Steve001 Wrote:Poking the bear Malf.
Since Karmy has me on his IGNORE list preventing me from replying to him I'll have to do it in a round about way.
He doesn't like what Sagan, Tyson, Krause, Dawkins, Hawking, Cox, Fisher, Darwin and Asimov: he really wouldn't like Asimov along with a bunch of others I suspect. I like them all and by virtue of that has inadvertently lumped me in with folks I hold in high esteem. Thanks Karmy. Karmy's problem is he does not like anyone casting doubt on his beliefs. I feel sorry for Karmy. He seems like a man whom doesn't possess the strength of his convictions.
I'd also like to add that personal attacks is one reason among others I imagine why the resident skeptics do not participate as regularly. And I'd like to point out not once have any of the skeptics resorted to personal attack. As a matter of fact I recall Arouet continually extending the olivebranch only to be summarily slapped numerous times with it and all for simply questioning the heartfelt beliefs of some members. Linda is just as polite. I guess the moral is being polite or impertinent does not matter when doubting someone's beliefs you'll still get slammed.
I have to say, this coming from you is rich.
You consistently dismiss proponents' views on the ground that they're simply a result of emotion, desire to believe, etc. You often don't engage with the actual material presented. I will hear absolutely nothing about Linda. People here, myself included, have engaged with her for very extended periods of time. Linda comes off as very... disingenuous. I think what you have called her "politeness" is oftentimes very thinly veiled arrogance, and is commonly presented in the form of backhanded compliments and feigned agreement.
You also seem to be equating disagreement about topics with ad homs, which obviously is not the case. I can't personally recall someone "attacking" malf, Paul, or Arouet as you've described. Disagreeing, even vehemently, is not the same thing as calling someone stupid or saying that they just are an idiot. It amazes me that you'd say he "doesn't like anyone casting doubts on his beliefs". The same could certainly be said about many people... and absolutely yourself as well. But it isn't about what we like or dislike - it's about presenting reasoned thought and evidence (two distinct things) and all that. I think you often do neither, and as a result people call you out for it. That's not the same thing as an ad hom.
I also think there are diverse enough viewpoints here that it would sincerely surprise me if the reason skeptics aren't posting more is the ad homs you claim, as opposed to, say, busy schedules, or (gasp!) some of the skeptics not liking their ideas being challenged so consistently. Not that that's a bad thing necessarily - it's often less difficult to hang around a forum with people who are at least a bit more sympathetic to your views (not saying an echo chamber is a good thing). Certainly most here want reasonable discussion between skeptics and proponents. It's what draws most people here and it's why everyone was up in arms when Alex shut down the CD forum on Skeptiko. To say something like "if [skeptics] question your conclusions,
beliefs, assumptions etcetera we get slammed in some way" is to just make a false, unsupported statement. There is plenty of good evidence-based and argument-based discussion here that goes beyond "you said the brain creates consciousness, so you're an idiot." In the very least those sort of responses are in the heavy minority, and even ones that may stray a little too close to such a dismissive response will generally have
something of substance supporting the disagreement. What does oftentimes get criticized are the methods by which some skeptics (most often you and Linda) choose to approach the discussion. It is not the fact that you're disagreeing. It is how you go about arguing and supporting (or not supporting) it.
In any event, as Chris rightly pointed out, the bit where you say "I feel sorry for Karmy. He seems like a man whom doesn't possess the strength of his convictions" is undoubtedly disingenuous, sarcastic, and critical. How you'd not recognize the irony by saying that in the same post you're criticizing Kam in for ad homs is beyond me.