Is there a Larsen List in your name?

[TLN]

The constant bickering between some posters on this board—believer and skeptic alike—is really starting to impact the signal to noise ratio here. I think the core problem is a difference in communication methods and each side not understanding how the other side communicates. Instead of seeing any translation efforts, each side is just raising their voices.

I thought it might be time to describe how a lot of the skeptics here think, what they consider to be “evidence”, and what to expect from many posters here with regard to paranormal or unusual claims. This post will not be a complete account of the scientific method, however, as I’m poorly qualified to do so.

First off, this is a message board for critical and skeptical thinking. In the world according to me at least, this pretty much means one thing: science. The skeptics here employ the scientific method in the examination or simple consideration of unusual claims.

When you make a post to this board it’s not unlike proposing a new scientific theory. If you make a post supporting, say, Sylvia Browne, you’re making a claim, like it or not, that you think Sylvia Browne is genuine. Also like scientific theories, new theories can make predictions or claims outside of their original claim. For example, I make the claim that I think Sylvia Browne is a genuine medium. Just by making that claim I have made several others, including, but not limited to:

• There is life after death.
• Remote viewing works.
• Predicting the future works, and so on…

In the scientific community, new claims are always subjected to the same rigors, regardless of who makes the claim. No one cares if a new theory is made by Stephen Hawking; all his math has to fit too. He doesn’t get any special treatment for being Stephen Hawking. Science does not recognize celebrity.

No, if Professor Hawking makes a new claim he can expect it to be savaged by people he probably considers to be his friends and peers. They won’t care how much his new theory means to him or how much hard work it took to formulate. All that matters is the data; it’s either right or it’s wrong, period. This review process is critical to science. It’s how truly worthwhile ideas are weeded out from poor ones.

Unfortunately, it’s also pretty brutal stuff. Maybe his new theory does mean a lot to Stephen Hawking. Maybe we’ll upset him with our criticism. Maybe his new theory provides some level of comfort to him which he’ll miss once we try and snatch it away. He may resent us for it.

Fortunately, Stephen Hawking knows that this is the process and has probably done his best to distance himself emotionally from his theory. No, whether the theory works or not is the only concern.

This is the starting point from which most of the skeptics here will proceed. They won’t consider your feelings. I know it’s harsh, but there you have it. Science just doesn’t care how you feel.

So, if you make a claim, prepare yourself for a lot of questions. Your answers might actually generate more questions. This is to be expected. If you’re here to genuinely examine your claims, then you owe it to yourself to answer these questions as they come up. If you’re not here to think critically about your claims, you should probably post elsewhere. You’ll find very little sympathy here.

So, in our example above, if our Sylvia supporter claims “But Sylvia did a reading for me and knew my grandmother’s name without ever meeting me before!” there are questions to be answered:

• Did you make an appointment in advance?
• Did you use your real name to schedule the appointment?
• Did you pay with a credit card?
• What is your grandmother’s name?

And so on. This might seem overwhelming to our poor Sylvia fan and with good reason. It is pretty overwhelming. But it’s also science and it’s how we distinguish fact from fiction.

Of course, our poster might choose to ignore these questions and just move on.

I want to be clear on this next point: that is his or her right. No one is saying you have to examine your claims. By all means, don’t. But at least recognize that fact, admit it, and move on.

But again, posting here is almost tantamount to saying “I can prove it” or at the very least “I think I can prove it, can anyone see any flaws in this theory?” It’s also an admission that you agree to play by the rules of science. Again, you don’t have to, but then what are you doing here? I certainly wouldn’t attend a KKK rally and ask “What, you mean you folks don’t think blacks are our equals?”

Pick your fights.

The real problem comes from the posters who make claim after claim, never answering the questions that naturally arise out of those claims. Instead, some folks just move on, as if the text never existed. This is not science; it’s belief and it’s your right.

But not here.

Here you must meet the burden of proof as described in the scientific method. Here, no one cares how happy your claim makes you. Here, people are pricks.

Like our pal Claus Larsen. What a prick. Seriously. And bless him for it to…

If you’re the unlucky recipient of a Larsen List there’s only one reason: you didn’t answer the questions are they came up. If you had, he might have moved on, but instead he spends his time cataloging all the quotes, claims, and assertions that don’t quite add up and compiling them into a list.

A lot of you hate Claus for this (or for whatever other reason). That’s yet another one of your rights, but I think some of you are letting your personal distaste for Claus blind you to the legitimacy of the questions he poses. Does the question really flow from your claim? Why don’t you answer it? Is it because you can’t or don’t want to?

But at the end of the day all Larsen Lists should start with a single question, a question that would preclude the necessity of all the others that follow:

Are you here to skeptically examine your beliefs in the method described by science, or are you simply here to speak your beliefs and not think about them critically?

If you think it’s the former, then your personal feelings about Claus are irrelevant. Answer the questions. They flow from your claims.

Or don’t! But again, then why engage skeptics in discussion?

And you know what, Claus is an ass. He’s brash, blunt, and doesn’t give a damn about the way you feel. He could stand some serious lessons in diplomacy and in how to speak to believers. And you know what? None of that makes any difference at all towards the legitimacy of the questions he asks. If you’re genuinely interested in examining your beliefs you owe it yourself—not to Claus—to answer those questions.

The bickering here is all about personalities and little on substance. She’s a liar, he’s a liar, rolling eyes and name calling, none of which gets us any closer to any real answers. None of this is science, it’s playground mudslinging, on both sides.

C’mon kids…

So, here we have it. The Ted List. A single question:

• Are you here to skeptically examine your beliefs in the method described by science, or are you here to simply speak your beliefs and not think about them critically?

If it’s the former, you need to play by the rules of science. If it’s the latter, there are plenty of message boards on the internet where you won’t have to suffer the constant barrage of questions and the stoicism of the questioners.

It’s your call…

[Sundog]

Good post with a lot of good points in it. I think, though, that at some point it's time to stop hounding people. Where's the fun if we drive everyone off?

Claus said in another thread "We're not having a cozy little tea party here." That made me think a bit; we're here for different reasons. I am here for a cozy little tea party. I'm here to communicate with intelligent people about interesting topics and for the most part, I'm pretty laid back about it. I only get riled when people are purposely offensive or when they are being a bully. I have zero tolerance for bullies.

But others, like Claus, are here waging battle. Good for them, but not everyone is here for that. Along comes a fuzzy thinker who incautiously throws out a few indefensible ideas and they are shocked to find the Atheist Avengers on their trail.

While I agree it's important - I think John Edward should be in a jail with cold, hard prison bars around him - the stridency is hard to take at times, and makes no one look good.

[Skeptical Greg]

Great post..

[BNiles]

A standing ovation ensues.

[Ipecac]

Well said.

[Thanz]

TLN - you have obviously put a lot of thought and effort into your post, and I applaud you for it. However, I'm afraid that I have to disagree with one of your major premises:

Quote:

Originally posted by TLN
First off, this is a message board for critical and skeptical thinking. In the world according to me at least, this pretty much means one thing: science.

HUGE SNIP

So, here we have it. The Ted List. A single question:

• Are you here to skeptically examine your beliefs in the method described by science, or are you here to simply speak your beliefs and not think about them critically?

If it’s the former, you need to play by the rules of science. If it’s the latter, there are plenty of message boards on the internet where you won’t have to suffer the constant barrage of questions and the stoicism of the questioners.

It’s your call…

I disagree that science is the be-all and end-all of discussion on this board. I assume that you are only referring to this particular forum (General Skepticism and the Paranormal) as many of the other forums are obviously not designed for science.

The little blurb under the heading on the forums page says:

Quote:

Discuss aspects of the paranormal here, as well as general questions and comments on things skeptical, such as dowsing, UFOs, etc.

I don't see anything there requires the scientific method. I don't see why we can't have discussions here that do not rise to the level of scientific evidence. In fact, I'd say many of the topics here do not. Any of the JE threads, for example. They are not about science - they are about different peoples impressions of one particular performer. Is he real? Is he a charlatan? Why do you think he may be real? What sort of hits does he get? What is a "special" hit? How can the "special" hits be explained? How do cold readers perform? Are they better or worse?

All of these questions get examined on a daily basis, and none of them produce any scientific evidence. That does not mean that they are not interesting to discuss. This is a DISCUSSION board, not a paranormal - prove it board. People are NOT automatically making a series of new claims or new scientific theories when they post something in favour of JE or Sylvia or anyone else. They should not have to expect the JREF inquisition by saying "Hey that JE sure is freaky!"

When Stephen Hawking, or any other scientist, presents a new theory, they expect it to be tested according tothe rigours of science. The posters here should not have to have that expectation. This is a place for discussion, not proof or disproof. If you want to say that X is not proven scientifically, fine - say it. But that doesn't mean the rest of us can't discuss it.

[TLN]

Quote:

Originally posted by Thanz
I don't see anything there requires the scientific method.

If you have a better method for distinguishing fact form fiction I'd love to hear it.

Sorry Thanz, here science rules. If you want to play by another set of rules, you've lost us.

Feel free to find a skeptic to disagree with me.

[Cleopatra]

I agree with Sundog and especially with the last sentence of his post. I wish that we could lock those who take advantage of the pain of the people behind bars.

This is one thing but what Clauss does is, in my opinion, far away from skepticism.

The skeptical movement started as a dynamic answer to authorities, to religious or " scientific" authorities. It cannot take the throne of the authority.

A skeptic cannot be- by definition- an authority and I am afraid that this is what Clauss is doing, he is playing the authority. Not to mention that I find his methods a bit offensive for the rest of us too.

We are in position to see who is answering the logical questions and who isn't, we do not need anybody to interpret another member's behavior for us.

I have brought my opinion to his attention before and I have no problem in repeating it here as well

I use the name of Clauss because he was brought as an example of a specific attitude.

[Sundog]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cleopatra
The skeptical movement started as a dynamic answer to authorities, to religious or " scientific" authorities. It cannot take the throne of the authority.

A skeptic cannot be- by definition- an authority...

Wow. What a great, great point.

Thanz, ya lost me there too, buddy. Science is our only guide. But it shouldn't preclude discussion.

[thaiboxerken]

The skeptical movement started as a dynamic answer to authorities, to religious or " scientific" authorities. It cannot take the throne of the authority.

Why not?


A skeptic cannot be- by definition- an authority and I am afraid that this is what Clauss is doing, he is playing the authority. Not to mention that I find his methods a bit offensive for the rest of us too.

Why can't a skeptic be an authority, is there something in the definition of "skeptic" that I'm missing?


We are in position to see who is answering the logical questions and who isn't, we do not need anybody to interpret another member's behavior for us.

So.. we shouldn't point out the logical flaws, fallacies and fabrications of believers? What's there to discuss then?


I have brought my opinion to his attention before and I have no problem in repeating it here as well

I use the name of Clauss because he was brought as an example of a specific attitude.

I still don't understand, what is wrong with having a skeptic in a position of authority? I'd much rather have a skeptic as president than a superstitious fool.

[Thanz]

Quote:

Originally posted by TLN
If you have a better method for distinguishing fact form fiction I'd love to hear it.

Not every discussion here has to have "distinguishing fact from fiction" as its focus.

Quote:

Sorry Thanz, here science rules. If you want to play by another set of rules, you've lost us.

I'm not playing by another set of rules, except maybe rules of civility. IMO Claus is a "prick" in ways that have nothing to do with science, and more to do with pulling down believers.

Not everyone who posts here has to prove, scientifically, what they are saying is THE truth. People are entitled to the opinion that JE is for real. They are entitled to post the reasons for that opinion. Others will undoubtedly post counter opinions and arguments that, while undoubtedly more logical, are not up to the level os scientific proof either.

Quote:

Feel free to find a skeptic to disagree with me.

Why don't I count?

[Sundog]

Quote:

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

The skeptical movement started as a dynamic answer to authorities, to religious or " scientific" authorities. It cannot take the throne of the authority.

Why not?

Because There's No Such Thing as a True Skeptic. Anyone who sets themselves up as THE authority on skepticism is riding for a fall... as we've proven here once or twice.

[Yahweh]

Quote:

Originally posted by TLN
Instead of seeing any translation efforts, each side is just raising their voices.

I AGREE!!!!!!!!

Its very important to understand every side of a debate, otherwise its mindless bickering.

[Cleopatra]

thaiboxerken

Quote:

So.. we shouldn't point out the logical flaws, fallacies and fabrications of believers? What's there to discuss then?

This is what skepticism is about. Pointing fallacies and exposing the fabrications of the believers within the frame of a discussion.

I have seen many poeple here, including Clauss, to be very efficient in that. I have seen it, I understood it, I do not need to be reminded of it every other day and on the expense of another member. I have discussed with Clancie too and I know by first hand that she avoids to answer to certain questions, those who have followed the discussion have seen it as well, we are not in the classroom where the teacher has to remind us what we are learning or what we are seeing.

