(2017-09-08, 08:49 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Good post. I don't know how I come across, I do know that some people are taken aback when I act in ways that they wouldn't... after a few years working with me... people tend to see my point... and understand I rarely go after people... I just go after facts... and if I can't say what I mean, even if it appears brutally blunt, how can I ever get to the truth of a matter. I'm no respecter of authority, I'm only a respecter of what people actually do. Those who act, and act truthfully, consistently and compassionately tend to get my respect.
You don't know or you don't care? Seems you may have meant the latter after reading this entire post.
(2017-09-08, 12:37 PM)chuck Wrote: [ -> ]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 feel like we're starting to barbell this thing. Either its open season, typically internet tough guy troll bullshit (sorry, my personal feelings about this end of the spectrum) or echo chamber, fan boy stuff.
Isn't there a middle ground more befitting of a university setting we could strive to achieve?
Have the common courtesy to address an objection to an experimenter's experiment to the actual experimenter instead of mindlessly repeating the same objection as if they weren't there?
Thinking twice about why you would want to ask about conflicts of interest/fraud since you have no evidence at all and you've just met this person?
You know, common decent treatment of fellow human beings and all.
This is not the same thing as asking folks to take supposed authority figures "on faith" and to shower them with praise. Right?
(2017-09-08, 12:53 PM)Silence Wrote: [ -> ]I feel like we're starting to barbell this thing. Either its open season, typically internet tough guy troll bullshit (sorry, my personal feelings about this end of the spectrum) or echo chamber, fan boy stuff.
Isn't there a middle ground more befitting of a university setting we could strive to achieve?
Have the common courtesy to address an objection to an experimenter's experiment to the actual experimenter instead of mindlessly repeating the same objection as if they weren't there?
Thinking twice about why you would want to ask about conflicts of interest/fraud since you have no evidence at all and you've just met this person?
You know, common decent treatment of fellow human beings and all.
This is not the same thing as asking folks to take supposed authority figures "on faith" and to shower them with praise. Right?
But then we are kind of back to DaveB's frequent "tone it down" comments. It's going to be tough either way. Who is going to decide what is common decent treatment and what is a hard-nosed critique of a possibly flawed or biased work?
Unless you have a "dinner party" strategy for membership, there will be folks here who other folks consider to be ass-hats. And that may be different for different folks.
(2017-09-08, 12:37 PM)chuck Wrote: [ -> ]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.
About the "preferred dinner guest syndrome"... I think we can actually avoid it. We had a written interview with Titus Rivas and there was some prodding there despite Smit being "part of the family". Back at Skeptiko, guests that registered in the forum were questioned quite strongly until at least the Eric Fargo interview (I really stopped paying attention to the podcast around that time, so it may have been until more recent times).
Dean is charming for sure, but had he barged in here making some arguments that are "way out there", its likely that he would have received the same treatment. But, since he was simply clearing the mud amidst an enormous speculative storm, of course people loved it. Also, Max's unwillingness to acknowledge opposing arguments certainly fueled that reaction, he made himself the antagonist of that particular thread and all of the opposition wanted him to eat crow.
Yes. I think another Skeptiko podcast guest who exemplifies good forum decorum is David Mathisen. (He writes those amazing seeming books on the stars that I wish I would read.) Always positive. Knowledgable. Unflappable.
Not sure of my point. I guess I am saying that we needn't fear pushing away knowledgable people who could be members here, albeit temporary ones, because of other members who may be harsher than average. (Obviously we already have accomplished members who have written books, etc.) Because people like DeGracia and Mathisen show that everyone is going to handle criticism in their own way. Some of them with a good deal of aplomb and grace.
(2017-09-08, 12:53 PM)Silence Wrote: [ -> ]I feel like we're starting to barbell this thing. Either its open season, typically internet tough guy troll bullshit (sorry, my personal feelings about this end of the spectrum) or echo chamber, fan boy stuff.
Isn't there a middle ground more befitting of a university setting we could strive to achieve?
Have the common courtesy to address an objection to an experimenter's experiment to the actual experimenter instead of mindlessly repeating the same objection as if they weren't there?
Thinking twice about why you would want to ask about conflicts of interest/fraud since you have no evidence at all and you've just met this person?
You know, common decent treatment of fellow human beings and all.
This is not the same thing as asking folks to take supposed authority figures "on faith" and to shower them with praise. Right?
Thank you! If I could like this a 1000 times I would.
(2017-09-08, 01:03 PM)chuck Wrote: [ -> ]But then we are kind of back to DaveB's frequent "tone it down" comments. It's going to be tough either way. Who is going to decide what is common decent treatment and what is a hard-nosed critique of a possibly flawed or biased work?
Fair questions Chuck and I don't know the answer.
I just know I'll be disappointed if boorish behavior stifles contributions by subject matter experts (so to speak).
I just don't get why someone like Max went to such great lengths to be "a dick" (the vernacular) by posting around the experimenters and musing on potential fraudulent motivation without offering any supporting evidence.
In RL (which I know online forums don't current resemble), I would have told Max he was being rude. Behavior like that just isn't tolerated in the societal circles I've experienced.
Now, if he'd been posing tough, uncomfortable questions to the experimenters regarding their work and they were acting "put off" and looking for rescue, I would have thought less of them (and supported Max).
(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)?
The difference is Geller has openly admitted to cheating before and has been caught cheating (I think) - so it's reasonable to wonder if he had cheated again (also I think individuals making claims of special abilities have to deal with questions of potential cheating). Radin has never been caught or known to cheat - so anyone insinuating/outright accusing him of cheating needs evidence IMHO.
(2017-09-08, 02:10 PM)Silence Wrote: [ -> ]Fair questions Chuck and I don't know the answer.
I just know I'll be disappointed if boorish behavior stifles contributions by subject matter experts (so to speak).
I just don't get why someone like Max went to such great lengths to be "a dick" (the vernacular) by posting around the experimenters and musing on potential fraudulent motivation without offering any supporting evidence.
In RL (which I know online forums don't current resemble), I would have told Max he was being rude. Behavior like that just isn't tolerated in the societal circles I've experienced.
Now, if he'd been posing tough, uncomfortable questions to the experimenters regarding their work and they were acting "put off" and looking for rescue, I would have thought less of them (and supported Max).
Not having read the entire thread in question, I may not be in a great position to comment. I have only read snippets. It is a tough cookie.