Should we permit interviews on non-core subjects, esp AIDS/HIV?

[Laird]

To Laird and Ninshub: please make it clear and final - where exactly can I publish an interview (if Bauer agrees after being dismissed once, which is for him to decide).

Ian suggested in post #142 that you could publish the interview in either Alternative Views on Science or Other Stuff. That's fine with me, and I'd suggest (but feel free to choose the other) that Alternative Views on Science is the better of the two - not that I consider myself the final word on this, so I hope that folks, especially founding members, and especially Ian, will show either by liking this post or responding favourably to it that they agree... or simply by not objecting to it!

Bauer has agreed to be interviewed outside of the Psience Quest interview section.

When it is ready, the interview will be posted in Alternative Views on Science section.

Now I start working on the text. I hope when it's ready, you'll see that Bauer's ideas worth your attention.

[Laird]

Bauer has agreed to be interviewed outside of the Psience Quest interview section.

When it is ready, the interview will be posted in Alternative Views on Science section.

Now I start working on the text. I hope when it's ready, you'll see that Bauer's ideas worth your attention.

Just reread your list of questions, Vortex. You've done a helluva good job constructing a set of relevant and cogent questions - kudos, man, am looking forward to the answers... my only fear is that there are so many of them, and so many requiring detailed answers, that it might be challenging for Henry Bauer to address them all in writing.

Also, it seems to me that this is a set of questions that might be asked of other scientists - especially those who are familiar with scientific sidelining as many parapsychologists are. Perhaps, if the opportunity comes up, they can be reused.

By the way, I listened to the latest Skeptiko episode with Henry Bauer earlier - there's a lot of interesting stuff in there, and it's good to see you digging deeper with your own questions.

People saying they will leave the forum if X happens isn't 'emotional blackmail' - it's simply stating a position. I am using my personal identity to get interviews - if the forum had given Bauer an official interview my name will be linked with that man. It is rational and reasonable for me not to want this.

Next is your nonsense about 'snowflakes culture' and this being 'censorship' no it is not - nobody is owed a platform. It's also all our forum and we all decide what we do with it, it's not up to you to tell us not to be 'snowflakes' (nice to see you using alt-right language too). 

Not everybody deserves the time to be debated, as Chris has said - Bauer's views are dangerous. Why you want to interview this man is beyond me, and arguably many people came to this forum to get away from people like Bauer.

Also you're telling people to be rational and not emotional - take your own advice.

What about psychic healing and clinical parapsychology? It is very definitely an acceptable topic here on Psience Quest, yet, if you ask psi skeptics, they'll tell you that it is dangerous since it turns people away from mainstream medicine and thus ruins their health and life. (They will be even more enraged in case of homeopathy, and any other alternative therapy.) Should we reject discussion of the psychic healing and clinical parapsychology because psi skeptics are certain that they are dangerous?

In fact, all medical debates are dedicated to dangerous - oftentimes even lethally dangerous - topics. If one would forbid the discussion of medical opinions and options that are dangerous, one would forbid all of them, since all of them involve danger - especially if they are mistaken and misguided.

But how can we decide what medical opinions and options are mistaken and misguided, and therefore most dangerous of all? Only by an open debate. There is no way to escape it.

Just reread your list of questions, Vortex. You've done a helluva good job constructing a set of relevant and cogent questions - kudos, man, am looking forward to the answers... my only fear is that there are so many of them, and so many requiring detailed answers, that it might be challenging for Henry Bauer to address them all in writing.

Also, it seems to me that this is a set of questions that might be asked of other scientists - especially those who are familiar with scientific sidelining as many parapsychologists are. Perhaps, if the opportunity comes up, they can be reused.

By the way, I listened to the latest Skeptiko episode with Henry Bauer earlier - there's a lot of interesting stuff in there, and it's good to see you digging deeper with your own questions.

Well, it is not yet questions - just a plan of what how they may look like. Actual interview will involve a lot of work from me as well as from Bauer, and will be quite "literary" (to call it so) in form, not just simple answer-question. It will include my views as well as Bauer's.

[Laird]

Well, it is not yet questions - just a plan of what how they may look like. Actual interview will involve a lot of work from me as well as from Bauer, and will be quite "literary" (to call it so) in form, not just simple answer-question. It will include my views as well as Bauer's.

Nice, man - sort of the approach Chuck suggested here?

What about psychic healing and clinical parapsychology? It is very definitely an acceptable topic here on Psience Quest, yet, if you ask psi skeptics, they'll tell you that it is dangerous since it turns people away from mainstream medicine and thus ruins their health and life. (They will be even more enraged in case of homeopathy, and any other alternative therapy.) Should we reject discussion of the psychic healing and clinical parapsychology because psi skeptics are certain that they are dangerous?

You're muddling together all kinds of different things. You don't have to be a "psi sceptic" to believe that HIV/AIDS denialism is pernicious nonsense. And I don't think most practitioners of alternative medicine actively try to dissuade people from using proven conventional therapies - still less, pretend that it's going to do more harm than good. Not in my experience, anyway. 

There seems to be almost a kind of outrage in some quarters that anyone should even object to the propagation of this dangerous rubbish. I find it very disturbing indeed.

What about psychic healing and clinical parapsychology? It is very definitely an acceptable topic here on Psience Quest, yet, if you ask psi skeptics, they'll tell you that it is dangerous since it turns people away from mainstream medicine and thus ruins their health and life. (They will be even more enraged in case of homeopathy, and any other alternative therapy.) Should we reject discussion of the psychic healing and clinical parapsychology because psi skeptics are certain that they are dangerous?

In fact, all medical debates are dedicated to dangerous - oftentimes even lethally dangerous - topics. If one would forbid the discussion of medical opinions and options that are dangerous, one would forbid all of them, since all of them involve danger - especially if they are mistaken and misguided.

But how can we decide what medical opinions and options are mistaken and misguided, and therefore most dangerous of all? Only by an open debate. There is no way to escape it.

This thread is mindbogglingly frustrating...

I don't see anyone saying we shouldn't have the AIDs/HIV interview, just not on the main interview forum.

Yes- one or more people have a real issue with the potential content, but most (me for example) are objecting on ground that it isn't directly related to psi. 

We address both of those areas of concern by putting in a different sub forum. OK. Problem solved... 

So now you are trying fight the battle over AIDs treatment falsehood and comparing to other "dangerous" medical topics, out of what, simple conversational curiosity? Or are you trying to choose a "test case" of a topic that is both psi and possibly dangerous to see how we wound handle that hypothetical situation? Is that the point here?

But how can we decide what medical opinions and options are mistaken and misguided, and therefore most dangerous of all? Only by an open debate. There is no way to escape it.

Huh? How is "open debate" amongst a group of people who have little knowledge or experience in the area under discussion going to be at all useful? That's how this dangerous nonsense is promulgated - by catering to people's conceit that they can weigh the evidence for themselves.

Obiwan asked you a good question earlier - why should we be interested in this guy's opinion? In those areas where his opinion has been judged, it has been found to be worthless (or worse - scientific misconduct).

Linda

Huh? How is "open debate" amongst a group of people who have little knowledge or experience in the area under discussion going to be at all useful? That's how this dangerous nonsense is promulgated - by catering to people's conceit that they can weigh the evidence for themselves.

Obiwan asked you a good question earlier - why should we be interested in this guy's opinion? In those areas where his opinion has been judged, it has been found to be worthless (or worse - scientific misconduct).

Linda

Using this as a basis, we might as well all fuck off home!