What happens when a believer rebels?

[MRT]

I recently had a rare chance to see what happens when a claimed paranormal phenomenon is amply demonstrated to be normal after all. It happened on a 'believer' forum I visit. What made it particularly difficult for those on the forum was that the evidence of 'natural causes' came, not from a skeptic, but one of their own! I was fascinated to see if this person would be criticised, ridiculed and dismissed in the way that skeptical members had been on this forum.

At first there was total silence from those who had promoted the discredited paranormal theory. Then, unverifiable evidence from a third party was quoted in support of the paranormal interpretation. No ridicule so far though. Perhaps they hope to bring the 'rebel' back into the fold. I will continue to watch, fascinated, waiting to see what will happen next.

[chillzero]

linkies?

[MRT]

It would allow them to identify me (yes, it's entirely possible to trace a link back - I know, I do it myself!) and I don't need the hassle, sorry! I will update here if anything exciting happens, though.

[Dr B]

Very true

The problem is they get it into their mind that they are talking to a skeptic and this infleunces their interaction with that person. Their reasoning is based on who presents what, not on the what.

This can be seen time and time again in the interactions I, and others, tried to have with that pathetic group based in Cannock.

I know someone who went to that forum and posted a link to a website on survival of bodily death - that thread - despite the link being to a woo site....was not greatly commented on. What my friend was trying to assess was just how well read that woo-group was in relation to the woo that is out there.

As predicted, regulars on that woo forum had not read the website and knew nothing of the debates (ones that had been around for decades). In other words the scientists and skeptics are better read on woo than woo's are.

However, a few weeks later one of the woo moderators (who commented on the link in the original thread) suddenly pretended to re-discover the linked site and claimed to have found it themselves. Why? Well, my hunch is that because they knew a skeptic had provided a link, and that the link would be of a particular type, so they never checked it out. When they finally did check it out (weeks later) they saw it supported all there woo-woo and loved it and started raving about it.

Did they thank the skeptic? Did they acknowledge the type of debate that was being fostered? No - they had long since banned her....::)

[MRT]

I'm sure it's just a coincidence but the forum seems to be down ...:smiley:

[Admin]

This is an example of group mentality. It's the old 'in-group' vs 'out-group' dichotomy that often exists on forums as well as in life.

It is interesting when one of the in-group behaves in a way that is inconsistent with the consensus opinion though. Do the others accept it as fact or do they wriggle around with the situation so as to reduce the conflict? Cognitive dissonance.

I must say that when I post on other forums, which is quite rare these days, I do notice that whenever there's a conflict of opinion, I find that people argue against what they see me as representing (i.e. their stereotypical opponent) rather than what I'm actually saying.

I think this stems from our propensity to think in stereotypes as we like to group people and once we've done this, we interpret what they say as being more in line with with what we expect them to say rather than what they are actually saying.

Nice to see someone rocking the boat though. ;D

You must let us know how it resolves.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

I experienced it recently on a site of 'love and peace'.

From initally being attacked for hurting people's feelings by offering a rational explanation, it quickly deteriorated into telling me that I was evil, other forumites should feel sorry for me, that I was in a dark place, and that I was past saving.

I was being criticised for being a skeptic rather than the opinion.

Also, rather poorly for a psychic forum, they thought I was female ::)

[MRT]

The forum is still down. But I'm really sure it's just a coicidence ... :smiley:

[median]

The forum is still down

Shame, I had recently started to post there again :'(

[MRT]

The forum is back but everything is quiet!

[Melanie]

Which forum?? The suspense is driving me mad.

[Zaira]

As some of you know I’m floating back and forth between here and there. Not sure if it’s the one you referred to, MRT.

Farside, it was me who thought you were female. But I have never claimed to be psychic.

I have had stuff going on in my life and I’m always looking for answers, I have frequented many forums in search of those answers. This latest one has allowed me to exorcise a few demons by relating experiences I have had. I have also tried to open a few discussions of a more rational type explanation.

I have and am being ignored by some members, accused of talking down to another, and have received a couple of PMs asking me what I think I’m playing at.

Most of them now know that I am on both forums. And they only need to read my posts on both to see that I am in search of some real answers to what I have personally experienced. I have been very honest on both forums, if a little naive at times.

You guys are good at reading between the lines. Right? Psychics can read that as being good at ’reading people’ instead of between the lines. What kind of impression am I giving? Do I have psychic abilities? Am I deluding myself (think I asked that one before), or am I a simple nut job?

;)

[MRT]

I wouldn't like to give an opinion on you Zaira but I agree forums can be difficult. Without the feedback provided by body language, tone of voice etc. it can be difficult to know how postings are being received. Hostility can easily break out from an entirely innocent misplaced or ill-judged word.

Regarding my 'rebel believer', the rebellion is being politely smothered. False comparisons are being used to 'explain away' (don't people accuse skeptics of 'explaining away' rather than 'explaining'?) clear evidence showing that an alleged paranormal phenomenon to be entirely natural. The rebel will no doubt go back to be a good believer and that will be the end of it. So now I know what happens when a believer rebels!

[bindeweede]

Which forum?? The suspense is driving me mad.
Apologies if you have already worked it out, but I think it is "The Psychic Barber".

WWW.thepsychicbarber.co.uk (http://www.thepsychicbarber.co.uk)

It is where you can find quotes like this..

I don't want to hear that death is the end and I don't want to hear that Colin Fry is a cold reader or worse. Do you have an antidote to this poison for me?

[Zaira]

MRT,

Thank you. I appreciate your frankness once again. :smiley:

[Zaira]

bindeweede,

I'm on there. Those remarks are only down to two people. Personally, I think they have lost their way.

[MRT]

Just thought I should say, the forum that I have been commenting on is not the psychicbarber.

[Melanie]

Apologies if you have already worked it out, but I think it is "The Psychic Barber".

WWW.thepsychicbarber.co.uk (http://www.thepsychicbarber.co.uk)

It is where you can find quotes like this..

I don't want to hear that death is the end and I don't want to hear that Colin Fry is a cold reader or worse. Do you have an antidote to this poison for me?


Thanks!

[Melanie]

Just thought I should say, the forum that I have been commenting on is not the psychicbarber.

Tch! :-\

[Dr B]

Does the psychic barber still ask his clients "how much they want taken off?" ;D;D

Surely he should know?

[Tin Lizzie]

Does the psychic barber still ask his clients "how much they want taken off?" ;D;D

Surely he should know?

Surely you should know that this is a somewhat ignorant estimation of psychic ability?

[Dr B]

Or an accurate estimation of there being no psychic ability...what's next...santa claus.....? :cheesy:

[Tin Lizzie]

Are you seriously saying santa doesn't exist? :'(

I really do recommend you contact Lara123 on this forum, or check out the 'mediumship and how it works for me' thread on the psychic barber's forum. I assure you that if you go there in a genuinely inquisitive manner without trying to force your knowledge on them or ridicule, you will at least have some food for further thought.

Something tells me you're not going to do that....i must be psychic!;)

[Dr B]

Are you seriously saying santa doesn't exist? :'(

I really do recommend you contact Lara123 on this forum, or check out the 'mediumship and how it works for me' thread on the psychic barber's forum. I assure you that if you go there in a genuinely inquisitive manner without trying to force your knowledge on them or ridicule, you will at least have some food for further thought.

Something tells me you're not going to do that....i must be psychic!;)


She never did any good here from I could read....so in the absence of evidence I see no need. She is of course welcome to come here and make what ever claims she likes......we are all open to that.

[Melanie]

Are you seriously saying santa doesn't exist? :'(

I really do recommend you contact Lara123 on this forum, or check out the 'mediumship and how it works for me' thread on the psychic barber's forum. I assure you that if you go there in a genuinely inquisitive manner without trying to force your knowledge on them or ridicule, you will at least have some food for further thought.

Something tells me you're not going to do that....i must be psychic!;)


I guess the reason Dr B - and I, for that matter - rarely examine online psychics is that we have both spent a couple of decades examining and investigating mediumship and found nothing that will stand up to the rigours of science regarding its demand for 'proof'.

Personally, I have many experiences which should have convinced me that survival is a fact, some of it quite extraordinary, but I remain unconvinced. I suppose its because I refuse to believe in anything really. Belief being the operative word.

[Tin Lizzie]

I guess the reason Dr B - and I, for that matter - rarely examine online psychics is that we have both spent a couple of decades examining and investigating mediumship and found nothing that will stand up to the rigours of science regarding its demand for 'proof'.

Personally, I have many experiences which should have convinced me that survival is a fact, some of it quite extraordinary, but I remain unconvinced. I suppose its because I refuse to believe in anything really. Belief being the operative word.

Well, i suppose the world would be a very boring place if we were all the same!

[Dr B]

it would be a better place if we were not all confused over issues......:cheesy:

[Zaira]

"it would be a better place if we were not all confused over issues......"

I've been confused all my life, take that away from me and you might as well cut my head off. :smiley:

[Tin Lizzie]

"it would be a better place if we were not all confused over issues......"

I've been confused all my life, take that away from me and you might as well cut my head off. :smiley:

;D I laugh at your inbuilt humour, your response actually suggests you do have a bit of sceptic in you :smiley:

[Zaira]

Sometimes you just have to laugh or you would cry. :cheesy:

[wooo_oops]

Just thought I should say, the forum that I have been commenting on is not the psychicbarber.

Nope, no love and light on there...


:-X

[MRT]

Latest news from the 'rebel forum'. There have been almost NO new postings on any topic for over a week, which is extremely unusual. I wonder if the transparent attempts to rubbish excellent evidence have strained the forum's credibility too far.

[Zaira]

MRT,

If you are speaking of the psychic barber forum, it went down for a while but it's up again. I posted recently and warned them about opening links as some of their computers suffered because of it.

Let's leave them alone they are a small group of like-minded people who just want to share with each other. Some of them have lost loved ones recently. Most of them are not psychic and are even new to forums and just finding their way around.

You lot have bigger fish to fry. Surely? :smiley:

[Dr B]

Latest news from the 'rebel forum'. There have been almost NO new postings on any topic for over a week, which is extremely unusual. I wonder if the transparent attempts to rubbish excellent evidence have strained the forum's credibility too far.

You could be on to something here...........

[MRT]

If you are speaking of the psychic barber forum, it went down for a while but it's up again. I posted recently and warned them about opening links as some of their computers suffered because of it.



No, it's not the psychic barber forum.

[Dr B]

MRT

does the forum have 'scientific' pretentions?

[MRT]

Yes it does, but only in the weird 'believer' version of science which never quite meshes with the rest.

[Melanie]

What is this? 20 Questions?

[bruno.j]

Yes it does, but only in the weird 'believer' version of science which never quite meshes with the rest.


er the rest of WHAT ?? - and why not name the forum if you truly believe in what you are saying ?? - instead of talking in riddles ??? - some of us might like to form our own opinions of it O0

bruno.j

[bruno.j]

so you going to answer my perfectly reasonable question then MRT ?? - surly it cant do any harm to let us in on the big secret of this mystery forum ?? and i think it a tad unsporting if you condemn a forum and don't let all members make their own judgement of your opinions of the site

guess if a "no reply " is the outcome - i and maybe others will have to draw our own conclusions ;) as to why the reluctance to name names - other forums have been openly mentioned and make for some interesting reading .

bruno.j

[MRT]

No, I'm not going to reveal the forum, for reasons explained at the start. I was just interested to observe what happened in what was, in my experience, a very unusual situation. I decided to share my private observations of the developing situation with you all because I thought you might be interested. The identity of the forum was immaterial to the observations. In any case, the situation I was describing would be very difficult for anyone to observe who has not watched the forum regularly for a long period.

I could have kept the matter to myself and I can see now that I should have. As this thread clearly upsets some people here, I won't post any more updates. If anything interesting happens, I'll keep it to myself. You can draw whatever conclusions you like.

[bruno.j]

It would allow them to identify me (yes, it's entirely possible to trace a link back - I know, I do it myself!) and I don't need the hassle, sorry! I will update here if anything exciting happens, though.

oh i see MRT - you don't want to be traced back - why ??? - if you truly believe in your stance as a sceptic - then why not be open about it - its called having the courage of ones convictions O0

at the end of the day ,what can a group of "believers "do to you ?? - send a spooky spook round to haunt you :eek3: if this group worry you so much - may be your "private " thoughts are best kept "private " ;)


not having a go here - just puzzled and curious as to your stance on this one ............

bruno.j

[chillzero]

I was irked at first, as the lack of a link means I cannot review the thread and form my own opinion. However, to come to MRT's defense, this was probably a wise move.

I have accidentally outed myself when lurking on a forum. I was there to gather data for an article, not to cause trouble. I sometimes have different usernames on different forums, to allow me to do this. Once a believer forum finds out you are a skeptic, the tone and conversation change, and you can find that you are more heavily censored, or removed.

[brianp]

No, I'm not going to reveal the forum, for reasons explained at the start.

If you are not going to reveal the forum then what was the point in even mentioning it? Quite apart from its pointlessness, talking in riddles to the handful "in the know" is extremely irritating.

[Zaira]

I don’t see anything wrong with it. I’m sure we have all participated in forums, shared a few points with another forum, and yet would like to keep that particular space for ourselves. I have often shared stuff about another forum I’m on then wish I hadn’t because we post on forums just like we talk to each member of our family - differently under different circumstances. We just might not be ready to share our thoughts on that forum with members of another forum. Back off and give the guy a little privacy.

[BillB]

Hi,

brianp
If you are not going to reveal the forum then what was the point in even mentioning it? Quite apart from its pointlessness, talking in riddles to the handful "in the know" is extremely irritating.

I agree with Brian and might also add quite boring to read your opinions, because without knowing the forum how can any of us (not in the know) form our own opinion. A very sad person you must be!! :cheesy:

Perhaps you don’t want to name the forum, because they have something that you are lacking? ;) ;)

BillB

[MRT]

I already admitted it was a mistake, so descending into personal insults hardly seems appropriate.

[bobdezon]

ad hominum adds nothing to the debate.

[BillB]

Hi,

MRT
I already admitted it was a mistake, so descending into personal insults hardly seems appropriate.

MRT = MAURICE TOWNSEND (of ASSAP)

It seems that you are hypocritical in that you can bad mouth other forums (that are identifiable to certain other members) without naming that forum to allow others to form their own opinions. However you don’t like it very much apparently when you are on the receiving end.

BillB

[Admin]

Hi,

MRT

MRT = MAURICE TOWNSEND (of ASSAP)

It seems that you are hypocritical in that you can bad mouth other forums (that are identifiable to certain other members) without naming that forum to allow others to form their own opinions. However you don’t like it very much apparently when you are on the receiving end.

BillB

Bill,

Aren't you going a little OTT here? ::)

Maurice posted a general comment, of general interest, and has no need to mention any names of individuals or forums. I certainly do not know which forum this is!

Yes, it would be nice to know the forum so we could all go and have a look but I disagree with Maurice that he's made a mistake in mentioning this.

It's an anecdote (as it's unreferenced) from a reliable and knowledgeable person - no need to get personal and start issuing insults or making it out to be a major issue when it's nothing more than a casual observation.

[BillB]

Hi John,

Being skeptical and quite knowledgeable in my own right I just found the comments made in this thread by MRT and others (in the know) about said unnamed forum childishly hypocritical.

It is reasonable to question the claims of others, but to comment on something that isn’t generally being shared is pointless and unfair.

MRT has apologized, but in future perhaps we should all consider that if we expect believers to provide evidence then we should also be prepared to provide evidence ourselves in the fairest way possible. Note: If a person carries weight with a majority it still doesn’t prevent that person from abusing such power to falsely influence others. It is often said (from the skeptical stance) that people make lousy witnesses, but this is often applied just to the non-skeptic (by skeptics), when in fact we as skeptics are also fallible as lousy witnesses in the absence of evidence.

I will say no more regarding this matter providing MRT and others substantiate any such future claims, in a way that everyone on this forum can cross reference in the true spirit of skeptical debate.

I am not here to make trouble I am here to take part in sensible constructive debate.


BillB :smiley:

[Admin]

I am not here to make trouble I am here to take part in sensible constructive debate.


BillB :smiley:

Well everything else you've posted substantiates that. O0

Which I why I was rather puzzled at you, to me anyway, making a mountain out of a molehill and pursuing it beyond reason.

[BillB]

Hi John,

If you believe that I am here to make trouble then why not just ban me or anyone else you choose, because you sure have the power to do so! It would be an interesting study for further debate (elsewhere if neccessary) as to how skeptical forums combat alleged trouble makers to protect their own skeptical interests. This would most certainly make an interesting study from my own skeptical point of view. :smiley:

BillB :smiley:

[Admin]

You seem to be shifting the focus here Bill. ;)

Like I said, I wondered why you have gone so completely over the top on this little issue to the point of issuing personal insults.

Your actions don't seem justified and it looks like you have some other motive for doing this.

Why bring up Maurice's real name (which he doesn't hide) and mention ASSAP?

I find it hard to believe that you'd get so worked up about a comment about people on an anonymous forum!

[BillB]

Hi John,

I can't see why you are taking issue with what I have said regarding MRT. I'm not the only person to question MRT regarding the unnamed forum.

BillB ;)

[Cuddles]

Hi John,

I can't see why you are taking issue with what I have said regarding MRT. I'm not the only person to question MRT regarding the unnamed forum.

BillB ;)

As MRT said himself:

I already admitted it was a mistake, so descending into personal insults hardly seems appropriate.

[BillB]

As BillB said himself:
I can't see why you are taking issue with what I have said regarding MRT. I'm not the only person to question MRT regarding the unnamed forum.


Cuddles are you trying to bully me for merely sharing an opinion on this forum?? :cheesy: Just kidding!! ;D

BillB :smiley:

[Admin]

Hi John,

I can't see why you are taking issue with what I have said regarding MRT. I'm not the only person to question MRT regarding the unnamed forum.

You're the only one who posted with malice and you're the only one who posted insults.

Perhaps you should declare what your interest is here. ;)

I've been participating in, and running, forums for long enough now to recognise antagonism in postings when I see it (!)

[Dr B]

As far as I can tell MRT posted an original observation and his view on it for discussion - which is kind of why we are here.

There were no major claims of scientific fact or anything of that nature.

It does seem to me as if certain people here may even suspect they are part of those other forums (or maybe not...) and have took it personally.

Most of us here know exactly the 'type' of forum MRT is talking about and so we can discuss generic issues relating to such forums (based on our own experience). If specific claims were being made that demanded we investigate further - then yes - more detail is needed. However, as this was never the case........::)

[Dr B]

O0
If you believe that I am here to make trouble then why not just ban me or anyone else you choose,

Because we do not manipulate discussion like the woo woos do. It is a rare event around here for people to get banned - which is unlike any woo forum I have visited.

In fact, that's an interesting discussion in its own right.....

You see, we do not try to 'protect' our world views - because skepticism is not a world view - just a method for helping you to inform them. We take all challengers here.....but the quality of that challenge is poor to say the least. This often means the need to ban people is redundant. O0

[Dr B]

Bruno

I cannot speak for Maurice or the forum he was referring to. However, I can tell you about Forums I have visited in the past that match his description. Hopefully this may be of help - but please keep in mind that this has nothing to do with the groups he was talking about.

I am happy to name / shame the groups. One of the worse UK groups is 'Paranormal Awakenings' or PASSA as they now call themselves - which is ASSAP backwards (backwards being the operative factor me thinks ;D).

The group is affilitated to ASSAP and have delusions of scientific credibility. I have more of an issue with that type of perverse view of science than I do with clear metaphysical sites - which do exactly what they say on the tin.....

Another group is 'skeptical investigations' (which is nothing of the sort) and another is 'skeptico' (although there is some small merit in skeptico). Feel free to check them out. O0

[bobdezon]

skeptico on blogspot? Ive read that site before. What particular issue did you have with that site Dr B? I am in no way affiliated with it btw.

[BillB]

Hi Dr B,

Most interesting so what do you think you know about these forums that you have named and allegedly shamed. Isn’t a forum just for the purpose of open debate and therefore just like any other forum i.e. a mix of experiences, ideas, thoughts and opinions?

Have you taken part in any of these group's activities or are you just basing your individual judgement on content selective chosen from their forums that conflicts with your own understanding?

What do you know about these groups other than reading individual posts?

At the end of the day yours is just an insignificant (somewhat biased) opinion without out foundation possibly because I’m told you got booted for abusive behaviour (from at least one of therse) which is still on file for future reference.

If these groups are so bad why do they bother or worry you so much, are you paranoid or something?

Shame on you Dr B but this is just my personal opinion.

BillB ;)

[BillB]

Hi Dr B,

Dr B
The group is affilitated to ASSAP and have delusions of scientific credibility. I have more of an issue with that type of perverse view of science than I do with clear metaphysical sites - which do exactly what they say on the tin.....

So why does ASSAP allow such groups to be affiliated with them and even offer charitable funding to help them? Perhaps they just don’t share the same view as you do?

I also know that you tend to target non academic women who have understanding that may even surpass your own. Is it because they make you feel inferior so therefore you target them by twisting what they have written to belittle them? I know this from reading the old ASSAP forum from before it closed down.

I belief you main purpose in life is to hamper all non academic research of the paranormal because you think what they do is inferior to your own studies.

BillB ;)

[Admin]

Another childishly antagonistic post Bill? :shocked:

Looks like I was right after all. 8)

[bruno.j]

hi dr.B - so it would appear that you have a low opinion of the site mentioned - may i enquire if you have any actual knowledge of those involved in the site as people - their experience and /or qualifications ( and i am not just talking academic qualifications ) - and any real knowledge of the work that they may be carrying out ??

maybe some of them are not such woos as you think and indeed use a degree of scepticism in their enquires /investigations - but are loath to publish any of this for fear of attack by the sceptical fraternity - i wold tend to agree with billB that just because some of their ideas may not concur ( with you own held beliefs )- that this is any reason to call them the worst group in the field - this surly is only a personal opinion and therefor may have as little real credibility as ANY personal opinion stated on this or any other site ??

sometimes the "mavericks " in any field of endeavor are the ones who actually have it right - as has been proven in many aspects science - engineering and dare i say it the paranormal :smiley:

regards

bruno.j

[BillB]

Hi John,

Seems I have hit a nerve hence your childish responses without substance!! It doesn’t surprise me coming from one who is generally considered to be a Pseudo Skeptic (even in skeptical circles) and buddy buddy to dearest DR B.

BillB :cheesy:

[Admin]

Hi John,

Seems I have hit a nerve hence your childish responses without substance!! It doesn’t surprise me coming from one who is generally considered to be a Pseudo Skeptic (even in skeptical circles)

:'( :'( :'( :'( :'(

I'm telling me mam on you. :tongue:

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Come out with something of substance pal if you're capable. Name calling and stupid childish assertions make you look like an idiot. ;)

[BillB]

Hi John,

Why don’t you apply the same rule to Dr B baring in mind he tars everyone on the mentioned forums with his childish name calling?

Dr B

I cannot speak for Maurice or the forum he was referring to. However, I can tell you about Forums I have visited in the past that match his description. Hopefully this may be of help - but please keep in mind that this has nothing to do with the groups he was talking about.

I am happy to name / shame the groups. One of the worse UK groups is 'Paranormal Awakenings' or PASSA as they now call themselves - which is ASSAP backwards (backwards being the operative factor me thinks ).

The group is affilitated to ASSAP and have delusions of scientific credibility. I have more of an issue with that type of perverse view of science than I do with clear metaphysical sites - which do exactly what they say on the tin.....

Another group is 'skeptical investigations' (which is nothing of the sort) and another is 'skeptico' (although there is some small merit in skeptico). Feel free to check them out.

John Jackson
Come out with something of substance pal if you're capable. Name calling and stupid childish assertions make you look like an idiot.

Likewise prove me wrong pal? O0

MRT refused to give an honest answer to the question regarding the naming of unnamed group and this question still remains unanswered. ;) ;)


BillB :cheesy:

[Admin]

Bill,

Why don't you try to make some sort of point?

You're acting like a brat!

You're name calling, making unsubstantiated and stupid assertions without backing them up, and generally being antagonistic without giving anyone a clue as to why you have a bee in your bonnet.

What's eating at you pal? What is the problem you have that is making you act in such an irrational manner?

If there's some sort of point to your emotional posturing why don't you construct an argument and state what it is that you have such an issue with and why?

At least we, and other people reading this thread, will have some sort of chance of understanding where you're coming from and can then address what it is that is bugging you so badly.

Give it a go. You know it makes sense. ;)

[BillB]

Hi,

Anyway just a thought perhaps we should rename this topic thread “What happens when a Skeptic rebels?”

This might be worth a debate considering people can actually reference some fairly active content here in this same thread on UK Skeptics. ;D ;D


BillB :cheesy:

[Admin]

Top notch reply Bill. O0

The only omission I can see is the argument that you're making whilst you're issuing child-like insults.

What point are you actually trying to make?

Come on, I know you can do it!! ;)

[BillB]

Hi,

OK John let’s set our petty differences to one side and try to turn this back into a constructive debate.

I’m an alleged skeptical rebel because I have questioned the ethics of respected skeptic’s on this forum, being as I am somewhat of a newbie. So far I appear to be in a minority but I’m unsure why this should be because the initial question although somewhat over dramatised (mainly out of frustration I might add) was a valid one yet was not forth coming in answer.

These are some questions to consider as this is a mixed forum containing both skeptics and believers?

Do Skeptic’s or Believers of this forum feel influenced by the core members of this forum? After all it is natural human behaviour to help serve those in power to gain favour?

From a Skeptical point of few how might we help this rebel to become an acceptable non-rebel like skeptic? This is important because if we can’t quell a rebel skeptic (in the ranks) then how can we persuade a believer into becoming a skeptic?

Does this rebel skeptic have skeptical knowledge that might be useful that can be adopted for use generally by other skeptics?

My speculation in debate is that both Believer type forums and Skeptical type forums will react much the same as each other to protect their own core interests.

So let the debate begin what do other members have to say?

BillB :smiley:

[bobdezon]

You raise some interesting points, but I cant speak for anyone else, I can however state emphatically that I wold not be influenced by a core member of this forum unless they were correct and I was in error.

While it is a natural occurance for forum members to sometimes try to curry favour with an admin (I myself am an admin on a largish sceptical site), If I felt an admin was wrong I would say so even If it meant I were banned/penalised, and I have done so frequently. This forum is no different to me and you have to stand by your position even in the face of overwhelming odds if you are correct. You must however be prepared to change your position if you are later to be found in error.

If I though John or Dr B were biased/erroneous/petty I would call them on that regardless of the outcome for me. I am sure they would too if they were only a member, such is the nature of sceptical debate.

[brianp]

Does this rebel skeptic have skeptical knowledge that might be useful that can be adopted for use generally by other skeptics?

Your idea of debate thus far in this thread has been to insult anyone and everyone with whom you disagree and, moreover, some of your antics have been both puerile and disgusting - in particular your naming of MRT and mentioning his membership of another forum. As you are inviting comments, I'll give you my honest opinion based on the available evidence. I think you are a boorish, arrogant and ignorant twat who has nothing whatsoever to offer other skeptics.

[Zaira]

As a believer it looks like I have just been invited into the debate. If I am wrong I apologise. I just don't want to be seen to be hiding in the corner or behind any Skeptics. What we find here or anywhere else will depend on what we are looking for. If we are looking for trouble we usually find it. Me? I'm looking for information. I am a seeker of knowledge and I go where I am led and I was led here. As with any other medium I am led to explore, whether it be books, web pages, or forums, I am interested in nothing more than the information contained within. I will process that information and come to my own conclusions. I hide behind no one and I follow no one. My life began in a fight and went on for many years in a fight. Peace is on the horizon and I plan to enjoy it with every part of my being. And to do that I need to know the truth!!

[Dr B]

skeptico on blogspot? Ive read that site before. What particular issue did you have with that site Dr B? I am in no way affiliated with it btw.

Hi Bob

The forum appears somewhat ill-informed on matters that many think they are experts in. All the usual - "science has been wrong before" "science does not have all the answers" "scientists are just reductionists" nonsense and so on. There are exceptions, but its a shame those posters are the exception and not the norm.

Some of the podcasts also seem to promote some strange ideas about the subject matter they pertain to educate us all about. It's just a personal view - but one I can provide evidence for to some degree (take a look...O0)

[Dr B]

Hi Bill (if you have not yet worked it out - you're busted!!!!! :cheesy:)


Hi Dr B,

Most interesting so what do you think you know about these forums that you have named and allegedly shamed. Isn’t a forum just for the purpose of open debate and therefore just like any other forum i.e. a mix of experiences, ideas, thoughts and opinions?

No - not if its claiming scientific credence - if it does this and then promotes nonsense it is a deception and one real science should address. Now, if it just claimed to be what it clearly is, a woo-hug-woo forum then fine - no problem with that. But its contradictory "trying to look like science but still being anti-science" stance is ridiculous. Most here, won't stand for that.



Have you taken part in any of these group's activities or are you just basing your individual judgement on content selective chosen from their forums that conflicts with your own understanding?


No - its based on their behaviour and unprofessional conduct. A point I demonstrated elsewhere in the past. No need to repeat it here.



What do you know about these groups other than reading individual posts?


see above



At the end of the day yours is just an insignificant (somewhat biased) opinion without out foundation possibly because I’m told you got booted for abusive behaviour (from at least one of therse) which is still on file for future reference.


No - it was for giving them evidence they did not want to read - remember we are talking about woo's here. It is they who behaved unprofessionally - and this was proven at the time. Again - no need to repeat it. If you know all this already then there really is no need for it here. At some future point I feel they may well be challenged in person to explain themselves. Maybe at a future ASSAP event....who knows....::) I promised ASSAP that this would need to be addressed at some future point - and I have not forgotten!




If these groups are so bad why do they bother or worry you so much, are you paranoid or something?

I dont worry about them at all - but if groups claim to be scientific and adhere to the scientific model - purely to 'appear' credible - then that's at least a delusion and at most intellectually dishonest.

[Dr B]

Hi Dr B,

So why does ASSAP allow such groups to be affiliated with them and even offer charitable funding to help them?


Thats a good question (your first) - you should know there has been friction within ASSAP on this topic for years. I know many who disagree with the policy. Who knows, it could be the case that this is reviewed real soon :-\



I also know that you tend to target non academic women who have understanding that may even surpass your own.

What utter nonsense and you know it. Certain people may 'feel' that way - but if someone starts willfully misrepresenting my position in an attempt to pervert peoples opinions - I will react to that to set the record straight. They were just surprised to see someone react in a sensible manner and take them to task on their ridiculous behaviour (oh - and removing posts from forums as well....O0...in an attempt to make some of them look better.....how pathetic is that)



Is it because they make you feel inferior so therefore you target them by twisting what they have written to belittle them?

I have no need to belittle people who do a good job of that for themselves.



I belief you main purpose in life is to hamper all non academic research of the paranormal because you think what they do is inferior to your own studies.


This is becasue you have not thought about it. I have been involved in amatuer research all my life, as a student and professional and continue to be involved (i.e., UKS for example). I have no problem with levels of qualifications - although I know the woo's like to spin that one. It's mainly because they still dont understand that misrepresenting the position of an individual is not acceptable behaviour. This goes back to my original point about certain people not really being well educated or not knowing how to appply their education - it kind of proves my point for me - so thanks for raising that one!

[Dr B]

hi dr.B - so it would appear that you have a low opinion of the site mentioned - may i enquire if you have any actual knowledge of those involved in the site as people - their experience and /or qualifications

eeerrr yes, yes, and yes. Why would you assume anything else?



maybe some of them are not such woos as you think and indeed use a degree of scepticism in their enquires /investigations - but are loath to publish any of this for fear of attack by the sceptical fraternity

Give me a break............



- i wold tend to agree with billB that just because some of their ideas may not concur ( with you own held beliefs )- that this is any reason to call them the worst group in the field - this surly is only a personal opinion and therefor may have as little real credibility as ANY personal opinion stated on this or any other site ??

No - you still dont understand what I have written at all or why. It is not about the content of their beliefs (science is not a belief system by the way...). It is the anti-educational, anti-scientific, while claiming to be both stance that is perverse. They are delusional and as long as it remains - they will make no valid or sound contribution to our understanding of such matters. That is a fact - because many of us have seen it all before - it never goes anywhere.....

[Zaira]

"That is a fact - because many of us have seen it all before - it never goes anywhere....." - Dr B

I think that could be a turning point for me. All these years 'playing' with this 'stuff', trying to work out what it was, what it meant, where it came from etc. One thing I know for sure... It never went anywhere!

Sorry to go over this again - but I can't give an honest opinion without referring to my background and how I came to that opinion. I had a really tough start in life. And something else was going on, I didn't know what it was or where it came from or what caused it except that it seemed to be a part of my struggle to survive.

Moving on and looking back, I worked hard to dig myself out of a deep dark well - I did! No one else! No spirits or ghosts of grandparents got me to where I am - I did! With the help of a lovely smart, logical, practical thinking man who help me to keep my feet on the ground and bring up my family. The guy has medals for long service and good conduct, for services in Northern Ireland, and was also awarded the BEM in the queens honours list in the late 80s. He should also have had a meddle for putting up with me! Like Scarlet O’Hara, I didn't know what I had until it was almost too late.

Okay enough of the mushy stuff........... Wake me up when the killing starts! :smiley:

[bruno.j]

humm - excuse me if i sound a tad sceptical here - but to claim you have knowledge of some 70 odd members of a group - other than what they post - is i think taking things a bit far - is this personal knowledge of each and every member or are you by inference tarring them all with the same brush ?? the "eerrr " implies you could be doing the latter

why do you find my question about some of them being sceptical to a degree so amusing ( quote: "give me a break ) ?? - is it not possible that some -although they may "believe" certain things - are also capable of using logic etc to sort out the BS from possible facts ?? - again this smacks of over generalisation - and is this not something members of this forum are constantly arguing AGAINST ??

and as others here are commenting on insults - could not not your assertion that they are "delusional " ( and the other things ) - be regarded as "insulting " to some or all members of the group ??

it is at times very easy to dismiss the whole whilst not perhaps having the level of knowledge that one may think of any group or organisation - take this one for instance - it ( could ) be argued that all members are rabid sceptics or debunkers - who are in their own thinking "delusional " - however this is plainly not the case - what "evidence " do i have for THIS assertion ?? - nothing more than reading their posts - and i suspect that this may well be true of your opinion of most of the group mentioned - but if you can assure me that you DO in fact know each member personally - have complete knowledge of them as a person - their qualifications and experience etc

i guess i would have to believe you -( time for you to give me a break maybe ?? ) ;D

making sweeping judgements of a number of people based purely on what is written on a forum is a dangerous game to play dr.b

is it just possible ??? that you don't have the level of knowledge you proport to have ;) ??

oh and i do understand what you have been saying - i may not agree with all of it though - but that's my privilege as an individual O0

as some one once said to me " beware of ego's my boy - they are like untied shoelaces - sometimes you fall over them !!"

any way best regards as always

bruno.j

[Dr B]

humm - excuse me if i sound a tad sceptical

you dont sound skeptical at all - so no worries there.....O0


but to claim you have knowledge of some 70 odd members of a group - other than what they post - is i think taking things a bit far - is this personal knowledge of each and every member or are you by inference tarring them all with the same brush ?? the "eerrr " implies you could be doing the latter

No - not at all - the main people and the main posters - from this we can generalise and the generalisation can be seen to be true. Of course it does not apply literally to all there - but then I never claimed that anyway.


is it not possible that some -although they may "believe" certain things - are also capable of using logic etc to sort out the BS from possible facts ?? -

Bring an example from the mods if possible.....There was no evidence of any logic being used there by anyone other than a handful of posters and nearly all of them have been banned - what does that tell you about how real logic is treated over there?



could not not your assertion that they are "delusional " ( and the other things ) - be regarded as "insulting " to some or all members of the group ??

No - it's demonstrably true - look up the definition and then apply it to their beliefs - many of them are clearly delusional in the true sense of the word.



- take this one for instance - it ( could ) be argued that all members are rabid sceptics or debunkers - who are in their own thinking "delusional " - however this is plainly not the case - what "evidence " do i have for THIS assertion ??

You have none - because your point is not well founded at all - which i think supports my argument - not yours :cheesy:




but if you can assure me that you DO in fact know each member personally - have complete knowledge of them as a person - their qualifications and experience etc

Why? I just need to see how they have behaved and their logic in their own arguments - why do I need anything else? It's not my fault they don't know what they are talking about 8) Your logic here is flawed.



making sweeping judgements of a number of people based purely on what is written on a forum is a dangerous game to play dr.b


Are you delusional? There is nothing sweeping about my statements - its all provable (and has been demonstrated in one instance) and others here can and do concur (independently based on their own logical assessment rather than their belief or friendships). So, what you fail to grasp is, it just happens to be a fair assessment of the situation - and not just mine!



is it just possible ??? that you don't have the level of knowledge you proport to have ;) ??


No ;D



oh and i do understand what you have been saying - i may not agree with all of it though - but that's my privilege as an individual O0


you are entitled to your ignorance (again a word used in its proper context - get a dictionary)


You make the same error they do when you keep trying to make it personal. I deal with their arguments and their logic - they have no logic, and thus no intellectual contribution will come from them. That's not my bias - it's just true.

I have a challenge for you - go and find an illogical argument from somewhere (go to PASSA - loads there) where it has been shown that it has the capacity to be true. Now, conclusions can be true by accident - but see if you can find some arguments, that have come through their reasoning processes, that have been shown to be true. Your failure in this regard should tell you that no useful understanding will come from that reasoning process. They were also resistant to real science and logic when people tried to point them in the right direction. Their stance is 'anti-science' - their claim to be scientific is thus a delusion - wishful thinking on their part.

[BillB]

Hi,

Bobdezon
You raise some interesting points, but I cant speak for anyone else, I can however state emphatically that I wold not be influenced by a core member of this forum unless they were correct and I was in error.

While it is a natural occurance for forum members to sometimes try to curry favour with an admin (I myself am an admin on a largish sceptical site), If I felt an admin was wrong I would say so even If it meant I were banned/penalised, and I have done so frequently. This forum is no different to me and you have to stand by your position even in the face of overwhelming odds if you are correct. You must however be prepared to change your position if you are later to be found in error.

If I though John or Dr B were biased/erroneous/petty I would call them on that regardless of the outcome for me. I am sure they would too if they were only a member, such is the nature of sceptical debate.Thank you for that I appreciate you comments and although perhaps a tad misunderstood by some here I do actually aspire to be much the same as you.

I often come across people who claim to be sceptical but often find they have simply just not read the book. They have preconceived opinions on the work of others but haven’t even bothered too look properly at what these people actually do or go about conducting their own personal studies.

As a skeptic I really try my best to get people to adopt a more rational approach rather than making unquantifiable claims of Ghost’s and other such alleged paranormal activity.

The experience that many people world wide have and continue to have of alleged paranormal isn’t easy to dismiss. We are talking a lot of people so even despite the variables of misidentification, delusions and hallucinations and mental illness this doesn’t in my skeptical opinion account for all this type of experienced phenomen.

There are good sceptics and bad sceptic’s just as there are good and bad in everything else.

Dr B named and allegedly shamed a number of groups but based on his worst group assertion this is from reading and once partaking in its open forum. I have taken part in many forums and I often come across stuff that I find irritating, contentious and misleading UK Skeptic’s is no different to any of these other forums in my opinion

I have read what Dr B has written in response to various questions and he doesn’t come across to me as being a true Skeptic from my understanding of the term Skeptic.

In my opinion it is better to try an educate others in a positive way to help them rationalise their experiences so that they don’t fall foul of a paranormal excuse when it can often be explainable as to being of a more natural cause. Going around verbally assassiinating groups that have or may have future value is certainly not my practice.

Regarding believer's it’s not morally correct in my opinion to pooh pooh the actual experience of these people. I haven’t had their experience so how can I form a true and honest opinion. OK I will still question and would ask if they were able to substantiate their claims.

Finally if you are a Skeptic what kind of Skeptic are you?

1. Are you the type that checks out all the facts before making an informed opinion?

2, Are you the type that have little interest in checking the facts because you just know better?

BillB :smiley:

[Zaira]

BillB,

No offence but I can't read some of your posts as the print is too small. I hope I'm not missing anything important.

[Admin]

I have read what Dr B has written in response to various questions and he doesn’t come across to me as being a true Skeptic from my understanding of the term Skeptic.

Perhaps you could give us your definition of a skeptic?

I must admit, I tend to find that those who refer to themselves as 'true skeptics' and to skeptics as 'pseudoskeptics' actually to be believers.


Regarding believer's it’s not morally correct in my opinion to pooh pooh the actual experience of these people.

Are you building a strawman argument here? ;)

No-one one here does dismiss the experiences of people - we simply want to find out the real reasons that give rise to those experiences.

Anyway, I'll wait for your detailed explanation for what a True SkepticTM is before proceeding.

[BillB]

Hi

Zaira: Sorry about the font size I will make my future posts in large easier to read type. If you check your browser setting you should be able to set your viewing options to magnify the browser display. Internet explorer has this option in the bottom right hand corner of the browser window. Look for a magnifying glass with a + sign followed by 100% and select the drop down arrow to change. Other browsers will differ but there should still be an option to help those who find small type difficult to read.

John I have to go out so I will reply later if that's alright? O0

BillB :smiley:

[Zaira]

Bill,


Thanks. I can't see a magnifying glass but I'll take a closer look around. I don't mind shorter posts, I cab usually get through them. It's the longer ones that are a struggle.

[bobdezon]

In answer to you question billb I am more of an "option 3" guy, let me explain.

I hear a story, I form an opinion on the veracity of it using the information I have at hand and personal experience to form an opinion. I check to see if its possible or at least feasible or even completely or partially incorrect. If my opinion is wrong and I am persueded by new factual information I will adjust my opinion to suit and educate myself in the process. I will then report my findings in a report, wether that be an actual report or forum post etc.

Its actually a good system. I get to decide what is correct using the available current factual information, however facts frequently change and we must be prepared to accept that change and adjust the opinion to match to keep consistantly correct.

[seren]

[offtopic]


Moving on and looking back, I worked hard to dig myself out of a deep dark well - I did! No one else! No spirits or ghosts of grandparents got me to where I am - I did! With the help of a lovely smart, logical, practical thinking man who help me to keep my feet on the ground and bring up my family.

:smiley:

Can I just acknowledge that please? Yes you did do it all by yourself and to me that's much more interesting than a whole world full of spirits and ghosts. Well done, and well done for saying it right here too! O0

[median]

BillB wrote
I’m an alleged skeptical rebel because I have questioned the ethics of respected skeptic’s on this forum, being as I am somewhat of a newbie. So far I appear to be in a minority but I’m unsure why this should be because the initial question although somewhat over dramatised (mainly out of frustration I might add) was a valid one yet was not forth coming in answer.

Explain please, the term, skeptical rebel?


These are some questions to consider as this is a mixed forum containing both skeptics and believers?

Do Skeptic’s or Believers of this forum feel influenced by the core members of this forum? After all it is natural human behaviour to help serve those in power to gain favour?

Firstly I would question your statement about what is natural in human behaviour. Secondly, I think it it all depends on exactly what is meant by 'influenced'. Many members here have an understanding of the style and meaning of other long term posters and on the surface this may give the impression of a type of core influence. If, however, you allude to a type of blanket agreement with the 'big guns' then, after a cursory examination, I personally see little evidence of this. Of course, whilst you seem to suggest a collaborative influence might occur there is always the prospect of the opposite type of influence.


From a Skeptical point of few how might we help this rebel to become an acceptable non-rebel like skeptic? This is important because if we can’t quell a rebel skeptic (in the ranks) then how can we persuade a believer into becoming a skeptic?

As I stated above, how do you define a rebel skeptic? Continue your exploration by all means but your self referenced term has little meaning, Please explain further.


Does this rebel skeptic have skeptical knowledge that might be useful that can be adopted for use generally by other skeptics?

Only time will tell


My speculation in debate is that both Believer type forums and Skeptical type forums will react much the same as each other to protect their own core interests.

And how is that? Deleting posts that are contrary to the forum 'norm'? Removing posters or threatening posters with removal? Could you be more specific in the type of criteria you are proposing.

Regards

Median


__________________

[Mojo]

So let the debate begin what do other members have to say?


I say that you shouldn't put an apostrophe in a plural.

[bindeweede]

I say that you shouldn't put an apostrophe in a plural.

Well...#Regarding believer's

perhaps it is not the biggest mistake in the world. With respect.

Sorry, don't know where the sharp sign came from.

[BillB]

Hi,

Median, what on earth are you babbling on about? It's been an interesting game, but alas it has now ended so enjoy your ignorance in bliss I wish you well!! :cheesy:

bobdezon
In answer to you question billb I am more of an "option 3" guy, let me explain.

I hear a story, I form an opinion on the veracity of it using the information I have at hand and personal experience to form an opinion. I check to see if its possible or at least feasible or even completely or partially incorrect. If my opinion is wrong and I am persueded by new factual information I will adjust my opinion to suit and educate myself in the process. I will then report my findings in a report, wether that be an actual report or forum post etc.

Its actually a good system. I get to decide what is correct using the available current factual information, however facts frequently change and we must be prepared to accept that change and adjust the opinion to match to keep consistantly correct.

I can relate to what you have said bob and might add you are one of the few here that seems to make any skeptical sense. :smiley:

John, I decided to go with the dictionary version of Skeptic to help your beleiver membership. However I would suggest they follow the example given by bob and his reasoning.

Skep-tic

1. A person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual

2. A person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.

3. A person who doubts the truth of a religion, esp. Christianity, or of important elements of it.

4.
a) A member of a philosophical school of ancient Greece, the earliest group of which consisted of Pyrrho and his followers, who maintained that real knowledge of things is impossible.

b) Any later thinker who doubts or questions the possibility of real knowledge of any kind.

BillB :smiley:

[Zaira]

seren, O0

[bruno.j]

ah well - i had better take my "ignorance " elsewhere then dr.B - as it is obvious that it is no match for your your ego ;D

i came to see what sceptisim was all about - maybe that was a "delusional" move ??

any way have a good life - my thanks to ALL posters on this forum - your thoughts make interesting reading O0 - it is just a pity that some here like to belittle others

well having gained a fist hand experience of a sceptic forum - i shall now depart and seek enlightenment elsewhere

my best regards to you all

bruno.j - the "delusional " parrot :cheesy:

[bruno.j]

ah well - i had better take my "ignorance " elsewhere then dr.B - as it is obvious that it is no match for your your ego ;D

i came to see what sceptisim was all about - maybe that was a "delusional" move ??

any way have a good life - my thanks to ALL posters on this forum - your thoughts make interesting reading O0 - it is just a pity that some here like to belittle others

well having gained a fist hand experience of a sceptic forum - i shall now depart and seek enlightenment elsewhere

my best regards to you all

bruno.j - the "delusional " parrot :cheesy:

[median]

Median, what on earth are you babbling on about? It's been an interesting game, but alas it has now ended so enjoy your ignorance in bliss I wish you well!!

Oh..it's a game...I see. Who won? ;)

;D

[seren]

having gained a fist hand experience of a sceptic forum

???

So who threw the first punch? ;)

[Dr B]

ah well - i had better take my "ignorance " elsewhere then......

That's your decision.

Goodbye 8)

[Admin]

John, I decided to go with the dictionary version of Skeptic to help your beleiver membership.[snip]

Skep-tic

1. A person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual

2. A person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.

3. A person who doubts the truth of a religion, esp. Christianity, or of important elements of it.

4.
a) A member of a philosophical school of ancient Greece, the earliest group of which consisted of Pyrrho and his followers, who maintained that real knowledge of things is impossible.

b) Any later thinker who doubts or questions the possibility of real knowledge of any kind.

Well that clinches it for me - you certainly are not a skeptic and you have no idea of what skepticism is.

Most Real SkepticsTM usually subscribe to some form of pyhrronism and mistake it for skepticism but the truly naive go straight to dictionary.com for their answer.

See: What is Skepticism? (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=what_is_skepticism.php) for a layman's terms overview of what we're about. O0


Many people fall for the false dichotomy of Believer vs Skeptic just like they do with science vs religion.

But, just as being non-religious does not therefore mean you're a scientist, being a non-believer does not mean that you're therefore a skeptic (!)

[bobdezon]

John you have invoked pyhrronism, thats just not on mate ;)

[BillB]

Hi,

John Jackson
Well that clinches it for me - you certainly are not a skeptic and you have no idea of what skepticism is.

I have a good understanding of skepticism as I am a practicing skeptic and I also read your version of it here (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=what_is_skepticism.php) ages ago! :smiley:

Also note that I am for the purpose of this debate a rebel skeptic so I’m playing my part well because I appear to have already duped you John?? :cheesy:


BillB
Median, what on earth are you babbling on about? It's been an interesting game, but alas it has now ended so enjoy your ignorance in bliss I wish you well!!

Median
Oh..it's a game...I see. Who won?

It’s a simple Skeptical nonsense tactic often used to distract from answering that persons questions? ;)

Looks like I won that game! ;)


BillB :smiley:

[Admin]

Also note that I am for the purpose of this debate a rebel skeptic so I’m playing my part well because I appear to have already duped you John?? :cheesy:

Oh right. So you're a true skepticTM but just toying with his opponents like some second-rate Bond Villain.

What is the point of trying to dupe us by behaving like a dick? :ponder:

[Admin]

John you have invoked pyhrronism, thats just not on mate ;)

I mentioned it once before - but I think I got away with it!! ;D

[BillB]

Hi,

John Jackson
What is the point of trying to dupe us by behaving like a dick?

Perhaps a logical fallacy on your part John?

I really find it interesting as a generalisation to how sketptics often differ in opinion with each other as to what Skepticism is really all about?

In my opinion, the closest one can get to being a true Skeptic if this is indeed possible, because we all have our biases is as follows:.

Just “don’t believe everything that you think!” and perhaps add to this that “Faith is a belief in stuff you know isn’t really true”

Pyrrho and his followers maintained that real knowledge of things is impossible.

As a skeptical thinker I can’t accept that real knowledge of things is impossible like what Pyrrho practised in his own philosophy!

The following is an article link to the “Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy”
Pyrrho (c. 360-c.270 BCE.) (http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/p/pyrrho.htm)

So John, Bob, me and many other modern day Skeptics wouldn’t amount to anything much as skeptics if we adopted Pyhrronism as Pyrrho intended.

BillB O0

[Dr B]

Not that this is important to the discussion above - but I, for one, do not regard myself as a skeptic.

I am a scientist. There may be a degree of overlap - but I apply science and logic to my reasoning of factual matters and evidential truths - no more and no less.

Skepticism is perhaps a broader term - dunno. ???

[Admin]

Skepticism is the driving force behind good science.

There are plenty of well-qualified scientists who are non-skeptics. They are the ones investigating psychic parrots, validating psychics and mediums etc.

It should be the case that scientists are also skeptics by default (using logic, critical thinking, tangible evidence etc.) but, sadly, just having science qualifications or even working as an academic scientist does not ensure this.

Science is all about making observations, developing research questions/hypotheses, testing them, and drawing conclusions. Skepticism is the critical scrutiny of this process to make sure that each step in the process is evaluated for soundness.

This is the distinction that I make between science and skepticism (of course it could be argued that this distinction is an arbitrary one created by me!) and explains why scientists with glittering qualifications often come out with nonsense: without the skeptical scrutiny, science struggles to work.

I also think the distinction is a useful one as skepticism can also be used outside of science. Scrutinising mortgage deals to see which one is really the best one for you (i.e. not just looking at the advertised rates but at the T&C etc. too) is skepticism in action but that wouldn't come under the umbrella of science.

So I do make a distinction between science and skepticism whilst maintaining that skepticism is an essential ingredient for science.

[Scottish_Girl]

'I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.'
Leo Tolstoy



'It is impossible to believe a blank.'
Dallas Willard




'Mark this well, you proud men of action! you are, after all, nothing but unconscious instruments of the men of thought.'
Heinrich Heine




'It is essential that the student acquire an understanding of and a lively feeling for values. He must acquire a vivid sense of the beautiful and the morally good. Otherwise he—with his specialized knowledge—more closely resembles a well-trained dog than a harmoniously developed person.'
Albert Einstein




'Common sense is not so common.'
Voltaire




'The part of philanthropist is indeed a dangerous one; and the man who would do his neighbour good must first study how not to do him evil, and must begin by pulling the beam out of his own eye.'
George MacDonald



'A tolerance which allows God as a private opinion but which excludes Him from public life, from the reality of the world and our lives, is not tolerance but hypocrisy.'
Pope Benedict XVI, October 2005






'Expertise in one field does not carry over into other fields. But experts often think so. The narrower their field of knowledge the more likely they are to think so.'
“Lazarus Long,” in Robert A. Heinlein’s Time Enough for Love (1973)




'The one sure thing about mortal existence is that it will end; the moment we are born, we begin to die. This basic fact of death is today highly unpalatable, to the point that extraordinary efforts are made, linguistically and in every other way, to keep death out of sight and mind. . . . Death becomes the dirty little secret that sex once was.'
Malcolm Muggeridge, Confessions of a Twentieth-Century Pilgrim

[ZERO]

Without the feedback provided by body language, tone of voice etc. it can be difficult to know how postings are being received. Hostility can easily break out from an entirely innocent misplaced or ill-judged word.

Very true. Until I got online, I didn't realize how much of verbal communication is based on tone, nuance and gesture, not just the words alone.