What's the point?

[john_v_h]

... of the weekly lampoon which is Randi's commentary? I sympathize with the skeptic point of view, but I've been following the commentaries for a year now, and it's all rather monotonous. What is the point in clucking at every new whacko claim that comes along? Especially considering that this Web site is preaching (for the most part) to a very accomplished choir. Is there more to this than the same old schtick?

[Operaider]

it is kinda silly that he has to keep posting these silly claims

even stranger is that people are still believing in it

How's this for a deal.
No more commentaries about stupid claims
in exchange for no more people making stupid claims

[Soapy Sam]

john_v_h I understand your point of view. I used to subscribe to the "Sceptical Enquirer", but allowed it to lapse through boredom at the repetitive nature of the articles. It also seemed to take a superior air regarding the "poor deluded fools", which I found rather grated on my nerves.

The problem is one of perspective. To an educated and sceptical mind, so much of this stuff is just simple stupidity. We feel sorry for the believers , rather than getting angry. We wonder why anyone would bother to debunk it or report it or mock it. It mocks itself.

But that's not at all the sole available viewpoint. Many people genuinely ARE taken in by the events Randi mocks. Some people cynically profit from them.

(Note -I don't speak for JREF, this is my personal view only).
I assume Randi's POV is that it's better to mock in the hope that those nearing the event horizon of belief, poised for the long fall, may change course before it's too late.

I also suspect that having seen the negative side of this close up for so long, Randi has grown pretty contemptuous of the charlatans and the gullible alike and has given up any attempt to concel that fact, like a cynical old cop, who has seen too much of the dark side.

SWIFT doesn't help me and (by the sound of it) does not help you, because we don't need that sort of help. It would be nice to know how many folk it does help, or whether the column would be more useful if written in some other style. I'm sure if you or anyone have ideas, JREF would welcome the input.
Or, have you considered writing a column yourself, in a different style?

[epepke]

Quote:

Originally posted by john_v_h
... of the weekly lampoon which is Randi's commentary? I sympathize with the skeptic point of view, but I've been following the commentaries for a year now, and it's all rather monotonous. What is the point in clucking at every new whacko claim that comes along? Especially considering that this Web site is preaching (for the most part) to a very accomplished choir. Is there more to this than the same old schtick?

It depends.

I sort of agree with the other readers who don't subscribe to SI any more. Although it also seems to me that the quality went down when they switched to a color large format many years ago, also, much of it seems repetitive.

I also get tired of the conversations that actors have. They seem to me to get old very fast. On the other hand, some people probably think that endless conversations about computers get old very fast.

You see, though, actors are always thinking about acting. Geeks are always thinking about acting. People like Randi, who receive an enormous number of claims each day and are trying desperately to separate the promising ones from the chaff are always thinking about this.

You're a sympathizer, so you're not in the same position as he is. I'm maybe slightly stronger than a sympathizer, but not anywhere near his level. I don't read the commentaries regularly. However, occasionally, when some really egregious gullibility affects me locally, I go read a half dozen of the commentaries, and it makes me feel less alone, which gives me enough good feeling to get up and do what I can.

[Hand Bent Spoon]

I don't think I'm alone in finding value in the commentaries. If you don't like them, you know where the door is.

[john_v_h]

Quote:

Originally posted by Hand Bent Spoon
I don't think I'm alone in finding value in the commentaries. If you don't like them, you know where the door is.

Not impressed by your argumentum ad populum (look it up). So sorry to push over your apple cart.

Quote:

I've been following the commentaries for a year now, and it's all rather monotonous

Quite a glutton for monotony, aren't you?

Frankly, in a world full of people who will believe anything and call you closed minded if you dare doubt their dogma, its refreshing to listen, once a week, to someone who shares your views.

Personally, I think Michael Shermer (http://www.skeptic.com) writes much more enlightening and interesting things. He does it only once a month, maybe you can switch to reading that site for your dose of monotony.

Each commentary has the potential to be some readers' FIRST exposure to Randi's column. The column is written (it seems to me) to be easily accessible, even for first time readers.

So, maybe you only found value in reading the commentaries for the first 6 months or so. So what? It was free. What are you complaining about?

[BanthaTracks]

Quote:

Originally posted by john_v_h
Not impressed by your argumentum ad populum (look it up). So sorry to push over your apple cart.

By stating "agurmentum ad populum" you have now put yourself in the positioning of stating why the posters argument should be considered such.

One problem you have is that the poster wasn't making a argument, but only stating a belief. And assuming it was an argument, it hardly showed that a majority or significant number believes as he does. This would have had to be the case for you claim an argument fallacious by argumentum ad populum.

The poster stated, "I don't think I'm alone in finding value in the commentaries." It only takes person other than himself to make the more restrictive statement "I'm not alone in finding value in the commentaries" true. I agree with him; I find a great deal of value in these commentaries and in the work that Randi is doing, so the poster is not alone in his belief. Thus a perfectly good, factual belief and statement to make.

Labeling an argument will not gain you any points without substantiation. And trying to use debate terms without properly understanding them will gain you even less points.

And really your "look it up" and "apple cart" statements may be considered argumentum ad hominem. You would lose points on those as well in any judged debate. Both are condescending and attack the person and not the argument; and in this case specifically trying to attack a belief and not a statement of fact.

Bantha

[Stew]

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnF_73
Each commentary has the potential to be some readers' FIRST exposure to Randi's column. The column is written (it seems to me) to be easily accessible, even for first time readers.

So, maybe you only found value in reading the commentaries for the first 6 months or so. So what? It was free. What are you complaining about?

I agree. The professional skeptics stance, I believe, has always been that the minute they let off, or throw in the towel, then the pseudoscientists, charlatans, and woo-hooos win.
Let's pretend that you are not a skeptic and haven't read or researched anything about, oh let's say, psychic readings. So you're sitting at home one day and Sylvia Browne comes on the t.v. and starts to do her schtick. To someone who doesn't know anything about cold reading, or any of the other tricks used, she would appear to truly have some miraculous ability. So you head over to your computer to find out more, maybe buy a book, or read about more of her incredible stories. You punch her name into the google and the third listing is a link to randi.org.
As long as Randi keeps up exposing and discussing new liars, scammers, and quacks, new people can become exposed to an alternate view that isn't being given other places. Sometimes it may become monotonous to the rest of us but as Carl Sagan said: "we ignore him at our peril".

[Keneke]

Quote:

Originally posted by BanthaTracks
By stating "agurmentum ad populum" you have now put yourself in the positioning of stating why the posters argument should be considered such.

Because HBS insinuated that because others like the commentaries as much as him, that the commentaries should not change. Assuming HBS's hints are accepted, the accusation is possible.

Quote:

One problem you have is that the poster wasn't making a argument, but only stating a belief.

The belief was in opposition to the original claim, and usually comes with the assumption of being open to debate. When on this board do we ever "agree to disagree"? Let 'em go at it.

Quote:

And really your "look it up" and "apple cart" statements may be considered argumentum ad hominem.

True.



Okay, my opinion on this? Yeah, they do get repetitive at times. However, they are a great intro to n00bs, and education is what this site is all about. The forums are the place for the properly initiated to go. We just have to continue providing reading material for all levels of skeptics in order to spread the word.

Like I said in another thread, the JREF is an EDUCATION foundation, and teachers go over the same material year after year.

[epepke]

Quote:

Originally posted by Keneke
Because HBS insinuated that because others like the commentaries as much as him, that the commentaries should not change.

HBS was a bit rude (so what else is new?) but still, if you like the commentaries, they're bitchen, and if you don't, they suck. There's plenty else to read here.

[farmermike]

Quote:

Originally posted by Stew
I agree. The professional skeptics stance, I believe, has always been that the minute they let off, or throw in the towel, then the pseudoscientists, charlatans, and woo-hooos win.
Let's pretend that you are not a skeptic and haven't read or researched anything about, oh let's say, psychic readings. So you're sitting at home one day and Sylvia Browne comes on the t.v. and starts to do her schtick. To someone who doesn't know anything about cold reading, or any of the other tricks used, she would appear to truly have some miraculous ability. So you head over to your computer to find out more, maybe buy a book, or read about more of her incredible stories. You punch her name into the google and the third listing is a link to randi.org.
As long as Randi keeps up exposing and discussing new liars, scammers, and quacks, new people can become exposed to an alternate view that isn't being given other places. Sometimes it may become monotonous to the rest of us but as Carl Sagan said: "we ignore him at our peril".

Well stated.I've always been a mild sceptic, and being not that well read have never had much for a reference from which to argue my point.seemingly surrounded by opinions of "it could be possible" and "how do you know it's quackery"it's very easy to agree and just slough it off to avoid a go nowhere arguement.Randi is a man on a mission putting his money where his mouth is.His million dollar challenge has halted many a discussion dead in their tracks.

[Dr Adequate]

In his comentaries, Randi let the air out of a couple of things I previously found quite impressive: the karate-breezeblock trick and the Incredible Steaming Monks (I could have figured that one out for myself, too... blush). I am now less gullible, or rather I'm equally gullible but believe two fewer silly things.

Next week, he might mention another.

The rest of it's always good for a few laughs. And since each new strange claim is different, they do have to be sat on individually.

[roger]

Also, don't forget that these commentaries, over time, build a nice body of facts that are available to us later. I may not be that interested today reading about company X marketing product Y, yet there it is in Randi's commentary, with him ranting about how they didn't respond to his offer. Yawn. But then 2 months later they come out with another claim, or claim that JREF wouldn't test them, etc., and we just go into the achives to prove them wrong.

That was a hypothetical, but many questions on this BB haves been answered via links to the commentary archives.

The daily (well, weekly) business of accumulating information is sometimes tedious, but always necessary.

[leekunedo]

Quote:

Originally posted by Stew
I agree. The professional skeptics stance, I believe, has always been that the minute they let off, or throw in the towel, then the pseudoscientists, charlatans, and woo-hooos win.
Let's pretend that you are not a skeptic and haven't read or researched anything about, oh let's say, psychic readings. So you're sitting at home one day and Sylvia Browne comes on the t.v. and starts to do her schtick. To someone who doesn't know anything about cold reading, or any of the other tricks used, she would appear to truly have some miraculous ability. So you head over to your computer to find out more, maybe buy a book, or read about more of her incredible stories. You punch her name into the google and the third listing is a link to randi.org.
As long as Randi keeps up exposing and discussing new liars, scammers, and quacks, new people can become exposed to an alternate view that isn't being given other places. Sometimes it may become monotonous to the rest of us but as Carl Sagan said: "we ignore him at our peril".

Nicely stated

[alfaniner]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
...In his comentaries, Randi let the air out of a couple of things I previously found quite impressive: the karate-breezeblock trick and the Incredible Steaming Monks (I could have figured that one out for myself, too... blush)...

What were these? I'd like to know more.

[Grendel]

Argumentum ad egoism:

If a Randi column holds no meaning for me, it holds no meaning. I am the bar.

Who would walk into a Catholic Church, for example, and having found no personal value for what occurs there, ask the congregation why they bother with it since it holds no value for you?

I mean, there's a reason there are many different religions, TV channels, magazines, flavors of Pop Tarts, dog breeds, web sites, etc.

~*~

While certain paranormal topics and claims go on and on, I find it highly interesting to note the historical changes, for example, the way the centuries old "clairvoyance" has been given new life and a pseudoscientific new name of "remote viewing" (same damn thing). I also appreciate being kept informed on the various changing ways paranormal scams are perpetrated. I think the Randi challenge is of immense value for what ought to be obvious reasons. I could list many other reasons why I personally value the weekly commentaries, and other site features.

[thaiboxerken]

The commentaries are often informative and provide news to people about things that are going on in the world of paranormal claims. For example, I didn't know that US Congress crowned a savior until I saw it in the commentaries.

What is the point in clucking at every new whacko claim that comes along?

What's the point in broadcasting news of Iraq?

Especially considering that this Web site is preaching (for the most part) to a very accomplished choir.

I sometimes print the commentaries and tactifully leave it lying around in public places. I have also shown these commentaries to believer friends, usually a specific commentary about their particular beliefs. It has actually helped to instill doubt into these people.

[Skeptical Greg]

Quote:

Originally posted by Grendel
Argumentum ad egoism:
.......................

Very good!

We need a list:

#9 Argumentum ad arrogance

#8 ...........

[Grendel]

Well, it's just a trait I've noticed among many anti-skeptic/pro-paranormalists, this sense that the limits of their tastes, preferences, knowledge, and understanding are the limits of ALL taste, preference, knowledge, and understanding. These are the folks for whom those This Is The Universe / You Are Here -> posters were intended.

You see it in bleever arguments in defense of their beliefs thus:

My belief is justified because I am unaware of any evidence to the contrary. In other words, if I don't know it, or if I know it but discount its importance, by golly, it doesn't count. I am the bar. What this is, of course, is the dreaded subjectivity in totality, an intellectual dictatorship in a country of one.

[JPK]

Quote:

Originally posted by john_v_h
... of the weekly lampoon which is Randi's commentary? I sympathize with the skeptic point of view, but I've been following the commentaries for a year now, and it's all rather monotonous. What is the point in clucking at every new whacko claim that comes along? Especially considering that this Web site is preaching (for the most part) to a very accomplished choir. Is there more to this than the same old schtick?

I happen to enjoy the weekly commentary. I think the fact that almost weekly a letter is posted by someone thanking Mr. Randi, shows that it is helpfull. Secondly I think it constantly reenforces the point, that under the right circumstances any one including the diehard skeptic can be decieved. I can read about something there and think "Wow, who would fall for that... " and then I stop myself and realize the truth is anyone can be fooled. If nothing else, the commentary seems to be the entrance way into the Forum.

JPK

[AtheistArchon]

Quote:

Each commentary has the potential to be some readers' FIRST exposure to Randi's column. The column is written (it seems to me) to be easily accessible, even for first time readers.

- This is my take as well. For those people who are already skeptical, even if they're not "in the skeptic community", so to speak, the illustrations of lunacy will come as little surprise.

- To those who may not be as experienced, however, Randi's fresh examples and ongoing commentary serves as a pleasant intro. Let's not forget that in most places the credible vastly outnumber the skeptical...

[allanb]

Quote:

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
I used to subscribe to the "Sceptical Enquirer", but allowed it to lapse through boredom at the repetitive nature of the articles.

Me too. I often wondered whether others had done the same.

[Peter Morris]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
In his comentaries, Randi let the air out of a couple of things I previously found quite impressive: the karate-breezeblock trick and the Incredible Steaming Monks (I could have figured that one out for myself, too... blush). I am now less gullible, or rather I'm equally gullible but believe two fewer silly things.

Or it's possible that you believe one EXTRA silly thing. I remember Randi's comments on the breezeblock trick and his conclusion that 'it's a fraud' and 'anyone can do it'

Tell me, Doc, do you believe that YOU can do it? Would you like to try it? Go on, I dare ya.

I don't even know why Randi is attacking it. I don't know any martial artists that claim there's anything 'magic' or 'paranormal' about breaking breeze-blocks, but it does require skill. It isn't as easy as Randi makes out. Anyone can do it ... providing they are willing to train twice a week for four years or so. No magic required, just courage, strength, discipline, self-confidence and knowing the right technique.

I do a little martial arts myself. I'm still at fairly low level. breaking breeze blocks is part of black belt grading, but I'm a long way from that, myself. I've seen people head off to black belt gradings, and come back with bandaged hands and failing grades. It's NOT a fraud. Nor is it paranormal.

Your opinion, Ken?

(what are the steaming monks, BTW, I don't remember them?)

[Soapy Sam]

Peter. I'm sure many serious students of martial arts would agree with your analysis. Breaking a concrete block with your fist is possible if you hit it hard enough, fast enough and at the right angle- and if you accept that pain is a certainty and injury a probability.

That's physics, practise and discipline.

Pretending it is done by channeling a mystical energy is not.

I think it is this pretence that JR scorns, not the discipline of serious students.

I still think the best way to break concrete is with a hammer.

[Kimpatsu]

Quote:

Originally posted by Stew
I agree. The professional skeptics stance, I believe, has always been that the minute they let off, or throw in the towel, then the pseudoscientists, charlatans, and woo-hooos win.
Let's pretend that you are not a skeptic and haven't read or researched anything about, oh let's say, psychic readings. ..

This is the very point Sagan makes at the start of the Demon-Haunted World. He recounts how he was met at the airport by a limo driver who knew of Sagan by reputation, but was a fervent believer in pseudoscience (Atlantis, therapeutic touch, the works) because that was all the popular media ever covered, and the man had no idea that it was all pseudoscience and not real science. Sagan concluded by saying that the house is on fire and the rational is being consumed. It is thus incumbent on skeptics to go forth and multiply our numbers by spreading the skeptical meme.

[nicholls]

Agreed, "the house is on fire." Therefore I appreciate Randi's Commentary as a weekly reminder of our need for vigilance. My personal interest is "music skepticism," and there's been a lot of relevant material in the Commentary and replies.

Here in Toronto we used to have an excellent public school system, strong in math and science. (Randi grew up here and developed a strong interest in astronomy, among other things.) But flakes, woos, and charlatans dragged the schools down. Now religious groups push relentlessly for government funding, and may make further inroads on school resources. So we're in an odd position where reason, evidence, and free thought require added support from PRIVATE, EDUCATIONAL organizations like JREF, and I see the Commentary as a much-needed "entry point."

Meanwhile, as a relative newcomer, I have a challenge for the jaded skeptics who find Randi boring -- help me on the topic of the people believing in weird things who are really mentally ill, and whose weird beliefs are symptoms (e.g. paranoia). How do we think about them? Surely we should avoid mockery?

[Soapy Sam]

I incline to agree that mockery should be avoided, simply out of politeness. Very hard to tell who is deluded through poor education and who through illness.

The primary target of JR's wrath is (or is supposed to be) those who cynically exploit the gullibility of others. Since it is impractical to appeal to such people to mend their ways, the only hope is education.

I don't see how being scornful of people who believe nonsense is helpful. Being loudly and publically scornful of those who propagate the nonsense , on the other hand, may help balance the tendency of many people to believe anything they read, hear or see. Polite acquiescence with nonsense peddlers leads onlookers to believe the flim flam must be correct. Perhaps if more people actively challenge nonsense, less of it will be foisted upon us?

[nicholls]

Agreed, Soapy, on all points, especially that it is most needful to seriously challenge the exploiters of the gullible and mentally ill. They are the worst.

But I guess what I'm missing among skeptics is recognition of the need also to bring into our discussions this topic: scientific findings on mental illness among people who believe weird things -- what do we know?

And a general observation: there are some skeptical topics that may seem to be done to death (mainly because they keep coming baaaaack!), but there are also lots of others that require attention. It's like maintaining a leaky basement, where you fix one area but water then comes in somewhere else.

[DrMatt]

• For the majority of the world which has not yet caught on to critical thinking, Swift columns are a great educational resources.
• Among those who have caught on to critical thinking, there's no clear direction on how best to teach the subject to others, so educational methodology itself is still an experimental field, and Swift columns are one such experiment.
• While most of us who have caught on to critical thinking cannot be bothered with loony claims, claimants remain widespread and very much willing to use the fact that nobody is taking them seriously as evidence to support their theories that their "great discoveries" are being intentionally suppressed, etc. Having a prominent expert-illusionist actually challenge them to show the goods is a great service to the rest of us.