(2017-09-29, 02:10 PM)Vortex Wrote: [ -> ]As I have said already, the topic of the interview is not HIV skepticism. It is Science and Technology Studies (STS) in general, and Bauer's seminal contributions to them. Contributions that, as I made clear, are respected even by the ones who disagree with Bauer.
And, BTW... how, on what basis did you decide - mistakenly - that the interview would be dedicated to HIV skepticism? I never mentioned it, and made clear that the topic would be Bauer's general positions on science.
Yes - I was mistaken in thinking you had specified HIV/AID denialism as the subject of the interview. In the Skeptiko thread you mentioned only "his views" and "his position". You didn't specify what views or what position. (You didn't say anything about his "general positions on science".) It was others in that thread who were keen to discuss HIV/AIDS.
But in any case, if you aren't proposing to discuss HIV/AIDS with him, there's no problem that I can see.
(2017-09-29, 02:10 PM)Vortex Wrote: [ -> ]As I have said already, the topic of the interview is not HIV skepticism. It is Science and Technology Studies (STS) in general, and Bauer's seminal contributions to them. Contributions that, as I made clear, are respected even by the ones who disagree with Bauer.
And, BTW... how, on what basis did you decide - mistakenly - that the interview would be dedicated to HIV skepticism? I never mentioned it, and made clear that the topic would be Bauer's general positions on science.
As a matter of interest (genuine question), apart from the above studies which don’t seem to have been well received, what marks Bauer out as a scientist whose views ought to be of any more interest than any other person involved in science?
(2017-09-29, 01:30 PM)Vortex Wrote: [ -> ]Ok. After some thought, I will try to be rude. Bauer understood the situation once, and I think he will understand it once again. This man was dealing with intence emotional responses all his life, because of the wide range of his unorthodox interests.
Especially the last few years - after he accepted HIV skepticism.
To Laird and Ninshub: please make it clear and final - where exactly can I publish an interview (if Bauer agrees after being dismissed once, which is for him to decide).
To everyone else: I hope there would be no more announcements of (possible) leaving the forum, or (potential) splitting of the forum, no more demands of no-platforming etc.? These are just an emotional blackmail, whether you accept it or not.
Let's stop emotionalising and start thinking rationally. If you diagree with Bauer, soon you may have a perfect chance to direct your criticisms to him, personally - and clarify your disagreements in an open debate.
And, if you're so afraid for the forum reputation - I hope you understood that it will not be one of mainline interviews, just a peronal initiative by a member (me)?
So, do we all agree to the interview being published outside of the main sequence, and without the "Psience Quest" brand (to call it so)? Ok?
P.S. No-platformings, safe-spacings, trigger-warnings... These are all thin-weiled censorship, people, one which is sadly accepted and encouraged by modern snowflakish culture. Yet, culture of censorship is a culture of retreat. It is an intellectual defeatism.
If you think that Bauer is so miserably wrong, engage in debate. If someone is mistaken, it is better to expose his failures in debate, rather than try to banish him. It is better both ethically and pragmatically.
People saying they will leave the forum if X happens isn't 'emotional blackmail' - it's simply stating a position. I am using my personal identity to get interviews - if the forum had given Bauer an official interview my name will be linked with that man. It is rational and reasonable for me not to want this.
Next is your nonsense about 'snowflakes culture' and this being 'censorship' no it is not - nobody is owed a platform. It's also all our forum and we all decide what we do with it, it's not up to you to tell us not to be 'snowflakes' (nice to see you using alt-right language too).
Not everybody deserves the time to be debated, as Chris has said - Bauer's views are dangerous. Why you want to interview this man is beyond me, and arguably many people came to this forum to get away from people like Bauer.
Also you're telling people to be rational and not emotional - take your own advice.
(2017-09-29, 01:30 PM)Vortex Wrote: [ -> ]To Laird and Ninshub: please make it clear and final - where exactly can I publish an interview (if Bauer agrees after being dismissed once, which is for him to decide).
Ian suggested in
post #142 that you could publish the interview in either Alternative Views on Science or Other Stuff. That's fine with me, and I'd suggest (but feel free to choose the other) that Alternative Views on Science is the better of the two - not that I consider myself the final word on this, so I hope that folks, especially founding members, and especially Ian, will show either by liking this post or responding favourably to it that they agree... or simply by not objecting to it!
Bauer has agreed to be interviewed outside of the Psience Quest interview section.
When it is ready, the interview will be posted in Alternative Views on Science section.
Now I start working on the text. I hope when it's ready, you'll see that Bauer's ideas worth your attention.
(2017-09-29, 03:24 PM)Vortex Wrote: [ -> ]Bauer has agreed to be interviewed outside of the Psience Quest interview section.
When it is ready, the interview will be posted in Alternative Views on Science section.
Now I start working on the text. I hope when it's ready, you'll see that Bauer's ideas worth your attention.
Just reread your list of questions, Vortex. You've done a helluva good job constructing a set of relevant and cogent questions - kudos, man, am looking forward to the answers... my only fear is that there are so many of them, and so many requiring detailed answers, that it might be challenging for Henry Bauer to address them all in writing.
Also, it seems to me that this is a set of questions that might be asked of other scientists - especially those who are familiar with scientific sidelining as many parapsychologists are. Perhaps, if the opportunity comes up, they can be reused.
By the way, I listened to the latest Skeptiko episode with Henry Bauer earlier - there's a lot of interesting stuff in there, and it's good to see you digging deeper with your own questions.
(2017-09-29, 02:36 PM)Roberta Wrote: [ -> ]People saying they will leave the forum if X happens isn't 'emotional blackmail' - it's simply stating a position. I am using my personal identity to get interviews - if the forum had given Bauer an official interview my name will be linked with that man. It is rational and reasonable for me not to want this.
Next is your nonsense about 'snowflakes culture' and this being 'censorship' no it is not - nobody is owed a platform. It's also all our forum and we all decide what we do with it, it's not up to you to tell us not to be 'snowflakes' (nice to see you using alt-right language too).
Not everybody deserves the time to be debated, as Chris has said - Bauer's views are dangerous. Why you want to interview this man is beyond me, and arguably many people came to this forum to get away from people like Bauer.
Also you're telling people to be rational and not emotional - take your own advice.
What about psychic healing and clinical parapsychology? It is very definitely an acceptable topic here on Psience Quest, yet, if you ask psi skeptics, they'll tell you that it is dangerous since it turns people away from mainstream medicine and thus ruins their health and life. (They will be even more enraged in case of homeopathy, and any other alternative therapy.) Should we reject discussion of the psychic healing and clinical parapsychology because psi skeptics are certain that they are dangerous?
In fact, all medical debates are dedicated to dangerous - oftentimes even lethally dangerous - topics. If one would forbid the discussion of medical opinions and options that are dangerous, one would forbid all of them, since all of them involve danger - especially if they are mistaken and misguided.
But how can we decide what medical opinions and options are mistaken and misguided, and therefore most dangerous of all? Only by an open debate. There is no way to escape it.
(2017-09-29, 03:37 PM)Laird Wrote: [ -> ]Just reread your list of questions, Vortex. You've done a helluva good job constructing a set of relevant and cogent questions - kudos, man, am looking forward to the answers... my only fear is that there are so many of them, and so many requiring detailed answers, that it might be challenging for Henry Bauer to address them all in writing.
Also, it seems to me that this is a set of questions that might be asked of other scientists - especially those who are familiar with scientific sidelining as many parapsychologists are. Perhaps, if the opportunity comes up, they can be reused.
By the way, I listened to the latest Skeptiko episode with Henry Bauer earlier - there's a lot of interesting stuff in there, and it's good to see you digging deeper with your own questions.
Well, it is not yet questions - just a plan of what how they may look like. Actual interview will involve a lot of work from me as well as from Bauer, and will be quite "literary" (to call it so) in form, not just simple answer-question. It will include my views as well as Bauer's.
(2017-09-29, 03:43 PM)Vortex Wrote: [ -> ]Well, it is not yet questions - just a plan of what how they may look like. Actual interview will involve a lot of work from me as well as from Bauer, and will be quite "literary" (to call it so) in form, not just simple answer-question. It will include my views as well as Bauer's.
Nice, man - sort of the approach Chuck suggested
here?
(2017-09-29, 03:39 PM)Vortex Wrote: [ -> ]What about psychic healing and clinical parapsychology? It is very definitely an acceptable topic here on Psience Quest, yet, if you ask psi skeptics, they'll tell you that it is dangerous since it turns people away from mainstream medicine and thus ruins their health and life. (They will be even more enraged in case of homeopathy, and any other alternative therapy.) Should we reject discussion of the psychic healing and clinical parapsychology because psi skeptics are certain that they are dangerous?
You're muddling together all kinds of different things. You don't have to be a "psi sceptic" to believe that HIV/AIDS denialism is pernicious nonsense. And I don't think most practitioners of alternative medicine actively try to dissuade people from using proven conventional therapies - still less, pretend that it's going to do more harm than good. Not in my experience, anyway.
There seems to be almost a kind of outrage in some quarters that anyone should even object to the propagation of this dangerous rubbish. I find it very disturbing indeed.