Have you ever convinced anyone?

[schlitt]

I have seen many a woo come and go from this board with not even a dent in their protective ignorance.

It seems as though Ian Rowland is spot on with his golden rules:

(taken from http://ianrowland.com/TheVault/JohnEdward1.html)

Scepticism or nailing jelly to the ceiling, which is the greater waste of time?
Is he correct?

[EDITED BY Jeff Wagg: Ian has asked that he not have his material quoted this extensively on the forum. You can read the content at the link provided.]

Have you ever seen someone who was not already a fence sitter suddenly respond to logic and see a flaw in their belief?

[articulett]

I really like Ian Rowland... and it often does seem to be an uphill battle. As my sig notes, the incompetent ones never know they are the incompetent ones. And how often has Randi etc. been subject to the "shoot the messenger" approach? It sounds depressing. Skeptics like Carl Sagan are unsung heroes. It seems like it would be easier just to let people have their beliefs--take advantage of them even.

On the other hand, weren't most of us believers in some woo at some point in our lives. Didn't we change? Aren't we glad we did? Don't we want others to have these tools? I think true and useful information is worth sharing and fighting to spread. I think woo prospers in societies where people believe that "faith is good way of knowing truth"-- or "faith is necessary for morality and salvation". I blame religion for this pervasive meme.

I am amazed at the invisible gods and nutty gurus who get endless praise, while the real heroes and truth sharers are badmouthed, dismissed, and feared.

As I recall, Ian mentioned at TAM2 that magicians were threatening him for "giving away their secretes" in his book "cold reading" and his lectures on how mentalists fool people (he's superb... like Banachek-- very impressive... a thousand times better than Sylvia Browne-- but, unlike her, he has a conscience.)

I think the best that we can hope for is to plant seeds... lots of woo crumbles once someone starts to examine it closely... skeptics can ask the questions to start the process. There are some people who came here as believers in certain woo, and now are our some of my favorite posters. But most don't change an iota (See T'ai).

[-Fran-]

I think the best that we can hope for is to plant seeds... lots of woo crumbles once someone starts to examine it closes... skeptics can ask the questions to start the process.

I agree. We can be one of many things where they will get the information they need, from. But the actual process is their own.

ETA:
I must admit that it's not really my goal to convert believers to skepticism. I seldom even try in real life. I say what I think if asked, and if I am already in a discussion/casual chat and the subject comes up. On here I do pretty much the same, with the exception of that here I do expect the subject to come up all the time :) I'm venting here, and trying to keep my brain from getting stale. If I can convince someone or in some way spread reason, or do something good in the process, I am of course happy, but that is not my main purpose for being here, or something I feel is an important aspect of my life outside of JREF either. Even so these questions are not un-important to me, I am not indifferent about it, just have chosen a less active approach concerning these things. Even with this attitude I still get really frustrated about the state of things sometimes. If I had chosen a more active approach in life I would have probably felt exactly like Ian Rowland and started to nail up the jelly instead... yeah... *sigh*

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I disagree strongly with GR6.

Reality is not subjective. :D

Wrt the Topic -- I have had a few successes.

[Dogdoctor]

If there are statistics to back up those statements lets see them. If not then they are opinion and my opinion is different. Skepticism is useful to the person who uses it and not to others. But all said and done my guess is that belief in psychic stuff will stay with us just like a bunch of other illogical beliefs however we may be able to alter the percentage of people holding those beliefs.

[Autolite]

Is he correct?

Unfortunately, yes. He's correct. I've spent years arguing against woo before it dawned on me that it is essentially pointless. I'll still get into a discussion from time to time but only for it's entertainment value. I really don't expect to change any one's perspective on the matter. It's really an apples and oranges type of scenario anyway. Skeptics use reason and logic to argue against emotion and belief. I've always said that it is like trying to win at a game of chess while the other person's playing Dungeons and Dragons. The best one can hope for is that you might encourage someone to look deeper into their woo beliefs and do a little research. I suspect that most skeptics became skeptics primarily on the knowledge that they've gleaned themselves...

[Apology]

There are very few rare individuals that can admit that they are wrong in any way, let alone on an issue that involves an emotional investment like woo or religion. They are as rare as diamonds and just as precious. I have managed to reach a very small number of people, but I think that the rare success is worth the effort.

My failure rate is, indeed, still appalling. Without any successes at all I would have surely bailed by now.

[jimtron]

As I recall, Ian mentioned at TAM2 that magicians were threatening him for "giving away their secretes" in his book "cold reading" and his lectures on how mentalists fool people...

I was involved with a thread (http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=113599&forum=15) on a mentalist's forum where Rowland's cold reading book was literally called "vile and inhumane," while psychic readers were defended. These folks were defending psychic readers on a forum where people discuss methods for faking psychic powers. Nice.

I disagree strongly with GR6.

Me too. The other five make good points, but #6 doesn't make a compelling case.

In my experience it is indeed extremely hard to convince people.

[sgf8]

I got into the whole ‘skeptic’ thing over 20 years ago. In 1973, at the age of 12, I saw a guy bend a spoon on TV and that led me into all sorts of adventures. I read a lot, met a lot of people, and started doing my own shows and lectures. After about 20 years, I had pretty much taken it as far as I could (lectured at Oxford and Cambridge, achieved some TV firsts, appeared on every TV channel in the UK, been flown to Hollywood to do the NBC thing, yada yada) and I didn’t feel inclined to take it much further.

Why not? Because it’s pointless. Everything I learned in those 20 years can be distilled into a few golden rules. These should be carved in stone, and that stone should be dropped on the head of anyone who thinks they can successfully campaign against the spread of pseudo-science and psychic fables.

This guy sounds burned out, he needs to get to a skeptic meeting pronto! We all need to re-energize ourselves from time to time.

I don't think I made any converts, but I think I might have put a flea in the ear of a few people. When you say you only argue with woo once in a while for entertainment you might not be winning the person you are arguing over to your point of view. But lots of times, esp if you don't get all angry and stuff, you might be helping out those who listen in.

Almost everyone here on this board once believed in woo, some still do. My woo was astrology when I was a teenager. I loved the idea that some greater power could explain ourselves, I was into the birth signs not the daily stuff. Then I learned more about the sky and how the zodiac was actually one month off, and how some of this stuff fits more than one personality trait. Also people were behaving in actions they were not supposed to have. So I started getting into the Moon sign and the Rising Star sign and such, finally I decided that there was too much going on to explain this crap. I grew up and gave that up.

I was turned on to the idea of Atheism by a teacher who refused to say "under god" with the pledge. Up until that time (senior year in high school) I had never heard of someone not believing in god. I did a lot of thinking and finally it dawned on me that my Christian beliefs were hogwash.

So IMHO yes it can make a big difference these lectures, discussions, books ect. You just might not "see" it happening before your eyes. They need to think about it and time might just see them change their minds. People don't really want to be ignorant all their lives, they do want the truth, if they start questioning their beliefs it is just a matter of time before they really need help from other skeptics to jump over the fence onto the side of reason.

Personally I think that we aren't doing enough to reach out to our Spanish speaking neighbors. One magazine Pensar isn't nearly enough. That culture is brimming with woo, far more than the English speaking North-Americans are. They are also having far more babies thus infecting the woo all over the next generation.

Susan

[articulett]

Sometimes I ask people if they would want to know if their belief was untrue...or would they rather keep believing it was true. Sometimes, I ask them how do they think they would come to know it if their beliefs weren't true? Sometimes I ask them, what they think they could have said to the 9-11 hijackers to make them reconsider--? Or how do they know that their "faith" isn't as unreliable as the hijacker's faith.

But mostly I stay quiet. Because people get mad at you for not believing their woo. I like this forum because I can say what I feel and it gets exhausting having to hold my tongue as woo is spouted and deferred to and big eyed believers are shaking their heads in wonder...

They want you to prove their woo wrong-- if one doesn't or can't (as if anyone could)--then they use it as evidence that their woo is the true woo. I don't think it's a big deal for older people... I don't think they can change easily... but I think it is important to plant thinking skills in the minds of the young... just a question or so-- a reflection:(I wonder how come no psychic warned us about 9-11) a memory ("I used to believe in bigfoot, but there's no more evidence for him than when I was a kid-- not even a big foot poo... with all the cell phone cameras and Google earth, you'd think they'd have some decent evidence by now."). Just to make people think a little without getting defensive.

And don't defer to it... prop it up... don't show reverence or respect for woo.

As Randi says, he can't prove that Geller isn't psychic... but isn't the fact that he can recreate the same illusions indicative that Geller is doing the same?

[articulett]

Yes, woo is much more prevalent in minority populations in the US... all kinds of woo. Sharing strong beliefs is a way to feel protected and to bind with others. I teach teens, and I used to believe weird things as a teen. I wish I'd had adults prodding my thinking along, but I'm still torn about how much to do and when and what. I think people need to feel like they've come to their own conclusions on the subject. Learning how you can be fooled (optical illusions, etc.) and how others have been fooled are useful knowledge that can sprout into skepticism. I hope.

[RSLancastr]

If the email I receive at SSB.com is any indication, then yes, I have.

A web site allows you to reach hundres, maybe thousands of people every day. Even if only a small percentage of the people who read your web site come away with a different opinion, you still can have an impact on far more people than you would just talking to people you meet.

[Carnivore]

You may not convince a hard core believer they are wrong, but a great many people really are fence sitters who are only getting the woo side of the story.

In the last couple of years (since I started frequenting this forum), I've personally talked people I know out of:

-Basing financial decisions on newspaper astrology columns

- Giving money to psychics

- Becoming 9-11 Twoofers

- Thinking their house was haunted.

Whenever a woo subject comes up in conversation, I calmly and respectfully put across the skeptical position. Sometimes people have never heard anyone being neither a knee jerk supporter or denier of the woo in question, and it gives them pause for thought.

In my opinion this is worth doing and in my experience it makes a difference.

[articulett]

If the email I receive at SSB.com is any indication, then yes, I have.

A web site allows you to reach hundres, maybe thousands of people every day. Even if only a small percentage of the people who read your web site come away with a different opinion, you still can have an impact on far more people than you would just talking to people you meet.


Yes... we've definitely seen proof here that RSL has changed minds and made more skeptics.

But Ian Rowland was apparently getting threats from other magicians... for giving away their "secrets"-- I don't think Robert has to deal with that... though he does get his share of scary woo threats it seems.

[vIQleS]

My second post on this forum was here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=49553&page=3

And while no one convinced me in re the argument we were having, it got me started thinking down a line that ended with me as an atheist. Helped along the way by other posts and discussions on the jref, as well as a few good books...

So yes - the JREF forums have converted at least one person...

ETA: While skeptical of things like psychics and ghosts at the start - I was effectivly a fundamentalist xian & YEC when i joined the forums.

[Ron_Tomkins]

I agree on one thing: It is pointless trying to convince he who is already convinced of the opposite and will always defend his reality no matter what.

I agree with that simply because I don't think that this is about convincing people of stuff. Again we go back to the basic philosophy of skeptics: education vs indoctrination. Information vs alienation. Even if you have the evidence of truth, you cannot pretend that everyone is going to buy it. In the end, I see this as an individual quest. Each and everyone of us is in the search of truth. That's why many of us started investigating and questioning everything. The moment you start loosing your temper because there's this woman next door who still believes in ghosts and you haven't managed to convince her, you're wasting your time. None of us was put here to "enlighten others". I rate that as a very egocentrical attitude. I think that enlightening, if there is such thing, is an individual experience. If there are people who will blindly believe in woo no matter how much scientific proof there is of it being fake, then they will believe it. Period. One day, perhaps, they will experience something that will lead them to question reality. But maybe not. No one else can really control that. That's their journey. Each one of us has to focus on our own journey.

It doesn't mean that we shouldn't share this perspective. There is always people who are open minded and willing to listen, and willing to let their own preconceived visions of reality stretch beyond their own previous knowledge. It is also true that there are people who we care for, perhaps family members, who believe in false woo and due to that they are letting people take advantage of themselves. It is in that case reasonable to get upset after realizing that that person we care for doesn't want to listen. But that's probably as far as we can get. See, I think that there is a point in which, after you've given someone enough plausible and logical explanation, the person still doesn't see it; that you can probably reach the conclussion that he/she simply doesn't want to see it. And if that's the case, there is virtually nothing you can do. It's up to the person from that point on.

[RSLancastr]

I agree on one thing: It is pointless trying to convince he who is already convinced of the opposite and will always defend his reality no matter what.Even assuming this is true, it is impossible to tell who falls into this category.

[Apology]

You may not convince a hard core believer they are wrong, but a great many people really are fence sitters who are only getting the woo side of the story.

In the last couple of years (since I started frequenting this forum), I've personally talked people I know out of:

-Basing financial decisions on newspaper astrology columns

- Giving money to psychics

- Becoming 9-11 Twoofers

- Thinking their house was haunted.

Whenever a woo subject comes up in conversation, I calmly and respectfully put across the skeptical position. Sometimes people have never heard anyone being neither a knee jerk supporter or denier of the woo in question, and it gives them pause for thought.

In my opinion this is worth doing and in my experience it makes a difference.

I accidentally did a reverse-debunk somehow at work one day. My boss and I were trying to decide which employee to send on a business trip. All things were pretty much equal between the two of them, and neither one really wanted to go. I whipped out my magic 8-ball and let it decide. We were kind of laughing a little because it seems kind of cold to decide someone's fate for a week using a $5 toy from Mattel, but it wasn't really any worse than flipping a quarter, just more amusing.

A little while later she came back to me and said "Taking the Magic 8-ball's advice is as silly as taking my horoscope's advice, isn't it? I mean, I shouldn't decide by my horoscope unless it really doesn't make a big difference which one I pick." I thought about it for a moment.

"You're right," I said. "Your horoscope isn't really much better than the 8-ball, it just has more words." She nodded grimly. I never saw her reading her horoscope again. I never explained to her that we shouldn't be using horoscopes or 8-balls to decide anything or how it's the same as flipping a quarter, but I think she knew. She still liked me after that too. :p

[articulett]

Even assuming this is true, it is impossible to tell who falls into this category.

Yes... because some of our best posters came here as believers of some kind...

And lots of people read these forums, even if they don't post... we don't always know what lead to our own beliefs, much less our own skepticism... but I, for one, am glad. I think I ran across either the Skeptic or the Skeptical Inquirer in a New Age bookstore back when I was into that stuff, and there was a divining test by Randi... and it was the first time I realized that you could test stuff-- you didn't have to just "believe" things. I learned a lot from Ian Rowland at TAM--but he was, of course, preaching to the choir.

vIQleS was a Young Earth Creationists-- that is some pretty strongly ignorant woo... and he came here and changed... I think that speaks a lot-- so even if only a small percentage change... it's still worth it to be a part of that. I understand why Ian doesn't want to be an outspoken skeptic anymore... but I hope he's still flying under the radar at various forums sharing his insights. There are some of us that are very glad to know what he has to share. I'm tired of wasting my time on "what ifs"-- I want to know what is true and what can be known-- and I want to spend more time with people who have a similar view. Like Randi, I think the future depends on giving young people these tools-- because if they think "faith" is a good way to know stuff-- they are vulnerable to any and every guru who can convince them that they have the true woo.

I believed in people like Sylvia at one time. And I'm glad to know how they fool people.

[-Fran-]

In the cases where I have discussed things with friends with the intention of converting them away from a woo they believe in, I have often run into the following problem (that shows I am not very good at this, I guess).

When I try to explain why a certain woo - A can not be real, I realize that the other person first needs to know something about B to understand my explanation, so I start to explain B. Then I realize that to understand B, they need to know about C as well, and then... You see the problem? After a while, I have lost myself and my friend in explanations and none of us know where we are anymore, and my friend is sure none the wiser :(

It often isn't as simple as just explaining cold reading, for example, and that's that. Sometimes they need to know other basic stuff to get that, and even further basic stuff to properly get that.

OK, I realize that I am sounding as if my friends know nothing, that's not what I am saying, some of them are fairly well educated, and none of them are stupid, but still, this happens. They are simply not familiar with the same terms and concepts that I am.

Can anyone relate? How do you solve this? It doesn't really work with starting at the other end either, trying, so to speak, to start the explanation from the "bottom" and work my way up. I've tried that too, but then my friends get impatient, wondering what that has to do with the woo in question, and demand I get to the point in this millennium, please :) and then the subject often gets changed.

[my_wan]

I've had a share of success. A few people that I spent extended periods of time with have said almost the same thing: I'm starting to understand how you think, that's scary. Making an up front stand for skepticism will never work. When someone is credulous of something I often take the tact of describing how to prove it if it was true. The questions like well what about this I heard about will often start out slow and gain momentum over time. They don't need told how much bunk it is, just your willingness to consider more information and tell them about the supposed evidence they heard about. Eventually they start asking about the woo phenomena in general. When this happens you have enough respect to make a difference for that individual. I avoid absolutes with friends but to admit my perspective as my own.

Most people are fence sitters, but if you challenge their woo directly they will be honor bound to defend it vehemently. I hope Robert reaches a lot more people a lot faster than I do. I'm still trying to figure out the differences in friends and a forum.

[athon]

Skepticism is indeed a senseless ideal in isolation. I've met two kinds of skeptic communicator - those who reach out to the general public, and those who reach out to the other skeptics. The former do well acting as a role-model individual with an appealing personality and who demonstrate that good thinking skills are useful. The latter rally the troops and make skeptically minded people feel comforted by the fact that there are other rational people in the world.

The interesting thing I've learned is that the former type of communicator don't call themselves 'skeptics'. They don't focus heavily on woo-thinking, but rather celebrate rational thinking and its results. Additionally, they don't tend to burn out as easily, and in my reading, science communicators seem more satisfied with their results (mind you, what constitutes 'results' amongst science communicators makes for a rather interesting discussion in itself) and less frustrated with perceived losses. My view in this is that they don't see their job as a fight for anything, so every successful communication is a 'win'.

Ian Rowland is a skeptical communicator who focuses on selling skepticism to the public. This, in my experience, is indeed like 'nailing jelly to the ceiling'. If you want to see the 'non-skeptic' public become better thinkers, education and effective science communication is where it lies. If you want to encourage the skeptical choir to keep singing, then it's a different ball game with different rules. Little wonder the guy is burning out.

Athon

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Well, let me see...

I once managed to inform a group of people already doubtful of Sylvia Browne's abilities about cold-reading and tell them a bit about her and show them her most disasterous fiascos.

I got a fantastic response; after one clip, the audience was howling at every one of Sylvia's facial expressions and everytime Montel opened his mouth. They were so engaged and so interested and it was so amazing. :blush:

[-Fran-]

Well, let me see...

I once managed to inform a group of people already doubtful of Sylvia Browne's abilities about cold-reading and tell them a bit about her and show them her most disasterous fiascos.

I got a fantastic response; after one clip, the audience was howling at every one of Sylvia's facial expressions and everytime Montel opened his mouth. They were so engaged and so interested and it was so amazing. :blush:

Well, you obviously have what I don't :)

[drzeus99]

My second post on this forum was here:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=49553&page=3

And while no one convinced me in re the argument we were having, it got me started thinking down a line that ended with me as an atheist. Helped along the way by other posts and discussions on the jref, as well as a few good books...

So yes - the JREF forums have converted at least one person...

ETA: While skeptical of things like psychics and ghosts at the start - I was effectivly a fundamentalist xian & YEC when i joined the forums.


Welcome, my friend. Always nice to know when someone "sees the light"
of reality and has a fresh, clear mind.


Cheers,
DrZ

[Ron_Tomkins]

Skepticism is indeed a senseless ideal in isolation. I've met two kinds of skeptic communicator - those who reach out to the general public, and those who reach out to the other skeptics. The former do well acting as a role-model individual with an appealing personality and who demonstrate that good thinking skills are useful. The latter rally the troops and make skeptically minded people feel comforted by the fact that there are other rational people in the world.

The interesting thing I've learned is that the former type of communicator don't call themselves 'skeptics'. They don't focus heavily on woo-thinking, but rather celebrate rational thinking and its results. Additionally, they don't tend to burn out as easily, and in my reading, science communicators seem more satisfied with their results (mind you, what constitutes 'results' amongst science communicators makes for a rather interesting discussion in itself) and less frustrated with perceived losses. My view in this is that they don't see their job as a fight for anything, so every successful communication is a 'win'.

Ian Rowland is a skeptical communicator who focuses on selling skepticism to the public. This, in my experience, is indeed like 'nailing jelly to the ceiling'. If you want to see the 'non-skeptic' public become better thinkers, education and effective science communication is where it lies. If you want to encourage the skeptical choir to keep singing, then it's a different ball game with different rules. Little wonder the guy is burning out.

Athon



A hundred thousand percent agreed. That was more or less what I was trying to expose, but you said it in a much more lucid and clear way.

[Zep]

Perhaps the oft-mentioned comment re convincing woos from a rational POV: You can't argue people out of a view that they didn't argue themselves into in the first place.

That is, the rational approach is unlikely to be successful in the face of irrationality.

[sgf8]

In the cases where I have discussed things with friends with the intention of converting them away from a woo they believe in, I have often run into the following problem (that shows I am not very good at this, I guess).

When I try to explain why a certain woo - A can not be real, I realize that the other person first needs to know something about B to understand my explanation, so I start to explain B. Then I realize that to understand B, they need to know about C as well, and then... You see the problem? After a while, I have lost myself and my friend in explanations and none of us know where we are anymore, and my friend is sure none the wiser :(

It often isn't as simple as just explaining cold reading, for example, and that's that. Sometimes they need to know other basic stuff to get that, and even further basic stuff to properly get that.

OK, I realize that I am sounding as if my friends know nothing, that's not what I am saying, some of them are fairly well educated, and none of them are stupid, but still, this happens. They are simply not familiar with the same terms and concepts that I am.

Can anyone relate? How do you solve this? It doesn't really work with starting at the other end either, trying, so to speak, to start the explanation from the "bottom" and work my way up. I've tried that too, but then my friends get impatient, wondering what that has to do with the woo in question, and demand I get to the point in this millennium, please :) and then the subject often gets changed.

I am So with you here Fran! This has been a big problem with some of my co-workers that have become friends. I'm not comfortable with discussing this at work but after hours it has come up and I feel like I need to explain what science means. They don't get even the basics. You keep having to back up farther and farther and after a while it makes no sense at all. I think I just need smarter friends.

The approach I'm taking now is to give it in small doses, just a bit at a time. My closest friend I had to explain to her that there is no such thing as "earthquake weather" I explained it simply and then brought in a book the next day with illustrations of how deep earthquakes are, I made sure to point out the words "millions of years ago" but I did it without it being a stab at her young earth creationist beliefs. Just kinda slipped it in as a solid fact. I think what really got her thinking was when she asked me "if it isn't true why do people always say that".....my response was "because it was just a fun thing to say" THAT I think she understood.

So I pick and choose my arguments, her beliefs are all wooed out with religion, we almost never speak of this topic because it can get heated, but we both know it is there.

Susan

[hipparchia]

With surprising ease, I managed to convince my husband that homoeopathy is bunk. Funny thing is, I bought him some pills once for a cold. Later, I learned they were nothing but sugar, so I apologized and told him I'd made a mistake.

Of course, the pills did not work zilch, so he will never swear by "it works for me". Good thing is I also bought him some of that magic mix of paracetamol and some antihistamine ingredient that takes care of a runny nose.

[chillzero]

Several members, including myself and Miss Anthrope began on the 'other side of the fence'.

This site is an invaluable resource in finding information, and people willing to help talk you through the logic (or lack of) and the missing bits that allow believers to stay rutted in ignorance of certain facts.

[H3LL]

Like many here, I have travelled the path from woo-woo to sceptic, theist to atheist.

Without resources such as these forums and excellent, popular scientific writing from people such as Dawkins and Sagan I would still be as woo as nearly every other person.

It certainly seems like "nailing jelly to the ceiling" but that is no reason to stop. Alfred Wegener (http://www.pangaea.org/wegener.htm)eventually managed to nail his jelly.

I desire to be an effective sceptic and teach critical thinking. I try in my small way, but I'm still not very good at it as evident by how little response I usually get on the forums here.

In time, I will get better...probably.

I will NEVER stop trying to learn more and improve. I learn something from these forums and similar ones every day.

Many woo's learn nothing new and actively make sure that they don't...it's very sad.

.

[Roboramma]

First off, I'd like to say that I think Athon is right on. I think that the skepticsm that has an impact is possitive skepticism - the type of skepticism that isn't us vs. them, but is about the results of a way of thinking, and all of the amazing things we've learned from it. It certainly worked that way for me, anyway.

GR1: for most people, most of the time, rationality isn’t very high on the agenda. Is this true? It certainly isn't most people's first priority. But often people are interested in what's true (because knowing that truth is useful to them), and at those times rationality is a priority. Or, at least, the knowing what's true is a priority, and since rationality is a useful tool for finding what's true, at those times they can be convinced to use it.

GR2: we teach many subjects in our schools, but not how to think and reason well. Therefore many people cannot, and cannot realise they cannot. And nobody thanks you for telling them. I can understand the first part - to a degree - but not the second. Why can't they realise that they can't? Maybe they don't thank you for telling them because you did so in an insulting manner?
Of course, not everyone is interested in finding the errors in their thinking. But most of those that I've encountered in my life is at least interested enough that when those errors are pointed out in a non-confrontational way they are concerned.

GR3: people adopt the most convenient set of beliefs consistent with their needs, wants and fears at the time. If ‘psychic ability’ fits the need, it gets integrated with the belief set. I don't think that's true. I used to believe a lot of wierd things, like, for instance, that practicing yoga could give me super powers. At some point I stopped believing those things, not because it was convient not to, but because I realised that they weren't true.
It would be a lot easier for me to believe in chakra and nadis, etc. I constantly have to deal with people who think less of me because I don't, for instance. If I were willing to preach about those things I could make more money than I do. Etc.
The problem is that I was actually intersted in finding out about this stuff, and when it turned out to be false, I accepted that. I'm not the only person willing to do so. And having others along they way (particularly through books by people like Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan) help me to clarify my thinking, helped in that.

GR4: you can’t rationally argue out what wasn’t rationally argued in. This is a quote, I believe from George Bernard Shaw but I am not certain. That's blatantly false. Sometimes people accept things without thinking about them, but when you discuss them with them, when they look at them with understanding, they realise they were wrong. This doesn't happen that often, but it does happen.
I recently had a long conversation with a yoga student of mine that ended in her suggesting that she shouldn't just accept claims about yoga based on faith and should look at them skeptically. I don't know how well she followed that conclusion, but I did bring her to a place where she was able to make it on her own. Not all believers in woo are idiots, not all of them are arrogant, and some are even interested in finding the truth.

GR5: ‘Psychic powers are real’ is a media-friendly message and plays well. ‘Psychic powers are about as real as the Pope’s wife’s crack habit’ is not and does not. That's true, but there are possitive, even inspiring, ways of portraying skepticism.

GR6: It is nonsense to say psychic powers ‘are’ or ‘are not’ real. They are as real as you want them to be. Believers slice the evidence one way, skeptics slice it differently. This one just doesn't make any sense to me. Of course it's not nonsense to say that psychic powers are not real. Just because it's hard to convince people one way or the other doesn't mean that the statement itself is false!
This GR6 is worthy of JetLeg.

Add it all up, and we can safely say: belief in psychic stuff has always been with us, and is likely to flourish in the fertile soil of uncritical mass media attention. I agree with this one. There are plenty of reasons why people believe these things. I doubt they'll stop any time soon, if ever.

There is no way of combatting this. This, however, I disagree with strongly. I was never ultra-woo. I always believed that the world was explicable, and was interested in looking to see what it's really like. Uncovering and understanding it. Yet, I accepted some woo cliams, because no one had told me how to tell what's true from what's false. I did my best, and usually did a good job.
But when people (friends) talked to me about these things, when I was exposed to skepticism through books, etc. it helped me to better understand the world.
I think that this can be true of many people. To say that we can't erradicate irrational thought is different from saying that we can't make a difference. I support the former statement, but certainly not the latter.

Have you ever seen someone who was not already a fence sitter suddenly respond to logic and see a flaw in their belief?
It's the fence sitters I'm after.

[Autolite]

Why can't they realise that they can't?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacognition


Some folks lack meta-cognitive competence. I read an article on it once that explained the problem in detail. Apparently there are people who are "too stupid to know that they're stupid". Such people lack the inclination to improve they're level of knowledge...

[articulett]

Well, let me see...

I once managed to inform a group of people already doubtful of Sylvia Browne's abilities about cold-reading and tell them a bit about her and show them her most disasterous fiascos.

I got a fantastic response; after one clip, the audience was howling at every one of Sylvia's facial expressions and everytime Montel opened his mouth. They were so engaged and so interested and it was so amazing. :blush:

I showed the CNN tape of Sylvia's exposure over her claim that the Hornbeck kid was dead -- to my students... and they definitely "get it"-- they are disgusted with Sylvia... but also they become aware of how people fool other people... how easy it is... how wrong it is... I think seeds are planted for some. And I show the clip about Randi and his million dollar prize--because that was important for me to know about. I showed a clip from Jonestown to a student who had seen the Sylvia Tape and he immediately saw the similarities in something Jim Jones was doing... so bits can stick... especially for those who are sure that they know everything... or for people who have been tricked... or those eager to know the truth--rather than assume they already do. I try to give the tools for thinking that I wish I had been given when I was younger. It would have saved me a lot of angst and woo years, I think. I make a good skeptic. I never was good at woo. I always wondered if it was my ability to really have "faith" in it that made it yield such unimpressive results.

[-Fran-]

I must admit that I both admire and am a bit jealous about you here who are good at teaching and engaging people with how you speak to them. That's not my strong side. As mentioned above I have a tendency to ensnare myself and the listener in lots of explanations :o and my friends do hint that I come across as a bit of a "know it all" and they probably think I bore them too :o, so I usually don't try.

I feel much more comfortable expressing myself in writing, where I can try to explain myself without interruptions and side-tracks, and where I can edit the text to become clearer, whereas when you say something unclear it sticks and muddles what you say next in order to try to clarify.

Assuming that the other person reads it all, I feel more confident that what I meant is really expressed properly, and that the explanation is reasonably OK. I don't know if I do any good, regarding this subject, in what I write either, but it feels more comfortable for me in any case.

[articulett]

The nice things about the clips in Randi's archives is that they tend to just do the teaching themselves. They speak for themselves. It's very clear that good and trusting people can be fooled... and that can't help but make a person wonder if the same can happen to them.

Sometimes I share my experience with "healing touch"-- I thought it was something about me and my lack of strong faith that made me unable to bring pain relief to my husband while he suffered from cancer... I remember trying to do "healing touch" on these surgical adhesions to no avail and blaming myself. And then later I learn via a test by a very smart 11 year old girl (Emily Rosa) that healing touch is a sham. Her test is very easy to explain, and I tell them how I wish I had thought of it... it would have kept me from blaming myself. And it clued me into the notion that things CAN be tested. If certain woo WAS true, we should expect a different kind of world. If the dead COULD talk, we could readily find missing bodies. If psychics were real, Las Vegas couldn't make such a fortune.

I think a lot of skepticism is self teaching. I thought Ian Rowlands demonstrations of just how convincing mentalists can be was great. It's by being fooled that we learn how easily it is to do so. And by observing the process in others from a vantage point such as the clips in the JREF archive... and the info. on Roberts site. When you confront people, they get defensive and use confirmation bias to prove you wrong and their beliefs true. But if you let them stumble upon the notions themselves... a seed of rationality might be planted without their awareness.. one that they might bring to fruition one day.

Once you see how readily people can be fooled, you become aware that you, too, are likely susceptible. You develop an inner aversion for those who exploit such trust in others. Sylvia Browne and other cons need to be shunned-- instead they are worshiped and glorified like the invisible spirits they speak for.

[Smiledriver]

I don't know how much of this stuff is about convincing people as much as it is about going on the record. State the truth. Hopefully it compels, if it does not then at least it has been stated plainly and you have done your part.

The JREF prize is a nice example of this, put up or shut up. It doesn't try to convince anyone one of anything.

[schlitt]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacognition


Some folks lack meta-cognitive competence. I read an article on it once that explained the problem in detail. Apparently there are people who are "too stupid to know that they're stupid". Such people lack the inclination to improve they're level of knowledge...

This is something i feel very strongly about.
I believe the majority of people operate within their perception of reality, but never question if their perception was correctly formed initially.
As they progress through life, things get tacked on to their perception if they conform with the parameters of the perception.
What ends up happening is a very narrow perception of reality is formed but it is perceived as the 100% whole truth of reality to the person.

I believe people who question why they think the way they do, and look for causal agents are a very rare breed.

[schlitt]

Fran, i completely understand and suffer from the same issue.

Often i try to lay the groundwork before explaining the end point, as it requires logical steps to reach the desired conclusion, and the logical steps will not be made by the person if they lack the necessary knowledge to cross reference the new information.

But what happens a lot of times is the person will not be able to make the connection with the groundwork and the subject, so you lose them right at the start.
People are usually just waiting for their turn to speak in conversations so engaging them from the start is a must.
Its kind of a catch 22.

[articulett]

Sometimes you can explain your own confusions... I often speak about learning of multiple infallible leaders in various religions and how that caused me to wonder how I knew I had the right one. I tell them about how I used confirmation bias to presume I did... but also I could see others using similarly type confirmation bias. I tell how it confused me. Sometimes they, at least, see why I became skeptical or why I lack faith... they never have answers... sometimes they do the semantic spin... but it must make some people ask themselves questions they never thought about... and eventually the apologetics gets tiresome.

People like to feel they learned how to think skeptically on their own-- not that somebody had to teach them or prod them.

[The Man]

My girlfriend was a self professed witch and clairvoyant. As a devout scientist and skeptic I have always opposed those beliefs and gradually shifted her to a more reasonable point of view. Although she no long purports or tries to employ her “abilities” as a witch she still claims clairvoyance. I have explained to her the hot reading, cold reading and positive feedback techniques she is unknowingly using and she does see this, but retains that she has an underlying ability to know details of peoples lives without any input or confirmation. I keep working on her whenever it comes up but do not press the issue to the point where it affects our relationship. I just think that I should not try to force it and that she has to reach the finial conclusion on her own.

[-Fran-]

Fran, i completely understand and suffer from the same issue.

Often i try to lay the groundwork before explaining the end point, as it requires logical steps to reach the desired conclusion, and the logical steps will not be made by the person if they lack the necessary knowledge to cross reference the new information.

But what happens a lot of times is the person will not be able to make the connection with the groundwork and the subject, so you lose them right at the start.
People are usually just waiting for their turn to speak in conversations so engaging them from the start is a must.
Its kind of a catch 22.

Yes, and I have realized that I am just not very good at this, so I usually don't do it outside of this forum. Engaging people takes some talent, I guess. I don't think I have it.

[schlitt]

Yes, and I have realized that I am just not very good at this, so I usually don't do it outside of this forum. Engaging people takes some talent, I guess. I don't think I have it.

Perhaps it just requires practice?

[-Fran-]

Perhaps it just requires practice?

Probably. I often have a tendency to give up too soon, I guess :o

[athon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacognition


Some folks lack meta-cognitive competence. I read an article on it once that explained the problem in detail. Apparently there are people who are "too stupid to know that they're stupid". Such people lack the inclination to improve they're level of knowledge...

On a spectrum of cognitive differences in a population, you're going to get all sorts of thinking patterns and mind sets. 'Some', therefore, is a fairly pointless quantification without justification of what it means and whether one thinks it to be important. Of course 'some' people aren't very good at metacognition. But in my experience most people are capable of engaging in rather efficient metacognitive practices, and more importantly, have the capacity to be educated in it rather easily.

The real sticking point people face is the ability to evaluate evidence in coming to their conclusion. There's little point in metacognitive skills in belief-formation if the same weight is given to the same evidence over and over. Most people put a lot of weight into social evidence - that which is provided by people in one's social group which are respected, liked and trusted, as well as confidence in the 'popular vote'. Humans evolved cognition in conjunction with socialising, so it makes perfect sense that we are more social thinkers than critical ones.

Critical thinking, on the other hand, is typically anti-social. It addresses the beliefs held by a social group by a different set of evidence standards. Add to that the fact that many unsupported beliefs are held out of emotional comfort, the belief that the mind is an infallible tool through which we can analyse reality (or rather acknowledging that it is fallible is on par with feeling like you're somehow mentally weak) and that believing your social group is more knowledgable than another (in spite of it being fictitious knowledge) it's easy to see how on terms of purely biology and sociology, it's difficult to have most people being skeptical of unsupported beliefs.

Metacognition is a small part of it, as is providing good thinking tools. However skepticism needs to meld into a form of social thinking as well, where it is made acceptable to disagree with one's social group and still remain part of it. Even in a skeptical community as this one, we see that is a big ask.

Athon

[PeterB]

If the email I receive at SSB.com is any indication, then yes, I have.

Like Robert, I receive enough positive emails from The Millenium Project (http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/) to encourage me that there are people out there who will listen. I don't expect to change true believers, but they aren't my targets; the targets are people who have suspicions or doubts and are prepared to weigh evidence and argument.

Every time I get an email saying something like "I keep hearing about the dangers of vaccination but I saw what you had to say about the liars and now all my kids have had their shots" or "My friend wanted me to join [any pyramid scheme you can name] but what you wrote convinced me that they are a scam" or "Thank you for warning people about cancer quacks. My wife has cancer and we are tired of being offered miracle cures" then I know that I can make a difference.

[sgf8]

Several members, including myself and Miss Anthrope began on the 'other side of the fence'.


No Way!

Susan

[chillzero]

No Way!

Susan

'fraid so.

:cool:

[Correa Neto]

When I arrived at JREF I already was a skeptic. Since then my position was strenghtened from what I learned here.

I was not born skeptical. I could be labelled as a woo untill my early 20's or so. Atlantis, UFOs, life after death, god, cryptozoology, and some other fringe subjects, I believed this stuff. Heck, I even kept an "open mind" regarding the hollow Earth "theory". Of course, the seed of doubt was there, as long as I can recall.

I was not brought to the bright side of the force through a proccess that started at the uni, when I was presented to the scientific metod, and several individuals contributed. One by one the woo credos vanished.

That's why I think small contributions are important. The woo may not change his/her mind, but the seed of doubt may have been planted. This person may have had to think about the argument presented and may have considered the possibility that the belief is wrong. Eventually, a criticall mass may accumulate.

[schlitt]

Well, it is certainly good to see there are those who have been enlightened.

As others have noted, i think it is a process that needs to be worked through step by step for the individual, to reach their own conclusions.
There needs to be an existing propensity to reason which an be helped along the way by planting seeds, and educating.

However, I can relate to Ian's golden rules, and i would say in many contexts they are pretty spot on. I'm sure he didn't mean them to be without exception, probably more of a commentry on common observed behaviour, although that is purely speculation on my part.

[articulett]

Yes... I think we might set our aims too high-- because we think that people will suddenly see what we are so glad to see. It seems that more modest goals are less likely to disappoint. I often think about how much ire Randi generates just for showing people that the stuff they think is "magical"-- really isn't. Humans are pretty easy to fool. It's a bit humbling to come to the conclusion that you've fooled yourself. But after that it can be liberating-- because you learn how to prevent it.

[Dogdoctor]

Concerning the op that skepticism is worthless. He is saying it is useless because you can't convince others that something is bogus using skepticism. Skepticism is not a tool for teaching others and is a tool for people to use to evaluate stuff themselves. Because it is not very effective in convincing others doesn't mean it isn't effective in determining what ideas are likely to be true by the scientific evidence supporting or not supporting those ideas. If you could teach others to use skepticism that would go much further than convincing someone to change their mind on a specific topic . Skepticism can be taught. This will alter the amount of nonsense believed by others
although not get rid of it entirely since you won't be able to convince everyone else to use skepticism for everything. Ian seems to be saying you need to have everyone agreeing with you or a philosophy isn't useful.

[quarky]

woo is useful to people, in certain doses. not all woo is alike. there is chumpy woo, wherein one believes in a lie or a scam. there's more philosophical woo, like spiritual beliefs about what happens after death. it is possible that there is a survival advantage in holding onto an irrational belief.

pro-active skepticism is up against a wall. its 'vibe', in a crowd of beleievers, is that of 'balloon popper'. initially, the news is never good, for the wooster. explaining the math of a pyramid scheme to people that believe they will get rich is no fun for anyone.

skeptics also risk being seen as uber-rational; overly efficient...as though the might become facists. it may be fun to read the ingrediants of your girlfriend's hair conditioner to her; to point out what it mostly is, and how little avocado is in it...but its never fun for her.

as mentioned by someone else, the skeptic also risks coming off as a 'know it all' in a group of less convinced types. meanwhile, some of the non-skeptic types may actually be having a pretty good life, in spite of their irrational beliefs. some of them are well adjusted to life on earth, even if they have an idiotic zone in their makeup.

lastly,
its not as though we of scientific bent have all the answers; or that we too won't eventually die. perhaps consciousness and perception is actually over our heads...and that an inability to embrace a capacity for something 'magic' is not the same as intelligence; that we find refuge from the overwhelming strangeness of the very fact of existence through the cock-sure foundation of reason.

for these reasons, i feel it is essential to wear a funny hat while debunking.
or to take on a surrogate religion; to pretend that you are irrational too, in some small corner of your life. we need some buffer against the sureness of our stance.

[Apology]

My girlfriend was a self professed witch and clairvoyant. As a devout scientist and skeptic I have always opposed those beliefs and gradually shifted her to a more reasonable point of view. Although she no long purports or tries to employ her “abilities” as a witch she still claims clairvoyance. I have explained to her the hot reading, cold reading and positive feedback techniques she is unknowingly using and she does see this, but retains that she has an underlying ability to know details of peoples lives without any input or confirmation. I keep working on her whenever it comes up but do not press the issue to the point where it affects our relationship. I just think that I should not try to force it and that she has to reach the finial conclusion on her own.

:shy: Every once in a while I decide that it's better to be loved than to be right :blush:

[-Fran-]

:shy: Every once in a while I decide that it's better to be loved than to be right :blush:

Yeah, so you say nothing, and she/he thinks you think the same as her/him since you're not saying anything else, and then one day she/he finds out what you really think, and then she/he'll start to wonder if you've gone around thinking she/he's a nut all along, or maybe even that you've been lying to them... and thats the start of the end right there... :D

[The Man]

Yeah, so you say nothing, and she/he thinks you think the same as her/him since you're not saying anything else, and then one day she/he finds out what you really think, and then she/he'll start to wonder if you've gone around thinking she/he's a nut all along, or maybe even that you've been lying to them... and thats the start of the end right there... :D



Both of us know the others positions and we speak quite frankly and openly about all things. We may differ in opinion and beliefs, which we discuss and debate but never really argue. It because we are free and open with our opinions and believes and respect our differences that the relationship has worked. We never try to force the other to something or present something as an ultimatum.

[-Fran-]

Both of us know the others positions and we speak quite frankly and openly about all things. We may differ in opinion and beliefs, which we discuss and debate but never really argue. It because we are free and open with our opinions and believes and respect our differences that the relationship has worked. We never try to force the other to something or present something as an ultimatum.

Yes, that's what I mean. If you refrain from saying what you think (and there's no reason that can't be done nicely and with respect) about things because you want the other one to like you, it's likely to backfire on you sooner or later. It is more respectful in the long run, I think, to be honest when your significant other expresses a belief in woo.

[The Man]

Yes, that's what I mean. If you refrain from saying what you think (and there's no reason that can't be done nicely and with respect) about things because you want the other one to like you, it's likely to backfire on you sooner or later. It is more respectful in the long run, I think, to be honest when your significant other expresses a belief in woo.



That’s what I figured but just wanted to make sure everyone was clear on that point and also to note that even if your significant other has some woo belief that you point out as such, it does not have to be a breaking point unless either of you choose to make it that way.

[luchog]

I can honestly and in all modesty say that I have, in fact, had a few successes. Not many, but a few.

Two friends I managed to convert away from their anti-vax stance; through no other method than simply and politely providing evidence which refuted their position (specifically, the vax=autism nonsense).

Another friend I managed to partially convert away from some of her woo; particularly with regard to the What the Bleep Do We Know nonsense. She's still pretty much a fluff-bunny woo on a lot of other stuff, though.

I'm slowly managing to convert one friend away from the 9/11 troother conspiracy nonsense. He still believes a lot of it, but not as much as he used to, and very little of the more ridiculous stuff.

I've managed to convince a couple of others that homeopathy is nonsense, although they still believe in a lot of medical woo.

Unfortunately, that only covers a tiny fragment of the woo believers I know. But even a small victory is a victory.

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

Like Robert, I receive enough positive emails from The Millenium Project (http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/) to encourage me that there are people out there who will listen. I don't expect to change true believers, but they aren't my targets; the targets are people who have suspicions or doubts and are prepared to weigh evidence and argument.....

Today I listened to Mark Crislip's podcast on influenza myths:
http://www.quackcast.com/QuackCast/Podcasts/Entries/2007/10/22_Quackcast_20._Influenza_myths.html

He mentioned Ratbags.com as a great place to visit, he really likes your take on "anti-vax liars".

[quarky]

Modern enlightened humans have no need for woo. They have movies and video games and all manner of abstractions wherein they are able to suspend reason. They have the big game on monday.

Less civilized types have other means to suspend rational thought.
Religious ceremonies and the like.

Point being that our minds must invent things.
It doesn't matter a whole lot what it is we invent to offset the oppression of constant reason. But it may matter that we recognize this proclivity.

In terms of the overall survival outlook for humans, it could be suggested that we would have had a better chance without science.

My background is in science. I have been frustrated by woo-believers for 50 years.
I am also frustrated by the arrogance of science.
look at the mess we're in.

its not because of woo.

[Jeff Corey]

...In terms of the overall survival outlook for humans, it could be suggested that we would have had a better chance without science...
How so? In the sense that if we were still hominids who never harnessed fire or fused the hydrogen atom, we might be living in some idyllic eden, merely smashing each other with rocks and never threatening the biosphere?

[PBTree]

That’s what I figured but just wanted to make sure everyone was clear on that point and also to note that even if your significant other has some woo belief that you point out as such, it does not have to be a breaking point unless either of you choose to make it that way.

But have you had the conversation re what will happen when either of you pass away.

Have you discussed whether either of you will forget your beliefs, or lack thereof and bury the other in their manner.

You might not care if you are worm food but what about the partner?

Always a doozy that one.

My missus tells me I am going into the bin for Thursday mornings rubbish pick up....

[Apology]

Modern enlightened humans have no need for woo. They have movies and video games and all manner of abstractions wherein they are able to suspend reason. They have the big game on monday.

Less civilized types have other means to suspend rational thought.
Religious ceremonies and the like.

Point being that our minds must invent things.
It doesn't matter a whole lot what it is we invent to offset the oppression of constant reason. But it may matter that we recognize this proclivity.

In terms of the overall survival outlook for humans, it could be suggested that we would have had a better chance without science.

My background is in science. I have been frustrated by woo-believers for 50 years.
I am also frustrated by the arrogance of science.
look at the mess we're in.

its not because of woo.

Yeah, but I'm not going to stop loving my mom because she still believes in crystals, and I'm not going to let every visit turn into an argument over her crystal thing. I like crystals, they're beautiful. I just don't believe that they do anything other than look pretty. She has some very fine raw specimens in her collection. I have a few myself because people give them to me.

I had a little hoard of good-sized chunks of raw black obsidian squirreled away that I finally redistributed to people who wanted pieces, and unfortunately most of them were woos. :blush: My advice to them when I gave them the specimens: "This rock is actually natural glass and will lay you open like a knife if you're not careful with it. It also shatters when you drop it, so beware. Keep out of reach of children." I know they were expecting some sort of crystal power instruction because the books apparently rave about the qualities of this stone, so they were disappointed there, but the piece of obsidian itself was a score so they left happy anyway.

I love the amethyst specimen that my dad bought me. I just don't think it can do anything mystical that the fossil he bought me before that can't do. Plus it makes it easy to pick out gifts. They're not pouring their life savings into it either, it's just a hobby, although they've swallowed some woo along the way somehow. My collection just has a wider variety of minerals other than crystals, crystals, crystals. :D

I guess I'm saying that if it's not particularly harmful and she's really important to me (which she is) I can't see why she shouldn't have her crystals. I wish she'd use the Audubon Guide instead, but the woo book is easier reading (even though it's bunk) and the pictures are much larger and better.

My mother and I have agreed to disagree about crystals, because she believes they work, I don't believe they do, and neither one of us seems likely to change sides. At this point, I'd just be bullying her. It would be worth it to bully her if she were giving her life savings to Sylvia Browne at $1,000 an hour for Sylvia's precious time. It's not worth it over a few books and some crystals samples that I will undoubtedly add to my collection when she dies.

That's what I mean when I say "Sometimes it's better to be loved, than to be right." It's an oversimplification, but it works as a secular mantra when your dearest loved ones are driving you nuts.

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

I had a very slight success today. My parents, sister and cousin had dinner with our woo woo friend and her woo woo friend tonight and psychic surgeons came up.

I responded by challenging my friend with the Million Dollar Prize and turning on a computer and showing them a clip of James Randi demonstrating psychic surgery on The Tonight Show and making them read parts of the SWIFT entry about the ABC show on John of God.

I did make the friend of a friend remember a German she had met who told her he had gone to John of God three times for a problem with his eyesight and finally had it resolved with corrective surgery. Allthough she did tell me she had also met someone who had their eyesight problems resolved.

Partial success, at least?

[-Fran-]

Yeah, but I'm not going to stop loving my mom because she still believes in crystals,

Oh, I really hope not! :(


and I'm not going to let every visit turn into an argument over her crystal thing. I like crystals, they're beautiful. I just don't believe that they do anything other than look pretty. She has some very fine raw specimens in her collection. I have a few myself because people give them to me.

I know what you are saying and I definitely agree with you that there is no use in bringing it up as soon as you see your friends and relatives. I rarely say a word about all the woo around me. But the ones who are close to me should know where I stand, and if they ask I am honest with what I think.

I've seen many examples of, and been guilty of a few myself, though where not saying anything has made people assume that you actually share their woo. Silence to many enthusiastic woos are the same as agreeing it seems :) And then when these people have figured out that I don't believe the same stuff, I have actually been accused of decieving them. They think me some sort of traitor who, according to them, walked around all this time thinking they were nuts, and didn't say. So, yeah, to those that I care about I am straight and honest these days, but that's not the same thing as constantly bringing it up, or trying to convert them. Just to let them know where I stand, so there will be no misunderstandings.


I had a little hoard of good-sized chunks of raw black obsidian squirreled away that I finally redistributed to people who wanted pieces, and unfortunately most of them were woos. :blush: My advice to them when I gave them the specimens: "This rock is actually natural glass and will lay you open like a knife if you're not careful with it. It also shatters when you drop it, so beware. Keep out of reach of children." I know they were expecting some sort of crystal power instruction because the books apparently rave about the qualities of this stone, so they were disappointed there, but the piece of obsidian itself was a score so they left happy anyway.

Hee, I've been collecting rocks all my life :) I am a real amateur, but I find it very interesting and I like to both buy stuff and look for it myself. I like crystals and fossils, but enjoy any pebble that looks nice :o I haven't had the chance to really explore this hobby as much as I would have liked to though (no money, no time, bad health in periods) so the actual collecting is very irregular. I have plenty of crystals, mineral and fossils, as well as a lot of sea shells (as a side hobby). I have no room to display it all though, sadly, most of it is packed in boxes these days.

It has always annoyed me a bit that as a skeptic you almost have to excuse an interest in minerals, because, well, it is woo territory all right :) Before when I did have some of my collection displayed, I constantly had to deal with woo related questions, such as "what do this crystal do?" I usually answered, "not much these days, it just lies there on the shelf most of the time." :) And it used to be rather funny, but almost surreal to go into New Age stores and such places (where you can often buy rather nice specimens for a moderate price). I bought a geode in one such store and the nice but wooey lady behind the counter said the geode would bring me love. I told her such a small geode wouldn't cut it, I would need a whole ******* mountain for that (I was in a bit cynical mood at the time, I guess, after a recently broken up relationship:D).


I love the amethyst specimen that my dad bought me. I just don't think it can do anything mystical that the fossil he bought me before that can't do. Plus it makes it easy to pick out gifts. They're not pouring their life savings into it either, it's just a hobby, although they've swallowed some woo along the way somehow. My collection just has a wider variety of minerals other than crystals, crystals, crystals. :D

Crystals are most popular for their undeniable (and sometimes gaudy) beauty, I guess. But I agree that there are many other interesting stuff as well, and even the simplest looking specimen often hold a beauty of its own, I think. Have you been in Prague? They have a rather large, and old mineral collection in a museum there which I spend HOURS in, on vacation with a friend. She was less amused :)


I guess I'm saying that if it's not particularly harmful and she's really important to me (which she is) I can't see why she shouldn't have her crystals. I wish she'd use the Audubon Guide instead, but the woo book is easier reading (even though it's bunk) and the pictures are much larger and better.

Of course she should have her crystals! Maybe you can even sneak some interesting geek facts in with them? :)


My mother and I have agreed to disagree about crystals, because she believes they work, I don't believe they do, and neither one of us seems likely to change sides. At this point, I'd just be bullying her. It would be worth it to bully her if she were giving her life savings to Sylvia Browne at $1,000 an hour for Sylvia's precious time. It's not worth it over a few books and some crystals samples that I will undoubtedly add to my collection when she dies.

I agree. Though the woo beliefs about crystals is my pet peeve, I guess :)


That's what I mean when I say "Sometimes it's better to be loved, than to be right." It's an oversimplification, but it works as a secular mantra when your dearest loved ones are driving you nuts.

I see better what you mean now. :)

ETA:
Just as a bizarre side note, talking of minerals and seashells. One of my art teachers (from many years ago) was as woo as they come. I think to this day she holds the record of most wooish person I have met in the flesh. Once, at a visit, she admired my sea shells, and as we talked about them I eventually came to realize that she actually believed the sound you can sometimes hear in shells is some sort of "being" :boggled: I could never get her to explain what this entity really is, I think she meant it was kind of the "soul of the shell" or something like that. Any explanation from me about shells working as a resonance box catching ambient sounds from the environment was met with a blank stare. That just boggled me so much :boggled: :D

[arthwollipot]

I've had a couple of successes. There was one guy who was a moonhoaxer I managed to convince otherwise. He claimed that there was something to the tales - I was able to show him that there really wasn't. And then there was the utter failure with an astrology demonstration with another person.

On another forum I and others managed to convince one young fellow that evolution wasn't the fraud that he was convinced it was.

And of course, there was my recent "win" with a good friend who thought that the $1M challenge was a fraud.

[articulett]

I've had a couple of successes. There was one guy who was a moonhoaxer I managed to convince otherwise. He claimed that there was something to the tales - I was able to show him that there really wasn't. And then there was the utter failure with an astrology demonstration with another person.

On another forum I and others managed to convince one young fellow that evolution wasn't the fraud that he was convinced it was.

And of course, there was my recent "win" with a good friend who thought that the $1M challenge was a fraud.

Planting seeds... who knows what will survive and bloom. We all had such seeds planted in us... People just want to feel like they've reached their conclusions themselves--

Good Job arthwopolliwot! I think seeing a showing a randi clip is a good start... you can't help but think... and letting people know about the MDC.

And you can practice on people who come to a skeptics forum... and try out techniques you might want to use in real life. Not every battle needs to be fought. But it does feel good to plant an occasional seed that might bloom into a person who thinks more critically. The world could use more of that.

And apology... I shamefacedly admit that I was "into" crystals and other newager things as I left religion. I found out about skepticism and Randi in a Skeptical Inquirer that was for sale in a New Age bookstore (go figure.) They had Carl Sagan books there too. There's a lot of fuzz between science and pseudoscience and it takes a little practice to figure out the difference. I feel like I figured out myself. But that magazine made a big impression... and so have many people since. I was always skeptical... but I didn't realize that you could test things. It took me a while to realize faith and feelings were NOT good ways to find out what was true. The predominant belief in most cultures is that it is-- that it's the only way to "higher truths". It took me a long time to realize there's no such things as "higher truths".

[arthwollipot]

Not every battle needs to be fought. But it does feel good to plant an occasional seed that might bloom into a person who thinks more critically. The world could use more of that.This completely mirrors my opinion.

There was a post recently on a community on LiveJournal where someone was looking for a good but cheap acupuncturist. I responded basically "No, but I can give you a placebo for nothing - it'll work just as well". I was prepared to leave it at that, but a good mate of mine just had to go too far and get everyone on the community to hate him for it. :) It's a fine line we tread, this planting seeds business.

[quarky]

I have problems with friends that want to invent things that defy thermodynamics.
Its not so much woo beliefs that they have...its a basic lack of scientific knowledge.
They want to get free energy. They aren't thrilled to stand corrected, but I feel it is the right thing to do. I'd hate to see them investing time and $ into a doomed project.

I've never met a big-foot affecianado, or an abductee. Not sure what I'd do. Could be fun.

[The Man]

But have you had the conversation re what will happen when either of you pass away.

Have you discussed whether either of you will forget your beliefs, or lack thereof and bury the other in their manner.

You might not care if you are worm food but what about the partner?

Always a doozy that one.

My missus tells me I am going into the bin for Thursday mornings rubbish pick up....

Actually she has requested to be cremated with some of her ashes spread in our back yard and some in her son’s yard. Out of respect for her wishes, I would comply

Me I’m not so particular, although I have always fancied a Viking type funeral. Just put me in a boat light me on fire and cast me out to sea, other then that, you could just leave me where I fall for all I care.

[jimtron]

Its not so much woo beliefs that they have...its a basic lack of scientific knowledge.

That's a major source of the woo problem in general. If more people had a better understanding of science (including why it's important and why it's the best method we have so far for understanding the world), they would realize just how outlandish much of the woo really is.

[Autolite]

If more people had a better understanding of science (including why it's important and why it's the best method we have so far for understanding the world), they would realize just how outlandish much of the woo really is.

Aye, there's the rub. I've found in many cases that folks do not want a better understanding of science. They'd rather wallow in woo ignorance than allow someone to explain it away ...

[-Fran-]

There's the rub. I've found in many cases that folks do not want a better understanding of science. They'd rather wallow in woo ignorance than allow someone to explain it away ...

The world is a nicer place to some, it seems, when sea shells have a soul :rolleyes: