THE GHOST POST (1 Viewer)

[Will_B]

I think we've reached an impassible divide that comes down to whether skeptics are the same as impartial scientists or not, and in having that difference, I don't think we'd agree that skeptics should be the ones designing the conditions of proof.


I'd agree that some skeptics are impartial scientists, who embody the word "skeptic" in the way you imagine it to be. There's a brilliant guy in England, Chris French, Ph.D., I think is his name, and he publishes a skeptics journal and yet he manages to be skeptical without any bias. If his admirably neutral, agenda-free perspective was typical, that would be excellent. But he seems, to me, to be an exception.


He seems to achieve the neutrality by simply remembering not to overstep claims. If he comes up with an alternate theory for something dubious, he simply says it is an alternate theory that he believes has greater likelihood of being accurate. He doesn't imagine himself to be making pronouncements on reality, which, sadly, seems to be what the founders of the American skeptics group thought was their responsibility.


I'm sure I don't need to remind you of this sense of responsibility; it wasn't so long ago after all when CSICOP was founded, as only in the past few years has the old guard retired or died off. Their philosophical reasons for wanting to discredit claims that could give rise to belief in anything "spiritual" is most explicit in the parent organization's other branch, the Council for Secular Humanism, for the founders seemed to believe (if you read Paul Kurtz' long interview in the New York Times) that they were involved in an historic struggle in which religion was an enemy that must be thwarted, and that the best way of thwarting was by making sure that anything that doesn't have a rational scientific explanation could be discredited by their other branch, CSICOP. Priority was on media, as their long sought after east and west coast media offices attest to. It would be too pat to say they substituted one church for another, in the battle of pronouncements, but it wouldn't be wrong. I'm aware CSICOP changed their name recently; maybe they're trying for a new image. Maybe they realized they were being too dramatic, or letting their pundits speak with a bit too much of an authoritarian zeal. But even if they are now "Refomed", they come from a history that is a bit too missionary for me.


Thanks for the conversation.

 

[RobertR]

You seem to place a great emphasis on the motivations of skeptics, ie the hostility of at least some of them to anything "spiritual". I would point out that one of the founders of CSICOP, Martin Gardner (a long time columnist in Scientific American), was a well known theist. Also, the implication that CSICOP was founded solely or primarily as a means to discredit religion is contradicted by its efforts regarding paranormal claims having nothing to do with religion, such as UFOs, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, fairies, homeopathic medicine, and so forth. I've also seen James Randi take on things such as Penta Water and High End Audio claims (long time readers on HTF know what I think about that particular subject), which, again, have nothing whatsoever to do with religion. It's critical, rational thinking they advocate, not blind authoritarianism. Indeed, as the video Jeff linked to points out, it's really the "believers" who are closed minded and dogmatic.


To some extent though, discussion of motives is really beside the point. Where I see "believers" (note that "belief" isn't confined to "religious" matters) failing is their inability to criticize skeptical methodology. In my post here:


http://www.hometheaterforum.com/forum/thread/306736/the-skeptical-thread


I give an example of skeptical methodology. No matter how much one may want to talk about how "missionary" skeptics are, I simply don't see a rational basis for saying the test method was "unfair" (note that the woman agreed with the test conditions). The bottom line is that the claimant didn't demonstrate her powers, but neither was there an a priori pronouncement that she couldn't. Skeptics simply say "show me". I will never understand why anyone would characterize that as "unreasonable" or "authoritarian".

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

I think I gave all I have to give here, but you guys have fun.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Anyone who knows me would have great hearty laugh at the notion I am hostile to anything spiritual. Matters of faith need no proof, that's why it's called faith. As someone said before, believing in life after death is inherently unprovable, so skepticism has no role in that belief. But claim to be able to contact the dead and I'll want Houdini's magic word as proof.

 

[SWFF]

Weird, I seem to recall there used to be a thread about ghosts around here, but I can't seem to find the damn thing anywhere. Any of you skeptics seen it?

 

[Jeff Gatie]

It died as soon as the "open minded" believers started the usual name calling and accusations.

 

[SWFF]

What?! Who called who names?!


Jeff, are you drunk . . . again?

 

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by SWFF

What?! Who called who names?!

Originally posted by Will_B Skeptics are lazy, irresponsible people....they were being too dramatic, or letting their pundits speak with a bit too much of an authoritarian zeal.....that is a bit too missionary for me.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Originally Posted by SWFF 

 

Oh the irony.

 

[Will_B]

Those weren't "names", they were adjectives, and carefully selected ones at that!*

Names are words like "poopypants".


*I backed up each of those adjectives over the past couple months of discussion, but I'll restate them briefly if you're too, um, lazy to go back over it. I'm not resuming dialogue about this, I am simply restating what I've already said that backed up those words.


Lazy -- The burden of proof is the other guy's responsibility, cue the debate about whether other guys can get assistance or not, and whether CSI funds any research.


Irresponsible -- By suggesting that people's experiences should be ignored and disregarded if they don't provide the burden of proof, they are actively misleading the public into the false impression that the only things which exist are things that have been proven by science; can't get more irresponsible than that, and it leads right into the next bit.


Authoritarian -- Their pundits present themselves as authorities on what does and *does not* exist, unlike impartial scientists would never presume to do more than state what exists.I believe I stated that difference between skeptics and scientists a few times.


Missionary -- Media offices on both coasts, built and funded by their solicitations, annual budget has been about 1-2 million bucks per year. Need someone on the news on short notice to poo-poo some scientific research? You know who to call.


Not "names". You can object to the adjectives only to the extent that not ALL skeptics have all of these qualities. And I've said that I regret that skeptics are known for these qualities (at least in this country). I've suggested that if they were more careful about not overstepping their bounds, they'd restore (or create) their reputation as impartial scientists. I believe I've made clear that I have been speaking of my impression based on those who have written and been televised for the past twenty of so years; folks who warned about a "dark age" if they, the skeptics, are not at the head of the table. That sort of dramatic posturing is likely more common to their media pundits more than, say, someone who is a member but has never said or written anything. I did not mean to imply that anyone here has all those qualities. On the contrary, some skeptics here really see skeptics as impartial, neutral, and without an agenda -- perhaps because they themselves are.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Oh now I understand; you arrogant, condescending, ignorant, stupid, unenlightened . . uhhh . . . person. Besides, you forgot I also said "accusations" and by your own description of your response, on that matter you are guilty as charged.

 

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by Will_B

Lazy -- The burden of proof is the other guy's responsibility, cue the debate about whether other guys can get assistance or not, and whether CSI funds any research.

The burden of proof must be on the person making the extraordinary claim. You've been shown why this is logically necessary. You've also been shown that skeptics are quite willing to test extraordinary claims (ie make the effort). So that "adjective" doesn't hold up.

Irresponsible -- By suggesting that people's experiences should be ignored and disregarded if they don't provide the burden of proof, they are actively misleading the public into the false impression that the only things which exist are things that have been proven by science; can't get more irresponsible than that

In other words, you're suggesting that it's "responsible" to accept claims with no evidence they're true. You'd make an interesting juror, to say the least. Another "adjective" that doesn't cut it.

Authoritarian -- Their pundits present themselves as authorities on what does and *does not* exist, unlike impartial scientists would never presume to do more than state what exists.I believe I stated that difference between skeptics and scientists a few times.

It was demonstrated that skeptics are open to testing extraordinary claims, which disproves your "skeptics are never open to anything" claim (a claim you made without providing any proof for it, BTW). It was also demonstrated to you that scientists demand proof of extraordinary claims, exactly like skeptics. It would appear that not only do you advocate accepting extraordinary claims without evidence, you ignore evidence that contradicts what you believe.


That makes you 0 for 3. As for being "missionaries", I welcome those who are willing to make the effort to counter the rampant mysticism and pseudoscience in today's world, which FAR outweighs the effort to counter it, BTW. It's interesting that you consider such a comparatively small effort to be such a threat.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Not to be pedantic, but as long as we are defining our terms, a couple of people need to learn the actual difference between a scientific hypothesis, theory, and law. In short, Laws are not theories, and theories are not hypotheses. Instead they are each an elevation of the other in terms of proof and universal acceptance, with Laws being accepted as universal fact. See this link: Link to definitions

 

[Will_B]

"You've also been shown that skeptics are quite willing to test extraordinary claims (ie make the effort). "


I can't say I've really been shown that. When I think of research into extraordinary claims, I see the big grants have come from names like Rockefeller, Firmage, Bigelow... All names reviled by skeptics. Do skeptics organizations give grants to researchers at groups like IONS? Or to any other open-minded research organization? (If you are referring to the James Randi Challenge, please give that publicity stunt a rest, it is certainly not a pattern of funding of edge science.)


"In other words, you're suggesting that it's "responsible" to accept claims with no evidence they're true."


No, that would be really bad advice. Advising people to ignore things, things which MAY BE TRUE, simply because there is no proof is irresponsible. But that does not mean it is "responsible" to "accept claims" with no evidence they're true. Seems like you are so firmly on one side you don't see the reasonable middle ground: that it would be responsible for people to accept the POSSIBILITY that an unproven claim may be true.


