• 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.

Skeptics ignore real world issues?

McCragge

Scholar
M
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
60
Hey everyone, I have written on here a few times, mostly asking for help with were to look for references and what not. And I have to say you guys have always been very helpful.

I run my own forum mostly based on Miniature wargaming, however we have an off topic section where we talk about practically anything.

However, I recently posted a topic about the Sylvia Browne's 2006 predictions. And there has been some debate about the author of the article (the same one as linked to in the Swift) and whether he got his facts straight and what not. That really isn't that big of a concern, however this little bit was mentioned, I am not sure how to respond to it:

"On a slightly different note, I wish that folks like Smug Baldy would turn their skeptical gaze upon more pressing matters of general interest to the nation, if not the world. Where were all the super clever skeptics when we were being told that Saddam Hussien was connected to Al Queada? Where were they and their amazing fact finding skills when half the politicians were claiming that social security was going to go bankrupt and the other half said it was just fine? Surely that would have been an easy enough thing to verify.

In another thread here in Off Topic, everyone seemed to agree that the US government (as well as governments in general) lie to their citizens. If these oh-so-clever skeptics want to do some good then why don't they check up on some of the BS coming out of Washington DC? It would be nice if these supreme beings of skeptical analysis took on the real fraud artists that effect all our lives. Instead they content themselves with artless debunkings of goofball psychics which most people don't believe anyway, all the while slapping themselves on the backs about their own deductive powers."

You can read the full post here: http://easternfringe.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3058

Now he makes some interesting points, but are they valid, can they be disproved or verified and if so how and where?

Thanks
McCragge
 
That's moronic. Plenty of people said that Saddam probably wasn't connected to Al Quaeda, but the US attacked anyway.
 
Well, people here aren't going to post about current affairs because that's not what the forum's about. It's like going to a video games forum and complaining that they only ever talk about video games. I'm not going to post about other stuff that I'm doing in my life, because that's not what this forum is about.
 
Have you been to the politics subforum?

Skeptics are as interested in "real-world" issues as anyone else. The problem is that political issues are both very complicated and subject to personal interest. There's so much spin out there that sometimes it's hard to separate the spin from the facts, particularly when your own biases get in the way.

Hopefully skepticism can help one to do this, but it isn't a gaurantee.
 
Did I post this in the wrong subforum? If so, I apologize, I figured since the main subject was about Sylvia Browne this was the more important subsection. Perhaps a moderator can move it to the appropriate place. I wouldn't want to offend anyone.

I am going to go ahead and repost this in the political forum, so just ignore this thread.

Thanks.

McCragge
 
Last edited:
McCragge, don't worry, this is the right forum for the topic. People simply pointed out that skeptics are also interested in international politics.

McCragge said:
"On a slightly different note, I wish that folks like Smug Baldy would turn their skeptical gaze upon more pressing matters of general interest to the nation, if not the world. Where were all the super clever skeptics when we were being told that Saddam Hussien was connected to Al Queada? Where were they and their amazing fact finding skills when half the politicians were claiming that social security was going to go bankrupt and the other half said it was just fine? Surely that would have been an easy enough thing to verify.
Click to expand...

Does this guy expect Randi to have offered a million dollars to Bush to prove that Al Qaeda and Hussein was connected? Ask him to describe the protocol that could be used in such a test. After that, ask him what drugs he's on.

That said, his central point probably concerns the fact that people have different interests/concerns, and he considers it wrong somehow to have interests/concerns that are, in his opinion, less important than other interests/concerns. The point is retarded, to be blunt. Ask him why he likes computer games, instead of being out there saving the world.

ETA: We all have our different talents. At least the professional skeptics are using the skills they have to improve the world. If he denies that Randi has done any good, mention Peter Popoff or James 'My whole idea behind this was to see how dumb America was' Hydrick or some of the other con-artists that he have exposed over the years.
 
Last edited:
If you don't believe people on this forum called B.S. on Bush's claims about Saddam back in 03 then just do a search in the political forum from that time and you'll see plenty of examples.
 
Hey McCraig,

Actually, I think this subforum was a better choise. I just thought that if you saw the arguments that go on over political issues in the politics subforum, you'd see that skeptics don't ignore "real-world issues". The problem isn't that we ignore them - it's that they're just much more complex and difficult to resolve than whether or not sylvia can see the future.
 
McCragge said:
Now he makes some interesting points, but are they valid, can they be disproved or verified and if so how and where?
Click to expand...

I think there are a few things worth noting:

  • CSICOP has changed its name to CSI largely because they realised that many of the topics Skeptics engage in on a regular basis are outside "Claims Of the Paranormal". That Skeptics have been involved in politics since inception is well-recognized. Examples of political action is the ongoing battle with Creation Science / Intelligent Design advocates and the general policing of the First Amendment. Basically, organized Skepticism *is* an attempt to convert philosophy into real-world change.
  • Skepticism promotes critical thinking, which is a key tool for an educated public. The same skills that debunk Browne can debunk political claims. We promote the tools, not necessarily the outcomes.
  • Media analysis is a key component of Skepticism. It is, in fact, one of the founding purposes of CSICOP. BCSkeptics puts the Saddam-al-Queda link in the same category as other political hoaxes such as the Mau Mau in Kenya and the Protcols of Zion.
  • As pointed out, Skeptics have been very active in debunking the Saddam-al Queda link. But when a newsroom wants an alternate political view, they don't pick up the phone and dial James Randi: they call a political apparatchik, and that's what the public will see... if the owner of the network wants that view presented at all. So, the question isn't "Why don't Skeptics investigate this stuff?" - we do. The question is: "Why don't Skeptics get media time so the world can hear these critiques of common knowledge?" A question for the media, not one for skeptics. When he finds out, could you get him to call us, please?
  • From a cynical point of view, is politics even "the real world" these days? (When the front-page news about California politics is about Arnold Schwartzenneggar's love handles) Skeptics like Tom Fenton point out that while al Queda trials were underway for the bombing of the WTC, there was no public interest at all: everybody wanted to watch the play-by-play for the OJ trial. Politics and Entertainment are very blurry these days. People think Larry King has a news program. Browne and her peers have bilked the public out of billions of dollars and have caused widespread suffering. In my specialty - healthfraud - there are estimates of thousands of unnecessary deaths every year. I consider this "real world".

Finally, as mentioned by others: there is such a think as sticking to your scope of competence. Skeptics are disproportionately recruited from scientists, and science is a profession of respecting expertise and its implied narrow competence. The Creation Science people are debunked by biologists and geologists who understand the material.The Sylvia Brownes of the world are being debunked by magicians who do these tricks themselves (*as* tricks). Question: what does a political 'expert' look like? Answer: a political hack on a talking heads show, or the author of a book. Is he saying he thinks these things don't exist re: Bush critique?
 
McCragge said:
Now he makes some interesting points, but are they valid, can they be disproved or verified and if so how and where?
Click to expand...

Another example that comes to mind was the Skeptics interest in Afghanistan in the mid-1990s when the Taliban came to power: they established a theocracy, which Skeptics universally hate, and it was Skeptics who were frustrated by the public and government's lack of concern.

I recall photos of atheists (teachers caught explaining evolutionary biology) hanging by the neck from construction cranes in Kabul around 1997, and my friends just responding with shoulder-shrugs. It was a long way away, and had nothing to do with us. The "real world" news was that Diana had died in a car accident, OJ was not guilty, and JonBenet Ramsey was dead under mysterious circumstances. Why, my friends asked, was I focused on this obscure "al Queda", "bin Laden", and "Taleban" Skeptical fru-fru?
 
McCragge said:
"On a slightly different note, I wish that folks like Smug Baldy would turn their skeptical gaze upon more pressing matters of general interest to the nation, if not the world. Where were all the super clever skeptics when we were being told that Saddam Hussien was connected to Al Queada? Where were they and their amazing fact finding skills when half the politicians were claiming that social security was going to go bankrupt and the other half said it was just fine? Surely that would have been an easy enough thing to verify. ..."

Now he makes some interesting points, but are they valid, can they be disproved or verified and if so how and where?

Thanks
McCragge
Click to expand...
When it comes to social issues, "facts" are hard to know and tests (experiments) near impossible to carry out.

For example, did Al Qaeda have high-level talks with Iraq, and what would it mean? After all, we have high-level contact with North Korea and we are not plotting with them. Rational thinkers have observed that it would not have made sense for Saddam H. to help people who would like to see him replaced by a mullah.

How can I verify the claim that meetings even took place? I have to rely on the honesty of whoever makes that claim; and bear in mind that an honest person can be misinformed and a dishonest person can manufacture all sorts of "evidence."

As for the demise of Social Security, someone famously said predictions are hard to make- especially about the future. First, it depends on what the definition of "demise" is. Right now, SS is taking in more money than it is spending, and the excess is in US bonds. Some people use the expected date when the outgo exceeds the income as "demise," others use the expected date when all the bonds have been cashed as the "demise." All of the prognosticators ignore the facts that the economy may change, and the system can be revamped any time Congress wants to. So, there is no firm conclusion to draw; and many of us in this forum prefer facts to speculation.

Finally, McCragge, there are many skeptics on social issues; I understand there is such a forum here, although I think this is the right place to raise the question because I think it was brought up out of context at your site. The correspondent who raised the issue should realize that people have varied expertise. That correspondent might as well go to a forum on Social Security and ask why they don't address medical quackery.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom