when have you changed your mind on a matter?

[plumjam]

It seems to me that Skepticism is very similar to a religion/ideology. I say this because it's my experience that "Skeptics", although they pay lip service to the importance of the unbiased evaluation of evidence, rarely apply this principle evenly in the real world.

Very often any evidence presented which goes against the general ideology and philosophy held by Skepticism is ignored, discounted out of hand, ridiculed, or the ad hominem approach is taken.

With this in mind I'd be interested to hear examples from you of when new evidence has prompted you to honestly change your mind on a particular subject.
And why did it do so?

Thanks :)

[Mid]

Depends what you mean by changed your mind I suppose. If you mean in general e.g. opinions on politics, people, mucic, movies etc. I've changed my mind about loads of things.

If you mean things like ghosts, UFOs etc. well I've changed my mind once on these things which was from believing in them in a not very well thought out way, to not believing after looking at the evidence and finding it lacking (if however new evidence came a long I'd be happy to look at and see if it was convincing.) I suppose I should mention that since coming here I've changed my mind on the evidence on hypnotism from thiking it was really to being generally confused about it.

[Humphreys]

Since I've become someone very skeptical of the paranormal, never because since then no one has come up with any convincing evidence of anything paranormal. If they had, it would be accepted science by now.

But, skepticism works both ways. When I was a lot younger, I used to be skeptical of many explanations given as to how Uri Geller bends spoons, but changed my mind, and I used to be skeptical of the official position that the Mars Face was just a rock, but changed my mind when better, clearer photographic evidence came along proving me wrong. I was a bit of a woo way back then, though.

If we're not talking about paranormal subjects, then I've changed my mind many, many times based on new evidence. These vary from political beliefs (The war on terror, for example), to things like the power of hypnosis.

[Humphreys]

That's interesting, Mid. I hadn't read your post before writing mine (we were writing them at the same time), but they're almost identical!

[Stellafane]

It seems to me that Skepticism is very similar to a religion/ideology. I say this because it's my experience that "Skeptics", although they pay lip service to the importance of the unbiased evaluation of evidence, rarely apply this principle evenly in the real world.

Very often any evidence presented which goes against the general ideology and philosophy held by Skepticism is ignored, discounted out of hand, ridiculed, or the ad hominem approach is taken.

With this in mind I'd be interested to hear examples from you of when new evidence has prompted you to honestly change your mind on a particular subject.
And why did it do so?

Thanks :)

Welcome to the forum!

Here's a thread on pretty much this identical topic: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=88664

[Normal Dude]

Very often any evidence presented which goes against the general ideology and philosophy held by Skepticism is ignored, discounted out of hand, ridiculed, or the ad hominem approach is taken.


This is the second time you've posted this assertion with only four posts so far, and while I am sure that some would take this approach, it's a bit of a stretch applying it to skeptics in general. What axe do you have to grind? ;) And you do have any concrete examples that this is true for the skeptical society in general?

It also helps to clarify the issue that we are presenting evidence for. Is it paranormal? Scientific? Societal? Etc? Because this is going to make a big difference. I change my mind often, depending on the subject. I change my opinions on people, governments, organizations, as I learn more about them. I used to believe in ghosts, and then I changed my mind after two years of being on a hauntings investigation team and finding not a shred of evidence.

How is skepticism similar to a religion? I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

Have a good morning,

Chris

[Zep]

It seems to me that Skepticism is very similar to a religion/ideology. I say this because it's my experience that "Skeptics", although they pay lip service to the importance of the unbiased evaluation of evidence, rarely apply this principle evenly in the real world.

Very often any evidence presented which goes against the general ideology and philosophy held by Skepticism is ignored, discounted out of hand, ridiculed, or the ad hominem approach is taken.

With this in mind I'd be interested to hear examples from you of when new evidence has prompted you to honestly change your mind on a particular subject.
And why did it do so?

Thanks :)
1) Have you done any research on the topic yourself?

2) Will you take any heed of the answers supplied to you?

[JoeEllison]

Sounds like baiting to me. The initial premise, that there is a "general ideology and philosophy held by Skepticism" that will exclude evidence for consideration, is illogical and strikes me as being dishonest as well.

plumjam, what DOES happen is that people believe in something without evidence, and skeptics reject it BECAUSE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, OR THE EVIDENCE POINTS AWAY FROM THAT BELIEF. Usually, the believer then presents something that is not considered to be good evidence, like unconfirmed anecdotes, and has a little temper tantrum when wiser folks reject that as insufficient.

What axe do you have to grind?

[Humphreys]

Plumjam is just aggravated because he wants everyone to accept his paranormal beliefs without sufficient evidence, and when they refuse to, he likes to fool himself into believing it's some fundamental defect with the skeptics themselves.

Like the evidence never mattered, the skeptic was never going to believe no matter what, because once a skeptic chooses a position, they never change it, no matter what.

He's wrong on all counts.

[JoeEllison]

Plumjam is just aggravated because he wants everyone to accept his paranormal beliefs without sufficient evidence, and when they refuse to, he likes to fool himself into believing it's some fundamental defect with the skeptics themselves.

Like the evidence never mattered, the skeptic was never going to believe no matter what, because once a skeptic chooses a position, they never change it, no matter what.

He's wrong on all counts.
That's what they all do, isn't it? They have no evidence, they know they look foolish, so they pretend that there is no evidence good enough to change our minds... neatly absolving themselves of the need to actually present any evidence in the first place.

[plumjam]

thanks for all your replies :)

yes, in my original post I should have been more specific. My question was mainly directed at whether examination of new evidence has led you to move away from what might be called Skeptical Orthodoxy.

Unfortunately so far no-one has been able to give an example of this. All the examples offered describe moving towards orthodoxy rather than away from it.
And, although the post hasn't been up for very long this is precisely what supports my broader point i.e. that Skepticism, as it manifests itself on forums such as this one, is an over-arching belief system that is more akin to ideology and religion than that which it prefers to purport itself to be.

In my experience Skepticism takes great pains to appear to be purely scientific in that it claims to view evidence on both sides of an argument equally and without bias.
Yet this effort is disingenuous to say the least.
Judging from what I have read on here most Skeptics adhere to a quite narrow branch of philosophy that might be characterised as reductionist materialism.
Most reductionst materialists do not fully face the fact that if their philosophy were to be true then reality SHOULD be chaotic, devoid of organisation, devoid of life, devoid of intelligence, consciousness, meaning, purpose, emotion, music, humour, selflessness...etc...etc..

To put this in another way, what is either logical or rational about reality having even the most basic of physical laws?

The fact that the laws of physics exist is neither logical nor rational. On the contrary, using a principle which Skeptics often invoke - that of Occam's Razor, it would surely be more reasonable to expect the universe to be completely devoid of the laws of physics, and thus be completely chaotic.

A couple of you asked whether I have an axe to grind. Well, being a thinking, feeling human being like the rest of you, of course I have an axe to grind.
An implication in my original post is that a lot of people on this forum have axes to grind, but prefer to deny the fact, or perhaps they just haven't yet realised that due to their educational upbringing they have been channelled into one particular school of philosophy among a whole range of possible options.

I would say that the axe I have to grind is that my basic position is that of my old mate Bill who used to pipe up with "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

One of the main reasons I think like this is an examination of the history of science and technology and the myriad instances when the Skeptical establishment has been proven spectacularly wrong (e.g. Marconi and the existence of electromagnetism, Maxwell and the existence of electricity, Galileo, the Wright Bros and the possibility of powered flight, science's belief in phlogiston and ether, etc etc.. )

My point is that most of the people on this forum would (as did the establishment figures of those times) have heartily enjoyed ridiculing such notions, and condemning people like Maxwell, Marconi and the Wright Bros as what are pretty distastefully referred to here as "woos".

Yet most of our current society is founded on the work of these woos.
Go figure, huh? ;)

[JoeEllison]

thanks for all your replies :)

yes, in my original post I should have been more specific. My question was mainly directed at whether examination of new evidence has led you to move away from what might be called Skeptical Orthodoxy.

Unfortunately so far no-one has been able to give an example of this. All the examples offered describe moving towards orthodoxy rather than away from it.
And, although the post hasn't been up for very long this is precisely what supports my broader point i.e. that Skepticism, as it manifests itself on forums such as this one, is an over-arching belief system that is more akin to ideology and religion than that which it prefers to purport itself to be.

In my experience Skepticism takes great pains to appear to be purely scientific in that it claims to view evidence on both sides of an argument equally and without bias.
Yet this effort is disingenuous to say the least.
Judging from what I have read on here most Skeptics adhere to a quite narrow branch of philosophy that might be characterised as reductionist materialism.
Most reductionst materialists do not fully face the fact that if their philosophy were to be true then reality SHOULD be chaotic, devoid of organisation, devoid of life, devoid of intelligence, consciousness, meaning, purpose, emotion, music, humour, selflessness...etc...etc..

To put this in another way, what is either logical or rational about reality having even the most basic of physical laws?

The fact that the laws of physics exist is neither logical nor rational. On the contrary, using a principle which Skeptics often invoke - that of Occam's Razor, it would surely be more reasonable to expect the universe to be completely devoid of the laws of physics, and thus be completely chaotic.

A couple of you asked whether I have an axe to grind. Well, being a thinking, feeling human being like the rest of you, of course I have an axe to grind.
An implication in my original post is that a lot of people on this forum have axes to grind, but prefer to deny the fact, or perhaps they just haven't yet realised that due to their educational upbringing they have been channelled into one particular school of philosophy among a whole range of possible options.

I would say that the axe I have to grind is that my basic position is that of my old mate Bill who used to pipe up with "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

One of the main reasons I think like this is an examination of the history of science and technology and the myriad instances when the Skeptical establishment has been proven spectacularly wrong (e.g. Marconi and the existence of electromagnetism, Maxwell and the existence of electricity, Galileo, the Wright Bros and the possibility of powered flight, science's belief in phlogiston and ether, etc etc.. )

My point is that most of the people on this forum would (as did the establishment figures of those times) have heartily enjoyed ridiculing such notions, and condemning people like Maxwell, Marconi and the Wright Bros as what are pretty distastefully referred to here as "woos".

Yet most of our current society is founded on the work of these woos.
Go figure, huh? ;)So, in other words, your intent was to be dishonest, attack strawmen, and to push an anti-rational agenda. Nice work.

[Humphreys]

yes, in my original post I should have been more specific. My question was mainly directed at whether examination of new evidence has led you to move away from what might be called Skeptical Orthodoxy.

There is no "Skeptical Orthodoxy". This is your own invention, and exists only in your mind. In other words, you're creating a strawman argument, and then attempting to ridicule it.

Unfortunately so far no-one has been able to give an example of this. All the examples offered describe moving towards orthodoxy rather than away from it.

There is no "Orthodoxy". If we agree that skeptics like to believe only in the existence of things that have sufficient supporting evidence, then you are asking us whether we have stopped believing in something that has sufficient evidence, and started believing in something else without sufficient evidence instead.

Absurd.

And, although the post hasn't been up for very long this is precisely what supports my broader point i.e. that Skepticism, as it manifests itself on forums such as this one, is an over-arching belief system that is more akin to ideology and religion than that which it prefers to purport itself to be.

That's your claim, and one you have completely failed to support.

In my experience Skepticism takes great pains to appear to be purely scientific in that it claims to view evidence on both sides of an argument equally and without bias.
Yet this effort is disingenuous to say the least.
Judging from what I have read on here most Skeptics adhere to a quite narrow branch of philosophy that might be characterised as reductionist materialism.
Most reductionst materialists do not fully face the fact that if their philosophy were to be true then reality SHOULD be chaotic, devoid of organisation, devoid of life, devoid of intelligence, consciousness, meaning, purpose, emotion, music, humour, selflessness...etc...etc..

No, this is ridiculous. Clearly no Universe of this kind would contain rational beings able to question their own existence, and therefore our very existence as thinking beings necessitates an organized Universe.

Rationality itself mandates a Universe that makes "sense".

To put this in another way, what is either logical or rational about reality having even the most basic of physical laws?

The fact that we would not be here to ask this question unless such laws existed, and that rationality itself would not exist unless this was the case.

The fact that the laws of physics exist is neither logical nor rational. On the contrary, using a principle which Skeptics often invoke - that of Occam's Razor, it would surely be more reasonable to expect the universe to be completely devoid of the laws of physics, and thus be completely chaotic.

Nonsense. Who says there must only be one Universe? Who says there must be only one set of laws? Who says no physical laws is more "rational" than physical laws, and why?

One of the main reasons I think like this is an examination of the history of science and technology and the myriad instances when the Skeptical establishment has been proven spectacularly wrong (e.g. Marconi and the existence of electromagnetism, Maxwell and the existence of electricity, Galileo, the Wright Bros and the possibility of powered flight, science's belief in phlogiston and ether, etc etc.. )

My point is that most of the people on this forum would (as did the establishment figures of those times) have heartily enjoyed ridiculing such notions, and condemning people like Maxwell, Marconi and the Wright Bros as what are pretty distastefully referred to here as "woos".

Ridicule has nothing to do with skepticism itself, that is a personal choice of every individual. However, believing with caution, accepting that you may be wrong, and changing your position when better evidence is available would have been something common to all real skeptics in your scenarios above, and rightfully so.

[Normal Dude]

My question was mainly directed at whether examination of new evidence has led you to move away from what might be called Skeptical Orthodoxy.


Hehe. That's funny. Skeptical Orthodoxy. You made that up all by yourself, didn't you? You still haven't answered how skepticism is a religion.



And, although the post hasn't been up for very long this is precisely what supports my broader point i.e. that Skepticism, as it manifests itself on forums such as this one, is an over-arching belief system that is more akin to ideology and religion than that which it prefers to purport itself to be.


Please do explain. We have already asked you to explain in detail and you have just restated what you've already said.


In my experience Skepticism takes great pains to appear to be purely scientific in that it claims to view evidence on both sides of an argument equally and without bias.
Yet this effort is disingenuous to say the least.


Evidence? Specific examples? And I don't mean flap your gums with more vague accusations, and I don't mean re-stating in a different way. Give me something to chew on.


To put this in another way, what is either logical or rational about reality having even the most basic of physical laws?

The fact that the laws of physics exist is neither logical nor rational. On the contrary, using a principle which Skeptics often invoke - that of Occam's Razor, it would surely be more reasonable to expect the universe to be completely devoid of the laws of physics, and thus be completely chaotic.


This is just nonsense.


One of the main reasons I think like this is an examination of the history of science and technology and the myriad instances when the Skeptical establishment has been proven spectacularly wrong (e.g. Marconi and the existence of electromagnetism, Maxwell and the existence of electricity, Galileo, the Wright Bros and the possibility of powered flight, science's belief in phlogiston and ether, etc etc.. )

My point is that most of the people on this forum would (as did the establishment figures of those times) have heartily enjoyed ridiculing such notions, and condemning people like Maxwell, Marconi and the Wright Bros as what are pretty distastefully referred to here as "woos".

Yet most of our current society is founded on the work of these woos.
Go figure, huh?

Your understanding of the difference between woo and skepticism is fundementally flawed. Skeptics (credible ones) of such people as Marconi and the Wright Brothers, once confronted with the evidence, would change positions. Woos have no credible position to begin with do not change ther positions no matter how much evidence is presented. The people you mentioned above are not "woos" and to call them so is laughable.

You also seem to think that over the ages "skeptics" are some sort of card carrying cohesive group that have a clearly defined label. This is simply not true. Someone can be a skeptic of one thing and a woo in another regards. People could be skeptical of the Wright Brothers, without being card-carrying skeptics. Does this make sense to you?

So, tell me, what is your belief(s) that clash(es) with skepticism?

[malbui]

One of the main reasons I think like this is an examination of the history of science and technology and the myriad instances when the Skeptical establishment has been proven spectacularly wrong (e.g. Marconi and the existence of electromagnetism, Maxwell and the existence of electricity, Galileo, the Wright Bros and the possibility of powered flight, science's belief in phlogiston and ether, etc etc.. )

My point is that most of the people on this forum would (as did the establishment figures of those times) have heartily enjoyed ridiculing such notions, and condemning people like Maxwell, Marconi and the Wright Bros as what are pretty distastefully referred to here as "woos".

Yet most of our current society is founded on the work of these woos.


I seem to post variations on this post on a regular basis. The cases you mention above are all prime examples of how the scientific method works and knowledge evolves. Yes, for any given discovery or hypothesis there may be individual scientists or authority figures who sneer, for any number of reasons. But there are also large numbers of other scientists who try to reproduce the effect and then play with the equipment until it breaks. All that is ever asked is that the effects can be reproduced independently and reliably - in the cases of electricity, radioactivity, heavier-than-air flight, say, this was done and science leapt ahead. The problems arise with things such as cold fusion, for example, where with the best will in the world no progress could be made because there was no replication.

[Apathia]

Snippty-snip

I decided not to get involved in another one of these unfortunate agenda threads.

[Ladewig]

My point is that most of the people on this forum would (as did the establishment figures of those times) have heartily enjoyed ridiculing such notions, and condemning people like Maxwell, Marconi and the Wright Bros as what are pretty distastefully referred to here as "woos".

Yet most of our current society is founded on the work of these woos.
Go figure, huh? ;)

Other have already pointed out some of your errors so I will concentrate only on the last one. We do not use the term "woo" to refer to anyone who makes a hard-to-believe claim. If someone were to claim that man will be walking on Mars in four years, no one on this board would claim that to be woo. Several posters would point out that an amazing amount of work would have to be done in a very short period of time and they would therefore conclude that the rational position would be to doubt the claim.

On the other hand, if someone were to say that mankind will learn very much about the Martian landscape by astrally projecting, then most of us would use the "woo" term. Woo is generally used to describe claims that not only lack evidence but also go against everything we know about how the world works. Others might have a different definition of woo: beliefs based on anecdotal claims that always disappear when studied under controlled conditions.

No, today's society is not based on the work of woos. James VanPraag, Sylvia Browne, Samuel Hahnemann, levitating monks, telepaths, and clairvoyants have not produced any significant support to any aspect of today's society. In fact, some woos, psychic surgeons, for instance, are a drain on society's resources.

[plumjam]

Hi chaps,

thanks for your responses. I must say I'm just getting used to this new concept of a "straw man", I HAD heard of it before, but never inquired as to its meaning. So I hope you'll understand that I wasn't deliberately employing a rather fiendish straw man strategy. Rather I was just talking honestly from my mind and heart as I hope we all do :)

Humphreys and Normal Dude, I really do appreciate the fact that you answer me in such detail and so quickly (not meant sarcastically)
You know the last forum I posted on? It was Big Brother 8 UK.. and the quality of the responses there was a lot lower than yours :)

Well, if I had a spare 3 or 4 hours I maybe could reply with full detail, but despite the fact that I orginally replied to your first answers with moderate language I'll just show you here the words you used to my response:


"your own invention" "you're creating a strawman" "Absurd" "No, this is ridiculous" "Nonsense" "Hehe. That's funny" "This is just nonsense"

I do believe you are very intelligent people. I also believe you have your own strong belief systems (that seem very similar). I just believe that because the probability is that you have been trained in scientific subjects rather than philosophy then your outlook has been somewhat limited. When I first studied philosophy it was a real eye-opener to me that there might me completely other ways of viewing reality to the predominant view promoted by current society/politics/education

Thanks my friends :)

[Drummer]

thanks for all your replies :)

-snip-

One of the main reasons I think like this is an examination of the history of science and technology and the myriad instances when the Skeptical establishment has been proven spectacularly wrong (e.g. Marconi and the existence of electromagnetism, Maxwell and the existence of electricity, Galileo, the Wright Bros and the possibility of powered flight, science's belief in phlogiston and ether, etc etc.. )

My point is that most of the people on this forum would (as did the establishment figures of those times) have heartily enjoyed ridiculing such notions, and condemning people like Maxwell, Marconi and the Wright Bros as what are pretty distastefully referred to here as "woos".

Yet most of our current society is founded on the work of these woos.
Go figure, huh? ;)

Ah, the good old "science/scepticism has been wrong in the past, therefor it's useless".
And the old 'levelling the playing field" by stating that science/ scepticism is as much a matter of faith/ orthodoxy etc as the irrational beliefs you have.
And do tell, which sceptics still believe in phlogiston? Or which do not believe in electromagnetism? Anyone who believe that heavier than air aircraft are impossible? Who think radio is myth? Come on, you claim they are all so orthodox and rigid, they should be easy to find.

[Big Les]

I actually do struggle sometimes with this from the other side of the argument. Whatever evidence a believer offers, I'm 99.9% sure I'll reject it, because it will be the same anecdotal or otherwise weak offering that's always offered. From a pragmatic point of view, for all intents and purposes, I am the closed-minded cynic that the believer might see me as.

The difference of course, is that I absolutely would re-assess my position given some decent evidence, and would change my mind given enough of that. Because we're never likely to see such evidence, I'll never be able to demonstrate my open-mindedness in the way the OP desires. He/she will just have to trust me on that, and also when I tell them I would be over the moon if any of it were shown to have a basis in reality. I don't reject it out of fear or misunderstanding, I reject it because there's just no reason to believe it exists. Nothing but faith and belief. Not good enough.

[Ladewig]

One last point: "Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment; you must also be right." (Robert Park)

[plumjam]

well, from what i have learnt Nature Magazine (supposedly the most prestigious science publication on planet Earth) heavily ridiculed the Wright Brothers, even the local paper of the Wright Bros local town after hearing stories of the success of their first flights denied it and ridiculed them, because that was what the prevailing mental orthodoxy of the time dictated.
What closed-minded people they were soon proven to be. My point is that there is a temptation that is all to easy to succumb to which relegates anyone with any new idea or invention to ridicule, and similtaneously gives you, as a Skeptic, the pleasure of feeling yourself intellectualy superior to them

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

Skepticism looks like religion because many skeptics hold the same 'beliefs' as other skeptics, much like many fundamentalists hold the same beliefs as other fundamentalists.

How they arrived at those 'beliefs' are extremely different. Here's the key difference:

Religion: Here's a book. Read the book. Memorize the book. Believe everything this book says, and defend these beliefs at all costs. The book is not to be questioned, because it is infaliable.

Science: Here is the scientific consensus so far. Read the theories. Study the theories. Examine all of the evidence which lead to those theories. Question the theories, and try to break them. If you can't, and the evidence is sound, then the theories might be right.

Just because most skeptics don't believe in ghosts does not mean that they are following some imaginary Skeptic Orthodoxy. It means that they have examined the evidence for the existance of ghosts, and find it lacking.

[Humphreys]

I just believe that because the probability is that you have been trained in scientific subjects rather than philosophy then your outlook has been somewhat limited.

I'm a very big fan of philosophy, many skeptics aren't. Although I'm a big fan, I'm not an expert, but many other skeptics are.

This is precisely why you cannot paint with such a broad brush and make claims about "Skeptical Orthodoxy". Skepticism is not anything like a religion, and skeptics come in all shapes and sizes with varying beliefs.

If you look around this board, you will see skeptics that are believers in God, for example.

[plumjam]

Hi Ripley Twenty Nine, and thanks a lot for your response.
Your response makes a great deal of sense in a christian or perhaps Islamic context. I'm just assuming it's Christian because there are more christian english speakers on-line ;)
I remember the great Hindu mystic called Vivekananda, he had had, from his spiritual master, Ramakrishna, direct experience of reality, and he, Vivekananda, argued against the hegemony (all-powerfullness) of the Church and similar such institutions. On his first visit to the west he toured round the USA and privately decried the system whereby anyone trying to speak the truth in the USA or even Europe, would have to feel the weight of a bell, a prayer book, and a church tower on their heads

[plumjam]

hi Humphreys,

thanks for your reply, you seem now like quite a reasonable loveable one ;)
Yes, I did rather mischievously enter into this forum with a bit of a naughty intention, mainly cos I generally feel that people who accept the current materialistic/rationalistic/logical (that whole idea doesn't yet have a word - which shows you an a priori unfairness at work) paradigm tend to act in a slightly dishonest way, according to their society-induced prejudices ;)

[sphenisc]

I used to think it was 2006, but in the light of new evidence I changed my mind.

[plumjam]

what was 2006? my wife's first orgasm? :(( ;)

[Minarvia]

Welcome, plumjam! One thing I want to point out to you is that many of us here began as "woos" but later changed. It was not easy and it is still sometimes painful and lonely, but most of us agree that becoming (more) skeptical is the best thing that has ever happened to us.
You'll meet all kinds of people here, as Humphreys said, and you shouldn't paint us all with one brush. If you stick around you may be pleasantly surprised.

[plumjam]

hi Minarvia,

thanks for your contribution :)
I don't really know whether becoming less or more woo would be advantageous in life. My natural bent seems to be to endeavour and persist in wonderful wooness (i.e. not believing in incredibly unlikely random creation of the universe, species and evolutionary improvement) but I do genuinely welcome your friendship (y)

[Ladewig]

Rather I was just talking honestly from my mind and heart as I hope we all do :)

..., but despite the fact that I orginally replied to your first answers with moderate language I'll just show you here the words you used to my response:


"your own invention" "you're creating a strawman" "Absurd" "No, this is ridiculous" "Nonsense" "Hehe. That's funny" "This is just nonsense"



If one makes ridiculous mistakes in one's argument, then no matter how sincere and heartfelt the argument is, no matter how moderate the language in the argument is, one should not be surprised when people respond by calling it a ridiculous argument.


Furthermore, I would hardly accept the claim that the opening post used moderate language: "evidence presented which goes against the general ideology and philosophy held by Skepticism is ignored, discounted out of hand, ridiculed, or the ad hominem approach is taken.

If you had simply come to the board as asked to discussed this topic instead of leveling ridiculous accusations, then you might have been taken more seriously and have earned more respect.

[Humphreys]

(i.e. not believing in incredibly unlikely random creation of the universe, species and evolutionary improvement)

Are you more of a believer in the infinitely unlikely random creation of a supreme omnipotent being, and his permanent perfection?

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

hi Minarvia,

thanks for your contribution :)
I don't really know whether becoming less or more woo would be advantageous in life. My natural bent seems to be to endeavour and persist in wonderful wooness (i.e. not believing in incredibly unlikely random creation of the universe, species and evolutionary improvement) but I do genuinely welcome your friendship (y)
I'm not sure how becoming 'more woo' could be advantageous to anyone, if 'woo' means believing in things that have insufficient evidence to support them.

The 'woos' were the people who didn't accept the fact that the Wright Brothers had achieved flight, even though the evidence pointed to the fact that they did.

Every time you use a computer, microwave oven, automobile, or are vaccinated against a horrible disease, it is due to people that have relied on evidence-based science. How many 'woos' can you name in history that are not now merely considered fools?

[plumjam]

hi Laedwig my old mucker (english for old friend) ;-) thanks for your attention, which I love in my own cuddly way, :-)
what i read from your feedback is "If one makes ridiculous mistakes in one's argument" thanks for that, at the moment i'm not sure what that is referring to, ta, Adly

[juryjone]

I generally feel that people who accept the current materialistic/rationalistic/logical [...] paradigm tend to act in a slightly dishonest way, according to their society-induced prejudices ;)

Tell you what. Why don't you try to convince me that the materialistic/rationalistic/logical paradigm is in any way false. I also respectfully request that you convince me using methods of a non-materialistic, irrational nature. In other words, don't bother typing your response on your decidedly materialistic keyboard.

Am I being dishonest here?

[Stitch]

well, from what i have learnt Nature Magazine (supposedly the most prestigious science publication on planet Earth) heavily ridiculed the Wright Brothers, even the local paper of the Wright Bros local town after hearing stories of the success of their first flights denied it and ridiculed them, because that was what the prevailing mental orthodoxy of the time dictated.
What closed-minded people they were soon proven to be. My point is that there is a temptation that is all to easy to succumb to which relegates anyone with any new idea or invention to ridicule, and similtaneously gives you, as a Skeptic, the pleasure of feeling yourself intellectualy superior to them

If you can show me a copy of Nature from the last 10 years that still holds the belief that heavier than air flight isn't possible, I'd say you have a point, can you show me that copy of Nature? If not, I'd say they changed their minds in light of the evidence, wouldn't you?

[Humphreys]

What does Nature have to do with Skepticism?

Being skeptical of the Wright brothers at the time based on existing evidence was a perfectly valid position, ridiculing them has nothing to do with skepticism, but was the personal choice of a science magazine.

It's not at all fair to say the style and stance of a few Nature magazine writers is synonomous with skepticism in general. It's not even a skeptic magazine.

[plumjam]

hi wonderful thinking guys,
well, i could address my thoughts to a few of you, but it seems to me that the most persistent and important, is Mr Humphreys (hope for reasons of seriousness none of you were fans of the Grace Bros (UK TV comedy) ;-) and what I would say to Mr Humprhreys would be hmm.. have a cup of coffee.. and maybe after it try to realistically try to understand the unlikeliness of all the complexity of organic beings like me and you existing and conversing like this just cause of some strange happenchance in the universe ;)

[sts60]

plumjam: In my experience Skepticism takes great pains to appear to be purely scientific in that it claims to view evidence on both sides of an argument equally and without bias.
Yet this effort is disingenuous to say the least.

First problem. I don't believe or adhere to any sort of capital-letter Skepticism; I do think skepticism (small 's') is one of the most valuable tools have. But it is only one in our mental toolkit.

Judging from what I have read on here most Skeptics adhere to a quite narrow branch of philosophy that might be characterised as reductionist materialism.

I don't; nor do a number of others. What about those who don't fit your generalization?

Most reductionst materialists do not fully face the fact that if their philosophy were to be true then reality SHOULD be chaotic, devoid of organisation, devoid of life, devoid of intelligence, consciousness, meaning, purpose, emotion, music, humour, selflessness...etc...etc..

Why? Physical laws clearly dictate organization at many scales. There are a number of good theories as to how living matter can arise from nonliving matter (abiogenesis). Intelligence, emotion, etc. can be viewed as emergent properties of increasingly complex evolved organisms' neurological systems* and the interplay with environment and group membership. If you want to dispute such theories, fine, but to baldly claim such things "SHOULD" not happen is begging the question.

To put this in another way, what is either logical or rational about reality having even the most basic of physical laws?

The fact that the laws of physics exist is neither logical nor rational. On the contrary, using a principle which Skeptics often invoke - that of Occam's Razor, it would surely be more reasonable to expect the universe to be completely devoid of the laws of physics, and thus be completely chaotic.

No, not at all. This is simply handwaving. The "laws" of physics are not manmade; they are simply our observations of how the natural world happens to work. And, in fact, the natural world in many ways is chaotic; but various types of order naturally emerge from such chaotic processes.

A couple of you asked whether I have an axe to grind. Well, being a thinking, feeling human being like the rest of you, of course I have an axe to grind.

I like mumbling under my breath with a glassy stare while I grind my axe :D

An implication in my original post is that a lot of people on this forum have axes to grind, but prefer to deny the fact, or perhaps they just haven't yet realised that due to their educational upbringing they have been channelled into one particular school of philosophy among a whole range of possible options.

It seems like most people do. It's almost inevitable.

I would say that the axe I have to grind is that my basic position is that of my old mate Bill who used to pipe up with "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

That's what makes science so exciting.

One of the main reasons I think like this is an examination of the history of science and technology and the myriad instances when the Skeptical establishment has been proven spectacularly wrong (e.g. Marconi and the existence of electromagnetism, Maxwell and the existence of electricity, Galileo, the Wright Bros and the possibility of powered flight, science's belief in phlogiston and ether, etc etc.. )

Did you happen to note that it was scientists, using the scientific process, which eventually sorted out what was right and what was not in all those cases?

My point is that most of the people on this forum would (as did the establishment figures of those times) have heartily enjoyed ridiculing such notions, and condemning people like Maxwell, Marconi and the Wright Bros as what are pretty distastefully referred to here as "woos".

Straw man. While skeptics in general and scientists in particular are human beings, and thus prone like everyone else to jealousy, stubbornness, and being to wed to one's own pet ideas, skepticism is not the same as reflexive denial and science is open to any idea which can provide evidence and survive the tests which eventually weed out bunkum.

It's far from a perfect process, but consider the alternative - never, ever discarding a useless and unsound notion. Consider, say, homeopathy, which has survived two centuries without ever providing any evidence, or a plausible mechanism for how it might work, or contributing anything to our knowledge of biology or chemistry. But, despite the ridicule originally accorded to the notion that a bacterium might be the cause of many ulcers, science quickly accepted the claim once real evidence was provided. The simple fact is that science, which embodies a skeptical attitude, is in fact open to change where change is warranted.


*Yes, I know that "evolution" and "increasing complexity" are not one and the same.

[MWare]

What does Nature have to do with Skepticism?

Being skeptical of the Wright brothers at the time based on existing evidence was a perfectly valid position, ridiculing them has nothing to do with skepticism, but was the personal choice of a science magazine.

It's not at all fair to say the style and stance of a few Nature magazine writers is synonomous with skepticism in general. It's not even a skeptic magazine.

Being skeptical of the accomplishment and being skeptical of the science that supports it are two different things. I could find no mention of a Nature article from the 20th century making any claims against heavier than air flight or the wright brothers (their online archive only goes back to the 50's). Could you please cite your source for this?

[Minarvia]

For me, I prefer being "less woo" in that being more apt to live in the world as it is and to see it for what it is is the most liberating experience I have ever had. It is really hard to explain. I guess you just have to experience the feeling for yourself.

But, boy, was I once VERY "woo." I spent years that way. I'm glad I was because it helped make me the person that I am now, but for me, I prefer being "less woo!" I still cringe at the fact that I once believed in Sylvia Browne. (Ewww!)

Good luck no matter which way you go, plumjam, but I hope you find your stay here helpful to you. We can all learn new things, right?

[Minarvia]

hmm.. have a cup of coffee.. and maybe after it try to realistically try to understand the unlikeliness of all the complexity of organic beings like me and you existing and conversing like this just cause of some strange happenchance in the universe ;)

No offense intended, but I have no problem with believing that we are here by happenchance (meaning we just don't have all the answers yet) in the universe. :)

[Humphreys]

Being skeptical of the accomplishment and being skeptical of the science that supports it are two different things. I could find no mention of a Nature article from the 20th century making any claims against heavier than air flight or the wright brothers (their online archive only goes back to the 50's). Could you please cite your source for this?

Sorry, I wasn't the one making the original claim. I was just accepting that what plumjam said was true. I don't have a source, and it makes little difference to me whether it's true or not, the point is, if this did occur, it is not an argument against skepticism.

[Hellbound]

hi wonderful thinking guys,
well, i could address my thoughts to a few of you, but it seems to me that the most persistent and important, is Mr Humphreys (hope for reasons of seriousness none of you were fans of the Grace Bros (UK TV comedy) ;-) and what I would say to Mr Humprhreys would be hmm.. have a cup of coffee.. and maybe after it try to realistically try to understand the unlikeliness of all the complexity of organic beings like me and you existing and conversing like this just cause of some strange happenchance in the universe ;)

There are several threads on this topic. If you'd liek to discuss creation/evolution, please find one of them. Unelss you aren't really interested in discussing the topic you posted in your OP (because believe me, the creation debate will take over the thread. We could have an entire thread correcting the errors in your statement about what you think evolutionary theory and current cosmology is).

In regards to the OP, it seems you've constructed your argument based on a debateable assumption. You've started with the assumption that there is valid, credible evidence for the paranormal. If this were true, then your argument would be correct.

However, this is where most skeptics form their belief. They've looked into the paranormal in an unbiased manner, taken the time to undertsand the relevent science, at least to the point that they can appreciate the layman's works on the topic written by experts in relevent fields (we can't all be experts in everything), and found that evicdence for paranormal phenomna is woefully lacking.

So, my answer to you would be that skeptics do attempt to take an unbiased view of evidence (we all have biases, you can't prevent them, but you can be aware of them and take steps to limit their influence, which is a large portion of what science is). However, the evidence for the paranormal, once examined with scientific integrity and skepticism, fades away like phantoms when the lights go on. The only bits left are shadows of moths.

[plumjam]

well i can't give you chapter and verse, but from the books i've read the Wright Bros, even after having demonstrated to a group of their friends their ability to fly unaided, were universally ridiculed in the local and more widely the popular national and international press.... this is what i am getting at.. a lot of you guys who enjoy being on this site to pooh pooh discoverys, you get your kicks from feeling superior to others, and that makes me feel a bit uneasy

[Oualawouzou]

No need for chapter and verse, just a title or two would help. Even better wuld be for you to provide a primary source.

[Humphreys]

maybe after it try to realistically try to understand the unlikeliness of all the complexity of organic beings like me and you existing and conversing like this just cause of some strange happenchance in the universe ;)

Yeah, it's quite mind boggling, isn't it?

I find lots of things mind boggling, though, like Quantum Physics. That's not a good argument against the truth of QM, tho.

Is our existence incredibly unlikely? Probably, but who knows?

We don't know:

1) How many big bangs there have been that failed to produce a rational Universe
2) How many uninhabited Universes there are
3) How much time went by before a rational Universe came into existence
4) What, if any, underlying laws existed before the creation of this Universe, and why
5) How likely/unlikely it is for a rational Universe to come into existence out of all the possibilities

What we do know is, however unlikely the chance existence of this Universe is, the chance of an omnipotent supreme being coming into existence randomly is infinitely less likely...and yet we exist, and something was responsible.

If a creator always existed, whose to say the Universe didn't always exist in some form, or the laws for building one successfully?

I don't know the answers, but I know adding a God into the equation is unneccesary, and only complicates matters.

[Minarvia]

a lot of you guys who enjoy being on this site to pooh pooh discoverys, you get your kicks from feeling superior to others, and that makes me feel a bit uneasy

Well I can assure you I am not like that. As a matter of fact I don't post as much as I like because I don't feel smart enough or educated enough to do so. I do not feel that I am superior to anyone.

I would wager that I am not alone in saying that you are mistaken about the vast majority of us if you think that. There are always the resident trolls who probably fit that belief of yours, but I doubt that most of us here do. Again, give this place a chance. :)

[MWare]

Sorry, I wasn't the one making the original claim. I was just accepting that what plumjam said was true. I don't have a source, and it makes little difference to me whether it's true or not, the point is, if this did occur, it is not an argument against skepticism.

I know you weren't and I agree with you. I was initially going to avoid getting dragged into arguing the benefits of a skeptical (objective) outlook based on philosophical (subjective) arguments.

However, the "Nature ridiculed the Wright Bros. claim surprised me". One could even say I am skeptical that such an article exists. To return to the question in the OP, I am currently skeptical such an article exists because it runs counter to my understanding of the mission of Nature Magazine. Of course, I haven't read much of Nature from the early 20th century, so such an article could possibly exist and as a good skeptic, I request evidence of its existence. If a suitable source for such a claim exists, I will then accept that claim (in the absence of any further evidence). Thus I will have changed my mind about whether I think the article exists. However, I will not change my mind about the correct way to approach a claim that doesn't fit with my current understanding of the world.

