Why do I feel threatened?

Ironically, I think many of us left the Skeptiko forum because of the certainty and arrogance displayed by Alex and his moderators...

Well, when we started this forum I think that they expected us to last a couple of weeks and then trickle back to Skeptiko. Even if this had come to nothing, I wouldn’t have asked to be reinstated there. They had taken a sharp turn in a direction that I did not want to follow. Anyhow, we seem to have done ok without a superstar at the helm and I mostly enjoy the company around here.

Well, when we started this forum I think that they expected us to last a couple of weeks and then trickle back to Skeptiko. Even if this had come to nothing, I wouldn’t have asked to be reinstated there. They had taken a sharp turn in a direction that I did not want to follow. Anyhow, we seem to have done ok without a superstar at the helm and I mostly enjoy the company around here.

My point was that arrogance and certainty cuts both ways, and I saw far more of it over the years from the proponents than the skeptics, at least at Skeptiko.

So then, it seems that people agreeing with your world view who don't seem credible also have the effect of making one "feel threatened"?? I find this to be the case especially at skeptiko where I often feel more overall affinity with the speptics

So then, it seems that people agreeing with your world view who don't seem credible also have the effect of making one "feel threatened"?? I find this to be the case especially at skeptiko where I often feel more overall affinity with the speptics

It is a tricky thing to assess. I remember feeling comfortable with some of the people at Skeptiko for a time in the early days but then it became clear that they were starting to push other points of view which were diametrically opposed to mine on those subjects. I found it disturbing that someone who professed to be so spiritual could support a kind of political agenda which, to my mind, amounted to extremism (particularly a right-wing, pro-Trump kind of rhetoric).

Those people did seem exceedingly credible until their political leanings became obvious and then, for me, their credibility went out of the window. Not only that but I was faced with some pretty abusive (therefore threatening) responses when I openly disagreed with them. So the term "proponent" is only applicable in context, as is "Skeptic" which, only too often proves to mean "sceptical of those things I already don't believe in". Both Skeptiko and this forum have a user-base who are fairly solid in their convictions.

Those people did seem exceedingly credible until their political leanings became obvious and then, for me, their credibility went out of the window. Not only that but I was faced with some pretty abusive (therefore threatening) responses when I openly disagreed with them. So the term "proponent" is only applicable in context, as is "Skeptic" which, only too often proves to mean "sceptical of those things I already don't believe in". Both Skeptiko and this forum have a user-base who are fairly solid in their convictions.

I have a suspicion that if the truth were known, both forums are just as ‘bad’ as each other. As ‘bad’ as this may sound to some, I also tend to feel that they both attract interesting, curious, amazing individuals that are often willing to express views that are ‘non-standard’, a phrase used by aviators when a pilot steps outside the accepted procedures. That’s a good thing, imo. Disagreements arise when some believe their version of ‘non-standard’ is acceptable, while others are not. Meanwhile, all such ‘non-standard’ views are seen by people that are in some position of authority, often in a position to squash those that promote anything seen as ‘non-standard’, for to allow such views, might undermine their position. However, I think they are often simply imposing their own ideas, or view of how they see things, as full of bias and flawed as they surely are, on those that are of a different opinion. 

I do think Laird and Ninshub are very good in this regard, whereas David and particularly Andy P were not(backed by Alex, who never once responded to any questioning of the other two’s actions). So once again, although we have our differences, I must praise Laird (and Ian) for this. I really don’t think others here would be so inclined.

So the term "proponent" is only applicable in context, as is "Skeptic" which, only too often proves to mean "sceptical of those things I already don't believe in". Both Skeptiko and this forum have a user-base who are fairly solid in their convictions.

I feel I was quite fortunate. As I mentioned previously I was quite a latecomer to Skeptiko. During the early days after the internet began to take off and become widely-used, I had a kind of 'apprenticeship' online elsewhere. I never used to discuss esoteric or mysterious phenomena in those days (though it had been an interest several decades earlier). No, when I joined the internet, it was to discuss technology. The topics covered was somewhat of an art and a science. The art part I felt was entirely a matter for the individual, no firm guidelines applied. But the science. It was very precisely governed by some geometry and a few mathematical formulae. It was this latter area where I had my revelation.

When discussing matters firmly-defined by mathematics and physics, as it applied to our area of technology, there were some pretty strange and very strong opinions, arguments raged, people fell out. It was quite a learning experience for me. Watching the many participants on that busy forum dig in their heels, stick to the ground, regardless of the facts. I observed something about the human condition. To some people facts don't matter. Preservation of an existing belief, buttressing it against all argument or evidence, that was a very strong trait.

It followed from that, that the only way to arrive at the truth was through a willingness to abandon one's position, to let go. I suppose it leads into a kind of Buddhist idea of non-attachment. And a flexibility which I found in some Taoist teachings. Rigid attachments and inflexibility were problematic.

Of course in the context of that technological debate, it was necessary to stick to one's guns, to support was was correct - but only where one was willing to provide the evidence. That meant doing research, trying out practical tests and demonstrations, ground things in what really happens. The strongest and most stubborn protagonists always simply 'knew' they were right, and demanded that everyone else should do the work. So, I learned that an unwillingness to do any research, either through hands-on experiment, or serious study, often accompanied folly. And remember the area under consideration was entirely bounded by mathematics and physics. Nothing esoteric or mysterious. Just everyday stuff.

Thus I learned of the human condition in regard to online debate.

Arriving at the present forum, there is a difference. A lot of what we try to grasp is at the edges of human knowledge. There are many areas where we don't have the faintest idea how things really work. Thus, I tend to leave many possibilities open, there aren't mathematical principles to nail everything neatly down. It does mean I'm wary of ready-made beliefs or ideologies, often these are like clouds which expand to occupy areas which are unknown. Especially I'm wary of complexity in these clouds. I'd prefer to leave many things simply open to future discovery. There isn't a need to know the entire future in the present moment. One of the joys of this existence is the unexpected view which we don't have until we arrive at some new vantage-point.

To some people facts don't matter.

How might you describe such people’s traits?

How might you describe such people’s traits?

Human.

Human

I think that’s a ‘get out of jail free’ answer. 

In one way you might say that as a response to every question that we discuss here imo.