Is the "Amanda Knox" thread an example of bad skeptisism?

Status
Not open for further replies.
lionking said:
I don't think anyone's arguing that it is not a valid topic. It does in my opinion share characteristics with many topics in the Religion and CT sections, with entrenched positions and very little real discussion at all. As I said earlier, I don't think it's a high-water mark for skepticism, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a place here.
Click to expand...

I guess I can't help but think it's highly ironic that s_pepys has decided to criticize the skepticism of the Amanda Knox thread by creating a skeptical thread about it. I'd say this thread he/she has created is a pretty bad example of skepticism.

BTW, I'd argue that the AK thread is a pretty solid example of skeptical debate.

From the wiki page: Contemporary skepticism (or scepticism) is loosely used to denote any questioning attitude,[1] or some degree of doubt regarding claims that are elsewhere taken for granted.

A good deal of the debate in that thread is the appeal to authority argument versus critical scrutiny of the actual evidence, which I think fits the above definition rather well.
 
I have somewhat followed this case from the beginning and I would say that skepticism was definitely something I felt. But I was told..."no wait...you're just getting info from the American press and it's very biased toward innocence. There is very solid evidence and it will come out in the end." So I thought...OK...maybe there is more to it. I remained open-minded and reasoned that many arrested people are in fact guilty. Then the judge's motivation report came out and I read it. "Skeptical" doesn't even begin to describe how I feel now.
 
brenn said:
No - I've seen a little about it on TV and read a little about it. Seems to be the same old "I was convicted in a foreign country and my parents have enough money to complain publicly" type of case. I guess I am mainly interested in American law and Amanda Knox's case doesn't involve it.
Click to expand...


Well, it sounds like you're not interested, so I won't try to convince you to look further into it. My only comment at this time would be that learning about the way the law was carried out in this case has given many of us a much greater appreciation for American law.
 
Perhaps some of those that don't think skepticism is properly demonstrated in the Amanda Knox thread would like to show the rest of us how it's done.
 
Dan O. said:
Perhaps some of those that don't think skepticism is properly demonstrated in the Amanda Knox thread would like to show the rest of us how it's done.
Click to expand...

Seriously, what's the point? The two camps are completely entrenched. Nobody's listening to counter arguments. It's like any number of threads in the Religious section.
 
lionking said:
Seriously, what's the point? The two camps are completely entrenched. Nobody's listening to counter arguments. It's like any number of threads in the Religious section.
Click to expand...

The point of the thread is to examine and better understand the evidence, the trial, why Amanda and Rafaelle are behind bars, and if they will possibly be freed at some point. Both sides of the argument have learned various things that, did the thread not exist, would never have been revealed/understood. Just because there hasn't been a unanimous consensus of guilt or innocence should not downplay the amount of knowledge that has been gained by everyone on both sides - Contrary to what you think, not every point is disagreed upon.
 
Dan O. said:
Perhaps some of those that don't think skepticism is properly demonstrated in the Amanda Knox thread would like to show the rest of us how it's done.
Click to expand...

I don't know if the thread has been "proper sketpicism" or not. Actually it's impossible for me to know unless I devote a week to re-reading it to present. Maybe the principles on each side should sum up the previous 17,000,000 posts focusing on what each side has at least agreed on, and what remains outstanding.
 
Dragoonster said:
I don't know if the thread has been "proper sketpicism" or not. Actually it's impossible for me to know unless I devote a week to re-reading it to present. Maybe the principles on each side should sum up the previous 17,000,000 posts focusing on what each side has at least agreed on, and what remains outstanding.
Click to expand...


Personally, I think it would be cool if s_pepys would clarify the meaning of his first post, as he has been asked to do a couple of times. Then we would know if he meant one side or the other was practicing skepticism "properly."

