Improbability Theory

The reason Skeptiko and this forum are quiet is largely do to most members having convergent views. Any forum suffers this because there are limited things to say after awhile.  The only way to make a forum lively and keep it lively is to have widely divergent views, as you and me have seen people segregate themselves from people with widely divergent views. An example of liveliness is the thread started by Karmarling on evolution.

This right here is one of the things I hate most about the general ideology I call 'spiritualism' because it's easily one of its main defining characteristics. People who want their feelings protected because "feelz>realz" and so self segregate into their own private safe spaces where no one can ask them questions that might make them think. I at least tend to see self segregation (or even censorship) behaviour far more from that side than the skeptic side.

I doubt I can be classed as a skeptic given that trying to develop magic is essentially my day job but I would rather put my stuff out on display to see if anyone sees something I missed rather than cloister myself away because someone might make me question my worldviews.

I think there's a difference between being emotionally invested in being right and being emotionally invested in being told you're right. I'd argue the segregation, censorship and bad science comes more from the latter.

Granted I find the pure theoretical research most researchers do largely pointless. A more developmental, engineering approach seems far more suitable for psi among other things although I admit I'm biased towards that since it's what I try to use. I figure the best way to find out if something is real or not is to try your hardest to make it real from every angle possible. Reality will take care of the rest.

It is practically impossible to exclude emotion - depending on how you define emotion - from a debate. Debates are about being right and I would maintain that everyone has some level of emotional investment in wanting to be right. The trouble comes when people refuse to concede that they could be wrong. We see that typically when debates degenerate into endless striving to have the last word; by then it is more about ego than truth.

I fully admit to becoming emotional about some of the subjects we discuss here but that doesn't mean that I can't be rational. When it comes to evidence of survival, for example, I am driven by fear - certainly a powerful emotion - but, as I've pointed out in the past, I am also fearful about being wrong so I am very careful to assess the evidence for flaws, as any skeptic would do. The most fervent hope for anyone who has a fear of death is to find evidence that is as close to being conclusive as possible. I don't do faith which is why religion lost its appeal for me early in my life.

So my point is that one is not disqualified from a debate for being emotional, one is disqualified for refusing to consider alternatives. Whenever I read skeptical opinions I am stuck by the almost universal tendency for skeptics to lay claim to rationality as something they alone possess. Proponents such as we have here are characterised as being irrational wishful thinkers and any worldview that challenges materialism or accepts any kind of spirituality is automatically defined as irrational. That is, by my own assessment, a reason for disqualification because it refuses to consider an alternative.

I just finished listening to the R.A. Wilson talk you posted early in this thread.
My take away is that rationality is way overvalued.