Civility Out?

[dann]

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.

I think that you misunderstood me. What I said was:

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!

What I meant was: "because she doesn't make you feel good!"
Gardner's faith may not be contradicted by any evidence, but it also isn't based on or supported by any. Unlike even the most speculative parts of modern cosmology. Theoretical physics doesn't believe in branes because it's such a comforting concept. Even when it hasn't got a lot to do with the contemporary empirical facts, they are still what it has as its starting point.

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…

And if christmas presents are dumped down the chimney by some fat guy riding a sleigh pulled by reindeer, then Santa Claus is real!
Well, some people, maybe. I was never more bored than at church (I was too young to spend the time analyzing religion and its believers) and I'm much happier without faith and prayer. If I had to, I'd rather believe in Santa. If I were actually able to do so, the idea might make me happier. The idea of the narcissistic psychopath described in the Bible certainly wouldn't!
Nevertheless it is a poor excuse for an argument. God and his angels and Santa Claus don't exist because it comforts me to think so, nor do ghosts or alien abductions because they scare me!
Preference (or the opposite) is a very poor excuse for an argument. Gusto ergo est? (I never claimed to be any good at Latin!)

My point: As long as people behave rationally, they are rational. When they stop being rational, they aren't. This is no reason for dismissing their rational arguments which are more than welcome if they have any. But it is also no reason for wanting to forbid criticism of irrational beliefs. It is true, there are an awful lot of religious people out there, and criticizing them is not the best way of alluring them, no matter what their religion is. Some of them are Christians, some of them believe in astrology. Some of them claim to be able to prove their faith. Some of them don't. There are definitely differences here and distinctions to make, but there are also similarities.
Claus and many others would like to distinguish between the ones who just believe and the others who also need miracles.
There's a difference, true, but not a big one.
Personally I much prefer the materialism of the believers who would like to see their Madonnas weep, thereby making their faith vulnerable to scrutiny and debunking. Some of the best skeptics used to be people who wanted to prove the existence of otherworldly visitors. Their investigation into UFOs, however, disillusioned them. I see no reason why you should celebrate the ones whose faith makes them so happy that they can do completely without a single piece of proof of at least some relevance of their faith to the real universe. (And I don't mean their alleged happiness!)
In other words: This is not a popularity contest! We don't want woowoos to love us! We also don't want them to hate us, but sometimes they may. What we want is to make them realize that their delusions are delusions. Can we do that without upsetting (some of) them? No, of course we can't! So is it a very good argument that criticizing their beliefs might upset (some of) them? No, that's the whole point of the exercise!
If only we didn't criticize woowoo, woowoos would love us so much more. Sure!

 

[Sharon]

we do that without upsetting (some of) them? No, of course we can't! [/B]

As an ex-believer I disagree. The first book I read once I started doubting my beliefs of 30 years was Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted world. So sceptics can and do get people to realise they are delusions without upsetting them. I know many might think, 'you'd get upset? tough cookies' but that's the way it it out there, people can and do get upset , especially if they have low self-esteem. That's what sceptic are up against and I would hope they would take into account when dealing with believers.



Sharon

 

[Cosmophilosopher]

Demon Haunted World is a wonderful book. I recommend that every chance i get.
Carl Sagan even talked about Randi in the book, (p 228)

"accurately self-described as an angry man...Like all of us, he is imperfect. Sometimes Randi is intolerant and condescending, lacking in empathy for the human frailties that underlie credulity."

He then goes on to compliment him as well for his achievements.
So Randi does good work, but the "intolerance" is in my view a very serious error.
Sure, attack Uri Geller, or other blatant frauds, and expose them, and expose their confidence tricks. That is Randi's gag, and it works in that context.

But don't carry this aggressive mentality over to try and deal with grandma's, soccer moms, and regular religious and New Age folks, who have got themselves wound up in their own beliefs.

Bring Civility back IN. I will have no part of those type of attacks on regular people. Its very destructive.
Obviously, if Randi did not listen to Carl Sagan, then he is not going to listen to anyone, that is obvious. He is as stuck in his Beliefs about this as anyone else. The leopard is not going to change his spots.

But it seems to me this is very poor behavior for others to model.
Birds of a feather flock together, so those who "get an Ego boost" from that type of "intolerance" are going to do it, no matter what anyone says. They could not give two ◊◊◊◊◊ about what is the more effective way to communicate. Would they be interested in a scientific study to see which methods produced better results trying to get True Believers to consider other beliefs? I doubt it. They LIKE acting superior and arrogant. It gives them a shot of self-esteem for the moment. Its just intellectual arrogance, and low-frustration tolerance. Its just their own personal psychological issues they are acting out on other people.

But us more Humanistic and tolerant skeptics can make our mark as well, and perhaps even use the "angry intolerant skeptic" archetype to our advantage.
We could say, "well, i am not one of those angry, arrogant skeptics, who think they know it all! I just believe in carefully looking at the Evidence with careful critical thinking....now lets have a look at this a little closer..."
I have opened dozens of my friends minds to critical thinking over the years, and many of them have deeply thanked me for this. In EVERY case, i would first understand where they are coming from, and what they are getting out of it, and SLOWLY makes subtle points, until it builds up.
Scientific Thinking is very UNNATURAL for us human primates.
Its counterintuitive, and it has to be taught very carefully.

I think a good study would be to bring a bunch of "undecided" believers into a speech/workshop, and then compare the results of different approaches to get them to consider rethinking some of their beliefs.
This would be good evidence to use to help guide skeptics in how they communicate.

As an ex-believer I disagree. The first book I read once I started doubting my beliefs of 30 years was Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted world. So sceptics can and do get people to realise they are delusions without upsetting them. I know many might think, 'you'd get upset? tough cookies' but that's the way it it out there, people can and do get upset , especially if they have low self-esteem. That's what sceptic are up against and I would hope they would take into account when dealing with believers.



Sharon

 

[BillyJoe]

CP,

Well, that all sounds very reasonable to me.
What do others think I wonder?

BJ


PS: Does TB really not know who Feyman, Penrose, and Dyson are or is he disagreeing with your description of their views?

 

[Sharon]

CP,

Well, that all sounds very reasonable to me.
What do others think I wonder?

BJ


Yes it sounds reasonable to me too.

CP, I hope you don't think I'm being rude not replying in full?
It's just I'm planning to switch off the computer for a couple of months, got things I need to do and give 100% of my free time to. So with that in mind I don't want to get more involved, want to tie up loose ends. But yes I agree with lots that you say.

Sharon

 

[dann]

As an ex-believer I disagree. The first book I read once I started doubting my beliefs of 30 years was Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted world.

Congratulations, you read the book, it didn't hurt you, it convinced you!

So sceptics can and do get people to realise they are delusions without upsetting them.

YES, they can and they do! I just don't see the argument. You read the book, it didn't upset you, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't upset some woowoos. I don't see a lot of woowoo websites recommending the book to their audiences. Anyway, I'm not in control of the reaction of other people to the things I say. You imply that it is in my power to put things in a way so they won't upset others, but it isn't. Hell, a well-argued essay explaining evolution upsets a lot of fundies. It isn't necessary to include offensive words or calling anybody an idiot to achieve that effect.

I know many might think, 'you'd get upset? tough cookies' but that's the way it it out there, people can and do get upset , especially if they have low self-esteem. That's what sceptic are up against and I would hope they would take into account when dealing with believers.

So how exactly did Carl Sagan take the low self-esteem of his readers into account? And exactly how should it be taken into account? As far as I remember, Demon Haunted World did nothing to disguise its message or to make it more palatable to superstitious readers, did it?
Personally I can't think of a better way of recognizing the intelligence of fellow human beings than by telling them that they are being delusional when I think that they are. And if I'm wrong, I don't mind being told so.
See my point?!

 

[dann]

Demon Haunted World is a wonderful book. I recommend that every chance i get.
Carl Sagan even talked about Randi in the book, (p 228)

"accurately self-described as an angry man...Like all of us, he is imperfect. Sometimes Randi is intolerant and condescending, lacking in empathy for the human frailties that underlie credulity."

If you have so much compassion with human frailties that you don't criticize the delusional credulity and the way that people hurt themselves with it, then you can try endearing yourself to them by confirming all their beliefs. UFO abductees generally don't like to hear that they weren't actually abducted. This, by the way, is what really bugs them - you don't need namecalling to annoy them.
I know from personal experience that James Randi doesn't enjoy being criticized and that he immediately goes into the offensive, which only makes a discussion with him more interesting. When he has been proven wrong, the weekly newsletter is full of examples of his ability to admit to the fact.
Carl Sagan's words about Randi sometimes being intolerant and condescending are no good if you don't show us an example of this behaviour - one that he hasn't admitted or apologized for.

He then goes on to compliment him as well for his achievements.
So Randi does good work, but the "intolerance" is in my view a very serious error.
Sure, attack Uri Geller, or other blatant frauds, and expose them, and expose their confidence tricks. That is Randi's gag, and it works in that context.

But don't carry this aggressive mentality over to try and deal with grandma's, soccer moms, and regular religious and New Age folks, who have got themselves wound up in their own beliefs.

Exactly how do you criticize delusional grandmas and soccer moms - except by telling them that they are delusional (= showing them that their delusions are delusions)?

Bring Civility back IN. I will have no part of those type of attacks on regular people. Its very destructive.
Obviously, if Randi did not listen to Carl Sagan, then he is not going to listen to anyone, that is obvious. He is as stuck in his Beliefs about this as anyone else. The leopard is not going to change his spots.

I didn't see civility leave! And I didn't see Randi neglect what Carl Sagan had to say. (I only remember him being a little disappointed at hearing that Sagan used to smoke joints!) And what is all this about spot changing? Is it your way of indicating that you are very willing to change your attitude?

But it seems to me this is very poor behavior for others to model.
Birds of a feather flock together,

more proverbs ...

so those who "get an Ego boost" from that type of "intolerance" are going to do it, no matter what anyone says. They could not give two ◊◊◊◊◊ about what is the more effective way to communicate. Would they be interested in a scientific study to see which methods produced better results trying to get True Believers to consider other beliefs?

Of course, they would! But you haven't got one, do you?!!!

I doubt it.

Yes, it's very easy to do!

They LIKE acting superior and arrogant. It gives them a shot of self-esteem for the moment. Its just intellectual arrogance, and low-frustration tolerance. Its just their own personal psychological issues they are acting out on other people.

I look forward to your scientific study!!!

But us more Humanistic and tolerant skeptics can make our mark as well, and perhaps even use the "angry intolerant skeptic" archetype to our advantage.
We could say, "well, i am not one of those angry, arrogant skeptics, who think they know it all! I just believe in carefully looking at the Evidence with careful critical thinking....now lets have a look at this a little closer..."
I have opened dozens of my friends minds to critical thinking over the years, and many of them have deeply thanked me for this. In EVERY case, i would first understand where they are coming from, and what they are getting out of it, and SLOWLY makes subtle points, until it builds up.

You are so very, very good. And I'm sure that their DEEPLY thanking you for your PATIENT and slow LECTURES has got absolutely nothing to do with getting a shot of self-esteem for the moment (or for eternity). Your tolerance and humanity will simply raise you above all those angry, arrogant bastards who have so much respect for the ability of even grandmothers and soccer moms to THINK that they simply tell them when they think they are wrong.

Scientific Thinking is very UNNATURAL for us human primates.
Its counterintuitive, and it has to be taught very carefully.

Carefully, yes. Cautiously, no. I suppose that only scientific thinking is so very UNNATURAL, whereas religion and delusions are very, very NATURAL, aren't they?

I think a good study would be to bring a bunch of "undecided" believers into a speech/workshop, and then compare the results of different approaches to get them to consider rethinking some of their beliefs.
This would be good evidence to use to help guide skeptics in how they communicate.

Well, since you already appear to know what the outcome of this study would be, I don't really think that it would have a lot of impact on your attitude ...
In my opinion you are very arrogant and full of yourself!

 

[Beth]

Exactly how do you criticize delusional grandmas and soccer moms - except by telling them that they are delusional (= showing them that their delusions are delusions)?


You could start by not referring to their experiences as delusions. Many people don't believe strongly in things such as ghosts, homopathy, etc., but they have experiences that they cannot explain otherwise. Those experiences are NOT delusional, though they may be mistaken regarding the cause.

If you accept that they have reasons for their ideas, listen to why they believe what they do, they are more likely to listen to your alternative explanations for their experiences. They have to listen to your ideas before they will accept them. When you call them delusional, you make them angry and unwilling to listen to your alternative explanations. So when you start off by being derogatory about their ideas or by making them angry or defensive about their personal experiences, you've often lost the battle before you've begun.

Beth

 

[dann]

You could start by not referring to their experiences as delusions.

I don't - most of the time! (= showing them that their delusions are delusions).

Many people don't believe strongly in things such as ghosts, homopathy, etc., but they have experiences that they cannot explain otherwise. Those experiences are NOT delusional, though they may be mistaken regarding the cause.

They are the easy ones, however. You tell them that Venus was in that part of the sky at that hour, and they know that they didn't see an alien intruder! They are not the delusional ones, they are the ones looking for an explanation! And not averse to being told that the one they first came up with was wrong!

If you accept that they have reasons for their ideas, listen to why they believe what they do, they are more likely to listen to your alternative explanations for their experiences.

I always do. They tell me - I don't even have to ask!

They have to listen to your ideas before they will accept them. When you call them delusional, you make them angry and unwilling to listen to your alternative explanations. So when you start off by being derogatory about their ideas or by making them angry or defensive about their personal experiences, you've often lost the battle before you've begun.

Why do you think that I do? Have you seen many examples of Cosmophilosopher's "angry intolerant skeptic" archetype? Or are you aware of the fact that this archetype is an invention? That it's the strawman created by woowoos to dismiss skeptics and their (most of the time) very serious arguments?

 

[jmercer]

Why do you think that I do? Have you seen many examples of Cosmophilosopher's "angry intolerant skeptic" archetype? Or are you aware of the fact that this archetype is an invention? That it's the strawman created by woowoos to dismiss skeptics and their (most of the time) very serious arguments?

Well... it's not a complete archetype in the sense that most of us have acted this way on occasion. It's the rare individual that's always reasonable, all the time.

Having said that, I find myself in agreement with your posting. After reading CP's posts, I am affected by him in the exact same way he claims Randi (and JREF) affect non-skeptics because he's literally adopted the very tactics that he decries. From where I sit, he reads like a Randi and JREF basher.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

Exactly how do you criticize delusional grandmas and soccer moms - except by telling them that they are delusional (= showing them that their delusions are delusions)?


You could start by not referring to their experiences as delusions. Many people don't believe strongly in things such as ghosts, homopathy, etc., but they have experiences that they cannot explain otherwise. Those experiences are NOT delusional, though they may be mistaken regarding the cause.

If you accept that they have reasons for their ideas, listen to why they believe what they do, they are more likely to listen to your alternative explanations for their experiences. They have to listen to your ideas before they will accept them. When you call them delusional, you make them angry and unwilling to listen to your alternative explanations. So when you start off by being derogatory about their ideas or by making them angry or defensive about their personal experiences, you've often lost the battle before you've begun.

Beth

Did anyone here behave in the kind of offensive manner you mention above throughout your claim, Beth? Maybe I missed it. You were reasonable and conversed in understandable terms with your claim and Kramer and the forum was reasonable back, as far as I remember.

Many believers are not so reasonable and will not discuss the paranormal fairly. They seem to think sceptics are attacking them personally and get all huffy. We are usually attacking their beliefs and the personal tit-for-tat usually starts when believers get defensive and evasive. Look at any of the threads in the Challenge Applications. You decided to take a step back and re-evaluate. Most others have painted themselves into a corner and can't summon the humility to back out. Sometimes it's just spite against JREF or sour grapes for the thought of the million.

 

[Beth]

Did anyone here behave in the kind of offensive manner you mention above throughout your claim, Beth? Maybe I missed it. You were reasonable and conversed in understandable terms with your claim and Kramer and the forum was reasonable back, as far as I remember.

1. I'm not easily offended. In fact, I have major fondness for brusk and crusty curmugeons. They remind me of my father.

2. Even though I'm not easily offended, I do hate mean-spirited or cruel posts. I put anyone whose posts I don't like for any reason (boring, stupid, mean, etc.) on ignore, so I don't read their posts or respond to them after I'm convinced they aren't worth the bother.

3. Yes, I think people here DO behave in that sort of offensive manner and no, I'm not going to name names. I think that only serves to derail the conversation into "yes it is"/"no is isn't" argument.

4. I've come to think of this forum as a place for skeptics to come and freely discuss their opinions, including bashing believers. To criticize this forum as being offensive in that manner is like criticizing a homopathic forum for bashing skeptics. The net is a wonderful place where people with similar beliefs can find each other and express their anger and frustration at those who are too rigid/stupid/etc. to believe as they do. Skeptics are no different than any other group in that regard. Nor is this forum particularly bad in that regard. Many are much worse.

5. My opinion is if you're trying to convert someone who believes in something you don't, you aren't going to have much success unless you respect them. If you respect them, you're not going to deliberately offend them. Accidental offensiveness can be easily forgiven.

 

[Cosmophilosopher]

Beth, I totally agree with you.

Also, they are NOT delusions.
A delusion is a psychiatric illness.
They are simply BELIEFS they have, no different than the beliefs that skeptics might have.
They are representations in their brain, and they are "real experiences" psychologically, and they deserve respect.

Many views that alleged skeptics hold are just as FALSE as beliefs that other people might hold.
Again, its just very sloppy thinking by the skeptics.
They are NOT delusions, just simply beliefs that people have, strange experiences, imaginationary experiences, etc.
So in this case, Skeptics who call these things delusions, are the ones making the profound error in thinking.

Exactly how do you criticize delusional grandmas and soccer moms - except by telling them that they are delusional (= showing them that their delusions are delusions)?


You could start by not referring to their experiences as delusions. Many people don't believe strongly in things such as ghosts, homopathy, etc., but they have experiences that they cannot explain otherwise. Those experiences are NOT delusional, though they may be mistaken regarding the cause.

Beth

 

[Cosmophilosopher]

Yes, as i have mentioned already, i have done this intentionally as an object lesson, to show how effective the Randi Style attacking works.
It doesn't.

But to be honest, its not about what "works".
For those who do it, its about getting an "Ego boost" by putting others down. It has nothing to do with Skepticism, and everything to do with feeling Superior.

Pure irrational Emotinal Reasoning, cloaked in the name of rationality.
Ironic, eh?

After reading CP's posts, I am affected by him in the exact same way he claims Randi (and JREF) affect non-skeptics because he's literally adopted the very tactics that he decries. From where I sit, he reads like a Randi and JREF basher.

 

[jmercer]

Yes, as i have mentioned already, i have done this intentionally as an object lesson, to show how effective the Randi Style attacking works.
It doesn't.

But to be honest, its not about what "works".
For those who do it, its about getting an "Ego boost" by putting others down. It has nothing to do with Skepticism, and everything to do with feeling Superior.

Pure irrational Emotinal Reasoning, cloaked in the name of rationality.
Ironic, eh?

Unfortunately, while I accepted that reasoning at the start of the thread, we are up to page 4 now. The point had been made a while ago, and there was no reason to continue in this vein - you could have simply reverted to a more rational approach and continued the dialogue. Instead you have continued your diatribe "as an example".

I believe you are simply using this rationale as a excuse to continue bashing JREF and Randi. However, you can prove me wrong... continue the discussion without all the emotional rhetoric and rabble-rousing, stick to provable arguments, and I'll reverse my opinion. Otherwise, I stand by my assessment.

 

[dann]

Beth, I totally agree with you.

Also, they are NOT delusions.
A delusion is a psychiatric illness.
They are simply BELIEFS they have, no different than the beliefs that skeptics might have.
They are representations in their brain, and they are "real experiences" psychologically, and they deserve respect.

Many views that alleged skeptics hold are just as FALSE as beliefs that other people might hold.
Again, its just very sloppy thinking by the skeptics.
They are NOT delusions, just simply beliefs that people have, strange experiences, imaginationary experiences, etc.
So in this case, Skeptics who call these things delusions, are the ones making the profound error in thinking.

Don't you people GET it?! When I say this OFTEN enough using CAPITAL letters, you SHOULD realize that delusions are NOT delusions! BELIEFS in UFOS are no different from the beliefs that skeptics have in for instance geocentrism or evolution. Paranormal phenomena are representations in the brain (where else?!), and as such they are real psychological experiences (like believing that you are Jesus Christ or Napoleon, for instance), and therefore they reserve respect.
They are NOT delusions when I tell you that they are NOT. And I KNOW because unlike you I am a very, very tolerant, humane and emotionally balanced kind of guy.

 

[dann]

Oh no, I didn't actually write geocentric instead of heliocentric, did I?

 

[thaiboxerken]

So in this case, Skeptics who call these things delusions, are the ones making the profound error in thinking.

delusion: a false belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that persists despite the facts


I fail to see your point. People that believe in nonsense are delusional.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

1. I'm not easily offended. In fact, I have major fondness for brusk and crusty curmugeons. They remind me of my father.

2. Even though I'm not easily offended, I do hate mean-spirited or cruel posts. I put anyone whose posts I don't like for any reason (boring, stupid, mean, etc.) on ignore, so I don't read their posts or respond to them after I'm convinced they aren't worth the bother.

3. Yes, I think people here DO behave in that sort of offensive manner and no, I'm not going to name names. I think that only serves to derail the conversation into "yes it is"/"no is isn't" argument.

4. I've come to think of this forum as a place for skeptics to come and freely discuss their opinions, including bashing believers. To criticize this forum as being offensive in that manner is like criticizing a homopathic forum for bashing skeptics. The net is a wonderful place where people with similar beliefs can find each other and express their anger and frustration at those who are too rigid/stupid/etc. to believe as they do. Skeptics are no different than any other group in that regard. Nor is this forum particularly bad in that regard. Many are much worse.

5. My opinion is if you're trying to convert someone who believes in something you don't, you aren't going to have much success unless you respect them. If you respect them, you're not going to deliberately offend them. Accidental offensiveness can be easily forgiven.

That doesn't answer my question. Were you, Beth, treated badly by anyone here regarding your claim? You don't need to name names. Just post a link to a thread or threads in which you were treated in a rude manner. Maybe there Is one. I'm going by memory and don't remember any such incident. Did anyone here call you 'delusional' or mock you and your claim? Point me to a thread where this happened.

Do you feel that you, personally, were treated fairly regarding your claim? If you feel you were treated unfairly, I'd like to see a link or links to a thread or threads that makes you think this. I'm not asking about your opinions on general attitudes here. I'm asking about YOUR experience. I might be wrong, but I do remember reading about your claim, and thought that you were re-assessing, self-testing, and/or thinking about future protocols. I don't remember seeing anyone claiming that you were 'delusional'.

I'm curious as to why your tone has become so anti-JREF in the forums when you were (from my memory) treated fairly regarding your claim. I realise that memory can be faulty, so perhaps you can set me straight.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I would gladly be rude towards Beth, if I knew what her claims were.