A skeptic questions everything, even his beliefs so he cannot be an authority. By the moment you become an authority you stop posing and receiving questions.

[TLN]

Quote:

Originally posted by Thanz
Not every discussion here has to have "distinguishing fact from fiction" as its focus.

Of course not. Thanz, my main point here is if you make a claim, expect to have it challenged. Expect to have to meet the burden of science.

If you don't want to, fine, but then why post here? If all you're after is "discussion" regarding, say, John Edward, may I suggest johnedwardfriends.org? You won't have to deal with any questions there of a critical nature. But making those claims here, then refusing to answer follow up questions, only demonstrates that you're not interested in a critical examination of your beliefs. Again, that's fine, but then why post it here?

[thaiboxerken]

A skeptic questions everything, even his beliefs so he cannot be an authority. By the moment you become an authority you stop posing and receiving questions.

I simply don't agree. I think a good leader should have a exercise great deal of skepticism. A good leader poses questions and recieves them from those he is leading. I seem to recall a great leader named Jefferson who was also a skeptic.

[TLN]

"Arguments from authority carry little weight -- 'authorities' have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that in science there are no authorities; at most, there are experts."

Carl Sagan

[Sundog]

Quote:

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
A skeptic questions everything, even his beliefs so he cannot be an authority. By the moment you become an authority you stop posing and receiving questions.

I simply don't agree. I think a good leader should have a exercise great deal of skepticism. A good leader poses questions and recieves them from those he is leading. I seem to recall a great leader named Jefferson who was also a skeptic.

You two are talking past each other. Thai, that's not what she means. Jefferson never set himself up as an authority on skepticism.

IMO when people do that, they are failing to recognize the flaws within themselves.

As I've said a few times, we strive to approach skepticism. We never reach it.

Edited to add: TLN, re the Sagan quote, yes, exactly.

[Thanz]

Quote:

Originally posted by TLN
Of course not. Thanz, my main point here is if you make a claim, expect to have it challenged. Expect to have to meet the burden of science.

If you don't want to, fine, but then why post here? If all you're after is "discussion" regarding, say, John Edward, may I suggest johnedwardfriends.org? You won't have to deal with any questions there of a critical nature. But making those claims here, then refusing to answer follow up questions, only demonstrates that you're not interested in a critical examination of your beliefs. Again, that's fine, but then why post it here?

I fear that I may have taken your initial post incorrectly. I agree with the idea that if you post a claim here, you should expect it to be challenged and you should expect questions of a critical nature.

I do not think, however, that unless someone can prove their claim scientifically, that they should just bugger off and go somewhere else. I think that when someone like Clancie comes here, she should be able to say "I think there may be something to mediumship, and here is why" without being attacked. I think that she is capable of pointing out arguments from the believer side of the spectrum that are interesting. I don't particularly care whether she considers herself a believer or a skeptic. I am not convinced by her arguments, but I do find them interesting and thought provoking.

I agree that if you are out to PROVE that JE is talking to the dead, then yes - we need scientific tests under controlled conditions. No question. But if we just want to talk about it, from what we see on TV, etc. and the possible explanations for it, I think we can have that discussion without the need for the scientific tests. As long as both sides realize that it is just a discussion, no one is likely to "win", and the outcome will not be proof of anything.

I apologize if I have misinterpreted your post. But when I read it, I got the impression that you were saying "Unless you can prove it scientifically, bugger off" and that is what I disagree with.

[Cleopatra]

Quote:

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
A skeptic questions everything, even his beliefs so he cannot be an authority. By the moment you become an authority you stop posing and receiving questions.

I simply don't agree. I think a good leader should have a exercise great deal of skepticism. A good leader poses questions and recieves them from those he is leading. I seem to recall a great leader named Jefferson who was also a skeptic.

I do not use the word authority to describe leadership but an infallible expert.Bible is an authority to some people, for example.

Havind said that I agree with you that the authority in a country is better to be in the hands of the skeptics, of people who accept and pose questions

[thaiboxerken]

Quote:

Originally posted by Cleopatra


I do not use the word authority to describe leadership but an infallible expert.Bible is an authority to some people, for example.

Havind said that I agree with you that the authority in a country is better to be in the hands of the skeptics, of people who accept and pose questions

Ok, I gotcha. Looks like we agree on both points.

[TLN]

Quote:

Originally posted by Thanz
I think that when someone like Clancie comes here, she should be able to say "I think there may be something to mediumship, and here is why" without being attacked.

Sorry, but that's what going to happen here. You can deal with that, or ignore it. Also your call...

Also, I would say that a lot of these "attacks" are simply the questions that naturally flow from the claims. Of course, this a bit overwhelming to the uninitiated.

Sorry...

Quote:

Originally posted by Thanz
I apologize if I have misinterpreted your post. But when I read it, I got the impression that you were saying "Unless you can prove it scientifically, bugger off" and that is what I disagree with.

Well, I think it would go more like this: If you make a claim expect to have it challenged. If you don't want to be challenged, then yes, "bugger off." If you don't want to answer the questions that naturally flow from your claims, why make the claims at all?

[T'ai Chi]

TLN, excellent post.

It is a good reminder for everyone to cut down pure arguments, something I think everyone, including myself, can work on, to make this place a better place.

"When you make a post to this board it’s not unlike proposing a new scientific theory."

I do politely disagree with that. On an internet discussion board, it is opinions. I would be in favor of creating a forum specifically for people posting their scientific theories. In that forum, those people should be prepared to present actual evidence.

[TLN]

Quote:

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
On an internet discussion board, it is opinions.

Ahh, but on this board it's about evidence.

All I'm asking of the believers is to regonize that fact.

All I'm asking of the skeptics is to realize that most believers don't recgonize that fact.

Again, it's a communication problem. No one here is more right or wrong than the other. But here, evidence rules. If you're into opinion there are plenty of other places to post. This is not a demand on my part, just an observation.

[BNiles]

Quote:

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
A skeptic questions everything, even his beliefs so he cannot be an authority. By the moment you become an authority you stop posing and receiving questions.

I simply don't agree. I think a good leader should have a exercise great deal of skepticism. A good leader poses questions and recieves them from those he is leading. I seem to recall a great leader named Jefferson who was also a skeptic.

I think your confusing "Authority" with "Leader". Authority in this context is referring more like an expert of a topic, not the leader of a country.

Edited to add: I see that I was a little late with this...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by TLN
Instead of seeing any translation efforts, each side is just raising their voices.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Right on the money.
Wasn't it Twain who said something like, "A fool raises his voices when he should strengthen his argument."

[Thanz]

Quote:

Originally posted by TLN
Sorry, but that's what going to happen here. You can deal with that, or ignore it. Also your call...

Also, I would say that a lot of these "attacks" are simply the questions that naturally flow from the claims. Of course, this a bit overwhelming to the uninitiated.

Sorry...

Here's the thing: I don't consider the LarsenLists to be made up solely of "questions that naturally flow from the claims". Claus seems to be on a vendetta against certain people, and constantly interprets (or misinterprets) posts in the worst possible light, then asks a question about that. Like "When did you stop beating your wife" type questions. That isn't science. That is badgering for the sake of it.

Quote:

Well, I think it would go more like this: If you make a claim expect to have it challenged. If you don't want to be challenged, then yes, "bugger off." If you don't want to answer the questions that naturally flow from your claims, why make the claims at all?

There is a difference between asking questions, and the hounding of Claus the Inquisitor. Someone may be perfectly willing to answer questions that come from their claims, but turned off by the rude atangonistic style of some of the posters here. You don't have to accept anyone else's beliefs, but at least treat people with a modicum of respect. That is what is lacking here.

[TLN]

Quote:

Originally posted by Thanz
Here's the thing: I don't consider the LarsenLists to be made up solely of "questions that naturally flow from the claims".

I happen to agree. But at the same time, I also think there are a lot of questions of genuine merit in there, probably the majority. Perhaps the subject of these lists can join this thread and we can pick the relevant questions and discard the others.

[Thanz]

Quote:

Originally posted by TLN


Ahh, but on this board it's about evidence.

Why? Because YOU say so? Because you want it to be so?

Quote:

All I'm asking of the believers is to regonize that fact.

It is not a fact. It is merely your opinion.

Quote:

All I'm asking of the skeptics is to realize that most believers don't recgonize that fact.

Perhaps because it is not a fact?

Quote:

Again, it's a communication problem. No one here is more right or wrong than the other. But here, evidence rules. If you're into opinion there are plenty of other places to post. This is not a demand on my part, just an observation.

No, it seems to be more of a demand.

To use the ever popular JE example, there is no real evidence that JE has hidden microphones, moles in credit card companies, assigned seats all the time, spies in the green room feeding info to JE, ringers in the gallery, or a team of internet researchers. Yet all of these theories have been floated by skeptics here, and not questioned by other skeptics. Yet you say "evidence rules"? Not quite.

[TLN]

Quote:

Originally posted by Thanz
Why? Because YOU say so? Because you want it to be so?

No, because, regardless of whether you agree or not, skepticism is about science.

This is a board about skepticism. Expect science.

[T'ai Chi]

Quote:

Originally posted by TLN
[b]
Ahh, but on this board it's about evidence.
[b]

TLN, while I agree that evidence is important in discussions and in showing evidence for phenomena, I disagree that these forums are about evidence.

JREF has this board to foster intelligent discussion from believers and non-believers. JREF says nothing about people having to provide evidence or anything like that on the discussion boards, even though it might be desirable.

I believe that on any discussion board people post their opinions on things, and perhaps links to studies that have evidence. The board participants, especially the skeptics, might desire evidence for all things, but that was not why the board was created.

[TLN]

Quote:

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
TLN, while I agree that evidence is important in discussions and in showing evidence for phenomena, I disagree that these forums are about evidence.

Look, if that's how some folks want to proceed, be my guest. But it's pretty foolish to complain that someone's asking (and asking and asking...) for you to produce evidence. What did you think we'd ask for, stories?

I wouldn't go to a Christian fundamentalist message board and expect anyone to understand the scientific method. I wouldn't complain about all the credulous behavior. What did I expect?

What do believers expect when they post here? That no one will challenge their claims? That flimsy evidence will go unchallenged?

It's your right to have any belief you want; to not examine it critically or look for empirical evidence to support your claim. I just wouldn't recommend you do it here. Again, I wouldn't go to a KKK rally then complain about all the ignorant hicks.

[thaiboxerken]

To use the ever popular JE example, there is no real evidence that JE has hidden microphones, moles in credit card companies, assigned seats all the time, spies in the green room feeding info to JE, ringers in the gallery, or a team of internet researchers. Yet all of these theories have been floated by skeptics here, and not questioned by other skeptics. Yet you say "evidence rules"? Not quite.

LOL. So it's not skeptical to question JE's mediumship abilities simply because he hasn't been caught cheating many times? Until JE proves himself to the scientific community, mundane explanations for what he does will suffice. Heck, is he really cheating, after all he does state that he's just an entertainer. Don't entertainers sometimes research those they are entertaining?

JE could be cheating, and skeptics here have said that he could have. I don't recall any skeptics here claiming that he must have hidden microphones and credit card moles, just that it's plausible and would get him the information he uses on his shows.

People don't have superpowers.

[Mike D.]

Quote:

Originally posted by TLN
First off, this is a message board for critical and skeptical thinking. In the world according to me at least, this pretty much means one thing: science.

TLN,

Why not call it a "science message board" instead of a "skeptic message board." What would be the difference between the two, if skeptical thinking "pretty much means one thing: science."?

Mike

[T'ai Chi]

Quote:

Originally posted by TLN
No, because, regardless of whether you agree or not, skepticism is about science.

TLN, I believe that one can be a skeptical thinker and not have anything to do with science. I feel that the term skepticism refers to thinking critically and examining evidence in general, not just in a science setting, although skepticism is certainly used in science.

[CFLarsen]

My, my...is this finally the Larsen "Appreciation" Thread?

First, great subject, although I don't think I am quite entitled of so much focus. There are plenty of people here who, although different in style, perhaps, but just as...tenacious, should also be named. But I won't...

The lists. Ah, yes. They are annoying, I can see that. They stay. They are great at showing how some believers "operate".

We have seen that, unless a claim is recorded, as well as the result of the discussing, the claim pops up at a later time. Repeat an unsupported claim often enough, and it becomes fact. That's why it is important to keep these lists, to document what people have said, and how things really went. It's not necessarily flat-out lies, it is the more or less intentional attempts at deceit I try to prevent. Urban legends become, to some, reality. Rumors become accepted fact. That's dangerous.

This is only about finding answers. Nothing else.

Somebody said that I was waging battle. You could call it that. I want some answers, dammit! I am sick and tired of these claims popping up with no answers. "Modern" parapsychology has been "at it" for more than a hundred years, and still, not a single shred of evidence of anything. It is, as far as I know, the only field of interest in that time frame that has absolutely nothing to show for it.

Nothing.

Reading history, I can understand why people in the past believed in this bahooey. If you can't read, if you have no books, if you cannot freely gather information, if you have no basic understanding of the world around you, yes, you will believe that an eclipse is a dragon eating the sun. That, unless you sacrifice to the gods, the sun won't rise tomorrow. That, unless you do what the priests and kings tell you, you will burn in hell.

But today? There's no excuse, dear people. It is our goddamn duty to dispel the darkness of ignorance. We haven't gotten our cozy little houses with central heating and aircondition by praying to gods or speaking with dead grandmas. "Better Life Through Science"? Yup. And knowledge is at the center of this. Real knowledge, not fantasies or wishful thinking.

So, no tea party here. No fuzzy, warm feelings. Yes, it is probably overwhelming, suddenly to have a barrage of questions thrown at ya', especially if you haven't tried that before - or even realized that they could exist. But that's the way it is here. And it is a good thing to examine your beliefs, if you build them on what you think is evidence. If you simply want to believe, fine. Have a nice life. Be good, and all that. No lists from me.

But if you argue from evidence? I'm on your case, buddy, and so are others. I want some answers. You don't like it? Putting me on ignore won't help. Sure, you won't read it, but others will. If you want a life of ignorance, that is your choice. But you don't silence the questions. Those will be heard. We don't post for the people who answer us, we post for those who never speak up, who watch from the shadows.

It is very gratifying to be able to search for some real answers on this forum. I know that I won't be censored because I do that. I was censored, and subsequently banned, from both Pam Blizzard's Board of JE-adoration and Steve Grenard's SurvivalScience-forum. Here, we seek real answers. Deal with it.

Personally, I don't really see the need for a political forum, unless it is to skeptically evaluate political issues. I certainly don't see the need for being able to discuss your favorite movie, unless it is to skeptically evaluate the scientific aspects of it. Phil Plait does a great job of that on his own BadAstronomy-site, and it is very educational reading. Sure, we can also have a bit of fun. But the main object of this forum is to promote critical thinking and skepticism.

Science is the authority here. Not skeptics, not anything else. We need answers. And we don't find answers by not asking questions.

You don't like it? Either leave or deal with it. Should you stay, stop complaining that your claims are questioned.

They will be. Trust me!

[asthmatic camel]

TLN, you deserve an award for your original post. Thank-you.

Regards,

AC.

[Diamond]

Quote:

Originally posted by Yahweh

I AGREE!!!!!!!!

Its very important to understand every side of a debate, otherwise its mindless bickering.

No it's isn't...

[Darat]

Quote:

Originally posted by Diamond


No it's isn't...

Oh yes it is....

(Sorry couldn't resist please feel free to resume serious discussion.)

[Thanz]

Quote:

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
TLN, I believe that one can be a skeptical thinker and not have anything to do with science. I feel that the term skepticism refers to thinking critically and examining evidence in general, not just in a science setting, although skepticism is certainly used in science.

I agree. Skepticism is a mindset of doubt. It is not always science.

James Randi is the perfect example. He does not claim to be doing "science", but I don't think that anyone doubts that he is skeptical. Let's say that the russian girl passes the blindfold test. Has anything been proven scientifically? No.

I think that it has been said more than once here that the challenge is not a science experiment. It is, however, skeptical in nature.

[Thanz]

Quote:

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

LOL. So it's not skeptical to question JE's mediumship abilities simply because he hasn't been caught cheating many times? Until JE proves himself to the scientific community, mundane explanations for what he does will suffice. Heck, is he really cheating, after all he does state that he's just an entertainer. Don't entertainers sometimes research those they are entertaining?

I never said that we can't question JE's supposed abilities. I was just responding to TLN's claim that this board is about evidence, when clearly skeptics also make arguments based on conjecture. I am not saying that we need to reject these arguments - I am just pointing out that they are unsupported by evidence at this time.

Quote:

JE could be cheating, and skeptics here have said that he could have. I don't recall any skeptics here claiming that he must have hidden microphones and credit card moles, just that it's plausible and would get him the information he uses on his shows.

Yes, of course it is plausible. But there is no evidence for it. TLN said that "evidence rules" here. That is not always the case.