Narrow Minded MSM Scientist

But really if you want to criticise Caroline Watt I think you should base it on her own opinions rather than Richard Wiseman's, whether they were married, cohabiting or whatever. I admit I would find him hard to love, but the heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of ...

Haven’t I based it on her alone? Apart from lumping them together, where did I mix the two? 
Wasn’t the interview on Skeptiko her alone?

I was asking a straight question about any relationship they may or may not have once had. I don’t know the answer, maybe you do?

Haven’t I based it on her alone? Apart from lumping them together, where did I mix the two? 
Wasn’t the interview on Skeptiko her alone?

I was asking a straight question about any relationship they may or may not have once had. I don’t know the answer, maybe you do?

You didn't mention the Skeptiko interview in your post above. You gave the impression that your opinion was based on her relationship with Wiseman. People can only go by what you post.

I disagree with you about Watts by the way - she’s a materialist. Wasn’t she married to Wiseman? I’m sure I’ve read that she was, but now there’s no sign of it when googling.

In the 2015 interview here, Caroline Watt is asked what she talks about across the dinner table when not at work. She begins the reply by stating "My partner is Richard Wiseman ...".
(towards the end, about 26 minutes in).

The evidence from past events suggests that folks will find that "makes sense" leads to cognitive dissonance and all its wonderful consequences.

Linda

DoooH ! Right Madam, I'm taking that first "like" I ever gave you....away.

In the 2015 interview here, Caroline Watt is asked what she talks about across the dinner table when not at work. She begins the reply by stating "My partner is Richard Wiseman ...".
(towards the end, about 26 minutes in).

But is that relevant? How many people here would think it was fair if they were judged on the opinions or actions of their partner, rather than on their own opinions or actions?

You didn't mention the Skeptiko interview in your post above. You gave the impression that your opinion was based on her relationship with Wiseman. People can only go by what you post.

The link to her Skeptiko interview was in my original post #32. I mentioned it as an example of her thinking.

That and other interviews and programmes I’ve heard her featured in is the reason I came to my opinion, but her partner at one time being Wiseman only adds credence to my theory imo.

The link to her Skeptiko interview was in my original post #32. I mentioned it as an example of her thinking.

That and other interviews and programmes I’ve heard her featured in is the reason I came to my opinion, but her partner at one time being Wiseman only adds credence to my theory imo.

Thanks for clarifying. But frankly, I think the identity of "her partner at one time" is completely irrelevant. If you tried to tell me what my views were on the basis of who my sexual partner was at one time, I'd make the faulty nature of your reasoning clear in no uncertain terms, not to put too fine a point on it.

Listening to the beginning of Watt’s Skeptiko interview I heard something both interesting and pertinent to something I said earlier, relating to propaganda and suchlike.

Alex mentions that her sceptical paper about NDEs seemed to have got widespread coverage. She replies saying something like ‘it’s a level playing field, if people think that I’ve said something interesting, my paper will be published, if others want to say something different, they’re free to do so’.

The point is that’s just not true! 

A relatively uninteresting paper (as Alex suggests) gets widespread coverage, but would the same happen to a groundbreaking paper that went against the mainstream view? These are the type of questions that need answering honestly by the mainstream.

Thanks for clarifying. But frankly, I think the identity of "her partner at one time" is completely irrelevant. If you tried to tell me what my views were on the basis of who my sexual partner was at one time, I'd make the faulty nature of your reasoning clear in no uncertain terms, not to put too fine a point on it.

Are you trying to say that the possibility of a Muslim man having a Muslim wife or a Christian man/Christian wife can not be a guide as to how the majority may be? 

Of course there may be the exception but as a guide they generally go together. No?