senorpogo
Master Poster
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2006
- Messages
- 2,100
Or they might think "such ridicule! why wouldn't I want to join that?"
And here I am.
Or they might think "such ridicule! why wouldn't I want to join that?"
And here I am.
Welcome to the feeding frenzy. For your own safety, please keep your dorsal fin under the water at all times.
[I typically leave threads due to boring rants and personal attacks that are off topic.]
Isn't this Example One from the Style VS. Substance fallacy?
[The fact that Person 2 insulted Person 1 does not alter the truth of Person 2's argument, ...], from the Wikipedia article.
Isn't this Example One from the Style VS. Substance fallacy?
[The fact that Person 2 insulted Person 1 does not alter the truth of Person 2's argument, ...], from the Wikipedia article.
Seconded. Smell the blood in the water.
case sensitive
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- May 28, 2005
- Messages
- 395
Now why do you care about that?
I'd say we strike a nice balance here. Of course, you have to make a distinction among A) real "sticking it" that may occur B) negative comments that, in the context of a given poster's history here, are well earned, and C) comments that address the actual argument, but which are "spun" by the opponent and called a personal attack.
A may or may not be detrimental. It is an interesting question. Certainly, we have a few testimonials here of people who were attracted, not repulsed, by the tone here, but as this is a self-selected sample, it is useless to infer anything from it.
B may or may not be detrimental. Posting history is searchable, and quite often such negative comments include a "you have a history of..." component, inviting the readers to examine that history. And of course, the other party may contest such comments and invite the same search. In a way, this sort of negative comment is peer-reviewable, and may encourage critical thinking.
C is a problem, but not the fault of the skeptic. As a hypothetical, if I brought in an example of this sort of thing on your part to this thread, you could claim that it is a personal attack, when it was merely a legitimate example which just so happened to make you look bad. It would be described as a skeptic attempting to "stick it" to you, as an attempt to deflect the point of the example. In such a case, one would have to continually point out such examples--even if, say, you started an entirely new thread to spin such refutations into examples of "sticking it".
Not that that would ever happen.
Which is why lists of unanswered questions are so....clarifying.
Actually, Claus, they could be improved, with appropriate links to the sources of the questions, so that readers could quickly determine whether the questions are deserved or not. It is too easy to ask a bunch of questions that are inappropriate; an honest question-lister with nothing to hide would add weight to the list this way. Of course, if the questions are inappropriate, the questionee is the one who would benefit from the links. Either way, the links are a way to the truth.
More work for you...
I rather doubt that people are necessarily turned away from skepticism by the behavior of other skeptics.
Well, that's a logical fallacy...if someone scoffs at a belief, it does not follow that the belief is valid.
Premise: A is true.
Premise: You deny that A is true.
Conclusion: You deny that A is true, therefore A is true.
Nah...doesn't wash. Religious texts that claim that scoffing is evidence that the religion is valid are probably written with the intent of keeping the believers believing. It benefits the religious leaders to prevent their followers from considering contrary opinions.
But I digress.
You make your arguments in a civil fashion and don't worry about the jerks. Life goes on.
Anything can be improved, of course.Actually, Claus, they could be improved, with appropriate links to the sources of the questions, so that readers could quickly determine whether the questions are deserved or not. It is too easy to ask a bunch of questions that are inappropriate; an honest question-lister with nothing to hide would add weight to the list this way. Of course, if the questions are inappropriate, the questionee is the one who would benefit from the links. Either way, the links are a way to the truth.
More work for you...
Again, we see this attack on "skeptics" from you, only you don't have the courage to name them.
If we don't know who you are talking about, how can we address what these "self-proclaimed skeptics" are doing?
Perhaps that is not the issue here? You merely want, true to form, to sit high up in your tree and throw rotten apples at people, thinking they can't get to you?
Z
Variable Constant
I think skeptics are people, too. What I've seen, more often than not, is someone with an unusual belief or thought come here, post their idea, and do so in such a way as to either a) present it as revealed truth, or b) present it so as to undermine what they see as 'faith' in the established truth. Then a couple of folks come by who take a number of different approaches: 1) asking for evidence; 2) discussing reasons why the person's belief is invalid or suspect; and 3) scoffing and belittling the original poster.
It goes differently, of course, for every poster in each situation. Claus, for example, usually does a pretty good job with his requests for 'evidence', but he also becomes obsessive and badgers his subjects needlessly. He's also been guilty of moving goalposts and out-right denying evidence from time to time - Married Catholic priests and the Sedevacantist Catholic Church comes to mind.... His approach works sometimes, and sometimes it back-fires.
