If they are duped by nonsense, why would anyone consider them the best living minds?
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/th...ost-124379
Quote:When I was an undergraduate I had a job in a lab. One day a postdoc came into the room I was working in and explained she had turned the water on in the sink in the adjoining room and it was on too hard and was splattering all over and she was so flustered that she couldn't remember which way to turn the tap to shut off the water and could I please go next door and turn it off for her.
(2018-06-17, 10:51 PM)Jim_Smith Wrote: [ -> ]If they are duped by nonsense, why would anyone consider them the best living minds?
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/th...ost-124379
Even intelligent people can be duped by nonsense - that's how opinions are formed. We all believe in our own nonsense. What I don't understand is how they distinguish between "crackpot" and "non-crackpot" contrarians.
(2018-06-17, 10:51 PM)Jim_Smith Wrote: [ -> ]If they are duped by nonsense, why would anyone consider them the best living minds?
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/th...ost-124379
Looking at that exchange on Skeptiko, I think you misunderstood what Andrew Paquette meant, when he wrote:
The reason I don't think the effort I made will make any difference is that there are far more eminent people than myself who have PhDs and they aren't treated well by skeptics either.
When people like Rupert Sheldrake, William Crookes, Charles Richet, J.B. Rhine, and others are dismissed out of hand by skeptics, it is clear that credentials, knowledge, reputation, and data, are all meaningless inducements to reason among skeptics on this topic.
I think he was saying that credentials, knowledge, reputation and data were not respected by sceptics, rather than that they were "meaningless"
per se.
As for being "duped by nonsense", I don't believe the great majority of working scientists have any real interest in parapsychology, or any real familiarity with the evidence. So it's equally wrong for sceptics to claim a "scientific consensus" against psi, and for believers to imply that most scientists are lacking in intelligence because they don't believe.
(2018-06-18, 07:50 AM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]As for being "duped by nonsense", I don't believe the great majority of working scientists have any real interest in parapsychology, or any real familiarity with the evidence.
It often seems that the aim of such people as Brian Cox (to name just one) is to discourage others from even looking at the subject area, by piling ridicule upon the field and those who venture into it. A goal of encouraging ignorance is a rather curious one to present as the pinnacle of achievement, but it is certainly echoed in much of the output of BBC programming, particularly in the comedy area, where the corporate ideology is promoted vigorously.
But we've discussed all this before, in terms of effect on career and livelihood, there's a risk of becoming one of the 'untouchables' if one steps off the approved path.
(2018-06-18, 08:58 AM)Typoz Wrote: [ -> ]It often seems that the aim of such people as Brian Cox (to name just one) is to discourage others from even looking at the subject area, by piling ridicule upon the field and those who venture into it. A goal of encouraging ignorance is a rather curious one to present as the pinnacle of achievement, but it is certainly echoed in much of the output of BBC programming, particularly in the comedy area, where the corporate ideology is promoted vigorously.
But we've discussed all this before, in terms of effect on career and livelihood, there's a risk of becoming one of the 'untouchables' if one steps off the approved path.
Agree with this.
I don’t know if you will agree with my opinion that Cox’s aim might be genuine through his eyes. I think he really believes he’s doing the ‘right thing’ by discouraging others.
(2018-06-18, 09:56 AM)Stan Woolley Wrote: [ -> ]Agree with this.
I don’t know if you will agree with my opinion that Cox’s aim might be genuine through his eyes. I think he really believes he’s doing the ‘right thing’ by discouraging others.
I'm sure he does.
The thing is, I mentioned one particular name here. The BBC has a number of other science presenters, most of whom I find enjoyable and informative. However, most of them don't touch on the area of parapsychology at all. Cox has become somewhat of a target for criticism for two reasons, one he tends to spout off nonsense at the drop of a hat, and two, he is frequently put at the forefront of media coverage. Are the two related?
(2018-06-18, 11:38 AM)Typoz Wrote: [ -> ]I'm sure he does.
The thing is, I mentioned one particular name here. The BBC has a number of other science presenters, most of whom I find enjoyable and informative. However, most of them don't touch on the area of parapsychology at all. Cox has become somewhat of a target for criticism for two reasons, one he tends to spout off nonsense at the drop of a hat, and two, he is frequently put at the forefront of media coverage. Are the two related?
I rarely if ever hear anyone on the BBC talking in a way that I think shows an open mind. So Cox, being a hip, good looking ‘young’ ex pop star scientist seems perfect to be the voice of Science in the UK. His intelligence is inversely proportional to his openness in my view. He’s the perfect fit for 2018, sadly.
(2018-06-18, 01:02 PM)Stan Woolley Wrote: [ -> ]I rarely if ever hear anyone on the BBC talking in a way that I think shows an open mind.
I often get the impression that the BBC's idea of objectivity is to try to work out what the "centre ground" opinion is, and then push that. Rather than acknowledging that different people have different opinions.
(2018-06-18, 02:22 PM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]I often get the impression that the BBC's idea of objectivity is to try to work out what the "centre ground" opinion is, and then push that. Rather than acknowledging that different people have different opinions.
The BBC has a history of aligning with the scientific orthodoxy. I used to enjoy their Horizon programmes until it dawned on me that many were merely hit pieces to debunk alternative or fringe views and promote the establishment view. Occasionally, a production slipped through which hinted at a more open-minded approach but the powers that be at the Beeb eventually restored order. One of those that avoided initial censorship was the hour long documentary on Pam Reynolds called "The Day I Died". It was a pretty fair treatment of the Reynolds case and you can probably still see pirate versions on the web but the BBC subsequently withdrew the DVD and online archive copies.
One way to assess the attitude of the BBC as a corporate body is to look at their debate shows. If you want the kind of informed debate that we on this forum would hope for then you might be lucky to find one if you scan the Radio 4 schedules. But the fare for the masses is much less cerebral as can be seen in the Sunday Morning show,
"Heaven and Earth" [Edit: Sorry, that should have read "The Big Questions"]. Subjects such as the afterlife and the paranormal are occasionally discussed but are presented as a science vs religion issue and they wheel in the usual suspects like Dawkins, Cox or Chris French aligned against priests, rabbis and muslim scholars to put their side. Whenever I started to watch it I would soon turn it off in disgust because the real meat of the debate was never approached. Presenting it as a purely religious vs atheist debate is a scandalous misrepresentation.
Disclaimer - I left the UK almost two years ago so I don't even know if that show is still aired.
Here's an example: