Skepticism can lose friends...

[lionking]

Thanks for all the comments guys. In retrospect I probably went too far in questioning other's beliefs, but felt cornered by so many.....you know the fight or flight thing. I choose to fight. And yes probably came across as arrogant.

One thing that I didn't explain was that the conversation started out as a work topic as we are in the "training system" and knew the university supposedly training people in dowsing (if I find that this is factual I will let you all know).

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

"To thy own self be true." At least as much as possible without getting injured or losing your job.

Some years ago a cow-orker with whom I had worked for a fair time said to me, "Gord you are finally begining to make sense." I replied, "No Jim, you are finally begining to understand".

YMMV.

 

[articulett]

I try to avoid conversations on the topic, but when asked about if I believe in something or have I heard of (insert woo) or how do I account for (insert other woo)... I'll try to be vague... I might say I used to believe or I want to believe but insert some question that I have... (e.g. but I don't have any way of knowing if it's an illusion like--insert similar illusion). When asked if I believe in god, I will sometimes say beliefs are personal... or ask people "which one"? Or turn the question on them or ask, "why do you want to know". If they are promoting psychics, I'll suggest the MDC... as though I think the person could really win. I will pretend to be eager for the scientific proof to come in (clear pix of bigfoot--bigfoot DNA, skeletons, scat, etc.)

But I don't want to "play the game". I'm tired of pretending, but I don't want to be on the receiving end of the judgment and treated like a party pooper because I have a strong distaste for woo.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

This topic describes almost perfectly what has happened to me, and as I found out later, most skeptics have had experiences similar to mine. People feel threatened when the beliefs they base their whole lives around are challenged, even if all you are doing is asking open-ended questions. Many people, especially believers, do not know the difference between disagreement and a personal attack (and thus will use personal attacks to state their own disagreements). I'll repost what I said on "Ain't No God" a couple months ago:

~~~~~~~~

Basically, you guys were right about the interaction between skeptics and believers. Perhaps the two groups were never meant to get along. The reason I say this is because I've managed to lose a lot of friends recently. There is too large a rift between the way we think. People hear questions being asked, and they take it as a personal affront. People hear arguments being made, and they think logical argumentation is the same as a fight, i.e. an "argument" between spouses, say. People see a debate forming, and they think that a debate, instead of being an exchange of ideas between matched sides, is tantamount to calling the other side stupid.

Socrates believed that it is through constant questioning, debating, and opening up a dialogue with people of differing views, that one learns new things and comes to a better understanding of reality. So he went out and engaged the sophists of his time, the self-proclaimed experts on everything who were so certain of their convictions, and that their ways were right. He was not trying to prove that he was better than them; quite the contrary. He was setting out to prove that, despite the popular conception of his being the wisest man around, true wisdom is not something he actually possesses. He wanted to debunk the notion that he was the wisest around, so he sought out those who professed true wisdom. In doing so, he made a ton of enemies.

People will never like having their personal convictions and dogmatic assumptions challenged, even though that's precisely what skeptics do in order to seek the truth. It's human nature to resent being proven wrong, or being made a fool of in front of others. Religious institutions base their power on getting people to never question anything, and on never having to admit that they were ever wrong.

Most human beings are rash, intellectually lazy, and will always seek the simplest explanations for the things in their lives. They're content with their political correctness, and will lash out at anyone who shatters their security bubble. By asking simple questions, and making a few politically incorrect jokes (which in retrospect only another skeptic would probably understand) I have turned them all against me. I never lied to them, I have never held back anything, and I would have expected the same blunt honesty in return. But some people value loyalty and security over honesty.

Perhaps I was an idealistic fool to think that I could remain friends with people like that. I was so eager to make as many friends as I could that I never stopped to think about what kinds of people I was getting involved with. I thought I could help people understand my point of view. I was wrong. My "friends" saw me as an antagonist, and as such they were so ready to believe the worst about me and everything I said to them, that they blamed me for all their personal problems.

And later on I said:

What upset me the most was the fact that even that I was one of the most tolerant, liberal-minded, and pacific atheists around, I still got accused of being militant, fundamentalist, or shoving my beliefs down other people's throats. Yes I stated my views, spoke my mind, challenged erroneous conclusions, and attempted to clear up any misconceptions people may have had. However I never asked anyone to accept what I said at face value, I never tried to get anyone to abandon their faith, and I always explained the reasoning behind what I said.

~~~~~~~~

Sometimes yes, the things I hear people talking about are so ridiculous that I feel I just have to speak up. In my case, the discussion was about faith healing and how it can cure cancer. You do the math; people have died because of beliefs like this. But none of that mattered to them. Reactions I have gotten have ranged from people being offended, intimidated, and feeling outright threatened by me. I have been called arrogant, smug, self-righteous, intolerant, callous, you name it.


I've recently been thinking that it might be for the best if I only discussed topics of skepticism in front of people who are themselves skeptics or critical thinkers. I'm probably less likely to be misunderstood or to offend someone due to their being overly sensitive and taking everything the wrong way. It was with that in mind that I finally decided to join JREF. I'm not looking to make "friends," mind you, because I know now that "friends" will let you down, disappear, or slip away when life becomes complicated. I just want to be able to talk about the things that interest me.

 

[devnull]

SilentKnight: I recently started describing myself as an antitheist as opposed to an atheist (there is a subtle difference that I wont go into). My brother, who is usually quite a clear thinker, accused me of being a 'fundamentalist'.

You simply cant win.

 

[articulett]

Yes, faith needs other people of faith to prop up the faith. And skeptics want their ideas discussed and challenged because it's the best way to understand if we are seeing things clearly... it's the best way to understand the truth that is the same for everybody.

Faith relies on peoples' hurt feelings and defensiveness to avoid examination. I don't like supporting the stupidity and wonder if my silence is perceived as deference. There isn't a good answer it seems--you often lose either way. I tend to fade out and look for the punch bowl or the family pet when the conversation turns to woo.

 

[articulett]

SilentKnight: I recently started describing myself as an antitheist as opposed to an atheist (there is a subtle difference that I wont go into). My brother, who is usually quite a clear thinker, accused me of being a 'fundamentalist'.

You simply cant win.

Sometimes I'll say, "I don't understand how souls can be real, because brain damage can change people so utterly..." in that way I can reveal my lack of belief without using the "atheist" word that is guaranteed to get me accused of arrogance. But the truth is, you can't win. You are the bearer of a truth they don't want... and your lack of belief is seen as judgment on their belief.

Everyone seems to imagine themselves skeptical it seems. Real skeptics want their notions picked apart and examined for truth and validity. Faith says such things are "off limits".

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Basically, you guys were right about the interaction between skeptics and believers. Perhaps the two groups were never meant to get along. The reason I say this is because I've managed to lose a lot of friends recently.

And the reason I say that I don't believe in that "Perhaps both groups weren't meant to be along theory" is explained when you say that "You've managed to lose a lot of friends recently". There's the answer. YOU have managed to lose a lot of friends. YOU, not SKEPTICISCM. Not AGNOSTICISM. Not RELIGION. No. THEY are not living creatures. They don't have a will of their own. They (religion, skepticism, politics) are human concepts. They're extensions of the human mind and the human psychology. The humans who adopt different forms of thinking are the ones who ultimately decide their fate. It is completely erroneous and delusional in my opinion to blame ideologies for what happens in your life just because you attained that form of thought. YOU are the one who decides what the deal is going to be.

And yes, sometimes it is not you. Sometimes, it's SOMEONE else. Again, not Skepticism. Not Religion. No. SOMEONE else who didn't like your view and couldn't stop getting emotional. Do you get my point? I'm not trying to be rude or pedant. Just trying to show you how obvious the phenomena is. It's the human being's close mindedness and eternal tendency to marry their ideas that triggers the problem. Not the ideology itself.

People will never like having their personal convictions and dogmatic assumptions challenged, even though that's precisely what skeptics do in order to seek the truth. It's human nature to resent being proven wrong, or being made a fool of in front of others. Religious institutions base their power on getting people to never question anything, and on never having to admit that they were ever wrong.

Again you're only partially right. First: you're generalizing. There's no such thing as "people will never like having their personal convictions challenged". Sometimes, some of us are open enough to have our opinions criticized. It's not about liking or not liking. Sometimes you can develop a mind that is open enough as to not assume that you've got it all figured out. There are exceptions to the rule. Even if it is true that in essence each one of us always wants to be right, there is also a quest for the balance. Not in everyone of us, of course not. But you can't generalize and say that it's out of the question trying to have a discussion between two people with different ideas because they will never let go.

Most human beings are rash, intellectually lazy, and will always seek the simplest explanations for the things in their lives. They're content with their political correctness, and will lash out at anyone who shatters their security bubble. By asking simple questions, and making a few politically incorrect jokes (which in retrospect only another skeptic would probably understand) I have turned them all against me. I never lied to them, I have never held back anything, and I would have expected the same blunt honesty in return. But some people value loyalty and security over honesty.

I think that this "Most human beings are rash" speaks more of your personal experience with the majority of human beings you've dealt with and also it speaks of your general feeling that this have caused; as opposed to the actual majority of the human beings that live in this planet.

And the reason I think that is because I don't think that that's true. And the reason I don't think that that's true is because I've had a lot of experiences that contradict that statement.

I've recently been thinking that it might be for the best if I only discussed topics of skepticism in front of people who are themselves skeptics or critical thinkers. I'm probably less likely to be misunderstood or to offend someone due to their being overly sensitive and taking everything the wrong way. It was with that in mind that I finally decided to join JREF. I'm not looking to make "friends," mind you, because I know now that "friends" will let you down, disappear, or slip away when life becomes complicated. I just want to be able to talk about the things that interest me.

What's the use of that? That's an isolated world: Lets have skeptics only talk to other skeptics. Lets have Religious people only talk amongst them. Does that actually sound reasonable to you? What's the point of skeptics only talking amongst themselves? So they pat each other on the back and say "Hehe you're right buddy. I agree with you"? That's nothing but feeding on each other's arrogance. A true skeptic should always be open to the possibility of being wrong. And he should always be kind enough to explain his views to a believer whose vision of life is limited to what they have fed him. I totally and completely disagree with your picture here.

You seem to have grown convinced that love and friendship and all these great things that make us human, cannot exist while there are differences of opinion.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Sometimes I'll say, "I don't understand how souls can be real, because brain damage can change people so utterly..." in that way I can reveal my lack of belief without using the "atheist" word that is guaranteed to get me accused of arrogance. But the truth is, you can't win. You are the bearer of a truth they don't want... and your lack of belief is seen as judgment on their belief.

Everyone seems to imagine themselves skeptical it seems. Real skeptics want their notions picked apart and examined for truth and validity. Faith says such things are "off limits".

The only part I don't agree with is where you say "You are the bearer of a truth they don't want". In my opinion, thinking of oneself as a "bearer of truth" already has many flaws. I'm sorry if I bring this word again, but it is without a doubt an arrogant posture. Not only that, but it is also delussional. You should be able to accept that you could be wrong. Assuming that it's absolutely impossible that you couldn't be wrong is a barrier. The other problem is how the relationship is already affected before you ever said anything because of the perspective you've adopted: Basically you're assuming that you posses this truth and that "They don't want it". Therefore, you assume this posture of forgiving "these poor ignorant fellows who don't understand your truth". The problem with this posture is that there cannot be any kind of consensus when you are already convinced that it's you who is in possesion of the truth. Once you've assumed this, the rest falls appart from there. I think that even if you know with all your convinction that you are right and the other person is wrong; there are moments when you have to balance the priorities and ask yourself "what's more important? proving that I'm right or hurting this relationship?". Sometimes it actually isn't that important to reveal your truth.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

And yes, sometimes it is not you. Sometimes, it's SOMEONE else. Again, not Skepticism. Not Religion. No. SOMEONE else who didn't like your view and couldn't stop getting emotional. Do you get my point? I'm not trying to be rude or pedant. Just trying to show you how obvious the phenomena is. It's the human being's close mindedness and eternal tendency to marry their ideas that triggers the problem. Not the ideology itself.

Yes, I understand what you're saying. It's the people and what they do with their views, not the views themselves, that caused the problem. Keep in mind though that I was still pretty emotional when I was typing the post I quoted, and the context of my statements was that I was admitting that the contradiction to what I said previously might be true. So I know it comes across as a black and white view of things.

Again you're only partially right. First: you're generalizing. There's no such thing as "people will never like having their personal convictions challenged". Sometimes, some of us are open enough to have our opinions criticized. It's not about liking or not liking. Sometimes you can develop a mind that is open enough as to not assume that you've got it all figured out. There are exceptions to the rule. Even if it is true that in essence each one of us always wants to be right, there is also a quest for the balance. Not in everyone of us, of course not. But you can't generalize and say that it's out of the question trying to have a discussion between two people with different ideas because they will never let go.

Again, yes I know. I would have said the same exact thing you said if you were to have asked me at any time prior to that. It's more a matter of relating my own experiences with the worst case scenario, as you have probably figured. When you've run into enough closed-minded bigots, you tend to get extremely frustrated and disillusioned, which is how I was feeling when I originally said that.

I think that this "Most human beings are rash" speaks more of your personal experience with the majority of human beings you've dealt with and also it speaks of your general feeling that this have caused; as opposed to the actual majority of the human beings that live in this planet.

Yes.

What's the use of that? That's an isolated world: Lets have skeptics only talk to other skeptics. Lets have Religious people only talk amongst them. Does that actually sound reasonable to you? What's the point of skeptics only talking amongst themselves? So they pat each other on the back and say "Hehe you're right buddy. I agree with you"? That's nothing but feeding on each other's arrogance. A true skeptic should always be open to the possibility of being wrong. And he should always be kind enough to explain his views to a believer whose vision of life is limited to what they have fed him. I totally and completely disagree with your picture here.

I'm aware of the problems that would result from isolation, but I was talking more about what I feel would be best for me personally, judging by what happened. It was precisely because I had agreed with the sentiments you just expressed that I tried talking about these topics, many many times, with people of different beliefs. I was certainly ready to admit that I might be wrong if they could show me the evidence, or counter my points. The problem, apparently, was that they maybe weren't intelligent, informed, or mature enough to deal with me; the response I got was to be insulted repeatedly and told to simply shut the **** up.

I had held on to the possibility that I might find someone who is open-minded enough to listen to me and carry on an intelligent discussion. I didn't say that I could not find people like this either, or that I'm not thankful that I have. However, it's also the case that because of the differences of opinion I described, I had been let down repeatedly and betrayed by people I once believed were my friends.

You seem to have grown convinced that love and friendship and all these great things that make us human, cannot exist while there are differences of opinion.

Well, the overly cynical tone of my post might have made it seem that way. To be honest, I have been trying to avoid falling completely into the mire of belief that all interaction between people of differing views is pointless, or that there's something wrong with me that caused me to completely blow it as far as friendships go. Maybe it's just taking me a while to get over the shock of discovering just how many people there are who will so blatantly misunderstand me.

I suppose a better way to put it would be that I'm adopting a more cautious approach. I'm very reluctant to start referring to anyone as a "friend" right now. Perhaps in time this will change.

 

[articulett]

Is randi arrogant? That's what I mean about being a bearer of truth they don't want.

Faith crumbles when scrutinized.

 

[PBTree]

Do you have any sort of proof these conversations at this party actually took place and you weren't just making up this scenario to try to prove a point or make a statement?

After all, the cookie crumbles both ways. Skeptics should be able to provide evidence for their claims the same as those who believe.

+

EVIDENCE, hmm. I have to stop reading mayday's posts. I keep falling off my chair.

+

If someone is talking woo, all you have to say is, "what a lot of bs" and then smilingly walk off. 90% of the time, they can't help themselves and they will want to prove their point by saying more. If they do start trying to prove their point (don't want to be embarrassed in front of their friends), then you just repeat the statement and the action.

Eventually they become the attacker by saying things such as "prove its bs", which puts you in just the right spot to counter attack with calm and rational statements. Nobody thinks you are the bully because you were prepared to let it rest but X decided to push it.

You are then able to espouse all of the proof you like. Works most times.

I still get invites.

 

[Whiplash]

Sorry. It's a joke. A sort of standing joke on this forum which originated in the politics thread. Frequently, when someone would post something even slightly critical of the United States, the response would be a diatribe on how that person hated America; it became so frequent and such a blatant fallacy, that it became a joke.

Actually, there is alot of truth to the hatred of America by people who mostly are far leftists. It's patently obvious by the things they say and attitudes they hold, and the ongoing ridicule of it is actually partial proof of it's validity.

People who aren't bothered by something just think "WTF?" and move on. It doesn't bother them. When people go out of their way to keep bringing back an allegation and belittle and attempt to invalidate it over and over again.. you know that it hit a little too close to home and they feel a need fight it. This is completely psychologically valid. It's like it haunts some of you, the way you continuously go back to ridiclue it.

It's like.. Say you you know someone that you said something negative about.. like he talks too much.. And then for months, any chance he gets he will shoot off some line about it, showing it still bothered him. Like he'll be sitting quietly in a corner for a while, someone asks his opinion, and he'll say "Oh, was I talking too much?" or "I'm sorry, I was trying not to speak too much since it bothers you all so much" or some other defensively based attack.

Every time I see someone make fun of the "Why do you hate America" line, I instantly see it as someone who was offended by that attack and feels a deeply rooted need to attack it and ridicule it in order to invalidate it.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I'm aware of the problems that would result from isolation, but I was talking more about what I feel would be best for me personally, judging by what happened. It was precisely because I had agreed with the sentiments you just expressed that I tried talking about these topics, many many times, with people of different beliefs. I was certainly ready to admit that I might be wrong if they could show me the evidence, or counter my points. The problem, apparently, was that they maybe weren't intelligent, informed, or mature enough to deal with me; the response I got was to be insulted repeatedly and told to simply shut the **** up.

I had held on to the possibility that I might find someone who is open-minded enough to listen to me and carry on an intelligent discussion. I didn't say that I could not find people like this either, or that I'm not thankful that I have. However, it's also the case that because of the differences of opinion I described, I had been let down repeatedly and betrayed by people I once believed were my friends.

Well then my theories were true

Don't worry, I know how it must feel cause sometimes it happens to me.

For example: My hometown Venezuela is easily one of the most dangerous cities in the world. I was raised with a very cautious philosphy and also I have had a couple unpleasant encounters with mugglers. So in my group of friends, I'm always the "paranoid" guy telling them not to park here, not to go to that area, not to walk over there.... because I know the dangers. Infinite number of times it has happened that my friends say "hey, there's this party at this guy's house" and I say "Oh cool. Where is it?" "San Bernardino" they say. That's where I'll ask "Is there a private parking lot there?" and usually they'll say "No. You have to park on the street". From there, the argument becomes annoyingly predictable. I repeat to them that I'm not going to park my car on the street on that area, they reply with a typical "Aw come on, don't be so uptight" kind of attitude and it's up to me to not make a big deal and not get upset with them. Because the truth is, whether it's true or not and whether I'm right or not, I will end up looking like the paranoid uptight guy. And you know what I realize? If I really didn't care at all that I look like the uptight guy, it wouldn't make a difference. That concern really starts with me. I'm the one getting all self conscious and saying "Oh great. Now I'm looking like the paranoid uptight guy". So it's really an internal process of trying not to care. People are still going to have wrong impressions of you.

So I have decided that despite all that, I'm not gonna let that get between me and my friends.

But I have also noticed that there are also other friends of mine who respect that. They simply won't argue. If I tell them "Look, I don't wanna park there because it's dangerous" they will just understand and respect my decision.

So we must keep in mind that there are many different kinds of friendships. You notice this also because you realize that there are some friends with whom you get more intimate, meaning you sometimes discuss very personal topics... and there are friends who are close and you've known them for a very long time, yet there still seems to be a tiny invisible barrier. It's like, you're not there all the way. There's still some "Political Correctness".

Well, the overly cynical tone of my post might have made it seem that way. To be honest, I have been trying to avoid falling completely into the mire of belief that all interaction between people of differing views is pointless, or that there's something wrong with me that caused me to completely blow it as far as friendships go. Maybe it's just taking me a while to get over the shock of discovering just how many people there are who will so blatantly misunderstand me.

I suppose a better way to put it would be that I'm adopting a more cautious approach. I'm very reluctant to start referring to anyone as a "friend" right now. Perhaps in time this will change.

Be careful of "cautious approaches". I don't mean to sound like a therapist, but sometimes "cautious approaches" regarding friendships, only reflect a tendency to become self-protective. I think that we must find a balance between choosing our friendships, but still opening ourselves to everyone. And of course, referring to anyone as "friend" is a subjective thing. Technically you can call "friend" anyone you don't have any conflicts with. You can even simpatize with the person to a great degree. That doesn't mean that you have to "give yourself in".

But I agree the lines are easily fuzzed.

My apologies if I sounded a little bit harsh on my previous reply.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Is randi arrogant? That's what I mean about being a bearer of truth they don't want.

Faith crumbles when scrutinized.

I'm sorry, I misunderstood then. If you were giving a quote about something Randi said whithin a context, then I guess that might be different.

What doesn't change is this: In an argument you hold a position and the other person holds a different position. If from the very beggining, you see yourself as the bearer of the truth, and you see the other person as the ignorant one who doesn't want to see your truth.... well... that to me starts to stink a little bit of arrogance. In my opinion, that's a case that needs a little bit of washing. It needs to reset itself back to a ground-zero-ish more humble, open minded position.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

But I agree the lines are easily fuzzed.

My apologies if I sounded a little bit harsh on my previous reply.

It's okay. I respect you a lot more for being honest and upfront with me, as opposed to someone who would suck up disingenuously, or avoid the issue altogether in order to avoid offending me. Speaking of which, there are really only two ways to offend me, which are to state something incredibly ignorant / stupid as though it's absolute truth, or to lie to my face. That's it. Anything else, I would probably find humorous.

So we must keep in mind that there are many different kinds of friendships. You notice this also because you realize that there are some friends with whom you get more intimate, meaning you sometimes discuss very personal topics... and there are friends who are close and you've known them for a very long time, yet there still seems to be a tiny invisible barrier. It's like, you're not there all the way. There's still some "Political Correctness".

I know. In the case of what I was describing, unfortunately, I still hadn't really gotten to know them that well, and I suspect this was part of the reason why I triggered a xenophobic reaction in them. I was still an 'outsider' and therefore expendable. However, to pretend that I was anything I was not, or to act stupid (for lack of a better term) simply to fit in, would have been tantamount to dishonesty on my part. I presented my outspoken views from the start, and I had hoped they would show me the same honesty in return. Obviously this did not happen.

Be careful of "cautious approaches". I don't mean to sound like a therapist, but sometimes "cautious approaches" regarding friendships, only reflect a tendency to become self-protective. I think that we must find a balance between choosing our friendships, but still opening ourselves to everyone. And of course, referring to anyone as "friend" is a subjective thing. Technically you can call "friend" anyone you don't have any conflicts with. You can even simpatize with the person to a great degree. That doesn't mean that you have to "give yourself in".

True, for me this is more about finding a balance between the two. Again, I can only speak for myself, but at this point I'm more interested in making acquaintances than "friends." I'm looking for people with whom I can talk about anything - any subject no matter how controversial, and who will be completely honest with me in return.

 

[-Fran-]

What doesn't change is this: In an argument you hold a position and the other person holds a different position. If from the very beggining, you see yourself as the bearer of the truth, and you see the other person as the ignorant one who doesn't want to see your truth.... well... that to me starts to stink a little bit of arrogance. In my opinion, that's a case that needs a little bit of washing. It needs to reset itself back to a ground-zero-ish more humble, open minded position.

But sometimes that is actually the true situation, sometimes you are actually the bearer of truth about a given subject, and sometimes the other person really are ignorant, and just don't want the truth even if it hits him between the eyes.

I see your point, and of course I don't think you should be arrogant about it. But there are quite many things for which different opinions about it are not all of the same value. I can, in fact, know with a great deal of certainty that I am right about some things and that the other person simply is ignorant about certain things. That does not automatically mean in itself that I am arrogant if I point out what I do know, if the subject is brought up. Sure it can be done in an arrogant way, but the way you phrase things here it sounds as if being right, and being sure about that you are right is an arrogant thing in itself. I don't think that it necessarily is so. And you don't always have to be open and respectful to absolutely everything people say; some things they are saying are in fact only nonsense.

(The same goes for the other way around of course. I have been corrected about things I thought I knew many times, and sure it can be embarrassing, but why would I defend it at any price? That would make me look even more stupid. And some people that corrected me, yes I did percieve as a bit arrogant, but others did not seem arrogant in the least to me. They just knew something I didn't and corrected me when I said something wrong. And I realized that I could not hold a position on it, or have a different opinion about it, because I was simply wrong about it, and that's that.)

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
So how do you all respond to such ignorant superstition in a social environment, particularly with work colleagues?

One way is to ask questions instead of stating facts, like if dowsing is so successful, why don't more people use it? Or make statements like, I understand they've done studies to test dowsing and the studies showed pretty clearly it didn't work.

And then use my highly recommended approach, consider your goal is the 5 year plan. Don't expect instant results. Assume it will take a few years.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

With physicians I know have more education and skills than I, but are wrong on something I do know more about than they do, I never argue, I provide a copy of the research or the practice standard.

 

[arthwollipot]

The management group of my company had a Christmas Party yesterday.

See, this is why I avoid work christmas parties. Like the plague.

Hey, I have to spend a third of my life in the company of these losers. Why would I want to spend my social time with them as well? In my experience, all but one or two people at any given workplace are people I wouldn't want to hang out with.