Do Skeptics ever convince the Believer?

[Temecula]

Eh, life goes on. Do you recognize any names here from your time at LCF?

Well I have been browsing these forums for over a year and I have seen familiar names... but I doubt anyone from JREF used the same name on the LC forum, as that alone was often grounds for mistreatment and ridicule.

 

[gumboot]

I think skeptics can convince the believer, and it happens even to skeptics! Since wading into the skeptics paddling pool I've tended to take a more skeptical approach to life, and for kicks I often investigate things that are widely accepted as fact, and which I myself blindly believe. Two examples just in the last few weeks are the "detox diet" and "MSG". I wasn't particularly concerned about either, but I honestly thought it was probably entirely true that your body had a lot of nasty toxins and stuff in it from diet, smog, whatever, and a "detox diet" would clean you up. Likewise, I believed it true enough that MSG was exceedingly bad for you (and perhaps hugely addictive) in some vague way.

But I was bored at various times and looked these things up, and found there's absolutely no medical science in support of "detox" - the human body is exceptionally good at cleaning itself without any help. And as for MSG, while there's some concern that it might enhance obesity, countless robust medical studies have concluded it's a totally safe substance even in large doses.

I often wonder how many other things I blindly believe, that have no evidence behind them at all. Thanks to skepticism I know that eventually I'll uncover them all.

 

[arthwollipot]

I would like to take this moment to apologize...

Apology accepted. Thanks for being honest.

 

[Temecula]

I think skeptics can convince the believer, and it happens even to skeptics! Since wading into the skeptics paddling pool I've tended to take a more skeptical approach to life, and for kicks I often investigate things that are widely accepted as fact, and which I myself blindly believe. Two examples just in the last few weeks are the "detox diet" and "MSG". I wasn't particularly concerned about either, but I honestly thought it was probably entirely true that your body had a lot of nasty toxins and stuff in it from diet, smog, whatever, and a "detox diet" would clean you up. Likewise, I believed it true enough that MSG was exceedingly bad for you (and perhaps hugely addictive) in some vague way.

But I was bored at various times and looked these things up, and found there's absolutely no medical science in support of "detox" - the human body is exceptionally good at cleaning itself without any help. And as for MSG, while there's some concern that it might enhance obesity, countless robust medical studies have concluded it's a totally safe substance even in large doses.

I often wonder how many other things I blindly believe, that have no evidence behind them at all. Thanks to skepticism I know that eventually I'll uncover them all.

I actually consulted this forum a few weeks ago looking for a scientific study of MSG. I use it a lot and recently bought a 32 oz canister of it at Sam's Club, so it pleased me to find none of the anti-MSG sensationalism was true. Before my "conversion" I had assumed it was logical to assume that with all the hubbub about negative the side effects of MSG, at least some of it must be true. Of course that didn't stop me from using it, I love chicken fried rice.

 

[arthwollipot]

I registered just to make this post.

Skeptical discussion, particularly the criticism skeptics level towards religion, conspiracy theories, and alternative medicine, can and does have an impact upon "believers". Even skeptical discussion and criticism on the internet can be enough to convince someone. Case in point:

I used to be a poster and eventually moderator on the original Loose Change forums. If you don't know what that is, please visit the conspiracy theory section of these forums as they were at one point thoroughly obsessed with it there. I had fallen into the "conspiracy theorist" subset of humanity at a very vulnerable point in my life, I had just moved hundreds of miles to a seemingly alien part of the country, and my wife was in the hospital under very dire circumstances. I was also abusing prescription pain killers to counteract the anxiety of having to watch my wife die (she didn't die after all) while having virtually no support structure around me. The first time I saw "Loose Change: 2nd Edition" I totally fell for it, and when I found there was actually a community... I dove right in. I spent quite a while enthusiastically embracing and espousing the 9/11 CT dogma, and eventually became a moderator of their forum, which led me to have to deal with skeptics who posted there before we banned them. By the time the original LC forum imploded (I deserve some credit for causing that BTW) I had serious doubts about the 9/11 CT and other CTs. I began digesting a lot of material from the 'other side' after that. Frankly, I was embarrassed that I had ever spoke to people about 9/11, distributed DVDs, and exposed other people to such nonsense.

I eventually realized that I had been submerged in some sort of cult or religion rather than a legitimate movement. It frightened me. I began reevaluating everything else I believed that had the CT tinge on it. I consulted skeptical websites regarding everything from cryptozoology to UFOs. Instead of simply taking other people's words for it, I looked at their reasoning, and it made sense. I began looking at everything critically, and I lost even the most vestigial remnants of religion, I became fascinated by evolution and astronomy and all the other real things out there that are so much more amazing, interesting, and dramatic than anything you can cook up beneath a tinfoil hat.

It works. Just counterpointing stuff on the internet does get through to people, at least some people. Nowadays I find myself using 'reply to all' whenever I get some FEMA camp CT chain email in my inbox, showing everyone that it's really a picture of a camp in north Korea. Nobody who has ever said anything about 2012 around me has walked away still believing the world would end as prophesied by the Maya. I regularly listen to the SGU, Skeptoid, and The Atheist Experience podcasts as well as many other skeptical/atheist podcasts. Now I've gone and joined what I once considered the most evil, close-minded forum on the internets. Skeptics do convince the believers.

Nominated. I want to sincerely thank you for posting this. It really made my day.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Nominated. I want to sincerely thank you for posting this. It really made my day.

Seconded, with gusto!

I'm really glad you've made such a valuable turnaround towards logical thinking, Temecula. Well done, for gaining such valuable insight off your own bat.

I've been banned 3 times from the Loose Change forum, ages ago. I doubt if you remember me. What was your username there?


ETA: I see in your thread in the CT forum it was "Hot Dog Bun". I've replied to you there as well.

 

[Travis]

I actually consulted this forum a few weeks ago looking for a scientific study of MSG. I use it a lot and recently bought a 32 oz canister of it at Sam's Club, so it pleased me to find none of the anti-MSG sensationalism was true. Before my "conversion" I had assumed it was logical to assume that with all the hubbub about negative the side effects of MSG, at least some of it must be true. Of course that didn't stop me from using it, I love chicken fried rice.

MSG tends to leave a bit of an aftertaste in my mouth so I've been too fond of it but I will proudly admit that I always thought the fears of it were probably overblown.

Welcome to the forums Temecula! My brother lived down in Temecula, California for about a year.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Something I have wondered is this, is everyone open to changing their views, or did the converts to skepticism have a partial tendency toward revising their opinion in the face of new evidence?

What I am wondering is this, were they essentialy skeptics all allong and just did not have the knowledge or tools to evaluate claims being made, or was their thought process changed? If have been presented with bad information and ideas your whole life you would believe it, but being willing to reevaluate your beliefs in the light of new information is the core of skepticism.

 

[catbasket]

I registered just to make this post.

<snip excellent post>

Welcome! Well worthy of being nominated.

Also, kudos to jakesteele for the apology.

 

[steenkh]

What I am wondering is this, were they essentialy skeptics all allong and just did not have the knowledge or tools to evaluate claims being made, or was their thought process changed?

You mean if they were real scotsmen woo-woos?

Obviously there will always be somebody who will never change their views no matter what happens. But most people fancy that they are willing to do so, and I think that it is doing them an injustice to assume that the typical woo-woo is incapable of critical thinking.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You mean if they were real scotsmen woo-woos?

Obviously there will always be somebody who will never change their views no matter what happens. But most people fancy that they are willing to do so, and I think that it is doing them an injustice to assume that the typical woo-woo is incapable of critical thinking.

Not really, what I am saying is that how readily one accepts and alters their world view based on new information is likely a fairly fixed trait. Of course we can't know how many people who are not reformed believers but life long skeptics really have this trait. If someone found that telepathy was real I am sure there would still be telepathy deniers.

 

[steenkh]

Not really, what I am saying is that how readily one accepts and alters their world view based on new information is likely a fairly fixed trait.

I know somebody who is a stern woo believer but many years of acquaintance with me has achieved a slight change: his beliefs are apparently in no way altered, but he has sent his daughter to me to inquire about the existence of ghosts etc. A surprising degree of openmindedness that I respect very much, even though the daughter is still being told that there is more between Heaven and Earth than what the scientists (that I undeservedly represent) think.

 

[RSLancastr]

If my SSB emails are to be believed, my articles there have convinced some peoplr that Browne is not psychic. So yes, skeptics can change the minds of believer, though I doubt it is often accomplished via mockery.

 

[Tapio]

Hi stanfr! These forums have been the main drive for me in altering and abandoning what I now call 'uncritically formed' beliefs regarding (in no special order) vaccinations, organic food, many ecological issues, GMO's, alternative therapies, the scientific method, big bad pharma, The Bible, vegetarianism, global warming, 9/11, some other conspiracy theories, UFO's and loads of other not so relevant stuff.

There's only one 'old' belief I still hold which sadly wasn't adequately adressed here. Now, even if I wouldn't be convinced of my possible error regarding that particular subject (which I am not at the moment), I can clearly say these forums (meaning all the links, references, literature, videos, opinions etc.) have been the most influential part of my seeking of knowledge regarding various subjects in my life.

So as much of a pain it is to separate the gems from the bs - meaning exactly the kind of verbal conduct you explained - I say IT'S WORTH IT. Absolutely!!

Have a great day, y'all, where ever you are!

 

[David Wong]

Please remember that there is a difference between someone being convinced and SAYING they've been convinced. The percentage of people who believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories has plummeted in the last 5 years. That change was not accompanied by masses of people joining the forum to declare they were wrong. They just stopped talking about it.

Most people's egos won't let them come forward with a public declaration. They just argue argue argue, then slowly stop arguing, then go silent. The change happens on the inside.


But it does happen.

 

[desertyeti]

It all depends entirely on the mentality of the believer.
A rational, intelligent believer will listen to, comprehend, and accept any honest debunking.
An irrational believer will do none of the above.
Irrational believers may be those who actually DON't believe but CLAIM they do, those that are genuinely ignorant, or those who are simply good at living in denial.
Rational believers evolve.
Irrationals don't...almost poetic when you think about it...

 

[Ranb]

Well I have been browsing these forums for over a year and I have seen familiar names... but I doubt anyone from JREF used the same name on the LC forum, as that alone was often grounds for mistreatment and ridicule.

I used the same name on the first LCF. I was banned 30 minutes after I quoted an Avery post deriding video editing. I asked if it was anything like quote mining. I came back as Ranb40; that lasted a while until someone noticed that I was like Ranb. I alluded to being Ranb several times before I was banned for being a sock puppet. Later I came back using the name Kaiya. I got caught because I signed off with Ranb instead of Kaiya, silly me. But I was not banned until I referred to the LCF as a hate group though.

My most recent attempt in the latest version of the LCF was as Mick. I noted that several other people were accused of being Ranb while I was there earlier this year. I was banned for a week after I continued to ask for evidence to support claims made by one of the Shanksville no-planers. The week long ban has been in force since June.

It is rather difficult to voice any contrary views on a forum that is designed for one group like minded people to pat each other on the back. I do not think I will be going back there for a while.

Ranb

 

[ponderingturtle]

I used the same name on the first LCF. I was banned 30 minutes after I quoted an Avery post deriding video editing. I asked if it was anything like quote mining. I came back as Ranb40; that lasted a while until someone noticed that I was like Ranb. I alluded to being Ranb several times before I was banned for being a sock puppet. Later I came back using the name Kaiya. I got caught because I signed off with Ranb instead of Kaiya, silly me. But I was not banned until I referred to the LCF as a hate group though.

My most recent attempt in the latest version of the LCF was as Mick. I noted that several other people were accused of being Ranb while I was there earlier this year. I was banned for a week after I continued to ask for evidence to support claims made by one of the Shanksville no-planers. The week long ban has been in force since June.

It is rather difficult to voice any contrary views on a forum that is designed for one group like minded people to pat each other on the back. I do not think I will be going back there for a while.

Ranb

Don't let them know that, sow paranoia friend citizen. And remember happiness is mandatory.

 

[Olowkow]

I remember banning and suspending people from the JREF forum dozens of times. I would always try to make sure that the email they got when being permanently suspended included some over-the-top insult. I felt pretty bad about it once i realized that although many of them were quite condescending, they were in fact right, and I was wrong.

I'll add my welcome. Interesting story. If you don't mind, could you comment generally on how you are different from those who will never see the light, or those still on that forum? I really don't understand what personality traits are involved in keeping some persons in a cult belief, while others can get out.
By the way, I like your taste in podcasts.

 

[Temecula]

I'll add my welcome. Interesting story. If you don't mind, could you comment generally on how you are different from those who will never see the light, or those still on that forum? I really don't understand what personality traits are involved in keeping some persons in a cult belief, while others can get out.
By the way, I like your taste in podcasts.

I don't understand either. Given the critical observation I maintained after leaving 'the movement', it would be comforting to think that I do have some sort of hard wired difference between them and myself. I cannot really comment on any of their personality traits because frankly most of them didn't have personalities. I am sure they all had personalities and what not, one of the first I had encountered and had discussions with was an artist in his late 50s who had some really beautiful paintings, but that really was an exception to the rule.. the rule being that most of the 'personalities' I encountered consisted almost entirely of 2 sliding scales that varied depending on who you were dealing with: Craziness and Zealotry. Some were crazier than others, some were more zealous than others.