Ethics of Posting

[Prester John]

What are peoples opinions about posting on boards like Hpathy as a sceptic? I can understand a homeopaths point of view that all we do is disrupt. Is this a valid argument or do we have a right to put forward alternative points of view ?

This is not a post about homeopathy but rather the issues around posting on boards hostile to your opinion. Obviously the board owners/admins can ban whomever they like but thats not the point.

PJ

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

If the forum's introduction does not say something like "Please don't come here if you disagree with us," then it seems entirely reasonable to post alternate opinions. They can, as you say, always gag or ban you.

~~ Paul

[bignickel]

Someone once said something on the line of "I do not wish to believe, but to find out."

If they can't handle explanations that better fit Occam's razor, or challenges that their medical theories have no basis in fact, then they are practising a religion, not a science.

If that is the case, they can state it from the get-go, and we'd have no reason to go over to their boards.

But until they do, they are inviting us: by hosting a FORUM.

Not a chorus.

[chance]

Quote:

the issues around posting on boards hostile to your opinion.

If you invited with no strings attached (e.g. no statement of faith), then I see no ethical problem, all that is required is to abide by the hosts rules.

[Rolfe]

At the simple level, I agree with Paul.

At a more complex level, to quote Pontius Pilate, "what is truth?" We believe we're right to try to get through to them, or at least to the lurkers, because we're right. They believe that we're just trying to annoy them, because they are the superior intellects and we are deeply stupid trolls who just don't understand their rarified thought processes.

I was reading a thread (this one here) where someone came in and said she'd had a post rejected by a regular medicine discussion group, when she suggested that certain people posting there might benefit from some non-standard homoeopathy sort of thing. I find I can't quote a little bit without wanting to quote the lot, but basically she feels she is in the right, "hoping to bring some light into their dark journeys toward death - I wasn't pushing a methodology at anyone but genuinely thought my suggestion might help these people live through horrible experiences." But at the same time she uses this experience of censorship to raise a heartfelt cry for everyone who raises questions about the effectiveness of homoeopathy to be banned from the H'pathy board - probably starting with Prester John. She has absolute confidence that the only motive anyone could have for coming to a homoeopathy board with contrary opinions is malice.

Of course there's no reason to ban or censor homoeopaths on this board, as its express purpose is to have a free discussion of all points of view. But I do have a lot of sympathy with the admin of the real medicine list who didn't want vulnerable people being talked into giving up their "increasingly higher doses of allo meds" in favour of something called "rescue remedy" (which even Hahnemann would have denounced).

How do we resolve this beyond each side simply yelling "I have the right to disseminate my opinion because I'm right" across an unbridgeable gulf?

I'm not sure you can, and in the end it comes back to Paul's view. If they want to ban people, they can. HH did. It's perfectly easy to set up a completely closed forum where membership is by vetted application only. If they don't do this, I think it's reasonable to assume they're open to contrary opinion, and act accordingly.

Edited to add: I took so long to write that that others got in first! Yes, Bignickel's religion comment is very pertinent. If they admitted openly that they're purely faith-based and in effect practising magic, I would have much less of a problem with them. It's the constant adoption of scientific posturing while making a complete mockery of genuine scientific thought that I find so offensive.

Rolfe.

[patnray]

It is not disrurptive behavior to their forum to ask legitimate questions. It may, however, be disruptive to their belief systems. Clearly they do not want to deal with questions about the validity of their beliefs.

[Rolfe]

Quote:

Originally posted by patnray
It is not disrurptive behavior to their forum to ask legitimate questions. It may, however, be disruptive to their belief systems. Clearly they do not want to deal with questions about the validity of their beliefs.

Jeez, you put that so much better than I did, and in about a tenth of the words!

Rolfe.

[hammegk]

Are you suggesting materialists/atheists are not the same in their "responses" to question about their beliefs?

[Rolfe]

Quote:

Originally posted by hammegk
Are you suggesting materialists/atheists are not the same in their "responses" to question about their beliefs?

No, indeed. I think they can probably react in exactly the same way. I've seen atheism defended with all the fervour of fundamentalist religion. However, there is a big difference here, and it's a matter of making real-world testable claims.

I was really acknowledging that the reaction from the H'pathy crowd was not one of people open to genuine discussion, but of people whose belief system was desperately threatened. It points up the fact that homoeopathy is a belief system in a very fundamental sense of the term, as indeed atheism can be.

Scientific medicine is populated by human beings, and they have the usual human dislike of admitting they have been wrong. This can take reasonable scepticism of a new and challenging idea way beyond what's justified and into the realms of petty territorialism, no doubt. But what goes on with the homoeopaths is way beyond that, and into the category of religious belief.

I have no problem with religious belief. But religious belief masquerading as a branch of scientific medicine, making real-world testable claims while refusing to acknowledge any negative evidence for these claims, gets my hackles up.

Rolfe.

[Dancing David]

Well, just as there is the newbie flaming phenomena, there is this other phenomena.

There are christians who go to pagan boards to debate thier views.
There are believers of various sorts who come to sceptics borads.
There are sceptics who go to Rapture Ready and other believer' boards.
I am sure that there are liberals who go to conservative boards and versa visa.

What is the intention of any of these individuals when they go to a board of a different persuaion?

Everybody hates to have thier beliefs challenged.

[Dancing David]

Quote:

Originally posted by hammegk
Are you suggesting materialists/atheists are not the same in their "responses" to question about their beliefs?

Oh man, now I have to clean my computer screen, rotflmao.

[Eos of the Eons]

The one big reason I like these boards is that people like rouser are not banned, no matter how annoying they are. The boards that ban people that come in with reasonable arguments and actual facts are sad sad examples of people that can't defend their ridiculous claims against reason.

[Rolfe]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dancing David
There are christians who go to pagan boards to debate thier views.....

What is the intention of any of these individuals when they go to a board of a different persuaion?

Everybody hates to have thier beliefs challenged.

I think, in my fumbling and inept way, I'm trying to make a distinction between pure belief systems, and "belief system" masquerading as testable scientific fact.

Debating something essentially philosophical, where you can't design and execute an experiment to test it one way or the other, is one thing, but a testable claim about the real world is a different matter.

Homoeopaths try to present their subject as scientific and factual. They constantly make claims that are objectively testable in the real world. However, their response to the mountains of evidence indicating that the world (and in particular their remedies) don't work the way they say they work, is not to consider this objectively, but to react in the way that someone would react when a philosophical belief is challenged.

"I believe that content-free sugar pills can cure illness" is capable of a different quality of debate from "I believe in God", but you wouldn't think it to listen to the homoeopaths.

Rolfe.

[Phil63]

"They believe that we're just trying to annoy them, because they are the superior intellects and we are deeply stupid trolls who just don't understand their rarified thought processes."


Oh - please Rolfe, what a load...

[BTox]

Quote:

Originally posted by Phil63


Oh - please Rolfe, what a load...

Second voting suspect....

[Suezoled]

Quote:

Originally posted by Phil63
"They believe that we're just trying to annoy them, because they are the superior intellects and we are deeply stupid trolls who just don't understand their rarified thought processes."


Oh - please Rolfe, what a load...

Maybe. Or maybe, Rolfe, they just don't want their fantasy and hopes crushed by the myriad unreliability of reality. Some folks are genuinely misled. Some are very like the fanatical wherein any questions are seen as a threat to their belief system, and therefore bad.

[Rolfe]

Quote:

Originally posted by BTox
Second voting suspect....

I don't mind belief system. But I'm awfully hung up on objective reality. Don't like people who make real-world scientific claims then won't even look at the real-world scientific evidence that these claims are a load of BS.

Rolfe.

[Prester John]

I am somewhat dissapointed that:

Quote:

Oh - please Rolfe, what a load...

is the closest anyone has come to presenting an anti posting view. Hardly convincing.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I like having the 'believers' on a sceptic board like this, it keeps things lively and keeps the residents disciplined in their thinking. The problem with the woo-woo boards is that they simply don't like contrary views at all. The mere holding of a contrary view on those boards is equated to trolling. I also see the t-word overused at JREF as a put-down. I'm quite happy for an idiot to make an idiot of themselves, what isn't fair is to present a face on the board that is different from the user's true views in order to sucker in opponents. But even this stance is problematical. I have definitely trolled at woo-woo boards by dissembling my true intentions in order to try to make them answer questions that they refuse even to address from an overt sceptic. But part of me thinks that is just a fair tactic to use against adults who can look after themselves. Trolls appearing here seem to get 'outed' quite quickly and end up being regarded as a source of entertainment. I think though that in the rough and tumble of internet debating you have to remember you are in a public place and should expect to have your views disputed publicly.

At HomeopathyHome there has been twittering about how nice it is to have their front window on the world unsullied by sceptics, which reveals the narrowness of their minds and their insecurity. My big problem with the homeopaths is that I really do think they are committing fraud and need to be confronted. If people of their ilk present themselves to a medicine board and say Big Drug is evil that is their right, but I would expect the resident experts to argue them down.

In the end I think a public board should accept all-comers and bar people who are simply personally abusive, but not just for ruffling feathers by daring to disagree.

If you don't want the enemy to come and play then be a closed forum. If you want to be a public window for your beliefs then put up with the opposition who want to join in. With Rolfe's example of a homeopath entering a medical forum, I think that should be dealt with by having a chorus of reasoned opposition put up, not just insults or appeals to ban the offender.

[Phil63]

"
"Second voting suspect...."

no - I have more maturity than to make fake votes - like some folks I know.

[geni]

Don't worry we know who was responcible for the voting spree. We know it wasn't you.

[Eos of the Eons]

Quote:

Originally posted by Phil63
"
"Second voting suspect...."

no - I have more maturity than to make fake votes - like some folks I know.

***tries to look innocent***

Well, to me they weren't fake, cause it really did suck, but I guess the voter thinks the same of this place.


At least we can handle it without thinking the world is coming to an end.

[Phil63]

"At least we can handle it without thinking the world is coming to an end."

I wasn't aware the write of the ezine felt the world was coming to an end - you do realize the ezine and hpathy forum are two seperate, albiet related things???

[geni]

On the basais that both fall apart at the faintest mention of reality who cares? Also the forum does inculde a section on the ezine and if you are an ezine member you have to earn a certian number of points posting in the forum in order to stay a member. They seem fairly well linked to me.

[Phil63]

"On the basais that both fall apart at the faintest mention of reality who cares" Uh - when did anyone from the ezine team fall apart from the poll BS you guys enjoyed? Since your asking - I care. In fact, when did anyone here have anything to do with the ezine other than the childish antics? How would you know what they are doing at all?

"ezine member you have to earn a certian number of points posting in the forum in order to stay a member" uh - not true.

[geni]

Quote:

Originally posted by Phil63

"ezine member you have to earn a certian number of points posting in the forum in order to stay a member" uh - not true.

Err yes it is:

Quote:

. It is necessary to collect at least 25 points by article submission and 20 points from discussion forums.

http://www.hpathy.com/teamguidelines.asp

[geni]

Quote:

Originally posted by Phil63
Uh - when did anyone from the ezine team fall apart from the poll BS you guys enjoyed?

Did I say a person? There arguments and articles both fall apart when exposed to reality


Since your asking - I care. In fact, when did anyone here have anything to do with the ezine other than the childish antics? How would you know what they are doing at all?


I read what they wrote thats how (there is thread around here somewhere called how would you rate the second homeopathy ezine) They also have a 4 page thread on the mounthly poll (If you want to know how I know this read starburn's comments in the feedback forum) personly I though the whole subject would merit about 2 posts but never mind.

[Phil63]

Oh my lord - what conciete. Is it possible the 4 page thread on the monthly poll was to discuss ALL poll results????? Not just the folks from Randi-land?

and Errr - no it isn't true. The points system is to become an Hpathy team member - NOT an ezine contibutor - clearly stated on the page you quoted. As I said, although related, they arte seperate entities.

[geni]

Quote:

Originally posted by Phil63
Oh my lord - what conciete. Is it possible the 4 page thread on the monthly poll was to discuss ALL poll results????? Not just the folks from Randi-land?

Pervious dicussions on polls have never gone beyond 5 posts. Of course they may have doing an indepth analysis of "What a fantastic homeopathic journal. A credit to all that has worked on it" but the whay that thread took off just after people form the JREF forum's started voting is a mite suspious no?


and Errr - no it isn't true. The points system is to become an Hpathy team member - NOT an ezine contibutor - clearly stated on the page you quoted. As I said, although related, they arte seperate entities.

On the basis that every contribture that I know the forum name of seem to be at last a silver member I think we can conlude that the various parts of Bhatia-land are fairly well interconected.

[Phil63]

Yes - they are connected, as I said - but your point system is wrong. That's all I am saying.

[geni]

Unless you can show an ezine contributor who is not a hpathy member the point is irrelvant. Perhaps in the future they will drift apart but for now they are inextricably linked.

[Frederick Troteville]

Quote:

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
The one big reason I like these boards is that people like rouser are not banned, no matter how annoying they are. The boards that ban people that come in with reasonable arguments and actual facts are sad sad examples of people that can't defend their ridiculous claims against reason.

But I think it would be reasonable to say the majority of skeptics are not reasonable in their skepticism? No? They generally tend to be too fervent in their dismissal of anything lying off the beaten path of current scientific understanding.

[geni]

Quote:

Originally posted by Frederick Troteville


But I think it would be reasonable to say the majority of skeptics are not reasonable in their skepticism? No? They generally tend to be too fervent in their dismissal of anything lying off the beaten path of current scientific understanding.

If you provide good evidence to back up your postion I will consider it. If you don't don't be suppriesed if sceptics dismiss you.

[Phil63]

Actually Geni there are contibutory writers of the ezine that are not members of hpathy.

[Phil63]

and regarding your previous comment "Pervious dicussions on polls have never gone beyond 5 posts" - uh, because the previos polls where not about the EZINE as this was the first issue and being as it went out to hundreds or thousands of folks it would generate more discussion. Believe me Geni - you guys are not the constant topic of discussion of there at the ezine site. Sorry to burst your bubbles. Though I find it interesting how much discussion you folks seem to give hpathy or hhbb. And the majority of the discussion is not about scientific evidence for homeopathy but rather specific discussion about the "woo woos" .

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Quote:

Originally posted by Phil63
Actually Geni there are contibutory writers of the ezine that are not members of hpathy.

Who cares one way or the other how some homeopaths organise their housekeeping? It's the same half-dozen dimwits who appear across all the main homeopathy sites. Perhaps they never notice how few they are: still plotting while the world carries on regardless (or as the Americans appear to have decided without reference to common sense philology: 'irregardless'- bastard child of 'regardless' and 'irrespective'. But I digress).

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Quote:

Originally posted by Phil63
Though I find it interesting how much discussion you folks seem to give hpathy or hhbb. And the majority of the discussion is not about scientific evidence for homeopathy but rather specific discussion about the "woo woos" .

Where is the mystery? They are a fascinating branch of lower intellectual life. It's a perennial interest in turning over another stone and seeing what mad idea crawls out blinking into the daylight.

[geni]

Hmmm we now know that Phil63 caqn acess the ezine forum. That somewhat narrows down the list of suspects.

[geni]

Quote:

Originally posted by Phil63
Actually Geni there are contibutory writers of the ezine that are not members of hpathy.

Really? Name some

[Eos of the Eons]

Quote:

Originally posted by Frederick Troteville


But I think it would be reasonable to say the majority of skeptics are not reasonable in their skepticism? No? They generally tend to be too fervent in their dismissal of anything lying off the beaten path of current scientific understanding. [/b]

No, they generally listen and then ask questions. People become fervent when folks like Rouser can't back up their claims and contradict themselves.

What is "scientific understanding"?

I dismiss ridiculous claims (unbacked) and obvious falsehoods. Anything off the beaten path is more than welcome, or I would have been booted out of the thread on "what is space".

The discussion there isn't exactly "scientific" on my end, and nothing I posted is "scientific".

At least I don't tell everyone else they are wrong, they do have more knowledge on the subject than I do. It would be disrespectful of me to tell them what they know is wrong even though I don't agree with it. It would be arrogant of me to claim I'm right when I have no way to prove it.

If I did tell them they were wrong and I was right, then yes, they would have every right to laugh my arse outta the thread, and even fervently tell me to shut it.

The homeopaths are the opposite. They are right (without proof), and everyone else is wrong for not putting their "faith" in it.