Thread for comments about the What's The Harm thread

[Dr Adequate]

But I can have no "peace". Not now you have told me, as the true interpreter of the skeptical way, that my beliefs may be shaky. I had always clung, pehaps with quasi-religious zeal, to the dogma that people need food and oxygen to live. Now I realise that these beliefs, too, must be called into question by a true skeptic. Very well, I am now in a state of doubt. I suspend my judgement. Will you please explain to me what else I might believe?

 

[drkitten]

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.

Right. That's the "action -> result" link, which is notoriously hard to prove (and part of the reason drugs are so expensive).

On the other hand, I have no qualms whatsoever postulating that the reason that the person with the cancerous tumor went to John of God is because he believed in John of God, or in other words that his belief caused his action.

That's the "belief -> action" link.

As you yourself pointed out, there are a number of other potential "actions" that could have caused the same result -- placebo effect, spontaneous remission, other drugs that the person was taking at the same time. On the other hand, I can't think of very many other beliefs that could have caused the man to go to John of God.

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.

But discarding evidence because it won't withstand scrutiny is quite legitimate.

So there are two claims here.

1) "John of God made him get better." This claim will not withstand even a cursory investigation.

2) "The man went to John of God because he believed John of God would make him better." This claim stands up much better, in part because there are no plausible alternative explanations.

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?

What does this have to do with anything?

The people searched in the wrong area [/i]because[/i] they believed the psychic (and believed in psychic abilities). I don't think this is at all controvertable -- the "belief -> action" link.

As usual, the "action -> effect" link is more cloudy. Did the action (the misdirected search) cause the behavior (cannibalism)? At least one standard philosophical approach would say no -- if the misdirected search had not occurred, the people would still not have been found and would not have resorted to cannibalism.

Alternatively, one could argue that if the search had not been misdirected, the people would have searched the correct area and found the survivors before they resorted to cannibalism.

 

[Throg]

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

If your employment history is why my opinion of my language skills is irrelevant to you then that is to say that your opinion is based on facts which have no logical connection to your conclusion. You may as well read tea leaves.

And I think you gave up on rational argument when you started with the personal insult

There is absolutely no reason that the two cannot exist side by side. Just another example of your poor grasp of rational thought.

You were acting childish and still are.

Pot, kettle and petard all spring to mind.

Who else has misunderstood?

I'm not going to go down this route. I don't see the necessity. One example is enough.

Are you claiming I think irrationally now? Or that I am not actually a sceptic?

The former implies the latter (irrational sceptic is an oxymoron). I claim both.

 

[Ashles]

Okay Throg. So you admit that no-one else really misunderstood. Jolly good.

And I see you are continuing on your bizarre tangent of calling me irrational and not really a sceptic (using one invented accusation to back up the other - why, how logical of you).

You have officially become tedious now. Your tirades are in danger of collapsing under their own circular 'logic'. But I am enjoying your ongoing 'If I'm childish then so are you' argument.

Don't you think it might be about time to end this exchange before it deteriorates into 'I am rubber you are glue...'?

 

[Interesting Ian]

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

Indeed, it certainly is an eye opener. Before coming here I thought that someone might be able to give some half decent argument against any of my beliefs. A forlorn hope indeed! LOL

 

[Throg]

Okay Throg. So you admit that no-one else really misunderstood. Jolly good

Where do I admit this, Ashles?

And I see you are continuing on your bizarre tangent of calling me irrational and not really a sceptic (using one invented accusation to back up the other - why, how logical of you)

This is pure rhetoric, Ashles.

You have officially become tedious now

Officially? I was not aware that you held any office imbued with the competence to make this determination. Now your are making spurious claims of authority.

Your tirades are in danger of collapsing under their own circular 'logic'. But I am enjoying your ongoing 'If I'm childish then so are you' argument

I have made no such argument. Perhaps you are not clear on the meanings ot logic or argument. Incidentally, arguments do not collapse under the weight of circular logic. I don't know where to even begin with that mixed metaphor.

Don't you think it might be about time to end this exchange before it deteriorates into 'I am rubber you are glue...'?

More rhetoric.

If you think it's time to end the exchange then stop responding to my posts. Can we at least agree that that would be logical?

 

[Interesting Ian]

The former implies the latter (irrational sceptic is an oxymoron). I claim both. [/B]

And rational sKeptic is also an oxymoron. Unfortunately most people on here are sKeptics (I do not necessarily say you are a sKeptic -- maybe you're a sceptic. There is, as yet, insufficient data for me to judge).

 

[Phaycops]

And rational sKeptic is also an oxymoron. Unfortunately most people on here are sKeptics (I do not necessarily say you are a sKeptic -- maybe you're a sceptic. There is, as yet, insufficient data for me to judge).

Ian -- What is the difference between humour and humor?

How about behaviour and behavior?

Grey and gray?

Thanks for your input

 

[Throg]

And rational sKeptic is also an oxymoron. Unfortunately most people on here are sKeptics (I do not necessarily say you are a sKeptic -- maybe you're a sceptic. There is, as yet, insufficient data for me to judge).

I am curious to how you define sceptic (I know what I mean by that) and sKeptic respectively. Given that it is not the intended purpose of this thread, I would take it as a kindness if you would PM me with your definitions.

 

[Loki]

Ian,

Before coming here I thought that someone might be able to give some half decent argument against any of my beliefs.

Perhaps the lack of a half decent argument against your beliefs can, in some way, be put down to the way you choose to express and defend your beliefs?

Aren't you the one who says "I've just always known" when asked to explain how you've reached your conclusions? Aren't you the one who says "just because I can't explain everything doesn't mean I'm wrong" when asked for details of what exactly your beliefs might entail?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Aren't you the one who says "just because I can't explain everything doesn't mean I'm wrong" when asked for details of what exactly your beliefs might entail?

I have never said that, no.

 

[Interesting Ian]

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.

So would you say your grammar is pretty good? I wonder if you could read what I've written for my website so far and point out grammatical errors etc? I'll put it up in the Religion and Philosophy section in the next few days or so.

I was cr@p at English Language at school. I rather think I have somewhat improved though. But I'm basically lacking a formal education in correct English usage (at least that I can remember).

 

[Throg]

And rational sKeptic is also an oxymoron. Unfortunately most people on here are sKeptics (I do not necessarily say you are a sKeptic -- maybe you're a sceptic. There is, as yet, insufficient data for me to judge).

Ian, i ask again if you would help me understand what you mean by sKeptic as opposed to sceptic. It's not to start an argument, it's just so that I can understand what you mean when you use the term. If you've already explained this somewhere, perhaps you could give me a link, or a clue as to the title of the post.

 

[Loki]

Ian,

I have never said that, no.

Hopefully the alcohol hasn't already started to wear away the brain cells (it will do that eventually, you know).

Have you forgotten the exchange about the 'why' behind your idealist worldview, in which you first argued that you didn't see why Idealism requires any more 'purpose' that Materialism, then admitted that you couldn't supply any details about your worldviews' implied/required 'purpose', then threw a tantrum about constantly being asked 'why', and then insisted that even if you lacked any details that didn't mean you were wrong?

Does that help jog your memory? Of course, your next move is to ask for a link the the posts/thread right? Well, I have no idea which fourm, or thread, or page that all transpired on - and I'm not going to search for them. So okay, I'll stick to saying "yes, you did say that", and you can insist on saying "prove it", and that's the end of that. Please carry on...

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian,


Hopefully the alcohol hasn't already started to wear away the brain cells (it will do that eventually, you know).

Have you forgotten the exchange about the 'why' behind your idealist worldview, in which you first argued that you didn't see why Idealism requires any more 'purpose' that Materialism, then admitted that you couldn't supply any details about your worldviews' implied/required 'purpose', then threw a tantrum about constantly being asked 'why', and then insisted that even if you lacked any details that didn't mean you were wrong?

Does that help jog your memory? Of course, your next move is to ask for a link the the posts/thread right? Well, I have no idea which fourm, or thread, or page that all transpired on - and I'm not going to search for them. So okay, I'll stick to saying "yes, you did say that", and you can insist on saying "prove it", and that's the end of that. Please carry on...

No I have no memory of it. Loki, you're an ****hole and I have absolutely zero interest in anything you have to say about anything. I've had more than enough of your mindnumbing stupidty. And that goes for most of the people on this board.

Throg
Ian, i ask again if you would help me understand what you mean by sKeptic as opposed to sceptic. It's not to start an argument, it's just so that I can understand what you mean when you use the term. If you've already explained this somewhere, perhaps you could give me a link, or a clue as to the title of the post.

A sceptic is a sceptic. A sKeptic is someone who's convinced that the contemporary western metaphysic is essentially correct, and any evidence contradicting this metaphysic must necessarily be in error. They are complete lack wits who understand nothing no matter how carefully one explains things to them. They are enemies of science and of progress. They are liars to boot. Most of the people on here are sKeptics.

They are a disgrace to reason, rationality and the human race.

 

[Loki]

Ian,

No I have no memory of it.

Ah ... I guess it's just as well that I do then. Lucky for you your immortal unchanging self(tm) remembers things that your poor meat brain forgets.

Loki, you're an ****hole and I have absolutely zero interest in anything you have to say about anything. I've had more than enough of your mindnumbing stupidty.

Thanks Ian. I actually find it quite reassuring that you continually fail to address anything that you don't wish to discuss. There's something strangely comforting about in being in your bad books. And speaking of books, have you read anything by Dennet yet regarding consciousness? Or are you still sticking to your position that there is no point reading books by people who are cleary wrong in their conclusion?? (even if you haven't read why the reached their conclusions)

Since the very first thing you ever posted to me was to tell me that I was a "f***ing moron" then I can only admire your consistency.

And that goes for most of the people on this board.

Gee it's hard being the lone voice of reason isn't it Ian. Is that why you're here? Some sort of 'rebel without a clue' thing? Just need to be the champion of minority opinion?

If it wasn't for your posts on MU.NU I'd think you were a real prat, but you've shown a humour and sensitivity over there that you refuse to bring here. I can only assume you just want to be 'gladitorial' when you're here. Okay, go for it - but it's rather pathetic after so long. Even Franko eventually lost interest in baiting the JREF - aren't you ever going to grow up???

 

[Ashles]

If you think it's time to end the exchange then stop responding to my posts. Can we at least agree that that would be logical?

You are the one continuing to 'debate' with someone who you claim is irrational. How logical is that exactly?

By the way I seem to find the main definition of Rhetoric is "The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively".

So, thanks, I guess. I mean, it seems to disagree with your earlier points but never mind. You must know what you're doing - you're the logical and rational one after all.

 

[Ashles]

So would you say your grammar is pretty good? I wonder if you could read what I've written for my website so far and point out grammatical errors etc? I'll put it up in the Religion and Philosophy section in the next few days or so.

I was cr@p at English Language at school. I rather think I have somewhat improved though. But I'm basically lacking a formal education in correct English usage (at least that I can remember).

Actually Ian I've always thought your grammar and clarity of expression has been very good (several other posters have mentioned this as well). I may not agree with your points, but I can always understand what you are trying to say.

I think most people's grasp and knowledge of English should come not from what they were taught at school, but from a genuine interest in reading and listening to ideas. Many people improve massively after leaving school because they start reading things they want to (as opposed to what they are told to).

And, if you want to actually write a book, website or anything else that will be widely read you have to keep going back repeatedly and polishing the text.
For example it apparently it took Wodehouse months and months to make his dialogue look so effortlessly written.

 

[Throg]

A sceptic is a sceptic. A sKeptic is someone who's convinced that the contemporary western metaphysic is essentially correct, and any evidence contradicting this metaphysic must necessarily be in error.

Thanks.

 

[Throg]

You are the one continuing to 'debate' with someone who you claim is irrational. How logical is that exactly?

You are also continuting to debate. The obvious difference is that you have said "Don't you think it might be about time to end this exchange" which would seem to imply that you desire an end to the debate. I do not particularly. There can be distinct value in arguing with someone who is irrational. When I do desire an end to the debate I will stop debating.

Incidentally, I should make it clear that I have no reason to suppose that you are always or even predominantly irrational. It is merely the case that the contents of your posts in this thread have been largely irrational.

By the way I seem to find the main definition of Rhetoric is "The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively".

Not at all. Using language effectively and persuasively is quite different from using it well. Advertisers use language effectively and persuasively (good adverts are a fine example of rhetoric, by the way) but often incorrectly in terms of semantics, grammar and factual content.

Of course, as you are probably aware (I presume you didn't just pick your definition from an online dictionary) the term rhetoric refers to the use of persuasive language without regard to the actual content of that language (i.e. whether it is reasonable or true.)

So, thanks, I guess

If you are happy to identify yourself as one who uses language as a tool of persuasion regardless of the validity of the position you espouse then I suppose you are welcome.