the skeptical community.

That's what I aim to do. :)

[Keneke]

Originally posted by tamiO
That's what I aim to do. :)

I can certainly see how religion-substitute can be used as a tool to draw people over the bridge. Mmmmmm, TV.......

[Stitch]

Originally posted by Suggestologist
You can't build a bridge if you deny the stability of the other side.

The other side also has to accept that there is (or may be) something on the otherside of the chasm to a build to. Many don't and won't.

Show respect for their beliefs.

I think most people do, but there is a big difference between respecting and accepting. Some believers consider anything other than blind acceptance of their belief as an affront and will not discuss the matter further or may resport to mud slinging, they do not want a bridge being built.


Find common agreement at a higher level of abstraction (e.g., wanting to improve the "human condition"). Listen to their points,

Happy to do so, will they also listen to mine??

don't dismiss personal experience as meaningless.

I won't as long as they accept that it is not evidence to support the reality or existence of their belieif, it is mearly their experience.

If they want to put the experience forward as anything more than an un-substatiated anecdote then they must accept, that my non experience of the same thing is an equally powerful argument and exactly counters their experience as evidence.

In fact, don't dismiss anything they meaningfully say as meaningless.

I assume you mean "...don't dismiss as meaningless, anything they say that they believe is meaningful."

I am happy to do that as long as they back it up with evidence or provide a caveat that it is an unproven point of view.

[tamiO]

Originally posted by Keneke


I can certainly see how religion-substitute can be used as a tool to draw people over the bridge. Mmmmmm, TV.......

There is a difference between religion and spirituality.

[RonZ]

(The discussion here, while interesting, has taken a number of different directions. I'm wondering if I should start a new topic...)

Earlier, I suggested that the New Agers don't understand, and thus don't value, the rules of logic and objective standards of proof. While I don't want to assume much in claiming I know what they do understand and value, I think it safe to say that they most of their decision-making is based on basic social norms that do not include standards of logic and proof.

Given the New Agers mindset, a bridge to them should include understanding their perspective better and educating them in critical thinking, logic, etc. It should be built on the social norms that they currently expect. Arguments based upon logic, science, etc. have no place in any initial part of the bridge building.

[Keneke]

Originally posted by tamiO


There is a difference between religion and spirituality.

Well, yes, but I mean that that certain something that religion and/or spirituality provides is something that needs to have a substitute for. People want ritual, mystery, depth, but they're fooling themselves into getting it. There needs to be a way to satisfy a human's need for that without irrational thought.

[LettristLoon]

On Randi's Bridge-Building, Bridge-Building In General, and Substitutes for Mystery, Religion, and The Ecstatic Experience!

This is gonna be a long post. Please don't hate me because I'm wordy.

So, I was not a popular kid in school. This was not so long ago--I started the second grade in 1990, when my family and I moved to Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

As a result of daily beatings at the hands of my peers and enormous neuroses from here and there, I started getting seriously, seriously in deep with various aspects of the New Age movement when I was very young. I became pretty dependent upon my silly beliefs. They constituted a psychological panacea--I no longer felt alone, I no longer felt small, weak, or insignificant. And best of all, all of my new beliefs were peddled by seemingly kind, intelligent people, who seemed possessed of no desire more selfish than the betterment of the lives of people like me. Hooray.

So it was that after a few months of working at the Fort Lauderdale Museum of Discovery and Science, when I was a freshman in high school, a co-worker suggested that I might benefit by going to a lecture given by a friend of his--some eccentric old fellow by the name of James Randi talking about "The Mask of Nostradamus."

So I went, and was utterly convinced: Nostradamus is a sham. This didn't invalidate any of my other beliefs. "So," I concluded, "There are beliefs out there which just aren't true. So what?"

But my co-worker--Len was his name--was encouraged by how easily I could be swayed by evidence. He took me by the JREF a few days later, and he and James set about making a skeptic out of me.

This wasn't so difficult.

It was mostly accomplished over lunch at a Denny's near Davie Boulevard and Federal Hwy, in the late summer of the year 1997. James sat me down and explained some basic scientific truisms to me. They were nothing earth-shattering--none of you would be particularly rocked by them. But I was fourteen, and I had not heard this stuff before. The quality of the reasoning, and the implications of said reasoning, completely invalidated everything I believed about the world.

Lacking any real talent for self-deception, I simply had to give up my beliefs. I fought a little bit, of course, struggling for weeks and weeks to find some logical way around the information James had presented to me. I couldn't do it, so I became, more-or-less, an agnostic skeptic, virtually overnight.

But it sucked, let me tell you. My psychological panacea was gone, and James had given me nothing with which to replace it. There was no light at the end of the tunnel--there was just tunnel.

Gradually, I discovered that there are still things worth believing in, no matter how rational or skeptical you might me. The value of the dynamic human spirit; the belief that knowledge, tempered with wisdom, can lead to a better world; friendship; beauty; emotion. All that still carries water, and it's good water--empirically sound water. That's the best kind. More on that in a minute.

Before I could understand those things, though, I was desperately depressed. It was terrible. When I told James, several years later, how perilously close I came to suicide during the months following our pow-wow, he seemed genuinely horrified and perplexed. Then again, James is a born skeptic. He probably can't empathize with the extreme attachments people have to their crutches.

Once I got my head straightened out, though, I tried to spread the skeptical gospel. I was pretty militant about it--just as militant as James was, when first we met. I thought, "If it's good enough for me, it's good enough for everybody," and I became quite good at blasting people's beliefs clear out of the water inside of a twenty-minute conversation. I loved it--I had learned from the best.

Guess how many minds I changed this way?

No, seriously. Guess.

Well, predictably, I didn't change any minds. People won't give up their warm, fuzzy belief-cushions for cold, anti-compassionate reason. That's a ****** trade.

I didn't change any minds, but I made lots of people cry, and toss me epithets like, "You heartless monster!" I got that one when I was in college at a Methodist school, Florida Southern College. It came from an obese Christian fundamentalist who ranted at me in front of our dormitory for a full hour--just because of my reputation as a dastardly atheist--before I ripped the little bastard to shreds in about ten minutes.

It's easy. It's fun. It's a guilty pleasure, and we love it. You know it and I know it. It's shooting fish in a fish market. You only have to get into so many arguments before you have an irrefutable, stock response for anything that comes up. Suddenly, in your opponent's eyes, you're an indomitable arguing machine, a linguistic Bruce Lee, and you are hated (save by your circle of close friends, who think you're great after a few drinks at cocktail parties--"Gather round, folks, it's the Exploding Empiricist (TM)!").

On the other hand...

I developed a few close friendships with people who had a silly belief here or there, but whose heads I deigned to not chop off at the first sign of irrationality. And they got to know me as a friendly fellow with passions, values, etc, before they got to know about all of that other stuff.

And over time, their minds changed. It was magical. It was beautiful. It was osmosis. It wasn't very much fun.

Now, I attempt to use this approach exclusively. People are against Grand Inquisitors, no matter what their belief systems might be. Most people just won't roll over and die for superior logic, like I did, back when I was fourteen.

Part of it is what Keneke just said--the desire for mystery, ritual, depth. Secular humanists, or whatever it is that I am, have that in spades, but no one knows it. I was a music major in college, and I spend a great deal of time trying to get together a music career. Music, even being no more than a sum of sines, is sacred, in its own way--sacred for its functionality and its qualitative properties. Ditto any great art. Ditto empathy, friendship, all of those great things. Ditto the joy of discovery and learning. Ditto the marvelous symmetry of the universe.

Some part of bridging the chasm you all wish to bridge must consist of showing a godless, magic-free universe as mysterious and beautiful and meaningful as the universe accepted by believers. A "rational spirituality" might consist of saturation by all the exquisite subtleties of life. Such saturation leads to rapture as surely as any religious ritual--indeed, moreso.

Build a bridge. Do it. It's important. Appeal to beauty and truth, and it'll happen. Don't demonstrate why skepticism is right--I mean, do so, but not before you demonstrate why skepticism is beautiful. And then, everything should fall into place.

Peace,
- B

[tim]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by LettristLoon
[B]On Randi's Bridge-Building, Bridge-Building In General, and Substitutes for Mystery, Religion, and The Ecstatic Experience!

This is gonna be a long post. Please don't hate me because I'm wordy.

A first class post, LettristLoon.
It is all but impossible to fight against entrenched belief.
It's worth pointing out that it works both ways though. How easy is it for us to dismiss things out of hand as woo-woo nonsense? How often do we actually listen to the other side of the argument? We just KNOW they're wrong, right? And how does that make us look to our opponents?
Surely it's better to listen and then very gently point out the flaws. Surely it's better to build a bridge on solid foundations, rather than a wall?

[tamiO]

I want to thank you for sharing your story. I came around gradually, so I don't know exactly how it feels to have everything snatched away in one evening. I was thinking it must be devastating. I am glad you didn't get stuck in the hardcore skeptic mindset and take too much pleasure (for too long anyway) in being a self righteous prick.

When I first started reading your post, and I came to the Randi part, I thought, yep, here we go. Another hardcore skeptic is going to tell me how stupid the new agers are and how it is impossible to build a bridge. Thank you so much for surprising me.

You have given me great encouragement today. Great story with a happy ending. I have some designing to do. I hope you will be available to help me figure out some good approaches to this project.

[tamiO]

Originally posted by tim
And how does that make us look to our opponents?

I think it begins with cleaning up our perspectives and the language that reflects them. Why would we argue with opponents?

[tim]

I don't think it works to have a stand up fight with people when it comes to their beliefs, Tami. They won't change their minds because I (or you, or anyone) tell them they are wrong.
I have my beliefs, but a phrase I use a lot is "I'm prepared to be wrong". I'm willing to listen to other people's point of view.
Yes, I'll try and pursuade them to mine, but I am not going to abuse people because their system of belief is different to mine.
I'm prepared to spend time with someone to find mutual ground, then work from there.

[Keneke]

Music, even being no more than a sum of sines, is sacred, in its own way--sacred for its functionality and its qualitative properties. Ditto any great art. Ditto empathy, friendship, all of those great things. Ditto the joy of discovery and learning. Ditto the marvelous symmetry of the universe.

Yet why is this not enough for some people? Rhetorical, no answer needed.

Build a bridge. Do it. It's important. Appeal to beauty and truth, and it'll happen. Don't demonstrate why skepticism is right--I mean, do so, but not before you demonstrate why skepticism is beautiful. And then, everything should fall into place.


Nice example, but I feel we are creating a tad of a false dilemma here. It's not nice vs mean skeptic. We do need both. I do see both sides in all skeptics, struggling for supremacy. But it very much is a judgement call. I feel we must constantly have our hand on the hard vs. soft dial, dealing with each person differently. Some of us work well under pressure. Some of us prefer being raped mentally as a means of learning. I know I did. Mmmmm, rape.

[tamiO]

Originally posted by tim
I don't think it works to have a stand up fight with people when it comes to their beliefs, Tami. They won't change their minds because I (or you, or anyone) tell them they are wrong.
I have my beliefs, but a phrase I use a lot is "I'm prepared to be wrong". I'm willing to listen to other people's point of view.
Yes, I'll try and pursuade them to mine, but I am not going to abuse people because their system of belief is different to mine.
I'm prepared to spend time with someone to find mutual ground, then work from there.

Are you thinking that we disagree?

I was pointing out your use of the word "opponent," and how that might subtly affect your approach.

[tamiO]

Originally posted by Keneke

Some of us prefer being raped mentally as a means of learning. I know I did. Mmmmm, rape.

Were you into new age at one time?

[LettristLoon]

Keneke:

Yar, I, too, now have a thing for being proved utterly, totally wrong. I love it. It means that, at the very least, from now on I'll be a little closer to The Truth.

But people who actually dig that kind of kinky mind-melding are very, very rare. I mean, how often are believers into getting rubbed back and forth over Occam's Razor 'till they, at last, come around, educated but disemboweled? I mean, I just can't see that being too enjoyable for the vast number of average Joes/Josephines.

Thanks Tim, thanks Tami.

Tim: I don't know if it's always worth listening. I mean, morally, I suppose it is, but it's tough, if you've heard the same precise argument a few dozen times before. My ears do prick up when someone hits me with something new, as do most of us, I think (or would like to think. Is that not so, do you suppose?).

