Banned from Skeptiko until 15 Feb

[Laird]

If that's not enough to make you run like the wind from that echo chamber of uncritical thought, you have only yourself to blame...

Heh. Yeah, it's dripping with self-satisfied paternalism. There is an obvious problem with the moderation of the place. But I disagree that Skeptiko as a whole is (merely) an echo chamber of uncritical thought. There are contributors there whose contributions are thoughtful and valuable. And, though I only listen to the occasional podcast, they are often worth a listen - Alex has his own legitimate approach and style.

 Alex has his own legitimate approach and style.

There is nothing legitimate about accusing everybody who disagrees with your position of being "stuck on stupid"

[Laird]

There is nothing legitimate about accusing everybody who disagrees with your position of being "stuck on stupid"

Ah, I was referring more to his style of interviewing, in which he challenges his guests in ways that they might not be challenged on other podcasts.

But as for "stuck on stupid", I do think that that's also a valid approach for Alex to have taken after spending as much time as he has digging in to the data, and finding that there is abundant evidence for psi and generally "paranormal" effects. At that point, if you encounter people who (claim to) have dug into the data as much, but who have not realised the strength of the evidence, then they cannot be accused of "ignorance", so, what else are you going to label them as other than "stupid" - and "stuck on" inasmuch as their opinion is not open to change; it is a fixed ideology?

That's obviously not true. Words often catalyse and inspire - and are a primary means of planning and effecting - change. Hence the force of the saying "the pen is mightier than the sword".

Action is what actually causes change. Words in and of themselves do nothing no matter how inspiring you think they are. Without the action to back it up, talking is about as effective as doing nothing. Besides we're not talking about trying to form a concrete plan of action with another person with intent to carry it out. We're talking about arguing with random people on the internet. Time and effort that could be better spent actually doing something about whatever problem someone sees in the world. Even if words can be a catalyst there's no guarantee they will be or that they'll inspire anyone to do anything that would actually help the situation. Whereas you can guarantee that if you take specific action to help solve a problem you will have some direct effect on it. People might even pitch in and help out once they see you working, thus increasing the effect you were already having. So words are better used to talk about what you're actually, personally doing to help rather than complaining to others about what they are or are not doing.

Words in and of themselves do nothing no matter how inspiring you think they are.

That isn’t really true. If they inspire they are doing something that stands alone imo. I may write a throw away line that inspires a mountain of stuff, if that wasn’t my intent, the words must have done it, for if they hadn’t been there the mountain wouldn’t exist.

Ah, I was referring more to his style of interviewing, in which he challenges his guests in ways that they might not be challenged on other podcasts.

But as for "stuck on stupid", I do think that that's also a valid approach for Alex to have taken after spending as much time as he has digging in to the data, and finding that there is abundant evidence for psi and generally "paranormal" effects. At that point, if you encounter people who (claim to) have dug into the data as much, but who have not realised the strength of the evidence, then they cannot be accused of "ignorance", so, what else are you going to label them as other than "stupid" - and "stuck on" inasmuch as their opinion is not open to change; it is a fixed ideology?

I think there are sometimes (often, even?), people who have come in with decided opinions who have not really dug into the research and assume that it is weak. Perhaps it is okay to call them "stuck on stupid" for forming decided opinions without having the wherewithal to form them. But there's obviously a valid disagreement with respect to "strength", though, which people with knowledge and experience have insight into, and which Alex (and many others) lack. And this goes both ways. As you pointed out, LoneShaman and David don't have the wherewithal to form opinions on Climate Science, yet they come in with decided opinions anyways, ignoring what those with the wherewithal to do so say about the strength of the evidence. 

And truth be told, Alex hasn't dug into the data. Alex depends almost entirely upon authority figures of his choosing feeding him their opinions on what the data says. This was one of the main reasons that Arouet and other skeptics got into trouble on the Skeptiko forum. If they tried to look at data, Alex would insist that they could only discuss what Pim van Lommel (as an actual example) said about the data. People were banned/suspended for adressing data instead of Approved Authority Figures' declarations about the data.

Linda

There's no point arguing about things like climate change on a forum. Words change nothing.

I think they can if the reader is prepared to consider them. After all there aren’t many more effective ways to communicate ideas and information than words are there? 

Action is what actually causes change. Words in and of themselves do nothing no matter how inspiring you think they are. Without the action to back it up, talking is about as effective as doing nothing. Besides we're not talking about trying to form a concrete plan of action with another person with intent to carry it out. We're talking about arguing with random people on the internet. Time and effort that could be better spent actually doing something about whatever problem someone sees in the world. Even if words can be a catalyst there's no guarantee they will be or that they'll inspire anyone to do anything that would actually help the situation. Whereas you can guarantee that if you take specific action to help solve a problem you will have some direct effect on it. People might even pitch in and help out once they see you working, thus increasing the effect you were already having. So words are better used to talk about what you're actually, personally doing to help rather than complaining to others about what they are or are not doing.

Action leads to change that’s true. How is the call to action made without words?

Laird,

 Do you really think it's good for PsienceQuest to be the place for meta-commentary on the practices of Skeptiko? If you as an admin/mod are allowed to do it why shouldn't anyone else from over there come here to voice their complaints?

 I thought the whole point of PsienceQuest was to just up and leave Skeptiko, especially for those of us who didn't have any intention for trying to undo our bannings?

[Laird]

And this goes both ways. As you pointed out, LoneShaman and David don't have the wherewithal to form opinions on Climate Science, yet they come in with decided opinions anyways, ignoring what those with the wherewithal to do so say about the strength of the evidence.

Mmm... and re this, I think perhaps you and I have fairly similar views as to how to assess the truth about areas of science outside of our own base of knowledge/understanding/expertise (you started a couple of threads about this early on in this forum's history).