Thread for comments about the What's The Harm thread

[Throg]

Have I not made this clear somehow?
You are implying I have not understood your post whereas I have already explained my attitude repeatedly prior to your postings.

Then why did you respond to my posts with an utterly irrelevant repetition of your position and why did you suggest that I was "warning against the behaviour of a strawman"?

 

[Throg]

If you feel anyone is implying that belief systems cause harm then quote their statements and comment on it.

Well, there's this statement you made:
"Often believers do ask 'what's the harm' in these beliefs, and the thread answers that question".

This very clearly states that the thread answers the general question, "what's the harm in these beliefs" rather than the, utterly correct question, "what harm can possibly come from these beliefs?".

There are other examples in the thread but given that you asked for such statement and are satisfied that you have made your position clear, this seemed an appropriate one to post.

 

[Throg]

edit: duplicate post.

 

[Phaycops]

This very clearly states that the thread answers the general question, "what's the harm in these beliefs" rather than the, utterly correct question, "what harm can possibly come from these beliefs?".

Gosh, I hate to wade into this debate, but this is such a nitpicky semantic argument, that it almost seems like you're arguing just for the sake of arguing. What is it you want? Do you want Ashles to change the title of the thread? You aren't disagreeing with the point of the thread (to show the possible harm that comes from belief in silly things so that when believers ask "what's the harm?" we can point to these occasions to say "here is some of the harm that can come about"), and you aren't disagreeing with the fact that these "anectdotes" are different in nature than some woo woo saying "well, acupuncture made my gramma's headache better." Right? So I'm left with the distinct impression that you're arguing about the title of the thread in question not implying to you, personally the difference between harm from beliefs in general and harm from specific beliefs in specific circumstances. Perhaps it will help you to know that the thread's title is merely a reiteration of the question that so many believers of such nonsense cry when they're backed into a corner. It was meant to be a phrase that we all recognise from this particular circumstance. I thought it was a pretty clever thread title, myself.

Anyway, this argument is completely rediculous. How is it everyone can argue at such great length while at the same time essentially agreeing with one another?! Oh, yeah, I forgot -- this is the internet we're talking about

 

[Ashles]

Well, there's this statement you made:
"Often believers do ask 'what's the harm' in these beliefs, and the thread answers that question".

This very clearly states that the thread answers the general question, "what's the harm in these beliefs" rather than the, utterly correct question, "what harm can possibly come from these beliefs?".

There are other examples in the thread but given that you asked for such statement and are satisfied that you have made your position clear, this seemed an appropriate one to post.

Wow, what a pointless post.
What I was saying is clear to anyone who doesn't want a pointless argument. If you really think it is important to make the distinction netween the two questions and don't understand what was being said then there's not much anyone can do to explain it to you.
I can see now that you are only arguing for the sake of it so there's very little point in continuing.

 

[Loki]

Throg,

When a believer makes the statement "what's the harm?", they implicitly mean "hey, really, there's no harm being done here!". It's very clear to me that they actually do mean "no harm can come from this". So to answer the proposition they are putting forward, we need to show only "some" harm.

Really, I'm sure you get this point, but for some reason you want to argue the semantic details. Look at the quote from Ashles that you posted :

"Often believers do ask 'what's the harm' in these beliefs, and the thread answers that question."

I can't see why anyone familiar with this topic would not know that the above sentence is exactly equivalent to :

"Often believers do ask 'how can there be any harm' in these beliefs, and the thread answers that question"

Or perhaps :

"Often believers say 'there is no harm' in these beliefs, and the thread challenges that assertion."

This very clearly states that the thread answers the general question, "what's the harm in these beliefs" rather than the, utterly correct question, "what harm can possibly come from these beliefs?".

Well, you're insisting on a literal reading for the words. However, in the context in which this phrase is being used here, it's clear (to everyone except you apparently) that the meaning is the second, not first, interpretation that you've supplied.

You're arguing literal meaning versus contextual meaning. Why you feel the need to do this is beyone me, since it appears that the posters to the thread are quite comfortable understanding and using the intended contextual meaning.

(Edited to add : But yes, you're right to say that it would be possible to rephrase the question so as to be both contextually and literally correct, and you've offered an example of that. Why wasn't this done in the first place? Because the phrase is the choice of the believer, not the skeptic - we're working in their context)

 

[robbersdog]

My my, aren't we all so clever here.

Are we all just saying this: These anecdotes*, which are supported by evidence, of someone coming to harm through a process brought about by a belief in something unverified by science can't be generalised from.

How about getting back to the point of the thread?



* Beth, where are all your anecdotes regarding benefits of the paranormal which you say we should hold in equally high regard? I am of course only refering to those supported by the same amount of verifiable evidence as those presented to show harm in the original thread.

Just saying 'he took this treatment then he got better, and loads of people saw him do this' is not enough. The supporting evidence needs to show something paranormal happened. The placebo effect isn't good enough.

 

[Throg]

Gosh, I hate to wade into this debate, but this is such a nitpicky semantic argument, that it almost seems like you're arguing just for the sake of arguing. What is it you want?

Anyway, this argument is completely rediculous. How is it everyone can argue at such great length while at the same time essentially agreeing with one another?! Oh, yeah, I forgot -- this is the internet we're talking about

Did you even read my post? Are you argueing for the sake of arguing? My point is that we have to be careful not to draw general inferences from disparate individual cases. Some people are doing that? Is it a semantic argument? In the sense that semantics refers to the meanings of words, yes but communications is necessarily dependent upon the meaning of words and thinking is heavily dependent on the meaning of words. If we are careless about the way we use words we are careless in the way we communicate andin the way we think. What I want is for people to be careful and to abandon the misguided idea that a semantic argument is an unimportant argument.

The argument is only "rediculous" if you don't understand it and we are your assertion that we are "essentially agreeing with each other" is an example of semantic and conceptual carelessness. We agree on some points and not others, there is no "essential agreement."

 

[Throg]

Wow, what a pointless post.
What I was saying is clear to anyone who doesn't want a pointless argument.

Ah, I understand: it's clear to you therefore it must be clear to everone else and anyone who doesn't think it's clear is making a pointless argument. How would you respond to such an assertion from a "woo"?

If you really think it is important to make the distinction netween the two questions and don't understand what was being said then there's not much anyone can do to explain it to you

I understand completely what is being said and also that it may not be what you intended to say. I also understand that it is important to make the two correspond. I further understand that a rhetorical response, which is what you have provided here is indicative of defensiveness of a weak position.

I can see now that you are only arguing for the sake of it so there's very little point in continuing

Your powers of perception are truly miraculous. If only the same could be said for your powers of logic and your grasp of English language.

 

[Throg]

Throg,

When a believer makes the statement "what's the harm?", they implicitly mean "hey, really, there's no harm being done here!". It's very clear to me that they actually do mean "no harm can come from this".

You are making unjustified generalisations again. Are you so certain that all believers (and I take it that you do not mean "a specific believer" by "a believer") mean exactly this? If so, please justify your certainty.

Really, I'm sure you get this point, but for some reason you want to argue the semantic details

I am arguing the semantic details because semantics are crucial and because "the devil is in the details". If we argue in a slopppy, "I think you know what I am trying to say" then we are relying on faith that our conclusions are justified rather than the power of our arguments.

Well, you're insisting on a literal reading for the words. However, in the context in which this phrase is being used here, it's clear (to everyone except you apparently) that the meaning is the second, not first, interpretation that you've supplied

It's clear only based on your assumption of a preconceived meaning. That may be good enough for faith-based beleife but it should not be good enough for us.

You're arguing literal meaning versus contextual meaning. Why you feel the need to do this is beyone me, since it appears that the posters to the thread are quite comfortable understanding and using the intended contextual meaning.

We can't work in their context and employ rational argument. They are two different paradigms. One is justified, rational and relies on precision while the other clearly is not and does not.

 

[Throg]

My my, aren't we all so clever here.
/B]

Oh, no - being clever, what a thoroughly undesireable trait. Anti-intellectualism is always so constructive.

Are we all just saying this: These anecdotes*, which are supported by evidence, of someone coming to harm through a process brought about by a belief in something unverified by science can't be generalised from

Though not by evidence which would be considered sufficient in any scientific discipline to support the inference of generalisable results.

How about getting back to the point of the thread?

Presumably, you are the arbiter of the point of the thread. If logical fallacies are perpetrated, or even appear to be perpetrated in this thread then I submit that one point of the thread is to expose them.

 

[robbersdog]

Though not by evidence which would be considered sufficient in any scientific discipline to support the inference of generalisable results

Throg, isn't that exactly what I said? What on earth did you think I meant by 'These anecdotes... ..can't be generalised from?

My point is that the arguments over semantics are getting so petty, even though we all seem to agree with the statment you've made above, which I and various others have also made.

At the end of the day this is nothing more than a discussion forum. I have no relevent qualifications and have no idea if anyone else has. For the record I'm a printer, I just take an interest in this sort of thing. All this arguing will do little to change peoples minds about things and readers will take from it what they choose. I know this so I'm not going to get too worked up about it. The only way to really say one way or the other would be to test the hypothesis properly and scientifically. A successful test would lead to the claiming of the million dollars. Hasn't happened yet, so until this proper testing takes place I'll make just one generalisation: None of these paranormal things work.

I make this generalisation from a simple fact: In all the time that all of these many many woo woo activities have been going on all over the world, never once has anyone ever successfully shown, under proper double blind testing, that any of them are in any way effective. Of all the millions of practitioners none can show it to work. Not even just a tiny minority of them. Doesn't this tell you something?

This is my main objection to any comparisons with medicine. Doctors can produce real hard evidence that their methods work. They can show the precise processes which lead to recovery and provide real evidence of these. Alternative healers can do nothing of the sort and have never been able to even show a beneficial effect under correct testing. Alternative healing is in no way comparable to conventional medicine and it's insulting to Doctors and researchers to suggest it is.

From this, I infer that if you turn away from science due to a belief in these things you may not do yourself any harm, but you probably won't help the situation either and it could well make things a lot worse. This is of course, just my opinion. I'm not presenting it as a fact.

 

[Ashles]

Your powers of perception are truly miraculous. If only the same could be said for your powers of logic and your grasp of English language.

Grow up Throg. Personal attacks are very childish, especially when you resort to them simply because everyone is pointing out how semantically petty you are being on what is, you appear to forget, an internet discussion forum.
As I have edited newsletters, written a film which was shown on TV in England, proof read pitches for multi-million pound deals in a major bank and am currenly trying to develop a sit-com (oh and won the JREF language award a few months back) I won't worry too much about your opinion of my knowledge of English.
I am typing posts quickly on an internet forum - I don't proof my work as I can't really be bothered. There will sometimes be spelling and grammatical mistakes and I am not really particularly bothered by that. Most people are able to understand things even when they aren't presented in grammatically perfect English.

No-one is in any doubt what is being said except for you, apparently, simply on principle. It would only be "important" to make the distinction you are making if there was a level of confusion about the issue. There isn't, except for that which you are generating.

Thank goodness we didn't clog up the other thread with all this nonsense.

 

[Throg]

Throg, isn't that exactly what I said? What on earth did you think I meant by 'These anecdotes... ..can't be generalised from?

You are quite right. I apologise for essentially restating what you had already said. I had a lot of posts which seem to me to be overestimate the evidenciary value of some of the acedotes in mind. That is no excuse, just an explanation for my mistake.

My point is that the arguments over semantics are getting so petty, even though we all seem to agree with the statment you've made above, which I and various others have also made

I'm just going to have to disagree with you on whether or not it's a petty point. I have explained why I think it is an important point but we clearly disagree. Furthermore, I'm not sure "we all seem to agree". It's a generalisation I would not wish to either agree with or disagree with for lack of evidence. If everybody does agree, however, why did Ashles choose to post his initial response at all?

Of all the millions of practitioners none can show it to work. Not even just a tiny minority of them. Doesn't this tell you something?

Yes it does. I am a sceptic. I do not believe in anything without good evidence. I cannot think of a single paranormal belief to which I subscribe. I did not post here to defend paranormal beliefs but to defend careful, precise sceptical thinking.

I absolutely agree with everything else you say in your post.

 

[Throg]

Grow up Throg. Personal attacks are very childish, especially when you resort to them simply because everyone is pointing out how semantically petty you are being on what is, you appear to forget, an internet discussion forum.
As I have edited newsletters, written a film which was shown on TV in England, proof read pitches for multi-million pound deals in a major bank and am currenly trying to develop a sit-com (oh and won the JREF language award a few months back) I won't worry too much about your opinion of my knowledge of English.

This is an appeal to authority (poorly chose one at that) and has no place in rational argument. By the way is "Grow up Throg" not a personal attack or do the rules only apply to those with whom you disagree.

No-one is in any doubt what is being said except for you, apparently, simply on principle

Clearly this is not the only case as I am not the only one who has "misunderstood" what is being said in this thread. What you appear to mean is that no-one you care about doubts what is being said.

Calling yourself a sceptic or claiming to think rationally does not make it so.

 

[Ashles]

This is an appeal to authority (poorly chose one at that) and has no place in rational argument.

Nope, not an appeal to authority - merely demonstrating why your opinion of my language skills is entirely irrelevant to me. I am demonstrating what my opinion is - I have no interest in trying to change yours.
And I think you gave up on rational argument when you started with the personal insults.

By the way is "Grow up Throg" not a personal attack or do the rules only apply to those with whom you disagree.

You were acting childish and still are.

Clearly this is not the only case as I am not the only one who has "misunderstood" what is being said in this thread. What you appear to mean is that no-one you care about doubts what is being said.

Who else has misunderstood? (Beth had a different point about anecdotal evidence.)

Calling yourself a sceptic or claiming to think rationally does not make it so.

Are you claiming I think irrationally now? Or that I am not actually a sceptic?
What a bizarre tangent you are going off on.

 

[Beth]

My my, aren't we all so clever here.

* Beth, where are all your anecdotes regarding benefits of the paranormal which you say we should hold in equally high regard? I am of course only refering to those supported by the same amount of verifiable evidence as those presented to show harm in the original thread.

Just saying 'he took this treatment then he got better, and loads of people saw him do this' is not enough. The supporting evidence needs to show something paranormal happened. The placebo effect isn't good enough.

Sigh. I'm not supporting the other side any more than Throg is, thus I've no desire to hunt up anecdotes for debate. Besides, there are whole threads devoted to such stories. My point has been regarding skeptical thinking and equal treatment of evidence.

Anecdotal evidence cannot distinguish between placebo and an actual effect, thus no anecdote can ever meet your requested standard of proof. That's fine and appropriate skeptical thinking. But anecdotal evidence cannot establish the cause of an effect, whether that effect is harm or benefit.

Personally, I don't give stories such as the one recently posted claiming that belief in a psychic led to cannabalism any more weight than stories about how John of God healed someone's cancer. But, hey, that's just me. You can go right ahead and take it and the others stories posted there as evidence of harm, just as believers on the other side take stories of healing as evidence. I'll remain skeptical about both.

I just expected better of a skeptics forum. That's all.

Beth

 

[Dr Adequate]

So, Beth, feel free to show us all how a real skeptic behaves. I, in my naive credulity, think that the killers of Candace Newmaker smothered her because this is what Attachment Therapy told them to do, and that she died as a result of it. Obviously I'm not being skeptical enough. Nor were the judge and jury. An injustice has been done, and only you can undo it.

Again, I'm dumb enough to think that the Xhosa destroyed their herds and crops because a prophet told them to, and that they starved as a result of it. But you, perhaps, have an alternate explanation?

I've pressed you on this point before, but you seemed unwilling to answer:

Please suggest the causes for the death by suffocation of Candace Newmaker other than her prolonged suffocation at the hands of woowoos. Please suggest other causes for the starvation of the Xhosa other than that they destroyed their herds and crops at the behest of a woowoo. Would you like to explain it through "the placebo effect", or "spontaneous remission"?

Or what "other causes" did you have in mind?

Personally, I only offer "other causes" for any suggested phenomenon when I can think of "other causes" which I know to exist and be operative in that area. For example, the placebo effect and remission, not to mention regression, apply to the field of medicine, which is why in medicine we always require proof which exludes such possibilities as the source of encouraging data.

Knock yourself out. Was Candace Newmaker killed by hours of torture, or by being given a placebo? Or perhaps, through a "spontaneous remission" of life, she was going to suffocate at that precise moment anyway, and it's just coincidence that at the moment she died of suffocation she just happened to be being tortured by suffocation. Are these the "other causes" you had in mind?

I don't think the defense counsel offered up anything so flimsy to defend the torturers, but do you want to have a go? Maybe they're innocent after all... condemned by unwillingness to consider the possibility that Candace Newmaker died of "the placebo effect". I'd be interested to hear your arguments.

Show us all how to be skeptical.

 

[drkitten]

Anecdotal evidence cannot distinguish between placebo and an actual effect, thus no anecdote can ever meet your requested standard of proof. That's fine and appropriate skeptical thinking. But anecdotal evidence cannot establish the cause of an effect, whether that effect is harm or benefit.

If you insist on thinking of causes as being singular (the cause of an effect), then no evidence whatsoever will ever be able to establish the cause of an effect, because effects usually, if not always, have multiple causes. Evidence that can be used to establish a falsehood is no evidence.

If you accept that multiple contributory elements can all be causes, then it's easy for anecdotal evidence to establish the cause of an effect. Where the effect itself is anecdotal, then much of the cause will almost have to be anecdotal. Glasses break when dropped (generally) --- but the cause of that this glass being now broken (an anecdotal effect) comes from that person dropping it (an anecdotal cause). [And, of course, there are multiple causes. Another reason that the glass is broken is because the floor in this room, where it was dropped, is hard tile as opposed to styrofoam.]

Loki had a pretty good analysis upthread -- let me briefly repeat (and expand). To establish a particular (anecdotal) cause, we need to establish two things : first, that a general cause is in play (glasses break when dropped), and second, that the specifics of this anecdote support the general cause (... and the glass was dropped, therefore breaking).

In the case of paranormal beliefs, I think the general statement that "people do stupid things when they believe things that aren't true" is another of those general causes that can easily be supported -- although, like breaking glasses, it's not universal.

So we have Loki's analysis of

belief -> action -> result

Anecdotal evidence cannot establish the "action -> result" link, especially when there are multiple potential causes for the particular result in play. But I think it's much easier to establish the link between belief and action; when someone claims to believe X and then acts as though X is true, I fail to see how you could not derive that the belief caused the action.

 

[Beth]

If you insist on thinking of causes as being singular (the cause of an effect), then no evidence whatsoever will ever be able to establish the cause of an effect, because effects usually, if not always, have multiple causes. Evidence that can be used to establish a falsehood is no evidence.

Oh, I quite accept that things have multiple causes. I've no problem with that. That's not the problem I have with using anecdotal evidence to estalish harm. In fact, I'll agree that harm can occur. Harm can occur with almost anything. The question is, does the harm outweigh the benefit? If you're going to allow anecdotal evidence for harm, then it's unreasonable and hypocritical not to accept similar anecdotal evidence for benefit. If a man with a cancerous tumor goes to see John of God and the tumor goes away, that's anecdotal evidence that seeing him had some effect. You can consider that placebo effect, spontaneous healing, anything you want. But discounting the evidence you don't like (for whatever reason) and accepting the evidence you do like without similar scrutiny is, well, IMO it's the action of believers, not skeptics. And I don't see the same level of scrutiny regarding the anecdotes about harm. It's simply accepted that the harm is real, the cause (belief) considered unquestionably true.

Anecdotal evidence cannot establish the "action -> result" link, especially when there are multiple potential causes for the particular result in play. But I think it's much easier to establish the link between belief and action; when someone claims to believe X and then acts as though X is true, I fail to see how you could not derive that the belief caused the action.

So belief in a psychics ability by the people who were searching for the stranded survivors of a crash was a cause of those survivors turning to canabalism before they were found? You don't find that a bit of stretch? I do.

In fact, I find it more of stretch than to suppose that a belief in the healing power of John of God was a cause of a cancerous patient recovering and I don't need to suppose anything paranormal was going to think that belief played a part in the recovery. That's a benefit of such beliefs and ought to count towards the benefit side of the equation just as much as the stories posted count for harm.

Beth

P.S. I'm out of this thread. I've expressed my opinion several times in several ways and I see no need to continue. What people choose to believe in is their business and I'll leave you skeptics to your beliefs in peace.