Tami: What do you propose to do? Your intentions sound grand. What're your ideas?

- B

[tim]

Originally posted by tamiO


Are you thinking that we disagree?

I was pointing out your use of the word "opponent," and how that might subtly affect your approach.

Err, no actually.
Couldn't think of another word for the guy on the other side of the fence.

[Oleron]

LettristLoon,

Excellent post! (and I don't mind a bit that it was long)

An odd parallel here is that people on the 'other side of the fence' say much the same thing.
As an example, I remember in my old xian days I was super-zealous. I ran around telling everyone who couldn't get away in time all about my xian beliefs. I really thought that by taking a 'scattergun' approach to evangelism I would convert lots of people. I could get quite aggressive sometimes, which, for anyone who knows me, is very much out of character.
I converted precisely zero people.

I got a bit downhearted about all this and went to see one of the church elders. To my surprise he told me to stop all my feverish evangelism. He told me that the secret to changing someones opinion on a given subject is to demonstrate the reality of your position by simply 'walking the walk'.
Demonstration, not beration.

He was so right. It applies equally to skepticism as it does to christianity.
Actions and evidence speak louder than words.

I am now, what most people would term, a hard-line skeptic/atheist. I didn't get there by having my a$$ kicked in arguments. I got there by observation and careful contemplation of the world and the individuals who inhabit it.

[Keneke]

Originally posted by tamiO


Were you into new age at one time?

No, but I was a Christian.

Edit: And, oddly, not evangelical. My method for defending my beliefs remains today the same it was then. I don't needlessly bring up beliefs, but when someone else does, and they either ask me what mine are or try to get me to agree with them, I tell them my stance. I usually don't try to continue the conversation, but if they keep asking, or begin to look like they want to debate, I debate my position.

Also, this is in opposition to how I appear on the web. Anonymity, plus not having to worry about small talk and just getting to the subjects I like, make me a very different person in public.

[tamiO]

This is a great discussion and I want to thank everyone who contributed. I will be hanging out on my own forum and baking more pie, in addition to building that bridge we were talking about. It's going to be a lot of work and I won't have much time for keeping up my end of the bargain in this thread.

You are all invited to stop in for some pie and join in the brainstorming on this bridge project. I would especially love to hear from anyone who has been into new age and has made the leap across the chasm. I think those stories will be valuable in reaching out to people who have been sucked into new agey things.

LettristLoon, I would especially appreciate it if you could stop in and share some more about your own experiences and maybe we can figure out how to fill that gap that drove you into suicidal depression. We might be able to prevent that from happening to someone else. It sounds like you are the poster child for the compassionate skeptic movement. That's not a dig at your age, either. ;)

http://www.skepticPIE.com

See you there! :)

[tamiO]

Originally posted by Keneke



Also, this is in opposition to how I appear on the web. Anonymity, plus not having to worry about small talk and just getting to the subjects I like, make me a very different person in public.

I am completely different than I have appeared to be here on JREF. In my fighting the good fight stance, I have given quite the opposite impression of who I really am.

I think that maybe this forum encourages the hardass skeptic in most of us and in person we are really very nice.

That's it, I am outta here. :)
Stop in for some pie, Keneke. Would love to have you.

[Keneke]

Another skeptical forum? I'm getting spread thin here...

::whinewhinewhinewhine::

[DrMatt]

Bunk does cause harm--sometimes to people very close to us. I think it's that which justifies vitriol--sometimes.

I've exchanged some conversations with Karen in e-mail, and I think she's sincere, but she still uses vocabulary that makes it sound as if reality itself were relative, not just people's views of it, so I find her writing a little bit difficult to understand sometimes. Her "cultural" model seems a bit tricky for me to digest, as I'm clearly a member of several simultaneous groups some of which may have a distinct culture, or be part of how a cultural anthropologist would try to understand me: Jews, atheists, Americans, classical composers, computer programmers, liberals, vegetarians, etc. New Age embodies a category of worldview as well as approaches to cuisine, clothing, sports, ritual, and music; in this sense it is far closer to a complete culture in itself than skepticism is likely to be, so the notion of skepticism as a culture rather than an isolated attribute really challenges my credulity. But her development of this notion is, admittedly, just beginning, so I guess it will take a while to find out where she goes with it.

I read SI and find it interesting and challenging. I often find myself disagreeing with its authors--for instance, I disagree with Chris Mooney that "Brights" is a bad idea--and I notice that the letters to the editor are full of arguments one way or another, so I'm not really convinced that it's a backslapping society, any more than, e.g., American Automobile Association is (I also get the Michigan edition of their magazine, and there's far less back-and-forth there).

I find myself getting into fewer rather than more arguments with people around me as I grow older. It seems to me this reflects neither cultural homogeneity (ain't got none!) nor anything related to my skepticism but rather aging (or maturity, if you will).

[coalesce]

The only problem I see with building these bridges is that they're almost all going to be one-way bridges. I don't see many believers who want to abandon their spiritual security blankets. The majority of them are not going to appreciate learning that John Edwards can't talk to dead people (actually, we all can--the trick is getting them to answer), that angels aren't watching over us (no offense to Della Reese), or that Ouija boards make great placemats and nothing more.

That being said, just because the task seems insurmountable doesn't mean that it shouldn't be tried. It's a worthwhile endeavor whose rewards are tangible. If successful, you'll probably help someone save loads of money and time. I'm glad that not too many people around me have far-out beliefs.

Another thing when trying to point out to someone that their belief system is based on a house of cards is knowing when to draw back. As tempting as it may be to haul off and hit some people over the head with the nearest blunt instrument to get the to see the light of reason, sometimes just planting a seed of doubt will do the trick. Once that seed takes place, it usually will start a domino effect with the rest of their beliefs. I've seen it happen (specifically with me) and the end results are wonderful.

And great post, LettristLoon. Good stories like yours are never too long.

Michael

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Stitch

The other side also has to accept that there is (or may be) something on the otherside of the chasm to a build to. Many don't and won't.

You may think this completely irrational, but, if you don't respect their side, there is virtually zero chance of them respecting yours. If you do offer respect, you have a much better chance of getting their respect.

It is guarateed, 100%? No.

I think most people do, but there is a big difference between respecting and accepting.

Accept the person as motivated by wanting good things to happen for themselves and/or others. Help them gain distance from the belief so that they can get a good look at it -- if you know what I mean. The belief itself is what needs to be replaced or altered; that is what you don't want to accept as-is. Have a new belief waiting (the person needs to be consciously aware of it) Before you weaken the old belief; so that you have something to immediately fill the hole you're about to create.


Some believers consider anything other than blind acceptance of their belief as an affront and will not discuss the matter further or may resport to mud slinging, they do not want a bridge being built.

Different strokes for different folks. :)


Happy to do so, will they also listen to mine??

Maybe they will, maybe they won't; but you'll have a much better chance of their listening and understanding your points if you can demonstrate that you are listening and understanding theirs. In addition, you'll discover more ways into their thought process if you pay attention to it.


I won't as long as they accept that it is not evidence to support the reality or existence of their belieif, it is mearly their experience.

I think this is something you may have to wait and develop with them after the initial conversation has progressed.

If they want to put the experience forward as anything more than an un-substatiated anecdote then they must accept, that my non experience of the same thing is an equally powerful argument and exactly counters their experience as evidence.

Again, I think this would occur within the meat of the conversation; you cannot ask for this as a pre-condition of the conversation.

I assume you mean "...don't dismiss as meaningless, anything they say that they believe is meaningful."

I am happy to do that as long as they back it up with evidence or provide a caveat that it is an unproven point of view.

Same comment as above. :)

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Keneke


I can certainly see how religion-substitute can be used as a tool to draw people over the bridge. Mmmmmm, TV.......

Well, I did go to three meetings of the North Texas Church of Freethought (a "church" for atheists). I think the part they want most to substitute is the sense of community. Personally, sense of community isn't important to me, but some people couldn't live without it.

As far as intrigue, mystery and such; I can find more interesting ideas on the internet or library; than what was discussed at the "church".

[Suggestologist]

Here are the good bridge building ideas I've identified in this thread. I begin with my own:

Suggestologist: Show respect for their beliefs. Find common agreement at a higher level of abstraction (e.g., wanting to improve the "human condition"). Listen to their points, don't dismiss personal experience as meaningless. In fact, don't dismiss anything they meaningfully say as meaningless.

Keneke: Connect science with another emotion or aspect of life.

TamiO: Look at the reasons why people turn to new age, then we can fill those needs without the extra fantasies the new age leaders throw in.

DrKitten: Distinguish between the statements "X is an irrational belief and therefore there is something wrong with it" and "X is an irrational belief and therefore there is something wrong with the holder."

TamiO: Share the feeling that hardcore skeptics are just as despised by rational people [to] create an inviting atmosphere where [New Age adherents] might actually examine some of their beliefs.

LettristLoon: Don't demonstrate why skepticism is right--I mean, do so, but not before you demonstrate why skepticism is beautiful.

Tim: "I'm prepared to be wrong". I'm willing to listen to other people's point of view. Yes, I'll try and pursuade them to mine, but I am not going to abuse people because their system of belief is different to mine. I'm prepared to spend time with someone to find mutual ground, then work from there.

Keneke: We must constantly have our hand on the hard vs. soft dial, dealing with each person differently.

Oleron: The secret to changing someones opinion on a given subject is to demonstrate the reality of your position by simply 'walking the walk'. Demonstration, not beration.

Coalesce: As tempting as it may be to haul off and hit some people over the head with the nearest blunt instrument to get the to see the light of reason, sometimes just planting a seed of doubt will do the trick. Once that seed takes place, it usually will start a domino effect with the rest of their beliefs.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Suggestologist
Here are the good bridge building ideas I've identified in this thread. I begin with my own:

Suggestologist: Show respect for their beliefs. Find common agreement at a higher level of abstraction (e.g., wanting to improve the "human condition"). Listen to their points, don't dismiss personal experience as meaningless. In fact, don't dismiss anything they meaningfully say as meaningless.

Keneke: Connect science with another emotion or aspect of life.

TamiO: Look at the reasons why people turn to new age, then we can fill those needs without the extra fantasies the new age leaders throw in.

DrKitten: Distinguish between the statements "X is an irrational belief and therefore there is something wrong with it" and "X is an irrational belief and therefore there is something wrong with the holder."

TamiO: Share the feeling that hardcore skeptics are just as despised by rational people [to] create an inviting atmosphere where [New Age adherents] might actually examine some of their beliefs.

LettristLoon: Don't demonstrate why skepticism is right--I mean, do so, but not before you demonstrate why skepticism is beautiful.

Tim: "I'm prepared to be wrong". I'm willing to listen to other people's point of view. Yes, I'll try and pursuade them to mine, but I am not going to abuse people because their system of belief is different to mine. I'm prepared to spend time with someone to find mutual ground, then work from there.

Keneke: We must constantly have our hand on the hard vs. soft dial, dealing with each person differently.

Oleron: The secret to changing someones opinion on a given subject is to demonstrate the reality of your position by simply 'walking the walk'. Demonstration, not beration.

Coalesce: As tempting as it may be to haul off and hit some people over the head with the nearest blunt instrument to get the to see the light of reason, sometimes just planting a seed of doubt will do the trick. Once that seed takes place, it usually will start a domino effect with the rest of their beliefs.

A good summary of some excellent suggestions.

[tamiO]

I went through a period of embarassment, shame and grief when I came out of new age thinking. I did it so gradually and I did it because of xouper got me thinking. (He's a member here that stopped posting a while back.) What about people who are snapped out of it too fast? LettristLoon isn't the only person who has reacted with severe depression. Enough new agers to notice were very depressed people putting on a happy face to the world and running on pure hope.

Nowadays new agers are comforted during their bouts with severe depression and suicidal thoughts by reading the article I am pasting in below.

To the lucky new agers who have caught this meme, severe depression is just another sign that you are ascending. They call it the Death Phantom (https://www.kryon.com/jantober/j_7.html)

note about copyright: Information from Jan Tober as channeled through Tobias - a member of the Kryon Group

For more information about the "Death Phantom," read "Shadow Termination," Kryon Book 7, "Letters from Home," chapter four

The information below is free and available for you to print out, copy and distribute as you wish. Its Copyright, however, prohibits its sale in any form except by the publisher.

Jan Tober
https://www.kryon.com/jantober/j_7.html

Death Phantom
By Jan Tober

There is an interesting process afloat that many of us are moving into. Tobias, part of the Kryon group refers to this clearing as the "Death Phantom." This is the situation we have set up to terminate life as we know it in the physical. It is based on old information and/or if the body-mind-soul did not have the strength (for any reason) to move into Ascension and the new energy. We have been programmed with trepidation regarding the next 12 years and much like Atlantis, we have been dreading whether to teleport, die or stay, and for many of us teleporting was unavailable at present.

Tobias, my twin flame and divine compliment, very soberly and firmly walked me through my death phantom. Tobias is the part of the Kryon entourage that has been in the physical body - this is his specialty, so-to-speak. As we move into pure intent to activate and integrate our remaining strands of DNA, our intent is to release the death hormone and activate the youth-ing hormones, "the youth and vitality chromosomes." As this happens it seems the death phantoms also gets "charged." I now know four other people (three are close friends) plus myself who have gone through this experience. Because it can be quite challenging, I would like to share with you pieces of my experience.

I realize I had been dancing around this phantom consciously for two years. This spring I watched one of my closest friends go through three heart attacks in two weeks during her stay in the intensive care ward of our local hospital. During that time I phoned two very large prayer groups, and my own personal group of around 10 powerful prayers/healers. We began the long-distant healing. We did not speak to each other much that first week, just stayed focused "in love" for her. The second week the news became more grave. Pneumonia set in. We kept our vigil. However, now we realize that we were being kept at a distance energetically.

For all practical purposes, we felt like her soul was really turning over its options. We confided in each other that this felt different than anything we had experienced. Almost as if we were losing her. As we diligently held intent for "Thy will be done," we felt a sinking feeling. (Was this listening to the soul go through choices?) We felt helpless - an extremely different feeling for those of us who have had miracle after miracle from pure intent and prayer.

Just about the time we had emotionally released her and began to miss her, she sat up in her hospital bed and said, "That's it. I'm fine NOW! I'm staying!"

My own phantom was not so dramatic to anyone but me.

As I went through my own medical scares, I suddenly did not feel the prayer group's "high." This was very different than normal. Usually, I sail through anything. I felt that I had passed the point of "no-return." Heavy darkness set in, for about two weeks. This was not my normal Pollyanna optimism. At this point I must say that the support of my friends and energy soul sisters and brothers kept me on my feet. When I was at my lowest peak, I even manifested 450 people at a seminar being told I had "passed on." Now I knew I was in the middle of this event. At this point I was able to access the origin of my death phantom (500 B.C.) Once this piece had been emotionally established and released and my polarity restored, the linear brain became activated. I realized that I had been "out of my body" most of the last two years. This was a protective and loving mechanism from my Higher-self as I prepared to move into death and resurrection.

To summarize:


You may feel very alone, even from Spirit. This seems to be the process.
If you don't know what is happening you're probably "doing" the death phantom. You will think you're making the transition called "death."
Find the source and clear it. Past life - present life. Seek healers to ease you through.
Be extremely kind and gentle to yourself. This is not the time to "push through." Take time off. Take time out. This is between you and your soul - no one else.
Know that more can be accomplished in this new energy in the physical body then being in another dimension "on the other side."
Repeat the above often - create a mantra, i.e. "I choose life. I love my life." I took long walks every morning and chanted in positive, loving mantras like the ones above.
Be with loving people of like soul-energy. No one can fix you. However, the love and vitality of loved ones can ignite your own life force. Hold hands with loved ones and spiritually connected beings (physical touch is very important).
Lovingly bring your thoughts back to the Light. Hold your pure intent for being here in love. "Fake it 'til you make it!" Consciously take control of your inner dialogue and remember "I CHOOSE LIFE!"
Place your name on prayer groups. I have called Silent Unity for almost 30 years. (For Silent Unity Prayer call (816) 969-2000.)
Know that this experience may feel different. We're making it up as we go.
Do body cleansing - Epsom salt baths, meditate, gentle exercise is very important (walking, yoga, tai chi, etc.) and body polarity alignment.
Know you can get through this! We all did and are here to help you.



When the death phantom is complete, when you have walked through it, you will remember walking through the Atlantian/Egyptian Seventh Door Initiation. It will be a grand time to celebrate! Ask your friends to join you. Bring in your inner child (the seat of your emotional body). She/he probably hasn't laughed for a while.

Most important, you will now manifest thoughts and words quickly. So be aware. Vision is at a clearer level. Stay conscious for all you manifest. The field is clear.

Verbalize to yourself daily.


"NOW, in Pure Intent,

I CHOOSE LIFE!

I CHOOSE RESURRECTION!"



Do you see how dangerous this is to people who are truly suicidal? Of course you regulars do, we are all in this choir together. :) There are plenty of lurkers, though.

If any of you reading this are having a visit from the Death Phantom, please pick up the phone and call your local hospital or your doctor. PM me, if that's all you can muster right now. It's not normal to want to kill yourself and odds are you aren't in your right mind. People like Jan Tober should have their websites shut down for that crap.

I can see how a university degree or two will help me understand how not to help people who are going through this mental earthquake. I should go back to school.

[wbeaty]

OOPS! I should read till the end of the thread before replying...




Originally posted by BillHoyt
You assert Randi isn't the best bridge architect, but you don't know the qualities of good bridge building or how best to do it.

Really? Go read again. I see a discussion of the major desirable quality of a bridge-builder: DIPLOMATIC, a bridge-builder neither freely insults nor talks down to the people to whom he/she is trying to connect.

From my Reading Shermer and Randi, it's obvious that Shermer excels at bridge building. Randi excels at community-building among skeptics, but his technique seems to be "unite against a common enemy." Unfortunately that enemy is the very population who should be courted by CSICOP. There's a second bad result: Randi attracts many non-bridge-builders to CSICOP.