"As for being "missionaries", I welcome those who are willing to make the effort to counter the rampant mysticism and pseudoscience in today's world, which FAR outweighs the effort to counter it, BTW. It's interesting that you consider such a comparatively small effort to be such a threat."


CSICOP's budget of about 2 million in a good year is much larger than IONS annual budget, which I think is about a quarter-million in a good year. Other similar open-minded research organizations are struggling too what with the economy having impacted their main donors. So I'd say that yeah, a powerful advocacy group with a budget that large is indeed a "threat" to impartial science. Do their efforts work? Are they really a threat? Probably not; I am always pleased to see that every year, the Science & Engineering Indicators annual survey of students shows that the more education one has, the more open minded one becomes to possibilities of things that are yet unproven, but which are sometimes experienced. It must really tick off CSICOP that college students believe in the possibility of esp (or telepathy or whatever its name is this year) more than people with no college education. Maybe with 3 million bucks, they could get those damn students to reject it completely rather than being so diplomatic, so open-minded to possibilities.


A problem for skeptics, which doesn't seem to be a problem for impartial people, is the tendency to see things in binary -- things either "are" or "aren't". There's no room for "possibilities" that may someday be proven but for now have to remain in question. That binary trend happens in discussions here too when people who are open-minded to possibilities of things yet unproven are called "believers", as if holding something as a possibility is a "belief". It isn't a belief. It's a position that respects that science has determined some things about reality, and that some things about reality may remain in question for far longer than any of us are around to find out.


When you say there is a rampant "mysticism and pseudoscience" around, where do you see it exactly? Are people taking nutritional supplements an example of this? I'm just trying to think of where this spectre of "mysticism and pseudoscience" is present, since I can't say that I've seen it around. I'd wager that people taking nutritional supplements are doing so because of the possibility that they may be beneficial. They aren't being mystical or pseudoscience-y, they're just taking a reasonable position that weighs doubt about whether science has enough info to make a correct verdict, and they're weighing faith in tradition, and deciding they may as well try them on the possibility that the truth may be that they're beneficial. (I'm using supplements as an example because I can't think of anything else... "horoscopes in newspapers" used to be the clarion cry, but who reads newspapers anymore? I know if it is "rampant" there must be other examples out there...).


Jeff --


Get a thicker skin, Jeff. Or just don't wear the black hat if you don't want to be thought of as a badguy.

 

[Will_B]

Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie

That's a good link. I still have trouble remembering which is plural -- phenomenon or phenomena.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

I believe that beside the words "delicious irony" in the dictionary there should be a quote from the person who whined for an entire thread about not being understood or taken seriously telling another poster to "get a thicker skin." As far as being a"bad guy" is concerned, I always consider the source of a label, usually following it with a good laugh. Also, if you learned nothing from that link other than the Latin derived plural of a word like phenomenon, then I don't need to link the "Close Minded" video anymore, a link to your posts shall suffice.

 

[RobertR]

Originally Posted by Will_B


"You've also been shown that skeptics are quite willing to test extraordinary claims (ie make the effort). "


I can't say I've really been shown that.

I gave you a link to such a test. It’s apparent you’ve ignored it. I could give you links to many more such tests, but you’d likely ignore those too. BTW, such tests also disprove your “skeptics ignore ‘possibilities’” claim. Like I said, you ignore evidence that contradicts your beliefs. You’re also ignoring the principle of the excluded middle: Do you accept the validity of the extraordinary claim sans evidence or don’t you? There is no “middle ground”. Ignoring logic is irresponsible.

When you say there is a rampant "mysticism and pseudoscience" around, where do you see it exactly?

You boast of college students believing in ESP (as if it's a given that college students are "wiser" than the population as a whole), then ask such a question. You have a remarkable ability to ignore even statements by yourself that contradict what you believe.



You point to the decline of newspaper readership as some sort of “proof” that belief in astrology is declining—a logical disconnect to say the least. TV and the Internet and supermarket tabloids are flooded with products making medical claims (with the usual “the FDA hasn’t evaluated this” weasel words) with no scientific backing. Apparently you’ve chosen to ignore the commercials selling “mystical bracelets”, “magnetic therapy”, etc. etc. You’ve chosen to ignore the hucksters in Roswell NM, along with all the UFO books, magazines, movies, web sites, etc. etc. You’ve chosen to ignore homeopathic medicine, Penta Water, high end audio claims, commercials and web sites for psychics, ad nauseum. The combined advertising budgets for the above would utterly DWARF the 2 million bucks you seem to think is so enormous. But you’ll ignore that as well, along with the efforts of skeptics to investigate them.


Your ability to ignore is astounding.

 

[Bob_S.]

Thanks alot! I was looking forward to reading 4 pages of scary ghost stories and got 3 1/2 pages of arguing. Why can't you let people believe what they want to believe and leave them alone. Personally, I think about 80-90% of experiences are explainable but there's that 10%-20% that tells me that there is an afterlife. That one video back on page 1 REALLY creeps me out!

 

[Bob_S.]

Come to think of it, I have a little story that my co worker once told me. She and her husband bought her childhood home from her mother and they took a loan out to make a lot of renovations on it. She told me that the house has always been haunted while growing up, nothing scary though, they just lived with it. Well, she said one night (this was after she and her husband bought the house I think) they had some friends over for a party. it was nightime and everyone was outside in the backyard. One of her friends had to go inside and use the bathroom. The house was dark. As she walked through the living room, something caught her eye in the kitchen. She glanced over towards the kitchen and saw the figure of a woman walk across the kitchen and and disappear into the wall! Well, the friend ran outside and told my co worker what she saw. This didn't surprise her at all. She said years ago there used to be a doorway that lead from the kitchen to the backyard but it was replaced with a wall. The friend refused to go back in by herself and made my co worker go back in with her to use the bathroom!

 

[Will_B]

Originally Posted by RobertR

When you say there is a rampant "mysticism and pseudoscience" around, where do you see it exactly?

You boast of college students believing in ESP (as if it's a given that college students are "wiser" than the population as a whole), then ask such a question. You have a remarkable ability to ignore even statements by yourself that contradict what you believe.



You point to the decline of newspaper readership as some sort of “proof” that belief in astrology is declining—a logical disconnect to say the least. TV and the Internet and supermarket tabloids are flooded with products making medical claims (with the usual “the FDA hasn’t evaluated this” weasel words) with no scientific backing. Apparently you’ve chosen to ignore the commercials selling “mystical bracelets”, “magnetic therapy”, etc. etc. You’ve chosen to ignore the hucksters in Roswell NM, along with all the UFO books, magazines, movies, web sites, etc. etc. You’ve chosen to ignore homeopathic medicine, Penta Water, high end audio claims, commercials and web sites for psychics, ad nauseum. The combined advertising budgets for the above would utterly DWARF the 2 million bucks you seem to think is so enormous. But you’ll ignore that as well, along with the efforts of skeptics to investigate them.


Your ability to ignore is astounding.

Trying to equate open minded college students with mystics is a distortion. Sounds like you didn't understand my comments about binary thinking that you fall into. You say "There is no middle ground”, even after I'd explained to you that the middle ground is allowing for "possibility" when there's not enough information.


I could repeat that a few times, but you don't seem to be able to comprehend that people can hold something as a possibility (as something that "might" be) without endorsing it as either real or unreal. Why you are unable to see this, I don't know.


Moving on, I asked for examples of the "rampant mysticism" and you managed to come up with a few scraps. I'd actually written a reply about "high end audio claims" but I figured that was really reaching for examples, so I didn't post it. But since you mentioned it. So I'll just say, yeah, I wouldn't buy MonsterCables either. Who am I to deny you the idea that these things you listed are a harbinger of doom? Fair to say you named some quakery and some opportunism.


We agree that nutritional supplements is a big business, which you object to on the basis that it is mysticism, but I already suggested isn't mysticism so much as making an educated guess that supplements might be good for you. But since you don't understand the middle ground, you aren't able to conceive of people eating these supplements without "believing" in them. So you think people are being duped, rather than that people are taking action on the chance (not the certainty) that maybe someday folklore based links to improved health might be found to have some validity. (A folklore like "carrots help your eyesight" wasn't too far off the mark -- it isn't going to clear cataracts, but the retinol helps your night vision). The FDA prohibits labels from even implying disease claims, let alone stating them. They do allow health claims, with disclaimers, and I agree that makes sense -- it makes sense to remind people that claims are not the same as facts, and in absence of proof one way or the other, people have to take them based only the possibility, not the certainty.


Try asking some shoppers at Whole Foods whether they believe the supplements in their basket are certain to work, or might only possibly work. I'm confident you'll find that these folks are not in need of saving by you, and are not being duped.


Basically, I see skeptics sense of importance as proportional to how skeptics see ordinary people as being dupes. And since I don't look down on people in that way, I don't elevate the skeptics either.


Ok, so maybe I'd look down on anyone calling a 1-800-IMAPSYCHIC tv commercial... I'm not saying there isn't some shared sentiment there.