New article on Swift

[arthwollipot]

BTW, how does everyone feel about them getting rid of the comments portion of swift, and creating a section in the forum where threads would serve as the comments section? They could link the thread in the article, and that would lead to more members.

As far as I am aware, that idea and others have been discussed but decided, for various reasons, against.

 

[Careyp74]

So you said. I still don't understand. How does your misunderstanding something I said lead you to saying, "Brandon is the one making claims as to who wrote what"? I'm sorry, but I don't follow this. You agree Brandon made no such claims, but you also said that he did.

Again, Yes. More specifically, I said Brandon made the claims, and THEN agreed with you that he didn't, and that I misunderstood what you were saying. Then you asked why I said it then, and I told you again I misunderstood what you were saying. Are you having fun with this?

You want sufficient proof that Sheldrake is an enemy of skepticism and a purveyor of pseudoscience? I can supply that.

No, I want proof that he doesn't have a valid point with the letter. Your Ad Hom doesn't supply that.

As for the argumentum ad hominem charge: if you're saying my statement about Sheldrake is meant as an argument in support of. . .well anything, then I think you misunderstood me. I added those points on as a "For what it's worth" comment.

Here is the whole comment.
"FWIW, I would class Sheldrake as an enemy of skepticism and a purveyor of pseudoscience. I think, given his track record, it's entirely appropriate to be suspicious of a letter he wrote attacking Randi's character and qualifications."

Again, that is Ad Hom. You can't tell me that you aren't saying to dismiss the letter as not having any validity, can you? Just because of his MO? Well, that IS Ad Hom, is it not?

 

[HypnoPsi]

From what I've heard (just here in this thread), it wasn't produced by JREF.

At any rate, I don't think Sheldrake's criticism is legit, even if you hold Randi responsible for the content of the document (since, apparently he was distributing it). It sounds like the meaning of the piece is that it's easy for any self-important yahoo to be cited as an expert by the popular news media.

The document might not have been penned by Randi himself but it certainly seems to have been produced as an official handout at one of the JREF TAM meetings as advice for skeptics.

Were the shoe on the other foot, I have no doubt that Sheldrake detractors would wish to hold him directly responsible for whatever official handouts are provided at any of his meetings and lectures.

The document should have been properly vetted and if Randi or the JREF wants to distance themselves from the advice given in the document (and explain how it got passed out as one of their official handouts at a TAM meeting) they should say so directly rather than try to wriggle out of it.

And the statement:

"Becoming an expert is a pretty simple procedure: tell people you’re an expert. After you do that, all you have to do is maintain appearances and not give them a reason to believe you’re not."

Is not merely some sarcastic commentry on the average expert that appears on our TV screens - it is clearly advice being given to members of the community on how to present themselves to the media.

Yes, the next sentence does read:

"I could be one of the leading experts on 19th century Bavarian Monkey Chess up until the moment I say something that totally contradicts what you know about this noble and lost game of strategy."

But the document immediately continues...

"The media wants to talk to an “authority”. Have a legitimate reason for being entitled to your opinion (besides the fact that you’re a clever person).

Talking heads are usually:
• Authors
• Professors
• Spokespersons for groups
• Survivors

As head of your local skeptic club you’re entitled to call yourself an authority. If your other two members agree to it, you can be the spokesperson too."

The suggestion that this is quote mining on the part of Sheldrake is absolutely astonishing.

The questionable statement(s) in the above document clearly was the advice given to attendees at the meeting on how to present themselves as an 'expert' or 'authority'.

The final statement in the above quote clearly defines who it is the author was/is addressing - "skeptics".

And many would agree that claiming yourself an 'authority' when you only have the support of two other people (as a spokesperson for their 'group' only) would be to make such claims of 'authority' falsely.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[rjh01]

I think we need to go back to basics. Please define authority, expert.

One of the most basic questions someone needs to ask when and interviewer confronted with someone who calls themselves an expert or an authority is what qualifications and experience do you have on the subject? Giving a false or misleading answer to that question would be fraud. Giving the answer like 'I am a member of a three person club set up last week' should end the interview then and there. If the question is not asked then it is the interviewer who has made a serious error.

No-one should be able to get away with the advice given in the handout. The fact that sometimes people do is a reflection on interviewers, not anyone else.

 

[HypnoPsi]

I think we need to go back to basics. Please define authority, expert.

Well checking either on one click Answers certainly doesn't include the definition of 'a skeptic with the support of a couple of friends'...

One of the most basic questions someone needs to ask when and interviewer confronted with someone who calls themselves an expert or an authority is what qualifications and experience do you have on the subject?

Personally, I find the whole idea of anyone actually saying "Hello, I'm an expert/authority on X..." to be rather amusing. It just doesn't normally happen.

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what advice the handout was really trying to give to attendees....

On the face of it, it seems to be that skeptics should do whatever they can to make sure they get the 'skeptical' opinion on the airwaves whenever anyone is on claiming anything unusual... even if that means declaring yourself some kind of expert or authority since you have a couple of friends in your skeptical club who declare you their spokesperson.

Basically, the whole thing just doesn't look good - or professional - at all.

If there is to be a debate on any subject then the only real advice to give the skeptic is that they should have actually read the subject/paper they are debating - and know plenty of the details.

Everything else, like people who maybe have a question or two or who are 'just skeptical' (or 'just believe') should be left for the phone-ins.

Giving a false or misleading answer to that question would be fraud.

I think most people would just say what their profession is and the average local radio station would be happy to have them on air to state their opinion. Really, there's nothing wrong with that.

Giving the answer like 'I am a member of a three person club set up last week' should end the interview then and there. If the question is not asked then it is the interviewer who has made a serious error.

Yes, and yes.

A set of skeptics does not an authority make - no matter how much the other two support the 'spokesperson'. They could all still be in high school for heaven's sake!

No-one should be able to get away with the advice given in the handout.

This is certainly true - as far as declaring yourself as some kind of expert or authority goes.

And the JREF and Randi's supporters shouldn't try to downplay the fact that the organisers of the meeting and the JREF have responsibility what what handouts are provided in their name - as seems to have been the case here.

If some similar type of handouts were given at an official Sheldrake event by the organisers on behalf of Sheldrakes organisation the skeptics of his work would be going absolutely nuts about the very idea that Sheldrake was trying to get amateurs to proclaim they are experts or authorities on such matters.

The fact that sometimes people do is a reflection on interviewers, not anyone else.

Well, if people can gate-crash the White House , how hard can it really be to get on the radio with some host who's actively looking to have another voice on the air.

~
HypnoPsi

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Again, Yes. More specifically, I said Brandon made the claims, and THEN agreed with you that he didn't, and that I misunderstood what you were saying.

I got it now. I thought you were offering the misunderstanding as the reason why you said Brandon made the claims.

Then you asked why I said it then, and I told you again I misunderstood what you were saying.

Yeah--that's the part I don't understand.
ETA: It sounds more like you misunderstood what Brandon said in the Swift article.

Here is the whole comment.
"FWIW, I would class Sheldrake as an enemy of skepticism and a purveyor of pseudoscience. I think, given his track record, it's entirely appropriate to be suspicious of a letter he wrote attacking Randi's character and qualifications."

Again, that is Ad Hom. You can't tell me that you aren't saying to dismiss the letter as not having any validity, can you? Just because of his MO? Well, that IS Ad Hom, is it not?

No. I wasn't offering my comment about Sheldrake's record as a reason to dismiss his letter. I clearly said it's a reason to be "suspicious of a letter he wrote attacking Randi's character and qualifications."

My point is that Sheldrake's lack of credibility means it's entirely reasonable not to give him the benefit of the doubt. Instead, suspicion of anything he writes is warranted.

The ad hominem fallacy is a form of irrelevant argumentation. Sheldrake's credibility is entirely relevant to an assessment of a letter he wrote.

Similarly, if Sylvia Browne says something that is largely an opinion, I do not assume it is valid either, based on her track record.

 

[Careyp74]

No. I wasn't offering my comment about Sheldrake's record as a reason to dismiss his letter. I clearly said it's a reason to be "suspicious of a letter he wrote attacking Randi's character and qualifications."

My point is that Sheldrake's lack of credibility means it's entirely reasonable not to give him the benefit of the doubt. Instead, suspicion of anything he writes is warranted.

The ad hominem fallacy is a form of irrelevant argumentation. Sheldrake's credibility is entirely relevant to an assessment of a letter he wrote.

Similarly, if Sylvia Browne says something that is largely an opinion, I do not assume it is valid either, based on her track record.

Was his letter opinion, or was there validity to it? I know what you are describing is necessary in order to keep ones sanity with all the stupid writings by such authors as Sheldrake and Browne, maybe I am a little touchy on this point because of those here doing it, being dismissive, just because it was Sheldrake. Specifically the claims of quote mining, which seem to be false. The quotes were totally in context.

I think there IS more to see here, if people used a little more critical thinking about it, and a little less herd mentality.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I know what you are describing is necessary in order to keep ones [sic] sanity with all the stupid writings by such authors as Sheldrake and Browne, maybe I am a little touchy on this point because of those here doing it, being dismissive, just because it was Sheldrake.

I don't think skeptical is the same thing as dismissive. I think if Brandon were being dismissive of Sheldrake's letter, he wouldn't have bothered writing the Swift blog entry.

Meanwhile. . . claims that Sheldrake has been unfairly treated by the science establishment are being discussed on this thread. Sheldrake is a fraud, and he doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt, IMO.