Telephone telepathy

[omegablue]

I have a large collection of Jung books in my library, dating back to my early college days when I studied his writings religiously

Perhaps this was a big mistake. Not everything he wrote makes perfect sense. If you study his writings too religiously, you are falling into on of the close-mindness extremes.

Like many skeptics, I had a period in my life when I embraced the gee-whiz wonder of pseudoscience such as this.

That is nice, and i dare to tell you , that you will be doing it again and again, if you are a free thinker.

I can say to you that i´m in such a period, but i´m not embracing anything, i´m just waiting for plausible answers for the strange things that i´ve been experiencing in my life lately. Materialism and skepticism are not providing me any plausible answer to them. And as i research both sides of the coin, i start to think that there are flaws in both parts. The truth seems to be the mid-point between materialistic skepticism and paranormal nonsense. I try to explore unknown things beyond the concepts people do apply to it. Perhaps some of you will help me undestranding that i am just trying to fool myself. Maybe that´s why i´m here.

I understand Jung's theories perfectly well....they are crap, for the most part.

That´s cool, so they are not tottaly rubish? Which part did you consider more to be possible? If you can, answer me just why you think most part of them are crap.

Neither Jung nor his contemporaries had the slightest idea how the human brain worked, and they did not want to know.

Wow. Now thats getting interesting. Am I debating with the master of knowledge of the brain? Perhaps if this master is not you....who is it? Where do you get this ideas about Jung being wrong? What did mankind discovered after his life, about human brain , that he didnt know and that could imply severe "damage" on his theories steadiness? And how did you get to know that they did not want to know why they were wrong? I´m anxiously waiting for the response. Psychology is what interests me most.

Because of this chasm of ignorance, he was able to come up with just about anything to fill the void, as long as it made sense to him

More assumptions disguised as facts. You seem not to know how he managed to develop all these theories. And his theories did not just make sense to him, but to many scientists of his time and from nowadays also, even to some very well versed PhD quantum physicists. I think you are suggesting that no psychologist today can cope with his ideas because they "have overcame the chasm of ignorance", so these ideas are unquestionably buried in the sands of time. Is that it?

However, now that we have the tools and the answers that Jung lacked, we can drop his vast canon of speculation and wishful thinking and learn how the mind really works.

Oh yeah? Which tools? Really, right now you make me very curious. Waiting for your answers. Perhaps you will be the one to help me abandon such ideas.

 

[delphi_ote]

I DIDNT SAY THAT EVERY SKEPTIC LITERALLY SELLS SKEPTICISM, I SAID SOME OF THEM , THE MOST INFLUENT AND FAMOUS DO. OK? i SAID SKEPTICISM HAS IT´S OWN BUSINESS AND I DONT KNOW WHY THE HELL YOU GUYS KEEP SAYING AS IF I STATED THAT EVERY SKEPTIC IS FRAUDULENT, AND A BUSINESSMAN.

The most influential literally sell skepticism? What are you talking about? They sell books! They sell videos! Skepticism is an abstraction. You cannot sell an abstraction. You can sell a book or video ABOUT an abstration.

It will be your interpretation of that abstraction, of course. There are some people that make money selling books about this skepticism. If that is what you mean by "skepticism has a business," I agree.

But if that's your point, you're stating the obvious in the worst possible way. I don't believe that is your intent.

 

[Ashles]

Perhaps this was a big mistake. Not everything he wrote makes perfect sense. If you study his writings too religiously, you are falling into on of the close-mindness extremes.

Unbelievable.
If you don't study enough Jung you are not allowed to join the debate.
But if you study too much you are 'close-minded'!

How much would be the right amount omegablue? Exactly the amount you have read perchance.

This is a pathetic and untenable position.

There appears to be little point in discussing the matter with you as you have created a delightful position whereby anyone who knows less than you is too ignorant to debate with and anyone who knows more than you ios 'close-minded'.

You obviously are here just to argue for the sake of it.

That is nice, and i dare to tell you , that you will be doing it again and again, if you are a free thinker.

Everyone here is a 'free thinker'.
Unless you make the common mistake of confusing the term 'free thinker' with 'people who agree with you'.

I can say to you that i´m in such a period, but i´m not embracing anything, i´m just waiting for plausible answers for the strange things that i´ve been experiencing in my life lately.

A bit hard to comment as we don't know what these things are.

But as you have already ruled out any problems in perception on your part then it doesn't seem like you are considering all possibilities.

Materialism and skepticism are not providing me any plausible answer to them.

They are, but you are rejecting them out of hand without any reason beyond thinking that your own senses could never fool you.

And as i research both sides of the coin, i start to think that there are flaws in both parts. The truth seems to be the mid-point between materialistic skepticism and paranormal nonsense.

Another fallacy.
There is only the truth and it doesn't live at some arbitrary point halway between cynicism and gullibility. It only exists.
What is real is real and your own opinion on the subject will not make any difference.

I try to explore unknown things beyond the concepts people do apply to it. Perhaps some of you will help me undestranding that i am just trying to fool myself. Maybe that´s why i´m here.

From some of your posts it sounds like you might use drugs to do this.
If you do, then read up about what drugs actually do to the neurotransmitters and receptors in the brain. Perhaps that will explain their effect.

Wow. Now thats getting interesting. Am I debating with the master of knowledge of the brain? Perhaps if this master is not you....who is it? Where do you get this ideas about Jung being wrong? What did mankind discovered after his life, about human brain , that he didnt know and that could imply severe "damage" on his theories steadiness? And how did you get to know that they did not want to know why they were wrong? I´m anxiously waiting for the response. Psychology is what interests me most.

Have you actually studied psychology?
Because you seem to have a vague knowledge of the fun and interesting aspects of it, like Jung, but no real understanding of how their work is viewed today, or any aspects of perception or brain physiology.

More assumptions disguised as facts. You seem not to know how he managed to develop all these theories. And his theories did not just make sense to him, but to many scientists of his time and from nowadays also, even to some very well versed PhD quantum physicists. I think you are suggesting that no psychologist today can cope with his ideas because they "have overcame the chasm of ignorance", so these ideas are unquestionably buried in the sands of time. Is that it?

What does this have to do with quantum physics?

Really, I am interested to know how you think the two subjects are related.

Oh yeah? Which tools? Really, right now you make me very curious. Waiting for your answers. Perhaps you will be the one to help me abandon such ideas.

I don't think anyone could do that.

 

[omegablue]

Right. Skepticism is an abstract ideal that individuals and organizations are sometimes identified with. It is not a physical entity, so how can I talk about it having a business?

Paranormal is not a physical entity also. So no one can jail it. And yet many people and organizations indentifies with it. May i complete this logical implication on business , or did you already catch it?

I´m not saying that Mr. Skepticism, a pretty distinct and thorough gentleman, runs his business right on that next mall, do not be so literal, please. Again, i´m telling you that skepticism sells as paranormal sells. Skeptics who sells his "fish" are just filling their aggenda and gathering their stack, by holding up their beliefs and view of the world. They do it the same way that Geller does, for example. Which side harvest for more? Paranormal, and I did not deny it. And this is not the same as saying that skepticism won´t sell. So , if it sells, and having the powerful allies as it does, it becomes hard to know when they are just living by their profit or by their convictions and scientific impulses. Specially after stumbling over some very complicated issues on their past, and why not, present. Again i dont dicard the usefullness of Randi and other skeptics, they get rid of many charlatans as well as open the eyes of many misinformed believers, but what i can´t understand is the fact that when i question him, and put some links here for showing many flaws and contradictions on his convictions, makes me a woo woo, or a deliberate attacker with no logical fundaments.

JREF is at least a legal organization. Since you are on the JREF board, I used it as an example. I can talk about it in concrete terms. Is it a business? No. It is legally not allowed to be one. You might object to that, but then we'd be having a real conversation. As it stands now, your point is not cogent enough for me to have a conversation.

Ramtha´s School of Enlightenment is also a legal organization. Does it make it any good? As long as JREF is not legaly able to do business, it can receive any support and donations from various fields of our economy. I´m not saying that it really happens all the time and in a malicious way. But it is a possibility. And a fair one. Many great laboratories, enterprises and industries are more than willing to stimulate scepticism and materialism, bcuz it is one of the main ingredients which are vital to their functioning and survival. Skeptics like Wiseman, Hyman and Randi knows a lot when it comes to get in touch with people and winning them by promising a flawless and superior intelectual style. You know, it´s cool! They are nice, they are heroes against woo woo nonsense. You could impress anyone with your superior critical thinking acquired from their lectures articles and books. Perhaps there is more psychology attached to it than we could imagine. That´s too useful for reinforcing materialistic science lobbists and their fat profits. I clearly see it all as a living economic organism-machine. I could go on forever getting into many points in which i think skepticism in gerenal, sponsors at least a little bit, this current state of our world. Poverty, nature defiling, unfair economic competition and the exploration of great nations on poor nations. I could go on also, providing why i think general paranormal nonsense and business keeps the majority of human beings further away from the truth and as well as implanting a negative feeling about anything paranormal into skeptical minds. A tenable approach would be both of them shaking hands, and cooperating to our progress as a whole and unique "entity", in a more balanced way. Falling for extremes is always hazardous and delusional. But i´m affraid wether this is going to be just an utopia.

