Sweet-talk vs earnest critique

[DrMatt]

A couple years ago at TAM, somebody said something to the effect that "ridicule is a blunt instrument but sometimes it's the best tool for the job."

And of course Penn said over and over stuff to the effect of "Don't hold back what you really think, that's just patronizing."

Arguments to the effect that skeptics and especially Randi are "too harsh" continue to be voiced at SkepticalCommunity.

I think that adding "You #@$@ idiot" to a critique doesn't add content, and considering academe's role in protecting tenure-holding B@#$##@ers e.g. Gary Schwartz from critique, there's evidence that it is not only the stupid or idiotic who are plagued with credulousness and a shortage of critical thinking.

In this week's (8 April 2005) commentary, Dawkins's paen to Penn and Teller is quoted addressing the topic of "giving offence" (correct British spelling), and Randi follows up on that.

On the one hand, one might suspect that Randi can do better than this bifurcation:
Michael Roll is either just a bare-faced liar, or he's simply stupid and uninformed.
On the other hand, demanding "sensitivity" to the feelings of frauds is a blunt tool for censoring all criticism.

In past years I've come under fire at my job for posting a web page observing that University of Michigan Medical Center's much-ballyhooed "Smoke-free zone" is full of smokers and ashtrays, and that for years the medical center has advertised number of cigarette butts cleaned up from the "smoke-free zone" during its annual clean-up, as if a growing number of butts cleaned up were a sign of progress. Somebody somewhere ought to point out publicly that something is amiss there. When my office was at the medical center campus, I actually had locus standi in the matter, but that's when my job was most endangered by what I said on my own time.

Should I have hushed up "for solidarity"? or "for my job?" Doesn't doing that imply the condescending attitude that "U-M can't possibly rectify its hypocrisy, so there's no use talking about it"? Is it really too idealistic to suppose that a giant educational institution with connections not only to Hal Bidlack but also to state government can say what it means and do what it says, if it takes those values seriously enough? Or does thinking like that just make me a curmudgeon?

I think there are problems with the ways some skeptics express themselves, but I think straight talk is not one of them. Whaddya know? Whaddya think?

[Jono]

Well yes perhaps.
People sometimes do express themselves from a high emotional plateu, especially if they are quite attached to a belief, thought, conduct etc.
It is irritation, the classical I'm right you are wrong still elaborated by circumstances.

So I have yet found a person, critical thinker or not, to be without any blunt emotional expressions from their attachment to a thought.

But on the other hand, we should be responsible and selfcritical enough to choose not to become offended, though we don't always do that do we? ;)

[Keneke]

In reference to the thread "EFT Claims", which is also in this subforum, we talk about Randi's recent drubbing of a claimant. However, there is a subtle difference between my complaints of the handling of that applicant, and of skeptic derision in general.

It's one thing to verbally bludgeon those who cannot or choose not to learn from the process of failure, such as when they butt heads with JREF and lose, then keep trying. The issue at hand was the immediate, unhelpful sarcasm from Randi at an assumedly green claimant. When someone first applies, at the very least we'd want to state our desire for a controlled environment, and why that is important. Indeed, the first few inklings of true scientific trappings might be enough to trigger a light going on in the claimant's head. But if we are to razz claimants before they even understand what is desired from them, our trap -- that is, thoroughly disproving a claim and embarassing the claimant -- cannot be set.

However, if after obvious defeat, the woo keeps at it, or even attacks us directly, then hey...no mercy.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by DrMatt
On the one hand, one might suspect that Randi can do better than this bifurcation:

It is very clear, and to the point. No need to go Shakespearean.

Originally posted by DrMatt
On the other hand, demanding "sensitivity" to the feelings of frauds is a blunt tool for censoring all criticism.

You bet:

Is courtesy used to defend ignorance? (http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/pcignorance.htm)

[I'll_buy_that]

in reference to:
Is courtesy used to defend ignorance?


Does a private enterprise have any obligation to publish offending posts? I don't think they do. This should discredit them, but usually it comforts those who are the sites main readers and main source of income.

That said, I would be really dissapointed if Randi practiced censorship on his boards. I think the usual posters can do a good job of debating and leave it to the person form his own opinions. Having a place for open discussion without fear of being insulted/offended isn't really open. I think we can all agree on this.

There is nothing written that says you have the right to not be offended. Anyway, where would you stop if you wanted to prevent the offense? derogatory language against Jews, or against a minority race would raise eyebrows and most can get behind the removal of such language. But what if someone was posting as fact some fantasy that he truely believes. Let's say that he was posting a story of an alien who came to earth millions of years ago, then trapped many souls in a volcano who are waiting to escape, but this alien's "soul" lives within each person. You would say this is rediculous and no one would believe it. But does this person have the same rights as a Jew, black, hispanic to not be offended by language which would essentially call him a nutjob?