Renaming the "Skeptic vs. Proponent Discussions" subforum

 
Really?  This seems a shockingly ignorant thing to say.

"Stuck on Stupid" refers to a program/perspective/tactic (I'm not sure what to call it) promoted by Alex Tsakiris. Skeptics were to be treated with hostility - deservedly so because they were "stuck on stupid". This meant that everything said by a skeptic was presumed to an utterance from ignorance and stupidity. The most uncharitable interpretation possible was laid on every statement, and if this wasn't sufficient, "interpretations" which went ahead and contradicted what had been said were used. Absolutely no nuance in position was allowed. Nor was there to be any examination or discussion of scholarly references.

Some of that bled through to this forum.

Linda

The point is that certain skeptics exhibit the mirror image, poor behavior to "stuck on stupid".  The same presumptive thinking regarding anything not immediately backed by consensus, materialistic, reductionist science.  The same condescending and dismissive attitude.  We have several rather loud voices on this forum that exhibit this mirror-image behavior.

So, you should lament both extremes as limiting factors to the more open community you seem to seek.  Right?

The point is that certain skeptics exhibit the mirror image, poor behavior to "stuck on stupid".  The same presumptive thinking regarding anything not immediately backed by consensus, materialistic, reductionist science.  The same condescending and dismissive attitude.  We have several rather loud voices on this forum that exhibit this mirror-image behavior.

So, you should lament both extremes as limiting factors to the more open community you seem to seek.  Right?

I agree that this is the mirror image of what you can see on skeptic forums. This was a large part of why I left those forums. I haven't seen that on this forum, though. The closest we get to that may be Steve001. However, since he is also subject to the "Stuck on Stupid" uncharitable interpretation of his statements, much of that perception has been manufactured out of thin air. For example, when he said exactly the same thing as you did in this thread, you received a reasonable interpretation of your remarks, while his were taken to be the opposite - an example of a condescending and dismissive attitude as a result of presumptive thinking regarding anything not immediately backed by consensus, materialistic, reductionist science. There was no reason to do this except to participate in Alex's "Stuck on Stupid" program. 

I would lament both extremes, if applicable. But I don't think that mirror image is present here.

Please don't hand wave this away with vague references to "posting history". This is on you (plural). It's not something Steve001 or malf or I or whatever remnant of Paul remains, can change.

Linda

As I recall, it (stuck on stupid) was more often used (by Alex Tsakiris) when calling out certain idiotic explanations for veridical near death experiences claimed by certain prominent sceptical members on his discussion board.

For example, claiming that the two heart surgeons accidentally fed the patient the information (he later reported) about the post it notes. A completely ridiculous, cynical and dishonest tactic to avoid admitting the bleeding obvious and damned infuriating to boot!! Why...because the members who defaulted to that position are not actually stupid but they are making stupid proposals.

I agree that this is the mirror image of what you can see on skeptic forums. This was a large part of why I left those forums. I haven't seen that on this forum, though. The closest we get to that may be Steve001. However, since he is also subject to the "Stuck on Stupid" uncharitable interpretation of his statements, much of that perception has been manufactured out of thin air. For example, when he said exactly the same thing as you did in this thread, you received a reasonable interpretation of your remarks, while his were taken to be the opposite - an example of a condescending and dismissive attitude as a result of presumptive thinking regarding anything not immediately backed by consensus, materialistic, reductionist science. There was no reason to do this except to participate in Alex's "Stuck on Stupid" program. 

I would lament both extremes, if applicable. But I don't think that mirror image is present here.

Please don't hand wave this away with vague references to "posting history". This is on you (plural). It's not something Steve001 or malf or I or whatever remnant of Paul remains, can change.

Linda

https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-t...702#pid702

Steve's history speaks for itself Linda.  Your interpretation of it is "on you" as you like to say.

And I would suggest not lumping Malf into the same category.  I've found him to exhibit very little, if any, of the dogmatism exhibited by Steve.  I have a sense of where Malf is coming from but there isn't the condescension and belittling as you get from Steve.

As I recall, it (stuck on stupid) was more often used (by Alex Tsakiris) when calling out certain idiotic explanations for veridical near death experiences claimed by certain prominent sceptical members on his discussion board.

For example, claiming that the two heart surgeons accidentally fed the patient the information (he later reported) about the post it notes. A completely ridiculous, cynical and dishonest tactic to avoid admitting the bleeding obvious and damned infuriating to boot!! Why...because the members who defaulted to that position are not actually stupid but they are making stupid proposals.

I see this as an impasse. While proponents may agree AND disagree (both with skeptics and with each other) about many aspects of the things we discuss here, the reason we even have a "Skeptics vs Proponents" sub-forum is because of the intransigence of skeptics. I don't expect the skeptics here to concede a single issue that might suggest that the proponent view might have merit. Not ever. This is blanket denial and precisely why it is hived-off to a sub-forum (the exact same reason it was separated on the Skeptiko forum). I can't help but return to the Lewontin admonition: " ...  materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." In a single line he ties materialism to atheism and makes it an ideological imperative. That's why we have an impasse.

Some of our so called sceptics that made those comments (about the Rudy case) are more hard line than sceptics on materialist message boards such as this well known one :

https://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=22188


Re: Dr. Lloyd Rudy Cardiac Surgeon - Tells Two NDEs

• Quote
  
  

Post by Cygnus_X1 » Wed Sep 16, 2015 12:50 pm

It's quite right to be sceptical, but equally one ought to also be sceptical of scepticism that is just throwing out any 'It might be....' that one can think up in an attempt to appear sceptical. There does come a point where the scepticism is clutching at straws even more than the original story and one is at the level of 'swamp gas' ( which even Hynek later admitted was stretching explanations too far ).

Surely the point of scepticism is not a stance of ' I am not going to believe in this under any circumstances ' that simply expresses a desire to find any alternative explanation even if it makes even less sense than the original, but is very simply a case of demanding 'where is the evidence ?'. To me that is all one needs to say about these cases. It's not for sceptics to prove that this isn't life after death, but for believers to prove that it is !

https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-t...702#pid702

If that's your example, then it proves my point. Several people, known to favor an immaterial perspective on consciousness, offer various suggestions for crown shyness which involves conscious awareness/mood/personality. Steve points this out and offers another perspective. An interesting and educational discussion ensues. Then the usual suspects show up to insult and attack Steve, so that further useful discussion is derailed. He responds somewhat in kind, but to a lesser extent. And it is now Steve's fault that the "Stuck on Stupid" proponents had to attack him.

Steve's history speaks for itself Linda.  Your interpretation of it is "on you" as you like to say.

Indeed.

And I would suggest not lumping Malf into the same category.  I've found him to exhibit very little, if any, of the dogmatism exhibited by Steve.  I have a sense of where Malf is coming from but there isn't the condescension and belittling as you get from Steve.

Any condescension and belittling from Steve is utterly dwarfed by that coming from some of the proponents here. And if it does arise, it is usually the result of these relentless attacks. 

Why not just try foregoing the attacks? What have you got to lose?

Linda

Skeptics clearly will claim they are the victims, and I personally see a lot this crying victim as manipulative playacting or an example of the impossible chasm between not just worldviews but the behavior of those who we see as on our side.

So that's pretty much an impasse.

Just use the Skeptic's Corner or whatever it is to becalled to corral worthless posts about someone being a damn fool then refusing to provide any arguments, or trolling posts of corpses or those who are disabled, accusations about how proponents lack "testosterone", etc.

If people think that kind of behavior is meant to encourage discussion not sure what anyone can do but create a playpen where that kind of nonsense is tolerated. Like Player vs Player section of those whose idea of fun is spoiling everyone else's good time.

My experience aligns with Linda's. Proponents seem hyper obsessed with arguing about how special they are and how much the universe loves them. Anything that threatens that worldview gets attacked viciously. Case and point, you have a guy here who has figured out how to induce shared dreams and who is actively working to develop direct telekinetic abilities who even has a working model of how they work along with some math and numerous successful experiments proving the concepts. 


But when I post my stuff in the experiments section, a section I asked for creation of, is there any response? Are there people asking questions about the techniques or trying it themselves and recording their results? No, because everyone's too busy arguing about morality and meaning among other useless emotional hippy garbage. You want parapsychology to be seen as a serious science? Maybe try doing things that actually contribute to it then, instead of whining about skeptics.

You should value the sneers of skeptics, they should motivate you not discourage you. Truth is best meted out through conflict. Otherwise you just have the pansy 'God is a mystery' bullshit from the middle ages all over again. Every other established science had to run through the gauntlet of truth before being accepted. Every one of them had their armies of sneering skeptics, so get off your high horses, you're not special.