Certainly this isn't a world shattering issue, but I apply the same type of logic to world shaterring issues as well with equal success.

Long story short (too late): I am willing to change my mind on any particular subject, I will not however change my approach to dubious claims. This is not orthodoxy in any definition of the word with which I am familiar, and I believe any attempt to make this analogy is intellectually dishonest.

[MWare]

well i can't give you chapter and verse, but from the books i've read the Wright Bros, even after having demonstrated to a group of their friends their ability to fly unaided, were universally ridiculed in the local and more widely the popular national and international press.... this is what i am getting at.. a lot of you guys who enjoy being on this site to pooh pooh discoverys, you get your kicks from feeling superior to others, and that makes me feel a bit uneasy

You realize that this of course, is not evidence. Chapter and verse is required when making a dubious claim. That is the foundation of a good argument. I realize no such claims are required when have a completely subjective philosophical discussion and there is certainly room for such discussion on any skeptical issue. There is no basis for it in a definition of skepticism and critical thinking.

Another question about the above: Are you saying that those who saw demonstrations of the wright brothers aircraft didn't believe what they saw? Are you claiming that others didn't believe the recollections of those who saw the demonstrations?

I realize I'm beating to death what might seem to be a small point, but you used this as evidence of your argument (several times). I would expect you would support the evidence with a reliable source or agree that the argument is invalid since it has no basis. I have studied the history of flight in a fair amount of detail and I believe your comparison of public reaction to the Wright Brothers to skepticism in general is misplaced and misleading.

ETA: Once you get in the habit of not making assertions without evidence (in hand) to support those assertions, you will find you have taken a great step towards applying critical thinking to your arguments (and perhaps you life). If this happens, you might catch a glimpse of what skepticism really is. This is how skeptics are born.

[plumjam]

hi Humphreys,

let me say that of all the replies I have received I am most encouraged by yours. You know what? From what I remember, your initial response to my post was the most negative, but now your reply is the most positive that I have received, so we should be friends one day ;-)

In a sense I love you for your open-mindedness :)
You ask whether a univsere would have come about without anyone knowing about it, without it having laws, without it having any conscious being etc..

well, who really knows... I can only say that my experience of life has pointed towards order to organisation, and as we live we put value into beings who show some kind of order... If the universe before our existence had tried hundreds of trillions of combinations to get to us and our silliness.. then maybe it did... but I just don't intuitively believe it. I rather believe that if some kind of conscious enjoyment and experience of the universe is possible and manifest then those that believe the opposite have a heck of a lot to explain
;)

[plumjam]

well, thanks for what you wrote, I understand and appreciate it :)

I can only say that a few years ago I got a book from the library here in London, and it was written by a science journalist who was quite well known in the US and the UK. He recounted how it was that before and during the Wright Bros experiments with flight, they were basically ridiculed and no-one of any particular importance or prestige was taking any great notice of their experiments. Their local newspaper had received reports of their success, but because those reports only came from farmers and obviously contradicted the so-called "experts" of the Nature magazine they were pretty much ignored

[Tumblehome]

...science's belief in phlogiston and ether, etc etc...


You're confusing "science" with "scientists". Science didn't believe in phlogiston; people did, including some scientists. Science is an objective way for us non-objective humans to find out if phlogiston really exists, or if all objects fall to the ground at the same rate, or if Sylvia Browne is a psychic or a fraud.

So far, every scientific discovery has had a purely physical explanation, but the scientific process isn't limited to the physical world. It's used to look at the supernatural as well. By definition, it doesn't play favourites. It just so happens that there isn't a single, solitary iota of support for the supernatural. On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence that people can have wildly inventive imaginations, that they can find comfort in magical irrationality, and that there are people willing to exploit that.

[plumjam]

thanks for your v. intelligent response, which I admire,

regarding an intelligent response, if you were to take the time to read Mysticism by Evelyn Underhill and The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James (both of whom happen to be 19thC authors) then I would feel that I had added something of genuine value to your life :)
they are works of genius, and are not dependent of our so-called modern life, hopefully, my friend, you will follow this and accept or discount what you find, take care, Adrian

[cyborg]

I can only say that a few years ago I got a book from the library here in London, and it was written by a science journalist who was quite well known in the US and the UK. He recounted how it was that before and during the Wright Bros experiments with flight, they were basically ridiculed and no-one of any particular importance or prestige was taking any great notice of their experiments. Their local newspaper had received reports of their success, but because those reports only came from farmers and obviously contradicted the so-called "experts" of the Nature magazine they were pretty much ignored

And do you know what plumjam? When people were shown real flying planes they had no choice but to accept it.

You show real 'mysticism' and it will be accepted.

[Ladewig]

hi Laedwig

As my journalism teacher used to say, if you cannot be bothered to spell the names correctly, why should I believe that you have recounted any of the facts correctly?


what i read from your feedback is "If one makes ridiculous mistakes in one's argument" thanks for that, at the moment i'm not sure what that is referring to.

I was referring to the errors identified in posts 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 17. If you were serious, I would suggest that you have a look at those posts.

[Ladewig]

thanks for your v. intelligent response, which I admire,

regarding an intelligent response, if you were to take the time to read Mysticism by Evelyn Underhill and The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James (both of whom happen to be 19thC authors) then I would feel that I had added something of genuine value to your life :)
they are works of genius, and are not dependent of our so-called modern life, hopefully, my friend, you will follow this and accept or discount what you find, take care, Adrian

I've already read "Varieties of Religious Experience." If I and other posters agree to read your book about mysticism, will you read a book on skepticism?

[plumjam]

well, it has nothing to do with the last ten years, i only remember reading a book by a science journalist who has been rather ignored and badly talked of cos he has the guts to bring these things up, that before the Wright Bros managed their 80 metre flight all the "resepectable" science magazines were riciculing them, and even the local newspaper AFTER they managed it unequivocally was denying it because they hadn't bothered to send their own reporter out, cos they just basically didn't believe it was possible, as did no-one

[plumjam]

sure I'll read a book about skepticism, so long as it's written by someone with an open mind, unlike Dawkins and old Santa Randi ;)

[cyborg]

So your point is that any ridiculed claim must be true?

Or just that you have picked one ridiculed claim you like and you want to be true and the fact that there are other true claims that were originally ridiculed means that, in your mind, the chances of the claims you like being true are at least greater in your mind.

[cyborg]

sure I'll read a book about skepticism, so long as it's written by someone with an open mind, unlike Dawkins and old Santa Randi ;)

Because, being open minded is so important to you that you rule out the possibility you are wrong.

It's a sure sign you've got nothing when the best argument you can muster is to complain about the 'open mindedness' of everyone else - lest of course one is forced to consider their own position and receptiveness to contrary ideas.

[plumjam]

where you get the proposition that i would believe that any ridiculed claim must be true, I'm not sure...

what do you ridicule? normallly

;)

[JoeEllison]

Because, being open minded is so important to you that you rule out the possibility you are wrong.

It's a sure sign you've got nothing when the best argument you can muster is to complain about the 'open mindedness' of everyone else - lest of course one is forced to consider their own position and receptiveness to contrary ideas.
Really, the call for "open mindedness" from this sort of person is really a call to stop thinking critically about whatever it is they believe in. If you actually look at their nonsense with an open mind, you will see that it is bunk... so what they want you to do is close your mind to reality, and join them in their foolish little fantasy land.

[cyborg]

where you get the proposition that i would believe that any ridiculed claim must be true, I'm not sure...

That would be from your posts.

Do try to keep up with the conversation plumjam.

what do you ridicule? normallly

The ridiculous.

[cyborg]

Really, the call for "open mindedness" from this sort of person is really a call to stop thinking critically about whatever it is they believe in. If you actually look at their nonsense with an open mind, you will see that it is bunk... so what they want you to do is close your mind to reality, and join them in their foolish little fantasy land.

The doublespeak is self-evident to those of us accustomed to thinking critically.

[plumjam]

sorry chaps, but i've read your responses, and i'm struggling to work out who is for me and who is against me, . ... so let's simplify it, who believes in God and Design and who doesn't? ;)

[Normal Dude]

Argument, reasoned debate? um... hey look at the shiny thing in my other hand!

[plumjam]

what other shiny thing is that?

[JoeEllison]

Argument, reasoned debate? um... hey look at the shiny thing in my other hand!

Ooooohhhh... shiny!

[cyborg]

sorry chaps, but i've read your responses, and i'm struggling to work out who is for me and who is against me, . ... so let's simplify it, who believes in God and Design and who doesn't? ;)

I don't think you're ready to take on such a debate.

First you'd have to understand what 'God' and 'Design' entails - which I sorely doubt you do.

[JoeEllison]

what other shiny thing is that?

Who cares? You have nothing of substance, so we might as well move on to something else. :jaw-dropp

[plumjam]

sorry, problem with my pc and i had to log back in

[plumjam]

well, i am genuinely encouraged that i have managed to hold your attention for a couple of hours, I bet that's more than any writing of Darwin's managed ;)

[plumjam]

maybe someone can tell me what they truly admire about Senor Dick Dawkins ;)

[cyborg]

You're anti-intellectual - we get it.

[plumjam]

thanks for the answer,
am just wondering why you think i'm Anti-intellectual :)

[Normal Dude]

He's trolling - leave him be.

[cyborg]

Well, let's see:

Dislike Dawkin's based on tangential issues of perceived aristocracy and/or superiority complex
Talk about science journals dismissing actual phenomena - the implication striking to the reliability of reason
Poor use of English grammatical constructs (only tangential to the issue of course)

[plumjam]

not quite sure what you're getting at, perhaps I dislike Dawkins cos he's obviously a bit of an arrogant tosser who makes a living out of being or appearing arrogant, and endeavouring to have some kind of understanding of the process of evolution

[cyborg]

Ah, you dislike him because he's right.

Damn shame for you really.

And again I have to inquire as to what qualifications you have to talk intelligently as to an understanding of evolutionary theory? Because you will be smacked down without mercy if you start spouting evolutionary fallacies.

[plumjam]

Being skeptical of the accomplishment and being skeptical of the science that supports it are two different things. I could find no mention of a Nature article from the 20th century making any claims against heavier than air flight or the wright brothers (their online archive only goes back to the 50's). Could you please cite your source for this?

do you think they would have recorded it in some easily accessible place?

[plumjam]

yeah,

well I've given the lot of you about 12 hours and no-one has had the humility to come up with anything... and I didn't expect it. Not cos I dislike you guys, more cos I understand everyone on this site is intellectually and emotionally attached to a particular view of life and the universe.. so no probs. Anyone who came on here to support me, then I'd start to really wonder ;)
Ady

[plumjam]

no-one wants to change their minds, what a surprise

[cyborg]

Well plumjam, if you want to ignore when people have said they've changed their mind that is your prerogative.

Which is ironic of course if you're trying to paint changing one's mind as a good thing.

[plumjam]

really? when did they change their mind ? ;)

[cyborg]

:)

Oh sorry, I thought we were just inserting pointless smilies.

Again plumjam if you just want to ignore the posts go for it. I don't quite know who you are going to fool apart from yourself. But if your objective is to reaffirm your preconceived notions (and of course dear readers, that ironically means that he thinks changing one's mind is a bad thing) then go ahead.

[plumjam]

no, seeing as i still endeavour to maintain a life i don't go onto the computer with a list of magazine dates and article numbers, months, days, vol, page, etc... as i'm sure you don't, although I'm sure you too are an intelligent reading individual.
If my whole life was centred around trying to prove other people wrong then perhaps I might.
All I can say is that I definitely listened to a documentary that said exactly that, and if you don't believe me then maybe tomorrow you'll tell a friend the same about that with what you believe is the same historical veracity ;)

[cyborg]

no, seeing as i still endeavour to maintain a life i don't go onto the computer with a list of magazine dates and article numbers, months, days, vol, page, etc... as i'm sure you don't, although I'm sure you too are an intelligent reading individual.

First rule of this forum: if you say something you are likely to be challenged on it.

Therefore if you aren't ready to back up what you say then don't be surprised if people aren't going to respond positively to it.

If my whole life was centred around trying to prove other people wrong then perhaps I might.

And yet you are tacitly trying to show we are wrong are we not?

Is this not just a lament that you aren't very good at it?

All I can say is that I definitely listened to a documentary that said exactly that,

Eh? There's a documentary involved now? To which one to you refer?

and if you don't believe me then maybe tomorrow you'll tell a friend the same about that with what you believe is the same historical veracity ;)

I cannot parse this sentence fragment.

[plumjam]

last 10 years? how old are you me old mate? ;)

[cyborg]

last 10 years?

Eh?

how old are you me old mate?

Is my age relevant in some way?

[plumjam]

yes, if, as i always wanted, we're to make children and an honourable family

[cyborg]

Since you're talking in non-sequiturs now it's patently obvious that you are simply trolling.

Therefore you are now on ignore.

You're an ass: congratulations.

[plumjam]

can anyone defend natural selection at this time of night?

[Hawk one]

Well, what's to defend? It's a fact that natural selection happens, and nobody has any competing scientific theory that can explain the diversity in life. If you know of one - and keep in mind, a scientific theory needs to prove itself right, not simply attack another theory as wrong and then say "god did it" - then please, show us some references to such works.

[plumjam]

i have no theory whatsoever, cos no such theory could exist, my over-arching theory is that every organic physical construction is thousands of times more complex than any designed car or computer, even the simplest kind know to us in all history, so it is a complete mystery how it and they exist... pity the indoctrinated teenage know-it-alls want to argue differently

[Mashuna]

no-one wants to change their minds, what a surprise

I originally thought you'd come to the forum looking for an honest debate, but presented with the evidence of your later posts, I changed my mind.

How's that?

[plumjam]

well, probably cos my original post of 7 or 8 busy hours ago asked whether any Skeptic had really changed their view of things due to new evidence, and the only replies I got were people becoming more skeptical, all of which supported my hypothesis that the kind of Randi-lovers who come on these kinds of forum come here beloved of the Big Randi and a bit indoctrinated.

[Oualawouzou]

well, probably cos my original post of 7 or 8 busy hours ago asked whether any Skeptic had really changed their view of things due to new evidence, and the only replies I got were people becoming more skeptical, all of which supported my hypothesis that the kind of Randi-lovers who come on these kinds of forum come here beloved of the Big Randi and a bit indoctrinated.

So the problem isn't that people changed their view upon examining the evidence, it's that evidence consistently point people towards positions you don't agree with.

What does that tell you about your position?

ETA: A problem I see is that you equivocate skepticism with a set of conclusions. This is not so. Skepticism is the process through which a conclusion is reached, and not the conclusion itself.

I've looked at the evidence available, and this leads me to conclude that evolution is true.

[plumjam]

yes! in my experience Skeptics do align themselves with a particular form of specifically materialist determinist reductionist conclusion which, surprisingly enough, conforms with the prevailing socio-political paradigm of our lovely benificent capitalist rich employers... any scientist or investigator who comes up with a conclusion other than one that confirms and reinforces the currently popular and profitable paradigm, hey, they soon disappear, if they have the bravery to stand up in public to defend their results, which few do

[Oualawouzou]

I'm not sure if I understand your point. People who weight the evidence of various claims reach similar conclusions, therefore they are wrong and endoctrinated? :confused:

How do you reach conclusions?

[MWare]

do you think they would have recorded it in some easily accessible place?

I'm asking for your source. Your comment has no bearing on that request. In an honest argument, when one is required to cite their source, they either cite the source, or abandon their argument. You have done neither. You made a very specific claim about a very specific publication. You later posted that virtually all scientists and scientific periodicals denied the Wright's achievement. If you cannot cite the basis of your "facts" how do you expect anyone to take the arguments you base on them seriously?

You may be comfortable throwing out baseless assertions to support flawed arguments, but you will not get away with it here. Be honest and thorough and your arguments will be considered. Make baseless assertions and you will not be taken seriously. If you feel that is a closed-minded approach to discourse, it may be that critical thinking is beyond you.

One other point:
In a rational discussion, one shouldn't ask "who is with me". Skeptics accept arguments without logical fallacies and base personal opinions on them. I have yet to see you assert a single non-flawed argument. I have seen you make unlikely claims and ignore requests to cite your source. Requests for you to support your assertions are met with the kind of response I quoted above.

You should brush up on your logical fallacies so that you may avoid them, or avoid arguments with people who can see through the fallacious arguments you throw out.

no-one wants to change their minds, what a surprise

ETA: BTW - I have directly addressed this in one of my posts. Did you ignore it? Do you reject my statement about how a skeptic changes their mind using reason? If so, why?

[MWare]

I am willing to change my mind on any particular subject, I will not however change my approach to dubious claims. This is not orthodoxy in any definition of the word with which I am familiar, and I believe any attempt to make this analogy is intellectually dishonest.

Is this not a clear answer to your OP?

[malbui]

Killfiles. Ignore lists are all very well, but there's no substitute for the satisfying "plonk" noise as someone hits the killfile at high speed.

[MWare]

any scientist or investigator who comes up with a conclusion other than one that confirms and reinforces the currently popular and profitable paradigm, hey, they soon disappear, if they have the bravery to stand up in public to defend their results, which few do

You can't possibly have studied the history of science in any kind of meaningful way if you honestly believe this. Perhaps you should read about Einstein and his thoughts about the theory of relativity. It is only one of many perfect examples of how inaccurate your above statement is.

[Minarvia]

well, probably cos my original post of 7 or 8 busy hours ago asked whether any Skeptic had really changed their view of things due to new evidence, and the only replies I got were people becoming more skeptical, all of which supported my hypothesis that the kind of Randi-lovers who come on these kinds of forum come here beloved of the Big Randi and a bit indoctrinated.

Actually I DID not come here because of Randi. I actually knew next to nothing about the man when I found this place.
I changed my "woo" beliefs (so I, for one, DID change my beliefs due to lack of good evidence for them) before I came here but this place is helping me to see many things and think in ways I never did before.
Why are you so negative about us? You haven't really given this place and the people here an honest chance for a debate.
Why not try?

[plumjam]

Galileo - exectued, Marconi - widely ridiculed (including in the most respectable Science publications) until he managed to get his radio message across the Atlantic, Maxwell - shunned and ignored by the establishment (partly because he was a commoner) etc etc.. the history of science is full of these examples.. all of which you "Skeptics" would have pooh-poohed with joy, later to make you look like utter fools. The problem with most scientists is that very few of them study the history of science. Also the establishment tends to obscure the way they actively ridiiculed most scientific pioneers

[malbui]

Galileo - exectued,


Nope. Died of natural causes at the age of 77. But nice try.

[cyborg]

Please: don't be so callous as to use facts to destroy plumjam's position. You nasty, terrible skeptic you.

[plumjam]

well, trials, imprisonment, house arrest and death... as good as execution..
typical science pedant, but keep trying ;)

[MWare]

Galileo - exectued, Marconi - widely ridiculed (including in the most respectable Science publications) until he managed to get his radio message across the Atlantic, Maxwell - shunned and ignored by the establishment (partly because he was a commoner) etc etc.. the history of science is full of these examples.. all of which you "Skeptics" would have pooh-poohed with joy, later to make you look like utter fools. The problem with most scientists is that very few of them study the history of science. Also the establishment tends to obscure the way they actively ridiiculed most scientific pioneers

Well, I've had about my fill. This is the perfect summation of your ignorance regarding science, the history of science, and reasoned discourse. Don't you even think to google some of this stuff before you post it? You realize we all have internet access right?

[sts60]

The problem with most scientists is that very few of them study the history of science.

I have to say I think it's just funny as all get-out that you state this in the same paragraph you tell us that Galileo was executed.

It's also funny that your Galileo example was irrelevant anyway because it was the Catholic Church (of which I happen to be a member), not "science", not "skepticism", that repressed Galileo's claims, and even that was partly for political reasons.

plumjam, I will give you some advice. If you want to be taken seriously, don't patronize people while making such fundamental mistakes yourself. There are other points to address (such as I made in post 39 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2870436&postcount=39)), but just not tripping over your own pretentiousness would be a good start.

[plumjam]

The problem with most scientists is that very few of them study the history of science.

I have to say I think it's just funny as all get-out that you state this in the same paragraph you tell us that Galileo was executed.

It's also funny that your Galileo example was irrelevant anyway because it was the Catholic Church (of which I happen to be a member), not "science", not "skepticism", that repressed Galileo's claims, and even that was partly for political reasons.

plumjam, I will give you some advice. If you want to be taken seriously, don't patronize people while making such fundamental mistakes yourself. There are other points to address (such as I made in post 39 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2870436&postcount=39)), but just not tripping over your own pretentiousness would be a good start.

cheers for the advice,

the reason I mentioned Galileo was that he went against the prevailing consensus in society, doesn't matter whether it was religious or non-religious, my wider point being that anyone who goes against the consensus tends to be dismissed, ridiculed, shunned etc... it disappoints me that a lot of people seem to come to science with the view that what they are taught was always self evident. They are left with the impression that it was accepted easily, and why? ..because if they were taught how society and the institutions vehemently resisted these new theories then these institutions would lose face and some of their power,.. it seems to me one area of education that is a bit of a fraud :)

[plumjam]

plumjam: In my experience Skepticism takes great pains to appear to be purely scientific in that it claims to view evidence on both sides of an argument equally and without bias.
Yet this effort is disingenuous to say the least.

First problem. I don't believe or adhere to any sort of capital-letter Skepticism; I do think skepticism (small 's') is one of the most valuable tools have. But it is only one in our mental toolkit.

Judging from what I have read on here most Skeptics adhere to a quite narrow branch of philosophy that might be characterised as reductionist materialism.

I don't; nor do a number of others. What about those who don't fit your generalization?

Most reductionst materialists do not fully face the fact that if their philosophy were to be true then reality SHOULD be chaotic, devoid of organisation, devoid of life, devoid of intelligence, consciousness, meaning, purpose, emotion, music, humour, selflessness...etc...etc..

Why? Physical laws clearly dictate organization at many scales. There are a number of good theories as to how living matter can arise from nonliving matter (abiogenesis). Intelligence, emotion, etc. can be viewed as emergent properties of increasingly complex evolved organisms' neurological systems* and the interplay with environment and group membership. If you want to dispute such theories, fine, but to baldly claim such things "SHOULD" not happen is begging the question.

To put this in another way, what is either logical or rational about reality having even the most basic of physical laws?

The fact that the laws of physics exist is neither logical nor rational. On the contrary, using a principle which Skeptics often invoke - that of Occam's Razor, it would surely be more reasonable to expect the universe to be completely devoid of the laws of physics, and thus be completely chaotic.

No, not at all. This is simply handwaving. The "laws" of physics are not manmade; they are simply our observations of how the natural world happens to work. And, in fact, the natural world in many ways is chaotic; but various types of order naturally emerge from such chaotic processes.

A couple of you asked whether I have an axe to grind. Well, being a thinking, feeling human being like the rest of you, of course I have an axe to grind.

I like mumbling under my breath with a glassy stare while I grind my axe :D

An implication in my original post is that a lot of people on this forum have axes to grind, but prefer to deny the fact, or perhaps they just haven't yet realised that due to their educational upbringing they have been channelled into one particular school of philosophy among a whole range of possible options.

It seems like most people do. It's almost inevitable.

I would say that the axe I have to grind is that my basic position is that of my old mate Bill who used to pipe up with "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

That's what makes science so exciting.

One of the main reasons I think like this is an examination of the history of science and technology and the myriad instances when the Skeptical establishment has been proven spectacularly wrong (e.g. Marconi and the existence of electromagnetism, Maxwell and the existence of electricity, Galileo, the Wright Bros and the possibility of powered flight, science's belief in phlogiston and ether, etc etc.. )

Did you happen to note that it was scientists, using the scientific process, which eventually sorted out what was right and what was not in all those cases?

My point is that most of the people on this forum would (as did the establishment figures of those times) have heartily enjoyed ridiculing such notions, and condemning people like Maxwell, Marconi and the Wright Bros as what are pretty distastefully referred to here as "woos".

Straw man. While skeptics in general and scientists in particular are human beings, and thus prone like everyone else to jealousy, stubbornness, and being to wed to one's own pet ideas, skepticism is not the same as reflexive denial and science is open to any idea which can provide evidence and survive the tests which eventually weed out bunkum.

It's far from a perfect process, but consider the alternative - never, ever discarding a useless and unsound notion. Consider, say, homeopathy, which has survived two centuries without ever providing any evidence, or a plausible mechanism for how it might work, or contributing anything to our knowledge of biology or chemistry. But, despite the ridicule originally accorded to the notion that a bacterium might be the cause of many ulcers, science quickly accepted the claim once real evidence was provided. The simple fact is that science, which embodies a skeptical attitude, is in fact open to change where change is warranted.


*Yes, I know that "evolution" and "increasing complexity" are not one and the same.

the last paragraph is good, and interesting, mainly cos it's honest.. which is often lacking in this forum :)
the whole straw man thing I can't really understand, it has been mentioned to me 3 or 4 times already in one evening, so seems to be a standard rebuttal here. Skepticism I DO find to be refelxive denial in a lot of cases, mainly for socio-cultural reasons supervening those of evidence, such as in parapsychology and some areas akin.
I do feel that this view of science as accepting valid evidence whenever it appears is bogus, and history shows it is only fully accepted when there has been a large accumulation of such evidence which finally manages to crack and break the previous paradigm. Incidentally this often seems to happen not simply through the accumulation of evidence, but more importantly because influential figures in that area just get older and retire or die.

Cheers

[Katana]

the last paragraph is good, and interesting, mainly cos it's honest.. which is often lacking in this forum :)

{snip}


I see that you joined this Forum August 13th, and yet you have been able to formulate this opinion?

Casting grand-sweeping aspersions about a forum that you joined a mere two days ago does not garner respect.

Making cogent arguments backed up by evidence does.

That's how things work around here. If you can participate accordingly, you may find that your experience is more rewarding and, potentially, educational to you. If you participate accordingly, you may actually educate others, too.

Welcome to the Forum. We look forward to your participation.

[sts60]

BTW, plumjam, I gave you a specific example of the scientific "establishment" changing its mind rather rapidly in the face of new evidence. In fact, the H. Pylori - ulcer link went from being controversial - quite against mainstream medical thought - to pretty much fully accepted in a dozen years, and garnered its proponents the Nobel Prize.

I'll also give you a personal example of being convinced by the evidence. Although I had doubts, I initially accepted that there were significant WMDs (not just leftovers from wars with Iran) in Iraq. Not long after the invasion, this turned out not to be the case, and I changed my mind.

i'm struggling to work out who is for me and who is against me, . ... so let's simplify it, who believes in God and Design and who doesn't?

I'm neither for nor against you; I'm against sloppy reasoning and confusing belief with evidence.

In a poll taken in 2004, almost three-quarters (http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqRealities_Oct04/IraqRealities%20Oct04%20pr.pdf) of the President's core group of supporters (evangelical Christians) still believed the WMD claims after they had been disproved. This same group is by far the most likely to profess full-up belief in God and to support creationism in its various manifestations, including ID. I think that's interesting, don't you?

edit to add: I see you've responded to both my posts, and I think you have some valid points, but I won't be able to get back for a while...

[Dr Adequate]

It seems to me that Skepticism is very similar to a religion/ideology. Then I suggest that you learn something about skepticism.

Very often any evidence presented which goes against the general ideology and philosophy held by Skepticism is ignored, discounted out of hand, ridiculed, or the ad hominem approach is taken. If this happens "very often", you could perhaps present some examples?

With this in mind I'd be interested to hear examples from you of when new evidence has prompted you to honestly change your mind on a particular subject. Like this? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=27943)

[Dr Adequate]

One of the main reasons I think like this is an examination of the history of science and technology and the myriad instances when the Skeptical establishment has been proven spectacularly wrong (e.g. Marconi and the existence of electromagnetism, Maxwell and the existence of electricity, Galileo, the Wright Bros and the possibility of powered flight ... Er ... you seem to have made a lot of stuff up.

It was the Church which doubted Galileo, no-one in Marconi's day doubted electromagnetism, no-one in Maxwell's day doubted the existence of electricity ... I see other posters have been asking you for evidence of your stuff about the Wright Brothers, which you have not provided.

All of them were admired as great men in their day by everyone who understood the magnitude of their achievements, for which, of course, one needs the scientific knowledge we skeptics love so much.

My point is that most of the people on this forum would (as did the establishment figures of those times) have heartily enjoyed ridiculing such notions, and condemning people like Maxwell, Marconi and the Wright Bros as what are pretty distastefully referred to here as "woos". And if that fantasy comforts you, feel free to indulge it. Do try to bear in mind, though, that you can't really read minds, and that the made-up world in your head doesn't actually reflect reality.

[plumjam]

BTW, plumjam, I gave you a specific example of the scientific "establishment" changing its mind rather rapidly in the face of new evidence. In fact, the H. Pylori - ulcer link went from being controversial - quite against mainstream medical thought - to pretty much fully accepted in a dozen years, and garnered its proponents the Nobel Prize.

I'll also give you a personal example of being convinced by the evidence. Although I had doubts, I initially accepted that there were significant WMDs (not just leftovers from wars with Iran) in Iraq. Not long after the invasion, this turned out not to be the case, and I changed my mind.

i'm struggling to work out who is for me and who is against me, . ... so let's simplify it, who believes in God and Design and who doesn't?

I'm neither for nor against you; I'm against sloppy reasoning and confusing belief with evidence.

In a poll taken in 2004, almost three-quarters (http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqRealities_Oct04/IraqRealities%20Oct04%20pr.pdf) of the President's core group of supporters (evangelical Christians) still believed the WMD claims after they had been disproved. This same group is by far the most likely to profess full-up belief in God and to support creationism in its various manifestations, including ID. I think that's interesting, don't you?

cheers ST60, for the new knowledge. It's interesting, but I do find it a bit sad that the quickest example you can provide of new evidence in science being taken seriously took 12 years... I mean, does this, in any way resemble how science was taught to us in school/university? I think not.
So my broader point is that if, for example, a pretty uncontentious physical "meat and potatoes" hypothesis takes 12 years to be accepted, how long would an equally true, but less "conventional" hypothesis need to be accepted? 50 years? 100 years? never?
that's what makes the kind of flippant dismissal of "woo" on this forum pretty unpopular with me. It's also obvious that those dismissing "woo" really enjoy doing so because it makes them feel intellectually superior to those they dismiss,

cheers

[Mashuna]

With this in mind I'd be interested to hear examples from you of when new evidence has prompted you to honestly change your mind on a particular subject.



Like this? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=27943)

That's an amazing link. It's got an informative post (number 26) by T'ai Chi in it.:eye-poppi

[plumjam]

no-one in Marconi's day doubted electromagnetism,

crikey, read your history, he was universally ridiculed and couldn't get any funding.
It's true, all you "Skeptics", no one of any great importance really believed in electromagnetic waves until Marconi did his cross-atlantic communication.

[Dr Adequate]

well, i am genuinely encouraged that i have managed to hold your attention for a couple of hours, I bet that's more than any writing of Darwin's managed ;) How much do you want to bet on that particular proposition?

Remember, as I've explained to you, you can't really read minds, you're just making up fantasies about us. I shall not speculate on what emotional need this fulfils on your part.

[Mashuna]

crikey, read your history, he was universally ridiculed and couldn't get any funding.
It's true, all you "Skeptics", no one of any great importance really believed in electromagnetic waves until Marconi did his cross-atlantic communication.

Is this the same history book you read that told you about Galileo's execution? Maybe it was in that edition of Nature you read, along with their mocking of the Wright brothers. You know, the edition you can't remember now, and think may have been hushed up.

[plumjam]

well, i've had 3 pages of replies, and no-one has yet been humble or honest enough to admit that at some point in their lives evidence has convinced them of something that would go against Skeptical Orthodoxy..
Well, doesn't terribly surprise me. In fact that's why I asked the question, as an illustration of the ideological basis of a forum like this :)

[Dr Adequate]

i have no theory whatsoever, cos no such theory could exist, my over-arching theory is ..l. Make up your mind.

... that every organic physical construction is thousands of times more complex than any designed car or computer, even the simplest kind know to us in all history ... Ah, you were right first time --- you don't have a theory.

so it is a complete mystery how it and they exist... pity the indoctrinated teenage know-it-alls want to argue differently It must be even more galling to you that the scientists who actually study nature want to argue differently too.

Just as Galileo, who was also faced with opposition from a stifling religious orthodoxy, argued against it by the light of his knowledge.

Just like Darwin, reviled by the orthodoxy of his day.

Funny how you left him off your little list, eh?

[plumjam]

Is this the same history book you read that told you about Galileo's execution? Maybe it was in that edition of Nature you read, along with their mocking of the Wright brothers. You know, the edition you can't remember now, and think may have been hushed up.

sure, my life isn't so tragic that I go online with the year, edition and page number of a particular Nature magazine, but I do know it exists. If it bothers you then you can look it up yourself. Of course it's obvous that Nature magazine hasn't been advertising it for years, as it's pretty embarrassing to them.

[asmodean]

well, i've had 3 pages of replies, and no-one has yet been humble or honest enough to admit that at some point in their lives evidence has convinced them of something that would go against Skeptical Orthodoxy..
Well, doesn't terribly surprise me. In fact that's why I asked the question, as an illustration of the ideological basis of a forum like this :)

See. theres that silly strawman again. First,. these is no such thing as "Skeptical Orthodoxy". Second, people have already described how they changed their views after being presented with evidence, that you choose to ignore it is no fault of the posters here.

As for humble and honest. "Mr Kettle? Mr Pot on line 1. He says you're black."

Order up another irony meter, this one is busted.

[Dr Adequate]

well, i've had 3 pages of replies, and no-one has yet been humble or honest enough to admit that at some point in their lives evidence has convinced them of something that would go against Skeptical Orthodoxy.. Well of course not. Because "Skeptical Orthodoxy" is that you should change your mind when the evidence shows that you're wrong. That's the whole thing from A to Z. That's skepticism.

[asmodean]

sure, my life isn't so tragic that I go online with the year, edition and page number of a particular Nature magazine, but I do know it exists. If it bothers you then you can look it up yourself. Of course it's obvous that Nature magazine hasn't been advertising it for years, as it's pretty embarrassing to them.

Ever heard about burden of proof? You made a silly claim, you back it up or retract, Not repeat the claim every time someoen asks for evidence, back up the claim with evidence

See, if youwanna cvlaim Nature published something, then you should back it up with a reference. If you can not to that, yuo should frankly shut up, or withdraw the claim.

The "Of course it's obvous that Nature magazine hasn't been advertising it for years, as it's pretty embarrassing to them." is another baseless, silly claim.

And you wonder why people do not take you seriously?

[plumjam]

yeah, cos anyone with a brain realises that Darwin, if he knew what is known now about DNA, protein molecules, the complexity of cells, the fossil record, lack of transitional species, the species barrier, irreducible complexity everywhere in nature,.. would never have espoused the theory he did, he could only get away with it due to the ignorance of that age, and his theory only persists due to the lack of anything materialistic that is anything other than laughable

[Mashuna]

sure, my life isn't so tragic that I go online with the year, edition and page number of a particular Nature magazine, but I do know it exists. If it bothers you then you can look it up yourself. Of course it's obvous that Nature magazine hasn't been advertising it for years, as it's pretty embarrassing to them.

Hey, it doesn't bother me, I'm not the one trying to claim it as support for my argument ;)

But being as how your memory seems to have let you down with so many of your other points, perhaps you'd like to check sometime. Who knows, if you actually looked it up, maybe you'd find some evidence that would make you change your mind on a matter. You're not too dogmatic and closed-minded to do that, are you?

[plumjam]

See. theres that silly strawman again. First,. these is no such thing as "Skeptical Orthodoxy". Second, people have already described how they changed their views after being presented with evidence, that you choose to ignore it is no fault of the posters here.

As for humble and honest. "Mr Kettle? Mr Pot on line 1. He says you're black."

Order up another irony meter, this one is busted.

maybe i've misread, but i don't remember anyone saying they changed their views after being presented with evidence which would take them away from orthodox Skepticism.

BTW you are the 8th poster to accuse me of setting up a straw man, pretty clever of me don't you think? when I'd never heard of it before tonight

[Mashuna]

yeah, cos anyone with a brain realises that Darwin, if he knew what is known now about DNA, protein molecules, the complexity of cells, the fossil record, lack of transitional species, the species barrier, irreducible complexity everywhere in nature,.. would never have espoused the theory he did, he could only get away with it due to the ignorance of that age, and his theory only persists due to the lack of anything materialistic that is anything other than laughable

:popcorn1

[Dr Adequate]

sure, my life isn't so tragic that I go online with the year, edition and page number of a particular Nature magazine, but I do know it exists. How nice for you, to "know" things without evidence.

However, experience tells me that people who "know" things without evidence are almost invariably wrong about the things they know.

If it bothers you then you can look it up yourself. Of course it's obvous that Nature magazine hasn't been advertising it for years, as it's pretty embarrassing to them. Whereas your complete lack of evidence for your assertions doesn't appear to embarrass you in the slightest.

Here we have a test case. You say the article exists. All you have to do is produce it and see if we change our minds about whether it exists.

---

BTW, can anyone work out what the article is that plumjam thinks he's talking about? I believe I can. And oh boy, is he wrong.

[Hawk one]

maybe i've misread, but i don't remember anyone saying they changed their views after being presented with evidence which would take them away from orthodox Skepticism.

BTW you are the 8th poster to accuse me of setting up a straw man, pretty clever of me don't you think? when I'd never heard of it before tonight
But that's because you misunderstand skepticism and refuse to read the explanations. So, we need to tell you several times, in the hopes you'll get it.

Once again, skepticism is -about- changing your mind when presented with proper evidence. The only way to get away from skepticism is to -stop- changing your mind based on new evidence, and instead hold on to outdated dogmas, or just accepting downright silly claims at their face value.

Do you understand how it works now? Or do I need to explain it with a puppet show?

[Neutiquam Erro]

BTW you are the 8th poster to accuse me of setting up a straw man, pretty clever of me don't you think? when I'd never heard of it before tonight

Pursuing fallacious arguments != Cleverness. Hope that clears up some confusion.

[Katana]

maybe i've misread, but i don't remember anyone saying they changed their views after being presented with evidence which would take them away from orthodox Skepticism.

BTW you are the 8th poster to accuse me of setting up a straw man, pretty clever of me don't you think? when I'd never heard of it before tonight


Perhaps you could educate us all with just what it is that you define as "orthodox Skepticism".

That would be a start.<