The Good Place

I go back and forth on whether there are differences in thinking between skeptics and believers - at best, there may be some slight differences on average, but with substantial overlap in range. Certainly the people who hang out here, which will be a selected sample, seem interested in knowing whether something is true. Disagreements seem to be about how that judgement is made, more than anything.


Well, to be fair, that certainty amongst some of the Skeptics is a lot of what turned me off at the JREF forum. I'm not sure there's much difference between skeptics and non-skeptics in that regard. Rather, I suspect it reflects whichever group is in charge of which forum. There was an interesting study done on atheists and believers (https://www.amazon.com/Atheists-Groundbr...1591024137) and on the Dogmatism scale (scores range from 20-180), there was not much difference between atheists/agnostics/inactive and moderate believers (65/58/69/73). The atheists in the study belonged to atheist clubs, so probably a select sample of somewhat more dogmatic atheists. Regular churchgoers and fundamentalists had much higher dogmatism scores, but I don't think they could be considered similar to those with belief in paranormal activity.

Linda

Yes there is a broad range of differences and (I stress) similarities between skeptics and believers. Skeptics can be just as intractable as any believer and many times wrong in their conclusion. I've at times admonished skeptics there. Disagreements aren't the cause they are the symptom of the way different people prefer to understand reality. Disagreements happen between believers frequently, but they all agree psi happens. Contrast that to two or more skeptics with opposing views and it can turn into a blood bath. Recall Phil Plats "Don't be a Dick", he was drawn and quartered. Think back to Arouet, a Canadian, as polite as any Canadian one could ever meet and if you recall one whom often extended the proverbial olive branch only to be slapped in the face numerous times with it. Think of yourself, also just as polite, often called disingenuous or the other banned of 7 and why were we banned? It was not due to having minor disagreements, but major disagreement on the details of how psi happens or if it happens at all. For example; even today a believer mentions Uri Geller and a skeptic points out it's more likely Geller pulled a fast one and you can bet good money anger is to follow or if a skeptic doubts consciousness plays a role in creating reality the same will happen. *Recall how the names Sagan, Krause, Tyson... elicit sneers. Granted not every believer will react that way but enough do. The conclusion I've come to over the decades is they don't like us because we commit the gravest of all sins- we doubt. Which brings me to another point I've noticed. Forums like this are the cyber equivalent to brick and mortar places of worship. They are places to seek confirmation, affirmation and reaffirmation (in moments of doubt). For example here's a person looking for confirmation which is something I've seen of over the decades.

What pieces of evidence do you find most convincing?

Discussion in 'Extended Consciousness & Spirituality' started by Aug 14, 2018.    

    I know I don’t post often, but here it goes.

    What piece of evidence has been the most convincing for you? Have you ever worried you might be wrong?

    I feel like I’m trying to make sense of everything and yet it keeps spinning out of my reach. I know *anxiety has a part in it, and maybe I’m too deep in analytical thinking, but for some reason no matter how much I read about Psi, mediums and NDEs, I just cannot fully accept that these things are a possibility.

    Any answers are appreciated.
     
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/wh...ost-125445

You may have read this before. Though I was never as immersed as she I did see many of the things she talks about. *I skimmed through this today and recall her mentioning anxiety among believers I think. https://www.csicop.org/si/show/bridging_...o_cultures
I'll conclude with this. Skeptics are the Grinches that steal Christmas.

* Though his name is never brought up I can imagine the response to be levied at Asimov.

Yes there is a broad range of differences and (I stress) similarities between skeptics and believers. Skeptics can be just as intractable as any believer and many times wrong in their conclusion. I've at times admonished skeptics there. Disagreements aren't the cause they are the symptom of the way different people prefer to understand reality. Disagreements happen between believers frequently, but they all agree psi happens. Contrast that to two or more skeptics with opposing views and it can turn into a blood bath. Recall Phil Plats "Don't be a Dick", he was drawn and quartered. Think back to Arouet, a Canadian, as polite as any Canadian one could ever meet and if you recall one whom often extended the proverbial olive branch only to be slapped in the face numerous times with it. Think of yourself, also just as polite, often called disingenuous or the other banned of 7 and why were we banned? It was not due to having minor disagreements, but major disagreement on the details of how psi happens or if it happens at all. For example; even today a believer mentions Uri Geller and a skeptic points out it's more likely Geller pulled a fast one and you can bet good money anger is to follow or if a skeptic doubts consciousness plays a role in creating reality the same will happen. *Recall how the names Sagan, Krause, Tyson... elicit sneers. Granted not every believer will react that way but enough do. The conclusion I've come to over the decades is they don't like us because we commit the gravest of all sins- we doubt. Which brings me to another point I've noticed. Forums like this are the cyber equivalent to brick and mortar places of worship. They are places to seek confirmation, affirmation and reaffirmation (in moments of doubt). For example here's a person looking for confirmation which is something I've seen of over the decades.
You may have read this before. Though I was never as immersed as she I did see many of the things she talks about. *I skimmed through this today and recall her mentioning anxiety among believers I think. https://www.csicop.org/si/show/bridging_...o_cultures
I'll conclude with this. Skeptics are the Grinches that steal Christmas.

* Though his name is never brought up I can imagine the response to be levied at Asimov.

This must be a new low in pure spin without a smidgen of merit.

1. Please re-read the Uri Geller thread. I don't need to do so in order to recollect numerous mentions, by proponents, of Geller being a showman and probably a liar and a cheat. All that was suggested was there there might have been times when he displayed genuine abilities too.

2. I have said, and am sure other proponents would concur, that Carl Sagan was a huge positive influence. For me, his Cosmos series provided a great encouragement to learn more about cosmology in particular and science in general. I bought a book written by him (The Dragons of Eden) and was disappointed to find him pushing his ideological materialism in a popular science book - something he refrained from doing in his TV show. I have said all this previously on this forum.

3. Krauss (I notice you still can't even get his name right) is the very epitome of the kind of dick that Phil Plait was talking about. I don't want to detail the allegations against him but any google search for "Lawrence Krauss controversy" will furnish you with ample reading material from other skeptics as would the opinions of the leading female skeptic, Rebecca Watson.

4. "Forums like this are the cyber equivalent to brick and mortar places of worship" ... really? Coming from you that is so very rich. Have you no concept of irony? 

5. Historically, Skeptiko was very lenient when it came to moderation and reasons were always given for banning. Fls was repeatedly banned, usually temporarily until they just got fed up and banned her permanently. David B heralded a less tolerant attitude to moderation which resulted in many proponents leaving and some of us agreeing to create this forum, again with relaxed moderation. Let us not forget that fls was also banned from the JREF forum - a skeptics talking shop - so it is not only proponents who find her intolerable. Yet she - and you - are still here. Still crying crocodile tears about what a nasty bunch we are just because you have doubts. Again: really? I mean, REALLY? 

6. Finally, scepticism is not an ideology. It is not synonymous with atheism or materialism. It is about weighing the evidence and pointing out possible inconsistencies. For the most part, Malf does that. Chris - who you would probably include in your pejorative term "believers" is often sceptical. So is Max. Most of the so-called proponents here have expressed some scepticism and disagreement when you consider subjects case by case. Again: doubt is not a synonym for denial. Indeed, the only person here that I can think of who is fanatically obdurate is you, Steve.

6. Finally, scepticism is not an ideology. It is not synonymous with atheism or materialism. It is about weighing the evidence and pointing out possible inconsistencies.

Scepticism in its formal sense means evaluating something from all angles, and at the end withholding from drawing a conclusion. That's all.

Scepticism is not something to which the modern movement can make an exclusive claim. It is open to all, including proponents. The modern movement which has tried to appropriate the term has only been able to do so by simultaneously debasing it (discarding its fundamental principle) and attempting to align it with a particular worldview. As such it is more of an embarrassment than a badge which one might wear with pride. Though I'm happy to describe myself as a sceptic, I'm also not able to attach myself to the modern ideology with which it has become intertwined. As I said recently, I'd prefer the term 'explorer' rather than 'proponent' since there are very many things which are encountered and discussed and one cannot possibly be a proponent of all of them. Explorer seems more apt, and so far has escaped too many linguistic contortions. Though any term applied as a label will acquire baggage along the way, with the passage of time. I feel on the whole it is better to avoid labels.

6. Finally, scepticism is not an ideology. It is not synonymous with atheism or materialism. It is about weighing the evidence and pointing out possible inconsistencies. For the most part, Malf does that. Chris - who you would probably include in your pejorative term "believers" is often sceptical. So is Max. Most of the so-called proponents here have expressed some scepticism and disagreement when you consider subjects case by case. Again: doubt is not a synonym for denial. Indeed, the only person here that I can think of who is fanatically obdurate is you, Steve.

I think the best example of scepticism from proponents I've seen was the discussion about Diane Hennacy Powell's presentation to the Parapsychological Association four years ago, starting around here on Skeptiko:
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/pa...48/page-13

In that discussion both the "sceptics" and most of the proponents, together with those who don't identify themselves as either, all looked at the evidence with a critical eye. And people actually put some effort into investigating the evidence. Video clips were analysed. Frequency distributions were calculated. In the end, the majority drew similar conclusions, regardless of which camp they were supposed to be in.

In a way I think an online forum is the ideal place to have that kind of discussion. Compared with flesh and blood discussions, more people can participate, they can take as much time as they need for consideration before contributing and they can go on as long as necessary. Compared with formal written debates in journals, much the same applies, and the timescale isn't glacial.

I have dipped into the discussions at https://www.metabunk.org/ a few times, and have been extremely impressed with the quality of the discussion and the effort that people put into investigating the subject matter, despite presumably having a strong a priori belief that there's nothing real behind it. But it seems they have only very rarely discussed psi (though they talk quite a lot about UFO sightings).

Unfortunately that kind of discussion of psi doesn't happen very often. Some sceptics simply rubbish everything, whether specific problems have been identified or not. Some proponents seem disinclined to look for problems in the first place. Maybe this comes from being too much influenced by overall assumptions when looking at individual cases. But it doesn't really make sense for either side to argue from the general to the particular like that. For proponents, even if they're convinced of the existence of psi by some of the evidence, that doesn't mean it's safe to assume anything that looks anomalous is really psi. For sceptics, even if they're convinced there's a conventional explanation in every case they've seen so far, that doesn't prove that real anomalies can't exist (though it's perfectly understandable that such sceptics might decide not to waste any more time discussing anomalies).

I think the more people can suspend their general prejudices and look at particular cases with an open mind, the more productive (and interesting) discussions will be.

Yes there is a broad range of differences and (I stress) similarities between skeptics and believers. Skeptics can be just as intractable as any believer and many times wrong in their conclusion. I've at times admonished skeptics there. Disagreements aren't the cause they are the symptom of the way different people prefer to understand reality. Disagreements happen between believers frequently, but they all agree psi happens. Contrast that to two or more skeptics with opposing views and it can turn into a blood bath. Recall Phil Plats "Don't be a Dick", he was drawn and quartered. Think back to Arouet, a Canadian, as polite as any Canadian one could ever meet and if you recall one whom often extended the proverbial olive branch only to be slapped in the face numerous times with it. Think of yourself, also just as polite, often called disingenuous or the other banned of 7 and why were we banned? It was not due to having minor disagreements, but major disagreement on the details of how psi happens or if it happens at all. For example; even today a believer mentions Uri Geller and a skeptic points out it's more likely Geller pulled a fast one and you can bet good money anger is to follow or if a skeptic doubts consciousness plays a role in creating reality the same will happen. *Recall how the names Sagan, Krause, Tyson... elicit sneers. Granted not every believer will react that way but enough do. The conclusion I've come to over the decades is they don't like us because we commit the gravest of all sins- we doubt. Which brings me to another point I've noticed. Forums like this are the cyber equivalent to brick and mortar places of worship. They are places to seek confirmation, affirmation and reaffirmation (in moments of doubt). For example here's a person looking for confirmation which is something I've seen of over the decades.
You may have read this before. Though I was never as immersed as she I did see many of the things she talks about. *I skimmed through this today and recall her mentioning anxiety among believers I think. https://www.csicop.org/si/show/bridging_...o_cultures
I'll conclude with this. Skeptics are the Grinches that steal Christmas.

* Though his name is never brought up I can imagine the response to be levied at Asimov.

I don't think it's about skepticism or doubt. There are proponents here who exhibit skepticism about Uri Geller, for example, and don't get any grief for it. I think it's about what we first talked about - whether or not we accept the characterization that evidence (in the scientific sense) or debate favors the proponent position.

Linda 

This must be a new low in pure spin without a smidgen of merit.

1. Please re-read the Uri Geller thread. I don't need to do so in order to recollect numerous mentions, by proponents, of Geller being a showman and probably a liar and a cheat. All that was suggested was there there might have been times when he displayed genuine abilities too.

2. I have said, and am sure other proponents would concur, that Carl Sagan was a huge positive influence. For me, his Cosmos series provided a great encouragement to learn more about cosmology in particular and science in general. I bought a book written by him (The Dragons of Eden) and was disappointed to find him pushing his ideological materialism in a popular science book - something he refrained from doing in his TV show. I have said all this previously on this forum.

3. Krauss (I notice you still can't even get his name right) is the very epitome of the kind of dick that Phil Plait was talking about. I don't want to detail the allegations against him but any google search for "Lawrence Krauss controversy" will furnish you with ample reading material from other skeptics as would the opinions of the leading female skeptic, Rebecca Watson.

4. "Forums like this are the cyber equivalent to brick and mortar places of worship" ... really? Coming from you that is so very rich. Have you no concept of irony? 

5. Historically, Skeptiko was very lenient when it came to moderation and reasons were always given for banning. Fls was repeatedly banned, usually temporarily until they just got fed up and banned her permanently. David B heralded a less tolerant attitude to moderation which resulted in many proponents leaving and some of us agreeing to create this forum, again with relaxed moderation. Let us not forget that fls was also banned from the JREF forum - a skeptics talking shop - so it is not only proponents who find her intolerable. Yet she - and you - are still here. Still crying crocodile tears about what a nasty bunch we are just because you have doubts. Again: really? I mean, REALLY? 

6. Finally, scepticism is not an ideology. It is not synonymous with atheism or materialism. It is about weighing the evidence and pointing out possible inconsistencies. For the most part, Malf does that. Chris - who you would probably include in your pejorative term "believers" is often sceptical. So is Max. Most of the so-called proponents here have expressed some scepticism and disagreement when you consider subjects case by case. Again: doubt is not a synonym for denial. Indeed, the only person here that I can think of who is fanatically obdurate is you, Steve.

Just a couple of corrections...

Reasons were rarely given for banning/suspending me. Occasionally reasons would be attempted, but they weren't particularly helpful or were patently false. In the end, Andy (and also David to some extent) admitted that it wasn't because I had said or done something against the rules. It was because they would receive complaints from one or a few people that wanted me censored and the moderator would comply to get the complainers off their back. No examples were given of me doing any of things you and others accuse me of. No reason was even attempted for the final ban from Skeptiko, and I still don't know what that was about.  

I was never banned from the JREF forum. Nobody had a problem with me there. At one point I was even held up as the poster child for someone who was in no danger of running afoul of moderation. 

Linda

[Laird]

I was never banned from the JREF forum.

I did wonder about that claim in Kamarling's post. I hadn't remembered hearing it before. Glad you've set the record straight.

I was never banned from the JREF forum. Nobody had a problem with me there. At one point I was even held up as the poster child for someone who was in no danger of running afoul of moderation. 

Linda

Odd how that doesn't seem to tally with this post from a certain "Darat" who, according to the designation below the username, was an Administrator / JREF Forum Liason. This is Darat's post from 3rd. May 2011 at 5:30 AM in response to fls who signed as "Linda".

Again I followed the evidence. You stated that "I gave you false information on my registration". The evidence shows that you had read the post in which I informed you in more detail of the criteria for the required information which made it very clear that what you had supplied was not "false information" prior to the post in which you made the claim "I gave you false information on my registration". Therefore your post was dishonest, I do not intend to start to speculate on your motives as that would be going beyond the verifiable facts of the matter.

ETA: And this post shows you continuing to post dishonestly. You are trying to present a version of events in which an "innocent"

- Page Break -

Member was suspended even though they had not broken the Membership Agreement. What actually happened is that you claimed that you had lied when you applied for an account here, which means you would be in breach of the terms for an active account here. You were suspended based on your own claims. That subsequently it was been revealed that your claim was a lie does not change that you were claiming to be in breach of the rules of this Forum and that is why you were suspended.

I can post the message you wrote to which the above was a reply, if you like. Or you can stick with your current claim to "Poster Child" status. I don't really give a damn.

I did wonder about that claim in Kamarling's post. I hadn't remembered hearing it before. Glad you've set the record straight.

If I have overstepped the mark by "outing" fls, please feel free to ban me, Laird - you can be sure I won't hold it against you. Most people here are nice and I would miss you but a couple are frankly not worth the frustration.

[Laird]

If I have overstepped the mark by "outing" fls, please feel free to ban me, Laird - you can be sure I won't hold it against you. Most people here are nice and I would miss you but a couple are frankly not worth the frustration.

Ah, no - it simply seems I expressed gladness to the wrong person for setting the record straight.