Compassionate skepticism?

[scribble]

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

I'm in dager of derailing this thread, but it's important for me to helpy ou recall a point I have made to you previously: you are the only one who thinks correct and incorrect are a popularity contest.

If my position had been outvoted 10-80 it wouldn't have changed the correctness at all. Which is exactly why math is an example of a thing you can definately be wrong at.

 

[epepke]

I wrote
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.

Thank you for the response.

I made an assertion, quite politely and without accusation. I've enclosed it for reference. The assertion is about people's experiences, not about their characters. I did not assert that the egos of believers were fragile in any way.

Now, I may be wrong, or I may be right. It is possible to show that I'm wrong without getting personal. Since I express the viewpoint that believers don't have quite this experience, one good way of showing me wrong would be to describe instances where they do.

Or one might find a way of arguing that, while what I say may be true, it isn't relevant.

Yet you respond with what seem to me to be escalating, personal responses. "This must be a pleasant myth," for example, or "rofl." Things that people usually say when they're trying to pick a fight.

It doesn't necessarily mean that you were trying to pick a fight, but those are your responses, and that is my interpretation.

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".

I am still being polite. I have not engaged in condescention, nor have I introduced spiteful terms such as "Belivers' Happy Myth," nor have I made snide comments about "cherished beliefs." In fact, the only time I talked about beliefs being shot down, I used "we" language.

You have just demonstrated my point. You have taken what I said and responded as if it were a personal attack.

In spite of this, I will continue to be polite.

 

[epepke]

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.

That's partially it, yes.

More clearly, I think in skepticism, science, writing etc. there is a culture, an uncommon one, in which people specificially search out the benefits to be had from criticism.

I am reminded of William Goldman's Adventures in the Screen Trade. As part of the book, he writes up a screenplay of one of his old stories that he had long since forgotten and sends it to various people for critique. One of the critiques, which comes back from a director, is absolutely scathing, more so than I have seen anybody subjected to here. Yet Goldman writes, "Pretty scathing, eh? But also pretty informative."

Then he goes through the points, saying for each, "I don't agree that blah blah blah, but he might be right." The book didn't include the rebuttal from the director, but, while it might also be scathing, it would probably also have been substantive. And I think that Goldman might have gotten irked at the personal attacks but made a conscious effort to concentrate on the substantive.

You're welcome not to agree, BTW.

 

[Loon]

More clearly, I think in skepticism, science, writing etc. there is a culture, an uncommon one, in which people specificially search out the benefits to be had from criticism.

I think this is a very good way of explaining it.

I am reminded of William Goldman's Adventures in the Screen Trade. As part of the book, he writes up a screenplay of one of his old stories that he had long since forgotten and sends it to various people for critique. One of the critiques, which comes back from a director, is absolutely scathing, more so than I have seen anybody subjected to here. Yet Goldman writes, "Pretty scathing, eh? But also pretty informative."

Then he goes through the points, saying for each, "I don't agree that blah blah blah, but he might be right."

I think the most important thing is the content of the response, as opposed to the tone. As I type this, there are two people going over work I finished last night and basically, tearing it to shreds. It really hurts to see my work taken apart like that, but these guys are WAY more experienced than I am, and quite frankly, they do better work than I do. About 10% of their comments I disagree with, roughly 85% I think "Wow, really good idea" or "no harm in doing that." And there's the really painful 5% which is basically "Loon is completely wrong." These guys are very diplomatic and quite well meaning, but being told you're wrong simply sucks. It hurts. So an attack, even a legit attack, burns.

It hurts and makes me want to lift weights or something, but it's absolutely necessary that I get this feedback. I don't know if it has thickened my skin (this is the part of the argument I'm not sure about), but the criticism never comes as a surprise anymore.

 

[epepke]

It hurts and makes me want to lift weights or something, but it's absolutely necessary that I get this feedback. I don't know if it has thickened my skin (this is the part of the argument I'm not sure about), but the criticism never comes as a surprise anymore.

Well, if it makes you feel any better, or even if it doesn't, I'm not sure about that part of the argument, either.

I've seen quite a lot of emotional arguments in my day amongst trained scientists. However, there seems to be a limit, which I can't precisely quantify. Those same opponents can go out for drinks afterward (beer for the experimentalists, coffee for the theoreticians, in my experience).

Another calling in which this happens that I failed to mention: law.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

Behold! The Mighty 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.

Thank you, oh fellow godly one!

Nothing untoward here, folks. I've decided I'll probably be staying (boo, hiss), so I thought I'd make my nick easier to refer to: "Thor", will do, or 'the Mighty', if you insist. (i was going through a 'small caps. rd laing phase' when i signed up )

If I had to chose a pantheon, I think it would be the Norse gods. They make perfect sense to me I like demarcation in my gods.

Now, where to find an avatar that doesn't infringe Marvel Comics copyright?

I guess I might get 'hammered' by our Norse friends here for getting all my knowledge on Norse gods from comic books But as Clancie and Ian already know, that's where most of my education came from. :

So, friends, I present to you:

THE MIGHTY THOR, Hammer of the Atheistic Skeptics who refuse to believe in me and in the awesome power of my father Odin. [Evidence? Evidence my helmet!] Woe be unto those who see my fire and hear my thunder, yet still refuse to worship the Wielder of the Mystic Uru Hammer, Mjollnir. For I AM the Norse god of thunder, master of the lightning and the storm! I AM THE MIGHTY THOR!

{Worshipping (TM), which should be done during thunderstorms and every Thursday, sic, storm or not, will require a small supplication in the form of a simple prayer accompanied by a small donation of gold or silver which will be collected by my mischievous fellow-god, Loki -- when he is not rock-bound, that is!}

[btw, that was quite exhilarating. I think I understand how Ian feels]

PRAYER TO THOR

"Oh great, mysterious god of Thunder,
Please help me to defraud and plunder;
And help me pull the wool o'er eyes
Of the credulous, whom I despise.

Oh, . . . and let me retain the silver 'n' gold,
From those who worship Gods of old."

 

[Clancie]

editing needed...later.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

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

Sheesh. Give a minor god a chance, Ian. I had to wait for the magical deed to be performed. It was (thank you Pyrrho) expedited expeditiously

And remember, if you don't pay attention and look at the blackboard, you won't learn anything.

I have posted,
my apotheosis.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

editing needed...later.

Tell me quickly before time runs out!

 

[The Mighty Thor]

editing needed...later.

OIC!

But . . . but . . . erm . . . that wasn't the real Prayer to Thor. The REAL prayer for true believers goes . . .

"Father Odin who art in heaven
Harold be thy name . . ."

The rest is a secret which can only be passed on to the initiated.

 

[Beleth]

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 of course cannot speak for all skeptics, but I believe that I personally have never insulted, condescended, or mocked anyone I have been in a discussion with here, unless I was treated so first, and repeatedly so. Nor have I ever used an ad hominem attack first. This belief is of course disprovable, and you are free to look for a counterexample in my writings.

 

[Interesting Ian]

That's partially it, yes.

More clearly, I think in skepticism, science, writing etc.
there is a culture, an uncommon one, in which people specificially search out the benefits to be had from criticism.

Criticism is of course useful, but a dogmatic adherence to a given set of beliefs about the world which are held on tenaciously despite all evidence and reason to the contrary, is not something which is to be applauded. The word skepticism and what it is to be a skeptic has shifted meaning in recent times. See here

"Since "skepticism" properly refers to doubt rather than denial--nonbelief rather than belief--critics who take the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves "skeptics" are actually pseudo-skeptics and have, I believed, gained a false advantage by usurping that label".

Marcello Truzzi

 

[MRC_Hans]

Criticism is of course useful, but a dogmatic adherence to a given set of beliefs about the world which are held on tenaciously despite all evidence and reason to the contrary, is not something which is to be applauded. *snip*

How true. And how ironic it should come from you.

Hans

 

[BillHoyt]

Criticism is of course useful, but a dogmatic adherence to a given set of beliefs about the world which are held on tenaciously despite all evidence and reason to the contrary, is not something which is to be applauded. The word skepticism and what it is to be a skeptic has shifted meaning in recent times. See here

When such "dogmatic adherence" results in the twisting of a skeptic's words, that is beyond the ken, Ian. That is no longer "dogmatic," that is "rabidly wolfmatic." And they say the U.K. has no rabies.

 

[FutileJester]

Wow. Lots of arguments and insults about whether people argue and get insulted.

Originally posted by Clancie
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 of course cannot speak for all skeptics, but I believe that I personally have never insulted, condescended, or mocked anyone I have been in a discussion with here, unless I was treated so first, and repeatedly so. Nor have I ever used an ad hominem attack first. This belief is of course disprovable, and you are free to look for a counterexample in my writings.

Ditto. Quite the opposite sometimes; there was the time TBK made the unfounded assertion that Clancie only gave credence to John Edward because of romantic attraction. I called that out as rude and unfounded.

"Skeptics are... " "Believers are.... " It's all crap. "People are." There are rude people and polite people on all sides of every issue.

 

[Clancie]

Posted by Futile Jester

"Skeptics are... " "Believers are.... " It's all crap. "People are." There are rude people and polite people on all sides of every issue.

I agree completely. That was the point I was trying to make to epepke and Beleth (apparently not nearly as clearly as you have here).

If someone says, "Here are some facts...I present these reasons in counterpoint to yours...." and someone gets defensive, then it's fair to criticise them for taking it personally. But to go from that individual reaction to characterizing "skeptics in general" or "believers in general" it's bound to open up contradictions (and also seem condescending).

You, epepke, Beleth are all perfectly a-okay as far as I'm concerned. That's true for most here who call themselves "skeptics" (though it probably isn't true of most of the "skeptics" who post most frequently to me).

And, yes, epepke, I agree that if someone (whether "believer" or "skeptic") is politely presented with reasoned argument or evidence (not only lab evidence) that challenges his world view and, as a result, gets offended and rude, then, yes, that's just irrational behavior for that individual. It shouldn't, however, reflect on "skeptics" or "believers" in general. (That's the major part of your post, epepke, that I took exception to--the over-generalization about "skeptics" and "believers", their familiarity with reality, with being challenged, and the strength/weakness of their egos as a result. Sorry if it seemed too sharp a response, but most people don't like being negatively characterized together as a group--and I'm no exception!)

 

[FutileJester]

More clearly, I think in skepticism, science, writing etc. there is a culture, an uncommon one, in which people specificially search out the benefits to be had from criticism.

As a programmer I have to go through periodic code reviews. This amounts to sitting at a table with your peers while they tell you everything you did wrong in your code. If you can take it all in stride and hear what's being said, it can make you a really good programmer.

I don't know if this has anything to do with the skeptic/believer distinction (a distinction I prefer not to make anyway). But in my experience there is a noticeable difference between people whose work is judged against hard reality vs. those whose work is judged in reference to other people. When my work is delivered, a large and precisely documented test plan is run. Either what I did works, or I'm in trouble. Compare that to the guy who writes the user documentation; no test, no peer review, just one or two people who have to subjectively agree that it's pretty much what they wanted.

 

[The Mighty Thor]

I call 'foul'!

Clancie says: You, epepke, Beleth are all perfectly a-okay as far as I'm concerned. That's true for most here who call themselves "skeptics" (though it probably isn't true of most of the "skeptics" who post most frequently to me)

.

I don't think that is a fair assessment, Clancie. The trouble with 'compassionate skepticism' is that believers can easily dodge the soft, 'compassionate' questions they are asked. Is it then 'uncompassionate' if the skeptic keeps on asking for straight answers to straight questions?

I urge you to look at our first substantial exchange at

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=36651&perpage=40&pagenumber=4

and page 5 and 6.

It won't take but a few minutes. So, please indulge me.

Here is a classic case where you provoke animosity simply because you are being pressured. Notice also, that I answered any questions you (and Ian) asked me.

Now, tell us honestly, who do you think between us was first to post a personal attack?

I question you about Mrs Piper

You blow up with a personal attack that you find my post 'annoying' and 'condescending'.

Remember, AFAIK, this was my first exchange with you. No 'history' à la Claus or anything. So, what do you think I took from that first impression? It's not fair that you blame 'those who post most frequently to you' for some kind of harrassment or heavy-handedness with you singled out. We happen to be in the same threads because we are interested in the same subjects. We are clearly on different sides of the fence with regard to mediums. All you are being asked is that when you post things in support of mediumship, you answer fair questions from doubters, if you can, or at least let us know at the time if you can't or don't want to. Isn't that the rule here?

Let's keep the record straight here. Play fairly.

 

[epepke]

Criticism is of course useful, but a dogmatic adherence to a given set of beliefs about the world which are held on tenaciously despite all evidence and reason to the contrary, is not something which is to be applauded. The word skepticism and what it is to be a skeptic has shifted meaning in recent times.

Certainly it has. The in-context meaning of "skepticism" in this forum refers to scientific skepticism, not philosophical skepticism.

I embrace the former but have little patience with the latter.

 

[epepke]

You, epepke, Beleth are all perfectly a-okay as far as I'm concerned. That's true for most here who call themselves "skeptics" (though it probably isn't true of most of the "skeptics" who post most frequently to me).

And, yes, epepke, I agree that if someone (whether "believer" or "skeptic") is politely presented with reasoned argument or evidence (not only lab evidence) that challenges his world view and, as a result, gets offended and rude, then, yes, that's just irrational behavior for that individual. It shouldn't, however, reflect on "skeptics" or "believers" in general. (That's the major part of your post, epepke, that I took exception to--the over-generalization about "skeptics" and "believers", their familiarity with reality, with being challenged, and the strength/weakness of their egos as a result. Sorry if it seemed too sharp a response, but most people don't like being negatively characterized together as a group--and I'm no exception!)

Well, as far as the over-generalization goes, I admit to it, and in my defense I say that it is not generally possible to deal with all exceptions without writing an encyclopedia. I was trying to present a rough sketch, not a detailed description. in an attempt to get at the process of most (but not necessarily all) conflicts I've seen here.

It may (or may not) surprise you to note that I have, on numerous occasions, butted heads with skeptics that in my opinion were not properly skeptical. I think I hold the record of posting about the most different kinds of skeptical stupidity in various "Skeptics are Stupid" threads.

I'm well aware of the abuses of skepticism, and I consider it my duty to challenge them. I may not challenge every one (after all, I am neither omnipotent nor a robot, and I get tired of threads the same way that other people do), but I still try.