........Those Kinds of Believers

[TheAntiV]

Alright, I know I'm just renting but I need to get this out of my system or else I'm going to explode.

Being a group of skeptics, I'm pretty sure many of you have encountered a specific type of paranormal or believer in pseudoscience. You know. The kind of people who continue to believe in unscientific claims despite the fact that you provided evidence which contradicts his or her claims?

I'm been arguing with one those types for the past day on youtube. He's one of those people who believe evolution is a lie. But he's not necessarily a creationist. He's one of those individuals who believe aliens created humanity and that aliens had a hand in building our civilization.

Some of his claims are so blatantly false that I don't know whether to laugh or be shocked. For instance, he thinks the show Ancient Aliens is a valued source of information. Despite the fact that I've managed to refute every single one of his claims with academic links he continually repeats them despite the fact you refuted them and resorts to ad-hominems and straw man arguments and red herrings.

He mainly uses arcehological "evidence" to support his claims and footage of UFO's as proof of alien visitation, despite the fact, since I'm majoring in archeology, I have shown the flaws in such ideas.

Then there's the stage you enter when you finally just give up, yet to still feel drawn to keep on trying to reenter the argument, despite the fact it's basically pointless trying to refute anything this individual says because they are so obsessed with their beliefs.

I was wondering if anyone has had similar experiences and stories involving similar individuals.

PS: Does anyone have any good links that involves refuting the claims of Dr Roger Leir? he's the guy who claims to have found alien implants in people.

Thanks.

 

[23_Tauri]

I think you've got a Class 4 or 5 Creduloid there, AntiV.

My point being, folk here come across people like this so often, they've invented a scale to assist with identification.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=216495

 

[TheAntiV]

LOL!!! I love that.

After taking a look at the chart I also think he's either a 4 or 5. But what surprised me was how irrational he got.

He started calling me a Nazi, a hillbilly, and inbred, which I resent being called considering I've argued with the likes of such people before.

I think he called me a Nazi because of the claims made in Ben Stein's film Expelled, even though I make it clear to him that Hitler's anti-semitism was also fueled by religion.

Why do I even bother with such nutters.

 

[Ladewig]

Why do I even bother with such nutters.

Why do you?

Did you really think arguing with someone in YouTube comments was going to produce a desired result?

 

[Amapola]

Ah, but see, you are using logic. Do you honestly think the person on YouTube used logic to come to these conclusions? Because I sure don't. They are there to try and persuade others to their peculiar point of view.

As for similar experiences and stories, just read threads here on the JREF forum. You'll find plenty. Using logic is like pouring water on a duck's back. Now I don't say it's totally useless, but until the person themselves is honestly seeking for the real actual truth they will continue to warp reality so that it fits with their twisted view. It's odd but it's quite human.

 

[ExMinister]

Yeah, that can be very frustrating.

Another thing I find exasperating with people this entrenched is that they often think they have plenty of backup for their beliefs, and you just don't run in the "right" circles like they do, in order to get it.

It's likely he's a part of some group or groups, all backing up each other's claims/ideas, and probably fairly well convinced that all these people he trusts can't all be wrong.

You are just one voice against the group mindset he's in. Why should he believe you as opposed to all these others? To me that's a big part of the problem.

That's assuming he's sincere and otherwise sane/not mentally ill.

All you can do is just keep patiently pointing out the errors. They'll get it or they won't.

 

[Limbo]

Being a group of skeptics, I'm pretty sure many of you have encountered a specific type of paranormal or believer in pseudoscience. You know. The kind of people who continue to believe in unscientific claims despite the fact that you provided evidence which contradicts his or her claims?

Have you heard of a scientist named Freeman Dyson? Here is a quote of him.

"There are three possible positions one may take concerning the evidence for ESP. First, the position of orthodox scientists, who believe that ESP does not exist. Second, the position of true believers, who believe that ESP is real and can be proved to exist by scientific methods. Third, my own position, that ESP is real, as the anecdotal evidence suggests, but cannot be tested with the clumsy tools of science.

These positions also imply different views concerning the proper scope of science. If one believes, as many of my scientific colleagues believe, that the scope of science is unlimited, then science can ultimately explain everything in the universe, and ESP must either be nonexistent or scientifically explainable. If one believes, as I do, that ESP is real but is scientifically untestable, one must believe that the scope of science is limited. I put forward, as a working hypothesis, that ESP is real but belongs to a mental universe that is too fluid and evanescent to fit within the rigid protocols of controlled scientific testing. I do not claim that this hypothesis is true. I claim only that it is consistent with the evidence and worthy of consideration." (emphasis mine)

Why don't you go try arguing with him instead of youtubers. Here is his homepage with contact information.

http://www.sns.ias.edu/~dyson/

 

[Stray Cat]

Limbo, It's been pointed out to you in the past that if ESP does exist and yet has no impact at all on the physical universe, that hypothesis may well be true.
However, as the reports of ESP do have a claimed impact on the physical universe, they can be tested, measured, verified by science which is ultimately the only way to measure the physical universe (it is certainly not a "clumsy tool").

And BTW: I don't think that scientists say "ESP doesn't exist", they point out that is simply no evidence to support that it exists.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Alright, I know I'm just renting but I need to get this out of my system or else I'm going to explode.

Being a group of skeptics, I'm pretty sure many of you have encountered a specific type of paranormal or believer in pseudoscience. You know. The kind of people who continue to believe in unscientific claims despite the fact that you provided evidence which contradicts his or her claims?

I'm been arguing with one those types for the past day on youtube. He's one of those people who believe evolution is a lie. But he's not necessarily a creationist. He's one of those individuals who believe aliens created humanity and that aliens had a hand in building our civilization.

Some of his claims are so blatantly false that I don't know whether to laugh or be shocked. For instance, he thinks the show Ancient Aliens is a valued source of information. Despite the fact that I've managed to refute every single one of his claims with academic links he continually repeats them despite the fact you refuted them and resorts to ad-hominems and straw man arguments and red herrings.

He mainly uses arcehological "evidence" to support his claims and footage of UFO's as proof of alien visitation, despite the fact, since I'm majoring in archeology, I have shown the flaws in such ideas.

Then there's the stage you enter when you finally just give up, yet to still feel drawn to keep on trying to reenter the argument, despite the fact it's basically pointless trying to refute anything this individual says because they are so obsessed with their beliefs.

I was wondering if anyone has had similar experiences and stories involving similar individuals.

PS: Does anyone have any good links that involves refuting the claims of Dr Roger Leir? he's the guy who claims to have found alien implants in people.

Thanks.

From what I recall of Leir, he's a GP or specializes in something totally unrelated to implants but has made a name for himself for some slick marketing and an ability to not let himself get cornered. I don't think any serious researchers have bothered to take him on because alien implants are kind of hard to take seriously. What respected surgeon is going to want his name associated with such flim-flammery?

Oh and as to your overall post - stick around and you may meet the JREF Forums version of the same person. We have one here who attributes almost all development to Alien intervention and when asked where the proof is insists that glaciers wiped away all traces.

 

[Denver]

Ah, but see, you are using logic. Do you honestly think the person on YouTube used logic to come to these conclusions? Because I sure don't. They are there to try and persuade others to their peculiar point of view.

As for similar experiences and stories, just read threads here on the JREF forum. You'll find plenty. Using logic is like pouring water on a duck's back. Now I don't say it's totally useless, but until the person themselves is honestly seeking for the real actual truth they will continue to warp reality so that it fits with their twisted view. It's odd but it's quite human.

Yeah, that can be very frustrating.

Another thing I find exasperating with people this entrenched is that they often think they have plenty of backup for their beliefs, and you just don't run in the "right" circles like they do, in order to get it.

It's likely he's a part of some group or groups, all backing up each other's claims/ideas, and probably fairly well convinced that all these people he trusts can't all be wrong.

To take this one step further, I don't think many of these people think the logic of your argument is the main point you are making: it is that you want to attack their social group, and the relationships they have in that group. If this were purely an argument of logic, most people would be pretty reasonable about it. But, there is a whole subset of ethics based on relationship ethics. When they feel their social group relationships are being threatened, they feel they must defend them (which by relationship ethics, is true and right). This then casts you, and other skeptics who threaten their belief with no eye toward the relationships they support, the opponent, the attacker, the unethical actor.

I think because of this, such skeptical arguments, that do not take into account the believers life and relationships, can do more harm than good, and actual cause them to strengthen their walls, their beliefs, against your arguments.

I think this quote said it best: "People want to know how much you care, before they care how much you know."

 

[ExMinister]

Speaking of venting, and then there is the point when you are written off as a closed-minded skeptic, at which point your logic will go right past them as irrelevant. What will seem relevant to them is that you are closed-minded. You are unfairly biased. You just don't get it. To be so closed-minded to the spiritual/paranormal side of life, you must not have had any spiritual/paranormal experiences of your own. And if you have had any, they must not have been the right kind obviously or you would be just like them. Worse, because you're so skeptical you probably can't have any, so why should they listen to you? Or me, as the case may be.

I know this because I used to think this way myself.

But it sounds like as far as this YouTube person is concerned, he probably thinks he has looked at the evidence and is convinced that anyone who really looked at it would agree with him. Sounds like he could benefit from a crash course in what constitutes evidence and how to recognize pseudoscience, etc.

As a side note, my dad used to say that some people are just not logical. Some people are emotional. You can't use logic with the emotional people, he would say. Apparently he counted me in the emotional category, and in fact I am extremely logical. I wish he had tried more logic on me over the years when I was so involved in the New Age, though it was, in fact, my desire to know the truth and my extreme dislike of being deceived (emotional?), as well as my logical side, that finally woke me up.

Especially my extreme dislike of being deceived.

I wonder if we, as skeptics, approached things from this angle more often, if we would be better received. Who wants to be deceived? If you think you are in danger of being so, would that get your attention? Who wants to play the fool to someone else? What if that person is deliberately deceiving? Wouldn't that make you feel even worse? Isn't that worth thinking a little more critically? I wonder.

 

[Bram Kaandorp]

Speaking of venting, and then there is the point when you are written off as a closed-minded skeptic, at which point your logic will go right past them as irrelevant. What will seem relevant to them is that you are closed-minded. You are unfairly biased. You just don't get it. To be so closed-minded to the spiritual/paranormal side of life, you must not have had any spiritual/paranormal experiences of your own. And if you have had any, they must not have been the right kind obviously or you would be just like them. Worse, because you're so skeptical you probably can't have any, so why should they listen to you? Or me, as the case may be.

That may have been where the rift between me and the forum admin of a spiritual forum arose.

I was regularly asking people things like "have you looked at it this way" and "but there is no evidence to back that up", and I was told that I shouldn't doubt the reality of those people. (as if reality is relative to everybody.

I know this because I used to think this way myself.

I'm glad you don't.

But it sounds like as far as this YouTube person is concerned, he probably thinks he has looked at the evidence and is convinced that anyone who really looked at it would agree with him. Sounds like he could benefit from a crash course in what constitutes evidence and how to recognize pseudoscience, etc.

Not that it would help. Most of the time, it's a question of "But it works for me, not necessarily for you", which means they can write anything off as "it doesn't work for me".

I wonder if we, as skeptics, approached things from this angle more often, if we would be better received. Who wants to be deceived? If you think you are in danger of being so, would that get your attention? Who wants to play the fool to someone else? What if that person is deliberately deceiving? Wouldn't that make you feel even worse? Isn't that worth thinking a little more critically? I wonder.

Very good point. I only hope that it might work sometimes.

 

[Lucian]

From what I recall of Leir, he's a GP or specializes in something totally unrelated to implants but has made a name for himself for some slick marketing and an ability to not let himself get cornered. I don't think any serious researchers have bothered to take him on because alien implants are kind of hard to take seriously. What respected surgeon is going to want his name associated with such flim-flammery?

Oh and as to your overall post - stick around and you may meet the JREF Forums version of the same person. We have one here who attributes almost all development to Alien intervention and when asked where the proof is insists that glaciers wiped away all traces.

Leir's a podiatrist.