Why do I feel threatened?

The problem with mixing those subjects in with the general conversation on a forum like Skeptiko or this one is that pretty soon it becomes easy to dismiss all the discussions as fringe or whacky. And that is indeed what usually happens - we've all seen how discussion of the paranormal is dismissed in that manner. Therefore I wanted to get away from that hodgepodge that developed at Skeptiko - and was largely driven by Alex himself along with a couple of his moderators - so I joined the other founders and this forum was born. Since then I have resisted attempts to include CTs as a prominent part of our discourse but I am a lone voice and the majority will determine the direction. If it starts to look like another Skeptiko, I will not hang around.

Dave, we need your voice - a voice of reason. Much of what you've said here I agree with. Up until some sort of tipping-point I had hoped that Skeptiko was someplace where scientific  knowledge could be advanced. But all too often I found myself siding with Linda and other sceptics as a kind of tidal-wave gradually engulfed there. Please stick around to help keep us on course.

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.

Well said.

Dave, we need your voice - a voice of reason. Much of what you've said here I agree with. Up until some sort of tipping-point I had hoped that Skeptiko was someplace where scientific  knowledge could be advanced. But all too often I found myself siding with Linda and other sceptics as a kind of tidal-wave gradually engulfed there. Please stick around to help keep us on course.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I'm on the verge of leaving. We are not yet at that tipping point that I also recognise as you did. I can't say that I often sided with Linda as she was always my bête noire but I get what you mean. Yes, I too sided with the views normally associated with sceptics because, as I will always maintain, I am a sceptic myself (notice that I have started use the different spelling to indicate the difference between someone who is sceptical and someone who identifies as a "Skeptic" which often seems to be a place-holder for dogmatic atheist/materialist).

I've often found myself in agreement with malf, for example, when it comes to subjects outside of our core spirituality theme. Even with those core topics there are aspects that push my sceptical tolerance to the limit - particularly New Age fads.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I'm on the verge of leaving. We are not yet at that tipping point that I also recognise as you did. I can't say that I often sided with Linda as she was always my bête noire but I get what you mean. Yes, I too sided with the views normally associated with sceptics because, as I will always maintain, I am a sceptic myself (notice that I have started use the different spelling to indicate the difference between someone who is sceptical and someone who identifies as a "Skeptic" which often seems to be a place-holder for dogmatic atheist/materialist).

I've often found myself in agreement with malf, for example, when it comes to subjects outside of our core spirituality theme. Even with those core topics there are aspects that push my sceptical tolerance to the limit - particularly New Age fads.

My apologies too, I wasn't meaning that I sensed any imminent departure on your part. It was more that I often feel a lone voice too. I'm not leaving, but I'd really appreciate your sticking around - so long as it suits you - so we can all cooperate on any forum issues which may arise here.

Dave, we need your voice - a voice of reason. Much of what you've said here I agree with. Up until some sort of tipping-point I had hoped that Skeptiko was someplace where scientific  knowledge could be advanced. But all too often I found myself siding with Linda and other sceptics as a kind of tidal-wave gradually engulfed there. Please stick around to help keep us on course.

I never saw you side (agree with consistently) with Linda and co, Typoz ! I don't think you sided with anybody in particular as I can remember.

I never saw you side (agree with consistently) with Linda and co, Typoz ! I don't think you sided with anybody in particular as I can remember.

Well, not so much on this forum Tim. Though I was sad to see Linda depart from here. But over on Skeptiko things were sometimes a bit crazy, and I actually kept out of many threads, saying nothing. But my support was with Linda and various others. I have expressed this sentiment before. That is, we loosely termed 'proponents' generally represent the voice of reason in the face of denial and nonsense coming from the mainstream. But at some point and on certain topics, those roles were reversed, delusion was very clearly coming from a different direction.

What I think I'm really saying is that I hold my own opinions - based on facts and research of my own. Whether that sees me aligning with one group or another is neither here nor there. I'm not particularly 'tribal' in my views, I'm not willing to simply follow the herd.

Well, not so much on this forum Tim. Though I was sad to see Linda depart from here. But over on Skeptiko things were sometimes a bit crazy, and I actually kept out of many threads, saying nothing. But my support was with Linda and various others. I have expressed this sentiment before. That is, we loosely termed 'proponents' generally represent the voice of reason in the face of denial and nonsense coming from the mainstream. But at some point and on certain topics, those roles were reversed, delusion was very clearly coming from a different direction.

What I think I'm really saying is that I hold my own opinions - based on facts and research of my own. Whether that sees me aligning with one group or another is neither here nor there. I'm not particularly 'tribal' in my views, I'm not willing to simply follow the herd.

Thanks, Typoz. Weird, isn't it, I never ever thought you had any sympathy at all with that poster. I didn't have any at all, in fact my reasons and thoughts go far beyond that (as to why)  but I won't elaborate for obvious reasons.

Thanks, Typoz. Weird, isn't it, I never ever thought you had any sympathy at all with that poster. I didn't have any at all, in fact my reasons and thoughts go far beyond that (as to why)  but I won't elaborate for obvious reasons.

You and me both, tim. There were certain tactics that really got under my skin (as they were intended to, of course) but, for me, they amounted to a dishonest way of conducting a debate. In the earlier Skeptiko times, I was always glad of the participation of people like Johann and Maaneli who were able to counter the impression that any proponent position was anti-scientific. Particularly with statistics which is a subject that makes my eyes glaze over. It was the fallacious but persistent Argument from Authority tactic that was most often employed with a claimed scientific and medical expertise that few Nobel Prize winners could ever dream of.

Thanks, Typoz. Weird, isn't it, I never ever thought you had any sympathy at all with that poster. I didn't have any at all, in fact my reasons and thoughts go far beyond that (as to why)  but I won't elaborate for obvious reasons.

You and me both, tim. There were certain tactics that really got under my skin (as they were intended to, of course) but, for me, they amounted to a dishonest way of conducting a debate. In the earlier Skeptiko times, I was always glad of the participation of people like Johann and Maaneli who were able to counter the impression that any proponent position was anti-scientific. Particularly with statistics which is a subject that makes my eyes glaze over. It was the fallacious but persistent Argument from Authority tactic that was most often employed with a claimed scientific and medical expertise that few Nobel Prize winners could ever dream of.

You're both right of course.

I was thinking back to the time when I first joined Skeptiko (which was an earlier incarnation at mind-energy.net), as I mentioned I was a relative latecomer. My very first post was a link to some sort of article or breaking news about Sam Parnia and the AWARE study. That was still quite a fresh and hot topic at the time.

But I'd already figured out, before I'd made even a single post, that there was a difficulty with disingenuous posts. I ignored them right from the outset. I can certainly understand how getting involved in the meat and substance of debates would be a different experience. I was a mere bystander and thereby took much less of the heat.

It was on other very different topics where I had expertise and knowledge beyond most of the forum members that perhaps by chance my views happened to align with a number of the sceptics. But this was during the period when Skeptiko was morphing into a different type of place, one where I no longer felt at home.

You and me both, tim. There were certain tactics that really got under my skin (as they were intended to, of course) but, for me, they amounted to a dishonest way of conducting a debate. In the earlier Skeptiko times, I was always glad of the participation of people like Johann and Maaneli who were able to counter the impression that any proponent position was anti-scientific. Particularly with statistics which is a subject that makes my eyes glaze over. It was the fallacious but persistent Argument from Authority tactic that was most often employed with a claimed scientific and medical expertise that few Nobel Prize winners could ever dream of.

I appreciated how Johann kept the more dogmatic proponents from veering too far off course, as well!