I was looking at some paranormal club websites recently and wondered which were most attractive to surfers. A friend commented that a 'believer' would stop reading any webpage as soon as they detected it was skeptical. I would tend to agree with that.
So I looked through some more pages and compared the 'skeptical' ones with the 'believer' ones. The 'skeptical' pages that I was looking at merely contained factual material and evidence. They did not attack beliefs but merely pointed out, very mildly, that some popular beliefs were not obviously supported by the available evidence. And yet, my friend insisted, it would be enough to put believers off.
So, my question is, can 'facts' ever be skeptical? Is the mere absence of unsupported speculation from a web page enough to put off believers?
No. Facts are facts.
It is the attitude of the people that evaluate them that count.
Perhaps woos consider facts boring.
They also might like to have inside knowledge that mainstream society is unaware of. The fact it is total garbage is unimportant.
Of course there are plenty of legitimate subjects that are absolutely fascinating.
The facts aren't skeptical. A skeptical person or skeptical website will focus on evidence rather than assertion. The dominance of facts on such a website is what makes it recognisable as skeptical. If it simply said supernatural claptrap is bullshit without recourse to any facts then whilst that might be cynical it would certainly not be skeptical.
The problem is that many woos see anything that contradicts them as a personal attack. It doesn't matter how you present facts, even if you do nothing but simply write them down with no comments, some people will still refuse to take any notice and accuse everyone of attacking them. Gary Manion and Psychic Sarah's recent forrays onto this forum are perfect examples of this. They make claims, we ask questions or link to evidence contradicting them, they storm off in a huff accusing everyone of bullying them.
I have to admit that when I go onto a 'believer' website, as soon as I start reading some speculative nonsense, I stop reading!
Perhaps skeptical websites could carry a message at the top:
"Warning: this website contains factual material that some people may find offensive"
What do you think, John?
Although speculation per se is not such a bad thing, surely?I have to admit that when I go onto a 'believer' website, as soon as I start reading some speculative nonsense, I stop reading!
There's informed speculation, which is fine, and then there's speculation based on other speculation which is based on other speculation which was just made up.Originally Posted by median
it seems to me that people are happy inside their own belife system and do not like to be upset by other people trying to burst their cozy little bubble.
i am struggling to dich my faith so i listen to pat condell and such, i get upset if i find anyone defending religen, so i just don't read or listen to them.
i think the internet is like a salad bar, you take what you want and leave the rest.
I like the salad bar metaphor! Especially as I hate them. They'e always full of tired looking tomatoes, floppy lettuce and nasty smelling salad dressings that resemble vomit.
Facts are data interpreted through theory (well, that's the official definition anyway).
'Facts' do not speak for themselves and can turn out to be false. Carroll states that a fact is information which is accepted to such a degree, it would appear totally perverse to question it.
Example - gravity. There may still be many things we do not know about it - but the existence of gravity, under present circumstances, is a fact.
Many woo's get confused between fact and theory
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks