This skepticism lark is really hard

[seren]

I've not been inactive, no sir, since I came here. I've been reading and proselytising and I've come to the conclusion that being a skeptic is frustrating as hell. Here's what's happened:

I hang around on another forum (I'm sorry). Someone recently posted about terrorism. Someone else responded listing all the "dodgy" things about 9/11, implying that it was a conspiracy, things she'd seen on a Dutch documentary. She also linked to Loose Change (although she says it wasn't that she watched).
The author of the original post then responds saying she's beginning to agree that Bush had a hand in it. This is where I come in, and using the info and links posted on here start explaining why the listed "evidence" for a conspiracy is questionable- and at times laughable- all unfounded assertions or extrapolation.

Our Dutch friend responds with "interesting points...but we'll never know what happened and people can make their own minds up"

Which kinda deflated me. So I respond by saying it's interesting that people don't want to believe the simplest explanation, and asking whether you need to think Bush was somehow masterminding this plan to think he's a dangerous fool.

The original poster (who's a great gal by the way, I like her very much) replies "The people writing on that website offer excellent points, so do a number of contrary experts. [But] I put nothing past them [Bush and Osama bin Laden]. I would not be surprised at anything I read about it."

At which point I gave up. I thought I'd shown that the CTists DON'T offer excellent points. That was the point of my post. I wasn't posting a contrary "belief", I was showing that nothing CTists cite actually holds water as evidence. Plus it seems she's shut her brain off and decided to passively accept the possibility that any suggestions made about Bush could be true, because she doesn't like him.

I'm just gobsmacked at people's reactions. I don't understand why they don't understand. Why showing that supposed "evidence" is just speculation, obsfucation or plain fabrication can be interpreted as "interesting contrary points". Why not liking the US administration leads people to believe that Bush could be a terrorist collaborator. That's like...like seeing pigs jump and deciding that they might be able to fly.

Oh, I don't know. I just kinda thought that by showing how the whole approach by CTists was wrong, I would get people to realise they've been led towards conclusions. But no.
Heigh ho.

[Admin]

You'll only ever change anyone's mind on something if they are genuinely asking for guidance or are genuinely inquisitive.

I think that many skeptics cut their teeth so to speak on different forums by getting into discussions and arguments and they learn to realise that explaining things clearly, logically and with sound argumentation actually gets you precisely nowhere. ???

I no longer try as it's absolutely futile.

It was this fact, as I was amazed and bewildered by it too, that led me to look more into the psychology of belief and why people form and hold the beliefs they do.

Perhaps we should talk about Skinner boxes and pigeons... :ponder:

[Cuddles]

At which point I gave up. I thought I'd shown that the CTists DON'T offer excellent points. That was the point of my post. I wasn't posting a contrary "belief", I was showing that nothing CTists cite actually holds water as evidence. Plus it seems she's shut her brain off and decided to passively accept the possibility that any suggestions made about Bush could be true, because she doesn't like him.

You've hit the nail right on the head there. The whole point is that they know what they want to believe and refuse to accept anything else, whatever the evidence or other people say. I feel, and many others judging from comments at JREF, that we don't argue with these people to convince them that they are wrong, we argue to convince other people that they are wrong. Almost all this kind of forum have numerous fence-sitters who may believe the CTs if that is all they are told. If we put forward arguments showing how full of crap the CTs are, many peope who may have otherwise been convinced will realise just how silly they are. It can be frustrating arguing with someone who clearly isn't all there, but every now and then a post turns up thanking the skeptics for helping someone find the truth, and I think that is what makes it worthwhile.

[seren]

You'll like this one. Same forum, different thread. I was discussing some particularly hippy-dippy lyrics to a song, and how they make me squirm. Anyway, it ended up turning into a debate about the merits of herbal medicine. So I told them I'd been cheating on them with the UK Skeptic's forum, and explained the skeptic's take on herbal medicine.

This is some of one of the responses I got:


Back in the day, before the white man came to this land, the native americans and native mesoamericans healed themselves and lived off the earth. Their beliefs consisted of worshipping the earth..and having humility for all that the earth gives them like food, materials to build shelters, sunshine for which we cannot live without, and beauty.

You think that you have more wisdom than the earth that has existed for billions of years and seen various cycles of life? Plants have consciousness, animals have consciousness, by killing the earth we live on many of us have lost that consciousness thinking that we can be scientists and admire the mysteries of the world at the same time, but honestly it's the western mindset that doesn't allow people to step out of those barriers.

: :o

I still can't quite believe the woolly thinking (and toe-curlingly patronising attitude to native americans >:(). And I really resent the suggestion this poster made that I was narrow-minded and didn't care about the earth.

Basically, my reply was along the lines of no, I don't believe I have more wisdom than the earth because I don't believe the earth has wisdom. Why on earth (arf arf) can't people respect the planet without having to invest it with consciousness? Why can't we admire, and be amazed by life without deifying it?

I'm sorry about this, I'm clearly going through a skeptic's initiation rite here. It got worse when a pharmacist responded negatively when I posted that the reason I tend to defend herbal medicine is because I don't like animal testing, implying that makes me anti-science!

It's as if I must be in one camp or the other. I don't see how disliking the idea of animal testing makes me anti-science (I don't know that anyone LIKES the idea, do they? Consider it a necessary evil, perhaps, but not LIKE), and I don't see how skepticism of herbal medicine would make me a narrow-minded earth-rapist.

It's like two opposing gangs, both claiming enlightenment and freedom from each other's delusion. I've got to go and lie down.

[tkingdoll]

Can you not just point out that until fairly recent, people relied on herbalism and mysticism for healing, and most people didn't live past 40? Plus, that the quality of life was unbearably poor, disease was rife, and children suffered hideous pain and disfigurment that they no longer have to endure?

[Admin]

Herbs were around as a treatment whilst the Black Death ravaged most of Asia, the Middle East and Europe in several waves.

Mother nature's gifts didn't do us much good then did they?

Unfortunately some people are idealistic fools with a completely distorted view of what nature is all about.

Should they get a natural disease, like cancer, and they turn to nature to cure it, they'll quickly learn what a ruthless taskmaster (mistress ?) Mother Nature is.

I remember times when I've been absolutely gobsmacked at the sort of inanity people come out with and actually believe it. You never quite get used to it. ???

[vbloke]

The way I see skepticism is not to convince the dyed in the wool believers - you will never get through to them, but to comment on and offer nuggets of information to others who are undecided.

If a friend mentions they've been told that "X" works, then I mention that they might want to read "Y" or go to website "Z" and have a quick read. It's surprising that when you point these things out in a non patronising and helpful way, how much they take on board.

Another way is to take their arguments and show them just how silly they can be, although this takes practice. On another board, someone commented that "scientists built a bomb that killed 200,000 people", to demonstrate how "evil" science was. I mentioned Jim Jones, David Koresh, Al Quaeda, etc as examples of how beliefs can also kill people and incite others to do evil deeds.

It's a lonely fight sometimes, the hours are long and the pay is terrible, but there's the knowledge that you're helping protect people from delusion, trickery and scams.

But for me, it's all about the fame and chicks ;D

[Jocky]

Well done for trying seren, and hang in there! O0

Even though you know you won't convert the hardened woo, you have to believe that you can say something that will be worthwhile for the lurkers. And by the sound of it I'm sure you have.

And how come vbloke gets all the chicks :'( ;D

[wollery]

And how come vbloke gets all the chicks :'( ;D


You're jealous of his poultry collection? :P

[Admin]

And how come vbloke gets all the chicks :'( ;D


I believe he has advanced shirt-selection techniques that we ordinary guys just don't have. :(

[Jocky]

And how come vbloke gets all the chicks :'( ;D


I believe he has advanced shirt-selection techniques that we ordinary guys just don't have. :(


Either that or he slips 'em some kind of homeopathic love potion ...

[vbloke]

And how come vbloke gets all the chicks :'( ;D


I believe he has advanced shirt-selection techniques that we ordinary guys just don't have. :(


Either that or he slips 'em some kind of homeopathic love potion ...


Stop giving away all my secrets, guys. You're ruining my mystique. :D

[seren]

This is a bit of a follow-on from my post from back when I was full of the fervour of a new recruit and furtively displaying my newfound lack of woolly thinking to strangers in parks. Or something.

Not finding it easy.

After coming back from a few months in Asia (where, incidentally, I did not find enlightenment. Merely pampered cows and other tourists) I got myself a new job. I don't want to get too specific but it involves a lot of working with various medical institutions. Well one of the things my org does is provide info to patients, and some of that info is woo. Lists of woo practitioners who "might help". *squirm* It's on the basis of "choice" and helping patients manage their condition. We as an organisation- and therefore me as an employee- are for choice.

I sat in on a discussion of the use of a particular therapy (pharmaceutical, not woo) recently. It was generally agreed that in the form being discussed (topical application), it was close to useless, but that patients like using it so therefore it should be a recognised treatment. Hang on a second- a cream which really does have the "medicine" in it, even though it doesn't work in that form? Why not just give them a placebo? They even said it was probably the act of rubbing the cream in that produced what little effect had been reported. Then why not just recommend "rubbing where it hurts"??

I feel so uncomfortable about being witness to this. Should I? Or am I missing some vital point somewhere? Or over-reacting?

More generally, I'm just finding it tough dealing with the amount of nonsense out there. It feels endemic. I'm lucky to have a partner and friends who have no truck with wooness of any sort, but keeping my trap shut to be polite around my family (mother thinks she telepathically "knows" when family members are suffering, sister is into vague Eastern spirituality) and acquaintances I just find so difficult. I'm worried it's going to come out in a kind of skeptic's Tourette's syndrome one day.

But what's hardest I think is that I wish, I really wish, there was something Out There. Some purpose. I always have. I just wish I was being "looked after" by "fate", that there were reasons why I went here or there, met him or her. Some damn order. Now I think it's just my mind looking for patterns where there are none (I'm a sucker for this. One day I'll post up a photo of my bathmat for someone to look at cos I just can't find a pattern in the distribution of dots and it's doing my head in. Did that sound a bit OCD/ASD? ;D).

Anyway, I just wanted to get that out. Appreciate comments on the work/woo issue. Ta.

[bindeweede]

What I am finding is that when you try to present a logical argument (the sort of thinking that I am working on to improve), or question conspiracy theories, you are accused of having a "closed mind". It is usually the people you are arguing with who have that.

Apologies if you have already come across this thread....

http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1303&highlight=open+mind

[wooo_oops]

I'm worried it's going to come out in a kind of skeptic's Tourette's syndrome one day.

;D

Sorry. I know what you mean.

This topical cream you're talking about - it's not for psoriasis by any chance...? Just wondering.

[seren]

This topical cream you're talking about - it's not for psoriasis by any chance...? Just wondering.

*looks shifty*
Ummm....not in the particular discussion I was party to, no. Does that answer the question?? ;)


(I'm fairly sure no-one from my work would be on here, but you never know. Trying to stay as anonymous as possible. Paranoia drools. :scared: )

[Zaira]

seren,

"I feel so uncomfortable about being witness to this. Should I? Or am I missing some vital point somewhere? Or over-reacting?"

Forgive my 'woo' thoughts but, as uncomfortable as you are with the 'two sided coin issue', perhaps you are simply getting the opportunity to 'see something for yourself', information that may be very useful to you at a later date.

[Zaira]

"One day I'll post up a photo of my bathmat for someone to look at cos I just can't find a pattern in the distribution of dots and it's doing my head in. Did that sound a bit OCD/ASD?"

lol! lol! Post it and I'll pass on what your bathmat is trying to tell you. :cheesy:

[wooo_oops]

*looks shifty*
Ummm....not in the particular discussion I was party to, no. Does that answer the question?? ;)


(I'm fairly sure no-one from my work would be on here, but you never know. Trying to stay as anonymous as possible. Paranoia drools. :scared: )

I understand, but thanks anyway. O0