(2017-09-08, 10:41 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]You've got a strong point, R, which influenced me to take the action I did in the first place. But what do you make of Chris's point that if we apply this same standard across the board, then folks wouldn't be able to speculate about cheating (or even fraud) in e.g. the case of Uri Geller being tested by SRI? Don't get me wrong, I think the SRI experiments were legit, and I don't think the allegation of cheating holds up, but would we want to prohibit it as defamatory? If not, then how would you distinguish between these two cases (Max vs Geller skeptics)?
It is one thing to suggest Geller probably cheated - he's been accused of that ever since he found fame - but quite another to accuse a bunch of scientists who undertook to test his claims. Geller is a showman and at least part of his show has always been stage magic. But I have seen no reason to question the good faith of the scientists. The same applies to other psi researchers and I find it obnoxious that the knee-jerk reaction is "well, they must have rigged the results".
Until Max has had a civil dialogue - and, despite what he says, nobody is asking him to kiss ass - with Radin or Gabriel, I have no reason to believe his accusations, especially when everything he has claimed so far - about the speakers, the headphones, the chanting - has been answered by the researchers.
OK, so, please forgive me, Kamarling - I'm trying to arrive at the best approach, which means probing and testing everybody's suggestions. I hope you understand that if I "grill" you, it's in the interests of coming to a collective understanding of what's best.
(2017-09-08, 11:03 AM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]It is one thing to suggest Geller probably cheated - he's been accused of that ever since he found fame - but quite another to accuse a bunch of scientists who undertook to test his claims. Geller is a showman and at least part of his show has always been stage magic. But I have seen no reason to question the good faith of the scientists. The same applies to other psi researchers and I find it obnoxious that the knee-jerk reaction is "well, they must have rigged the results".
OK, and I feel bad about legitimate scientists being accused too. So, let's say we accept this demarcation you've set up: you say that because Geller is a showman, he's fair game for accusations. Does this mean that those purported psi adepts who are less flambouyant are
not fair game, as for the scientists? And why should showmanship disqualify Uri from protection from false claims?
(2017-09-08, 11:03 AM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]Until Max has had a civil dialogue - and, despite what he says, nobody is asking him to kiss ass - with Radin or Gabriel, I have no reason to believe his accusations, especially when everything he has claimed so far - about the speakers, the headphones, the chanting - has been answered by the researchers.
Agreed. I think Max's claims have been more than adequately addressed by Dean and Gabriel. It's time to put them to rest.
(2017-09-08, 05:08 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]Chris and berkelon: what would your reaction be if somebody defamed you in a thread on this forum? e.g. somebody says: Chris is not a real mathematician, he flunked out of his degree, and has been fired by every employer he's worked for? Or somebody says something similar for you, berkelon (I don't know enough about you to construct an equally personally defamatory statement)? Would you want that person to retract their statements? Would you want a moderator to force them to do that? Or would it be enough that you had the opportunity to set the record straight and dismiss their claims personally? What if, despite your best arguments to show that the defamatory statements were false, the claims were repeated again and again?
Thanks for the response. I know that my position on this might not be popular, but it seems that you want to hear from the members, so I'll offer it. I just assume that people will be nasty at times on forums, particularly when they feel defensive or desperate. The idea of a retraction of a statement in a forum is a bit silly to me. It's an anonymous online forum. Yes, some people are not anonymous, but unless you are going to insist that people use their real names, it's an anonymous forum.
It just seems a bit dramatic to say, "I insist that you retract that statement!" If someone said some bullshit that crossed the line, tell them that they said some bullshit that crossed the line. Have the group agree or disagree to whatever extent they do, and move on. Focusing on it and talking about non-existent libel lawsuits (seriously? from a comment some anon dude named Max_b makes on a psi forum?) I must admit that I don't get it, but I am respectful about the fact that some people do seem very serious about the need for other to retract statements they think are not warranted. Just seems dramatic to me.
On the old forum, a few nasty people used to savage Linda. Repeatedly say awful things about her. It was pretty cringe-worthy, to be sure, but Linda took it in stride. As such, it really just showed what nasty and petty people Linda's enemies could be at times, and how secure Linda was in her skin. Would I have defamed these people who seemed to relish attacking Linda if I'd mentioned them by name just now? What if I said that they seemed weak and insecure when they bullied her? What if I said they seemed abusive and seemed to enjoy inflicting pain on others? Would I then have to retract my statement? If not, why not? Did I provide enough evidence of the nastiness and insecurity and abusive behavior? Who would decide if the evidence I offered to support my position was adequate to justify my assertions? How many posts would I have to dig up to support my position?
How would we police whether or not personal assertions made against Alex or Geller or Randi or Weiler or Bailey or Radin are justified without letting our obvious bias come into play? People were calling Geller a fraud because he was known to have cheated at times. Then is it fair to call Laird a liar because he is known to have lied at times? (no personal offense there, just making a general point). Anyway, long enough post for a Friday morning. I've said my piece. Thanks again for putting the forum together, and good luck with moderating it. Not easy work, to be sure.
(2017-09-08, 11:25 AM)berkelon Wrote: [ -> ]If someone said some bullshit that crossed the line, tell them that they said some bullshit that crossed the line. Have the group agree or disagree to whatever extent they do, and move on.
This, I think, is the position I feel myself drawn to too, in the light of our original aim of liberal moderation: that individual members in the group collectively call out anybody posting defamatory content, and that there is no need for moderators to intervene (except in their capacity as members calling out whatever crossed the line).
Thanks for your post.
(2017-09-08, 11:20 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]OK, and I feel bad about legitimate scientists being accused too. So, let's say we accept this demarcation you've set up: you say that because Geller is a showman, he's fair game for accusations. Does this mean that those purported psi adepts who are less flambouyant are not fair game, as for the scientists? And why should showmanship disqualify Uri from protection from false claims?
I think you are probably right in saying that we should not consider Geller to be fair game. I guess that there do seem to have been times when he's mixed trickery with whatever other talents he has. Indeed, he seems to have admitted that. Here's a snippet from an
interview with a Guardian journalist:
Quote:Suddenly he was famous in Israel, and went round the country doing a mind-reading and spoon-bending act. But after a while, he admitted, he resorted to trickery - he had an assistant who wrote down all the car numberplates in the car park, so he could 'magically' refer to them in his show.
So it is harder for me to always take him at his word even though he might indeed have some genuine psi talents.
(2017-09-08, 11:39 AM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]I think you are probably right in saying that we should not consider Geller to be fair game.
I think at this point that I'm actually leaning towards the opposite: if Geller is fair game, then why not everybody else?
By the way, thanks for the article, I'm going to read it.
(2017-09-08, 11:35 AM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]This, I think, is the position I feel myself drawn to too, in the light of our original aim of liberal moderation: that individual members in the group collectively call out anybody posting defamatory content, and that there is no need for moderators to intervene (except in their capacity as members calling out whatever crossed the line).
Thanks for your post.
Agreed. It is enough for members to quote something and say--I strongly disagree with 'X' that you just said. There should be little need to remove material unless it is clearly defamatory--accusing someone of being a necrophile, for example. And if something is borderline defamatory, it can be debated and discussed right there in that thread or in a side thread, like this.
(2017-09-08, 11:53 AM)chuck Wrote: [ -> ]Agreed. It is enough for members to quote something and say--I strongly disagree with 'X' that you just said. There should be little need to remove material unless it is clearly defamatory--accusing someone of being a necrophile, for example. And if something is borderline defamatory, it can be debated and discussed right there in that thread or in a side thread, like this.
Thanks for your input, Chuck. The interesting thing for me is that everybody seems to feel that there
is some limit - you give the example of accusations of necrophilia; berkelon gives the example of hate speech; Chris gives the example of being accused of sex crimes (IIRC, sorry if I paraphrased badly, Chris). I think this all points in a similar direction, so it's not all that problematic, and, as Chris says, a hard-and-fast rule is going to be difficult to specify, but I think we can define something relatively specific.
By the way, having seen Max_B's potentially defamatory comments in context, what did you make of them?
(2017-09-08, 12:13 PM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]By the way, having seen Max_B's potentially defamatory comments in context, what did you make of them?
I think the comments are classic Max_B. I think they are probably pretty standard faire for internet forum discussion. I imagine if Radin gets airplay on non-proponent forums, that the talk is likely much worse.
Along with Max_B, I do feel there is a danger of the "preferred dinner guest" syndrome, where one dons kid gloves for folks like Radin, Kripal, Braude, etc. And then some measure of extra sensitivity is engaged because on the one hand they are kind of like "darlings" and on the other, one would hope that they wouldn't have any reason to not participate here if they were so inclined.
I harken back to Don DeGracia on Skeptiko. There was a fellow who could just deflect even the harshest criticism with humor and lightness. I understand that not everyone is going to be able to do that, but he presents a model that we could all strive for here. I would urge anyone to go back and look through the threads (several quite long ones) where Don participated. [On a side note, I may like to interview Don at some point for psi-quest. He has a couple of new books out. All offered for free of course.]
So to sum up this rambler, I think Max_B was clearly expressing a fairly strong and certainly unpopular opinion that suggested that Radin
may be tweaking his studies to fluff up IONs. I kind of think this whole exercise is a fairly useful tempest in a teapot. Meta threads are the best-a threads, no?! It is only by rubbing up against these kinds of issues that the true forum container will be defined. My suggestion would be to return the posts in original form, especially since Radin himself chimed in and didn't raise any kind of fuss. I'm sure Max_B's remarks were fairly tame fair for him.