I've seen a couple of you say you have accidently strayed onto a forum which you discovered had a woo element, or that you visit a woo forum to encourage critical thinking skills in the woos.
How amusing/enjoyable is sceptical 'visiting'? I'm hesitating to use the word these woos might use about people doing this to them :D
How much do you think it might work as a tool of educating woos?
I just joined a 'new age' forum with the hope of doing this slightly, i don't have the patience to be subtle though, and have almost got thrown off just for my introduction. :o Some of these groups can be very 'suspicious'
I don't do it as such forums are usually a 'closed shop'. If you don't agree with their group-mentality and adopt their position on matters you'll quickly be ganged up on and banned.
I demonstrated this to someone a year or so back by joining a homeopathy forum and giving straight, truthful answers to woos' questions.
A couple of questions I can remember answering were: "is there more to homeopathy that a placebo effect?" and "what's the difference between a 30C remedy and 200C remedy?" (or close to those).
I posted the answers that there is no good evidence to show that homeopathy is anything other than a placebo, and that once the 12C dilution has been passed, all homeopathic remedies are identical - i.e. there are no ingredients left in them.
I was banned in a matter of hours.
Personally, I don't think it achieves much trying to educate non-thinkers in their forums. It just doesn't work. If you state your message clearly you'll get banned, if you try to moderate your messages so that you don't get banned you don't get your point across effectively.
The bottom line though is: no-one will take any notice of you (other than to insult you) as they don't want to hear points of view other than their own.
.
Check out my 'Psychic Challenge' thread for an answer. The forum I was a part of was a full on business network, apparently one of the biggest in the world - ecademy.
It used to consist of discussion on a business theme, how legislation effected people etc, however I started to balk when they advertised discount rates to go see 'The Secret'. I watched it, did a bit of reading up on it and was stunned to find it was an advertising piece for a cult and nothing more.
I tried the tack that within an adult and educated bunch of people, this sort of nonsense should be given no discussion, it's just bunkum. Little did I know that it's also a great resale...
Money wins everywhere. Homeopathy cannot be challenged because there's too much money in it for the dealers. Try to challenge it and you're potentially putting their kids out of school.
Same with Ecademy. Challenge their income stream and wham, you upset the apple cart.
I got banned, for what I'm not entirely sure of yet, but it can only have something to do with the fact I challenged them.
I really try not to brand everyone as idiots, but at the end of the day, you gotta wonder...
Most people's minds are not open to changing their beliefs especially about people they have 'fallen for' financially and spiritually.Originally Posted by Sgt Badass
If someone said that one of your mates was a fraud/liar/sexual predator, most people would just back their friend unquestioningly.
I try and keep an open mind and neither idolise or demonise people, but it is hard.
Some people I count as friends have behaved very questionably at times. I just happen to like them! Until they do it to me
Love
Kath
P.S. I've seen people back their gurus despite all evidence to the contrary. They will believe someone is a medical miracle/enigma if that person has an authoritative and charming manner and convinces them of it, despite that person not having been ever diagnosed with a 'physical' illness.
You've reminded me of something. You mention being 'open minded'. I'm sure it's the bane of most skeptic's life to be branded 'closed minded' and it winds me up no end. The skeptic is generally the most open minded in any conversation, yet the woo always uses this argument.
Someone actually posted a great definition of both closed and open mindedness in the ecad forums. If I get back on I'll try to find it, but even given a definition and pointing out the quite glaring flaws in the woo arguments that were banded about, still they would not yield.
For example, I gave the 'orbiting teapot' example, and asked someone if they believed it. They said "I guess anything is possible". I'll use it again, it's a good indication as to whether it's even worth speaking to anyone.
"Open minded" is one of those phrases that I refuse to use, because it is not well-defined and hence essentially meaningless.
"Grow up" is another one, it can mean whatever the speaker wishes it to.
I know that's how woos use it, I suppose I meant scepticism or common sense, being open to reason I suppose :)
Don't forget there's a magnificent article on the fallacious use of the term 'open minded' HERE.
.
Education cannot be used, in a sense, as a one way tool. Personally I do not approach any discussion with the aim of claiming a prior superior viewpoint. There is always the possibility that you enter a debate with a person with greater knowledge or a different but salient perspective and as such must always be willing to revise your opinions.I've seen a couple of you say you have accidently strayed onto a forum which you discovered had a woo element, or that you visit a woo forum to encourage critical thinking skills in the woos.
How amusing/enjoyable is sceptical 'visiting'? I'm hesitating to use the word these woos might use about people doing this to them
How much do you think it might work as a tool of educating woos?
That withstanding, in a lot of such forums there is a wide range of people with a various understanding of skepticism and a lot of people seem to 'sit on the fence' so to speak and as such are open to different viewpoints.
It is engaging with these, rather than the 'hardened woo' that can be productive
I think that's more the case if a woo topic turns up on a general forum. Then it's more likely that neutral readers will see it.
Believers' forums tend to be read only by believers and skeptics' forums tend to only get read by skeptics. Sounds obvious, but there's not likely to be a lot of neutral readers as they won't be attracted to such forums.
It's just my personal opinion (although one based on experience) but I think that posting on woo forums as a way of tackling general woo is not an effective way to do it. It's focusing on the wrong audience - preaching to the damned basically.
You can end up spending a lot of time and effort developing great arguments that get dismissed/ignored/deleted by those who don't want to hear them whilst the neutral people who would benefit most from following such arguments are not reading.
Like I said, that's my take on it. I think it's a lot of effort for minimal return.
.
Exactly. Like the saying goes, "Don't bother arguing with an idiot. He will bring you down to his level and beat you with experience".
Agreed, it can be very frustrating. So, John, how exactly do you propose a more productive way in dealing with this sort of thing?It's just my personal opinion (although one based on experience) but I think that posting on woo forums as a way of tackling general woo is not an effective way to do it. It's focusing on the wrong audience - preaching to the damned basically.
You can end up spending a lot of time and effort developing great arguments that get dismissed/ignored/deleted by those who don't want to hear them whilst the neutral people who would benefit most from following such arguments are not reading.
I knew someone would ask this >:( - you're banned :P
Erm, we're working on it - that's not a cop-out btw, we're really looking at the best options on how to advance the skeptical outlook on life.
It's not an easy problem to solve, but those of us at the core of UKS are actively looking into what we can do to advance the cause of skepticism/critical thinking.
We're looking to identify our target audience for a start (!)
.
I knew someone would ask this >:( - you're banned :P
Erm, we're working on it - that's not a cop-out btw, we're really looking at the best options on how to advance the skeptical outlook on life.
It's not an easy problem to solve, but those of us at the core of UKS are actively looking into what we can do to advance the cause of skepticism/critical thinking.
We're looking to identify our target audience for a start (!)
hi all - may i ask given the above - what decisions have you come to as to the "target audience " - are these to be those who are already sceptical ? - the fence sitters ? - or the out and out woo's ? - reading through the forums i note that frequently there is reference to the "closed shop " mentality - er could not UKS be accused of the same thing ? ( at times ?? ) - if say someone who was "undecided " joined - then would you try and convince them of the correctness of your arguments - ? or would they be free to make up their own mind as to the validity of YOUR arguments ??-
like wise the question of proof - there is much criticism of wooish arguments lacking "proof " - but can any one give me 100 % scientific ( or other ) "proof " that say there is NOT an afterlife - or that ghosts /spirits DO NOT exist - i am not talking personal opinions here - but the level of proof that would convince the majority of the populous
just doing a bit of fence sitting here and playing "devils advocate " out of interest you understand
bruno.j
Our target audience would be the general public or specialist groups; such as haunting investigators.
I don't know of anyone who argues a position they don't believe is true!
Remember, this is a forum and the views put forward on here are the views of the members - that doesn't mean it's UKS policy.
A skeptical forum is only likely to attract skeptics and those who oppose skeptics. Your average person has no particular reason to be attracted to such a place. The result will be a lot of threads where we discuss things from our own point of view mixed in with confrontation where believers come in to have a pop.
That's the nature of forums. It doesn't mean that confrontation is UKS policy though - it's not.
Can you prove that invisible pink unicorns don't exist?
The answer's no.
To make such a claim is to make the Argument to Ignorance fallacy.
.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks