At what point does Skepticism become cruel?

[aggle-rithm]

I think it would be extremely inapropriate to say anything in that case. I myself have talked to my mother's tombstone. I know no one is there and she doesn't hear me. It's just a tool to focus my thoughts on her. It seems to me it would be hard to tell the difference between that and someone who really believes they are being heard. And I think it would be rude and presumptuous to jump in and say something.

But I think I understand the urge to do so. I think such delusions are sad, but I can't imagine trying to correct someone on them.


Argh! Rasmus beat me to this thought! Sorry for not reading to the end before posting.

On the TV show "Monk" he was at his wife's grave, playing the clarinet. His assistant approached and said, "I'm sure she could hear you."

His reply: "I don't see how. She's been dead for four years."

 

[Axenos]

On the TV show "Monk" he was at his wife's grave, playing the clarinet. His assistant approached and said, "I'm sure she could hear you."

His reply: "I don't see how. She's been dead for four years."

The opposite of that would be what I originally meant.

Hardcore skeptic walks up to person playing clarinet and says " You know, since she's been dead for four years, there is no way that she could hear you."

Now most people would know (or believe) that is true, but some people cannot quite make that connection, for whatever reason. These are the ones that I feel it would be "cruel" or at the very least mean to enlighten.

Now if Joe Woo is sitting there saying that he could "talk" to the departed, then of course I would kick Joe Woo square out of the area...

Axe

 

[Kelly]

Hi Axenos. If I understand your point correctly, it's a modified form of the "what's the harm?" argument: Why not let the "poor simpletons" believe that psychics are real, if it makes them feel better and doesn't cost them any money? If so, it's an argument for which I have very little sympathy. To see why, I suggest you read the "Psychics and missing people" thread in this forum, if you haven't already. As you'll see, in many cases these self-proclaimed psychics (Carla Baron, for instance) offer free assistance to find missing people. But the fact that they don't charge money in no way mitigates or excuses the damage they cause to the families of the missing: emotional trauma, time wasted by police following false leads, divisiveness between friends and family members, casting guilt on the innocent, and so on. Sure, they sometimes make the victims' families feel better (at least temporarily). But it's a false, and untimately cruel hope.

It appears Stellafane already answered quite well, at least in regards to the missing person issue as an example of the harm caused.

For the record, I always try to explain the reasons to other families of the missing at to why they should not use psychics regardless of my perception of their level of intelligence.

From my own perspective as the mother of a missing person, I want the truth, no matter how horrible. I don't want lies and false hope. I've spent 5 years being jerked around emotionally because of these people and also due to the general nature of this situation. (investigation ups and downs, false sightings, etc)

 

[Luke T.]

Being tactless with the truth does not win friends or influence people.

And that's a truth that some skeptics seem to be simpletons about.

 

[Luke T.]

Tactless, "Your dead wife can't hear you."

Tact, "Do you think your dead wife can hear you?", but probably most of the time, saying nothing at all.

Skeptics could use a little more empathy. Try to imagine how a person who believes their dead wife can hear them is going to feel toward someone who bluntly states their wife can't hear them.

"Oh! Thanks! I so want to be a skeptic now!"

Yeah. Right.

 

[Yahzi]

If someone will never understand the difference, is it up to us to destroy "peace of mind"?

If their peace of mind were never to have any effect on us, then no.

But that's not the case.

People don't hold just one woo idea; they hold to woo processes, which produce woo ideas. And they tend to use those processes in other areas... like the voting booth.

I"m all for live and let live. But I can't tell you how many times people say to me, "How does religion harm you?"

Closing your eyes to the staggering cost of woo around the world and through history does not strike me as a logical argument.

Edit to add: Come to think of it, I completely agree with Axenos. There are an entire class of people whose woo beliefs I do not challenge. That class is comprised solely of people I do not think will ever be able to understand, or who are too emotionally fragile to cope.

But that's a small group of people.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Tactless, "Your dead wife can't hear you."

Tact, "Do you think your dead wife can hear you?", but probably most of the time, saying nothing at all.

Skeptics could use a little more empathy. Try to imagine how a person who believes their dead wife can hear them is going to feel toward someone who bluntly states their wife can't hear them.

"Oh! Thanks! I so want to be a skeptic now!"

Yeah. Right.

Exactly. It comes down to your level of moral reasoning. Truth is good, lies are bad is very simplistic, almost childish. A more advanced form of reasoning is placing yourself in the shoes of everyone who your actions will affect. That goes for both woos AND sceptics.

Edited for spelling.

 

[Axenos]

The odd thing about this thread so far is what I like to call the "conversational singularity". People will grab a hold of one sentence, which by itself holds no relation to the context when taken alone.

Yahzi grabs one sentence and formulates a reply based on just that sentence, not on the whole body of discussion... I am not singling Yahzi out, just pointing to an example...

"Closing your eyes to the staggering cost of woo around the world and through history does not strike me as a logical argument." I am not doing that at all, I am merely pointing out that there may be instances when spouting skeptical beliefs may not be a tactful or pleasant thing to do.

To KellyJ: I responded soon after saying that I did not consider that portion in my original thread, and do not agree with "psychics" giving a false hope in missing person cases at all. Perhaps you did not see that... and also, considering your posts that I have read before, I would certainly not put you in the range of the people that I am referring to, those that cannot understand a logical argument.

Regards,

Axe

 

[Rasmus]

The opposite of that would be what I originally meant.

Hardcore skeptic walks up to person playing clarinet and says " You know, since she's been dead for four years, there is no way that she could hear you."

That much the same as approaching a person in a supermarket and announcing to them that the 1006th decimal digit of pi is 2 - only a lot more tactless.

Now most people would know (or believe) that is true, but some people cannot quite make that connection, for whatever reason. These are the ones that I feel it would be "cruel" or at the very least mean to enlighten.

Why?

Why is it "cruel" in a way that implies that it shouldn't be done? Is it "cruel" if a doctor tells a man that his wife didn't survive surgery? I think not, no matter how cruel the described reality of the woman's death may be.

Reality is cruel, but it is not cruel to acknowledge that. And my gut reaction here is, that if I start looking at truths that I should shut up about because they might cause discomfort to some, then I might as well denounce any form of enlightenment, knowledge or education.

There might be certain ways and specific times where it would be unwise, hurtful or just plain tactless and inconsiderate to announce certain truths - but I find t hard to believe that anyone would really be better off not knowing the truth. Happier, maybe - but I do not put that much value in a person's happiness as I put in their well-being. I think you can be better off being unhappy.

“Was and will make me ill,
I take a gram and only am."

Rasmus.

 

[Dogdoctor]

Some people have little affiliation to truth and prefer to pass their lives in a world made up by their own minds. There is no need to intrude on their imaginary world as long as it stays with them. Once they start passing out their imaginary beliefs then it isn't only their imaginary world involved. The situation of 2 astrology believers telling each other imaginary things about themselves doesn't really require any response but if they are passing it out to undecided or uninformed individuals it would be prudent to point out that it's a bunch of imaginary crap so that they don't become sucked into the belief and do stupid things based on astrology.

 

[Kaarjuus]

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've always had trouble comprehending why us becoming spacefaring would be beneficial for our survival. Do they think that humans will be more likely to survive in space, in artificial habitats? Or is this some sort of avoiding the "all the eggs in one basket" situation in case we somehow manage to screw up the planet to such a degree that it becomes uninhabitable? I think that if that ever happens, the artificial habitats in space and on Moon/Mars/wherever are doomed to fail if they have to support themselves without the resources of Earth.

 

[Rasmus]

Or is this some sort of avoiding the "all the eggs in one basket" situation in case we somehow manage to screw up the planet to such a degree that it becomes uninhabitable?

I think that is the general idea, and I am fairly certain that it is bound to happen one way or another. It might be our fault, or some nasty virus, a meteor, ... but eventually, this planet will no longer sustain life. Eventually, the earth will be consumed by the sun; surviving that should be rather difficult lest you do it somewhere else.

I think that if that ever happens, the artificial habitats in space and on Moon/Mars/wherever are doomed to fail if they have to support themselves without the resources of Earth.

I agree for the foreseeable future. But it is possible that the virus dies out, the meteor calms down, etc. so that after a while the planet can be used again or harvested for resources.

Personally, I am not so sure that mankind has an intrinsic value that suggests we should try to let the species survive. Individuals, yes! But what good is it to me, or anyone on earth, if people on Mars survive? Sure, it'll be good for those on Mars, but that seems to be a different point entirely.

 

[Beady]

There might be certain ways and specific times where it would be unwise, hurtful or just plain tactless and inconsiderate to announce certain truths - but I find t hard to believe that anyone would really be better off not knowing the truth.

It may well be that the "but" in that is the precise reason why you may not be qualified to tell those truths that someone most needs to hear. If you can't believe that occasions exist where someone would be better off not knowing the truth, then it does not stand to reason that you can recognize the difference between those times when you should and shouldn't say something.

 

[Beady]

Hey! How did #s 71 and 72 get into this thread?

 

[c0rbin]

Right on, LukeT.

One can be made aware of an error and probably be thankful for it with a little tact-fu.

 

[CFLarsen]

It's a conspiracy. I blame the Illuminati.

 

[kitakaze]

snip...But what good is it to me, or anyone on earth, if people on Mars survive? Sure, it'll be good for those on Mars, but that seems to be a different point entirely.

Pfft. Those Martian guys... always so smug.'Our pyramids are bigger then your pyramids'... oooh, yipee.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Which I covered in this sentence: "If someone is using "psychic" or other info purely for monetary gain, and to bilk the unwise, then by all means, expose them for what they are. I am a cynic by nature."

The person is being bilked for money for a supposed "better" sound.

Axe

So (to somewhat rephrase CFL), it is OK to cheat people IF they don't find out, AND IF you don't make money?

I would say that it is never OK to cheat people, unless it is really for their own good, but who can be the judge of that?

Hans

 

[Ashles]

I think a major problem here is the question of why paranormal beliefs exist at all.

Are not the vast majority of paranormal beliefs comforting by their very nature?
Even scary or unpleasant beliefs like ghosts are desirable in some ways because they would imply that existence continues in some form beyond death.

It is desirable and/or exciting to believe in life after death, untapped ability of the mind, amazing abilities, alien visitations etc.

In my opinion (and experience) pretty much any attempt to disabuse anyone of a paranormal belief they have will have an undesirable aspect to it from that person.

If someone tells you they believe in something paranormal and you act sceptical towards it, it is almost certain to be an undesirable response as far as they are concerned.

There are different ways of pointing out to someone alternative explanations for paranormal phenomena - some are more positive than others.

But by its very nature a sceptical viewpoint is often opposed to certain self-delusions that make people happier at least in the short-term.
The question is whether they will be happier in the long term from knowing all the facts (or at least other possible explanations).

I personally think that everyone should be exposed to as much information as possible to make up their own minds.
Also just because someone has a strong belief about something doesn't mean that I should not be allowed to also express my strong different belief on the subject.
But without forcing it down people's throats.

I am generally far more likely to find out that someone believes in God before they find out that I am an atheist.
The sceptic position unfortunately tends to be a responsive position by its nature which gives it rather an antagonistic reputation.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Isn't it more cruel to assume that the person playing clarinet in the graveyard thinks that the dead person can hear? Why can't they just be playing for themselves?