At what point does Skepticism become cruel?

[Axenos]

How does this square with the fact that we've all lied at one time or another, and parents lie to children, and magicians and actors and CGI lie to their audience?

I see your point, and I simply do not have a good answer. I am truthful to a fault generally, even to the point of cruelty.

Even I have to admit however, that there are times that it is a necessary evil.

But this is missing the point. If someone will never understand the difference, is it up to us to destroy "peace of mind"?

You have focused upon the issue of untruthfulness, when I am focusing on something somewhat broader in scope.

BTW, everyone, "poor simpleton" was a poor choice of words.

Axe

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

But being an adult is very much about facing the sometimes harsh realities of life. So far, we have not seen any evidence that people are able to communicate with us when they are dead. We do not help adults by lying to them.

Man: "Would you like to go on a date with me?"
Truthful Woman: "No. The idea of spending time with you is repulsive."
Lying Woman: "Oh no! Sorry I can't - I've already got a boyfriend."

Perhaps there's more to communication than just truth or lies?

 

[Lamuella]

I'm reminded of something I saw one day coming out of a supermarket.

A small child had just let go of her helium balloon by mistake and it was shooting up into the sky. She was obviously upset.

To calm her down, her mother and father said the following:

"Grandma needed to borrow your balloon for a bit, she'll bring it back later".

Obviously, the child's grandmother had died and they had told her she was in heaven. WHat disturbed me about the explanation, though was:

* they were knowingly and deliberately lying to the child. They knew that the balloon going off into the sky was nothing to do with a dead grandmother in heaven
* they knew the balloon would not be coming back, and they were counting on the child to forget about it.

That said, it would have been absolutely and completely inappropriate for me to make a correction to what they were telling the child. In fact, to do so would have been cruel because the lie gave the child consolation for the loss of her balloon.

Nonetheless, this made me think less of the parents (who I had not met before now and never saw again) who would deliberately tell an outlandish lie to the child when a more straightforward truth would probably have done. However, if I were going to say anything, it would be to the parent, not the child.

 

[CFLarsen]

How does this square with the fact that we've all lied at one time or another, and parents lie to children, and magicians and actors and CGI lie to their audience?

Do you think it is OK for a psychic to lie to people?

You can answer it - you don't have me on ignore.

 

[CFLarsen]

Maybe your parents have lied to you, but mine never did. I thank them for it often, because it helped me to trust them.

As for actors and magicians, you are simply wrong. No one goes to Braveheart thinking that Mel Gibson is William Wallace. It's a performance. Mr. Randi always used to caution his audeince that his performance is merely elaborate and clever tricks, not mystical forces.

Spot on. It's not a lie, when you know it's a lie. And you can't blame the liar, if he tells you that it is a lie.

 

[Overman]

However, if some poor simpleton who will never really know any better is given information by a "psychic", for no money , that will put their mind at ease about something, then is it up to anyone to destroy that peace of mind by revealing the somewhat questionable nature of said information?

At what point does compassion for someone become overshadowed by the need to... shall we say illuminate and inform?

I see this on a bigger scale. It is my opinion that what skepticism is and what it stands for will ultimately be the thing that unites, and possibly saves, humanity.

If you read Stephen Hawking's recent speeches or some or Carl Sagan's more dreamful ones they both talk about the importance of humans becoming a space faring civilation. They talk about how humanity is constantly on the edge of destroying itself before we could even hope to accomplish feats like this.

I do not think that humanity will ever be able to unite under a religious doctrine, It needs science and skepticism to unite it. I also do not believe that if all did untie under a religious doctrine that technoligical advancements and the spreading of human civilization into space would be a priority.

Every time I dish out a bit of science, critical thinking, or skepticism I feel like I am doing my part to help humanity become intelligent, strong, and hopefully, immortal.

I know this probably sounds fairly fanatical, but I see it as very logical.

If I have to hurt someone's feelings by telling them what reality actually is, so be it. I will admit that there are many times when I keep my mouth shut or let comments fall by the wayside, I am not a *********. I am not going to sit there and attack each religious person I know beliefs (mabye just the mormans I know...).

I do feel it is important to spread skepticism, and to spread it as wide as possible. If someone's feelings get hurt in the process, then I say that sometimes reality bites.

 

[Ladewig]

IMO it becomes somewhat cruel when

- "witchhunts" and calling-outs (think Randi's Sylvia Browne clock and weekly tirade/commentary)

Given that Sylvia charges hundreds of dollars an hour for private readings, given that she gets free publicity from uncritical TV hosts such as Larry King and Montel, and given that she agreed to the test, why is Randi's Sylvia-Brown clock somewhat cruel?

 

[Luke T.]

The hard-heads I don't mind so much... but if someone of lower intelligence is reassured by dubious information, and will not truly understand a realistic argument, then should we "hurt" them by destroying their hope about something?

Axe

The "simpletons" are the predators market. If you can't get to the predator directly, then take away his/her source of gratification.

I do think one of the weak spots of skepticism is that the reality that is offered as a replacement for magic is often a poor substitute.

When you take away something a person is deeply attached to, you need to replace it with something equal to or exceeding in value. They will not accept a vacuum or "life's a bitch and then you die and then nothing."

 

[Axenos]

To Stellafane:

I see your points, and no, I do not condone or believe in psychics.

The "What's the harm?" argument I actually never noticed before, so shame on me if I have introduced a variant.

As to the "poor simpleton" line which a few have latched upon, shame on me again for a poor choice of words. I am a lower-middle class working guy, and I am no raving genius to be sure.

As for "psychics and missing people", sadly I had forgotten about that aspect. That sort of information is definately not right to me, for money or not.

I was referring more towards things that put people at ease, as opposed to false hope... if you get my meaning.

Regards,

Axe

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Every time I dish out a bit of science, critical thinking, or skepticism I feel like I am doing my part to help humanity become intelligent, strong, and hopefully, immortal.

What lofty ideals. Most people I know do it just to look smart

 

[ImaginalDisc]

As for "psychics and missing people", sadly I had forgotten about that aspect. That sort of information is definately not right to me, for money or not.

Don't beat yourself up. I for one am glad you broached the subject, because it's something we, as a movement, need to kepe in mind. The questions of who and how we go about debunking are perennial and perimount.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

To Stellafane:

I see your points, and no, I do not condone or believe in psychics.

The "What's the harm?" argument I actually never noticed before, so shame on me if I have introduced a variant.

As to the "poor simpleton" line which a few have latched upon, shame on me again for a poor choice of words. I am a lower-middle class working guy, and I am no raving genius to be sure.

As for "psychics and missing people", sadly I had forgotten about that aspect. That sort of information is definately not right to me, for money or not.

I was referring more towards things that put people at ease, as opposed to false hope... if you get my meaning.

Regards,

Axe

I think you're referring to tact. I have visions of some people on this forum only being able to say exactly what's on their minds because anything else would be lying.

 

[brettDbass]

Towards the end of my previous dabblings with The World Of Woo, I used to have similar feelings to those expressed in the OP.

Spending more time on this forum was all it took to have my mind changed.

 

[chillzero]

As for "psychics and missing people", sadly I had forgotten about that aspect. That sort of information is definately not right to me, for money or not.

I was referring more towards things that put people at ease, as opposed to false hope... if you get my meaning.

Regards,

Axe

Particularly with regard to psychics who contact distressed families, but also in general, how do you separate these?
What is the difference between providing false hope, and providing fake reassurances?

 

[Stellafane]

...I was referring more towards things that put people at ease, as opposed to false hope... if you get my meaning.

I believe I do get your meaning, and it's an interesting philosophical argument. But I think it's very difficult to sort out exactly when you're laudably putting someone "at ease," as opposed to not-so-laudably giving them "false hope."

Here's a for-instance that might seem off-topic, but please bear with me: Yesterday at the store I ran into a young woman who very obviously had Down's Syndrome. She was exceedingly outgoing and friendly, referring to everyone as "shorty" (she herself was probably under five feet in height, so she was using the term ironically). As I walked out, I realized she was undoubtedly the happiest person in the whole store. So, suppose there were some pill that could turn that woman "normal," providing her with an average intellect and all the social responsibilities, fears, and anxieties that go along with it. Do you give her that pill? Or do you allow her to continue within her limited but extremely happy world, living a life more full of joy than most of us will ever know?

That's what it comes down to for me. Do you condone and tolerate comforting lies, and allow others to live at least partially in a fantasy world? To me, that's the easy way out. Better to work towards making reality what we need it to be, rather than pretend it's as we wish it could be.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I believe I do get your meaning, and it's an interesting philosophical argument. But I think it's very difficult to sort out exactly when you're laudably putting someone "at ease," as opposed to not-so-laudably giving them "false hope."

Here's a for-instance that might seem off-topic, but please bear with me: Yesterday at the store I ran into a young woman who very obviously had Down's Syndrome. She was exceedingly outgoing and friendly, referring to everyone as "shorty" (she herself was probably under five feet in height, so she was using the term ironically). As I walked out, I realized she was undoubtedly the happiest person in the whole store. So, suppose there were some pill that could turn that woman "normal," providing her with an average intellect and all the social responsibilities, fears, and anxieties that go along with it. Do you give her that pill? Or do you allow her to continue within her limited but extremely happy world, living a life more full of joy than most of us will ever know?

That's what it comes down to for me. Do you condone and tolerate comforting lies, and allow others to live at least partially in a fantasy world? To me, that's the easy way out. Better to work towards making reality what we need it to be, rather than pretend it's as we wish it could be.

What makes you think she was happy because she stupid? Maybe she felt happy because she being as productive as she could be, and was meeting those goals she had set for herself?

There's an employee at the Burger King near my work who I strongly suspect is mentally handicapped. He too is happy as clam. He's probably their best employee. He reads orders before each step in collecting and distributing them, always chats amiably with the coustomers, and I've never seen him standing still. When he's not putting together orders, he's mopping the floor, or tending the soda machines. Frankly, he works harder at his job than me and most people I've ever met. I don't think he's happy because he's dumb. I think he's happy because he legitimately takes pride in doing the best he can.

 

[Beady]

But being an adult is very much about facing the sometimes harsh realities of life. So far, we have not seen any evidence that people are able to communicate with us when they are dead. We do not help adults by lying to them.

So, what do you do when you see an adult talking to the tombstone of his dead loved one? Myself, I'll turn and walk away, as quietly as possible.

BTW, I live next door to a cemetery, and this scenario is a fairly common one for me.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

What makes you think she was happy because she stupid? Maybe she felt happy because she being as productive as she could be, and was meeting those goals she had set for herself?

...I don't think he's happy because he's dumb. I think he's happy because he legitimately takes pride in doing the best he can.

My thoughts exactly!

 

[CFLarsen]

So, what do you do when you see an adult talking to the tombstone of his dead loved one? Myself, I'll turn and walk away, as quietly as possible.

BTW, I live next door to a cemetery, and this scenario is a fairly common one for me.

I don't do anything. Why should I do anything?

 

[Stellafane]

What makes you think she was happy because she stupid? Maybe she felt happy because she being as productive as she could be, and was meeting those goals she had set for herself?

There's an employee at the Burger King near my work who I strongly suspect is mentally handicapped. He too is happy as clam. He's probably their best employee. He reads orders before each step in collecting and distributing them, always chats amiably with the coustomers, and I've never seen him standing still. When he's not putting together orders, he's mopping the floor, or tending the soda machines. Frankly, he works harder at his job than me and most people I've ever met. I don't think he's happy because he's dumb. I think he's happy because he legitimately takes pride in doing the best he can.

Well, every time she called someone "shorty" she got a huge kick out of it, laughing and smiling. She called my wife "shorty" several times, and each time exhibited a tremendous amount of obvious pleasure, much more than anyone else I know would have under those circumstances. Granted, I don't personally know this person, so I'm merely guessing. But I suspect if she were endowed with what we'd refer to as "normal" intelligence, she wouldn't have been nearly so delighted repeating such a simple joke over and over.

Perhaps you're right, perhaps her joy derived from a source other than her condition. I submit that neither of us knows for certain. However, does it really have much effect on my overall point: Would you prefer someone lives in a limited but happy world, or be as fully informed as possible and deal with reality as it comes?