It would take a bit of writing to enumerate the points on each side, Dragoonster (awesome avatar, by the way), but there are several pro-innocence websites that have them organized and itemized, including,

http://www.injusticeinperugia.com/
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/index.html
http://knoxarchives.blogspot.com/
http://viewfromwilmington.blogspot.com
http://www.sciencespheres.com/

and several others, which are linked on the ones posted above.

There are two lamebrain pro-guilt blogs, one written by somebody who either used to or still does work for the British tabloids (and boy does it show). The other one called today for a boycott of JREF because they are tired of JREF posters not letting them have their own way in the style to which they have become accustomed on their own personal blog.

Suffice it to say that science, medicine, law, journalistic ethics, truth, justice, and the American Way support the pro-innocence side, while Anne Coulter supports the pro-guilt side.
 
Mary_H said:
There are two lamebrain pro-guilt blogs, one written by somebody who either used to or still does work for the British tabloids (and boy does it show).
Click to expand...

I'll assume you are serious here. Your (and others) failure to even consider the veracity of alternative views is not what I call skepticism. Views that happen to be shared by many and confirmed (whether you like it or not) by the Italian justice system.
 
lionking said:
I'll assume you are serious here. Your (and others) failure to even consider the veracity of alternative views is not what I call skepticism. Views that happen to be shared by many and confirmed (whether you like it or not) by the Italian justice system.
Click to expand...


That's the whole point, lionking. The views of the Perugian justice system were handed to the world on a silver platter via the media and the court's decisions. They are not the alternative views -- the innocentisti's are. If questioning the company line is not skepticism, then what is?
 
Mary_H said:
That's the whole point, lionking. The views of the Perugian justice system were handed to the world on a silver platter via the media and the court's decisions. They are not the alternative views -- the innocentisti's are. If questioning the company line is not skepticism, then what is?
Click to expand...

I don't know if you are missing my point or not, but calling your opponents "lamebrain" without giving any reason is not the hallmark of skepticism in my opinion.
 
Mary_H said:
..........................
................................................


Suffice it to say that science, medicine, law, journalistic ethics, truth, justice, and the American Way support the pro-innocence side, while Anne Coulter supports the pro-guilt side.
Click to expand...

There you have it in a nutshell and I'm new to the thread, although familiar with the forum via the stundies.
How I moved from one to the other - a small leap. !

One side thinks it all a giant conspiracy against AK - the other (reality based) which doesn't really post much, thinks (within the limits of moderation) ... Whoa this is crazy.

I could give a simple example - a poster on this thread Dan O has claimed (in the past ~3 days) that a Q posed by a prosecutor* in 2009 somehow via retrocausality caused perplexity back in 2007. Despite repeated prompting he has failed to justify or withdraw this claim or even respond.


Pure CT stuff as readily admitted by several posters when questioned.

* the prosecutor would be analogous to Silverstein of WTC7 fame,
.
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
I don't know if you are missing my point or not, but calling your opponents "lamebrain" without giving any reason is not the hallmark of skepticism in my opinion.
Click to expand...


Oh, sorry, I did miss your point. I didn't realize you were challenging only that claim. My mistake. Although I did say it was written tabloid-style, which is a reason, although admittedly I provided no citations. :o

I actually have tried in the past to document the falsehoods, hearsay, gossip, and unfounded conjecture on that website, but I always come away overwhelmed with the realization it would be an insurmountable task. There is hardly a sentence there that is not meant to mislead.

How about if instead of citing the misinformation, I just point to the fact that the home page features seventeen photos of the murder victim, with many, many more photos of the victim and her family to be found within? This might not seem odd at first blush, but when one considers that the owner of the blog never met the murder victim, nor had any relationship with her or her family before the crime, a skeptic might wonder what motivates him.

No? Then perhaps one's curiosity might be piqued further when one reads the blog's many paeans, poems and songs written to the deceased by other people, frequent posters who also never met her or her family.

Still not satisfied? Then how about the travelogues, complete with full-color post cards? I think the titles speak for themselves:

Thursday, November 20, 2008
Meredith’s London #2: More On Where She Came From, And Probably Had Some Fun

Saturday, July 25, 2009
Meredith’s Perugia #12: A Colorful Event Right Now That Meredith Might Have Loved

Saturday, August 22, 2009
Meredith’s Perugia #14: A Beautiful Weekend Destination That Meredith Might Have Loved

Saturday, August 29, 2009
Meredith’s Perugia #15: Another Weekend Destination That Meredith Might Have Loved

Sunday, September 06, 2009
Meredith’s Perugia #16: More Of The Bay Of Naples That Meredith Might Have Loved

Saturday, October 03, 2009
Meredith’s Perugia #17: Another Spectacular Coast That Meredith Might Have Loved

Sunday, October 18, 2009
Meredith’s Perugia #18: Yet Another Wonderful Weekend Destination That Meredith Might Have Loved

Sunday, October 25, 2009
Meredith’s Perugia #18-B: That Weekend Destination Meredith Might Have Loved, Here At Night

Sunday, November 15, 2009
Meredith’s Perugia #20: The Old City In A Wistful, Perhaps Might-Have-Been Mood

Saturday, January 23, 2010
Meredith’s Perugia #21: We Return To The Amalfi Coast As Meredith Might Very Well Have Done

Sunday, February 07, 2010
Meredith’s Perugia #23: A Moving Video Of The Venice That Meredith Might Really Have Loved

Sunday, June 27, 2010
Meredith’s Perugia #29: The Palm Riviera, For Her, Less Than One Hour East

Saturday, August 21, 2010
Meredith’s Perugia #23: Would She Have Been Attracted To Haunting Sicily?

Sunday, August 15, 2010
Meredith’s Perugia #2: The Lively Side Of The Place That She Never Really Saw

Saturday, October 09, 2010
Meredith’s Europe #3: The City Of Brussels Where She Was Eager To Start Work

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C212/P0/
Click to expand...


And that's not even all of them.

Is this a blog about a murder case, or is this a seriously misplaced preoccupation with fantasies of what might be, had the author the capacity to engage with a young woman like Meredith, and enjoy the privilege of traveling with her around Europe? Ah, romance!

How about if I trade you the "lamebrain" for an "insane?"
 
platonov said:
There you have it in a nutshell and I'm new to the thread, although familiar with the forum via the stundies.
How I moved from one to the other - a small leap. !

One side thinks it all a giant conspiracy against AK - the other (reality based) which doesn't really post much, thinks (within the limits of moderation) ... Whoa this is crazy.

I could give a simple example - a poster on this thread Dan O has claimed (in the past ~3 days) that a Q posed by a prosecutor* in 2009 somehow via retrocausality caused perplexity back in 2007. Despite repeated prompting he has failed to justify or withdraw this claim or even respond.


Pure CT stuff as readily admitted by several posters when questioned.

* the prosecutor would be analogous to Silverstein of WTC7 fame,
.
Click to expand...


Watch out, platonov. lionking likes to see those citations, and so do I. You've made several claims here you need to back up.

You may be familiar with the forum, but are you familiar with the voice-over for the old Superman shows, i.e., "The never ending battle for truth, justice, and the American way?"

P.S. The "other" side has posted plenty in the past, trust me. They are currently awaiting orders from their fearless leaders before they will be allowed to break the boycott against JREF and venture back into the treacherous waters of skepticism and reason.
 
Mary_H said:
Watch out, platonov. lionking likes to see those citations, and so do I. You've made several claims here you need to back up.

You may be familiar with the forum, but are you familiar with the voice-over for the old Superman shows, i.e., "The never ending battle for truth, justice, and the American way?"

P.S. The "other" side has posted plenty in the past, trust me. They are currently awaiting orders from their fearless leaders before they will be allowed to break the boycott against JREF and venture back into the treacherous waters of skepticism and reason.
Click to expand...

That doesn't sound like a conspiracy theorist at all...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom