• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Turning skeptics into believers

T'ai Chi said:
Which raises the question of how to we know that other people claiming to be skeptics aren't really skeptics?
Click to expand...

How do you suggest we distinguish between those that are skeptics and those that claim to be skeptics, but are not?

Offer some solutions, instead of vapid brain malfunctions.

T'ai Chi said:
Or does the word skeptic only mean that one is skeptical in at least one area (and not 'I follow the lines that organized skeptical organizations do')? That would clear up the descrepancy.
Click to expand...

You keep referring to "organized skeptical organizations", but you have never defined what they are.

Why don't you open a thread to explain what you mean?
 
There are neither true scotsmen nor true skeptics, and we need not be saddened over that fact.

Is a scientist who performs legitimate experiments in the lab but who waits eagerly for Matreiyah's coming not a scientist?

I am a skeptic, but I have biases. Sometimes they get the best of me.

I am an honest man, but I have told lies.

I am a compassionate man, but I have been cruel.

No purpose is served in treating Skeptic as a label of absolutes.

Little of substance is gained by determining where in that gray area of thought and behavior one becomes a Skeptic or falters and becomes a Woo.

"Skeptic" has value only when used as an adjective: Are you thinking skeptically in this instance?
 
Ashles said:
Of course if Jackie Stewart really wanted to convince sceptics then there is one sceptic in particular she might try contacting.

I believe he has a little challenge of some sort...

But I suspect that won't happen for some reason.
Click to expand...
Isn't it "skeptic," rather than "sceptic," which seems that it would be pronounced like the tank one flushes turds into? I ask becasue I have seen quite a few folks use that variant spelling. I don't understand where it comes from.

DR
 
NotJesus said:
"Skeptic" in cases like these doesn't really mean much of anything. It just means "people who didn't believe it until they did."
Click to expand...

Standard woo claim: "I was skeptical too until this happened." Considering how little it took to convince you, I'm betting you weren't. Not believing it isn't the same as being skeptical.

My other favorite is "I'm not saying it definitely was <insert woo here>, but I don't know what else it could have been." Besides being a weasley way to make a claim without really making one, it just screams that they didn't look very hard for "what else it could have been".
 
This is a poor argument without filling in the details. It is like saying some psychic society has been around for 100+ years, therefore that is strong evidence that psychic stuff is real.

I think it is better to focus on the merits of the experiments. Somehow work those into the argument.
 
T'ai Chi said:
This is a poor argument without filling in the details. It is like saying some psychic society has been around for 100+ years, therefore that is strong evidence that psychic stuff is real.

I think it is better to focus on the merits of the experiments. Somehow work those into the argument.
Click to expand...
While focusing on the experiments is a valid, and desired, tack, your initial analogy is wrong.

There is a fundamental difference between an entity that makes claims without evidence and an entity that rewards evidence to support claims, particularly when the first consciously avoids the second.
 
T'ai Chi said:
This is a poor argument without filling in the details. It is like saying some psychic society has been around for 100+ years, therefore that is strong evidence that psychic stuff is real.

I think it is better to focus on the merits of the experiments. Somehow work those into the argument.
Click to expand...

How do you suggest we distinguish between those that are skeptics and those that claim to be skeptics, but are not?

Offer some solutions, instead of vapid brain malfunctions.

You keep referring to "organized skeptical organizations", but you have never defined what they are.

Why don't you open a thread to explain what you mean?
 
A good example of this would be the new Sci-Fi show, 'Sci-Fi Investigates'. The resident "skeptic" on the team clearly does not represent modern skepticism and critical thinking, but rather was the guy who answered, "no," to all the questions asked about woo belief.
 
Tamazon said:
whaddya think, too harsh?
Click to expand...

Too long. Newspapers like letters to be as short and concise as possible. It will almost certainly be edited, if they post it at all.

I agree with the others that appealing to Randi's unclaimed prize is weak proof.

Steve S.
 
steve s said:
Too long. Newspapers like letters to be as short and concise as possible. It will almost certainly be edited, if they post it at all.

I agree with the others that appealing to Randi's unclaimed prize is weak proof.
Click to expand...

I actually don't even care if they print it so much as I just hope the editor will read it and force his reporter to do some more research before printing such nonsense as fact.

Don't know why I'm even bothering to write at all. Probably won't do much good. I just can't help myself. Lately, anything woo is bothering me to no end and I'm feeling this crazy urge to try and stop it. Or at least get 1 or 2 people to re-evalute things.

Should I leave out the challenge altogether? No one ever winning the money is actually a big part of what turned me into a skeptic in the first place. Not that I was ever woo.
 
I think it is possible for a non-believer who doesn't know the psychics' tricks to be fooled into becoming a believer. A non-believer simply does not believe, but a skeptic will be aware of the techiniques used by these psychic frauds and will not be easily fooled. Also, the skeptic can point out to others the methods the psychic is using. It isn't enough to just say "I don't believe", you've got to show people good reasons why you don't believe. Hopefully, they will understand your reasoning and stop believing themselves. Of course, there are always the hardcore believers who don't base their beliefs on evidence, but there are plenty of others out there who will listen.
 
There was an internet radio show on here a while ago, and one guest lived in an old manor house that was allegedly haunted. This place was rented out for nights to ghost hunter types and the guy was on the radio to chat about it. During the show, he mentioned an incident where a sceptic heard an odd sound during one night at the location. According to him, this sceptic left thinking that something had been trying to communicate with her.
It was at this point that I fell off my chair. You see, I am the sceptic he mentioned. I have no idea where he got this 'trying to communicate' thing from. Whatever is reported can be utter fabrication.
 
bjb said:
I think it is possible for a non-believer who doesn't know the psychics' tricks to be fooled into becoming a believer. A non-believer simply does not believe, but a skeptic will be aware of the techiniques used by these psychic frauds and will not be easily fooled.
Click to expand...

A slight nitpick (and by no means an effort to start yet another "true skeptic" thread), but a skeptic need not know what the techniques are that can be used to fool people, just be aware that people are very adept at being fooled as well as fooling themselves and that what appears to be may not be the case. The more outlandish the claim, the stronger the evidence will have to be to support it.

Also, the skeptic can point out to others the methods the psychic is using. It isn't enough to just say "I don't believe", you've got to show people good reasons why you don't believe.
Click to expand...

Technically, not having a good reason (ie sufficient evidence) to believe is a good reason not to believe.
 
tsg said:
Technically, not having a good reason (ie sufficient evidence) to believe is a good reason not to believe.
Click to expand...

You're right, of course. But the problem is the average person sees pretty much any evidence as being 'extraordinary'. Also, I'm thinking in terms of presenting a convincing arguement to an average non-skeptical person. For example, I see that James Randi debunks Uri Geller by duplicating all of his 'paranormal' acts through use of simple magician's tricks. Randi points out that it becomes difficult to say that Uri must have paranormal abilities when many others can perform the same feats without using paranormal forces. Providing an alternative explanation deflates the Arguement from Ignorance fallacy that is at the root of most paranormal beliefs ('science can't explain it, so this must be evidence of the paranormal').

Randi could have tried to debunk Geller by saying "But here isn't any extraordinary evidence to support Uri Geller", however, the average person is not going to respond to that arguement. They'll simply say, "But the spoon bends, scientists have studied him and say he's for real", and continue believing in Geller. Once again, Geller was able to fool paranormal researchers and this became 'extraordinary evidence', at least to his believers. Randi's methods are more entertaining and have a greater emotional impact. Carl Sagan seemed to promote the extraordinary evidence defense but that works best when you're preaching to the choir (other skeptics).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom