Montague Keen

[CFLarsen]

Try again. Your question still requires that I accept your premises in order to answer.

No, you don't. My premises have nothing to do with the question. It's a simple question about satire and sarcasm.

Try again. If sarcasm is a part of satire and you think that sarcasm shouldn't be used, do you think that satire should be done without sarcasm?

What other people say about us isn't necessarily true. We're intelligent enough to separate poor rhetoric, i.e. ad hominem arguments and plain insults, from valid arguments.

The focus should be on the pertinent issue. If it's "can people speak to the dead", that should be the focus, not "skeptics are mean", or "everyone associated with this nonsense is a whacknutjob".

I'm not saying that either. Nobody has argued that it is a good way of resorting to sarcasm only. Evidence, testing, rationality must be part of it.

True. That doesn't make it okay to call people "whacknutjobs", which qualifies them as having mental illness.

Not to me.

These days, it's a common rhetorical device to claim meanings for words that are not common, accepted meanings. Someone who says, "I am insulted that you have even questioned my belief," is employing a rhetorical device. The answer is, "I am not trying to insult you. I am trying to understand your belief and I am trying to help you understand mine." I've had the same tactic used against me by a person who was reciting text from a book about child abuse as if it had been her own experience. I mentioned that I had read the exact same account and produced the book. The person said, "By questioning my story you are perpetuating the abuse." My answer? "No, and you know that isn't true." However, that was the end of the conversation. We're under no obligation to blandly accept insults. Replying with more insults means that we have accepted the other party's terms of engagement, and we are automatically set up to lose when we do that.

I usually refer to dictionaries and accepted meanings of words therein as independent, neutral sources. I don't invent or twist definitions in order to win arguments.

It has nothing to do with twisting words about being insulted when your beliefs are questioned. I have absolutely no doubt that believers feel extraordinarily insulted, when this happens. Not name-calling, not sarcasm - only questions.

So, no - I'm not buying your explanation. They do feel insulted.

Maybe you'll win by sheer staying power or you'll win in terms of how many clever insults you can use.

Again, you argue that it's either-or. It isn't. It isn't a case of either having staying power or the number of insults.

The more important questions will remain unresolved and the more important battle will be lost. People will not listen to people who call them "whacknutjobs" or who address them with sarcasm.

The important questions will not remain unresolved - we have ample natural explanations to every paranormal phenomena.

I have not said that it is wrong to express how you feel. I have said that namecalling will not convince the persons who are being called names and will not convince the people who believe in this or that and are being collectively called names such as "whacknutjobs".

Describing someone as a nut is not necessarily namecalling. In the absence of other arguments, it certainly is unwarranted. But backed up with sound arguments, it isn't.

It's fair to call nuts nuts, if you can back it up with evidence.

 

[Pyrrho]

No, you don't. My premises have nothing to do with the question. It's a simple question about satire and sarcasm.

Try again. If sarcasm is a part of satire and you think that sarcasm shouldn't be used, do you think that satire should be done without sarcasm?

As it stands, the question requires that I accept your premises in order to answer. I refuse to answer that question until you rephrase it properly.

I'm not saying that either. Nobody has argued that it is a good way of resorting to sarcasm only. Evidence, testing, rationality must be part of it.

Please explain that statement. I don't quite understand what you're trying to say.

Not to me.

What does "whacknutjob" mean, then?

It has nothing to do with twisting words about being insulted when your beliefs are questioned. I have absolutely no doubt that believers feel extraordinarily insulted, when this happens. Not name-calling, not sarcasm - only questions.

So, no - I'm not buying your explanation. They do feel insulted.

When you set out to insult someone by the use of namecalling the person, the onus is on you. If someone declares that they are insulted by the mere fact of your questions, the onus is on them.

The latter is no excuse for the former.

Again, you argue that it's either-or. It isn't. It isn't a case of either having staying power or the number of insults.

No, you're the one saying that this is an either-or situation. I have not.

I have said, and I keep saying, that you will convince nobody by calling them names.

The important questions will not remain unresolved - we have ample natural explanations to every paranormal phenomena.

We will not convince anybody of those natural explanations if we call them "whacknutjobs". We will not gain their cooperation in understanding exactly what they have experienced. Gary Schwartz, for example, will never cooperate with skeptics who call him names. We have no hope of reaching him as long as we make fun of him. If we destroy the potential for dialogue by hurling insults, we'll never know what evidence will convince any of those people...because they simply won't tell us. Why should they? We call them "whacknutjobs".

Describing someone as a nut is not necessarily namecalling. In the absence of other arguments, it certainly is unwarranted. But backed up with sound arguments, it isn't.

It's fair to call nuts nuts, if you can back it up with evidence.

How is calling someone a nut not namecalling? You can't have it both ways. You don't declare a fact by backing it up with arguments. You must back up your claim with evidence.

You're free to call people "nuts" all you like. They will not listen to you after that. You'll convince them of nothing other than that you like to call people names.

 

[T'ai Chi]

You're free to call people "nuts" all you like. They will not listen to you after that. You'll convince them of nothing other than that you like to call people names.

The sad thing is people do this for years and years. Some 'skeptics' have done it for many decades!

Nothing is accomplished by that tactic accept preaching to the choir.

 

[CFLarsen]

As it stands, the question requires that I accept your premises in order to answer. I refuse to answer that question until you rephrase it properly.

Very well. You refuse to answer the question.

Please explain that statement. I don't quite understand what you're trying to say.

This:

If that was all they did, then you would have a point. But when you look at skeptics here, you won't find anyone (besides DeBunk - but he's hardly human) who only throws insults at purveyors of superstition. You see a plethora of evidence, testing and rational analysis - but you also see people speaking out, in no uncertain terms.

What does "whacknutjob" mean, then?

It means nut. Removed from reality. Living in a dreamworld.

When you set out to insult someone by the use of namecalling the person, the onus is on you. If someone declares that they are insulted by the mere fact of your questions, the onus is on them.

The latter is no excuse for the former.

You don't understand: They are so thin-skinned that if I describe their beliefs as "unfounded", they see that as an insult. Is that namecalling?

No, you're the one saying that this is an either-or situation. I have not.

Yes you have:

Maybe you'll win by sheer staying power or you'll win in terms of how many clever insults you can use.

"Sheer staying power" or "insults".

I have said, and I keep saying, that you will convince nobody by calling them names.

And I have said, and I keep saying, that you will not convince people by showing them evidence. They don't want to be convinced. No matter what you put in front of them, they won't accept it.

Sure, we get a few "converts" from time to time, but we cannot say that merely presenting evidence will convert believers.

We will not convince anybody of those natural explanations if we call them "whacknutjobs". We will not gain their cooperation in understanding exactly what they have experienced. Gary Schwartz, for example, will never cooperate with skeptics who call him names. We have no hope of reaching him as long as we make fun of him. If we destroy the potential for dialogue by hurling insults, we'll never know what evidence will convince any of those people...because they simply won't tell us. Why should they? We call them "whacknutjobs".

Some do, some don't. We all have our different ways. But, how far has anyone gotten with Schwartz? Has anyone been able to get Schwartz to cooperate with any skeptics?

How is calling someone a nut not namecalling? You can't have it both ways. You don't declare a fact by backing it up with arguments. You must back up your claim with evidence.

Ahemn. I did:

It's fair to call nuts nuts, if you can back it up with evidence.

You're free to call people "nuts" all you like. They will not listen to you after that. You'll convince them of nothing other than that you like to call people names.

It isn't merely a question of reaching those people. It is also a question of reaching those on the sideline. It is highly important that we don't sugarcoat things. If something is nutty, it is fair to call it so.

The sad thing is people do this for years and years. Some 'skeptics' have done it for many decades!

Nothing is accomplished by that tactic accept preaching to the choir.

You have referred to these skeptics many times, but you refuse to name them.

 

[Pyrrho]

Very well. You refuse to answer the question.

No, you simply can't or won't phrase it so that it can be answered without having to accept your premises. Let it be so, then.

This:

Already answered.

It means nut. Removed from reality. Living in a dreamworld.

Still insulting.

You don't understand: They are so thin-skinned that if I describe their beliefs as "unfounded", they see that as an insult. Is that namecalling?

I do understand. No, it is not namecalling. If they do that, the onus is on them. If you set out to insult someone by calling them names, the onus is on you.

Yes you have:

"Sheer staying power" or "insults".

Ah. Ok. What's the middle ground, then?

And I have said, and I keep saying, that you will not convince people by showing them evidence. They don't want to be convinced. No matter what you put in front of them, they won't accept it.

Sure, we get a few "converts" from time to time, but we cannot say that merely presenting evidence will convert believers.

That is your opinion. That doesn't validate "namecalling". My position is, and has been, that you will not convince anybody by calling them names. Whether or not they can be convinced at all is another issue.

I have not said that merely presenting evidence will convert believers. I have said that calling them names will not convince them.

Some do, some don't. We all have our different ways. But, how far has anyone gotten with Schwartz? Has anyone been able to get Schwartz to cooperate with any skeptics?

Given the way skeptics have treated him, I could easily argue that he'd be nuts to cooperate with skeptics.

Ahemn. I did:

And I said you can call people "nuts" all you like. Nobody is saying that you can't. I am saying that calling people "nuts" is an act of futility.

It isn't merely a question of reaching those people. It is also a question of reaching those on the sideline. It is highly important that we don't sugarcoat things. If something is nutty, it is fair to call it so.

Some thing is not a person. Calling a person nuts is just plain namecalling. They will not listen to your evidence after you do that.

Who will people observing the debate respect more: the believer, or the namecalling skeptic?

 

[CFLarsen]

No, you simply can't or won't phrase it so that it can be answered without having to accept your premises. Let it be so, then.

Do you have a suggestion how to rephrase it? What exactly is it that forces you to accept what you call my premises?

Still insulting.
...
I do understand. No, it is not namecalling. If they do that, the onus is on them. If you set out to insult someone by calling them names, the onus is on you.

"Removed from reality" is namecalling? Aren't you a bit thin-skinned?

Ah. Ok. What's the middle ground, then?

Already answered.

Given the way skeptics have treated him, I could easily argue that he'd be nuts to cooperate with skeptics.

Have all skeptics treated him in an insulting manner?

And I said you can call people "nuts" all you like. Nobody is saying that you can't. I am saying that calling people "nuts" is an act of futility.

We disagree.

Some thing is not a person. Calling a person nuts is just plain namecalling. They will not listen to your evidence after you do that.

I see. So, it is OK to say "What you are doing is nuts", but not OK to say "you are nuts"?

Who will people observing the debate respect more: the believer, or the namecalling skeptic?

The skeptic who presents evidence and is honest.

 

[Pyrrho]

Do you have a suggestion how to rephrase it? What exactly is it that forces you to accept what you call my premises?

Ok, I'll diagram it for you.

If sarcasm is a part of satire and you think that sarcasm shouldn't be used, do you think that satire should be done without sarcasm?

Premise: Sarcasm is a part of satire
Premise: Pyrrho thinks sarcasm shouldn't be used

In order to answer the question as phrased, I am forced to accept those two premises whether I answer the question "Yes" or "No". Merely answering the question requires that I accept your two premises. The "if" at the beginning of the sentence doesn't help. I have to answer "Yes" to the first part "If sarcasm is a part of satire" and I have to answer "Yes" to the next part, "and you think that sarcasm shouldn't be used" in order to answer the question at all. If I split the question up into its three parts, and answer each separately, I negate the answers I give for the other parts. That's why the "complex question" fallacy is a fallacy: it forces the person who is asked the question to accept the premises introduced by the questioner.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_complex.htm

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/cq.php

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/complex.html

No, I won't rephrase it for you. Writing questions for myself and answering them won't wash.

"Removed from reality" is namecalling? Aren't you a bit thin-skinned?

I said it is "still insulting". I didn't say it was namecalling. Also, there is no need for this discussion to get personal...especially with fallacious questions. Whether or not I am "a bit thin-skinned" is irrelevant.

Have all skeptics treated him in an insulting manner?

Enough skeptics have done so. However, I don't speak for Schwartz. It was an example of how one such "whacknutjob" might feel about sharing data with skeptics who call him names. I dare say he'd say "No."

I see. So, it is OK to say "What you are doing is nuts", but not OK to say "you are nuts"?

Still insulting.

Again, you are free to say whatever you like about people. You will not convince them of your point of view by calling them names or by making fun of what they believe.

The skeptic who presents evidence and is honest.

Honesty is one thing. Claiming "honesty" as justification for namecalling is quite another.

"You're a whacknutjob for believing that!"

"You know, that's insulting."

"I was merely being honest."

Call names all you like. Nobody is saying that you can't.

When you successfully use namecalling to convince anyone that your evidence is valid--and I mean evidence that what the person you're calling names believes isn't real, not that the person is worthy of the name you're calling them--and that your arguments are sound, let us know. Also let us know how much respect that earns you from the people you insult by calling them names.

 

[CFLarsen]

Ok, I'll diagram it for you.

If sarcasm is a part of satire and you think that sarcasm shouldn't be used, do you think that satire should be done without sarcasm?

Premise: Sarcasm is a part of satire
Premise: Pyrrho thinks sarcasm shouldn't be used

In order to answer the question as phrased, I am forced to accept those two premises whether I answer the question "Yes" or "No". Merely answering the question requires that I accept your two premises. The "if" at the beginning of the sentence doesn't help. I have to answer "Yes" to the first part "If sarcasm is a part of satire" and I have to answer "Yes" to the next part, "and you think that sarcasm shouldn't be used" in order to answer the question at all. If I split the question up into its three parts, and answer each separately, I negate the answers I give for the other parts. That's why the "complex question" fallacy is a fallacy: it forces the person who is asked the question to accept the premises introduced by the questioner.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_complex.htm

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/cq.php

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/complex.html

No, I won't rephrase it for you. Writing questions for myself and answering them won't wash.

Very well. Which premise(s) do you not accept?

I said it is "still insulting". I didn't say it was namecalling. Also, there is no need for this discussion to get personal...especially with fallacious questions. Whether or not I am "a bit thin-skinned" is irrelevant.

I'm not getting personal. I'm asking why you find "removed from reality" insulting.

Enough skeptics have done so.

"Enough"? How many is enough? How many skeptics do you think Schwartz has heard calling him names?

However, I don't speak for Schwartz. It was an example of how one such "whacknutjob" might feel about sharing data with skeptics who call him names. I dare say he'd say "No."

Schwartz will not cooperate with skeptics, no matter if they call him names or not. He has no interest, because he knows they will point out flaws in his experiments and make suggestions that will make it impossible for him to massage his data into showing what he wants it to show.

Still insulting.

How would you describe someone who was removed from reality, but not using that phrase?

Honesty is one thing. Claiming "honesty" as justification for namecalling is quite another.

"You're a whacknutjob for believing that!"

"You know, that's insulting."

"I was merely being honest."

Yeah. What good is it to hold back how you feel?

When you successfully use namecalling to convince anyone that your evidence is valid--and I mean evidence that what the person you're calling names believes isn't real, not that the person is worthy of the name you're calling them--and that your arguments are sound, let us know. Also let us know how much respect that earns you from the people you insult by calling them names.

How will I provide evidence that psychics don't talk to dead people? You're asking me to prove a negative.

 

[Pyrrho]

Very well. Which premise(s) do you not accept?

Subtle, but still a complex question which presupposes that I do not accept certain premises.

I'm not getting personal. I'm asking why you find "removed from reality" insulting.

The statement was:

It means nut. Removed from reality. Living in a dreamworld.
That's still insulting. You're telling the person that they are a "nut", meaning mentally ill, that they are "removed from reality", which in and of itself is mild but still an insult, and "living in a dreamworld" which implies delusion. It's derogatory and insulting.

"Enough"? How many is enough? How many skeptics do you think Schwartz has heard calling him names?

If he's heard one, he's heard enough.

Schwartz will not cooperate with skeptics, no matter if they call him names or not. He has no interest, because he knows they will point out flaws in his experiments and make suggestions that will make it impossible for him to massage his data into showing what he wants it to show.

Well, that's your opinion. It doesn't justify namecalling. It does not follow that if Schwartz won't cooperate, it's good to call him names. Also, as I have been saying, calling Schwartz names won't convince people that the skeptic who calls names is correct about anything.

How would you describe someone who was removed from reality, but not using that phrase?

The judgment of whether or not someone is "removed from reality", whatever that means, is a judgment I am not qualified to make, so I wouldn't describe a person that way even by means of different words

Yeah. What good is it to hold back how you feel?

I have not advocated "holding back how you feel". I have advocated the point of view that namecalling and insults will not convince the party being insulted and called names. People are free to express how they feel all they want.

How will I provide evidence that psychics don't talk to dead people? You're asking me to prove a negative.

That is a strawman argument. I have asked you no such thing.

Namecalling is not evidence that psychics can't talk to dead people.

 

[CFLarsen]

Subtle, but still a complex question which presupposes that I do not accept certain premises.

Huh? You refused to answer my question because you claimed it would require that you did accept certain premises. So, I asked you which of the premises you do not accept.

Could you answer the question?

The statement was:

It means nut. Removed from reality. Living in a dreamworld.
That's still insulting. You're telling the person that they are a "nut", meaning mentally ill

That's your interpretation.

that they are "removed from reality", which in and of itself is mild but still an insult, and "living in a dreamworld" which implies delusion. It's derogatory and insulting.

You find it insulting because you find it insulting. Aha.

If he's heard one, he's heard enough.

Ah, so you think that, if one skeptic utters an insult, it gives Schwartz a carte blanche to refuse all skeptics.

That's ridiculous.

The judgment of whether or not someone is "removed from reality", whatever that means, is a judgment I am not qualified to make, so I wouldn't describe a person that way even by means of different words

Huh? You just rejected this phrase because you found it to be insulting, and now you tell me you don't know what it means?

Ridiculous.

That is a strawman argument. I have asked you no such thing.

Sure you have (emphasis mine):

When you successfully use namecalling to convince anyone that your evidence is valid--and I mean evidence that what the person you're calling names believes isn't real

How can I provide evidence that a paranormal belief is not real?

 

[Pyrrho]

Huh? You refused to answer my question because you claimed it would require that you did accept certain premises. So, I asked you which of the premises you do not accept.

Could you answer the question?

I refer you to my prior comments on this. If you want me to answer questions, don't employ fallacious complex questions that require me to accept your premises in order to answer.

That's your interpretation.

Calling a person a "nut" is derogatory, especially when directed at people who believe things we don't. Words mean what they mean, generally--although it is a common--and rather weak--rhetorical practice to claim special meanings for words.

At Merriam-Webster, we find this definition:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/nut

"6 a : a foolish, eccentric, or crazy person b : ENTHUSIAST <a movie nut>"

It seems pretty clear that the use of "nut", especially in the form "whacknutjob", isn't definition part b, "enthusiast". Even in the simple form, "nut", it means foolish, or eccentric, or crazy. Foolish and eccentric are the correct words to use if you want to describe someone that way. "Nut" is generally taken to mean "crazy", i.e. mentally ill.

You find it insulting because you find it insulting. Aha.

That is a strawman argument. It's insulting because it is derogatory, as explained. It's not as if I've invented the derogatory nature of "living in a dreamworld" or "removed from reality". Both are suggestive of delusion.

Ah, so you think that, if one skeptic utters an insult, it gives Schwartz a carte blanche to refuse all skeptics.

That's ridiculous.

That is a strawman argument. I said no such thing. I am not saying that it gives Schwartz carte blanche to refuse all skeptics. Those are your words. I am saying that if you call Schwartz names such as "whacknutjob", he probably will refuse all skeptics. I am saying that he has already been similarly insulted by skeptics and I am saying that insulting him won't gain his cooperation...and in fact probably ensures that he won't cooperate.

Huh? You just rejected this phrase because you found it to be insulting, and now you tell me you don't know what it means?

Ridiculous.

I don't know exactly what it means because you haven't defined it. I can only surmise what it implies: "removed from reality" implies delusion and is for that reason insulting. However, the phrase is sufficiently ambiguous that it could probably be used in a professional setting--such as a qualified clinical psychologist making an assessment of a patient. As a rhetorical phrase used in a debate or discussion as applied to an opponent, it's just an ad hominem argument...and an insult.

Sure you have (emphasis mine):

In its full context:

Honesty is one thing. Claiming "honesty" as justification for namecalling is quite another.

"You're a whacknutjob for believing that!"

"You know, that's insulting."

"I was merely being honest."

Call names all you like. Nobody is saying that you can't.

When you successfully use namecalling to convince anyone that your evidence is valid--and I mean evidence that what the person you're calling names believes isn't real, not that the person is worthy of the name you're calling them--and that your arguments are sound, let us know. Also let us know how much respect that earns you from the people you insult by calling them names.

Focusing on the phrase, "evidence that what the person you're calling names believes isn't real" avoids the main issue in favor of an unrelated question. You feel that I have asked you to prove a negative--I have not done so. I asked you to let us know when you've successfully used namecalling to convince anyone that your evidence is valid, with the qualifier that said evidence not be evidence that your namecalling is valid. Skeptics debunk claims all the time. That would do. I'm not asking anything impossible, and besides, that wasn't the point.

How can I provide evidence that a paranormal belief is not real?

At first I intended to say that this is irrelevant, but I need to correct that.

If we're going to reach anyone who believes in something paranormal--and by "paranormal" I mean things like mediums talking to the dead, Geller effect, remote viewing, ghosts, etc.--we'll have to convince them to think differently about their experiences.

How do we provide evidence that their beliefs are in things that are not objectively real? We do that by explain and teaching science, critical thinking, reason, logic, and why "paranormal" things aren't objectively real...based on scientific evidence. The means and methods of each discussion depend upon the subject matter.

We will not reach people by calling them names such as "whacknutjob". We will not convince anyone who believes in the paranormal that our opinions, arguments, and evidence are valid by calling people names and otherwise offering deliberate insults.

 

[CFLarsen]

I refer you to my prior comments on this. If you want me to answer questions, don't employ fallacious complex questions that require me to accept your premises in order to answer.

Let me recap here, OK?

• I ask you a question.
  
  
• You refuse to answer that question, because you feel it presupposes that you accept certain premises.
  
  
• I ask you which premises you don't accept.
  
  
• You refuse to answer that question, because you feel it presupposes that you do not accept certain premises.

Is this a correct recap? Or is this question forcing you to accept - or not accept - some unknown premises?

Calling a person a "nut" is derogatory, especially when directed at people who believe things we don't. Words mean what they mean, generally--although it is a common--and rather weak--rhetorical practice to claim special meanings for words.

At Merriam-Webster, we find this definition:

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/nut

"6 a : a foolish, eccentric, or crazy person b : ENTHUSIAST <a movie nut>"

It seems pretty clear that the use of "nut", especially in the form "whacknutjob", isn't definition part b, "enthusiast". Even in the simple form, "nut", it means foolish, or eccentric, or crazy. Foolish and eccentric are the correct words to use if you want to describe someone that way. "Nut" is generally taken to mean "crazy", i.e. mentally ill.

Is it? According to the dictionary, it can also be a foolish person. Why can't Schwartz be foolish?

That is a strawman argument. It's insulting because it is derogatory, as explained. It's not as if I've invented the derogatory nature of "living in a dreamworld" or "removed from reality". Both are suggestive of delusion.

Insulting because it is derogatory. Same thing.

That is a strawman argument. I said no such thing.

Hmmm... yes, you did:

If he's heard one, he's heard enough.

I am not saying that it gives Schwartz carte blanche to refuse all skeptics. Those are your words. I am saying that if you call Schwartz names such as "whacknutjob", he probably will refuse all skeptics.

Ah. Probably....

I am saying that he has already been similarly insulted by skeptics and I am saying that insulting him won't gain his cooperation...and in fact probably ensures that he won't cooperate.

Some people call him names, and suddenly, he refuses to play with others who have not called him names. Do you think that is an acceptable behavior, given the fact that Schwartz claims to do science and claims to be interested in improving his experiments?

I don't know exactly what it means because you haven't defined it. I can only surmise what it implies: "removed from reality" implies delusion and is for that reason insulting. However, the phrase is sufficiently ambiguous that it could probably be used in a professional setting--such as a qualified clinical psychologist making an assessment of a patient. As a rhetorical phrase used in a debate or discussion as applied to an opponent, it's just an ad hominem argument...and an insult.

Perhaps you should wait to reject it until you are certain what the term means?

In its full context:

Focusing on the phrase, "evidence that what the person you're calling names believes isn't real" avoids the main issue in favor of an unrelated question. You feel that I have asked you to prove a negative--I have not done so. I asked you to let us know when you've successfully used namecalling to convince anyone that your evidence is valid, with the qualifier that said evidence not be evidence that your namecalling is valid.

And I am focusing on the qualifier: How to prove that a paranormal phenomenon does not exist. You know I can't do that, so you have effectively made it impossible for me to show that someone is convinced that my evidence is valid. It can never be valid.

You have set up an impossible task for me. What do you think that proves?

Skeptics debunk claims all the time. That would do. I'm not asking anything impossible, and besides, that wasn't the point.

Debunking is not the same as showing evidence that something does not exist.

At first I intended to say that this is irrelevant, but I need to correct that.

If we're going to reach anyone who believes in something paranormal--and by "paranormal" I mean things like mediums talking to the dead, Geller effect, remote viewing, ghosts, etc.--we'll have to convince them to think differently about their experiences.

How do we provide evidence that their beliefs are in things that are not objectively real? We do that by explain and teaching science, critical thinking, reason, logic, and why "paranormal" things aren't objectively real...based on scientific evidence. The means and methods of each discussion depend upon the subject matter.

We will not reach people by calling them names such as "whacknutjob". We will not convince anyone who believes in the paranormal that our opinions, arguments, and evidence are valid by calling people names and otherwise offering deliberate insults.

That doesn't answer the question: How can I provide evidence that a paranormal belief is not real?

 

[Pyrrho]

Let me recap here, OK?

• I ask you a question.
  
  
• You refuse to answer that question, because you feel it presupposes that you accept certain premises.
  
  
• I ask you which premises you don't accept.
  
  
• You refuse to answer that question, because you feel it presupposes that you do not accept certain premises.

Is this a correct recap? Or is this question forcing you to accept - or not accept - some unknown premises?

You asked this question:

If sarcasm is a part of satire and you think that sarcasm shouldn't be used, do you think that satire should be done without sarcasm?

It is a complex question, a classical fallacy. I correctly identified it as such. The question requires that I accept your premises:

a. That sarcasm is part of satire
b. That I think sarcasm should not be used

If I answer the question at all, I would be assenting to those two premises, which are your premises. It is not a given that I hold either of those two positions or that I do not hold them. I refuse to answer that complex question.

The other question was--and I provide it in the context in which it was asked:

Ok, I'll diagram it for you.

If sarcasm is a part of satire and you think that sarcasm shouldn't be used, do you think that satire should be done without sarcasm?

Premise: Sarcasm is a part of satire
Premise: Pyrrho thinks sarcasm shouldn't be used

In order to answer the question as phrased, I am forced to accept those two premises whether I answer the question "Yes" or "No". Merely answering the question requires that I accept your two premises. The "if" at the beginning of the sentence doesn't help. I have to answer "Yes" to the first part "If sarcasm is a part of satire" and I have to answer "Yes" to the next part, "and you think that sarcasm shouldn't be used" in order to answer the question at all. If I split the question up into its three parts, and answer each separately, I negate the answers I give for the other parts. That's why the "complex question" fallacy is a fallacy: it forces the person who is asked the question to accept the premises introduced by the questioner.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQ...ll_complex.htm

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/cq.php

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/complex.html

No, I won't rephrase it for you. Writing questions for myself and answering them won't wash.

Very well. Which premise(s) do you not accept?

The issue is not which premises I do not accept. What I do not accept, and will not answer, are complex questions that require me to accept your premises. In this case, your premise is that I do not accept the premises in the previous complex question.

Is it? According to the dictionary, it can also be a foolish person. Why can't Schwartz be foolish?

He certainly can be foolish. He certainly can be called a "nut", or even a "whacknutjob", if you think doing that is necessary. You won't gain his cooperation by calling him names. Softening an insult doesn't make it into something other than an insult.

Insulting because it is derogatory. Same thing.

Wrong.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/derogatory

Main Entry: de·rog·a·to·ry
Pronunciation: di-'rä-g&-"tOr-E, -"tor-
Function: adjective
1 : detracting from the character or standing of something -- often used with to, of, or from
2 : expressive of a low opinion : DISPARAGING <derogatory remarks>

Main Entry: 1in·sult
Pronunciation: in-'s&lt
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French insulter, from Latin insultare, literally, to spring upon, from in- + saltare to leap -- more at SALTATION
intransitive senses, archaic : to behave with pride or arrogance : VAUNT
transitive senses : to treat with insolence, indignity, or contempt : AFFRONT; also : to affect offensively or damagingly <doggerel that insults the reader's intelligence>

Hmmm... yes, you did:

You said:

Ah, so you think that, if one skeptic utters an insult, it gives Schwartz a carte blanche to refuse all skeptics.

That's ridiculous.


And I said:

That is a strawman argument. I said no such thing. I am not saying that it gives Schwartz carte blanche to refuse all skeptics. Those are your words. I am saying that if you call Schwartz names such as "whacknutjob", he probably will refuse all skeptics. I am saying that he has already been similarly insulted by skeptics and I am saying that insulting him won't gain his cooperation...and in fact probably ensures that he won't cooperate.

You had asked how many skeptics were enough to have insulted Schwartz. I said that if he's heard one, he's heard enough. You can scroll back for the correct context.

I stand by my words.

Ah. Probably....

Yes, probably.

Some people call him names, and suddenly, he refuses to play with others who have not called him names. Do you think that is an acceptable behavior, given the fact that Schwartz claims to do science and claims to be interested in improving his experiments?

Schwartz really isn't the issue, here, but I'll follow this tangent briefly. It is not acceptable to withhold evidence and testing protocols from scrutiny and review, especially when the person claims to be doing science and when the person claims to want to improve their experiments.

However, if scientist B calls scientist A a "whacknutjob", scientist A would be justified in saying "No." to scientist B. Scientist B isn't practicing good science either, if Scientist B resorts to namecalling when Scientist B doesn't get his way. Publicly ridiculing a person is no way to gain that person's cooperation.

Scientist A is justified in ignoring Scientist B, but should still submit his work to peer review and scrutiny from other scientists.

Perhaps you should wait to reject it until you are certain what the term means?

I repeat:

I don't know exactly what it means because you haven't defined it. I can only surmise what it implies: "removed from reality" implies delusion and is for that reason insulting. However, the phrase is sufficiently ambiguous that it could probably be used in a professional setting--such as a qualified clinical psychologist making an assessment of a patient. As a rhetorical phrase used in a debate or discussion as applied to an opponent, it's just an ad hominem argument...and an insult.

And I am focusing on the qualifier: How to prove that a paranormal phenomenon does not exist. You know I can't do that, so you have effectively made it impossible for me to show that someone is convinced that my evidence is valid. It can never be valid.

You have set up an impossible task for me. What do you think that proves?

Again, that is not the point, and I disagree that paranormal beliefs cannot be proven wrong, but I'll follow this tangent briefly.

When someone claims to believe in ghosts, how do we respond? Typically, we respond by suggesting various natural explanations. We try to convince the believer that their experience is the result of those natural explanations. We offer them the background evidence to apply critical thinking and rationality to their belief in ghosts. Sometimes, such people are convinced that our evidence is valid and they begin to think differently about their paranormal belief.

My contention is this: calling such a person a "whacknutjob", or otherwise deliberately insulting them, will not convince them that the ghost they believe in has a natural explanation.

I'll make it simple: when you can convince someone who believes in ghosts that their belief is wrong by calling them names, let us know.

Debunking is not the same as showing evidence that something does not exist.

Again, that is not the point. The point is, you won't convince anyone by calling them names.

That doesn't answer the question: How can I provide evidence that a paranormal belief is not real?

The JREF Challenge is one such method. Evidence can be provided by testing paranormal beliefs. Many of these paranormal beliefs are testable, such as ghosts, dowsing, Geller effect, remote viewing, therapeutic touch, Ganzfeld, talking-to-the-dead, and so on. Evidence is provided by testing.

Evidence is also provided by demonstration. For example, you have an article on your website that provides evidence that belief in "orbs" as a paranormal phenomenon is mistaken. That is valid evidence. Invalid evidence would be, "People who believe in orbs are whacknutjobs."

That is beside the point. The point is, we can't convince anybody of any evidence we provide, or any argument we provide, or any opinion we provide, by calling them names. We can't convince people to submit their paranormal beliefs or claims to testing by calling them names. Whether or not they can be convinced by anything is beside the point.

If you want to call people names, go ahead. I'm not saying that we can't call people names. I'm saying that we won't ever convince anybody that we're right by calling them names.

 

[CFLarsen]

You asked this question:

If sarcasm is a part of satire and you think that sarcasm shouldn't be used, do you think that satire should be done without sarcasm?

It is a complex question, a classical fallacy. I correctly identified it as such. The question requires that I accept your premises:

a. That sarcasm is part of satire
b. That I think sarcasm should not be used

If I answer the question at all, I would be assenting to those two premises, which are your premises. It is not a given that I hold either of those two positions or that I do not hold them. I refuse to answer that complex question.

The other question was--and I provide it in the context in which it was asked:

Very well. Which premise(s) do you not accept?

That question presupposes that I do not accept your premises. The issue is not which premises I do not accept. What I do not accept, and will not answer, are complex questions that require me to accept your premises.

So, the recap was correct? Yes?

Wrong.

detracting from the character or standing of something

to treat with insolence, indignity, or contempt

Right.

You had asked how many skeptics were enough to have insulted Schwartz. I said that if he's heard one, he's heard enough. You can scroll back for the correct context.

I stand by my words.

And those were: "If he's heard one, he's heard enough."

Yes, probably.

A bit different from what your words originally were. Oh, well.

Schwartz really isn't the issue, here, but I'll follow this tangent briefly. It is not acceptable to withhold evidence and testing protocols from scrutiny and review, especially when the person claims to be doing science and when the person claims to want to improve their experiments.

Whoa. Not merely claims to improve their experiments. Randi's suggestions would definitely have closed quite a few holes. Yet, Schwartz refused to use them. Not because Randi described him in less-than-polite-but-very-true words, but because Schwartz knew - he may be a fool but he is very intelligent - that if he did use Randi's suggestions, he would have no results.

However, if scientist B calls scientist A a "whacknutjob", scientist A would be justified in saying "No." to scientist B. Scientist B isn't practicing good science either, if Scientist B resorts to namecalling when Scientist B doesn't get his way. Publicly ridiculing a person is no way to gain that person's cooperation.

Scientist A is justified in ignoring Scientist B, but should still submit his work to peer review and scrutiny from other scientists.

Would Scientist A be justified in saying "No" to all other scientists, because Scientist B had called Scientist A names?

I repeat:

I don't know exactly what it means because you haven't defined it. I can only surmise what it implies: "removed from reality" implies delusion and is for that reason insulting. However, the phrase is sufficiently ambiguous that it could probably be used in a professional setting--such as a qualified clinical psychologist making an assessment of a patient. As a rhetorical phrase used in a debate or discussion as applied to an opponent, it's just an ad hominem argument...and an insult.

And I repeat: Wait to reject a term until you are certain what the term means.

When someone claims to believe in ghosts, how do we respond? Typically, we respond by suggesting various natural explanations. We try to convince the believer that their experience is the result of those natural explanations. We offer them the background evidence to apply critical thinking and rationality to their belief in ghosts. Sometimes, such people are convinced that our evidence is valid and they begin to think differently about their paranormal belief.

My contention is this: calling such a person a "whacknutjob", or otherwise deliberately insulting them, will not convince them that the ghost they believe in has a natural explanation.

The JREF Challenge is one such method. Evidence can be provided by testing paranormal beliefs. Many of these paranormal beliefs are testable, such as ghosts, dowsing, Geller effect, remote viewing, therapeutic touch, Ganzfeld, talking-to-the-dead, and so on. Evidence is provided by testing.

The JREF Challenge does not provide evidence that a paranormal belief is real or not. The Challenge only provides evidence that a certain paranormal claim is valid or not.

If we followed your line of reasoning, it would only be necessary to test dowsing once, and then reject all future dowsing applicants. As you well know, this is not the case.

Ergo, the JREF Challenge cannot be used for what you want. Your task is impossible.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Why do I have the feeling that this thread will be bumped in 2009 or something?

 

[CFLarsen]

Why do I have the feeling that this thread will be bumped in 2009 or something?

Why don't you go answer some of the many, many questions that awaits you?

 

[Pyrrho]

I guess it's back to the Claus and T'ai show.

It's become evident to me that Claus cannot or will not address the key issue: that namecalling cannot convince others of our point of view.

Ta ta.

 

[CFLarsen]

I guess it's back to the Claus and T'ai show.

It's become evident to me that Claus cannot or will not address the key issue: that namecalling cannot convince others of our point of view.

Ta ta.

I have, several times.

You missed these:

Was the recap was correct?

Would Scientist A be justified in saying "No" to all other scientists, because Scientist B had called Scientist A names?

 

[T'ai Chi]

I guess it's back to the Claus and T'ai show.

How can that be?

You've posted 22 times here, me only 6.

 

[Pyrrho]

"Ta Ta" means "Goodbye". I'll discuss this no further.