(2017-09-27, 01:43 PM)Ninshub Wrote: [ -> ]I think Psience Quest interviews should be about psi, basically. We're not a replica of Skeptiko.
I agree with this. Interviews should stick close to the core topics. (In my opinion.) But I think people who want to do an interview should be encouraged to start a thread and fight to make people see the relation if the initial impulse of the community is "no."
(2017-09-27, 11:42 AM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]Someone needs to Sheppard the thing.
Its like a garden, you need to tend it and not just let everything grow wild.
There will always be some who disagree with a particular choice, but that doesn't mean choices don't need to be made.
Unfortunately, David the gardener used to much fly spray and overdid the pruning. He also put up too many fences and kept out all the interesting creatures.
(IMHO)
(2017-09-27, 11:39 AM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]What's the subject matter? AIDs/HIV? What is his position/message?
Wait a minute. Has anyone asked these questions on the incredibly wide range of topics we've seen discussed here to fore? (e.g., Pssst's alien line of posting)
I actually liked this most recent Skeptiko interview (well until the end when Alex discussed his forum pruning). Perhaps the community wants this site uber focused on "psi" but I would cast a vote for expanding to include topics under the intersection of science and spirituality.
(2017-09-27, 01:43 PM)Ninshub Wrote: [ -> ]I think Psience Quest interviews should be about psi, basically. We're not a replica of Skeptiko.
Maybe someone needs to lay out a definition of psi for me then. I don't know where 9/11, Greys, and the rest of the wide range of topics so far discussed fit under that umbrella.
(2017-09-27, 02:25 PM)Silence Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe someone needs to lay out a definition of psi for me then. I don't know where 9/11, Greys, and the rest of the wide range of topics so far discussed fit under that umbrella.
I haven't seen 9/11 discussed, but I don't belong to the hidden forums.
UFO and "others" phenomena have a link with psi, in my opinion. I'm too tired to go into it right now, but it would make an interesting thread. I will at least start the thread now and maybe add to it as I can.
(2017-09-27, 08:52 AM)jkmac Wrote: [ -> ]Personally , I don't see the relevance of the topic to what we are all about.
I think it is reasonable to ask someone who is interested in a particular topic, how it relates to psiencequest, and if doesn't pass the sniff test, than it is not allowed.
I don't think we need to be militant about it, but we should generally have a "relevance filter" of some sort, shouldn't we?
The relevance of bad science to ψ that people are told that science has disproved ψ and/or it has demonstrated it to be impossible in principle. Those of us who are also interested in science, are here because we can see that science hasn't ruled out ψ, and that in any case, it is fairly flaky right now.
You recently hosted a discussion regarding the viability of evolution by natural selection. Again you might say that is outside the subject area of this forum, but if life on this planet was started by a mechanism that was in some way Intelligent Design, isn't that relevant?
I get the impression that you yourself are interested in science, so don't you want to see how science and ψ inter-relate?
David
The thing I like about the international skeptics forum is the wide range of sub forum subjects open for discussion. There's Art and Literature, Education, Computers for example.
(2017-09-27, 02:34 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]The thing I like about the international skeptics forum is the wide range of sub forum subjects open for discussion. There's Art and Literature, Education, Computers for example.
I think you can open any of those threads under OTHER.
(2017-09-27, 02:22 PM)Silence Wrote: [ -> ]Perhaps the community wants this site uber focused on "psi" but I would cast a vote for expanding to include topics under the intersection of science and spirituality.
If "spirituality" is really involved, then fair enough but, as far as I can see, whether AIDS is caused by HIV seems to be a purely scientific question. Unless it's going to be suggested that psychical influence or demonic possession or something of that kind is involved. But I don't think that is the case.
Just to repeat, personally I have no objection whatsoever to "heretical" scientific theories in general being discussed on this site (though there is probably a case for making a clear separation from psi in the same way as for political conspiracy theories). But I think HIV/AIDS denialism is a special case, because it has had the effect of people being denied, or refusing, effective medical treatment - particularly in South Africa. I wouldn't want to be associated with a website that propagated such views. Some things are more important than having interesting discussions about psi.
Regarding Henry Bauer in particular, the fact that he has expressed homophobic views in the past (though he has apparently retracted them since) is an aggravating factor.
The question of the Henry Bauer interview is interesting. I see its relevance. I am having a private discussion at the moment about who is well-placed to weigh the evidence for or against psi. And a lot of the insistence that there is strong evidence for psi depends on who you regard as well-placed (including oneself).
The same process seems to be in place for those who doubt climate change, evolution, HIV/AIDS, etc., where mainstream scientists are not regarded as well-placed.
On the other hand, HIV/AIDS denialism seems to be about as dead as flat-eartherism - yes it's still out there, but nobody takes it seriously beyond a fringe few (I just asked an AIDS physician/researcher about their perception - "it hasn't been an issue for at least 10 years"). And in addition to the serious harm Bauer has contributed to, he has offered some pretty execrable opinions in the past (e.g. antihomosexual) that Psience may not want to associate with.
Full disclosure - I want him to be interviewed here, because I have some pointed questions to ask him (if allowed). But I see the validity of the concerns.
Linda