Skepticism and "A message from mom"

This is one lens I use to evaluate posters in this community and elsewhere.  Steve, for example, consistently dismisses this type of evidence.  Anything that doesn't come with the scientific community's "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" is consider bunk.  Not worth consideration or time.

That is, utterly, dogmatic.  It is the definition of scientism to my view.  Like all 'isms its a faith-based perspective.  Proponents will hide behind the "science has proven itself over time" mantra, but any real scientist will acknowledge that means, literally, nothing about the next unknown phenomena.

I haven't "met" anyone who would meet a true skeptic definition since I have never meant anyone devoid of bias.  So, I simply try to appreciate those who are self aware and open about their biases but are still willing to engage.

The trouble is that we are somewhat closeted here and Steve is but one voice which is generally exposed for the dogmatism it delivers. Yet, outside of this forum Steve would be indistinguishable from many other voices. As I said earlier, we can understand how that voice has become an echo of the "official line" from academia and, to a large extent, science - not to mention prominent people in the media from news reporters to stand-up comics. I believe that there has been a systematic conditioning going on for a couple of hundred years - at least since the time of Darwin.

I'm not saying that we know better or that we have an open door to the truth: we all have (and should have) doubts. All I'm saying is that we at least have had the desire and opportunity to look at evidence - albeit critically yet, hopefully, with an open mind. That should be the measure of a skeptic - not automatic dismissal due to conditioned dogmatic responses or fashionable cynicism.

Tell me what I dismiss?

Tell me what I dismiss?

You are kidding, right? 

Kam covered it Steve.  Your question just had to be rhetorical.

I'll leave it to the community to judge your posting history to determine if I was being fair and even-handed or otherwise.

Tell me what I dismiss?

I think Silence's "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" dig is meant to indicate what you dismiss. That is, if a skeptic withholds consent until the evidence dictates it, there is a tension here between what proponents think the evidence dictates and what the broader scientific community seems to think it dictates. That you choose to go with the broader scientific community is a dismissal of the proponent perspective that anecdotes should add up to 'something'.

Linda

I think Silence's "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" dig is meant to indicate what you dismiss. That is, if a skeptic withholds consent until the evidence dictates it, there is a tension here between what proponents think the evidence dictates and what the broader scientific community seems to think it dictates. That you choose to go with the broader scientific community is a dismissal of the proponent perspective that anecdotes should add up to 'something'.

Linda

Sounds reasonable. I wanted to hear if those two are actually listening to what I've said or to 
certain research articles I've posted. Or could they be interpreting and leveling an opinion dependent upon their own blanket bias at all skeptical persons. Now that I think about it after you brought it to my attention that dig sounds similar to how Alex described skeptics, remember "stuck on stupid"?

Sounds reasonable. I wanted to hear if those two are actually listening to what I've said or to certain research articles I've posted.

Oh Steve...it's so cute how you're still optimistic after all these years. 

Or could they be interpreting and leveling an opinion dependent upon their own blanket bias at all skeptical persons.

You think?

Now that I think about it after you brought it to my attention that dig sounds similar to how Alex described skeptics, remember "stuck on stupid"?

Yup. I liked it because it was appropriate. Just not in the same way Alex meant it - more like low hanging fruit and applicable to both proponents and skeptics (whereas Alex meant everyone who didn't see things his way was stupid).

Linda

think Silence's "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" dig is meant to indicate what you dismiss. That is, if a skeptic withholds consent until the evidence dictates it, there is a tension here between what proponents think the evidence dictates and what the broader scientific community seems to think it dictates. That you choose to go with the broader scientific community is a dismissal of the proponent perspective that anecdotes should add up to 'something'.

That's not at all what I meant.  You probably should have asked.

Steve's posting history indicates rather clearly to me that his approach is to dismiss anything that hasn't been accepted by the broad scientific community.  His priesthood if you will.  There is no middle ground for him.  It is binary: Scientific community approval?  Good information, fact, etc.  Lacking scientific community's approval?  Bad information, lie, distortion, wistful thinking, etc.

He is, literally, the opposite side of the religious fundamentalist coin.  They are also just as rigidly binary on all things; simply in the reverse.


I have no problem with the desire to wish for evidence.  I have that urge as well.  However, when faced with a story such as Kam's I leave open the possibility that there is "something there".  I can't dismiss it even if I find it not compelling.  I'm also open to the notion that the scientific method may have its limits.  Another point I'm sure Steve would not agree with (again, based on his posting history).

Happy to discuss further if my perspective is not clear.

That's not at all what I meant.  You probably should have asked.

Steve's posting history indicates rather clearly to me that his approach is to dismiss anything that hasn't been accepted by the broad scientific community.  His priesthood if you will.  There is no middle ground for him.  It is binary: Scientific community approval?  Good information, fact, etc.  Lacking scientific community's approval?  Bad information, lie, distortion, wistful thinking, etc.

He is, literally, the opposite side of the religious fundamentalist coin.  They are also just as rigidly binary on all things; simply in the reverse.


I have no problem with the desire to wish for evidence.  I have that urge as well.  However, when faced with a story such as Kam's I leave open the possibility that there is "something there".  I can't dismiss it even if I find it not compelling.  I'm also open to the notion that the scientific method may have its limits.  Another point I'm sure Steve would not agree with (again, based on his posting history).

Happy to discuss further if my perspective is not clear.

I was right. Your assessment is a blanket interpretation for all skeptics applied specifically to me. For example why you're wrong. I recently liked one, maybe two of your posts. However, I guess that was a binary choice.

That's not at all what I meant.  You probably should have asked.

Right. Like Steve asked and you gave a clear and detailed explanation of what you meant. :eyeroll:

I was actually trying to be nice and give you an out - that you weren't just going with the usual ad hom pile-on.

Steve's posting history indicates rather clearly to me that his approach is to dismiss anything that hasn't been accepted by the broad scientific community.  His priesthood if you will.  There is no middle ground for him.  It is binary: Scientific community approval?  Good information, fact, etc.  Lacking scientific community's approval?  Bad information, lie, distortion, wistful thinking, etc.

He is, literally, the opposite side of the religious fundamentalist coin.  They are also just as rigidly binary on all things; simply in the reverse.

I have no problem with the desire to wish for evidence.  I have that urge as well.  However, when faced with a story such as Kam's I leave open the possibility that there is "something there".  I can't dismiss it even if I find it not compelling.  I'm also open to the notion that the scientific method may have its limits.  Another point I'm sure Steve would not agree with (again, based on his posting history).

Happy to discuss further if my perspective is not clear.

No, your perspective is crystal clear. It is exactly as Steve suspected. "Or they could be interpreting and leveling an opinion depending upon their own blanket bias at all skeptical persons."

Steve actually said the same thing as you. He stated:

"Silence gave an accurate response. Distilliing that further it can be said like this.

Anecdote make skeptics wonder. Anecdote does not make a skeptic draw a conclusion.  I read his "Mom" blog post. My reaction is a shoulder shrug. What he wrote cannot be verified or denied." (Bolding mine)

So like you, he leaves open the possibility that there is something there. But you didn't bother reading what he says, and instead made up some BS about his perspective which allows you to insult him instead of addressing what he says. And of course, to fill in another square in the Bingo card, you went with the vague "posting history" reference. I'm going to take a stab at this and guess that you have paid attention to or read his posting history with the same care that you that you showed in this thread - i.e. not at all. 

Linda