The Good Place

Do you mean "A non-ideologue" in the sentence above?

Yes, sorry.  Thanks for pointing it out.

Science has a very good track record so far. Even parapsychologists rely upon it to discover things currently beyond our grasp.

It sure does.  Likely the same thing many a less sophisticated people would have said for millennia regarding whatever prevailing metaphysical worldview was in effect.  Point is its a faith-based worldview nonetheless.  I'm not going to criticize anyone for having such a worldview; just point out the hypocrisy when they accuse others with differing worldviews of being dogmatic, ignorant, etc.

The people Steve001 listed earlier seem to fit the bill with respect to eschewing faith-based appeals, and attempting to take a non-biased approach.

Lawrence Krauss does not fit that description.  If you meant a specific subset of the rather lengthy list he posted, feel free to revise.

Yes, sorry.  Thanks for pointing it out.


It sure does.  Likely the same thing many a less sophisticated people would have said for millennia regarding whatever prevailing metaphysical worldview was in effect.  Point is its a faith-based worldview nonetheless.  I'm not going to criticize anyone for having such a worldview; just point out the hypocrisy when they accuse others with differing worldviews of being dogmatic, ignorant, etc.

My argument was is never ever about worldviews. I am wondering how I could change your mind. Do you have any suggestions? 

Dogmatic etcetera are the accusations I hear from believers towards those whom they think aren't capable of seeing the world clearly as they see it.

I don't recall at anytime on this forum or Skeptiko of a skeptic levying that characterization  in general or specifically. If you know specifically where that has happened I'll admit error if you provide the proof. If you can't then it's a point of no consequence.

It sure does.  Likely the same thing many a less sophisticated people would have said for millennia regarding whatever prevailing metaphysical worldview was in effect.  Point is its a faith-based worldview nonetheless.  I'm not going to criticize anyone for having such a worldview; just point out the hypocrisy when they accuse others with differing worldviews of being dogmatic, ignorant, etc.

The statement Steve001 made was simply an evidence-based statement. A faith-based statement would be something like, “because science has a good track record so far, it can be used to answer all of our useful questions.”

Linda

Lawrence Krauss does not fit that description.  If you meant a specific subset of the rather lengthy list he posted, feel free to revise.

Oops, sorry.

I was referring to the list of non-proponents who are/were members of this forum, which Steve001 offered here:

https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-t...5#pid21245

Linda

My argument was is never ever about worldviews. I am wondering how I could change your mind. Do you have any suggestions?

I don't think its about changing my mind.  It may be my perception of you is inaccurate.  Being honest, I do not want to try and go through your posting history to draw out my point.  I thought it would be rather self evident.  You seem to be dismissive/closed/choose-your-favorite-descriptor of any idea that would fall outside the scientific materialist worldview.  I see that as dogmatic.

The statement Steve001 made was simply an evidence-based statement.

I wasn't speaking so much to any single statement but, again, to a sort of worldview perspective.  Presupposing that science will answer something it does not answer at present is not a evidence-based statement.  Its a faith based statement since you can't connect science's wonderful track record with so many things to those it has not yet tackled.  Otherwise you retract into the "there's nothing science can't ultimately explain" dogma.

Semantics aside of course.  Hopefully the point is evident.

I wasn't speaking so much to any single statement but, again, to a sort of worldview perspective.  Presupposing that science will answer something it does not answer at present is not a evidence-based statement.  Its a faith based statement since you can't connect science's wonderful track record with so many things to those it has not yet tackled.  Otherwise you retract into the "there's nothing science can't ultimately explain" dogma.

Semantics aside of course.  Hopefully the point is evident.

I would hope that I get the point, given that I made the same point in the very next sentence after the one you quoted. 

Steve001 didn't make the faith-based statement you tried to attribute to him. All he did was make the evidence-based statement I quoted. I don't think it's useful to try to force a worldview on to myself or Steve001, just for the sake of arguing with us. It seems like the only time the issue of whether or not science may answer something comes up is when proponents make the bold, faith-based statement that science is unable to answer questions about consciousness (or love or qualia or psi at various times or or or). Pointing out that this is not an evidence-based claim does not mean that a separate faith-based claim is being made (that science will answer those questions). It just means that time will tell one way or the other.

This propensity to put words in the mouths of skeptics is another reason why you don't find skeptics engaging with you here. It's tiresome and boring.

Linda

Oops, sorry.

I was referring to the list of non-proponents who are/were members of this forum, which Steve001 offered here:

https://psiencequest.net/forums/thread-t...5#pid21245

Linda

And that's also an inaccurate list. Steve001, in absolutely no universe, is a balanced or reasonable poster on this forum. He has shown himself to be, without qualification, dogmatic, unmoving, and generally unwilling to engage in actual, substantive discussion beyond full-blown dismissals and incredibly flawed deference to "science". He does not belong on any list of "true skeptics", or whatever the exact term was that Silence used.

Chris, as he attested to, isn't someone that most people here would call a skeptic, at least in the sense the term is often used around here. If Chris is a skeptic, so are many, many others on this forum. 

And as far as some of the others steve named, it's possible (like with anyone) they stopped posting because they got busy, got bored, or just didn't feel like posting here was worthwhile for whatever reason. It doesn't have to be because the forum is an uninviting place to skeptics. And malf has always, or at least for a long time (including on skeptiko) preferred to quip rather than make lengthy posts. 

I feel confident that this is a welcoming forum generally for all points of view. In fact, steve's continued acceptance here is evidence of that. I haven't seen anyone request that he be banned, nor should he be. But he absolutely doesn't contribute in a way that could be said to be "truly" skeptical. He's the closest thing this forum has to a skeptical troll. So the suggestion that this forum is too much of an echo chamber, at least from steve's point of view, seems clearly to me to a result of his lack of actually engaging with people and discovering how reasonable they are when you're actually talking about cases on an individual basis as opposed to just generally (as Chris mentioned to some extent earlier in this thread).

And that's also an inaccurate list. Steve001, in absolutely no universe, is a balanced or reasonable poster on this forum. He has shown himself to be, without qualification, dogmatic, unmoving, and generally unwilling to engage in actual, substantive discussion beyond full-blown dismissals and incredibly flawed deference to "science". He does not belong on any list of "true skeptics", or whatever the exact term was that Silence used.

Chris, as he attested to, isn't someone that most people here would call a skeptic, at least in the sense the term is often used around here. If Chris is a skeptic, so are many, many others on this forum. 

And as far as some of the others steve named, it's possible (like with anyone) they stopped posting because they got busy, got bored, or just didn't feel like posting here was worthwhile for whatever reason. It doesn't have to be because the forum is an uninviting place to skeptics. And malf has always, or at least for a long time (including on skeptiko) preferred to quip rather than make lengthy posts. 

I feel confident that this is a welcoming forum generally for all points of view. In fact, steve's continued acceptance here is evidence of that. I haven't seen anyone request that he be banned, nor should he be. But he absolutely doesn't contribute in a way that could be said to be "truly" skeptical. He's the closest thing this forum has to a skeptical troll. So the suggestion that this forum is too much of an echo chamber, at least from steve's point of view, seems clearly to me to a result of his lack of actually engaging with people and discovering how reasonable they are when you're actually talking about cases on an individual basis as opposed to just generally (as Chris mentioned to some extent earlier in this thread).

If I were a troll I'd put my 2 cents everywhere here. You don't see Dante that you never were privey to our private conversations. I bet not once have you ever thought to yourself why I'm rather firm in position. I'll put it this way. The only thing you know about my paranormal history is what I allow you to see.

I don't think its about changing my mind.  It may be my perception of you is inaccurate.  Being honest, I do not want to try and go through your posting history to draw out my point.  I thought it would be rather self evident.  You seem to be dismissive/closed/choose-your-favorite-descriptor of any idea that would fall outside the scientific materialist worldview.  I see that as dogmatic.


I wasn't speaking so much to any single statement but, again, to a sort of worldview perspective.  Presupposing that science will answer something it does not answer at present is not a evidence-based statement.  Its a faith based statement since you can't connect science's wonderful track record with so many things to those it has not yet tackled.  Otherwise you retract into the "there's nothing science can't ultimately explain" dogma.

Semantics aside of course.  Hopefully the point is evident.

There is a point here that is constantly overlooked and it has to do with the difference between the "resident sceptics" and the rest of the community here. This is, of course, a continuation of the same situation that existed at Skeptiko before we moved here. The difference is that the majority of the community shares a common view that anomalies exist which could be - and most likely are - evidence that the materialist/naturalist paradigm is inadequate to explain those anomalies. This leads us to consider other paradigms, other metaphysical possibilities. The resident sceptics, on the other hand, are not here to consider these alternatives, they are here to deny they exist and to discredit any such evidence.

Science itself is not a metaphysical position nor does it preclude the metaphysics we discuss here. But the sceptics respond as if they are here to represent science while they are really here to proselytise a materialist/atheist worldview. Back in the Skeptiko days I asked Paul something along the lines of "do you really believe that any and all evidence for psi, the paranormal or the afterlife is wrong" or that there are always mundane explanations for these apparent anomalies. If he is still around I hope he can confirm that his answer was yes. Honest and telling, I think. I think the same applies to the others if they are equally honest.

What is telling is that response was a statement of a closed mind. If so, why on earth devote so much time and energy debating something which has no possibility of a resolution other than the one you have already decided is true? The rest of us here seem to have varying degrees of uncertainty. We disagree about philosophies - some are dualists, some panpsychists, others are idealists. Some are very well informed about the science behind the evidence while others take a larger, perhaps more spiritual view but there's always an implicit admission that we don't know what it all means other than that the current paradigm is inadequate. 

So, again, I don't get why people devote their time to denial and to discrediting any and all evidence that doesn't fit their worldview. I can only conclude that it is due to some missionary zeal or some psychological need to prove they are right. That they are smart and we are foolish and gullible. If people care to look, there is evidence in abundance that the materialist paradigm has had its day. Many who have cared enough to look, often with the intent of proving materialism correct, have instead become convinced by that evidence. They were indeed sceptics but they had an open mind.