Do's and Don'ts for Skeptics who wish to change other people's minds

[Beth]

I've been lurking on the "So what should skeptics do?" thread and I recently changed my mind due to another thread here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57090

I thought I would comment on what was helpful in persuading me and what was not for the elucidation of those who are sincerely interested in changing other people's mind.

1. Be nice. Before you can change someone's mind, you have to get them to listen to you. If you insult or denigrate them, they will not listen to you. If you attempt to shame them, you invite them to ignore you. Those smart-ass comments may be funny and score you points with other skeptics, but they also turn off the people you are trying to reach.

Myself, I use the ignore feature of this forum liberally. There's more stuff here to read than I will ever get to and more people posting than I can follow. So anyone who is mean to me, calls me names, or just generally ridicules my ideas without consideration goes on my ignore list. In fact, I've put people on ignore for over-the-top rudeness to others. I avoid associating with mean people in real life, why should associate with them on-line? Thus, anything they have to say will not be heard by me. However, I did go back and look at all the posts in the thread when writing this.

2. Listen to the person, try to get them to talk about why they believe what they believe. If you don't understand why and what they believe, you're just going to sound like a fool to them, arguing against positions they don't hold. That simply isn't persuasive. This happened a lot in this thread.

3. Ask, don't assume. For example, in the discussion referenced above, no one ever asked me if I actually believed my favorite theory was true. If they had, I would have responded "No". It simply fit what I understood to be the facts, better than any other theory. I certainly would have rated the possibility that I didn't have all the facts higher than the probability that that theory was true. But no one asked me that. However, the one person who did inquire where I got my information was helpful because it caused me to review what I did know and assess it again. Allowing someone to do this is an important step in both of you understanding why they believe what they believe.

4. Provide facts and information they don't already have. In order to do this, steps 2 and 3 are vital. Providing facts and information they already have is not going to change their minds. Providing facts and information irrelevant to whatever belief they hold is likewise unpersuasive.

5. Don't presume that just because you claim something is a fact, it will be accepted by others if you don't provide a verifiable source. In this particular case, many people kept insisting that one particular fact was true (and it was) but it was not convincing to me because until I was able to read a credible report by someone who had studied the issue in depth. That's not unreasonable - in fact, that's what skeptics demand. Do not expect believers to be less demanding regarding evidence to change their mind than you would be. If you don't accept someone's say so on the internet as a fact, why should they?

Now, a few exerpts from the thread and my reaction to them.


Jmercer says :
The government/military-industrial complex conspiracy thing doesn't hang together in any way unless you assume massive incompetency on the part of the organization. (Which would be kind of at odds with keeping it a secret for this long, wouldn't you say? Incompetents are notoriously poor at concealing things. )

This was a polite post, and a good argument. THe problem is this wasn't what I believed, so it wasn't persuasive in getting me to change my opinion. However, he was following rule #2, and listening to me. This got me to respond with a more detailed description of my favorite theory.

Rolfe gives his expert opinion: These mutilations don't bear the slightest resemblance to any pathology investigation I've ever heard of, and I'm a veterinary pathologist. If Rolfe had actually examined the mutilations, this would have been quite convincing. However, I was basing my contrary opinion on a experts who had examined the animals and come to a contrary opinon. Expert disagree all the time. I needed to hear from an expert who had looked at the actual animals, not just pictures in a magazine. In fact. later on in the thread, Rolfe admits that his conclusions were tentative.

Ashley ridicules in post after post, but never provides any credible information, just his opinion, and consistently indicates that he doesn't understand my theory at all. For example, This is the most believable theory to you?
Individuals performing unauthorised cow autopsies in the middle of fields? Since I never believed this in the first place, it was ridiculing a belief I didn't hold. This actually happened quite a bit in this thread, it wasn't just Ashley. It simply is not persuasive to ridicule beliefs the person doesn't hold. However, it does make the poster look like a fool and it does make me inclined to ignore them.

Psi Baba posted an excellent link, but unfortunately when I clicked on it, it wasn't working. When I was finally able to read this information, this was what changed my mind. Some quotes were included in the Psi Baba's first post, but not the source of the report, which is what I needed for me to find it credible. I'd like to note here that I was actually quite delighted to eventually read much of this report because Psi Baba later posted, after learning the link was down, quite a bit of it, including the author, who had done an extensive first hand investigation on the matter, and his creditials. I realized the information I had had previously was far from complete, but I had never found more credible information than what I already had. I did a quick google on the subject at some point during my participation on the thread and came up lots of hits, but zero credible new information.

MRC_Hans had a good supportive post for Psi Baba's report, but I didn't read his post because he is on my ignore list due to a particularly scathing post to wellfed. I mention this because it illustates point #1. If the person isn't listening to you, you cannot possibly persuade them.

gtc is now on my ignore list due to the following post:

I am so glad I do not attend your University and I can't believe that I am about to explain this to someone who is older and more experienced and with better academic qualifications than me.

This beginning is enough for me to put him/her on ignore. I don't like to be insulted. This post is also patronizing and attempts to shame me into changing my beliefs. I almost didn't bother to read the rest of the post, but it gets worse.

The only experts to have actually examined these mysterious corpses and who then get on TV are either cranks or experts after fame and money. Scientists without an agenda don't get to look at these corpses because they would show that it is the work of animals, insects or birds and the corpse would no longer be a mystery.....

On this forum, I hear people complain that skeptics are as profoundly tied to their beliefs as the so-called 'believers' and others claim it is not so and demand evidence of such close-mindedness. I think this post in it's entirely is a good example of such close-mindedness. If you automatically classify scientists and experts who come up with a particular finding as being cranks and/or after fame and money, you are insulating yourself from actually considering any evidence that might contradict your previous opinion. This is what 'believers' are accused of doing all the time, but my assessment is that 'believers' are no more prone to do this than the skeptics.


BTW, a final word about 'believers'. I put it in quotes because it isn't actually a good term. I find it more palatable than the W word. But I am a 'believer' only in the sense that I recognize that I don't understand everything about the world, that science does not understand everything, and that there are some things that have not, perhaps can never be, verified as true or false. I am willing to accept certain things as possible, not necessarily true. I have come to realize that this makes me a 'believer' on this forum, not because I believe something to be true, but because I believe that it might possibly be true. Given the behavior I've seen many so-called skeptics (such as gtc) exhibit, I've come to prefer that label to the skeptic label.

When trying to persuade someone, I suggest you ask them how firmly they believe in something. You might be surprised to discover they only believe that it's possible, not that it must be true.

That's all from me for a while. I'm heading out of town later today and won't be back until June.

Beth

[Z]

A wee-bit thin-skinned, aren't you? If this is an example of why you put folks on 'ignore', it's a wonder you have anything to read at all.

Well, have a nice week. I imagine I'm on ignore now, myself.

[Gaga]

Hi Beth!
that surely makes sense and it's the basis of any kind of conversation / discussion / debate. I might say, though, that it's hard to be always nice and attentive, especially with some people.
The only thing I don't agree with is your attitude re Ignore List.
Everyone has the right to have a bad day once in a while. Putting people on ignore for a single sentence will cut you out of the rest of the interesting posts they could make. You put a wonderful example of this in your op (Hans).
just my 2 pences
take care

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
A wee-bit thin-skinned, aren't you? If this is an example of why you put folks on 'ignore', it's a wonder you have anything to read at all.



Maybe she is, I am too, but that's completely irrelevant to her post which is absolutely spot on.



Well, have a nice week. I imagine I'm on ignore now, myself. [/B]

You will be if she's read some of your posts addressing me! :eek: LOL

[delphi_ote]

Beth, this was exactly the type of input we were looking for in the "What should skeptics do?" thread. Thanks for your input.

[dann]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
If this is an example of why you put folks on 'ignore', it's a wonder you have anything to read at all. Well, it's a way of sorting the stuff here, and it's true that you can't read it all:Originally posted by Beth
[B]There's more stuff here to read than I will ever get to and more people posting than I can follow.[B]Don't you do the same thing with newspapers? There are just some people whose opinions you don't really care about, so you don't read them!
I think that it is very often worth considering: Do you want to p**s woowoos off or do you want to persuade them of something? I think that all five points are worth looking into. However, there's a time for being nice, but it's also good to know when to stop ...

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Beth
Ashley ridicules in post after post, but never provides any credible information, just his opinion, and consistently indicates that he doesn't understand my theory at all. For example,
------------------------------
This is the most believable theory to you?
Individuals performing unauthorised cow autopsies in the middle of fields?
------------------------------

Since I never believed this in the first place, it was ridiculing a belief I didn't hold. This actually happened quite a bit in this thread, it wasn't just Ashley. It simply is not persuasive to ridicule beliefs the person doesn't hold. However, it does make the poster look like a fool and it does make me inclined to ignore them.
Beth, you wrote:
I heard a rumor that it was some agency of the government (FBI perhaps, or military?) that wanted to gather information on the long term, multi-generational effects of the atomic bomb testing that went on decades ago. It was claimed that the mutilations all occurred in areas that were affected by the testing. I don't know if that's true, I haven't researched it myself, but they have all been in the U.S. west and southwest, which is where the atomic bomb testing occurred. The people involved were unable to get permission to legally purchase the animals (I can't remember if it was the cost or the idea of making the reason for the purchase public that upset their administrators) and chose to collect the information they wanted by thievery. Presumably they felt the information they would get and the knowledge obtained by their analysis was justification for the action they were taking. They would randomly select animals (perhaps from specific herds?) and remove the pieces they wanted for testing.
And
And I'm not married to that explanation, it's simply the most believable one I've heard so far. The wild animal explanation doesn't fit with the reported mutilations.
And
Presuming the explanation true, I think it more likely it's a few individuals in key spots who simply wish to conduct the research on their own after having failed to convince their superiors it was an effort worth pursuing. Such a scenario would also make secrecy a requirement.
So how was my comment incorrect?

You stated your theory, claimed it was "simply the most believable one I've heard so far", and it involved individuals working without permission of their superiors to perform autopsies on cattle on location in the fields where the cattle were kept.
You repeatedly dismissed criticisms of your theory which pointed out all the logical flaws (like how much easier it would be to transport the cattle elsewhere).

So how was my comment incorrect?

And I ridiculed in post after post because I thought your theory was frankly ridiculous. I actually found it hard to understand how you could continue to hold such a theory as the most believable when presented with the logical flaws.
Note - this isn't to say that I was claiming your theory was impossible. Sometimes an unlikely explanation is the answer.

But in no reasonable way could you claim that it was the most believable theory, and your continuing refusal to accept any other explanation as more believable made it appear that you were a fan of the theory simply because it was the most 'interesting' one.

I was never interested in changing your mind about your theory Beth because you it was clear you would refuse to do so. Posters a lot more polite and patient than myself explained the many problems with your theory, but you would not change your mind, and it is disingenuous of you to pretend that you would have without the new information Psi baba provided.

And in other discussions with other posters I have followed all of your advice (which is of course common sense).
It depends on the other poster, what they are claiming and how likely they ae to listen to evidence and fair criticism.

For example I try to be particuarly patient with YE creationists because I know what claims they are likely to make, and where all the information is to counter those claims. Often they are genuinely unaware of the errors they have been taught.

By the way this thread does make you seem very thin-skinned, and call-out threads (naming individual posters with a list of accusations) are generally a bad idea. Especially a post-and-run as you appear to have done here.
Maybe you have to ask yourelf how interested you really are in hearing opposing opinions and viewpoints.
I have never felt the need to put anyone on ignore yet.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Beth
1. Be nice. Before you can change someone's mind, you have to get them to listen to you. If you insult or denigrate them, they will not listen to you. If you attempt to shame them, you invite them to ignore you. Those smart-ass comments may be funny and score you points with other skeptics, but they also turn off the people you are trying to reach.

Myself, I use the ignore feature of this forum liberally. There's more stuff here to read than I will ever get to and more people posting than I can follow. So anyone who is mean to me, calls me names, or just generally ridicules my ideas without consideration goes on my ignore list. In fact, I've put people on ignore for over-the-top rudeness to others. I avoid associating with mean people in real life, why should associate with them on-line? Thus, anything they have to say will not be heard by me. However, I did go back and look at all the posts in the thread when writing this.

When you look at how believers post, both here and elsewhere, does it strike you as they are being nice to skeptics? Skeptics are routinely censored on many boards for believers, and some even ban skeptics altogether. Believers are not censored here. What does that tell you?

Do you understand the frustration skeptics feel, when they are met with obtuseness, close-mindedness and outright deceit from believers? Should skeptics be nice to those who scam sick and grieving people? To those who support the scammers?

Originally posted by Beth
2. Listen to the person, try to get them to talk about why they believe what they believe. If you don't understand why and what they believe, you're just going to sound like a fool to them, arguing against positions they don't hold. That simply isn't persuasive. This happened a lot in this thread.

3. Ask, don't assume. For example, in the discussion referenced above, no one ever asked me if I actually believed my favorite theory was true. If they had, I would have responded "No". It simply fit what I understood to be the facts, better than any other theory. I certainly would have rated the possibility that I didn't have all the facts higher than the probability that that theory was true. But no one asked me that. However, the one person who did inquire where I got my information was helpful because it caused me to review what I did know and assess it again. Allowing someone to do this is an important step in both of you understanding why they believe what they believe.

Did it ever occur to you to come out and state clearly from the beginning what you believed in? Quite often, it is a tough task to drag real answers out of believers. Is it OK that we "pester" believers for this?

Originally posted by Beth
4. Provide facts and information they don't already have. In order to do this, steps 2 and 3 are vital. Providing facts and information they already have is not going to change their minds. Providing facts and information irrelevant to whatever belief they hold is likewise unpersuasive.

5. Don't presume that just because you claim something is a fact, it will be accepted by others if you don't provide a verifiable source. In this particular case, many people kept insisting that one particular fact was true (and it was) but it was not convincing to me because until I was able to read a credible report by someone who had studied the issue in depth. That's not unreasonable - in fact, that's what skeptics demand. Do not expect believers to be less demanding regarding evidence to change their mind than you would be. If you don't accept someone's say so on the internet as a fact, why should they?

What do we do, when those facts are ignored?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ashles
I have never felt the need to put anyone on ignore yet.

Oh dear. It seems I need to try a lot harder! :D

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Did it ever occur to you to come out and state clearly from the beginning what you believed in? Quite often, it is a tough task to drag real answers out of believers. Is it OK that we "pester" believers for this?


It's not relevant Claus, it's not relevant. It's peoples' arguments which are important. Stating upfront what ones own personal position is would tend to detract from the arguments put forward and possibly prejudice the listener.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Oh dear. It seems I need to try a lot harder! :D
Ian, believe me you're not even close to some of these homeopaths. :)

[SpaceFluffer]

Very nice post, Beth. I agree with you wholeheartedly.

[SpaceFluffer]

Originally posted by Ashles
By the way this thread does make you seem very thin-skinned, and call-out threads (naming individual posters with a list of accusations) are generally a bad idea. Especially a post-and-run as you appear to have done here.
Maybe you have to ask yourelf how interested you really are in hearing opposing opinions and viewpoints.Currently Ashles, you're the one looking thin-skinned in this thread.

Try not to take Beth's examples too personally. I think she has some excellent points in her post.

We're all trying to be better at talking to PWBWTs (people who believe weird things) about their beliefs, and here's someone who believes some pretty strange stuff giving us some pointers. I, for one, welcome the comments.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by SpaceFluffer
Currently Ashles, you're the one looking thin-skinned in this thread.

Try not to take Beth's examples too personally. I think she has some excellent points in her post.

We're all trying to be better at talking to PWBWTs (people who believe weird things) about their beliefs, and here's someone who believes some pretty strange stuff giving us some pointers. I, for one, welcome the comments.
I'd be rather surprised if anyone here was previously unaware of any of Beth's points or suggestions.

It's a bit precious of anyone to pretend they don't get fed up with certain ridiculous posts.

You may be trying to be better at talking to such people SpeaceFluffer- I'm personally very comfortable with the way I talk to them. If it's too harsh sometimes for them then that's for them to respond to or ignore. It's up to them - I don't have any intention of changing my personality or posting style to accomodate someone else's beliefs.

[SpaceFluffer]

Originally posted by Ashles
I'd be rather surprised if anyone here was previously unaware of any of Beth's points or suggestions.Completely aware of them, yet appreciated these ones nonetheless.
It's a bit precious of anyone to pretend they don't get fed up with certain ridiculous posts.If you mean me, then that's certainly not true. In any case, one doesn't necessarily have to channel one's frustration into a post.
You may be trying to be better at talking to such people SpeaceFluffer- I'm personally very comfortable with the way I talk to them. If it's too harsh sometimes for them then that's for them to respond to or ignore. It's up to them - I don't have any intention of changing my personality or posting style to accomodate someone else's beliefs. That's your decision. But don't be surprised if you're wholly unsucessful at changing anyone's opinions about a weird belief.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Should skeptics be nice to those who scam sick and grieving people?No.

To those who support the scammers?Yes!

If our goal is to get them to stop supporting scammers, then absolutely we have to be nice to them. We need to show them that what they are doing is wrong, and being jerks to them will not accomplish that. It will only reinforce their belief that what they are doing is right.


And add me to the list of people who cheered when they read Beth's OP.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by SpaceFluffer
Completely aware of them, yet appreciated these ones nonetheless.
If you mean me, then that's certainly not true. In any case, one doesn't necessarily have to channel one's frustration into a post.
That's your decision. But don't be surprised if you're wholly unsucessful at changing anyone's opinions about a weird belief.
You obviously didn't read my post to Beth above very well.

[turtle]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
A wee-bit thin-skinned, aren't you? If this is an example of why you put folks on 'ignore', it's a wonder you have anything to read at all.

Well, have a nice week. I imagine I'm on ignore now, myself.

GAWD! I am so tired of some skeptics in here who react in this manner to any honest post by a non-skeptic to explain things from their perspective. Beth's post was not combative, hostile, or trollish. It was well thought out and calm, and a geniune attempt to communicate.

Hardly "thin skinned." Indeed, why put up with insults? Among other things, it's certainly non-productive to engage in nasty 'fights.'

Seems to me your post, zaaydragon, is a baiting technique to get Beth and the few other 'believers' (and I agree with Beth, it's not a term I much care for either) to shut her up so you don't have to be bothered by another 'woo' in this forum.

Seems to be a technique used in here by some skeptics; that of a defensive reaction. Either by calling believers "thin skinned," if not that, then calling them 'trolls' when they're clearly not, or insulting them and bullying them by telling them not to play "the victim card" when they stand up to those who insult.

So Aussie, who started the thread on this topic some time ago, here's another example of what NOT to do. Beth writes something with good intent; zaaydragon reacts in this manner.

And we're supposed to get somewhere with this kind of thing? humpf.

[Garrette]

Honest question for turtle and Beth and anyone else who does not care for the term "believer."

What would you substitute for it?

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Do you understand the frustration skeptics feel, when they are met with obtuseness, close-mindedness and outright deceit from believers? Should skeptics be nice to those who scam sick and grieving people? To those who support the scammers?

These are appeals to emotion (frustration, sense of justice). It's unfortunate that skeptics are more likely to internalize these (and act irrationally in a persuasion context) than to use emotions as leverage points into the believer's mind (thought processes).

What do we do, when those facts are ignored?

We ask ourselves if we have done enough contextualization of the facts into their models of the world. If we have framed them as generalized stories, when the believer is engaging in personalized stories...then we are not matching them, and there is a palpable differentness, wrongness between them and us.

We ask ourselves if we can take the believer's model of the world and go with it enthusiastically until we take it past it's breaking point (reductio ad absurdum where the believers are the ones who realize the absurdity, we don't point it out to them). What someone "discovers" for themself is more believed that what someone tells you that you "should" think.

[turtle]

Originally posted by Garrette
Honest question for turtle and Beth and anyone else who does not care for the term "believer."

What would you substitute for it?

I don't know, I've given it thought but haven't come up with anything.

In some ways, it isn't a bad term, because most "believers" do believe (accept?) that things exist. I "believe" there are extra terrestrials, for example. I believe psi exists. But, while I believe it, I also always know that: I could be wrong, I could be in the right book but the wrong page, what we may be perceiving as one thing with a certain label is really something else altogether, etc. It's not an unshakeable "belief" as in a fundie zealot fanatic way. I realize to most skeptics it appears as such. Especially when you go to a New Age conference and speakers in long purple flowing chiffon caftans who talk of channeling alien intelligences abound.


The term "believer" as used by most skeptics has a connotation of superstitious ignorant folk with no sense. Then again, there are many "believers" who are wacky too, like those christian ufo types. IMO.

I prefer the tongue in cheek use of "woo" because it's sort of taking back the power, lol.

I suppose though that believer is better than the completely rude term of " 'bleever"

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by SpaceFluffer

We're all trying to be better at talking to PWBWTs (people who believe weird things) about their beliefs, and here's someone who believes some pretty strange stuff giving us some pointers. I, for one, welcome the comments.

But it seems you may not have been paying sufficient attention to her post, at least not to all of it. Let me repeat the appropriate part of it:


But I am a 'believer' only in the sense that I recognize that I don't understand everything about the world, that science does not understand everything, and that there are some things that have not, perhaps can never be, verified as true or false. I am willing to accept certain things as possible, not necessarily true. I have come to realize that this makes me a 'believer' on this forum, not because I believe something to be true, but because I believe that it might possibly be true.


So this would seem to contradict your assertion that she believes in some pretty strange stuff. So unless you can point to anywhere where she has expressed belief in some strange stuff?

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by Beth
Rolfe gives his expert opinion: If Rolfe had actually examined the mutilations, this would have been quite convincing. However, I was basing my contrary opinion on a experts who had examined the animals and come to a contrary opinon. Expert disagree all the time. I needed to hear from an expert who had looked at the actual animals, not just pictures in a magazine. In fact. later on in the thread, Rolfe admits that his conclusions were tentative.Maybe we need another rule.

Read people's posts carefully, and don't pass on biassed or inaccurate accounts of what they said or what their attitudes were.

Now I was perfectly clear from my very first post in that thread that what I was looking for was some credible explanation of why these mutilations couldn't have been the work of crows or other scavengers. I stated quite openly that all I had seen was a (long and detailed) article in a magazine I happened to pick up, and that the article was supposedly illustrated by the most convincing and "typical" photographs of the phenomenon.

I constantly repeated "why is this not crows?" I stated, yes, that I was a veterinary pathologist, and that to me, as someone who earns her living (yes, it's a good idea to read the posts carefully enough to realise what sex a poster is) figuring out what animals have died of, these were perfectly typical and clear-cut examples of normal scavenger activity. I merely expressed extreme surprise that no reasons for discounting this obvious explanation were given in the article, and I wanted to know what these explanations were, if any.

If Beth had been able to give any detail at all about what she'd heard on television, any facts highlighted by the "experts" to support the proposition that it couldn't have been scavengers, I'd have been listening. I'd have been most interested.

However, she couldn't. All she said was (I paraphrase), I saw a programme on TV 20 years ago, which had people in it who were described as experts (but I can't remember their actual credentials) and who said it couldn't have been scavengers. And since they saw the actual bodies and you only saw photographs, then I choose to believe them over you. Forgive, me, but as a detailed explanation of the pathology behind the reasoning, that didn't quite cut it.

And as the thread progressed, it became clear that the opinion of everyone who actually knew what they were talking about and who had looked into this, was also that it was scavenger activity. Which was effectively proved when Psi Baba dredged the pages we couldn't access out of his internet cache and posted them on the forum.

So no, I didn't later admit that "my conclusions were tentative". I was quite clear from the beginning that I was seeking the explanation for why the cause of these mutilations wasn't the clear and obvious one. It simply turned out that in fact there was no such explanation, and that the informed opinion was in fact that the cause was indeed the clear and obvious one. So I learned something. Good.

And yes, Beth did post several times to the effect that her favoured explanation was that renegade scientists (perhaps only one) who didn't have the resources to purchase cattle legitimately but nevertheless had access to a helicopter, were performing unauthorised post mortem examinations out on the grazing lands. So her castigation of Ashles for falsely accusing her of having claimed that is disingenuous to put it mildly. And continually referring to Ashles as "Ashley" isn't very polite either.

Now I'm not saying that Beth doesn't have some good points. However, her tendency to misread other posters to the point where she can't get their names or gender right, and then re-post the story subtly altered to make herself appear in a rosily good light is just a tad annoying.

Rolfe.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It's not relevant Claus, it's not relevant. It's peoples' arguments which are important. Stating upfront what ones own personal position is would tend to detract from the arguments put forward and possibly prejudice the listener.

Read what Beth posted, you twit. The point was that skeptics assumed wrongly about what believers believed in.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Beleth
Yes!

If our goal is to get them to stop supporting scammers, then absolutely we have to be nice to them. We need to show them that what they are doing is wrong, and being jerks to them will not accomplish that. It will only reinforce their belief that what they are doing is right.

I disagree. It's not about being jerks, it's about showing your outrage, when people are being cheated.

You want me to smile at people who support scammers? Sorry, no can do.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Suggestologist
These are appeals to emotion (frustration, sense of justice). It's unfortunate that skeptics are more likely to internalize these (and act irrationally in a persuasion context) than to use emotions as leverage points into the believer's mind (thought processes).

I don't agree. I see nothing wrong with getting pissed off with scammers who exploit the weaknesses of sick and grieving people.

Skeptics are humans too.

Originally posted by Suggestologist
We ask ourselves if we have done enough contextualization of the facts into their models of the world. If we have framed them as generalized stories, when the believer is engaging in personalized stories...then we are not matching them, and there is a palpable differentness, wrongness between them and us.

We ask ourselves if we can take the believer's model of the world and go with it enthusiastically until we take it past it's breaking point (reductio ad absurdum where the believers are the ones who realize the absurdity, we don't point it out to them). What someone "discovers" for themself is more believed that what someone tells you that you "should" think.

Playing along, feeding their superstitions, is not a productive way. They will not admit to their own beliefs being absurd, despite their willingness to accept the absurdity of others. The plasticity of the mind of a believer is astounding.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I don't agree. I see nothing wrong with getting pissed off with scammers who exploit the weaknesses of sick and grieving people.

It's wrong when it's counterproductive to your goals. In some cases it is right, But not in most.

Skeptics are humans too.

Interesting excuse.

Playing along, feeding their superstitions, is not a productive way. They will not admit to their own beliefs being absurd, despite their willingness to accept the absurdity of others. The plasticity of the mind of a believer is astounding.

In hypnosis (call it "suggestion" if you want) there is a concept called "pace and lead", go along with someone long enough and you gain the ability (the priviledge) to lead them, and you (below JND (just noticable difference) threshhold) lead them where you want them to go.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Rolfe
And continually referring to Ashles as "Ashley" isn't very polite either.
I'm not too bothered about that, people misread 'Ashles' quite often (and Ashley is my actual name :) ).

But I agree, I can't understand how my comment could be seen as misrepresenting Beth's beliefs.
That's something I definitely do not like to do, and in this instance do not think I in any way did.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It's not relevant Claus, it's not relevant. It's peoples' arguments which are important. Stating upfront what ones own personal position is would tend to detract from the arguments put forward and possibly prejudice the listener.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Read what Beth posted, you twit. The point was that skeptics assumed wrongly about what believers believed in.

Then learn the lesson, don't assume.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I disagree. It's not about being jerks, it's about showing your outrage, when people are being cheated.What good does it do to show your outrage to people who don't (yet) care that you're outraged? Isn't the point to get the supporters outraged at what they are supporting so that they stop supporting it?

Befriend them. Make them like and trust you. Do things so that your opinion matters to them. Then let them know what your opinion is.

You want me to smile at people who support scammers?That's not what I mean by "be nice to". If you'd like, I could go into more detail, but I think deep down you already know what I mean.

You attract more flies with honey than with vinegar.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Rolfe
And continually referring to Ashles as "Ashley" isn't very polite either.


Ashles
[B]I'm not too bothered about that, people misread 'Ashles' quite often (and Ashley is my actual name :) ).


Ummm . . .who started referring to you as Ashley first? Me or Beth? :confused:

[Z]

Originally posted by turtle
GAWD! I am so tired of some skeptics in here who react in this manner to any honest post by a non-skeptic to explain things from their perspective. Beth's post was not combative, hostile, or trollish. It was well thought out and calm, and a geniune attempt to communicate.

Hardly "thin skinned." Indeed, why put up with insults? Among other things, it's certainly non-productive to engage in nasty 'fights.'

Seems to me your post, zaaydragon, is a baiting technique to get Beth and the few other 'believers' (and I agree with Beth, it's not a term I much care for either) to shut her up so you don't have to be bothered by another 'woo' in this forum.

Seems to be a technique used in here by some skeptics; that of a defensive reaction. Either by calling believers "thin skinned," if not that, then calling them 'trolls' when they're clearly not, or insulting them and bullying them by telling them not to play "the victim card" when they stand up to those who insult.

So Aussie, who started the thread on this topic some time ago, here's another example of what NOT to do. Beth writes something with good intent; zaaydragon reacts in this manner.

And we're supposed to get somewhere with this kind of thing? humpf.

Which is hilarious, being as I'm a believer, too.

But putting people on ignore for the kind of comment that she quoted in the OP comes across as extremely thin-skinned. It'd be like saying I was never going to read another review by I.B. Watchin' just because he trashed a movie I like in one review.

Also, as previously mentioned, threads 'calling out' people come across as juvenile as well. I have no problem disagreeing with someone. Ian and I never get along for very long. lifegazer and I butt heads regularly. Iacchus - well, he's just too ephemeral to have a discussion with. But none of those are on ignore.

Riddick decided to have a testosterone contest, and I rarely put up with internet penis comparisons. Hammegk is a homophobic psycho, and I have almost no patience with them. Neither make value contributions to threads... so they're both on my ignore list.

Then there's folks who assume that, because I found someone's whine juvenile or thin-skinned, I must be a skeptic too. Maybe you oughtta read more about a person before labelling them.

Unfortunately, it's a pattern with 'believers' - tune out those whose opinions bother you. And, quite often (not always), they tune out perfect legitimate discussion and debate, because it makes them uncomfortable. That's not what appears to have happened here, specifically, but Beth did choose to put on ignore someone simply because they expressed a disdain for an education system that allows ignorance to flourish. To me, that's thin-skinned.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Ummm . . .who started referring to you as Ashley first? Me or Beth? :confused:
Beth on the OP, although you've both done it before. But I forgive you as my mind is love.


I'm finding it a little ironic on this thread that people are becoming so strident on how to change others' minds.
It appears that there is one way to change people's minds if you are a sceptic trying to change a believers mind.

However, obviously a completely different tactic is permissible if it is a believer trying to change a sceptic's mind, or a sceptic trying to change another sceptic's mind.

Read through every post on this thread and then judge how many people have actually employed any of Beth's points in her OP in order to try and change anyone else's mind here.

Are people here being particularly nice? Anyone done a lot of listening? Not been assuming things? Asking questions instead? Not presuming?

In fact even Beth herself in her Original Post was guilty of - misrepresenting Rolfe's conclusions, misrepresenting my position about her theory, misrepresenting my understanding of her theory, making assumptions about sceptics and generalisition from single examples, and in fact ending with a rather patronising reference to preferring a believer label to that of a sceptic.

So those 5 points are great in principle, but I don't see many people adhering to them, including those who claim to support them.

I fully admit I apply those guidelines selectively, I would hope everyone else here would admit the same.

[Janice]

Originally posted by Beth


MRC_Hans had a good supportive post for Psi Baba's report, but I didn't read his post because he is on my ignore list due to a particularly scathing post to wellfed. I mention this because it illustates point #1. If the person isn't listening to you, you cannot possibly persuade them.

When trying to persuade someone, I suggest you ask them how firmly they believe in something. You might be surprised to discover they only believe that it's possible, not that it must be true.

That's all from me for a while. I'm heading out of town later today and won't be back until June.

Beth

Beth, I thought that your post was really well thought out, contrary to what others may think. Regarding, paranormal phenomena & mediumship etc. is this not based on personal belief & experience? As we have seen time & time again there is no hard physical evidence to put forward to support mediumship & paranormal activity, if it could be done (apart from demsonstrations of mediumship) then surely it would be? I'm not saying that it does not exist, but can understand why people dismiss it.

There is not one post on this forum that can conclusively provide evidence for or against its existence.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ashles
[B]Beth on the OP, although you've both done it before.

I meant who called you Ashley the very first time.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Garrette
Honest question for turtle and Beth and anyone else who does not care for the term "believer."

What would you substitute for it?

Is one required? Seriously I can understand using it as shorthand phrase in a discussion about a certain belief and people who believe in that (e.g. people who believe in alien explanations for UFOs) but I don’t find "believer" when used in a very general sense very useful or informative.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by Ashles
[B]I'm finding it a little ironic on this thread that people are becoming so strident on how to change others' minds.
It appears that there is one way to change people's minds if you are a sceptic trying to change a believers mind.

However, obviously a completely different tactic is permissible if it is a believer trying to change a sceptic's mind, or a sceptic trying to change another sceptic's mind.

Persuasion should be individualized, and there are general concepts. A few thousand of which can be found at Changing Minds (http://www.changingminds.org) although some are based on "pseudoscientific" principles, the methods work.

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Darat:

Is one required? Seriously I can understand using it as shorthand phrase in a discussion about a certain belief and people who believe in that (e.g. people who believe in alien explanations for UFOs) but I don’t find "believer" when used in a very general sense very useful or informative.
Though I am not perfectly consistent with it and I admit to using it derogatorily on occasion, in general I use it in the shorthand sense you mention.

If one doesn’t want shorthand, then no, it’s not required. I find it useful.

My experience has uncovered no reasonable alternatives, even when dealing with specific beliefs. I’d thought that “theist” would work for the religious, but have you ever tried throwing that into a conversation with the averagely educated person? Blank looks; on one occasion, the person perceived an insult and was ready to punch me (I exaggerate a little for effect, but only a little).

So, yes, I’d like a substitute. Failing one, I’ll continue to use “believer.” I promise to try not to use it in a bad way, but I expect I’ll fail sometimes.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Beth
I've been lurking on the "So what should skeptics do?" thread and I recently changed my mind due to another thread here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57090

I thought I would comment on what was helpful in persuading me and what was not for the elucidation of those who are sincerely interested in changing other people's mind.

1. Be nice. Before you can change someone's mind, you have to get them to listen to you. If you insult or denigrate them, they will not listen to you. If you attempt to shame them, you invite them to ignore you. Those smart-ass comments may be funny and score you points with other skeptics, but they also turn off the people you are trying to reach.

Myself, I use the ignore feature of this forum liberally. There's more stuff here to read than I will ever get to and more people posting than I can follow. So anyone who is mean to me, calls me names, or just generally ridicules my ideas without consideration goes on my ignore list. In fact, I've put people on ignore for over-the-top rudeness to others. I avoid associating with mean people in real life, why should associate with them on-line? Thus, anything they have to say will not be heard by me. However, I did go back and look at all the posts in the thread when writing this.

2. Listen to the person, try to get them to talk about why they believe what they believe. If you don't understand why and what they believe, you're just going to sound like a fool to them, arguing against positions they don't hold. That simply isn't persuasive. This happened a lot in this thread.

3. Ask, don't assume. For example, in the discussion referenced above, no one ever asked me if I actually believed my favorite theory was true. If they had, I would have responded "No". It simply fit what I understood to be the facts, better than any other theory. I certainly would have rated the possibility that I didn't have all the facts higher than the probability that that theory was true. But no one asked me that. However, the one person who did inquire where I got my information was helpful because it caused me to review what I did know and assess it again. Allowing someone to do this is an important step in both of you understanding why they believe what they believe.

4. Provide facts and information they don't already have. In order to do this, steps 2 and 3 are vital. Providing facts and information they already have is not going to change their minds. Providing facts and information irrelevant to whatever belief they hold is likewise unpersuasive.

5. Don't presume that just because you claim something is a fact, it will be accepted by others if you don't provide a verifiable source. In this particular case, many people kept insisting that one particular fact was true (and it was) but it was not convincing to me because until I was able to read a credible report by someone who had studied the issue in depth. That's not unreasonable - in fact, that's what skeptics demand. Do not expect believers to be less demanding regarding evidence to change their mind than you would be. If you don't accept someone's say so on the internet as a fact, why should they?


Pretty much the same advice given to women, blacks, and other minority groups that wanted to stand up to an injustice...

And funny how little changed, until they ignored the 'Be nice'' put off, and started acting up.

I wonder how much true believers would change on their own, should skeptics take this advice?

[Beleth]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Pretty much the same advice given to women, blacks, and other minority groups that wanted to stand up to an injustice...

And funny how little changed, until they ignored the 'Be nice'' put off, and started acting up.Are you saying that the only way to fight irrationality is with irrationality?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Beth
3. Ask, don't assume. For example, in the discussion referenced above, no one ever asked me if I actually believed my favorite theory was true. If they had, I would have responded "No". No-one needed to ask, because you specifically said to the contrary without being asked. Asking would have shown that they hadn't bothered to read your posts properly.

[Janice]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I don't agree. I see nothing wrong with getting pissed off with scammers who exploit the weaknesses of sick and grieving people.

Skeptics are humans too.

I think you have a point here, but its a booming business (especially in the uk), we now have a psychic tv channel on sky where people can watch psychic tarot readers for most part of the day, and people call in of course at a charge. It will continue to grow with more & more people working in the business, & members attending readings, shows & using phone lines. In the UK it is classed as entertainment, but still the practitioners are not required licenses & do not have to answer to anyone.

It is very easy to get caught up in, if you are not aware of the pitfalls, & as I have said I do believe in the afterlife (by that I would like to think that this is not our lot), but on seeing the way the business carries on, & the fact that no medium or psychic can provide any physical evidence, I am now more open to the possibility that we could be wrong.

From what I have experienced on this forum, and also a forum for believers where I am a member, it seems as though people have a tendency to either believe in it totally, or not at all, with very little room to consider either could be wrong. I have yet to experience a discussion between both beliefs that has come to a worthwhile conclusion.

[turtle]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Which is hilarious, being as I'm a believer, too.


"Believers" are just as capable of being ridiculous as anyone else.


But putting people on ignore for the kind of comment that she quoted in the OP comes across as extremely thin-skinned. It'd be like saying I was never going to read another review by I.B. Watchin' just because he trashed a movie I like in one review.


Putting someone on ignore because they've demonstrated a consistent nasty, rude tone is not the same as refusing to read reviews by a critic who trashed something you liked.

Although, after reading enough reveiws by said critic, if it appears that you can pretty well predict he/she will dislike what you liked and seems to come from a particular point of view (culturally, politically, etc.) what's the point?


Also, as previously mentioned, threads 'calling out' people come across as juvenile as well.


Some here see it as "calling out." Others, myself included, see it as using specific examples of posts already posted here for anyone to see. (Ironic too: I remember a couple of threads awhile back where some skeptics in here demanded I post specific names and posts to support my assertions. Can't have it both ways I guess.)


I have no problem disagreeing with someone. Ian and I never get along for very long. lifegazer and I butt heads regularly. Iacchus - well, he's just too ephemeral to have a discussion with. But none of those are on ignore.

(and yet, he just said: "Also, as previously mentioned, threads 'calling out' people come across as juvenile as well."


Again. There is a difference between "disagreeing" with someone, and putting up with abuse, hostility, rudeness or insults. Also, everyone is different. You do what you need to do, allow others what they choose to do. Within civil parameters that is, which is what this is about.

Riddick decided to have a testosterone contest, and I rarely put up with internet penis comparisons. Hammegk is a homophobic psycho, and I have almost no patience with them. Neither make value contributions to threads... so they're both on my ignore list.

A-HA!!!!!!!! :i:

Then there's folks who assume that, because I found someone's whine juvenile or thin-skinned, I must be a skeptic too. Maybe you oughtta read more about a person before labelling them.

BFD. Since most people here are skeptics, a logical asssumption. And since I haven't been reading other posts from you, I assumed. Perchance you shouldn't be so thin-skinned about being called a skeptic, lol.

Unfortunately, it's a pattern with 'believers' - tune out those whose opinions bother you.

Generalizing, are we?

And, quite often (not always), they tune out perfect legitimate discussion and debate, because it makes them uncomfortable. That's not what appears to have happened here, specifically, but Beth did choose to put on ignore someone simply because they expressed a disdain for an education system that allows ignorance to flourish. To me, that's thin-skinned.

Wrong. That comment you refer to was an insult plain and simple.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Beleth
Are you saying that the only way to fight irrationality is with irrationality?

So anything that doesn't go along with the status quo is 'irrational'...particularly if it succeeds?

:rolleyes:

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by crimresearch
So anything that doesn't go along with the status quo is 'irrational'...particularly if it succeeds?

:rolleyes:

Bah. Anecdotal.... Anecdotal Evidence!!!

Where's your scientists, Where's your statistics, Where's your peer reviewed double-blind controlled trials?

[Beleth]

Originally posted by crimresearch
So anything that doesn't go along with the status quo is 'irrational'...particularly if it succeeds?Is that what you believe? Your first post makes it sound like that's what you believe.

How would you define "being nice"? Do you consider it synonymous with "staying subservient"?

[crimresearch]

My first post does nothing of the sort, and was perfectly clear as to what I meant.
And you have now made 2 contradictory statements and tried to put those words in my mouth.

Since you are not interested in discussing what I actually said, I'll leave you to whatever game you are playing..

[Beleth]

Okay. Take a breath. Step back.

I'm trying to figure out why you think "being nice" and "acting up" are mutually exclusive.

To me, "being nice" is acting in a calm, civil manner to show others that hey, your point of view just might have a mustard seed of merit to it. Like what Dr. King (if we're talking about the civil rights movement) tried to do.

Rolling over and being subservient is not being nice. It's being an enabler. And trying to get your way through brute force or threats is not being nice either, of course.

There's a middle ground. Don't tell people how to think; show people that how you think is preferable to how they think. Let them come to their own conclusions. That's what "being nice" means.

[crimresearch]

That may be the definition *you* are using...

As shown by your misunderstanding of MLK, it has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Had he followed the advice given in the OP, blacks would still have no vote, etc. Had Gandhi sat around wringing his hands and waiting for the other side to understand his position, the Raj would still be in place.

Instead, these men and others chose to ignore advice to 'be nice', and to adopt confrontational tactics that made a difference, such as illegal marches, boycots, civil *dis*-obedience, etc.

They were accused of acting up..being uppity...being an agitator, etc.

But it worked.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by crimresearch
They were accused of acting up..being uppity...being an agitator, etc.

But it worked.

Anecdotal!!! Unscientific!!! Anecdotal!!! Woo-woo logic!!!

[crimresearch]

:j2:

[Beleth]

Originally posted by crimresearch
They were accused of acting up..being uppity...being an agitator, etc.

But it worked.
Exactly my point. He didn't roll over, and he didn't need to use violence. He got his way by treading the middle ground. And that's exactly what I'm advocating too.

[crimresearch]

Where did anyone call for violence?

Or are you just putting that into my statement when it wasn't there to begin with?

MLK got his way by rejecting the advice in the OP and doing things that were not only not nice, they were flat out illegal.

Ditto for Gandhi, and many others who achieved real gains in individual rights.

The fact that they stopped short of violence doesn't mean that they followed the adivce given in the OP, which makes them a good example of why that advice might be insufficient.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Janice
It is very easy to get caught up in, if you are not aware of the pitfalls, & as I have said I do believe in the afterlife (by that I would like to think that this is not our lot), but on seeing the way the business carries on, & the fact that no medium or psychic can provide any physical evidence, I am now more open to the possibility that we could be wrong. I have often noticed that for you the ideas of successful mediumship and an afterlife seem to go together. But the logical inference only goes one way. Of course if there are successful mediums, there is an afterlife. But it does not then follow that if there is an afterlife, there will be successful mediums. For example, mediumship would be impossible if we reincarnate.From what I have experienced on this forum, and also a forum for believers where I am a member, it seems as though people have a tendency to either believe in it totally, or not at all, with very little room to consider either could be wrong. I have yet to experience a discussion between both beliefs that has come to a worthwhile conclusion. It's hard to see what would be a "worthwhile conclusion"? Perhaps we could have your ideas.

Of course, if the believers could prove they were right about something --- by producing someone who can fluently read minds, for example --- that would be worthwhile, but it hasn't happened. The believers, then, could be proved right but haven't been.

The skeptics cannot be proved right, because their views are universal negatives, e.g. "No-one can read minds under any circumstances". Obviously no-one can prove that: all they can do is point out that just because that is the case, the burden of proof falls on the believers.

Now we can debunk or cast doubt on certain particular cases. No-one's mentioned Nina Kulagina for a while. I guess that that's a worthwhile result.

But all we can hope to achieve is the change which you say has taken place in you: "but on seeing the way the business carries on, & the fact that no medium or psychic can provide any physical evidence, I am now more open to the possibility that we could be wrong". If you announced instead that you were absolutely convinced, beyond possibility of error, that there was no afterlife, then I should be the first to tell you that in that case you are No True Sceptic. Sceptics can't come to "conclusions" --- we can doubt one thing, but we can't be certain of the opposite.

[The Odd Emperor]

Originally posted by turtle
I don't know, I've given it thought but haven't come up with anything.

The term "believer" as used by most skeptics has a connotation of superstitious ignorant folk with no sense. Then again, there are many "believers" who are wacky too, like those christian ufo types. IMO.

I prefer the tongue in cheek use of "woo" because it's sort of taking back the power, lol.

I suppose though that believer is better than the completely rude term of " 'bleever"

Sure; except you frequently use the term “woo” to describe yourself. You condemn other people when they use that term and hoist a double-standard that simply takes my breath away. How can you expect people to be *but* combative with those kind of tactics?

BTW, I personally don’t like the term “woo” because it seems derogatory. Kind of like describing people you don’t know very well as “psychotic.” ; )

[RSLancastr]

Originally posted by Rolfe
...I stated, yes, that I was a veterinary pathologist, and that to me, as someone who earns her living (yes, it's a good idea to read the posts carefully enough to realise what sex a poster is)...Rolfe, there is a short list of posters whose name on a post will guarantee that I will take the time to read it.

Your name is on that list.

As a result, I have probably read a hundred or more of your posts, some of them very lengthy.

But until the post I quote above, I had no idea that you are a woman. Part of it is your using the name "Rolfe," which in my experience is a male name. Even when I learned that Rolfe was the name of a cat you knew, the impression was already there. Another part of it is probably some lingering sexism in me which, when I hear "veterenarian," pictures a man.

Regardless, I think that if you go back and read your own posts, you would find very few of them which made any reference to your gender.

So, knowing nothing else about what is being discussed here (I never saw the "cattle mutilation thread"), I think it is a little harsh to take someone to task for not realizing that you are a woman.

My two cents' worth.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Where did anyone call for violence?

Or are you just putting that into my statement when it wasn't there to begin with?I am using violence as a specific example of the concept of "not nice", the same way I am using total submission as an example of the other side of "not nice". I'm sorry if that was confusing.

MLK got his way by rejecting the advice in the OP and doing things that were not only not nice, they were flat out illegal.Can an action be "nice" and "illegal" at the same time?

The fact that they stopped short of violence doesn't mean that they followed the adivce given in the OP, which makes them a good example of why that advice might be insufficient. They got themselves heard. That's OP point #1. Compare what King did to what bin Laden did. It's pretty clear that bin Laden's message has not been heard, in the sense that we haven't changed anything to be for his benefit.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
[B]I have often noticed that for you the ideas of successful mediumship and an afterlife seem to go together. But the logical inference only goes one way. Of course if there are successful mediums, there is an afterlife. But it does not then follow that if there is an afterlife, there will be successful mediums.



Yes indeed.




For example, mediumship would be impossible if we reincarnate.



No, this assumes that people reincarnate straightaway. The evidence suggests that those who die a violent death get reincarnated within months or a few years. But this might be because a lot of them die relatively young. In fact, come to think of it, do genuine mediums (if they should exist) contact people who have been dead for decades? If not then reincarnation might explain this i.e mediums cannot contact them because they are no longer inhabiting the afterlife realm but are subsisting in this empirical reality once again.

[Janice]

The evidence suggests that those who die a violent death get reincarnated within months or a few years. But this might be because a lot of them die relatively young. In fact, come to think of it, do genuine mediums (if they should exist) contact people who have been dead for decades? If not then reincarnation might explain this i.e mediums cannot contact them because they are no longer inhabiting the afterlife realm but are subsisting in this empirical reality once again.

Ian, I don't know anything about reincarnation, and wondered what evidence suggests this, just interested.

[Anders W. Bonde]

Perhaps this should be a topic for another thread:

Originally posted by Ian:
No, this assumes that people reincarnate straightaway. The evidence suggests that those who die a violent death get reincarnated within months or a few years. But this might be because a lot of them die relatively young. In fact, come to think of it, do genuine mediums (if they should exist) contact people who have been dead for decades? If not then reincarnation might explain this i.e mediums cannot contact them because they are no longer inhabiting the afterlife realm but are subsisting in this empirical reality once again.

I'm curious as to what the evidence for reincarnation that you find apparently convincing might be. Could you provide some for us? Also: What entity or process defines 'violent' death? Is there any evidence that slaughtered animals reincarnate, too?

As for 'length of death' for mediums, one J.Z. Knight is claimed by many of her fans, I think, to be genuine and apparently communicates with someone who's been dead for about 35,000 years - so if anything the 'principles' you seem to allude to are not fully consistent.

I personally assume that 'contacting' people who have been dead for decades or generations isn't done much by 'mediums' because it doesn't have provide the 'aaaahhh and ooohh'-effects possible using cold reading and similar mundane methods on easily affcted realtives of someone relatively recently deceased. But, of course, I have not put in any serious effort to personally substantiate this assumption on my part with evidence - I've only weighed the evidence I've been presented with.

If either mediumship and/or reincarnation is real, I think it is reasonable to assert that the theory of evolution and pretty much all branches of science supporting it and supported by it collapses - so any evidence for reincarnation needs to be quite overwhelming to be credible and inexplicable in mundane terms.

Carry on.

Good thread - I'm learnings something from it.

(Edited for grammar)

[RSLancastr]

Originally posted by Anders W. Bonde
If either mediumship and/or reincarnation is real, I think it is reasonable to assert that the theory of evolution and pretty much all branches of science supporting it and supported by it collapses I'm sorry, but I am totally missing the connection between these two things (evolution and reincarnation/mediumship).

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Janice
Ian, I don't know anything about reincarnation, and wondered what evidence suggests this, just interested.

A guy called Ian Stevenson has been studying claims of previous lives made by children for the past 40 years. There is a consistent pattern. The children tend to remember an alleged previous life, but typically these memories fade by about the age of 7. Also it tends to be the case that their previous life ended violently. So it might seem that dying in a violent manner in an alleged previous lives might somehow allow the memories to survive in their current lives -- at least during the first few years. He's written a number of books and papers. Here are some of the more popular books:

REINCARNATION

1. Shroder, Tom. Old Souls: The Scientific Evidence for Past Lives. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1999. In 1997 Dr. Stevenson agreed to let Tom Shroder, an editor at the Washington Post, travel with him through India, Lebanon and the United States as he investigated cases of children who seemed to remember previous lives. This is Shroder's book about those experiences. Now out in paperback as Old Souls: Compelling Evidence from Children Who Remember Past Lives from Fireside Books.

2. Stevenson, Ian. Children Who Remember Previous Lives: A Question of Reincarnation, revised ed., 2001. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company (originally published by University Press of Virginia, 1987). Dr. Stevenson describes, for the general reader, research conducted over the past forty years. He also addresses some of the questions frequently asked about these cases.

3. Stevenson, Ian. Twenty Cases Suggestive of Reincarnation. Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 1974 (originally published as Vol. 26, Proceedings of the American Society for Psychical Research, 1966). Detailed reports of twenty cases of children (from five different countries) who claimed to remember previous lives.

4. Stevenson, Ian. Where Reincarnation and Biology Intersect. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1997. A 200 page synopsis of Dr. Stevenson's 2 volume, 2000+ page Reincarnation and Biology.


You might want to look at
this (http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/personalitystudies/case_types.cfm) website. As it states:


In many parts of the world, some young children, usually between the ages of 2 and 5, speak about a previous life they claim to have lived. At the same time they often show behavior, such as a phobia, that is unusual in their family and/or not explained by any current life events but that seems concordant with the child's statements about a previous life. In many cases of this type the child's statements have been shown to correspond accurately to facts in the life and death of a deceased person; in many of these cases the families concerned have had no contact before the case developed. Some of the children have birthmarks and birth defects that correspond to wounds or other marks on the deceased person whose life a child remembers. In numerous cases postmortem reports have confirmed these correspondences. Older children may retain these apparent memories, but generally they seem to fade around the age of 7 .

The Division staff have been investigating these cases since 1961 and have published numerous articles and books about them. There is also a list of books on reincarnation which includes one book about Dr. Stevenson's work by an editor at the Washington Post. The young subjects of these cases have been found most readily in certain parts of the world, such as South Asia. They are, however, also found in other areas of the world, and the Division has studied many cases in Europe and North America. We are interested in hearing about cases with any of the elements discussed here. See Contacting Us. If you are a parent seeking advice about your child who seems to remember a previous life then see Advice to Parents.

Types of Statements a Child Might Make in This Kind of Case


Statements made by a child who seems to be remembering a previous life can be quite varied. The following is not an exhaustive list by any means. It is designed to give an idea of the kinds of things a parent or caregiver might hear, and in our Western culture, tend to dismiss as fantasy. It is also true that a child might say one or more of these things and not be remembering a previous life. It is probably best not to pump a child for information, nor to try and prevent him or her from saying such things.

"You're not my mommy/daddy."
"I have another mommy/daddy."
"When I was big, I ...(used to have blue eyes/had a car, etc.)."
"That happened before I was in mommy's tummy."
"I have a wife/husband/children."
"I used to...(drive a truck/live in another town, etc.)"
"I died ... (in a car accident/after I fell, etc.)"
"Remember when I ...(lived in that other house/was your daddy, etc.)"

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Anders W. Bonde
[B]Perhaps this should be a topic for another thread:



Yes it's off topic. If someone wants to start a thread about reincarnation, then go ahead.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Beleth
I am using violence as a specific example of the concept of "not nice", the same way I am using total submission as an example of the other side of "not nice". I'm sorry if that was confusing.

Can an action be "nice" and "illegal" at the same time?

They got themselves heard. That's OP point #1. Compare what King did to what bin Laden did. It's pretty clear that bin Laden's message has not been heard, in the sense that we haven't changed anything to be for his benefit.


Using the original post as a baseline, it presented a scenario of 'being nice' as having essentially non-confrontational interactions with those who enjoy the status quo...
I felt that to be a tactic with a limited track record of success.
And I am staying within the context of the examples given, by citing proportional counter-examples where *some* confrontation did work on people who were not going to be jolted out of their status quo comfort zone by a placating approach..

I found your inclusion of violence and terrorism in the realm of 'not nice' to be more out of context and artificial than confusing.

[Beleth]

There's also a difference of scale. While it is arguably the case that civil irrationalities need to be dealt with on a community-wide, or even nation-wide, level, belief irrationalities are best handled at a personal, one-to-one, level.

At that level, confrontational tactics such as what Dr. King did will be seen as overly confrontational, and will backfire. You won't get someone to switch to atheism by holding a sit-in on their front lawn, in other words.

Personal convictions are best handled quietly and "nice"ly, in the manner the OP espouses.

It's not enough for us to have the status quo treat us like we belong, since for all intents and purposes they already do. We need to pull more into our fold. And that's where the comparison between us and the minority groups you mentioned falls apart.

[crimresearch]

I wasn't claiming an across the board comparison between minorities and skeptical argument (and I wasn't making claims for the efficacy of confrontation in interpersonal communication).

I do think that there is a crossover in the notion of comfort zones and the human tendency to cling to them unless made uncomfortable.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by crimresearch
I wasn't claiming an across the board comparison between minorities and skeptical argument (and I wasn't making claims for the efficacy of confrontation in interpersonal communication).

I do think that there is a crossover in the notion of comfort zones and the human tendency to cling to them unless made uncomfortable.

Got science? Like congruity theories? Here's one: http://www.uky.edu/~drlane/capstone/persuasion/congruity.htm

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No, this assumes that people reincarnate straightaway True. I wasn't trying to be dogmatic about reincarnation (I was thinking of the standard "Dalai Lama" type) but just putting forward the first scenario off the top of my head to show that you could have immortality but no mediumship.

[Anders W. Bonde]

Originally posted by RSLancastr:
I'm sorry, but I am totally missing the connection between these two things (evolution and reincarna-tion/mediumship).

RSLancastr, what I propose is the following:

Mediumship, i.e. the ability to communicate with dead ancestors or other deceased individuals or groups, would be such a huge evolutionary advantage that this faculty would have evolved to the strength and functional level of such as the senses of smell, hearing and sight. In the earlier stages of evolution and for a very long time, it would have been such an enormous advantage to be able to gain prior information about the threats and dangers that killed your ancestors, about sources of mates, food (and later on, wealth), and about hereditary deficiencies. It could, of course, be argued that ‘mediumship’ is just an emerging faculty, but it must then be borne in mind that claims suggesting the existing of mediumship were not less prevalent prior to advances in science and rationality. Also, in times prior to the invention of written records, the ability to access the experience of generations of deceased ancestors would be comparable to the advantage of having internet access for an insulated jungle tribe – and knowing how to use it. In short, the genes favouring the ability to communicate with the dead, or merely the genes for learning such an ability, should dominate by now. They don’t – ‘mediums’ do not, and have never, dominated human intellectual or other human development. It is, I think, therefore, if not inconceivable, then certainly very unlikely and highly inconsistent with the otherwise extremely well-supported theory of evolution that such a survival advantage would not have come to the fore. I also find it very unlikely that the huge body of knowledge and experience of the departed generations would not have enabled development of a much more efficient method of communicating with descendants than “Do I hear a name starting with an M? An M, please? Michael or Michelle? “ - readily emulated by even the most mediocre of cold readers, not to mention warm and hot readers – even if the ‘departed’ all stayed isolated from one another.

All of this, of course, presupposes that we ‘don’t die when we die’, which, in turn, presupposes the possibility of the mind existing independently of the body. That, in itself, is in sharp contradiction with what we know not only about the biological evolution of the body and the brain, but pretty much everything we know about biology and many other branches of science, and can actually demonstrate and predict using a broad range of well-established scientific theories. If it were indeed possible to ‘store’ a person’s experiences independently of the brain, nature would surely not have ‘wasted’ its evolutionary efforts, material and energy on such a grand scale as it has on the development of the brain from a few sensory cells to the magnificent organ it is today, and on the extensive, tough, dangerous (in survival terms) learning process from infant to corpse – also, just think of the extent to which we associate ourselves with our bodies and sensory inputs, none of which would exist with a mind or set of experiences independent of a physical, functioning biological body and brain. We also lack any semblance of an explanatory model for how sensory experiences and thoughts could be transmitted from the brain and body to a, so far, completely undetectable storage medium, using, a so far completely undetectable method of information transfer, and how this stored experience and body of thoughts and memories would, so far completely undetected, be transmitted back to a fetus’ brain, which is not yet fully developed but doing so on the basis on its own sensory input and experiences.

Considering the poor quality of evidence in support of ‘life after death’, ‘reincarnation’ (which are necessarily two sides of the same coin) and ‘mediumship’ (the third side of the same coin) in the light of accumulated human knowledge and the existence of perfectly mundane explanations for these alleged phenomena, parsimony and simply common sense seem to favour the concept of “just one life”. There is simply too much unsupported speculation and too little substance involved in 'life after death' scenarios.

I apologize for the derail – and agree with Ian that we should defer this to an independent thread.

[Interesting Ian]

The discussion concerning reincarnation continues here. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57414)

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Beleth:

Are you saying that the only way to fight irrationality is with irrationality?
This assumes that rudeness is irrational. I don’t think it necessarily is.

Originally posted by Beleth:

Can an action be "nice" and "illegal" at the same time?
Yes. And an action can be “not nice” and “legal” simultaneously.

More to the point, and action can be both “not nice” and “illegal” and still be “not wrong.”

(I'm sorry to have entered this part of the discussion late, but I have to side with crimresearch on this. I, too, took Beleth's jump to "violence" to be misguided and misrepresentative of crimresearch's position.)


Originally posted by Suggestologist:

Got science? Like congruity theories? Here's one: {link snipped}
I read the link and understood (I thought) the theory and implications. The example given to illustrate it, however, seemed off to me.

The theory says that a third party will only feel pressure to change an idea if two other parties offer widely differing views.

The example reverses it and says that if two parties claim the objects of their argument are similar, the third party will feel they are similar, but if the two parties claim the objects of their argument are very different, the third party will feel they are very different.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Garrette
...I read the link and understood (I thought) the theory and implications. The example given to illustrate it, however, seemed off to me.

The theory says that a third party will only feel pressure to change an idea if two other parties offer widely differing views.

The example reverses it and says that if two parties claim the objects of their argument are similar, the third party will feel they are similar, but if the two parties claim the objects of their argument are very different, the third party will feel they are very different.

And it seemed to miss the point of getting one of the two parties to change *their* minds..the topic at hand.

In the case of 'believers', of various sorts, it might be a mistake to work under the assumption that they hold one core belief which can be reversed thorugh the tactics suggested in the OP.

But it may be possible to get them to change their minds about conclusions they have drawn from that core belief.

As in:

"I believe that we are better than them'......core belief.

Therefor, it is OK for us to have nicer schools, because they don't need them'......................conclusion.

Protest marches, National Guard is called out, and 'Voila!'....
Better schools for 'them'.


Has any of the above changed the core belief?
Probably not.

Has it moved the believers out of their comfort zone long enough to make a change?
Perhaps.

Would that change have occured solely through 'being nice'?

I highly doubt it.

[Garrette]

Without getting into a detailed discussion of it, crim, I see merit in your argument.

Further, I see Suggestologist's link supporting it rather than detracting from it.

The link suggests exactly what you are suggesting (except it addresses a third party observer instead of the two debaters), i.e., one's mind will not change unless the two ideas under discussion are presented as differing greatly.

[Garrette]

Just to add some thoughts to the OP, and hoping I remain somewhat relevant, I’d like to relay my impression of the thread that spawned this (on cattle mutilations).

Beth, don’t take this as me saying it is true or of accusing you of actually behaving in this manner. What follows is me admitting what impression I got from the thread, recognizing that impressions are often wrong. If you choose to discuss this, perhaps it can be along the lines of how to avoid giving such impressions when they are unmerited.

While it didn’t unfold this neatly in my mind, I’ll lay it out in neat steps as I perceived it to happen. Step 4 is the key one and the one likely to offend Beth though it is not intended to:

1. Beth presents phenomena (cattle mutiliaton).

2. Beth presents hypothesis to explain the phenomena.

3. Others present competing hypotheses and flaws with Beth’s hypothesis.

4. Beth recognizes her hypothesis cannot stand and wants to change but cannot bring herself to be seen changing positions based on what those JREF skeptics said.

5. Beth tries to give herself outs but can’t quite succeed.

6. Psi Baba posts evidence nearly identical to what those skeptics have said but from a source not affiliated with them.

7. Beth abandons her original, faulty hypothesis, but does so without having to actually agree with those skeptics.

Which would indicate that Beth is quite capable and willing to accept, test, and abandon different ideas rationally but that she concurrently has such a deep dislike of the skeptic camp (at least as it is embodied here at JREF) that this capacity and willingness are over-ridden.

That was my impression, anyway.

I reiterate that I’m not saying this is the way it really is.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Garrette
This assumes that rudeness is irrational. I don’t think it necessarily is.We're not arguing this point any more.

Yes. And an action can be “not nice” and “legal” simultaneously.

More to the point, and action can be both “not nice” and “illegal” and still be “not wrong.”I agree. Crimresearch made it sound like he believed the opposite, however.

(I'm sorry to have entered this part of the discussion late, but I have to side with crimresearch on this. I, too, took Beleth's jump to "violence" to be misguided and misrepresentative of crimresearch's position.)In what way did you think I was representing his position with it? He was using the civil uprisings in the 60's as an example; I concentrated on Dr. King's actions specifically because he was nonviolent. If I were trying to represent crim's position with "violence", I would have concentrated on a civil-rights leader with less of a penchant towards nonviolence, like Malcolm X.


But anyway. I'm tired of arguing against people who read their own agendas into my questions and statments. A question is not a statement; it is a question. Go argue amongst yourselves without me.

[Garrette]

I don't make it a habit to put words in people's mouths, Beleth.

If you say you did not intend to represent crimresearch's position the way I took it that you did, I'll take you at your word.

As you've described it here, I can't say I have a problem with it.

My apologies for misunderstanding, but it was not intentional.

[Suggestologist]

Originally posted by crimresearch
[B]And it seemed to miss the point of getting one of the two parties to change *their* minds..the topic at hand.

The observer can be observing two sets of information or two concepts, not necessarily two other people.

When you said that a person needs to feel pressure to change their mind, congruency theory popped into my mind.

Incongruency creates pressure, cognitive dissonance (sometimes thought of as a separate but similar theory), a need to decide between the two. For example, some Christians don't believe they have to decide between belief in God and Evolution; but creationists try to show that Evolution is fundamentally amoral and inconsistent with belief in God; and so they want more Christians to decide between Evolution and belief in God. And they attempt to play up the incongruities between the two whenever they can. Of course, the Creationists seem to believe that forced to make a choice, Christians will give up Evolution, not Christianity.

So you can create incongruities in a person's mind. For example, you can show a person that their behavior (going along with evolution) makes attaining their high-valued goals (getting into heaven), impossible.

The opposite of this is sometimes called "boiling the frog", and I think it usually is a better option. But they can be used in sequential combination.

[RockNroll]

From my experience, most woos are pretty good at doublethink... that is, not only can they continue to believe in something even after you prove to them it ain't true, but they can continue to believe in it even when they KNOW it can't possibly be true. It's like they don't even care about reality. That's why I'm not much for trying to "change their minds", unless their beliefs are hurting someone (like, say, parents who take their sick kid to a faith healer/homeopath/guru/etc. instead of a real doctor) or threatening my freedom (like, say, religious fundamentalists who tirelessly try to tear down the wall between church and state in hopes of becoming able to legislate morality). Woowoos are here to stay, and I'd rather sit back and laugh than try to reason them (yeah, humor helps me deal with painful and frustrating things :D ). Sure, they're holding society back and all, but imho debating them one at a time ain't gonna make much of a difference, no matter how overly nice we act. Our best bet would be critical thinking classes in elementary school... but then again, if we did that, fundie parents would throw a fit and whine about how those evil heathens are persecuting them...

[Ashles]

Originally posted by RockNroll
From my experience, most woos are pretty good at doublethink... that is, not only can they continue to believe in something even after you prove to them it ain't true, but they can continue to believe in it even when they KNOW it can't possibly be true.
Well, to be fair, this isn't restricted to one group - everyone is capable of that - it's a human trait.

I doubt there is a single person on this forum who doesn't have some form of irrational belief, or superstition.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ashles
Well, to be fair, this isn't restricted to one group - everyone is capable of that - it's a human trait.

I doubt there is a single person on this forum who doesn't have some form of irrational belief, or superstition.

Including me? :confused:

[delphi_ote]

Originally posted by Ashles
I doubt there is a single person on this forum who doesn't have some form of irrational belief, or superstition.

Yes, but the goal is to reach a point that we can abandon such beliefs when we are shown facts which contradict them. That's where the E in JREF comes in.

[crimresearch]

Originally posted by Beleth
We're not arguing this point any more.

I agree. Crimresearch made it sound like he believed the opposite, however.

In what way did you think I was representing his position with it? He was using the civil uprisings in the 60's as an example; I concentrated on Dr. King's actions specifically because he was nonviolent. If I were trying to represent crim's position with "violence", I would have concentrated on a civil-rights leader with less of a penchant towards nonviolence, like Malcolm X.


But anyway. I'm tired of arguing against people who read their own agendas into my questions and statments. A question is not a statement; it is a question. Go argue amongst yourselves without me.

So by specifically citing both King and Gandhi, I was advocating violent uprisings?

Now is indeed a good time for you to withdraw, after those whoppers.

[gtc]

This is my understanding of the thread,

Beth formed an opinion that animals were being mutilated by persons or entities unknown on the basis of a program she saw 20 years ago. Beth never questioned whether the so called experts had some other agenda or not or may have been mistaken.

Beth then forms a theory that it was an illegal investigation into radiation and seems to hold this theory very tightly, despite saying that 'I haven't read anything about it or given it a second thought in years.' she seems to have thought this through in quite some detail.

She posts this here and a number of people point out the numerous flaws in the theory. Beth refuses to accept these because she saw what she thought was an expert speak and refuses to change her opinion until a better expert comes along.

I then make this post:

Originally posted by gtc
Beth,

I am so glad I do not attend your University and I can't believe that I am about to explain this to someone who is older and more experienced and with better academic qualifications than me.

All of this is true. I am glad I am not lectured by someone who forms opinions on matters, that are both outside her area of expertise and which lie in the realm of conspiracy theories, on the basis of the evidence of a TV show expert; without questioning the credentials or motives of said expert and without applying basic logic or common sense. This person, furthermore, refuses to consider the simpler solutions to the problems until another expert comes along.

I genuinely aplaud Beth for changing her opinions, after reading some of her posts that follow my quoted post I thought you were too wedded to your idea ever to change. I do wonder however, how you would choose between the competing beliefs of two equally qualified experts.

Unfortunately my paragraph quoted above was enough to get me on her ignore list, so she will never read this post. If I came across as insulting it was only because her ideas and thought processes insult other members of her profession. In future I shall refrain from insulting people with nutty ideas. I shall instead create a laughter list, posts from such people will be met with howls of laughter from me.

Apparently my post got worse:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only experts to have actually examined these mysterious corpses and who then get on TV are either cranks or experts after fame and money. Scientists without an agenda don't get to look at these corpses because they would show that it is the work of animals, insects or birds and the corpse would no longer be a mystery.....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On this forum, I hear people complain that skeptics are as profoundly tied to their beliefs as the so-called 'believers' and others claim it is not so and demand evidence of such close-mindedness. I think this post in it's entirely is a good example of such close-mindedness. If you automatically classify scientists and experts who come up with a particular finding as being cranks and/or after fame and money, you are insulating yourself from actually considering any evidence that might contradict your previous opinion. This is what 'believers' are accused of doing all the time, but my assessment is that 'believers' are no more prone to do this than the skeptics

There were two possibilities - cows were mutilated by something explicable like insects or bored teenagers or something outside the realm of normal experience like cow mutilating rogue scientists or aliens.

The only evidence for the latter explanations was the TV testimony of so called experts. Experts whose motives were never questioned by Beth. Perhaps I did not articulate the fact that some people can be sincere but profoundly wrong, but I did not think this applies in circumstances were nothing out of the ordinary had ever been seen by anyone but these so called experts.

If I am wrong I will stand corrected and humbly apologise, what do other forummers think. Of course, once more, Beth has me on ignore and is on holiday so she won't read this.

[turtle]

I'm not sure where this post should go, here or in the one Aussie started, but I'll give you an example of something that just happened to me on one of my Yahoo groups. This illustrates the 'bad behavior' of some skeptics.

I have a "woo" group. It clearly says on the home page skeptics are not welcome. It's restricted, but his message was just vague enough to make me believe he was okay.

first post of his, he wastes no time, lol, and starts bashing woo-ish things.

Now, why would he do that?

Honestly.

Needless to say, I removed him. I did invite him to a forum where both groups are welcome.

[gtc]

Originally posted by turtle
I'm not sure where this post should go, here or in the one Aussie started, but I'll give you an example of something that just happened to me on one of my Yahoo groups. This illustrates the 'bad behavior' of some skeptics.

I have a "woo" group. It clearly says on the home page skeptics are not welcome. It's restricted, but his message was just vague enough to make me believe he was okay.

first post of his, he wastes no time, lol, and starts bashing woo-ish things.

Now, why would he do that?

Honestly.

Needless to say, I removed him. I did invite him to a forum where both groups are welcome.

Why do you think he did it?

[Ashles]

Originally posted by turtle
first post of his, he wastes no time, lol, and starts bashing woo-ish things.

Now, why would he do that?
Wow. "Sceptics can be idiots too" newsflash.

That doesn't really demonstrate anything relevant.

I'm sure there are sceptics and believers who are all kinds of morons. It doesn't mean you can generalise about other people just because of what one person does.

[The Odd Emperor]

Originally posted by turtle
I'm not sure where this post should go, here or in the one Aussie started, but I'll give you an example of something that just happened to me on one of my Yahoo groups. This illustrates the 'bad behavior' of some skeptics.

I have a "woo" group. It clearly says on the home page skeptics are not welcome. It's restricted, but his message was just vague enough to make me believe he was okay.

first post of his, he wastes no time, lol, and starts bashing woo-ish things.

Now, why would he do that?

Honestly.

Needless to say, I removed him. I did invite him to a forum where both groups are welcome.

I don’t know turtle; making up some arbitrary rule that asserts “no skeptics are welcome” is rather recursive to begin with. How can you judge who’s a skeptic and who’s not? You yourself have demonstrated skepticism from time to time. Does this mean that you should be banned from your own groups?

It’s much better to promote courtesy—that’s something few people will argue about. “you can disagree but you may not be disagreeable.” But to do so the mods must follow the rules themselves. They must *be* the most courteous people on the list people or the rules become meaningless.

I’ve never felt that blanket policies work very well anyway . If you want people with a certain mind-set you can always make up a set of rules designed to discourage people with a different one. But that makes for a pretty boring forum.

[Pangloss]

I for one am most grateful to the person whose post started this thread, since my major interest in matters skeptical concerns the way people think as they do about fact and fantasy. The post provides a first-hand account that is rare in at least two respects. Firstly, it is a systematic and rational presentation from a person who presents initially as (to the typical conscientious skeptic) gullible. Secondly, it has been offered without asking.

The thought process it describes displays an approach that is quite in keeping with the scientific mode of enquiry - roughly: observation, followed by hypothesis based on very limited facts, followed by free-wheeling collegial debate, then independent research, and finally acceptance of a theory that better fits the wider body of facts. This is the best known method for arriving at an understanding of observed phenomena. Neurologically, it involves the iterated reassembly of memory to match changing data. More prosaically, it demonstrates an adaptive intellect.

The author has been accused of being 'thin-skinned', with the implication that 'if you can't stand the heat in the kitchen, go somewhere else'. That attitude somewhat limits the potential scope for influence, given that people have a wide range of 'heat' tolerance levels, and if influencing the less-well-informed is what you are after, then maybe you should consider turning the heat down.

We all move from ignorance to understanding at a different pace and in different ways. I suspect that demonstrating mutual respect and patience makes for the most productive starting point, in most cases. If ridicule and insult aren't hurtful, then they tend to make the offender appear ineffectual. But that's just an hypothesis based on a hunch, so I'm prepared to be roasted on it. I admit to to gravitating towards ridicule when faced with a person who appears to be so fundamentally delusional that rational argument would be futile - but there is a risk that (a) I might be mistaken, (b) it might dissuade half-reasonable lurkers from participation, and (c) it might even tip a harmless loony into being a dangerous one (so maybe I won't do it anymore?).

Incidentally, there has been quite a lot of mention in this thread, but no probing into the nature of belief vs skepticism. I'd like to see someone put a case that skepticism isn't a belief system, or for that matter, that humans can somehow manage without belief. Just for fun.

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Pangloss:

The author has been accused of being 'thin-skinned', with the implication that 'if you can't stand the heat in the kitchen, go somewhere else'. That attitude somewhat limits the potential scope for influence, given that people have a wide range of 'heat' tolerance levels, and if influencing the less-well-informed is what you are after, then maybe you should consider turning the heat down.

Excellent point.

Originally posted by Pangloss:

I'd like to see someone put a case that skepticism isn't a belief system,

Why? Are you suggesting that it is a belief system?

If not, then put forth the argument yourself.

If so, then put forth your argument for that.


Originally posted by Pangloss:

or for that matter, that humans can somehow manage without belief. Just for fun.

This is, of course, separate from the previous {implied} point.

Has someone here suggested this? To my knowledge no one has.

Same comments, though, as before:

If you think it is true, then put forth the argument yourself.

If you think it is untrue, then put forth your argument.


Forgive me for saying this, but it seems a bit condescending to say, in effect, I want to argue against these two positions. Somebody promote them so I can knock them down.


By the way, welcome to the forum.

[gtc]

Originally posted by Pangloss
IIncidentally, there has been quite a lot of mention in this thread, but no probing into the nature of belief vs skepticism. I'd like to see someone put a case that skepticism isn't a belief system, or for that matter, that humans can somehow manage without belief. Just for fun.

I am begining to think that the difference between sceptism and believerism is the belief that logic, the application of Occam's Razor and the ability to ground one's thinking in the real world (if this works then why hasn't it changed the world after 500 years etc) are the best ways to come to generate knowledge about the universe, the ability to change ones opinion if a better solution comes along is also a hallmark.

[Pangloss]

Originally posted by Garrette
Excellent point.
Thanks

Why? Are you suggesting that it is a belief system?
...
If you think it is true, then put forth the argument yourself.

If you think it is untrue, then put forth your argument.

Forgive me for saying this, but it seems a bit condescending to say, in effect, I want to argue against these two positions. Somebody promote them so I can knock them down.

By the way, welcome to the forum.

Condescending? My apologies - not intended.

Forgive? My mental hide is rhinoscerosian. You are absolved (oops, that seems condescending - just can't keep out of strife, can I?)

Welcome? Thanks again. It is precisely because I am new here that I am being tentative - for all I know, the issue has done the rounds and has become a big bore to people, or is no issue for them. From the sparse remarks in this thread, I suspect the latter.

There is a range of people who consider themselves "skeptics". I get the impression that the folk at JREF are generally of the pragmatic, "I'll accept it if it meets some reasonable tests and won't hold out just because it's not 110% solid" type. That's my class.

Then there are those who refuse to commit themselves to anything that they decide smells of group-think or grand conspiracy, for example the 'libertarians' who won't fall for the consensus on climate change unless they find themselves drowning in hot seawater and who remain to be convinced that treating a cough with cigar smoke is necessarily harmful for baby. Not forgetting the non-fundamentalist self-declared evolution-skeptics, a.k.a. IDiots (by which insult one immediately deters all but the most bloody-minded adversary).

Then there are the post-modernists, who not only don't make sense but won't make sense because that would seem to be an admission of objective reality (I think).

But this is all a bit off-topic for the thread title, so perhaps relocation would be in order in any event - if the subject is of any interest to people, that is. If not, no sweat, just ignore it.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Pangloss
Thanks



Condescending? My apologies - not intended.

Forgive? My mental hide is rhinoscerosian. You are absolved (oops, that seems condescending - just can't keep out of strife, can I?)

Welcome? Thanks again. It is precisely