ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
Evidence? Specificaly a patent number.
Skepticism can lose friends...
- Thread starter lionking
- Start date
-
- Tags
- skepticism
Evidence? Specificaly a patent number.
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
Be sure to give him only homeopathic alcohol for the rest of the night.
On Planet X, we don't have patent numbers.
Unfortunately for you Planet X patents don't have any standing here on Earth.
Unfortunately for you, we are reptilians, ruling you.
Ass-simulation is inevitable. Klingon to your dingleberries!
Madalch
The Jester
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2006
- Messages
- 9,763
Then they shouldn't attack you by discussing their beliefs.
Miss Whiplash
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 1,574
The same way I handle discussions about politics, religion, sports, sex or some other potentially volatile social issue: I give my opinion. Then, if my opinion is not well received or it appears the social gathering is on the verge of collapse, with all members ready to spin out of orbit because of what I said, I change the subject or simply zip my lip. After all, when the party is over one has to work with these people. One can always complain afterwards about the stupidity of co-workers on an internet forum or blog and hope the people never read it.
Skepticism doesn't give anyone carte blanche to be a social bore or a roving wet blanket unless you want invitations to vanish very quickly.
I sure wish they wouldn't, but it's not unusual. I can't count all the times someone started a conversation with "do you believe in..." and you cringe and think that, here we go again
. It's a common and accepted conversation-opener in casual social situations I think, who isn't interested in these things, after all? At least that's a common notion, that this is a popular subject. But it's a conversation-opener that you're not really expected to answer truthfully it seems, at least if the answer is no, but I can't lie that well 
I think I wrote in another post that I usually let them all stew in their
wretched ignorance, unless someone special is at risk of being infected with
their woo. My cow-orkers already think I'm "weird" so that's never a concern
for me.
The only one I really tore a strip off was the Pyramidiot, but I basically only
succeeded in banishing that as a topic of discourse (within my earshot,
anyway). The crystal-healing nut I recently engaged by discussing their
crystals (unilaterally) from a mineralogy viewpoint.
Her: "Opal is good for blah blah healing energy blah woo woo bluurgh"
Me: "Common opal is cryptocrystalline amorphous silica. It gets deposited at
low temperatures. Did you know that it usually has less than 10% water
content?"
Her: "?"
wretched ignorance, unless someone special is at risk of being infected with
their woo. My cow-orkers already think I'm "weird" so that's never a concern
for me.
The only one I really tore a strip off was the Pyramidiot, but I basically only
succeeded in banishing that as a topic of discourse (within my earshot,
anyway). The crystal-healing nut I recently engaged by discussing their
crystals (unilaterally) from a mineralogy viewpoint.
Her: "Opal is good for blah blah healing energy blah woo woo bluurgh"
Me: "Common opal is cryptocrystalline amorphous silica. It gets deposited at
low temperatures. Did you know that it usually has less than 10% water
content?"
Her: "?"
Last edited:
Zarathustra
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2007
- Messages
- 278
It is my experience that people whom are unaccustomed to critical thinking will generally despise with great passion at being "told" they are misinformed; so much so that even in the event they are held within the crushing grip of reason, they will, on Ego alone, refuse to engage in the process of logical recourse.
Rather, I have observed much more success in the act of surreptitiously asking open ended questions which attempt to have them lead themselves to the inevitable conclusions.
Rather, I have observed much more success in the act of surreptitiously asking open ended questions which attempt to have them lead themselves to the inevitable conclusions.
mayday
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2005
- Messages
- 1,702
Do you have any sort of proof these conversations at this party actually took place and you weren't just making up this scenario to try to prove a point or make a statement?
After all, the cookie crumbles both ways. Skeptics should be able to provide evidence for their claims the same as those who believe.
After all, the cookie crumbles both ways. Skeptics should be able to provide evidence for their claims the same as those who believe.
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2007
- Messages
- 44,024
I see what you mean, and I agree. However for many people with these sorts of belief (I speak from personal experience as well) there isn't a wrong and a right way to discuss things with them, there are only wrong ways. It doesn't always have to be that they are too closed and can never be reasoned with, but that they are just not used to being challenged. Too much woo out there are much too respected by too many people.
I've had this type of conversation many times with people about different woo beliefs:
Woo believer: Do you believe in Guardian Angels?
Me: No.
Woo believer: Why not?
Me: *explaining why I don't*
Woo believer: I can't believe you don't believe in Guardian Angels. You have to be stupid not to see... blah blah blah. I have blah blah blah myself, you think I am lying?
Me: No but... *explaining again*, *maybe mentioning something about the unreliability of human perception*
(Discussion either getting heated, or dying out...)
Later, a friend: NN is a really nice woman, did you have to be such a wiseguy with her?
Me:
Many people can not see the difference between discussing their beliefs and a personal attack. And many people should not ask what people think if they just want someone who agrees with them.
Yes, 100% agreed.
which is why I raised the question: When is who being the "smart-@$$ arrogant guy"?
Sometimes the lines are easily fuzzed. I agree. That's why we must think of it as a way to seek a balance. These things are phenomenas that can't really be measured until after they have happened. You engage yourself in what seems to be a naive discussion and maybe 5 minutes later you find out you're both reaching at each other's throats. And there's that feeling of "whoa, how did I get here?".
That's why sometimes, even if you know you're right and even if you know you were being polite; and despite all of this, you ended up looking like the mean guy, you still have to let go. Sometimes, even if this happens, there's nothing wrong with playing along with the game and saying "You know what? It's not that important. Maybe I lost my edge too. I'm sorry. Lets just forget the whole thing, ok?".
...even if you know for certain that you did not loose the edge.
Sometimes you have to balance: what's more important? proving that you're right or hurting the relationship?
Since when have you provided evidence of your many claims?
Well, mine wasn't an actual conversation that took place, but a made up example of the type of conversations I've experienced several times, so...
Yeah, you're right, and for me personally I guess it depends on who it is. I never try to knowingly provoke people, but when, as you say the situation gets out of hand anyway, then with people that really doesn't mean that much to me, I don't really care if they now don't like me. However when it's real friends, then you will make a bigger effort to talk about what went wrong. These things doesn't really happens with closer friends though, we know each other that well since having been friends so many years, that we can handle the differences between us. I guess if we couldn't, we wouldn't still be friends.
Last edited:
mayday
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2005
- Messages
- 1,702
If the information is available, I give it.
That doesn't disabuse the OP of their responsibility for telling a possibly fabricated story. We have to have proof.
Were it an implausible story and were we to draw conclusions from it, you would be correct.
As it is neither, your thinly veiled attempt to place this OP on the same plane of incredibility as some of your own falls a bit short.
Last edited:
blutoski
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2006
- Messages
- 12,454
This is a common situation, and I agree with two of the suggestions in the thread:
1. Whenever possible, avoid mixing personal and business relationships.
2. Whenever possible, frame criticism as open-ended questions.
I have also got a lot of mileage out of my work with ghost investigation groups. You can provide an engaging narrative about these investigations to demonstrate that you're being fair about the subject, and not just dismissing out of hand. They usually don't find out until the end of the story, when they ask questions, that I'm the investigation team's token skeptic.
Another suggestion is to pick a specific subject as your personal core competence within skepticism, and only get picky with that one. It prevents the discussion spiralling into metaphysics, which is a discussion-killer. (Unless you're stoned, or unless your competence subject is metaphysics.)
Drudgewire
Critical Doofus
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 9,421
The trick is to hang out with other smart-@$$ arrogant guys. That way when these situations arise you can just lob a few slurs back and forth at each other then laugh about it and go back to talking about football.
Cardelitre
Student
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2007
- Messages
- 41
After more than 3 years on 9/11 conspiracy debunking topics, I eat madness with my cornflakes every day...No!...No!...Noooooo!
Down that path lies madness!!!
Stay...Stay!!
Sit down in a comfy chair and have a hug, some nice cake and a cup of tea.
But thanks for the advice.