So the boys in the backroom have been discussing the idea of renaming that subforum with the more neutral label "Proponent vs. Opponent Discussions", and we thought we'd query the forum itself.
Thoughts? Feelings? Sensations?
What about Proponent vs. Non-proponent? "Opponent" seems to suggest some degree of hostility (in the same way "Skeptic" seems to). I don't know if that's what you're going for.
Linda
Yes, everyone is welcome to propose alternatives if they think they can come up with something better.
(2019-01-22, 02:25 AM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]What about Proponent vs. Non-proponent?
Personally I'm not crazy about "non-proponent". But I would have no problem with a synonym for opponent that doesn't imply "hostility" (if that's the vibe the word gives off - personally, again, I don't see that but I'm open to dissenting views).
Thesaurus gives me "challenger", "critic" (although I find that one too vague, and perhaps implying - like the "skeptic" label - that proponents are non-critical or non-skeptical), "disputant", "antagonist".
"Challenger" isn't bad.
"Challenger" feels clunky. Along with the others.
"Skeptic" is the only one that makes any kind of sense with regards to Psi, probably because of the history between the two.
Or maybe that's just me.
"Opponent" feels fine, because that's what skeptics are ~ opposed to the ideas of Psi, opposed to the views of Psi proponents.
One problem is that according to the guidelines, "Skeptic vs Proponent Discussions" isn't what that forum is meant to contain. It's meant to be the place for the expression of blanket scepticism/denial of the whole subject of psi. Admittedly I can't think of a snappy name for that.
If I understand correctly, if a leading sceptic and a leading proponent wanted to debate a particular subject in the manner of Hyman and Honorton, the appropriate place for that would be the main psi forum, not the forum currently called "Proponent vs. Opponent Discussions".
(2019-01-22, 08:48 AM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]One problem is that according to the guidelines, "Skeptic vs Proponent Discussions" isn't what that forum is meant to contain. It's meant to be the place for the expression of blanket scepticism/denial of the whole subject of psi. Admittedly I can't think of a snappy name for that.
I think you might be misunderstanding the guidelines, Chris. All they say is that
if one's aim is blanket scepticism/denial,
then the place to express that is the SvP forum. They don't say that this is what
defines the SvP forum.
In fact, what defines the SvP forum is its hosting of challenges/debates/discussions between those who hold differing viewpoints related to the primary content of the forum. So...
(2019-01-22, 08:48 AM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]If I understand correctly, if a leading sceptic and a leading proponent wanted to debate a particular subject in the manner of Hyman and Honorton, the appropriate place for that would be the main psi forum, not the forum currently called "Proponent vs. Opponent Discussions".
...no: the forum currently abbreviated as SvP, and now proposed to be renamed based on a replacing of "skeptic" with "opponent",
is, indeed, the best place for a debate along the lines of the Hyman v Honorton debate.
Whilst it is the only place where "blanket denial" is
accepted on Psience Quest, it is neither encouraged nor defining of that subforum.
(2019-01-22, 09:35 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]I think you might be misunderstanding the guidelines, Chris. All they say is that if one's aim is blanket scepticism/denial, then the place to express that is the SvP forum. They don't say that this is what defines the SvP forum.
In fact, what defines the SvP forum is its hosting of challenges/debates/discussions between those who hold differing viewpoints related to the primary content of the forum. So...
...no: the forum currently abbreviated as SvP, and now proposed to be renamed based on a replacing of "skeptic" with "opponent", is, indeed, the best place for a debate along the lines of the Hyman v Honorton debate.
Whilst it is the only place where "blanket denial" is accepted on Psience Quest, it is neither encouraged nor defining of that subforum.
In that case I have been misunderstanding.
If there's not meant to be discussion in the main section between "those who hold differing viewpoints related to the primary content of the forum" I'm not sure I should be posting there!
(2019-01-22, 09:49 AM)Chris Wrote: [ -> ]In that case I have been misunderstanding.
If there's not meant to be discussion in the main section between "those who hold differing viewpoints related to the primary content of the forum" I'm not sure I should be posting there!
Admittedly, the boundaries are fuzzy. The SvP forum is simply intended to be
more of a debate-intensive forum: a forum to which, if, say, you wanted to challenge "the other side" with a juicy piece of evidence, you would be more drawn. Sure, you
could post that evidence in one of the ECP subforums, but you make your intent clearer by posting it in SvP: that is, as a challenge or invitation to debate/discussion with the natural "opponents" of the idea/position best suggested/supported by your evidence.
(2019-01-22, 04:34 AM)Ninshub Wrote: [ -> ]Personally I'm not crazy about "non-proponent". But I would have no problem with a synonym for opponent that doesn't imply "hostility" (if that's the vibe the word gives off - personally, again, I don't see that but I'm open to dissenting views).
Well, it depends upon whether or not the intention is to impose a label upon the out-group vs. choosing a label which is acceptable by those in the out-group. You shouldn't expect to notice hostility on the basis of that label, given that it wouldn't ever be directed at you.
I'm not an "opponent" of psi, and I don't think most others in the "skeptic" group are, either. I just don't find that the evidence dictates the perspective most proponents take. I don't think it's helpful to choose a label which perpetuates a straw man.
Why not just leave it at Skeptic vs. Proponent? People don't seem to have a problem using that. "Critical discussions" also seemed to work on the old forum.
Linda