Investigating Skeptics website

[Mulder]

Prompted by something DrB wrote in the NDE thread, I found this website. This seems to me to be more about criticising skeptics than defending beliefs or discussing data (or science). What next, a website defending those who criticise skeptics? Perhaps we should start a derivatives market in such stuff.

[Croydon Bob]

That's Rupert Sheldrake's website. He believe's that cats and dogs are psychic and that DNA isn't responsible for evolution, "morphic resonance fields" are. He has run tests on people to see if they are able to tell if they are being stared at from behind that were deliberately fixed to give apparently significant results that were actually what you would expect from chance.

The website has all the shite you would expect from a loony site: An article claiming that the JREF $1m isn't real money; a link to the YouTube clip of Dawkins being interviewed by Creationists pausing when he realises that they lied to him, misrepresented as if he couldn't answer the question; etc.

If they had any evidence that their loony ideas were correct they would promote that material rather than putting effort into trying to discredit the people who ask for evidence.

[John Jackson]

If they had any evidence that their loony ideas were correct they would promote that material rather than putting effort into trying to discredit the people who ask for evidence.

And isn't that absolutely the bottom line!

There's a similar site in the USA called Scepcop and there's a bunch of 'believers' on there who devote all of their time to attacking skeptics - the entire site is devoted to it.

If they are so sure that they are right why don't they just put up the evidence?

Their argument is just pure Ad Hominem.

[Croydon Bob]

There's a similar site in the USA called Scepcop and there's a bunch of 'believers' on there who devote all of their time to attacking skeptics - the entire site is devoted to it.

I hadn't seen that one before. Wow. What a crock of shite. They've even got Victor "Dammit" Zammit on board just to guarantee 0% credibility. It is actually even more silly than Sheldrake's site.

[Mulder]

I was at a talk by Sheldrake many years ago, when he'd just started the 'being stared at' stuff. We did an informal 'staring' experiment in the hall but it came out with negative results. A bit surprising really because controls were virtually non-existent, amounting to 'don't look round!'.

It would be much better if there was a 'here is our best evidence' site, rather than one simply critical of everyone who is critical. It reduces the subject to personalities when it should be about data.

I love Scecop site, particularly "Debunking the arguments of pseudo-skeptics and debunkers"! This would be excellent material for trolls and cartoonists! So far, I don't think I've used any of the argumets they mention - phew! Well worth reading, if only for spotting the obvious flaws. Oh dear, does that undermine my comments?

I think I could write a website debunking their website which debunks skeptics who debunk believers! But I wouldn't because of what would happen next ... (plus I've better things to do, like actually investigating the paranormal!).

[Mulder]

In that Scecop site, once you've eliminated everyone they've identified as pseudo-skeptics (either directly by name or because of the arguments they deploy), there don't seem to be many, or even any, genuine skeptics left! It seems true skepticism is a Holy Grail that no one is worthy to achieve!

Excellent site - hugely entertaining! Much better than 'Investigating Skeptics'.

[Croydon Bob]

I was at a talk by Sheldrake many years ago, when he'd just started the 'being stared at' stuff. We did an informal 'staring' experiment in the hall but it came out with negative results. A bit surprising really because controls were virtually non-existent, amounting to 'don't look round!'.

I did a test at a Skeptics in the Pub meeting in London. The month after we had Sheldrake as a guest speaker I was the guest speaker and got a Sheldrake supporter, James Brown (no not THAT James Brown), to take a test, designed by James himself, in the pub.

He claimed to be able to tell when being stared at behind his back. He claimed he would get ten out of ten. We told him that eight out of ten would do. He was either stared at or not by a series of volunteers from the audience and had to say "yes" or "no". After eight goes he was on 5 correct and 3 wrong. I was a little nervous that random chance was going to give him a 7 - 3... but I was lucky and it finished 5 correct guesses, 5 wrong guesses, just as you might expect statistically. James claimed it was a draw and didn't agree that 0 - 10 would have been just as interesting as 10 - 0.

There were lots of potential flaws in the test as done in the pub. The biggest was that we, the skeptics, could actually have collaborated to stitch him up. We could have all been in on it and lied about whether he was being stared at or not. He trusted us not to do that, and we didn't do that, but it was theoretically possible as he didn't have any friends. But it was fun, the tension was massive when he'd got to 5 correct guesses, and he didn't manage to support Sheldrake's silly claims.

I do think that tests, from my little one in a pub, right up to the JREF Challenge, are a good way of encouraging critical thinking. If the believers have faith in their abilties and/or claims then they should put some effort into taking proper tests and not into attacking those who are not gullible.

[Mulder]

Our test was similar. The difference being that most of the audience were believers who probably expected it to work!

Must stop reading the Scecop site, it's getting addictive ...

[Dr B]

In that Scecop site, once you've eliminated everyone they've identified as pseudo-skeptics (either directly by name or because of the arguments they deploy), there don't seem to be many, or even any, genuine skeptics left! It seems true skepticism is a Holy Grail that no one is worthy to achieve!

Excellent site - hugely entertaining! Much better than 'Investigating Skeptics'.

These sites (including sheldrakes nonsense site i orignianlly hinted at) are a debating tactic and ploy....its late now...but i will post a more elaborate post over the next few days - but these sites are nonsense, flawed and competely miss the point.....but it shows, clearer than anything, that they are using basic techniques to manipulate opinion.

Most woo's just appear to be ill informed, honestly mistaken, or frauds - these sites show conscious attempts to deceive in my opinion....speak soon...

[Mulder]

These sites (including sheldrakes nonsense site i orignianlly hinted at) are a debating tactic and ploy....its late now...but i will post a more elaborate post over the next few days - but these sites are nonsense, flawed and competely miss the point.....but it shows, clearer than anything, that they are using basic techniques to manipulate opinion.

I thought I covered all that with 'hugely entertaining' ...

[Croydon Bob]

.....but it shows, clearer than anything, that they are using basic techniques to manipulate opinion.

Most woo's just appear to be ill informed, honestly mistaken, or frauds - these sites show conscious attempts to deceive in my opinion....speak soon...

I agree about Sheldrake, but Dammit Zammit is just completely wibble wibble hatstand: http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/index.html

Try reading that page without laughing at his ridiculous ranting and constant self contradiction. A parody couldn't be funnier (indeed there is one and it isn't).

[Dr B]

Zammitt is pure woo woo and I have known of his nonsense for some time. Do you think he is deluded or involved in the conscious promotion of nonsense for money making etc?

[Croydon Bob]

Do you think he is deluded or involved in the conscious promotion of nonsense for money making etc?

I'm not qualified to give an expert view, but in my amateur opinion he's well beyond deluded and far into raving insane frothing psycho. He is totally clueless. On the page I linked to he claims that Randi's $1m doesn't exist in one piece, then admits it does in another, then says it doesn't in another. How could that be a conscious effort to do anything other than make yourself look daft?