Rolfe, on the other hand, is rarely anything but level-headed. She simply knows her material, and uses that knowledge to deal with those who would peddle woo as medicine. She's hardly ever a scoffer, but from time to time, the battle seems to get personal for her (only because she cares), and some woo's feelings or pride gets injured. Frankly, I think that's fine - if you're going to try to sell willful ignorance, you deserve to get hurt emotionally.
Unfortunately, I'd wager that 80-90% of the non-skeptic population who drops in and chooses (for whatever weird reason) to post here end up deserving the behavior aimed at them. Anyone who comes to this board ought to realize certain actions are going to earn them derision and ridicule... maybe we should post a note somewhere visible?
Willful ignorance is probably the absolute worst thing you can come to this forum armed with. Iacchus, Interesting Ian, Kurious Kathy, and many others come in here and deliberately refuse to consider evidence that runs counter to their own opinions. lifegazer, Radrook, and a few others actually choose, instead, to (attempt to) undermine the very foundations of counter-evidence, and indeed argue that reason and logic are only hinderances to learning the truth. When presented with such a statement, how can reasoned intellectual debate continue? It can't. The offending poster, at that point, really has lain down the glove, as it were, and offered himself as a target for ridicule.
Yet I'd say most ridicule isn't of the usual empty name-calling sort; most ridicule on this forum (from skeptics) is there more to give warning to passers-by and lurkers as to the quality (or lack thereof) of information presented by the poster in question. After all, not everyone is willing to post through endless pages of topics to learn that someone really has no idea what he's talking about, and on the surface, a few woos really do sound like they know something.
Some are just annoying trouble-makers, with nothing to contribute, however; hammegk, T'ai-Chi, Iacchus, and a few previously suspended/banned members have a strange posting style, which I supposed is intended to make the reader think, but usually leads in a certain amount of ridicule for the original posters. Most of the time, their questions, meant to sound wise, can be answered either very simply, or have no meaning at all. And the few worth discussing are rarely ever actually discussed by the posters in question.
It's easy to see why so many non-skeptics get treated the way they do. Maybe if they stopped being so willfully ignorant, and started employing critical thinking and valid reasoning skills...?
It goes differently, of course, for every poster in each situation. Claus, for example, usually does a pretty good job with his requests for 'evidence', but he also becomes obsessive and badgers his subjects needlessly. He's also been guilty of moving goalposts and out-right denying evidence from time to time - Married Catholic priests and the Sedevacantist Catholic Church comes to mind...
. His approach works sometimes, and sometimes it back-fires. Rolfe, on the other hand, is rarely anything but level-headed. She simply knows her material, and uses that knowledge to deal with those who would peddle woo as medicine. She's hardly ever a scoffer, but from time to time, the battle seems to get personal for her (only because she cares), and some woo's feelings or pride gets injured. Frankly, I think that's fine - if you're going to try to sell willful ignorance, you deserve to get hurt emotionally.
Unfortunately, I'd wager that 80-90% of the non-skeptic population who drops in and chooses (for whatever weird reason) to post here end up deserving the behavior aimed at them. Anyone who comes to this board ought to realize certain actions are going to earn them derision and ridicule... maybe we should post a note somewhere visible?
Willful ignorance is probably the absolute worst thing you can come to this forum armed with. Iacchus, Interesting Ian, Kurious Kathy, and many others come in here and deliberately refuse to consider evidence that runs counter to their own opinions. lifegazer, Radrook, and a few others actually choose, instead, to (attempt to) undermine the very foundations of counter-evidence, and indeed argue that reason and logic are only hinderances to learning the truth. When presented with such a statement, how can reasoned intellectual debate continue? It can't. The offending poster, at that point, really has lain down the glove, as it were, and offered himself as a target for ridicule.
Yet I'd say most ridicule isn't of the usual empty name-calling sort; most ridicule on this forum (from skeptics) is there more to give warning to passers-by and lurkers as to the quality (or lack thereof) of information presented by the poster in question. After all, not everyone is willing to post through endless pages of topics to learn that someone really has no idea what he's talking about, and on the surface, a few woos really do sound like they know something.
Some are just annoying trouble-makers, with nothing to contribute, however; hammegk, T'ai-Chi, Iacchus, and a few previously suspended/banned members have a strange posting style, which I supposed is intended to make the reader think, but usually leads in a certain amount of ridicule for the original posters. Most of the time, their questions, meant to sound wise, can be answered either very simply, or have no meaning at all. And the few worth discussing are rarely ever actually discussed by the posters in question.
It's easy to see why so many non-skeptics get treated the way they do. Maybe if they stopped being so willfully ignorant, and started employing critical thinking and valid reasoning skills...?
Thank you.
Evidence?
Evidence?
- Married Catholic priests and the Sedevacantist Catholic Church comes to mind...
Huh?