The fallibility of skeptics

[Titus Rivas]

I've repeatedly noticed that certain skeptics won't admit errors in their witten representation of parapsychology or psychical research. In this thread I would like to invite anyone to describe occasions on which a skeptic denied or admitted that he made an -established- important mistake (whichs means not a simple spelling error, but a major error with consequences). Please note that we're talking about recognizing one's personal fallibility, which should generally be seen as a virtue. I'm curious to know how aware an avarage skeptic or debunker is that (s)he is fallible just like everyone else.


Titus

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
I've repeatedly noticed that certain skeptics won't admit errors in their witten representation of parapsychology or psychical research. In this thread I would like to invite anyone to describe occasions on which a skeptic denied or admitted that he made an -established- important mistake (whichs means not a simple spelling error, but a major error with consequences). Please note that we're talking about recognizing one's personal fallibility, which should generally be seen as a virtue. I'm curious to know how aware an avarage skeptic or debunker is that (s)he is fallible just like everyone else.

Titus

It is clear why: debunkers don't like to debunk themselves. It kind of ruins their image.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Even though this could also apply to some believers it seems too many skeptics are way too egotistical to ever admit being wrong with their views or arguments. It would be nice to see if there are some cases of this.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


It is clear why: debunkers don't like to debunk themselves. It kind of ruins their image.

you've obviously read very little by James Randi. he is perfectly willing to admit his mistakes.

[XRX]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
Please note that we're talking about recognizing one's personal fallibility, which should generally be seen as a virtue.

Titus



Agreed. Everyone really does make mistakes. More than we'd like to admit, usually.

Would you say that skeptics should ideally be more right than others, ie that they should be extremely careful and as as thorough as possible when it comes to research and checking their facts? I used to think this was unfair, because it's damn hard to check everything that comes your way. Oh well...

[XRX]

Originally posted by EdipisReks


you've obviously read very little by James Randi. he is perfectly willing to admit his mistakes.


This is something I especially like about Mr Randi.

[reprise]

Susan Blackmore has certainly largely retreated from the "dying brain" hypothesis in respect of NDE's, so that would be an example of a skeptic modifying their position as more information became available and admitting that their original position was erroneous.

Does your question relate to skeptics altering their position in respect of research conducted from a scientific starting point, or are you talking about situations where skeptics have essentially created a strawman and "debunked" claims which were not actually made by believers?

As any skeptical conclusion should always be subject to review in light of new information, I would say that recognition of fallibility is one of the essential principles of skepticism.

Theoretical models exist which suggest that the use of "worm-holes" could address some of the problems of inter-stellar travel. The models have a sound scientific basis, but that doesn't mean that they are "correct". In skeptical terms, it's an interesting hypothesis which further research will either prove or disprove. At the moment, there is no "proof" that worm-holes in space even exist - at best, their existence is theoretically possible.

As skepticism generally relies on empirical proof of a scientific nature, it must be fallible - science itself is fallible, and many notable scientists are remembered only for the theories they got right, even though many of their other theories were ultimately proven wrong.

I think that the skeptical stance of "there is no credible evidence of X" is often interpreted to mean "X cannot be true", even though those two statements are vastly different.

[SRW]

I do not know about a "skeptic" but when you talk about science well it's constant. Science by its nature is flexible, because knowledge is always changing and evolving. And as new discoveries are made, theories become facts and a new view is developed.

There is a difference between dismissing a concept and dismissing a specific event. That is to say a scientist will not dismiss the possibility of NDE's but at the same time dismiss an account of someones NDE experience as not proved (insufficient evidence) and as such not worthy of further investigation.

[XRX]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


It is clear why: debunkers don't like to debunk themselves. It kind of ruins their image.

Originally posted by EdipisReks

you've obviously read very little by James Randi. he is perfectly willing to admit his mistakes.


Oh but wait...hasn't he said that he's not a debunker? I know what you meant by your statement, but I don't think Mr Randi thinks of himself as a "debunker". So we might as well leave him out of this.

[reprise]

Titus, one thing which is common on this and other messageboards which have a bias towards skepticism is the periodic starting of threads directed at skeptics dealing with the topic of "what would change your mind?". Skeptics can almost always give concrete examples of the kinds of things which would cause them to change their mind on a given paranormal issue.

In return, someone usually starts a thread directed at believers with a similar theme. It's often very difficult for believers to come up with examples of specific examples of things which would change their beliefs about the paranormal.

I'll see if I can hunt up some of the old threads.

[Titus Rivas]

XRX said: Oh but wait...hasn't he said that he's not a debunker? I know what you meant by your statement, but I don't think Mr Randi thinks of himself as a "debunker". So we might as well leave him out of this.

What would be the difference for him between a skeptic and a debunker? Any quotations perhaps?

Titus

[Titus Rivas]

Susan Blackmore has certainly largely retreated from the "dying brain" hypothesis in respect of NDE's, so that would be an example of a skeptic modifying their position as more information became available and admitting that their original position was erroneous.

Could you give me some quotations or references, reprise?


Does your question relate to skeptics altering their position in respect of research conducted from a scientific starting point, or are you talking about situations where skeptics have essentially created a strawman and "debunked" claims which were not actually made by believers? Well, both actually. But mainly about whether they acknowledged that they were wrong.

As skepticism generally relies on empirical proof of a scientific nature, it must be fallible - science itself is fallible, and many notable scientists are remembered only for the theories they got right, even though many of their other theories were ultimately proven wrong. You're certainly right about science.

As is SRW:

I do not know about a "skeptic" but when you talk about science well it's constant. Science by its nature is flexible, because knowledge is always changing and evolving.

Titus

[XRX]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
XRX said:

What would be the difference for him between a skeptic and a debunker? Any quotations perhaps?

Titus


Yup.

http://www.ghostvillage.com/legends/2003/legends21_06282003.shtml

I asked Randi for his definitions of "skeptic" and "debunker." Randi said of the skeptic, "Someone who doubts in absence of evidence. A debunker is someone who goes into a situation with the attitude that 'This isn't so, and I'm going to prove it to be not so.' That's why I don't accept the term 'debunker' to define myself."



Of course, the whole thing could be a dirty lie. What do I know...



http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/randi00.htm
which contains an "Interview of James Randi by Eric Krieg"

JR: Debunking. Now let's discuss that term. I don't consider myself to be a debunker. A debunker would be someone who says "Here's something that isn't so, and I'm going to show it to be not so." I can't have that attitude. If I have that attitude, it means that I've already presumed that there is no phenomenon here that can be studied, that it doesn't exist.
I can't have that attitude. That's too easy an attitude for me to have. It's too convenient. I can't afford that convenience. I have to say, essentially, "I don't know whether this is so, but I'm willing to look into it to find out whether or not it is so."

EK: The term investigator being better than debunker.

JR: Oh, much better. I never use the word debunker. A debunker means a preconceived opinion on the thing. No, [??], I have a preconceived opinion about Santa Claus. I do not sit by my chimney on the evening of December 24 waiting for a fat man in a red suit to bounce down the chimney.

But the reason being, and common sense tells me, it's not likely to be true. And I have had some experience in the field, as we all have. So I'm prejudiced against belief in Santa Clause. I also, from my previous experience with things like dowsing and acupuncture and therapeutic touch and various other things of this ilk, I am predisposed to believe that it probably is not so. But I cannot say that it is not so. I can't prove a negative.

The onus of proof is on them. Show me that it is so, then we've got a different matter.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
It is clear why: debunkers don't like to debunk themselves. It kind of ruins their image.

Not correct.

At TAM1, BadAs(s)tronomer Phil Plait signed his books, and made a point of marking out the errors in them. With a green marker, just to make sure it was noticed.

E.g., on page 182: A big fat "WRONG" about a paragraph about the Hebrew calendar. On the opening page: "Don't be too hard on me for the mistakes on this book".

It's clear that Phil was not concerned with his image, but about getting the facts right.

Try again.

[XRX]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


It's clear that Phil was not concerned with his image, but about getting the facts right.




Isn't that a major part of 'the image'? To be able to revise and reform one's views? To work towards the 'truth' no matter how many of one's own beliefs are crushed in the process? That's essential to the scientific attitude.

Well, ideally.

[XRX]

double post

deleted

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by XRX
Isn't that a major part of 'the image'? To be able to revise and reform one's views? To work towards the 'truth' no matter how many of one's own beliefs are crushed in the process? That's essential to the scientific attitude.

Well, ideally.

Not just ideally. You should have heard some of the terms Phil used to described himself... :)

BTW, I caught Phil making another mistake in his book....let's see what he has to say... :)

[Darat]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
I've repeatedly noticed that certain skeptics won't admit errors in their witten representation of parapsychology or psychical research. In this thread I would like to invite anyone to describe occasions on which a skeptic denied or admitted that he made an -established- important mistake (whichs means not a simple spelling error, but a major error with consequences). Please note that we're talking about recognizing one's personal fallibility, which should generally be seen as a virtue. I'm curious to know how aware an avarage skeptic or debunker is that (s)he is fallible just like everyone else.


Titus


I see the behaviour you describe as a result of being a human being, it has nothing to do with being a "sceptic" or any other gross generalisation.

Reading many of your recent posts I find myself curious to know why you have such a compelling need to group people who don't agree with you into a big group of "them".

[XRX]

I just looked up Phil's website. It's fun! :roll:

[XRX]

Originally posted by Darat



I see the behaviour you describe as a result of being a human being, it has nothing to do with being a "sceptic" or any other gross generalisation.


It has to do with being a "certain skeptic", I guess.

[Titus Rivas]

Darat said:

I see the behaviour you describe as a result of being a human being, it has nothing to do with being a "sceptic" or any other gross generalisation.

As XRX has said already, I was talking about certain skeptics.

By the way, I'm aware of several currents within skepticism, one of them being the zeteticism of people like the late Marcello Truzzi (http://www.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/truzzi.html) . Also see his paper On Pseudo-Skepticism (http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/pseudo.html)

I even know of a Dutch skeptic (I won't reveal his name here) who acknowledges there is enough evidence (mainly collected by Dr. Ian Stevenson (http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/personalitystudies/) and his associates) to make a rational case for the existence of reincarnation.

Finally I'm aware of an excellent website of the Association for Skeptical Investigation (http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/aboutsi/index.htm) which defends and promotes so called 'genuine skepticism' and has many non-debunking experts on the paranormal among its associates and advisors, e.g. Dick Bierman, David Fontana, Stanley Krippner, Gary Schwartz, Rupert Sheldrake and others.

So don't worry about my capacity to differentiate.

Titus

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I think there might be some confusion here between admitting a mistake and agreeing to the claim. Regarding psi, for example, skeptics propose possible information leaks all the time, then back off when compelling evidence is shown that that particular leak was controlled. That does not mean that the skeptic now agrees that the experiment demonstrates psi.

For example, I proposed to Pam Smart that the telephone telepathy experiments have a leak regarding the times on the callers' and callee's clocks. She responded:This issue came up a few weeks ago and Rupert is looking into it. I agree that it would be a good idea to deprive the subject of a clock.
If it turns out that they did control for the clocks, or that the subjects had no clock, then I'll freely admit my idea was wrong. But I still won't think that people are psychic about who's calling them on the phone.

The definition of debunk is so loaded that the word has become almost useless.

~~ Paul

[Titus Rivas]

Paul,

I was only talking about admitting one's own errors, not about admitting that another person is right (about anything else than one's own errors).

Titus

[plindboe]

That's how people are, skeptics and nonskeptics alike. Noone likes to admit when they are wrong, so it's quite a rare occurence on any kind of message board. Personally I admit when I am wrong, which has already happened twice in this forum.:o But it would certainly be nice to see more people with the courage to do the same.

Peter :)

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
I even know of a Dutch skeptic (I won't reveal his name here) who acknowledges there is enough evidence (mainly collected by Dr. Ian Stevenson (http://www.healthsystem.virginia.edu/internet/personalitystudies/) and his associates) to make a rational case for the existence of reincarnation.
JC: Why no name? Is this "Dutch skeptic" real? Can we examine her qualifications?
Finally I'm aware of an excellent website of the Association for Skeptical Investigation (http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/aboutsi/index.htm) which defends and promotes so called 'genuine skepticism' and has many non-debunking experts on the paranormal among its associates and advisors, e.g. Dick Bierman, David Fontana, Stanley Krippner, Gary Schwartz, Rupert Sheldrake and others.
JC: Interesting website, if misleadingly named.
If you go to Home and then Sceptical Organizations and Publications, look under JREF. Toward the end of the item, the difficulty with the past censorship of the board is discussed and a quote that looks like S Grenard's email smear campaign is given. The trouble is that the source of the quote is ambiguous - the way it reads, one could at first mistake the source to be Mr. Randi.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Titus said:I was only talking about admitting one's own errors, not about admitting that another person is right.
Indeed, and if my idea about the unsynchronized clocks turns out to be wrong, I'll admit it.

This conversation would go alot further if you would give us an example where a skeptic was wrong but wouldn't admit it. And for it to really mean anything, you need to show us that believers rarely make the same mistake.

~~ Paul

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
JC: Interesting website, if misleadingly named.
If you go to Home and then Sceptical Organizations and Publications, look under JREF. Toward the end of the item, the difficulty with the past censorship of the board is discussed and a quote that looks like S Grenard's email smear campaign is given. The trouble is that the source of the quote is ambiguous - the way it reads, one could at first mistake the source to be Mr. Randi.


In fact, part of it is almost a direct quote from one of Grenard's posts to Usenet:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3e83bb57.0209010945.664f1a9b%40posting .google.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

The reason for this blocking is the incessant discussions involving obscenities, vulgarity, pedophilia, material of a sexual nature as well as a general lack of respect among members for each other which occurs on the bulletin board.

We are asking you to visit this board and make a thorough search of its content. If you agree that this should be an adults only board, as some have implied it is, we urge you to ask your schools and libraries to block this site so that your children cannot be influenced by its content.

Sorry for the OT, but it's somewhat related. I think there exists on both "sides" a tendency to take any admission of error and inflate it far out of proportion. Randi's statements about this site being blocked, and Grenard's subsequent use of those statements is a prime example. I, myself, have been involved in long discussions that went nowhere because the other party consistently became intent upon forcing me to "admit" that I was wrong. Well, when the discussion begins to focus on personalities instead of the scientific issues, the discussion becomes an act of futility.

We can waste loads of time discussing who is or is not better at admitting mistakes -- or how stupid, cynical, gullible, irrational, and illogical so-and-so is -- but I think it's pointless, given the extreme polarization of believer and skeptic.

Regardless of errors committed by skeptics or by believers, the bottom line remains the same: those who make claims must provide convincing evidence, not sophisticated arguments about why bad evidence is really good evidence. Those who make such arguments will simply have to accept the reality that their arguments will be challenged. This is science, folks. You cannot BS your way to a Nobel Prize.

[Jeff Corey]

Pyrrho,
Thanks for the citation. I knew it looked like Grenard's post, I just didn't have it saved anywhere..

[Checkmite]

I've made a mistake, a while ago on this board. It was in regards to the so-called "James Ossuary", a bone box submitted by a private collector (and, it turns out, professional forger) of antiquities, whose inscription reads "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus". I argued that it was fake, based on the fact that it appears to be written by two different hands - which remains true. However, I argued that the first half of the inscription (James, son of Joseph) is genuine, and that the second half (brother of Jesus) was forged. It turns out I was wrong - the entire inscription was forged. I'm in the middle, believe it or not, of typing up a synopsis of the Israeli investigation of the ossuary and what they found (look for it Monday night). However, I thought this thread was a unique opportunity to both make an early admission and a plug for my upcoming thread. :D

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
Paul,

I was only talking about admitting one's own errors, not about admitting that another person is right (about anything else than one's own errors).

Titus


Do you have some specific examples ?


Errors should be pretty obvious in the presence of conflicting facts..

Anyone who clings to such errors, is going to look pretty foolish..

The premise of your topic " The fallibility of skeptics", is really pretty vague.

It implies you are aware of a skeptic who claims to be infallible.

I must say, I have never seen anyone squirm as much as you have, with regard to the implications of the Pam Reynolds case.

I see it as a failure to admit an error, when you propose a hypothesis, and then claim your hypothesis has changed, when the original claim turns out to be without merit..

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

This conversation would go alot further if you would give us an example where a skeptic was wrong but wouldn't admit it. And for it to really mean anything, you need to show us that believers rarely make the same mistake.

~~ Paul

What you said....

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

It's clear that Phil was not concerned with his image, but about getting the facts right.

Try again.

I was talking about debunkers, not skeptics. M'kay?

[XRX]

Which ones?

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
I've repeatedly noticed that certain skeptics won't admit errors in their witten representation of parapsychology or psychical research. In this thread I would like to invite anyone to describe occasions on which a skeptic denied or admitted that he made an -established- important mistake (whichs means not a simple spelling error, but a major error with consequences). Please note that we're talking about recognizing one's personal fallibility, which should generally be seen as a virtue. I'm curious to know how aware an avarage skeptic or debunker is that (s)he is fallible just like everyone else.

Titus

On a discussion of ganzfeld ESP experiments, Stimpson J Cat wrote this:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I can say that for all of the experiments whose methodology I have read about, there was no blinding on the part of the experimenter. In principle, the subject should have No contact with anybody who knows which film was shown. In many of the experiments, there was also the problem that it was not at all clear that the target films were selected from the same population as the control films. I don't have access to the papers, but the criticisms raised, as well as the responses from the experimenters, seem to indicate that this was not the case. That could easily account for the results right there."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


To which I replied this:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well, I don't know which sources you have been reading. Here's the best link I could find that gives a description of the flaws and criticisms in methodology.

http://comp9.psych.cornell.edu/dbem/does_psi_exist.html

With respect to what you wrote above I'll quote a bit:

Because the ganzfeld is itself a perceptual isolation procedure, it goes a long way toward eliminating potential sensory leakage during the ganzfeld portion of the session. There are, however, potential channels of sensory leakage after the ganzfeld period. For example, if the experimenter who interacts with the receiver knows the identity of the target, he or she could bias the receiver's similarity ratings in favor of correct identification. Only one study in the database contained this flaw, a study in which subjects actually performed slightly below chance expectation.

And thats in connection with the original ganzfeld studies which have the most flaws !"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I never got an admission of a mistake from Stimpy nor has he stated where he got his incorrect information from.

I can only assume that he is embarrased that his information was totally false, or his information was just made up on the spot to strengthening his argument. There's a reason he "doesn't have access to the papers". They don't exist.

[Jagger]

I must say, I have never seen anyone squirm as much as you have, with regard to the implications of the Pam Reynolds case.

Dionysis, I was going to say this sort of statement is what gives skeptics a bad reputation. But that wouldn't be true. This type of statement gives you a bad reputation. It combines gloating, sense of superiority and getting a kick in simulataneously. But when combined with the inaccuracy of the statement, it makes me question your ability to judge any sort of reality. It must be enjoyable to have your own pseudo-reality while everyone else has to deal with normal reality.

Just a minor helpful observation which you can use to self reflect or not.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by XRX
Oh but wait...hasn't he said that he's not a debunker? I know what you meant by your statement, but I don't think Mr Randi thinks of himself as a "debunker". So we might as well leave him out of this.
:eek:

Can we start calling it the "No True Skeptic" fallacy now?

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
It turns out I was wrong - the entire inscription was forged.
Are you serious? That's insane - was it two forgers at work, or is the original guy just really, really stupid?

[Titus Rivas]

This conversation would go alot further if you would give us an example where a skeptic was wrong but wouldn't admit it. And for it to really mean anything, you need to show us that believers rarely make the same mistake.

You miss the point, I am not claiming that skeptics admit less often that they are wrong than believers do. I just repeatedly noticed that certain skeptics don't admit errors in their witten representation of parapsychology or psychical research. So there is no question of a comparison.

One of my own personal examples is that of a Dutch skeptic -no, I won't mention his name, as we have been having enough trouble with each other by now- who claimed in a well-known (Dutch) article about reincarnation research that Dr. Ian Stevenson had not sufficiently considered normal explanations for his cases, such as cryptomnesia. In an online article I pointed out that this is very wrong, as Stevenson has explicitly called cryptomnesia the main counter hypothesis for certain cases and even wrote a whole article about the phenomenon. I never received any reply either from him or from any other local "top"-skeptic that he simply was wrong about Stevenson and thorougly misrepresented the latter's theorizing.

Similarly, though I don't have any concrete examples now, I've often read articles and passages in skeptical books which were erroneous and about which psychical researchers had written replies which conclusively established that the skeptics were wrong. In those cases I never encountered a public admission that the skeptic had been wrong. I may have missed of them of course.

Again, I'm not claiming that skeptics would do this more often than believers. I'm just curious to know if the phenomenon is very widespread or whether there are also skeptics who are fully aware of their fallibility and have repeatedly shown that awareness publicly. That's all.

For example, I liked the example by davidsmith73, but also the information about Susan Blackmore, James Randi, Stimpson and even Joshua on this thread.

Diogenes, you said:

I see it as a failure to admit an error, when you propose a hypothesis, and then claim your hypothesis has changed, when the original claim turns out to be without merit..
It would be strange if you hadn't said that your hypothesis had changed (which I had for example on the other thread you're referring to) and perhaps if your first hypothesis was not importantly related to your second one (it certainly was in the example mentioned by you).
Actually, in other cases I couldn't even imagine why admitting an error would be a failure.

JC: Why no name? Is this "Dutch skeptic" real? Can we examine her qualifications?
I like your anti-sexist language :D, Jeff, but it is actually a male skeptic. I won't mention his name here as that might compromise him. I've no idea if I could. His admission was confidential as I understood it and I happen to have lost his contact information (meaning of course that he's not one of the best-known skeptics over here). But you can be sure he's there alright. The point is that his admission was not a public one. We're primarily talking about public, overt admissions here.

Titus

[CFLarsen]

Titus Rivas,

You won't name this Dutch skeptic.

You don't have any concrete examples.

What do you base your claim on, then?? Do you have anything else but baseless rumors?

[Titus Rivas]

You won't name this Dutch skeptic. You don't have any concrete examples. What do you base your claim on, then?? Do you have anything else but baseless rumors?

Who's talking about any claims here, CFLarsen? I don't claim my personal examples are good ones (for anybody else than myself), as I admit I can't identify the skeptics mentioned. But maybe you should read my postings again. I've invited anyone to give examples in which skeptics denied or admitted having been wrong.

I don't suppose you would claim that skeptics are actually infallible, would you?

Titus

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
I don't suppose you would claim that skeptics are actually infallible, would you?

Nope. You have been given examples of skeptics admitting their errors. Your point?

[Titus Rivas]

You have been given examples of skeptics admitting their errors. Your point?

My point is that it is good for skeptics who are evaluating claims of border scientists such as parapsychologists to be aware of their own fallibility. I thought that was clear all along.

Titus

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
My point is that it is good for skeptics who are evaluating claims of border scientists such as parapsychologists to be aware of their own fallibility. I thought that was clear all along.

Titus

Nobody is arguing against that. You were presented with examples. You mentioned evidence of the contrary...?

Oh. No, you didn't.

[reprise]

I was having PC problems last night so I didn't get around to seacrhing for the specific Susan Blackmore articles I referred to earlier. I'll do it today.

Blackmore is an interesting example because she's been both supporter of the paranormal and skeptic.

I would like to point out that "parapsychologist" and "psychical researcher" tend to be self-descriptions and give no indication of whether the person claiming that status is a believer, a skeptic, or a debunker.

Personally, I find it infuriating when those who have recognised degrees in psychology draw erroneous conclusions from data which is flawed. I do not expect Joe Public to realise that the original data is flawed in some way. I do expect someone who has studied psychology at a tertiary level to analyse the quality of the research upon which they are basing their consludions and actively look for floors in the methodology by which it was collected.

I do not apply this principle only to things paranormal. The "MacDonald triad" is not a scientifically valid model. No matter how many police forces throughout the world use it to "profile" potential serial killers, the model is flawed (MacDonald never researched the incidence of the "triad" in the non-offending population, apart from anything else). MacDonald's theory may well prove to be correct, but right now its credibility should be challenged.

[Titus Rivas]

Nobody is arguing against that. You were presented with examples. You mentioned evidence of the contrary...?

Huh??? You're having a very hard time understanding me, CFLarsen. Please read again and admit you've misunderstood me. I won't answer again before you do so :D

Titus

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Yahzi

Are you serious? That's insane - was it two forgers at work, or is the original guy just really, really stupid?

You'll find out Monday. :D

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

This is crazy skeptics can't be wrong because they have a monopoly on being logical and are here to save all of us dumb people from being irrational.

[SRW]

Originally posted by traveller
This is crazy skeptics can't be wrong because they have a monopoly on being logical and are here to save all of us dumb people from being irrational.

We skeptics jump out of bed every morning thinking "what irrational thought can I debunk today?" Yes that is what we live for, the feeling of superiority that only comes from dashing the illogical and silly views of some credulous believer.

Yes it's Skeptic man, faster than a self deluded psychic, more powerfully than a Speeding poltergeist able to debunk hundreds of irrational beliefs in a single bound. It's Skeptic man.

Get real. Skeptics are not out to save anyone, we just ask you to provide proof that what you believe is true. Randi has put up a million dollars not to prove anyone wrong but as a reward for anyone who can show that they can do what they claim. Why is that so hard to understand? If you can do X show it under controlled conditions. If not then you may want to rethink your beliefs.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by SRW

Get real. Skeptics are not out to save anyone, we just ask you to provide proof that what you believe is true. Randi has put up a million dollars not to prove anyone wrong but as a reward for anyone who can show that they can do what they claim. Why is that so hard to understand? If you can do X show it under controlled conditions. If not then you may want to rethink your beliefs.

SRW, Randi is fine for the most part, it is his followers that are dogmatic.

Good results are obtained from science, and science is done in peer reviewed journals. Interesting entertainment, such as the challenge, is entertaining and thought provoking, but ultimately doesn't show much in the long run.

[SRW]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


SRW, Randi is fine for the most part, it is his followers that are dogmatic.



Randi's followers? Sorry there is no Randi cult, There are simply skeptics many of who have a similar interests. I think it's rather weak to label everyone here as dogmatic, I have found a wide range of people and views.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by SRW
Randi's followers? Sorry there is no Randi cult, There are simply skeptics many of who have a similar interests. I think it's rather weak to label everyone here as dogmatic, I have found a wide range of people and views.

I didn't label everyone here as dogmatic. I said that Randi's followers are. I don't believe actual skeptics who are fond of Randi are.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
...snip...

Randi's followers

...snip...
I hereby declarate a new religion, I hereby name it RANDISM!

Yes, Randism. A religion based on skepticism and seeking to understand more about the world around us in meaningful, rational, and scientific ways.

I'd create a 10 commandments of Randism, but I dont have the time or energy to do so...

[SRW]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


I didn't label everyone here as dogmatic. I said that Randi's followers are. I don't believe actual skeptics who are fond of Randi are.


Sorry you lost me at "Randi's followers" I have followed his career and read some of his books but I do not know any actual "Randi followers" Who is a "Randi Follower"?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by SRW
Sorry you lost me at "Randi's followers" I have followed his career and read some of his books but I do not know any actual "Randi followers" Who is a "Randi Follower"?

You said "I have followed his career and...", so I guess you are. My only beef is with followers who don't question the personality they are following. You seem to be a questioner, so I don't have any problems with that. I'm addressing skeptics who don't question what their favorite skeptics say.

And why did you capitalize follower on one occasion? I certainly didn't.

[SRW]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi



And why did you capitalize follower on one occasion? I certainly didn't.

Typo

Anyway, so we have establish that I am a "follower of Randi" but not necessarily a, Night of the Living Dead zombie like Randi drone, who is?

Most of the people I have met here are free thinking people. And not ones that are here because Randi is such a charismatic leader.

[thaiboxerken]

The claim has been made that there are Randi cultists that follow everything Randi says without thinking. Ok, T'ai Chi.. you made the claim, now tell me.. can you name just one of these Randi cultists?

I, myself, like Randi's work and feel he's doing a great service to humanity. But, I hardly worship him. I don't agree with his pacifism towards religion, as religions are based on the paranormal.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
The claim has been made that there are Randi cultists that follow everything Randi says without thinking. Ok, T'ai Chi.. you made the claim, now tell me.. can you name just one of these Randi cultists?

I, myself, like Randi's work and feel he's doing a great service to humanity. But, I hardly worship him. I don't agree with his pacifism towards religion, as religions are based on the paranormal.

I never said "cultist", you did Thai. Please quit pretending that I said such a thing. I said "follower", and people are reading a tad too much into that term IMO.

[SRW]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


I never said "cultist", you did Thai. Please quit pretending that I said such a thing. I said "follower", and people are reading a tad too much into that term IMO.


You said "dogmatic followers", but why quibble over semantics. What did you mean by that description? Or when you referred to people who unquestionably follow Randi's personality (is that not a cult of personality?) I just want to know who these people are.

[espritch]

This is crazy skeptics can't be wrong because they have a monopoly on being logical and are here to save all of us dumb people from being irrational.

This is true. Although I must admit that in recent years I've started to wonder if you dumb people are actually worth saving.

[reprise]

Or when you referred to people who unquestionably follow Randi's personality...

I can just see people busting down doors to joint The Cult of the Grumpy Old Man™.

We could organise rosters for people to door-knock and deliver Randi's message to the world in 10 or less ascerbic words.

Sounds like a plan to me.

[reprise]

Originally posted by espritch


This is true. Although I must admit that in recent years I've started to wonder if you dumb people are actually worth saving.

Sounds like the way I feel about 419 scam victims. Six months of hacking scammers accounts convinced me that most victims fully deserve to be parted from their money.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by SRW
You said "dogmatic followers", but why quibble over semantics. What did you mean by that description? Or when you referred to people who unquestionably follow Randi's personality (is that not a cult of personality?) I just want to know who these people are.

It is not a quibble over semantics, it is a quibble over words, words I didn't say. Saying cultists is very different from saying followers. There are some of these people among us in skeptic land. The ones who never ever admit that Randi and other skeptics may be wrong on some issues.

[XRX]

Specifically...

[xouper]

Titus Rivas: Finally I'm aware of an excellent website of the Association for Skeptical Investigation (http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/aboutsi/index.htm) which defends and promotes so called 'genuine skepticism' and has many non-debunking experts on the paranormal among its associates and advisors, e.g. Dick Bierman, David Fontana, Stanley Krippner, Gary Schwartz, Rupert Sheldrake and others. So don't worry about my capacity to differentiate. Schwartz is an expert on the paranormal? BWAHAHAHAHA.

plindboe: Noone likes to admit when they are wrong, so it's quite a rare occurence on any kind of message board.Spellign errors notwithstanding. :)
http://www.xoup.net/peeves/noone.php

Yahweh: I hereby declarate a new religion, I hereby name it RANDISM!You may wish to spell it Randiism (with two i's), to differentiate it from Ayn Rand's "religion" based on objectivism.

T'ai Chi: It is not a quibble over semantics, it is a quibble over words, words I didn't say. Saying cultists is very different from saying followers. There are some of these people among us in skeptic land. The ones who never ever admit that Randi and other skeptics may be wrong on some issues.OK, I'll bite. Got any examples, names?

[XRX]

Originally posted by xouper

You may wish to spell it Randiism (with two i's), to differentiate it from Ayn Rand's "religion" based on objectivism.


Ah, the Church of Rand cult. Crazies.

[Pyrrho]

At this time I must admit that I am a member in good standing of Skep-ti-Cult, member number 474-59846-453.

http://www.skepticult.org

"We're not laughing with you."

[thaiboxerken]

It is not a quibble over semantics, it is a quibble over words, words I didn't say. Saying cultists is very different from saying followers.

The context and description of "followers of Randi" that you have given is describing a cultist. But, semantics aside, who here is a dogmatic follower of James Randi (tm)?


There are some of these people among us in skeptic land. The ones who never ever admit that Randi and other skeptics may be wrong on some issues.

Can you tell us who? Name just one.

[Pyrrho]

Tonight on NOVA: Homo sapiens ad hominem.

[XRX]

I'd watch that.

[Martin]

Originally posted by xouper
Schwartz is an expert on the paranormal?To be fair, he is an expert on photons the size of pinheads. Not many people can say that. At least, not with a straight face.

[Titus Rivas]

By the word expert I don't necessarily meant to imply that somebody's theories were correct. I just meant to say that he or she is well versed in the field and knows a lot about it. In that sense I used it as a relatively neutral term. By which I certainly don't wish to imply either that I agree with anyone's views on Schwartz as expressed on this forum.

Titus

[thaiboxerken]

Schwartz is a quack, a nutball. He only uses "science" to prove his predetermined conclusions.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Schwartz is a quack, a nutball. He only uses "science" to prove his predetermined conclusions.

Then by all means, go inform his employeer of his non-science, and let us know how it goes.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Good idea, T'ai. I'll tell Harvard about John Mack while I'm at it. I'm sure they have no idea what he's doing.

~~ Paul

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Titus Rivas
I've repeatedly noticed that certain skeptics won't admit errors in their witten representation of parapsychology or psychical research. In this thread I would like to invite anyone to describe occasions on which a skeptic denied or admitted that he made an -established- important mistake (whichs means not a simple spelling error, but a major error with consequences). Please note that we're talking about recognizing one's personal fallibility, which should generally be seen as a virtue. I'm curious to know how aware an avarage skeptic or debunker is that (s)he is fallible just like everyone else.


Titus

What do you mean by "skeptic"? I take term the to mean someone who does not accept extraordinary claims as a true without having some sort of actual basis for actually doing so. The main reason that arguments between "skeptics" and "believers" rarely get any where is because one of the parties has an agenda other that purely seeking the a truth about the topic being discussed. Everybody can be wrong. The fundamental difference between skepticism and credulousness is that skepticism dictates that one have a rational basis for believing in and arguing for one's position. A person who believes something contrary to the evidence could not be reasonable called a skeptic, whatever he may call himself.

I don't believe the things I don't believe because there is no credible reason to believe those things. "Believers" believe things on faith. If they didn't they wouldn't be believers. If there is evidence for believing something there would be no need to be a believer because you would know it to be true.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Then by all means, go inform his employeer of his non-science, and let us know how it goes.
He has tenure. Unless he's convicted of mopery or something, they can fire him.
Then there's this thing called "academic freedom to be as nutty as a sackful of squirrels".

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by billydkid
[B]

What do you mean by "skeptic"? I take term the to mean someone who does not accept extraordinary claims as a true without having some sort of actual basis for actually doing so.



Yea, like the extraordinary claim that materialism is the correct depiction of reality. That's why I'm a sceptic :)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:Yea, like the extraordinary claim that materialism is the correct depiction of reality. That's why I'm a sceptic.
Ian, buddy, it's time to move on to a different straw chip on your shoulder.

~~ Paul

[SRW]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


It is not a quibble over semantics, it is a quibble over words, words I didn't say. Saying cultists is very different from saying followers. There are some of these people among us in skeptic land. The ones who never ever admit that Randi and other skeptics may be wrong on some issues.

I only quoted words you did say, but what I am most interested in is the words you are reluctant to say. Who are the Randi Dogmatic followers? Who exactly is unwilling to admit that Randi may be wrong on some issues? Can you give me an example of someone who believes skeptics are infallible? Am I going to have to make a Larson list ?:rolleyes:

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


It is clear why: debunkers don't like to debunk themselves. It kind of ruins their image.

sniff sniff.....


What's that musty smell?

It must be coming from that moldy old strawman you are bandying about.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

sniff sniff.....

What's that musty smell?

It must be coming from that moldy old strawman you are bandying about.

Right. Saying there are dogmatic skeptics out there is a strawman? You must be in denial.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Right. Saying there are dogmatic skeptics out there is a strawman? You must be in denial.

Your statement did not imply that SOME skeptics are dogmatic. It implied ALL skeptics are dogmatic.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Ian said:
Ian, buddy, it's time to move on to a different straw chip on your shoulder.

Here, here. We've heard it all before Ian... several million times. We get it.

Get back to us when you have conclusive proof.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Right. Saying there are dogmatic skeptics out there is a strawman? You must be in denial.

Name one. Also, name one skeptic here that follows Randi dogmatically as well. You keep saying that such people exist, but can you give us an example?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

Your statement did not imply that SOME skeptics are dogmatic. It implied ALL skeptics are dogmatic.

I never said that all skeptics are dogmatic. You must be imagining things.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Name one. Also, name one skeptic here that follows Randi dogmatically as well. You keep saying that such people exist, but can you give us an example?

Even if he did name one, or two or one thousand one hundred and fifteen it wouldn't mean a thing. It would only mean that you will find idiots in every segment of society. I don't think that this revelation would come as a shock to very many people.

What iritated me about his statement was his implication ALL skeptics have some agenda that they midlessly follow. This is an old, old strawman argument that believers use to dismiss the arguments of skeptics and one that I find personally insulting.

[SRW]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


I never said that all skeptics are dogmatic. You must be imagining things.

True and no one said you did. He said you implied it. Also you did say that, some skeptics are dogmatic, and have been asked many times to provide names.

[CFLarsen]

T'ai Chi,

You said that:

"I've repeatedly noticed that certain skeptics won't admit errors in their witten representation of parapsychology or psychical research"

Who are these "certain skeptics", by name, please? Where have you noticed this?

Put up or shut up.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


I never said that all skeptics are dogmatic. You must be imagining things.

Your exact words were:

It is clear why: debunkers don't like to debunk themselves. It kind of ruins their image.

You did not say "Some Debunkers" or even "Most debunkers" you said "Debunkers". By the rules of grammar that I was taught and that I don't believe have changed, if I say "Cats are furry" I don't mean "Some cats are furry" I mean "All cats are furry". So the implication is pretty clear that you meant "All Debunkers don't like to debunk themselves". I am imagining nothing

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
T'ai Chi,

Who are these "certain skeptics", by name, please? Where have you noticed this?

Put up or shut up.

Oh yeah, great quote Claus, I'm sure I said "witten", I'm always saying that. Actually quoting me next time would be more effective.

Nyal, I said "debunkers", not skeptics. I definitely consider them different groups. The skeptics are rational and foster inquiry and don't assume. The debunkers have a damn hard time keeping assumptions to a minimum and tend to be dogmatic. The fact that on one hand people acknowledge that there are these types of idiots in all segments of society as obvious, and then on the other hand demand proof and listing of specific people, strikes me as very odd.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Nyal, I said "debunkers", not skeptics. I definitely consider them different groups. The skeptics are rational and foster inquiry and don't assume. The debunkers have a damn hard time keeping assumptions to a minimum and tend to be dogmatic. The fact that on one hand people acknowledge that there are these types of idiots in all segments of society as obvious, and then on the other hand demand proof and listing of specific people, strikes me as very odd.

Then you subscribe to a different definition of "debunker" than I do. My definition is simply one of degree of agressiveness. The way I see it a debunker is merely a skeptic who confronts people about their beliefs, whereas someone who is 'merely' a sceptic generally doesn't. I personally fall into the latter category, I don't generally confront people about their beliefs unless the other person brings it up or does something that affects or irritates me. It's not in my nature to do otherwise. However there IS a lot of nonsense in the world that needs to be challenged, and the "debunkers" serve a useful purpose in challenging it, their personalities are better suited to the task. But in the end, it is nothing more than a difference in personality. Dogmatism and the rest are entirely seperate issues and can be in either group.

[CFLarsen]

T'ai Chi,

Just name one of those people you refer to. Under whatever circumstances you meant.

Cut the manure. Get to the point. Put up or shut up.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

The fact that on one hand people acknowledge that there are these types of idiots in all segments of society as obvious, and then on the other hand demand proof and listing of specific people, strikes me as very odd.

BY the way, it strikes ME as a bit odd that you mix my quote about "idiots all segments of society" and others demands for names. I was not the person asking for names since, as I stated, it doesn't matter if you can name names or not. The people making the demands for names have made no comment on my statement, so they are two seperate things. Mixing the two into one statement seems a bit disingenuous to me.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
T'ai Chi,

Just name one of those people you refer to. Under whatever circumstances you meant.

Cut the manure. Get to the point. Put up or shut up.

This is "General Skepticism and the Paranormal", not the "Show all evidence for your claim" forum. ie, I am as free to exchange ideas as you are. Therefore, I have the right to neither put up or shut up, just like you.

I have names of specific people, yeah right. Usually I try to ignore these people as much as I can, not write down their personal information.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


This is "General Skepticism and the Paranormal", not the "Show all evidence for your claim" forum. ie, I am as free to exchange ideas as you are. Therefore, I have the right to neither put up or shut up, just like you.

I have names of specific people, yeah right. Usually I try to ignore these people as much as I can, not write down their personal information.

If you want to make claims without evidence what makes you want to come to this forum? If you want to ignore anyone who disagrees with you, what makes you want to come onto ANY forum.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

If you want to make claims without evidence what makes you want to come to this forum? If you want to ignore anyone who disagrees with you, what makes you want to come onto ANY forum.

If you expect people to answer huge lists and pestering questions, why do you want to come to this forum? If you consider it normal behavior to ask people such questions, repeatedly, when they merely express their opinion on a discussion forum titled "General Skepticism and the Paranormal", why are you here?

etc.

This isn't a board to present scientific evidence, or ANY evidence. It is a discussion board, made to foster communication between believers and non-believers alike. As I understand things.

I mainly ignore pseudoskeptical people in real life, not on discussion boards. They don't just disagree, which is of course fine, they accuse others of being close minded, claim themselves as rational, but they act close minded. I personally think it is more close minded to pretend you aren't close minded while dogmatically claiming others are close minded, or knee-jerkingly asking for unecessary amounts of evidence for every little thing, while not providing evidence when asked of you.

[SRW]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


I mainly ignore pseudoskeptical people in real life, not on discussion boards. They don't just disagree, which is of course fine, they accuse others of being close minded, claim themselves as rational, but they act close minded. I personally think it is more close minded to pretend you aren't close minded while dogmatically claiming others are close minded, or knee-jerkingly asking for unecessary amounts of evidence for every little thing, while not providing evidence when asked of you.

Now that what we call the old soft shoe and the pot calling the kettle black all rolled up into one little post.

Does anyone here find it ironic that on a thread called the fallibility of skeptics, someone can make so many outrageous statements and squawk so loud when asked to back them up?
Gee I guess dogmmatic creduloids just cannot admit when they are wrong all they can do is make excuses and blame everyone else.

Now what evidence have you asked for that was not provided? Did I miss it? Like you missed all the requests from me and others?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by SRW

Does anyone here find it ironic that on a thread called the fallibility of skeptics, someone can make so many outrageous statements and squawk so loud when asked to back them up?
Gee I guess dogmmatic creduloids just cannot admit when they are wrong all they can do is make excuses and blame everyone else.


heh, I haven't squawked loudly, just exercised my right to not respond to you and others' silly questions. If you consider saying that there exist dogmatic skeptics as outrageous, then OK.

In any case, this is a discussion forum. People post their opinions. This isn't some scientific demonstration here, or a courtroom where evidence has to be presented. Get over it, will you? I have.

[SRW]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


heh, I haven't squawked loudly, just exercised my right to not respond to you and others' silly questions. If you consider saying that there exist dogmatic skeptics as outrageous, then OK.

In any case, this is a discussion forum. People post their opinions. This isn't some scientific demonstration here, or a courtroom where evidence has to be presented. Get over it, will you? I have.

Sorry to keep harping on you, I just wanted to show how people like you never back up anything they say. Thanks for being so cooperative. :roll:

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by SRW


Sorry to keep harping on you, I just wanted to show how people like you never back up anything they say. Thanks for being so cooperative. :roll:

Yeah, you know, "people like me", those people. Could you list the exact names, addresses, and birthdates of said people? Put up or shut up. Provide evidence of your outlandish claims. etc etc.

Double standard, eh? ;)

[CFLarsen]

T'ai Chi,

No need for a list - yet.

I just don't see the logic in stating such a claim without backing it up with evidence. Why discuss a subject like this, then? Do you merely want to discuss hypothetical issues?

As you might have guessed, that's not usually the sentiment here. This is not a kaffee klatch, people here want some answers.

If you want to exhibit your prejudices, go ahead. Just don't expect to be taken seriously.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
T'ai Chi,

No need for a list - yet.

I just don't see the logic in stating such a claim without backing it up with evidence. Why discuss a subject like this, then? Do you merely want to discuss hypothetical issues?

As you might have guessed, that's not usually the sentiment here. This is not a kaffee klatch, people here want some answers.

If you want to exhibit your prejudices, go ahead. Just don't expect to be taken seriously.

Proof of the effectiveness of your lists is your annoying back-and-forth with Lucianarchy. That whole ongoing bull session really settles things, eh? ;) If you make a list with n questions for me, I will return one for you with 2n questions. We can clutter some threads, bore people, participate in mutual trolling, and generally, accomplish nothing substantial but exercising our fingers a lot and our minds little. Nah, I'll pass.

Prejudice is an opinion formed without examination. I exhibited no prejudice, just an opinion that some skeptics are dogmatic, backed up by experiences of my own, and observations of experiences of other people, on here, and in real life. Nothing really earthshattering there.

I agree 100% that people here want some answers. Some of these people probably don't realize that this is a discussion board where people share their opinions, not a scientific study or a courtroom where evidence is required and presented all the time.

[Titus Rivas]

reprise,

I've found Susan Blackmore's reply to a critique of her dying brain-hypothesis by Greg Stone. Here (http://www.nderf.org/Dying%20To%20Live%20Critique.htm#A%20Response%20to %20Critique)
it is.

Titus

[CFLarsen]

T'ai Chi,

What's your point, then? Do you really think people will find a discussion about something you fantasize about worth spending their time on? Are you really that self-absorbed?

Find a real issue next time, if you want a real discussion.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Do you really think people will find a discussion about something you fantasize about worth spending their time on? Are you really that self-absorbed?


I posted my opinion. People replied to it. I replied to them. They replied to me. etc. It isn't just me posting stuff here and being "self absorbed". Obviously.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I posted my opinion. People replied to it. I replied to them. They replied to me. etc. It isn't just me posting stuff here and being "self absorbed". Obviously.

No? Then you should perhaps take a look at what people replied.

Do you find a discussion like that particularly worthwhile?

Obviously.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

No? Then you should perhaps take a look at what people replied.

Do you find a discussion like that particularly worthwhile?


I find that people enjoy a discussion like that. I do. You might because you continue to reply??

Do you find this discussion worthwhile? Why/why not? Could you beat Lucianarchy in a game of foosball? Why/why not?

And SRW, have you found a list of people "like me" who "never back up their claims" yet? You must back up your claims, you know, that such other people exist and they never back up their claims.

If I'm not allowed to get away from such silly similar skeptical sardonic surveys, neither are you. :) Unless, of course, the self appointed Skeptical Elders want to pick and choose who their (non official forum) rules apply to.

[Zep]

Getting on to 3 whole pages now, and T'ai Chi has yet to put up any evidence to back up the thread's title.

BORING!!! See you somewhere else when it gets actually interesting.

:s2:

[xouper]

Zep: Getting on to 3 whole pages now, and T'ai Chi has yet to put up any evidence to back up the thread's title.I was just thinking the same thing. If this thread has demonstrated anything, it's that nothing would be lost by dismissing T'ai Chi as someone not worth paying attention to, or at the very least, not taking seriously.

[SRW]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


IAnd SRW, have you found a list of people "like me" who "never back up their claims" yet? You must back up your claims, you know, that such other people exist and they never back up their claims.

If I'm not allowed to get away from such silly similar skeptical sardonic surveys, neither are you. :) Unless, of course, the self appointed Skeptical Elders want to pick and choose who their (non official forum) rules apply to.

[SRW]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


IAnd SRW, have you found a list of people "like me" who "never back up their claims" yet? You must back up your claims, you know, that such other people exist and they never back up their claims.

If I'm not allowed to get away from such silly similar skeptical sardonic surveys, neither are you. :) Unless, of course, the self appointed Skeptical Elders want to pick and choose who their (non official forum) rules apply to.


Just keep shoveling, sooner or latter your get through the BS.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Zep
Getting on to 3 whole pages now, and T'ai Chi has yet to put up any evidence to back up the thread's title.

BORING!!! See you somewhere else when it gets actually interesting.

:s2:

To be fair, Tai Chi didn't start the thread and thus has nothing to do with the title, he's just been the "loudest" poster.

[Titus Rivas]

That's right, T'ai Chi didn't start the thread, I did, but his or her contributions seem quite valuable all the same.

To spice the 'conversation' up a bit, here's the famous case of an Italian positivist and skeptic who became a fervent defender of psychical research: Ernesto Bozzano (http://www2.comune.bologna.it/bologna/fbibbdb/evbozzan.htm)

Ernesto Bozzano was born in Genova on January 9th 1862, fourth of five brothers, from a well-off family. As a Psychical Research scholar he played a considerable part in Parapsychology, both in Italy and in the world, from the first years of this century. Since he was a young boy, Ernesto Bozzano showed great interest in studying and the literature he read in adolescent years was humanistic and philosophical. His approach to spiritualistic philosophy was a negative one, and he therefore turned to scientific philosophy, he thoroughly studied Positivism, of which he became strenuous supporter. With such a background he could but negatively judge Paranormal Phenomenology that was becoming more and more widespread at the end of the last century. The attention given to certain articles, published on Revue Philosophique to which he had subscribed, obliged him to give the paranormal a second thought. Among these articles there was one that managed to overcome his prejudice as a positivist, and, after a long ideological crises, especially after having read two famous books: Phantasms of the Living by Gurney, Myers and Podmore, and Animisme et Spiritisme by Alexander Aksakof, his conversion to Psychical Research commenced.

Please keep in mind I was asking for material both about skeptics who denied that they had made major mistakes and about such that admitted them publicly.

Titus

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by SRW

Just keep shoveling, sooner or latter your get through the BS.

Have you found a list of people "like me" who "never", etc. ? SRW? Perhaps you can post stuff like that and not be expected to provide evidence for some reason.

Discussion forums are not about evidence, but rather exchanging ideas and opinions.

If people don't like me posting, the solution is simple; quit replying and asking me questions.

[xouper]

T'ai Chi: Discussion forums are not about evidence, but rather exchanging ideas and opinions.You keep saying that, but it seems you have missed an important point. Why would anyone care to "echange" opinions with someone, such as yourself, who is not willing to justify why your opinions are even worth considering?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by xouper
You keep saying that, but it seems you have missed an important point. Why would anyone care to "echange" opinions with someone, such as yourself, who is not willing to justify why your opinions are even worth considering?

Well, why do you? You just replied to me and asked me a question.

Opinions are always worth considering, even without evidence. That is the nature of opinions. This isn't some scientific study here, but a discussion board.

[SRW]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Well, why do you? You just replied to me and asked me a question.

Opinions are always worth considering, even without evidence. That is the nature of opinions. This isn't some scientific study here, but a discussion board.


Look up the word discussion (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=discussion)

[T'ai Chi]

Again SRW, you don't offer evidence, but others expect me to.

Why is that?

Choices:

1. continue to moan about and ignore the demand for your evidence

2. show us all the evidence

Will I have to make a "T'ai Chi List" (tm) for you?

;) ;) ;)

[xouper]

T'ai Chi: Well, why do you? You just replied to me and asked me a question.It was a rhetorical question. My intent was to explain politely why I am no longer interested in discussing the issue with you. Until you post something interesting or worthwhile, it's unlikely I will respond again. I have better things to do with my time.

[Whomp]

T'ai Chi,
You keep pointing out that this is a discussion board.
This is obviously true, but what you seem to miss, is this is a forum for skeptics.

By the very definition of skeptic, you can see that the mantra here is going to be "prove it!".

If you are going to state a position, or make an assertation on this board, you'd better be able to back it up.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Whomp
You keep pointing out that this is a discussion board.
This is obviously true, but what you seem to miss, is this is a forum for skeptics.

Exactly the point I was trying to make recently. With all the different message boards on the internet, why pick a place where you know, you know, you'll be asked to produce evidence routinely.

There are plenty of places where you can engage in simple discussion without scrutiny. Don't come here, make drive by assertions, then complain when you're asked to back up your asertions with evidence.

Just what where you expecting?

[T'ai Chi]

That is where a fundamental error lies in your guys' thinking. This isn't a skeptics board. This is a discussion board, whose purpose is for believers and non-believers to discuss things for education purposes.

Don't come here, make drive by assertions, then complain when you're asked to back up your asertions with evidence.


So, has SRW provided his/her evidence yet? No, I thought not. Why the double standard? Carry on with excuses. :)

[TLN]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
That is where a fundamental error lies in your guys' thinking. This isn't a skeptics board. This is a discussion board, whose purpose is for believers and non-believers to discuss things for education purposes.

Of course it is. But be prepared to be asked for evidence!

Is that so difficult to understand? And again, if you don't want to produce evidence, why... post... here?

It's a simple question.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
So, has SRW provided his/her evidence yet? No, I thought not. Why the double standard? Carry on with excuses. :)

I don't know what you're talking about, so tell me.

However, how does that have anything to do with you and your constant drive by assertions? Don't change the subject.

[T'ai Chi]

Sure, I am always prepared for people asking for evidence. However, what they probably don't understand is that having evidence or even sharing evidence is not a prerequisite for sharing opinions or participating on this board, in any way, shape, or form.

And again, if you don't want to produce evidence, why... post... here?


And again, that is not a requisite for participating by sharing opinions on this discussion board for believers and non-believers. Are you claiming that one can't participate on a discussion board unless one produces evidence? Are you for real?


I don't know what you're talking about, so tell me.


He needs to find "people like me" who "never admit being wrong". He obviously is claiming said people exist, so I am asking him for specific names, just as people asked me for specific names of irrational debunkers when I made the startling obvious assertion that said people exist.


However, how does that have anything to do with you and your constant drive by assertions? Don't change the subject.


Nice try. The subject is exactly the same. If people ask me to "put up or shut up" when I post an opinion, what not act the same way to all posters? Where is SRW's list of names? Eh?

Psychic prediction: more excuses from all to follow shortly.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
That is where a fundamental error lies in your guys' thinking. This isn't a skeptics board. This is a discussion board, whose purpose is for believers and non-believers to discuss things for education purposes.


There is a bar near me. It does not call itself a biker bar. However most of the patrons are bikers so it would not be the best place for me to choose to enter and yell "Harleys suck!!". I have every right to do that but being a prudent person, I wouldn't.

Likewise, this place is run by a skeptical organization and is heavily populated with skeptics. Coming here and proclaiming that skepitcs (or debunkers, since you seem to prefer that term) are dogmatic and then proclaiming that you have no responsibility to provide any evidence to back up that assertion (oh, and you did NOT qualify your statement as only meaning SOME skeptics until AFTER you were called on it) is the equivalent of shouting "Harleys Suck!" in a biker bar. The diference is that here you will only be shouted down and barraged with demands for evidence rather than beaten up. I don't see why you do it.

[SRW]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Yeah, you know, "people like me", those people. Could you list the exact names, addresses, and birthdates of said people? Put up or shut up. Provide evidence of your outlandish claims. etc etc.

Double standard, eh? ;)


Was I supposed to take that as a serious question? Explain how?

Oh right your do not have to explain anything this is just a discussion board. Enough of your silliness. When you grow up come back and play.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by SRW

Was I supposed to take that as a serious question? Explain how?

Oh right your do not have to explain anything this is just a discussion board. Enough of your silliness. When you grow up come back and play.

In other words, you apparently don't want to hold yourself to the standards that you hold me to. If you did, you'd put up your evidence. Put up or shut up, as they say. :)

Um, keep responding people, then blame me for solely spamming the thread. :rolleyes:

[TLN]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Sure, I am always prepared for people asking for evidence. However, what they probably don't understand is that having evidence or even sharing evidence is not a prerequisite for sharing opinions or participating on this board, in any way, shape, or form.

Agreed, but don't you think getting upset by the fact that folks are asking, even demanding, evidence is a bit silly considering where you're posting?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
And again, that is not a requisite for participating by sharing opinions on this discussion board for believers and non-believers. Are you claiming that one can't participate on a discussion board unless one produces evidence?

Wrong. I'm saying posting assertions here, then having them questioned and evidence demanded of them, is to be expected; that you are choosing to endure this behavior when you post here, like it or not.

For the hundredth time, if you don't want to be questioned and asked for evidence then why post here? I'm not saying that this is the law of this board, but it is what will happen.

Do you go out in the rain without an umbrella then complain you're getting wet?

[T'ai Chi]

I'm not getting upset at all. I'm more amused than anything. SRW post that list of names yet? No? Gee, neither have I...

Wrong. I'm saying posting assertions here, then having them questioned and evidence demanded of them, is to be expected; that you are choosing to endure this behavior when you post here, like it or not.


And you're choosing to play by the rules that people don't, under any circumstances, have to post any evidence that you require.