Compassionate skepticism?

[The Mighty Thor]

Yea yea. I'm getting the idea. But keep your insults in the threads where they came from. This is a no-insult zone, because I'm a baby.

There, you see. Already you are telling others what they should and should not do while totally missing the hypocrisy. Way to go!

I look forward to seeing you discuss psi with the Clancie Gang. It should be most entertaining and civilised. Maybe you can show us all how it should be done -- without being patronising, of course.

 

[epepke]

What I am curious about is why it seems that these debates erupt into arguments and name-calling. It seems like a lot of arguments end with both sides shouting "You're wrong!" back and forth at each other. I'm not complaining, I'm just curious as why this seems to happen. Perhaps it is I who is wrong? (Wouldn't that be ironic.)

I'm not just blaming skeptics either, I see this on both sides of the debate. What it boils down to is, can there be a compassionate debate where both sides try not to tread on each other's toes while still having a somewhat civil argument?

There's a basic problem. Skepticism and science share with a number of other callings, such as acting, writing, and politics, the quality of being ego-bruising. With skepticism and science, one's ego is bruised not simply by the changing opinions of others, but by reality itself. Which of us has not felt the wrench when a cherished hypothesis turned out to be bogus? This is especially irksom because, while you can shout at a person, if you shout at a rock or an electron, it tends to ignore you.

Believers, I think, don't have quite the same experience of having their egos bruised by reality and therefore have a tendency to interpret any statement or challenge as personal. It's a challenge to them, or to their intelligence, or their level of education, or something. This, I think, is where it starts. The believer develops a feeling of personal affront and responds accordingly.

Then the skeptic gets ticked off because a factual judgement is being interpreted as a personal judgement and (rightly so, in most cases) concludes that the believer was not interested in reality but rather in picking a fight. So, however it may have started, now it's personal. Add to this the frustration felt by the skeptic about how personal attacks always seem to trump discussions about reality, and it's an explosive situation.

Add to that the fact that, as this is a board associated with skepticism, it is a target for people who are, quite frankly, trolls, who simply want to provoke an emotional response.

I'm never certain as to how to respond to this and generally deal with it on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes flamage is appropriate. Sometimes ingenuousness and indulgence. Sometimes Socratic, sometimes Nietzschian. It all depends.

 

[scribble]

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37433

I can't help but suspect that unrealistic expectations on his part and a bit too much name-calling on my part (and others; I'm not so full of myself as to think I personally have any effect on anything anywhere) might have helped push him and/or others into continuing to argue indefensible positions.

It hurts to be all excited about a Big Awesome Feeling and have someone pop your bubble.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Beleth

It's easy to take a question the wrong way on the Internet.

A question asked to clarify a position is easily taken as a question challenging the position, which makes the questioned person adopt a defensive, and probably hostile, attitude back at the questioner

Well, I agree that "skeptics" like to think this is the source of the problem.

Posted by epeke

Believers, I think, don't have quite the same experience of having their egos bruised by reality and therefore have a tendency to interpret any statement or challenge as personal.

This must be a pleasant myth to believe in--that skeptics make polite, reality-based, arguments which believers' (due to their fragile egos and illogical ideas) unfortunately, take as personal attacks rather than what they "really" are--intellectual, reasonable discussions of facts and truth.

rofl.

I'm afraid that this cherished belief of skeptics would seem much more convincing if one could point to extensive posts from every skeptic here--posts totally free from personal insults...condescension...ad hominem...and mockery--all cumulatively showing that, in civil post after civil post, polite rationality was being greeted with unprovoked defensiveness and flames from all believers, each one so desperate to cling to any vestige of belief no matter how irrational that unsupportable belief was, (logically, factually, and politely) repeatedly shown to be.

Unfortunately, for this "Skeptics' Happy Myth" (as so often happens in life) the unpleasant reality is often quite different from what one would like to "believe".

 

[Interesting Ian]

I suspect it's nothing more complicated than people not wanting to be wrong. When they run out of ammo they throw insults instead.

I don't know if this is so for most people, but it certainly isn't for me. It would be very rare for me not to be able to think up an effective counter-argument, even if it is on a subject which I have had no education in whatsoever. No, the reason why I insult people is essentially for 2 reasons which generally need to occur together. Namely because:

• they are both stupid and arrogant about it, and no matter how patiently I explain some point, they seem to be perfectly immune to any sort of understanding
  
• And they actually have the effrontery to accuse me of being stupid
  [/list=a]

 

[Interesting Ian]

The first person to tell you that you are 'too stupid' to understand what they are saying has lost the argument.

Well that certainly doesn't follow.

Three possibilities:

• It is in fact true. This being so, one could scarcely accuse the one declaring someone to be stupid as having lost the argument.
  
• They believe that they are stupid, but they are mistaken. I feel that this tends to happen very frequently. The supposedly "stupid" person might simply be wholly unfamiliar with the subject matter. Again, however, it certainly would not be the case that the person who accuses another of being stupid, has lost the argument.
  
• The person accusing another of being stupid, realises that person isn't really stupid. I have absolutely no idea why a person would do such a thing. It is beyond my comprehension. For all I know you might be correct in this scenario. Perhaps I ought to bear that in mind next time a skeptic calls me stupid. Seems rather implausible to me though, I must confess.
  [/list=a]
  
  

  If they call you a 'moron', that would most likely be Interesting Ian, and you can put him on ignore, or just delight in seeing him being humiliated in his constantly frustrated attempts to explain errant nonsense.

  
  I sure as hell won't be humiliated by skeptics (not sceptics) getting the better of me in an argument
  
  With a bit of luck any frustration on my part will hopefully soon cease. I'm creating a website and I'm deliberately explaining everything in as simple a way I can possibly manage. Most of the time I don't tend to do that on here because I have a bizarre urge to show off.

 

[Yahweh]

No, the reason why I insult people is essentially for 2 reasons which generally need to occur together. Namely because:

• they are both stupid and arrogant about it, and no matter how patiently I explain some point, they seem to be perfectly immune to any sort of understanding[/list=a]

• 
  How do you determine that someone is stupid?
  
  (And what do you hope to achieve by insulting "stupid" people?)

 

[scribble]

It would be very rare for me not to be able to think up an effective counter-argument, even if it is on a subject which I have had no education in whatsoever.

Okay, everyone who is reading, stop and consider that for just the brief moment it takes you to go:



Thanks for your attention.

Goddamn, I love the smell of delusion in the morning.

 

[Interesting Ian]

You mean like here:http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37844


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by malcolmdl

I guess you might even be a head, or assistant head, in a primary school. No?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clancie says:
Wrong again, malcolm.

How about you? My intuition tells -me- that you're still in school.
-----------------------
You see. I pay her a compliment and get an insult in return.

Getting the idea, nineinch?

With all the insults and disparaging comments directed at Clancie, I defy anyone to put up as much as she does, and for them to continue to be as polite as she is. I don't know how she does it. I'm full of admiration!

And what compliment have you paid her?? Don't tell me you're malcolmdl's sockpuppet?? Looking at your 2 posts as Thor I guess that's a silly question I've got you sussed Thor.

 

[Yahweh]

And what compliment have you paid her?? Don't tell me you're malcolmdl's sockpuppet?? Looking at your 2 posts as Thor I guess that's a silly question I've got you sussed Thor.

Thor is not malcolm's sockpuppet. Malcolm PMed an administrator and requested a username change. Thor is the same person, same account, same UserID, same everything as malcolmdl, he's just changed his name.


Some people change their username when they get tired of their old names. Previous names that have been changed:

dwb became Commander Cool
GoodPropaganda became Firegarden
There might be a few more, cant remember them off the top of my head.

 

[Interesting Ian]

How do you determine that someone is stupid?

(And what do you hope to achieve by insulting "stupid" people?)

I do not insult stupid people!! Why on earth should I do that??? I only insult people where I have explained something umpteen times, and they still don't understand, and they then declare that I'm the stupid one, insult me, generally be extremely obnoxious, and then declare to the world they have actually defeated me in the argument.

 

[Yahweh]

I do not insult stupid people!! Why on earth should I do that??? I only insult people where I have explained something umpteen times, and they still don't understand, and they then declare that I'm the stupid one, insult me, generally be extremely obnoxious, and then declare to the world they have actually defeated me in the argument.

Alrighty, thank you for you comment.

 

[TLN]

I do not insult stupid people!! Why on earth should I do that??? I only insult people where I have explained something umpteen times, and they still don't understand, and they then declare that I'm the stupid one, insult me, generally be extremely obnoxious, and then declare to the world they have actually defeated me in the argument.

Lies.

Still looking forward to seeing you on PalTalk so I can point out these defeats that "don't exist."

 

[scribble]

I do not insult stupid people!! Why on earth should I do that??? I only insult people where I have explained something umpteen times, and they still don't understand, and they then declare that I'm the stupid one, insult me, generally be extremely obnoxious, and then declare to the world they have actually defeated me in the argument.

Well, it's about time you admitted that me and the others who do that aren't stupid. I'll look forward to you not calling me stupid in the future.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Compassionate skepticism?

There's a basic problem. Skepticism and science share with a number of other callings, such as acting, writing, and politics, the quality of being ego-bruising. With skepticism and science, one's ego is bruised not simply by the changing opinions of others, but by reality itself. Which of us has not felt the wrench when a cherished hypothesis turned out to be bogus?

It seems to me that skeptics very rarely give up any cherished hypotheses. They appear to be wholly immune both to reason and evidence.

And what has skepticism got to do with science?? Science is the enemy of skepticism just as much as it is the enemy of the beliefs of the most starry eyed gullible believer. 2 sides of the same coin (or whatever the expression is).

Believers, I think, don't have quite the same experience of having their egos bruised by reality and therefore have a tendency to interpret any statement or challenge as personal.

I hope you can point to some peer reviewed research which indicates this.

It's a challenge to them, or to their intelligence, or their level of education, or something. This, I think, is where it starts. The believer develops a feeling of personal affront and responds accordingly.

A lot of believers react like they do because of the misrepresentations, blatant lies, and the obnoxious arrogant attitude given out by skeptics.

Then the skeptic gets ticked off because a factual judgement

"Factual judgement"?? What does that mean?? Why do skeptics think that their judgements equate to facts??

is being interpreted as a personal judgement and (rightly so, in most cases) concludes that the believer was not interested in reality but rather in picking a fight.

What a complete clown you are . Maybe a lot of believers are like that. But are you honestly claiming that the majority of skeptics aren't?? Come now epepke, I know you're not stupid.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Thor is not malcolm's sockpuppet. Malcolm PMed an administrator and requested a username change. Thor is the same person, same account, same UserID, same everything as malcolmdl, he's just changed his name.

I wish he'd said. I wouldn't have bothered responding to him!

 

[Loon]

This must be a pleasant myth to believe in--that skeptics make polite, reality-based, arguments which believers' (due to their fragile egos and illogical ideas) unfortunately, take as personal attacks rather than what they "really" are--intellectual, reasonable discussions of facts and truth.

I think that's a little bit of a backward interpretation. My understanding of what epepke was trying to say was that a lot of sceptics play around with stuff where it's very easy and very common to be proved dead, stone wrong. So you get used to being not just challenged, but uttery defeated. Builds a little bit thicker skin.

The same cannot be said for a lot of other things, so an argument that a seasoned scientist or science hobbyist (who is used to being hit with verifiable facts) might let roll off their back comes across as a real insult to someone who hasn't built that thick skin. If anything, I think this would make skeptics fight nastier with each other. So it's not that skeptics use gentle attacks, but that skeptics are used to the attacks.

I'm not sure I agree with the point, but I think that's what he's trying to say.

In line with what Beleth said, there is an issue with written vs. oral communication. The question "What makes you think that?" can be asked several different ways, including both a sincere request for clarification or to mean "you are a complete idiot." In written communication, it can be hard to tell. Does your response to Beleth indicate that you don't think this a problem at all?

I'm afraid that this cherished belief of skeptics would seem much more convincing if one could point to extensive posts from every skeptic here--posts totally free from personal insults...condescension...ad hominem...and mockery--all cumulatively showing that, in civil post after civil post, polite rationality was being greeted with unprovoked defensiveness and flames from all believers, each one so desperate to cling to any vestige of belief no matter how irrational that unsupportable belief was, (logically, factually, and politely) repeatedly shown to be.

I'm not entirely sure I follow this (lacking sleep...) but there are plenty of examples of rational and clear and polite and evidenced posts followed up immediately by attacks and viciousness and all of that. The only caveat is that it's not a believer/sceptic line. Just look at pretty much any thread that goes over two pages. Most are full of bile and yuckiness. There are a lot of personal grudges going on (jj & rockoon, you & claus, the whole I/P crew) that drag down the rationality and value of the debate.

It's also worth noting that pretty much any discussion board will have these features. I've only been a regular reader of a few boards, but they all have threads that break down in hysterics and verbal assault. Flames are not limited to this forum. Check out metafilter, for example.

 

[Interesting Ian]

I think that's a little bit of a backward interpretation. My understanding of what epepke was trying to say was that a lot of sceptics play around with stuff where it's very easy and very common to be proved dead, stone wrong.

Huh??? Examples please.

 

[scribble]

stuff where it's very easy and very common to be proved dead, stone wrong.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Huh??? Examples please.

Math?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Math?

Well, I would have thought so prior to that huge argument we had. But most people still don't understand I was right

Still, I was picking up support at the end. Wasn't it 11 people who eventually agreed with me? A 85-12 ratio is better than the 28-1 ratio I had at the beginning