Some failures of organized skepticism

[T'ai Chi]

I came across this article today. It is very

interesting........... and intriguing!

http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/resources/articles/lippard-some-failures.htm

[Stellafane]

I think by far the biggest failure of "organized skepticism" (whatever that is) -- or should I say, the biggest mound of unfinished work -- involves convincing people who should know better to start thinking critically and stop believing in utter crap because it fulfills some inner need.

[clerihew80]

These aren't failures of "organized skepticism." These are nothing more than accusations of sloppy research or misrepresentation on the part of individual skeptics. And Lippard's reasoning seems highly suspect. Take this case:

"Something similar occurred in James Randi's investigation of psychic detective Dorothy Allison. Allison claimed to have given the name "Williams" to the Atlanta Police Department regarding the Atlanta child murders, for which Wayne Williams was eventually convicted. Randi (1982- 83) reports that, according to the APD's Sergeant Gundlach, Allison "had given them some 42 possible names for the murderer(s) but not the correct one." But when Marcello Truzzi (Hoebens with Truzzi 1985) checked with two Atlanta police officers whose names were given to him by Allison as witnesses, one of them did recall her having mentioned the name "Williams" (among others). Apparently the moral here is not to accept the word of police spokesmen regarding psychic detectives without independent corroborating evidence."

Who is this police officer? How do we know his memory is trustworthy? How could he remember, several years after the fact, that "Williams" was among the 42 names that Allison threw out? And why doesn't anyone else remember it? Don't the police have a transcript or a recording of the session?

Marcello Truzzi, by the way, is the co-author of this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Blue-Sense-Psychic-Detectives-Crime/dp/0446400912/ref=sr_1_2/103-9550682-3962201?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178578884&sr=1-2
where he reveals himself to be a believer in the phenomenon known as "Blue Sense" - which is supposed to be an intuition that psychics and good detectives have that goes beyond the ordinary senses. Hardly the most objective source for information.

[Czarcasm]

I came across this article today. It is very

interesting........... and intriguing!

http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/resources/articles/lippard-some-failures.htm

You find just about anything having to do with the paranormal "interesting" and/or "intriguing". Why don't you show some guts for once in your life and actually give an opinion about what you've posted. If you don't have an opinion, there is no reason for anyone else to respond, either.

[KingMerv00]

Brilliant self-parody. Every post you start is exactly the same:

1)Post link
2)Say it is interesting
3)Never post in that thread again

I find that "interesting".

[Mobyseven]

1)Post link
2)Say it is interesting
3)Never post in that thread again


4)If you do then post again in the thread, it is not in response in questions asked of you, it is generally to make a one-line comment about something nobody thought was important anyway.

Not interesting: annoying.

[strathmeyer]

If only more of T'ai Chi's links were so well referenced and cited!

Exciting.

[T'ai Chi]

Thanks "KingMerv00". As usual, people like you with their "always" and "never" arguments are easily shown to be empty criticism.

Please focus on the article, if you are able to.

[Czarcasm]

Thanks "KingMerv00". As usual, people like you with their "always" and "never" arguments are easily shown to be empty criticism.

Please focus on the article, if you are able to.

Again, since you started this, would you mind telling us your opinion of the article?

[clerihew80]

Thanks "KingMerv00". As usual, people like you with their "always" and "never" arguments are easily shown to be empty criticism.

Uh, I think he's engaging in hyperbole in order to make a point. Why do you start so many threads where you just post a link to some article, call it "interesting" or "intriguing," and then sit back and watch everyone grumble about how pointless your thread is?

[Ranillon]

I think by far the biggest failure of "organized skepticism" (whatever that is) -- or should I say, the biggest mound of unfinished work -- involves convincing people who should know better to start thinking critically and stop believing in utter crap because it fulfills some inner need.

Then we need to find some other way to fulfill that "inner need" because otherwise promoting wide-scale skepticism is doomed. We can't expect people to ignore that "need" anymore than we can expect them to not be human.

[T'ai Chi]

Doesn't the article mentioned above highlight the need for being skeptical of skeptics? ;)

[Foster Zygote]

4)If you do then post again in the thread, it is not in response in questions asked of you, it is generally to make a one-line comment about something nobody thought was important anyway.

Not interesting: annoying.

5) Say "So nobody has any comments about the article then?" after at least half a dozen people have pointed out gaping holes in the case presented in the article.

[Stellafane]

Then we need to find some other way to fulfill that "inner need" because otherwise promoting wide-scale skepticism is doomed. We can't expect people to ignore that "need" anymore than we can expect them to not be human.

Totally agree. I'm not advocating that they ignore their needs; just suggesting they fulfill it in ways that are probably a lot more healthy and rewarding than fantasy and wishful thinking. For example, I wouldn't tell someone to stop looking for significance in their lives, but I would caution that astrology is probably not the best place to do so. That, I believe, is skepticism's biggest challenge.

[Czarcasm]

Doesn't the article mentioned above highlight the need for being skeptical of skeptics? ;)

What opinions do you have on the subject?

[CFLarsen]

I came across this article today. It is very

interesting........... and intriguing!

http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/resources/articles/lippard-some-failures.htm

I see that you are now griping against organized skepticism, not the organized skeptical movement.

[Mojo]

These aren't failures of "organized skepticism." These are nothing more than accusations of sloppy research or misrepresentation on the part of individual skeptics. And Lippard's reasoning seems highly suspect. Take this case:

"Something similar occurred in James Randi's investigation of psychic detective Dorothy Allison. Allison claimed to have given the name "Williams" to the Atlanta Police Department regarding the Atlanta child murders, for which Wayne Williams was eventually convicted. Randi (1982- 83) reports that, according to the APD's Sergeant Gundlach, Allison "had given them some 42 possible names for the murderer(s) but not the correct one." But when Marcello Truzzi (Hoebens with Truzzi 1985) checked with two Atlanta police officers whose names were given to him by Allison as witnesses, one of them did recall her having mentioned the name "Williams" (among others). Apparently the moral here is not to accept the word of police spokesmen regarding psychic detectives without independent corroborating evidence."

Who is this police officer? How do we know his memory is trustworthy? How could he remember, several years after the fact, that "Williams" was among the 42 names that Allison threw out? And why doesn't anyone else remember it? Don't the police have a transcript or a recording of the session?

Marcello Truzzi, by the way, is the co-author of this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Blue-Sense-Psychic-Detectives-Crime/dp/0446400912/ref=sr_1_2/103-9550682-3962201?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178578884&sr=1-2
where he reveals himself to be a believer in the phenomenon known as "Blue Sense" - which is supposed to be an intuition that psychics and good detectives have that goes beyond the ordinary senses. Hardly the most objective source for information.

Brilliant self-parody. Every post you start is exactly the same:

1)Post link
2)Say it is interesting
3)Never post in that thread again

I find that "interesting".

4)If you do then post again in the thread, it is not in response in questions asked of you, it is generally to make a one-line comment about something nobody thought was important anyway.

Not interesting: annoying.

Thanks "KingMerv00". As usual, people like you with their "always" and "never" arguments are easily shown to be empty criticism.


Mobyseven wins this thread.



Please focus on the article, if you are able to.

Or would have, if he'd remembered to predict that T'ai would also demand that people "focus on the article" that he's refusing to discuss.

[Michael C]

The title of the article is wrong: as clerihew80 says, the article doesn't talk about failures of organized skepticism, it talks about individual skeptics getting things wrong. The conclusion sums it up:

"These examples clearly show that the fact that a skeptic makes an argument does not make it a good one."

Pretty obvious really. But worth remembering. If a scientist gets something wrong, this isn't evidence that "Science" has failed; it just means that that particular scientist made a mistake. If a skeptic says something stupid, it is not a "failure of organized skepticism"; it just shows that that particular skeptic is not infallible. But who's pretending that a skeptic should be infallible?

[Zep]

Well, that SHOULD be interesting, but it isn't to TC.

[athon]

Thanks "KingMerv00". As usual, people like you with their "always" and "never" arguments are easily shown to be empty criticism.

Please focus on the article, if you are able to.

And thank you for providing evidence for Moby Seven's point.

:rolleyes:

Athon

[Mojo]

But who's pretending that a skeptic should be infallible?http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2582622#post2582622

[Darat]

Thanks "KingMerv00". As usual, people like you with their "always" and "never" arguments are easily shown to be empty criticism.

Please focus on the article, if you are able to.

I know you frequently discuss other Members rather then the subject of the thread but is there any need for it? Surely you would be better served by you discussing the topic of the thread?

[Darat]

Doesn't the article mentioned above highlight the need for being skeptical of skeptics? ;)

Not at all, if it can be said to highlight anything it is simply that it highlights the need to be sceptical. Which is hardly earth shattering news.

[Mojo]

Not at all, if it can be said to highlight anything it is simply that it highlights the need to be sceptical. Which is hardly earth shattering news.


It probably is to T'ai (if he's actually bothered reading it).

[KingMerv00]

Thanks "KingMerv00". As usual, people like you with their "always" and "never" arguments are easily shown to be empty criticism.

Other people on this thread seemed to understand that it was hyperbole, why didn't you?

My criticism is perfectly valid. You don't participate in reasoned discussion.

Please focus on the article...

Heh...you first.

[KingMerv00]

Doesn't the article mentioned above highlight the need for being skeptical of skeptics? ;)

I didn't need an article to remind me that one should be skeptical of all claims, not just the claims of those who don't share your general worldview.

[Belz...]

I came across this article today. It is very

interesting........... and intriguing!

http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/resources/articles/lippard-some-failures.htm

What the hell is "organized" skepticism ?

[Belz...]

Brilliant self-parody. Every post you start is exactly the same:

1)Post link
2)Say it is interesting
3)Never post in that thread again

I find that "interesting".

Actually, King, he DOES answer, usually to tell people to stick to the topic.

[Belz...]

Again, since you started this, would you mind telling us your opinion of the article?

He did: it's "interesting".

[JonnyFive]

He did: it's "interesting".

...and "intriguing!"

[John Jackson]

From the article in the OP:

Conclusion


These examples clearly show that the fact that a skeptic makes an argument does not make it a good one. Skeptics need to be careful in their investigations and in their public comments (Hyman 1987). It is my hope that this article will be taken as a cautionary note and help prevent future occurrences of such errors as I have described.



So skeptics need to be careful in making arguments and how they present them to the public.

Does anyone disagree with this?

Not me.

Perhaps T'ai Chi was bedazzled by the words 'skepticism' and 'organised' in the title. http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/496246391741e1d69.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=5502)

[KingMerv00]

He did: it's "interesting".
...and "intriguing!"

What's next? Arresting, captivating, consuming, engrossing, enthralling, exciting, fascinating, gripping, interesting, intriguing, monopolizing, preoccupying, riveting, and spellbinding?

Thank you thesaurus.com.

[Wowbagger]

Doesn't the article mentioned above highlight the need for being skeptical of skeptics? ;)
Duh!! Of we should!! We should never take someone's word, simply because it came out of the mouth of a skeptic. Doing otherwise would be Appeal to Authority.

Skeptics have every right to investigate the claims of other skeptics, and the skeptic being investigated should not let anything get in the way of that.

That is a strength of skepticism: Questioning everything, even ourselves. We know that individual skeptics could be wrong, or use improper tactics in debates. It is a convergence of repeatable evidence we seek. Not the declarations of a few members.

[CFLarsen]

Duh!! Of we should!! We should never take someone's word, simply because it came out of the mouth of a skeptic. Doing otherwise would be Appeal to Authority.

Skeptics have every right to investigate the claims of other skeptics, and the skeptic being investigated should not let anything get in the way of that.

That is a strength of skepticism: Questioning everything, even ourselves. We know that individual skeptics could be wrong, or use improper tactics in debates. It is a convergence of repeatable evidence we seek. Not the declarations of a few members.

The key point is, T'ai Chi doesn't see this as a strength. He actually sees it as a weakness.

[Correa Neto]

Well, he seems to question skeptics and skepticism a lot...
What about questioning ID and its proponents?

[thaiboxerken]

Again, since you started this, would you mind telling us your opinion of the article?

He already stated that it was interesting... and intriguing. I highly doubt that anyone will get anything more from him about it. T'ai Chi isn't in the forum to discuss anything, he just wants to spam articles that he agrees with with the intent of stirring up trouble.

[Wowbagger]

The key point is, T'ai Chi doesn't see this as a strength. He actually sees it as a weakness.Hey, T'ai Chi: Notice how ID advocates hardly ever (if even at all) admit they are wrong about anything. Ask yourself this: Is that because they are always right? Or, because the basis of their claims is actually a religious ideology?

Or, if there is something else you can think of, let me know.

[wahrheit]

1)Post link
2)Say it is interesting
3)Never post in that thread again

4)If you do then post again in the thread, it is not in response in questions asked of you, it is generally to make a one-line comment about something nobody thought was important anyway.

5) Say "So nobody has any comments about the article then?" after at least half a dozen people have pointed out gaping holes in the case presented in the article.

6) Claus chimes in, still trying to get the answer to a question he asked T'ai Chi millennia ago. The answer never comes, since T'ai Chi thinks he has Claus on ignore.

[CFLarsen]

The answer never comes, since T'ai Chi thinks wants people to believe he has Claus on ignore.

Fixed it! ;)

7) T'ai Chi brags about how many people he has on ignore.

[Belz...]

...and "intriguing!"

A bonus, no doubt.

[athon]

T'ai Chi hasn't come back to respond to any of the above statements.

Guess he didn't find it all that interesting afterall.

Athon

[Mojo]

The thread does at least provide an illustration of why T'ai wants there to be an "organised skeptical movement": so that he can point to flawed reasoning, or ineffective tactics, on the part of an individual "skeptic", and then attempt to use this as a stick to beat anyone else who describes theselves as a "skeptic".

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Doesn't the article mentioned above highlight the need for being skeptical of skeptics?
Duh. Say, aren't you skeptical of skeptics? That means I should be skeptical of you.

~~ Paul

[JonnyFive]

A bonus, no doubt.

I would have preferred a free blender or waffle iron or something, but I'll take what I can get.

[Belz...]

That's because you don't know what an "intriguing" can do for your guests, Jonny.

[JonnyFive]

That's because you don't know what an "intriguing" can do for your guests, Jonny.

Hey, I said I'd take it, didn't I?

Damn organized skeptics, they offer such crappy door prizes. :)

That's it, I'm going over to gosylviabrowne where it's all sports cars and private volcanoes!

[Belz...]

Hummm.... private volcanoes.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_6080462f606f2f717.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=5331)

[strider]

interesting........... and intriguing!
Why? Do you think these guys should be infallible?

I think it's human nature. Mistakes can be made in any endeavor. It's helpful that someone pointed them out in this case.

Contrast this to someone pointing out mistakes in religious contexts. Most likely they will be criticized for "abusing the faith," or "offending believers," or the like.

[CFLarsen]

Why? Do you think these guys should be infallible?

I think it's human nature. Mistakes can be made in any endeavor. It's helpful that someone pointed them out in this case.

Contrast this to someone pointing out mistakes in religious contexts. Most likely they will be criticized for "abusing the faith," or "offending believers," or the like.

Yes, T'ai thinks they should be infallible. Since they aren't, why, he can just dismiss skeptics (and skepticism) out of hand.

What T'ai doesn't (want to) realize - or admit - is that by failing sometimes, skepticism becomes stronger all the time, because we learn from those mistakes.

T'ai sees the strengths of skepticism as its weaknesses.

[tsig]

Doesn't the article mentioned above highlight the need for being skeptical of skeptics? ;)


no

[Civilized Worm]

SCEPTICS SHOWN TO BE HUMAN AND FALLIBLE! HOLD THE FRONT PAGE!


Hell I put far more trust into people who can admit to being wrong, it means they're honest.

[wahrheit]

T'ai Chi hasn't come back to respond to any of the above statements.

Guess he didn't find it all that interesting afterall.

Athon

The situation has not changed since your post four days ago. Strange. T'ai Chi has posted in other threads since. Why not here? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question)

[neon]

That's it, I'm going over to gosylviabrowne where it's all sports cars and private volcanoes!

:eek:

Wow! Do they give you the virgins to throw in the volcano, or do you have to go track them down yourself?

[blutoski]

Marcello Truzzi, by the way, is the co-author of this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Blue-Sense-Psychic-Detectives-Crime/dp/0446400912/ref=sr_1_2/103-9550682-3962201?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178578884&sr=1-2
where he reveals himself to be a believer in the phenomenon known as "Blue Sense" - which is supposed to be an intuition that psychics and good detectives have that goes beyond the ordinary senses. Hardly the most objective source for information.

Yeah, but Truzzi is one of the founders of CSICOP, so I think if he has a critique, it's at least worth giving him a listen.

One of the reasons Truzzi left CSICOP was that at the time CSICOP was a little too enthusiastic about debunking, and not very concerned with accuracy. They completely screwed up a few high-profile investigations, rejecting findings that turned out to be legitemate but unexpected. The Mars Effect being the most famous example. This was a fiasco and an embarassment.

Truzzi coined the phrase 'pseudoskeptic,' and as much as I disagree with T'ai Ch'i about just about everything, I am in agreement with his suggestion that there is an element within skepticism - organized or otherwise - who are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

Where I disagree with Truzzi these days is that CSI and its aligned organizations have learned from these mistakes and moved forward with a fairer approach. The pseudoskeptics will always be around (some are right here on these JREF fora), but they do not seriously influence CSI, CFI, NESS, the Skeptic Society, JREF, Australian Skeptics, UK Skeptics, which are the most influential orgs.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Doesn't the article mentioned above highlight the need for being skeptical of skeptics? ;)
Strawman. Who on this board has suggested that anyone should be equally skeptical of skeptics?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

SCEPTICS SHOWN TO BE HUMAN AND FALLIBLE! HOLD THE FRONT PAGE!


Hell I put far more trust into people who can admit to being wrong, it means they're honest.
This just in, "what still wet!" Details at 11!

[Hokulele]

Strawman. Who on this board has suggested that anyone should be equally skeptical of skeptics?

And should someone be skeptical of those skeptical of skeptics?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

And should someone be skeptical of those skeptical of skeptics?
You'll understand recursions as soon as you understand recursion. :D

[Skeptic Ginger]

As if scientific or skeptical inquiry is always flawless. I see no point in this article except to say additional evidence later supported a different conclusion. D'uh!

See sig.

[Explorer]

By choosing the term "organised skepticism" the author is surely implying that when one or more skeptics gather together in one place, there remains the possibility that peer pressure can lead to "sloppy investigation". The drift of the argument is that on the one hand "the inner need" of some people to believe in the paranormal equates to an equivalent "inner need" on the part of skeptics to debunk it. Whether this is true or not, this ideological battle can turn in to the kind of slanging match that we see so often, and is epitomised by the two guys that were debating the merits or otherwise, of creationism. The obvious frustration can default to personal abuse, and that is where the human failings on both sides of the argument kicks in,

There is often a tendency I feel, to accept that when a critical approach is taken in the scrutiny of a subject's claim or paranormal phenomena, the scientific methodology adopted is always going to be well thought out, correct and irrefutable. In the enthusiasm to achieve the desirable outcome, for example to successfully debunk a particular claim, there is a danger that the methodology is geared just achieve that outcome, rather than using the discipline of lateral thinking and good science.

The applied science and/or investigations, should be subjected to equal scrutiny and criticism as the claim itself. Only then can we say that critical thinking has been working in the interests of true objectivity.

[CFLarsen]

Yeah, but Truzzi is one of the founders of CSICOP, so I think if he has a critique, it's at least worth giving him a listen.

One of the reasons Truzzi left CSICOP was that at the time CSICOP was a little too enthusiastic about debunking, and not very concerned with accuracy. They completely screwed up a few high-profile investigations, rejecting findings that turned out to be legitemate but unexpected. The Mars Effect being the most famous example. This was a fiasco and an embarassment.

Truzzi coined the phrase 'pseudoskeptic,' and as much as I disagree with T'ai Ch'i about just about everything, I am in agreement with his suggestion that there is an element within skepticism - organized or otherwise - who are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

Where I disagree with Truzzi these days is that CSI and its aligned organizations have learned from these mistakes and moved forward with a fairer approach. The pseudoskeptics will always be around (some are right here on these JREF fora), but they do not seriously influence CSI, CFI, NESS, the Skeptic Society, JREF, Australian Skeptics, UK Skeptics, which are the most influential orgs.

That's exactly why it isn't a problem: We learn and move on.

It would only be a problem if we didn't learn from our mistakes.

Saying this is a "problem" is criticizing people for being humans.

[clerihew80]

Yeah, but Truzzi is one of the founders of CSICOP, so I think if he has a critique, it's at least worth giving him a listen.
He didn't offer a critique in this article. According to Lippard, Truzzi had spoken to two police officers, one of whom supposedly remembered hearing Dorothy Allison say the name "Williams" (note that Truzzi had been directed to these particular officers by Allison herself!). This anecdote is apparently sufficient to cast doubt on the thoroughness of Randi's investigation.

One of the reasons Truzzi left CSICOP was that at the time CSICOP was a little too enthusiastic about debunking...
...or maybe he wanted to spend more time with his buddy Uri Geller.

[JonnyFive]

Wow! Do they give you the virgins to throw in the volcano, or do you have to go track them down yourself?

No. The Sylvia Browne playset includes everything you see here, virgins sold separately.

Also, there is a small* fee for the use of the private volcanoes.



*$750 a minute.