Civility Out?

[CFLarsen]

Claus, you do know that this is pure Stalinism, don't you?

You are not criticizing Joe, are you? Because if you are, there's a place for you and your kind: Gulag!

'This is a great man, so we should not criticize his lack of logic!'

I'm not saying that. I am saying that he is criticized for the wrong things.

I suspect that even Karen Boesen may be logical, at least sometimes, when it comes to real phenomena.

I am not so sure...

When it comes to astrology, however, she believes in something that does not exist - and probably not because it makes her feel bad!

I think Karen likes her superstitious beliefs.

Isn't that the question that you ought to ask Martin Gardner?

I don't need to, because he has made his point clear: He doesn't claim evidence.

Well, they are equal to the extent that you should be equally critical of them - and not distinguish between the good guys, "big skeptics" like Gardner, whose "opinions" should be respected no matter how silly, and the others whose religious ideas should not be respected, not because they are more silly, but because their proponents aren't members of our club!

I am probably more critical of the Big Skeptics, mostly because it's a bigger challenge to find errors with those guys. Right now, I think I have caught Geoffrey Dean (ex-astrologer, now a major critic) in making a mistake - but I'm still checking...

And, apparently, in the case of Martin Gardner's "He believes because it makes him feel good - not because he explains the world from his religious beliefs", he cannot back his opinion with evidence!!!

He doesn't claim to.

(And I, for one, don't want him to prove that he actually feels good!)

He's over 80. I would think that decaf is what makes him feel good...

So why maintain that he is a "big skeptic"!? When it comes to his religious beliefs, he isn't!

Give the man a joint or an anti-depressant, if he feels like feeling good.

Come on, he's over 80! Just looking at that would kill the guy!!

Isn't that our problem? That you cannot prove that Santa doesn't exist?!

With Santa, I'm not taking any chances. I like getting presents for Xmas...

No, Claus. The answer is, of course, yes! We can claim the existence of anything we please - for instance if it makes us feel better!

I said "complete" reality. That means the objective world as well, e.g. me throwing a brick at you. You'll have a hard time imagining that didn't happen!

That's the rub! We may claim a lot of things, but reality, real phenomena, the things that still exist when we stop believing in them, that's something completely different!

Yes, Philip K. Dick said something like that.

 

[BillyJoe]

He's over 80. I would think that decaf is what makes him feel good...

Sexism!

My sister-in law, who is a nurse in aged-care, relates the story of an 80 year old gentleman who pestered the nurses so much that they decided to take him to a brothel every week.

Seems it took more than decaf to make this gentleman feel good.

BJ

 

[dann]

I don't need to, because he has made his point clear: He doesn't claim evidence.

He doesn't claim to.

Neither does Karen Boesen! (Nor does she claim the ability or willingness to argue her point, as you well know ...)
It does not make it any better when a "big skeptic" says that he believes in something merely because it makes him feel good, fulfilled, in harmony with the universe, whatever. (But it also shouldn't make us question his good arguments in other situations.)
My point is that this is what woowoos do too. They are all able to function in the real world, recognize its laws and act according to them ... unless they go over board and make the ultimate sacrifice like the Heaven's Gaters, for instance. (And religion versus a scientific attitude should never be confused with the question of taste, like some people do: e.g. preferring Mahler to Britney. There's no reason to debate the existence of any of them. One of them exists, the other one doesn't. The music he left behind is proof enough that he used to be around.)

Originally posted by BillyJoe
My sister-in law, who is a nurse in aged-care, relates the story of an 80 year old gentleman who pestered the nurses so much that they decided to take him to a brothel every week.
Seems it took more than decaf to make this gentleman feel good.

They didn't have a little old lady with the same urges? (BTW, I'm not sure that everybody would call an old guy pestering his nurses a gentleman.)

 

[Cosmophilosopher]

This type of Attack-Dog pseudo-skepticism is actually just being an arrogant jerk, and is more like Cynicism.
It HARMS the Skeptical movement, in my view.
I am totally opposed to it.

I made a post about this serious subject which is derailing the skeptical movement and making a bad situtation worse.
Randi-style Skepticism's BLINDSPOTS
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55990

 

[BillyJoe]

(BTW, I'm not sure that everybody would call an old guy pestering his nurses a gentleman.)

I made the same comment, but apparently he was a kindly old man well-liked by the staff.

 

[crimresearch]

This type of Attack-Dog pseudo-skepticism is actually just being an arrogant jerk, and is more like Cynicism.
It HARMS the Skeptical movement, in my view.
I am totally opposed to it.

I made a post about this serious subject which is derailing the skeptical movement and making a bad situtation worse.
Randi-style Skepticism's BLINDSPOTS
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55990

And you were nicely asked for some examples....you were also asked why it was OK for you to engage in the same attack dog tactics that you decry.

How does making a drive by in another thread enoble your position?

 

[Cosmophilosopher]

For examples, read the newsletter that this thread was started about.
They also talk about how Dawkins insulted one of his opponents, and thinks it is a wonderful thing.
Read this forum for even more examples.

The so-called skeptical movement is degenerating into a farce, based on the influence of a number of people.
Debunking is not skepticism.

Civility when it comes to dealing with the general public is needed.
To reach the general populace takes much more sophisticated communications strategies than insulting people.
As a matter of fact, that type of so-called skeptical debunking, seems to me to be the WORST communication strategy of ANY interest group out there.
At least the religions know how to be fishers of men.
At least the New Agers know how to sell sell sell.

But the psuedo-skeptics? What do they have?
Arrogance?
Insults?
Knee-jerk responses?

The chiropractors have a much better strategy than the skeptics.

Thank goodness there are still some legit scientists out there who have knowledge of how to TEACH and communicate.

 

[thaiboxerken]

They also talk about how Dawkins insulted one of his opponents, and thinks it is a wonderful thing.

It was appropriate for the situation. Sometimes these moronic bleevers need to be rattled.

Debunking is not skepticism.

But it is a valuable tool to skepticism. It helps uncover nonsense in a way that bleevers can understand.

As a matter of fact, that type of so-called skeptical debunking, seems to me to be the WORST communication strategy of ANY interest group out there.
At least the religions know how to be fishers of men.
At least the New Agers know how to sell sell sell.

The new agers and religions have something that skeptics can't provide. They have nonsense to sell. Religions and new agers' strategy is one of dishonesty and lies. The truth is a hard sell, no matter what the strategy is.

The chiropractors have a much better strategy than the skeptics.

Yes, and so do most con-artists.

Thank goodness there are still some legit scientists out there who have knowledge of how to TEACH and communicate.

There are some legit skeptics that do just the same. Do you never read the commentaries? Does it fly over your head whenever a person writes in and thanks the JREF for opening their eyes?

I think you are just a silly troll.

 

[Cosmophilosopher]

So Richard Feyman didn't have a beautiful and wondrous explanation of the Universe to share?
Carl Sagan was out to lunch when he told the story of the Cosmos to millions?
Carl Sagan was a troll as he brought the same criticisms i am making?

Einsteins Cosmic Religious Feeling, and ideas weren't uplifting?
Freeman Dyson's speculations are nonsense?

And again, the same lame Ad-Hominem that proves my point, calling someone a "troll".
Is Roger Penrose a troll when he talks about the Platonic Mathematical Cosmos?

My point is that angry, small-minded, arrogant Cynics are very poor representatives of our wonderful universe.
There is no VISION. Just personal insults.
I guess Debunking attracts a certain type of person who thinks they Know-It-All.
Well that's a shame.

So be it.

But that is not legitimate skepticism.
Its not even common decency.
The level of communications is so low they would be fired from working at McDonalds drive-through.

I'll stick with the real Skeptics, Feyman, E.O Wilson, Sagan, and many others who made wonderful contributions to this cause.

The cynics are really not that different from religious fundamentalists, as their thinking is so regimented, inflexible, and Black or White.

 

[CFLarsen]

Neither does Karen Boesen!

Sure she does. Look at what she writes in her book, and what she said in "A Sense of Deceit".

(Nor does she claim the ability or willingness to argue her point, as you well know ...)

I think it has more to do with ability.....

My point is that this is what woowoos do too. They are all able to function in the real world, recognize its laws and act according to them ... unless they go over board and make the ultimate sacrifice like the Heaven's Gaters, for instance. (And religion versus a scientific attitude should never be confused with the question of taste, like some people do: e.g. preferring Mahler to Britney. There's no reason to debate the existence of any of them. One of them exists, the other one doesn't. The music he left behind is proof enough that he used to be around.)

But, since Gardner doesn't claim evidence, why isn't it merely "taste"?

 

[Darat]

Neither does Karen Boesen! (Nor does she claim the ability or willingness to argue her point, as you well know ...)
It does not make it any better when a "big skeptic" says that he believes in something merely because it makes him feel good, fulfilled, in harmony with the universe, whatever. (But it also shouldn't make us question his good arguments in other situations.)
My point is that this is what woowoos do too. They are all able to function in the real world, recognize its laws and act according to them ... unless they go over board and make the ultimate sacrifice like the Heaven's Gaters, for instance. (And religion versus a scientific attitude should never be confused with the question of taste, like some people do: e.g. preferring Mahler to Britney. There's no reason to debate the existence of any of them. One of them exists, the other one doesn't. The music he left behind is proof enough that he used to be around.)

They didn't have a little old lady with the same urges? (BTW, I'm not sure that everybody would call an old guy pestering his nurses a gentleman.)

Isn’t the difference with Boesen and Gardner that Boesen in effect says "A belief in astrology makes me feel good and I can use it in the real world to make decisions" whilst Gardner in effect says "A belief in a god makes me feel good but I can't use it in the real world to make decisions"?

I find those two viewpoints quite different: one is still using reason even for a belief that cannot be proven or for that matter disproved (at least at the moment) whilst the other not only has access to evidence that suggests the belief is wrong but abandons reasoning when applying that belief to the real world. Gardner’s attitude (as far as I have read about it) shows an understanding of what constitutes evidence, the limitations of present knowledge and reasoning, Boesen (from what I have read) not only rejects evidence and reason but wilfully distorts evidence and reason to support her already established beliefs.

 

[dann]

Isn’t the difference with Boesen and Gardner that Boesen in effect says "A belief in astrology makes me feel good and I can use it in the real world to make decisions" whilst Gardner in effect says "A belief in a god makes me feel good but I can't use it in the real world to make decisions"?

They are different in some ways and similar in others. Gardner appears to be able to use his belief in the real world to make himself feel good. Karen Boesen very often doesn't use her astrology to make real-life decisions when she should have - if she weren't merely a believer, but actually thought that the stuff she's selling works. We've teased her with this quite often ...

I find those two viewpoints quite different: one is still using reason even for a belief that cannot be proven or for that matter disproved (at least at the moment) whilst the other not only has access to evidence that suggests the belief is wrong but abandons reasoning when applying that belief to the real world.

It not only can't be proven, it doesn't even appear to be likely at all. Using your imagination to make up pretty stories that feel good but cannot be disproved may require some kind of reason, but that doesn't make it reasonable. And unlike the willing suspension of disbelief that is required when you read fiction, religion has a completely different attitude to the real world, which is why religious people are so fond of crying Madonnas and other miracles, i.e. fabricated evidence that the religious beliefs pertain to this world too. You don't see many weeping Harry Potter statuettes out there ...

Gardner’s attitude (as far as I have read about it) shows an understanding of what constitutes evidence, the limitations of present knowledge and reasoning, Boesen (from what I have read) not only rejects evidence and reason but wilfully distorts evidence and reason to support her already established beliefs.

That's the difference. Gardner has a very good understanding and he is able to distinguish between the times when he feels like using it and the times when it is an obstacle to fabricating the stuff which makes him feel good! Karen Boesen has so much understanding of what constitutes evidence that she is able to distort it, invent it from scratch and demand evidence from her opponents if it seems opportune for her to do so.
(And do you really think that Gardner's beliefs aren't "already established"? That he just makes them up as he goes along? Is this really something that distinguishes his delusions from those of astrologers?)

 

[dann]

This type of Attack-Dog pseudo-skepticism is actually just being an arrogant jerk, and is more like Cynicism.
It HARMS the Skeptical movement, in my view.
I am totally opposed to it.

What if I say that you may be right, but it makes me feel good?

 

[dann]

But, since Gardner doesn't claim evidence, why isn't it merely "taste"?

Because it isn't! You don't say that you demand evidence because it makes you feel good! I don't even doubt that it makes him feel good so I would never think of asking him for evidence.
The point is that he believes in something because it makes him feel good, which is just as stupid as claiming the non-existence of Britney because she doesn't! (Oops, I did it again!)

 

[CFLarsen]

They are different in some ways and similar in others. Gardner appears to be able to use his belief in the real world to make himself feel good. Karen Boesen very often doesn't use her astrology to make real-life decisions when she should have - if she weren't merely a believer, but actually thought that the stuff she's selling works. We've teased her with this quite often ...

Karen is a good example of a long-term believer who has realized - because it has been explained to her over and over again - that her beliefs simply aren't validated by evidence. The evidence she thought she had is worthless.

She has, in the words of Bob Park, crossed the line from foolishness to fraud. She knows she is a fraud. What separates her from most other frauds is that she doesn't care if people know it.

You don't see many weeping Harry Potter statuettes out there ...

You might have struck gold there, mate...

(And do you really think that Gardner's beliefs aren't "already established"? That he just makes them up as he goes along? Is this really something that distinguishes his delusions from those of astrologers?)

Yes, because there's this evidence thing. Personally, I would love it if Gardner came here to explain, but unfortunately, he doesn't seem to be that active anymore.

Because it isn't! You don't say that you demand evidence because it makes you feel good!

Actually, evidence makes me feel very good.

 

[Darat]

They are different in some ways and similar in others. Gardner appears to be able to use his belief in the real world to make himself feel good. Karen Boesen very often doesn't use her astrology to make real-life decisions when she should have - if she weren't merely a believer, but actually thought that the stuff she's selling works. We've teased her with this quite often ...

Well I dealing with what they say their beliefs are, the fact that Boesen is inconsistent given her stated beliefs is interesting but I don’t think needs to be addressed when discussing the difference between different types of beliefs.

Gardner's belief (again from what I've read so I may be totally wrong) does not give him any tools for understanding the world. He does not take the step from an unproven (and I am using proof in the casual sense of the world e.g. I would say my belief that the earth will continue to orbit the sun and rotate resulting in sunrise tomorrow is a "proven belief") belief into the real world. He does not say "because I believe the universe was created therefore the stars should be shown to be 4,500 years old", he states "the belief I have that the universe was created makes me feel good but doesn't give me any way to expand my knowledge of the universe and doesn’t give me any tools for better understanding the universe.

However Boesen does take her unproven beliefs (that presumably make her feel good) and states that they can tell her about the universe. She states her beliefs can predict the world around her, that her unproven beliefs actually reflect reality, and that they give her a tool to expand her knowledge of the universe.

To me this demonstrates a significant difference between the (stated) beliefs of Boesen and Gardner.

It not only can't be proven, it doesn't even appear to be likely at all.

I've no idea about that; I've read a lot of the history of humanity's knowledge and exploration of the world and we seem to have a habit of making declarative statements that prove to be wrong sooner or later.

Using your imagination to make up pretty stories that feel good but cannot be disproved may require some kind of reason, but that doesn't make it reasonable.

I agree, I don’t think Gardner's belief is reasonable given the evidence that he has access to (and I did once read a logical argument that a Member here linked to that demonstrated that given a lack of evidence the logical default position should be disbelief) but my point is not about the reasonableness of a particular belief but an argument that the type of belief illustrated by Boesen is not the same as that stated by Gardner.

And unlike the willing suspension of disbelief that is required when you read fiction, religion has a completely different attitude to the real world, which is why religious people are so fond of crying Madonnas and other miracles, i.e. fabricated evidence that the religious beliefs pertain to this world too. You don't see many weeping Harry Potter statuettes out there ...

The types of religious beliefs you site above are examples of the type of belief (in my opinion of course) that Boesen illustrates rather then the type of belief that Gardner holds. Gardner would not expect and does not seek evidence in this world for his beliefs.

That's the difference. Gardner has a very good understanding and he is able to distinguish between the times when he feels like using it and the times when it is an obstacle to fabricating the stuff which makes him feel good!

From similar evidence to Gardner I come to a different conclusion however I lack the ability to state categorically that Gardner is wrong. I would say it is not so much he knows when to use "critical thinking" or not to support his beliefs but rather understands (within our current understanding of the world) the limits of "critical thinking" and if you like has placed his belief in a place that critical thinking (at least currently) does not reach.

Karen Boesen has so much understanding of what constitutes evidence that she is able to distort it, invent it from scratch and demand evidence from her opponents if it seems opportune for her to do so.

A lot of her posts are incoherent and internally inconsistent therefore from the evidence I have I would say she shows a very limited understanding of what constitutes evidence, reasoning or even polite discussion and debate!

(And do you really think that Gardner's beliefs aren't "already established"? That he just makes them up as he goes along? Is this really something that distinguishes his delusions from those of astrologers?)

You've misunderstood my point, Gardner does not try to find evidence in the real world to support his beliefs, Boesen does, in other words Boesen does not "follow the evidence" but attempts to lead the evidence. Gardner, because he concludes his beliefs can have no evidence from the real world does not try to make the evidence of the real world fit his already established belief and again that is a difference between the two types of beliefs Gardner and Boesen hold.

(Edited for words and formatting.)

 

[Darat]

Because it isn't! You don't say that you demand evidence because it makes you feel good! I don't even doubt that it makes him feel good so I would never think of asking him for evidence.
The point is that he believes in something because it makes him feel good, which is just as stupid as claiming the non-existence of Britney because she doesn't! (Oops, I did it again!)

No it isn't, since there is evidence (however unfortunate that may be) that Britney exists. As far as I know Gardner's beliefs are not contradicted by any evidence.

To quote from Claus’s favourite on-line source, Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Gardner
…snip…

Martin Gardner's philosophy may be summarised as follows: There is nothing supernatural, and nothing in human reason or visible in the world to compel people to believe in God. The mystery of existence is enchanting, but a belief in The Old One comes from faith without evidence. However, with faith and prayer people can find greater happiness than without. If there is an afterlife, the loving Old One is real. "The universe is the most exquisite mechanism ever constructed by nobody", from G.K.Chesterton is one of Martin's favorite quotes.

…snip…

 

[BillyJoe]

CP,

But the psuedo-skeptics? What do they have?
Arrogance?
Insults?
Knee-jerk responses?

I think you are not using the prefix "psuedo" correctly. Randi's arrogant, offensive style offends you but that does not cancel him out as being a sceptic.

BJ

 

[crimresearch]

Well, since Consmophilosopher seems to be employing the same style he decries, perhaps he is using the term 'skeptic' incorrectly.

I can find no standard definiton that includes obsequiousness as a component.

 

[thaiboxerken]

So Richard Feyman didn't have a beautiful and wondrous explanation of the Universe to share?

Who?

Carl Sagan was out to lunch when he told the story of the Cosmos to millions?

No.

Carl Sagan was a troll as he brought the same criticisms i am making?

I doubt he did.

Einsteins Cosmic Religious Feeling, and ideas weren't uplifting?

Nope.

Freeman Dyson's speculations are nonsense?

Who?

Is Roger Penrose a troll when he talks about the Platonic Mathematical Cosmos?

Who?

My point is that angry, small-minded, arrogant Cynics are very poor representatives of our wonderful universe.

I agree, but can you give examples of such people?

I guess Debunking attracts a certain type of person who thinks they Know-It-All.

It doesn't, in fact, it tends to repel such people.

The level of communications is so low they would be fired from working at McDonalds drive-through.

Who are these people you keep talking about? You've invented an entire generalization of skeptics based on people that you have yet to show exist. How is the pay at McD's working out for you?

I'll stick with the real Skeptics, Feyman, E.O Wilson, Sagan, and many others who made wonderful contributions to this cause.

Don't forget the true Scotsman as well.

The cynics are really not that different from religious fundamentalists, as their thinking is so regimented, inflexible, and Black or White.

I agree. But who are these cynics you keep talking about?