Renaming the "Skeptic vs. Proponent Discussions" subforum

I saw that particular exchange. The difference is that it was a shocking example in a post speaking directly to the topic of the discussion. In comparison, you bring up an episode when Steve001 went to the JREF forum to ask some physicists to look at Maaneli's posts (there were a good number of scientists at the JREF forum to draw on as resources http://www.internationalskeptics.com/for...ht=maaneli), when it has nothing to do with the subject at hand and whose only purpose is to discredit Steve (I don't know why it would do so, Steve has never claimed to be a physicist) instead of addressing his criticisms.
e.g. https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-t...68#pid1168


If a careful examination reveals that prejudice is what drives these complaints, I'm not sure what giving in to prejudice (instead of trying to address or gain insight into) is supposed to solve, other than making this an even more insular community.

Linda

Yeah, I don't see it that way at all. Bullies making hypocritical insulting claims about proponents will get called out on their hypocrisy by me, and I am happy to bring up the past to show them up and put them in their place.

Seems to me you are ignoring the tone and details of these situations - thus I think you are giving in to bias/prejudice/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, defending the indefensible. So it's a[n] impasse.

Continuing to argue about this gets me nothing, on a forum I use to pass some time here & there. We're now several posts in and I still feel good about my actions, believing I am completely in the right. Thus no need to continue, as I don't plan on changing how I address bullies and hypocrites as I see them. You are of course welcome to disagree.

[Laird]

Just getting in a little (kind of playful) possibility re the original aim of this thread - how about a name like "Oppose or Propose Stuff"? That way we can abbreviate it to The Oops Forum, and when people ask "Why 'oops'?" we can respond with, "Go a couple of rounds in there and that's what you'll soon enough be saying...".

[Laird]

I agree w/ Laird's arguments about the way Skeptic is used today compared to the Ancient Greek meaning of the term, but I think it's something we have to live with in context of the way people use the term in the very circles parapsychology is discussed in.

I get that the term has been co-opted successfully enough that its new meaning (as a synonym for something like "materialist-physicalist-atheist who rejects the paranormal") is the commonly understood one in the context of our forum, but why should we semi-officially validate that co-option? Sure, we might find it a convenient term to use when posting as individuals, but let's not dignify its use in a somewhat "authoritative" forum title.

How about "Ideological Objections to Observed Reality".

[Laird]

It's accurate, although I can hear the cries of "how aggressively biased!" already.

How about...The Zombie Apocalypse ?  Also known as The FU paradox, time and space merge when your engaged within this part of the forum. Why not try it and see? 

How about "Debunking", with two subheadings, "Paranormal Claims", "Scientific Claims" (as a substitute for the Alt Science section)?

Then discussions, like Will's NDE questions, would take place in the NDE section, rather than the SvP section.  

Linda

Or, even though "Skeptic" may have been co-opted more broadly as "materialist-physicalist-atheist who rejects the paranormal", it's not like anyone here identifies with that label, nor are people like that showing up here (this site doesn't seem to attract skeptics, regardless). Everybody here seems to know what it's for. Who are you worried about confusing?

Linda

[Laird]

even though "Skeptic" may have been co-opted more broadly as "materialist-physicalist-atheist who rejects the paranormal", it's not like anyone here identifies with that label

Have you ever laid out your own philosophical/ideological/metaphysical/ontological/whatever position anywhere? You claim not to identify with that label, which of course is your right, but I'm not sure where and how exactly it fails to describe you. Some of the sorts of questions I'd be interested in seeing answered somewhere (maybe in a new thread in the "Member Introductions" forum?) are:

• What is your position on consciousness aka the mind-body or "hard" problems?
  
• If not physicalist/materialist, then how would you generally describe your ontological views?
  
• Do you believe that any anomalous (psi, etc) phenomena exist or could exist? Which ones, and why or why not?
  

Also: though you and I have (had) our differences, if you ever feel physically threatened by any member here, please, in addition to letting the relevant authorities know, be sure to inform the admins here.

Or, even though "Skeptic" may have been co-opted more broadly as "materialist-physicalist-atheist who rejects the paranormal"

I'm sorry, but this is such a blatant inversion of the reality, that I can't help but respond.

You physicalists are the ones who have co-opted the "skeptic" label to hide behind, so that you can pretend at being impartial and dispassionate. It's a rejection based on a dogmatic belief that everything is derived from matter and physics ~ and absolutely nothing else. A Divine Foot most absolutely can't be allowed in the door, so to speak, because otherwise, your whole belief system would shatter apart.

You, because you're very blatantly a physicalist, despite your squirming and obvious attempts at wordplay throughout your many posts. It's too obvious ~ to the point that any attempts at saying that you are impartial only make you look worse.

Not only "skeptic", but also "rational". There's nothing remotely rational about your deeply emotional and dogmatic religiously devout belief in physicalism.

/tired, irritated rant