I'd also add a second desirable quality for bridge building: non-hypocrite. If I claim to support reason, yet my debate style is full of derogation fallacies (ad-hominem, etc.,) then I'm no friend of reason. Hypocrite-skeptics are also the enemies of organized skepticism, because onlookers who notice the (perhaps few) obvious hypocrites in a group will tend to judge the whole group very harshly.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by wbeaty
Really? Go read again. I see a discussion of the major desirable quality of a bridge-builder: DIPLOMATIC, a bridge-builder neither freely insults nor talks down to the people to whom he/she is trying to connect.
My response was directly addressed to a specific poster, not the overall discussion. Moreover, it directly addressed this:
A bridge needs building; and Randi isn't the best bridge architect; what are the qualities of good bridge building? How is it best done?
While asserting Randi isn't the best bridge architect, he goes on to ask what those qualities are.

Randi attracts many non-bridge-builders to CSICOP.
This is JREF, not CSICOP. He's no longer associated with CSICOP.

I'd also add a second desirable quality for bridge building: non-hypocrite. If I claim to support reason, yet my debate style is full of derogation fallacies (ad-hominem, etc.,) then I'm no friend of reason.
You confuse "ad hom" in the sense of an insult with "ad hom" in the sense of an informal fallacy. Insulting someone is not engaging in a fallacy. Look it up.

Hypocrite-skeptics are also the enemies of organized skepticism, because onlookers who notice the (perhaps few) obvious hypocrites in a group will tend to judge the whole group very harshly.
Those onlookers would then be engaging in the fallacy of composition.

[Edited by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos at member's request.]

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
My response was directly addressed to a specific poster, not the overall discussion. Moreover, it directly addressed this:

While asserting Randi isn't the best bridge architect, he goes on to ask what those qualities are.

Apparently, you're only familiar with one function of asking questions?

I like the Co-Active approach to persuasion (as described in: Persuasion: Understanding, Practice, and Analysis, by Herbert W. Simons, 1976)

You confuse "ad hom" in the sense of an insult with "ad hom" in the sense of an informal fallacy. Insulting someone is not engaging in a fallacy. Look it up.

Those onlookers would then be engaging in the fallacy of composition.

They would also be engaging in a useful human heuristic.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Suggestologist
They would also be engaging in a useful human heuristic.
About as useful as concluding tomatos are poisonous because they are membbers of the nightshade family. The fallacy of composition has never been a useful human characteristic; it is a misapplication of the otherwise useful heuristic known as pattern recognition. This is the same heuristic that goes awry when we see godlike arms in clouds and faces on Mars.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
About as useful as concluding tomatos are poisonous because they are membbers of the nightshade family. The fallacy of composition has never been a useful human characteristic; it is a misapplication of the otherwise useful heuristic known as pattern recognition. This is the same heuristic that goes awry when we see godlike arms in clouds and faces on Mars.

Apparently, you're not aware that you're using the same heuristic when you make the analogies you made above?

Specifically, you're judging the whole, by analyzing the parts that are extremes and mistakes.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Suggestologist
Apparently, you're not aware that you're using the same heuristic when you make the analogies you made above?

Specifically, you're judging the whole, by analyzing the parts that are extremes and mistakes.

I will replay for you, line by line, my previous post:

"About as useful as concluding tomatos are poisonous because they are membbers of the nightshade family."

I cited this as a prime example of generalisation gone wrong. How you can contort this into my "judging the whole" is a mystery.

"The fallacy of composition has never been a useful human characteristic; it is a misapplication of the otherwise useful heuristic known as pattern recognition."

I emphasized the key phrase here since you apparently missed it entirely. Misapplication. Otherwise useful. How you can contort these phrases into my "judging the whole" is even more a mystery.

"This is the same heuristic that goes awry when we see godlike arms in clouds and faces on Mars."

And here, again, the emphasized phrase is the key refutation to your claim that I am "judging the whole."

May I respectfully suggest a basic course in logic?

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
I will replay for you, line by line, my previous post:

"About as useful as concluding tomatos are poisonous because they are membbers of the nightshade family."

I cited this as a prime example of generalisation gone wrong. How you can contort this into my "judging the whole" is a mystery.

You've made an analogy ("as useful as"); analogizing the whole (the heuristic) with the part (poisonous tomato mistake).

"The fallacy of composition has never been a useful human characteristic; it is a misapplication of the otherwise useful heuristic known as pattern recognition."

I emphasized the key phrase here since you apparently missed it entirely. Misapplication. Otherwise useful. How you can contort these phrases into my "judging the whole" is even more a mystery.

"Pattern recognition" isn't a heuristic; the particular way one recognizes a pattern can be. In this particular case, we're discussing making an evaluation on the whole based on parts which are extremes and mistakes.

"This is the same heuristic that goes awry when we see godlike arms in clouds and faces on Mars."

And here, again, the emphasized phrase is the key refutation to your claim that I am "judging the whole."

May I respectfully suggest a basic course in logic?

It was my mistake for not overtly commenting on the fact that you had shifted discussion off of the particular heuristic under scrutiny; and to the class of heuristics that might fall under the "pattern recognition" category. I believe the technical term for what you did is the "changing the subject" fallacy.

But the "pattern recognition" class is not a heuristic, its members are. May I respectfully suggest you review the differences between a category and its members?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Suggestologist
You've made an analogy ("as useful as"); analogizing the whole (the heuristic) with the part (poisonous tomato mistake).
Don't be obtuse.

"Pattern recognition" isn't a heuristic; the particular way one recognizes a pattern can be. In this particular case, we're discussing making an evaluation on the whole based on parts which are extremes and mistakes.
You would do well to study the problem of pattern recognition.

It was my mistake for not overtly commenting on the fact that you had shifted discussion off of the particular heuristic under scrutiny; and to the class of heuristics that might fall under the "pattern recognition" category. I believe the technical term for what you did is the "changing the subject" fallacy.
Apparently you are not familiar with the relationship between "pattern recognition" and "generalization."

"Pattern recognition is the ability to generalize from observations. We see an object with a particular shape, color and flavour and know that it is an apple. Thereby we generalize from the specific observation {shape, color, flavour} to the general concept of apple.

Pattern Recognition (http://www.ph.tn.tudelft.nl/People/bob/papers/4PR_Approaches.pdf)

But the "pattern recognition" class is not a heuristic, its members are. May I respectfully suggest you review the differences between a category and its members?
I left an "s" out of my sentence. Thank you for pointing that out. Here it is corrected:

"The fallacy of composition has never been a useful human characteristic; it is a misapplication of the otherwise useful heuristics known as pattern recognition."

Sheesh.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Don't be obtuse.


You would do well to study the problem of pattern recognition.


Apparently you are not familiar with the relationship between "pattern recognition" and "generalization."

"Pattern recognition is the ability to generalize from observations. We see an object with a particular shape, color and flavour and know that it is an apple. Thereby we generalize from the specific observation {shape, color, flavour} to the general concept of apple.

Pattern Recognition (http://www.ph.tn.tudelft.nl/People/bob/papers/4PR_Approaches.pdf)


I left an "s" out of my sentence. Thank you for pointing that out. Here it is corrected:

"The fallacy of composition has never been a useful human characteristic; it is a misapplication of the otherwise useful heuristics known as pattern recognition."

Sheesh.

Interesting choice of rationalization.

Did you notice that the paper says: "The main point of this paper is to make clear that, like everywhere else in science, also in the science of pattern recognition different approaches may exist. These approaches describe the process of generalization from observation in different ways using different starting points. There is no right or wrong, no better or worse in adopting an approach. These starting points are equally valid." ?

It goes on to say that one approach may be better than another in particular applications; but this varies by application.

It may not be true, but it is useful: that upon discovering that a certain fruit makes you feel ill (or someone dies after eating one), you assume that all like fruit will also make you feel ill (or that you might die if you eat it); especially if you have no means of determining its effects from a chemical angle of view.

The assertion that (potential) fallacies cannot be useful is nonsense. We often have only partial information and must make the best use of what information is available. And so we resort to "rules of thumb", also known as "heuristics".

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Suggestologist
Interesting choice of rationalization.

Did you notice that the paper says: "The main point of this paper is to make clear that, like everywhere else in science, also in the science of pattern recognition different approaches may exist. These approaches describe the process of generalization from observation in different ways using different starting points. There is no right or wrong, no better or worse in adopting an approach. These starting points are equally valid." ?

It goes on to say that one approach may be better than another in particular applications; but this varies by application.

It may not be true, but it is useful: that upon discovering that a certain fruit makes you feel ill (or someone dies after eating one), you assume that all like fruit will also make you feel ill (or that you might die if you eat it); especially if you have no means of determining its effects from a chemical angle of view.

The assertion that (potential) fallacies cannot be useful is nonsense. We often have only partial information and must make the best use of what information is available. And so we resort to "rules of thumb", also known as "heuristics".
Do me a favor and stop cherry-picking with minimal comprehension. You picked your cherry and completely ignored the phrase "in the science of pattern recognition." This is not a statement about recognizing patterns, but a meta-statement about how we recognize how we recognize patterns. the author's goals, had you read the paper, are to give guidance to those working in artificial intelligence.

From the beginning, i used phrases such as "goes awry," and "misapplication" and "otherwise useful." If you need to pedal postmodernism, then shine a light on a wall, get between the light and the wall, and box your knuckles off, knucklehead.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Keneke
For example, P&T are not mad at victims, but I assume they would disagree with the victim's beliefs.



Er, yes, I'd say P stating that victims were f*cking retards to be taken by the scammers would imply such disagreement.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Do me a favor and stop cherry-picking with minimal comprehension. You picked your cherry and completely ignored the phrase "in the science of pattern recognition." This is not a statement about recognizing patterns, but a meta-statement about how we recognize how we recognize patterns. the author's goals, had you read the paper, are to give guidance to those working in artificial intelligence.

From the beginning, i used phrases such as "goes awry," and "misapplication" and "otherwise useful." If you need to pedal postmodernism, then shine a light on a wall, get between the light and the wall, and box your knuckles off, knucklehead.

You also used the phrase: "never useful".

You do realize that "how we recognize how we recognize patterns" might be called "pattern metarecognition" and would still be a form of pattern recognition.

If the author's goals don't coincide with the content of our current disagreement, why did you bring it up?

Oh good, you're calling names. I win.

Which brings us back to the original topic of this thread. Now, why should we call and/or not call people names out of frustration. Let's consider some reasons:

From Persuasion: Understanding, Practice, and Analysis by Herbert W. Simons, p.259: "Whereas the rhetoric of identification aims at bridging between adversaries, the rhetoric of division is distance-increasing. Divisive rhetoric accuses, belittles, vilifies. The speaker is right, the listener is wrong; the speaker is superior, the listener inferior. Differences are underscored, and they tend to be exaggerated through invective and ridicule."

p.260: "[I]t would appear that under most circumstances, a rhetoric of identification is infinitely superior. Recall that common ground facilitates decoding, increases attraction, and in the case of relevant dispositional similarities, is likely to increase respect and trust. Appeals to common ground are also more likely to engender a spirit of cooperation in conflict situations."

And with respect to divisive rhetoric on p.261: "In hurling abuse at one's adversaries, one often aims at gaining increased support from sympathizers or potential sympathizers. A rhetoric of division against the persuader's opponents is simultaneously a rhetoric of identification for those already in sympathy with the persuader's views."

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Suggestologist
You also used the phrase: "never useful".
And the referent there was what?

You do realize that "how we recognize how we recognize patterns" might be called "pattern metarecognition" and would still be a form of pattern recognition.
Not when the goal is to tranfer the heuristic to computation it isn't. Don't be obtuse.

If the author's goals don't coincide with the content of our current disagreement, why did you bring it up?
I raised the paper in a particular context also. You have a habit of ignoring those contexts.

Oh good, you're calling names. I win.
Go away. You continue your habit of contorting whatever has been into straw and then shadowboxing with your own straw. You are back on my ignore list, being an absolute waste of time.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
[B]And the referent there was what?

The referent was the heuristic in question.

[zeno]

Tami:


1) Biggest surprise so far, to a newcomer, was to
learn that some members of an elite group purported to
be interested only in matter-of-fact facts, is as
petty on occasion as the rest of us. Illuminating,
both comforting & disturbing at the same time.

2) English composition in general, at least, seems a
tad better then what I have become used to.
Congratulations on that score.

3) Biggest surprise in the Karla McLaren article is
that James Randi is considered intolerant by friend &
foe alike. From the few snippets I've seen on TV,
Randi comes across as a breathtakingly brilliant
debunker. Compelled to contend with brain-dead
born-again nitwits too stupid to figure out why round
things roll, it seems altogether fitting & proper to
establish from the beginning who is the dominant
intellectual, ethical, and moral authority in
attendance.

4) Consistently under attack himself, putting
adversaries on the defensive may well be a tactic
developed early in his professional career. Indeed, it
is a metamorphosis I have undergone myself in the last
couple of years. I have no quarrel with those who have
done their homework, but have become increasingly
irritated with functional illiterates who have not, or
can not.


5) My introduction to 'New Agers' occurred a couple of
years ago. I had no idea what one was, but felt
constrained to defend them to the limited extent
possible for someone with only the most rudimentary of
computer skills. While I did not understand what a
'New Ager' was, I did understand an attack on them
constituted an attack on myself as well.

6) We shared certain core values, among them an
independent, free-thinking, contrarian, skeptical turn
of mind. They, and I, might not pass muster at SI or
SM, or here, but new-found BB (bulletin board) buddies
were natural-born skeptics nonetheless. Live with it.
By the very nature of the forum(s) I was a contributor
to @ www.rawfoodsupport.com, it could not have been
otherwise. Only parameters were shifted.

7) None of the accused owned up to being a 'New Ager,'
nor did they seem to understand what it entailed any
better then myself. What was abundantly clear,
however, was that the accusers were an organized,
aggressive, virulent group of wrong-wing fundamental
religionists dispensing predigested wrong-wing
religious pap bent on converting the entire Christian
community ASAP to more myopic vistas endemic to
closed, monolithic, self-limiting, stagnant, declining
societies of the sort they wish to impose on the rest
of us. Been there, done that.

8) Falsely accused, in this instance, is more
accurate. In an earlier era, before conservatives
snuggled without a backward glance comfortably into
bed with Chinese slavemasters, preferred forms of
front-loaded slander included 'Socialists' or
'Communists,' bandied about with reckless ease
instead. It was at that time for that reason
conservatives felt the need to begin converting
'liberal' and 'progressive' into 4 letter fighting
words suitable for framing, as though there were
something inherently wrong in using the lump located
between our ears for something other then a hatrack.


9) Until reading the McLaren article a few days ago, I
still had no coherent idea what a 'New Ager' was, or
is. While a few of my BB buddies obviously qualify as
'New Ager' by her definition, most would probably not
consider themselves in that light. Neither, therefore,
shall I.

10) That does not mean I do not empathize with Ms.
McLaren. I do, wholeheartedly. It took her to explain
to me why I have become increasingly frustrated, why I
believe the task she has set for herself is nigh on
impossible, and why building bridges on less then
bedrock may be a pointless exercise in futility; a
waste of time, effort, emotion, and resources.

11) Requests for evidence in her world & mine, after
all, are often tantamount to proof positive we must
ourselves, perforce, be wrong. Not only is contrary
evidence not welcome, held in utter contempt, it may
in the end prove counterproductive as well. Just as
certain "givens" are too obvious to argue about among
traditional skeptics, so it is with other equally
opinionated faith-based skeptics as well.

12) I have never fit in, in either world. As gullible
as the day I fell off the turnip truck, I am not a
natural-born skeptic in the same sense as some of you,
or a trained expert such as Randi. It ain't easy. I
have to work at it. In almost any debate, I am
inclined to agree with whomever was the last person to
make their case.


13) Over the months & years I've adopted certain
guidelines I attempt, seldom successfully, to abide
by:

a) Free screech ends when the health & welfare of
others is put at risk. These includes 'Breatharianism'
& 'Sungazing,' and similarly accepted insanities. How
proponents can blithely continue to recommend suicidal
strategies to others remains an ongoing mystery;
components, of course, are outright liars, a "given"
alluded to earlier.

b) 'Urine Therapy' & 'Pica*,' and other similarly
accepted near-insanities are not far behind. I do not
wish to be a party to ideas obviously inimical to
self-health itself. I may enter an active discussion,
but have learned, to my dismay, not to bump such
idiotic ideas (Ooops!) to the top.

c) Relatively harmless astrology, UFO & crop circle
beliefs, and the like: Worrying about the ozone hole
hovering over Antarctica doesn't leave ample time for
minor matters such as those.

14) All three are entirely faith based, like
communism, fascism, or most other isms. If this copy
is posted elsewhere as a sort of rickety trestle,
leaving proper bridge building to better architects
then myself, the preceding three references will
likely be deleted. No amount of argument or evidence
will convince the faithful they fly full force in the
face of common sense, so why pick a fight with BB
buddies, good people, whose good will & freedom of
choice is as dear to me as it is to them?

15) This is also the juncture at which I expect to
part company with most of you, if I haven't already.
Unlike BB buddies, I don't believe most classically
trained medical doctors are as inherently crass as
they have been crafted by insurance companies. I
believe most would put their medical training to
proper use if allowed to do so.

16) As long as a conservative congress, beholden to
special interests, is calling the shots, however, the
only choice for many of us is alternative medicine.
Few of us in the alternative community believe
pharmaceutical houses are interested in curing anyone
of anything. Why would their ultimate objective be to
put themselves out of business?

17) In the meantime, the great Ann Wigmore, Max
Gerson, their many disciples, and other miracle
workers have restored thousands upon thousands of
people, abandoned to a grim fate by the medical
community, to good health via alternative choices. The
best of all possible worlds, by my reckoning, is a
classically trained crossover MD with alternative
credentials.


* Pica, a quest common among farm animals to restore
depleted minerals by gnawing on fence posts & the
like; among humans, by eating dirt.


Tagline: From "Wrong!" by Jane O'Boyle.

Q: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you
check for a pulse?
A: No.

Q: Did you check for blood pressure?
A: No.

Q: Did you check for breathing?
A: No.

Q: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive
when you began the autopsy?
A: No

Q: How can you be so sure, doctor?
A: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.