But i decided not to write it more right now. At least not until one of you requests so. And I´m not here to do any auditory analysis on JREF. I myself think it is a lil nice initiative , at least in theory. Which don´t keep my skeptical feeling over some of their affairs and attitudes from being at least understandable.

 

[omegablue]

You haven't supported your statement. Only speculated.

Eh? So you thought I was saying that skepticism sells more than paranormal? Do you really think that was my point? Perhaps you are not reading me well. Chances are you are just disguising your assumption as fact here. I might have speculated about something, and you did either. But my main argument, is that skepticism can be also a form of business. Not just a way of thinking. Randi sells his books on debunking, Todd Carrol sells his Skeptic Dictionary. That´s business my friend. $$$$$$$ The "business" that i might be speculating, is the business "behind the scenes", the affairs between huge corporations moved by materialistic philosophies, which would be sponsoring and helping keeping skepticism alive in order to hold their own hegemony. If you think this is speculation, ok. I would be happy if you could show me that it does not happen.

Skepticism applied to medecine means that the industry must labour hard to produce drugs that actually work. If anything, skepticism is a pain in their fiscal butt.

A way too fuzzy statement. You are too confident on that. I would say, industry must labor hard to buy any expert in healthcare. If i´m not prohibited to post something of skepticalinvetigations, let me just put two interesting articles right here. Do not question the site, do question the information. Mine for it in other places, measure what you find with your critical thinking.

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/objectivity/smoking.htm

The bought scientists are hardly being skeptical, but being bought all the way. It is a lie huh? This site is bunk, so every piece of information of theirs is false...

Here is another good one:

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/objectivity/Smith_pharm.htm

This is plain gobbledygook eh? Too biased towards paranormal nonsense...

Duh. Every link you have posted here is from skepticalinvestigations, which we have pointed out is a very dubious and unreliable source. Find corroborating evidence, and then we can discuss the merit of their claims.

Sorry for quoting them again! hahaha... but i can´t think as you do. I cannot be sure that they are an unreliable source. Which would be a reliable source? I really need some clarification on this.

Which would be corroborating evidence? More "unreliable sources" for you to bitch about? So how many corroborating evidences do you need for starting thinking that the subject is argueable? What do make an argument dubious just for coming from one source even if many professionals in these areas compose their staff? I need just one serious and intriguing claim about something that is of my interest in order to go mine for more. This is me. I don´t know about you. So , attacking their credibility would come after that i measured both sides with my critical thinking.

 

[omegablue]

You obviously are here just to argue for the sake of it.

So, i might assume that knowing that iI am discussing just for the sake of it, and still you write me big posts, you are also doing it just for its own sake....

Unbelievable.
If you don't study enough Jung you are not allowed to join the debate.
But if you study too much you are 'close-minded'!

I would reformulate this.

If you dont study Jung enough in order to at least undertanding what he was talking about, it would not be nice.
But if you study too religiously, embracing everything he writes as your truths, than you are being close-minded.

How much would be the right amount omegablue? Exactly the amount you have read perchance.

This is a pathetic and untenable position.

There appears to be little point in discussing the matter with you as you have created a delightful position whereby anyone who knows less than you is too ignorant to debate with and anyone who knows more than you ios 'close-minded'.

Oh my, so many assumptions from a person who masters the art of logical and sceptical thinking. I was just provoking with this thing about knowing jung´s theories. And it yelded me some results. A person did pop up and seem to really know about it. But i´m still unsure if this person understood why Jung developed such line of thinking as well as if his arguments about these theories being bunk are good enough. I really like to see someone who knows Jung´s work well and ebunk it. That´s why i´m interested in debating with him. If it is pathetic or not, its just your oppinion. At any rate, every human being often acts pathetically anyway ... , everyone here included.

Everyone here is a 'free thinker'.

Hmmm ok , depending on what we define as free thinker you might be right. I mean, i was having the definition of "free thinker" as the one who is not held to any dogmas or concepts or at least an approximation on this. An impression of some of you not being a "free thinker" came up over me when you were by ad hoc, stating that skepticalinvestigations is a pathetic, biased, woo woo, and unreliable source of controversies. And you provided me none argument to support this statement.

Unless you make the common mistake of confusing the term 'free thinker' with 'people who agree with you'.

Careful, dangerous assumptions spotted!

A bit hard to comment as we don't know what these things are.

Way too hard, for you do not take the pure and empirical nature of the transpersonal experience as some form of reliable evidence. This is a big gap between us in order to discuss this. And as you did not answer my questions on your personal life, i would like to ask again, if you did have some strong transpersonal experience, those who are way more real than dreams. Be it via psychedelic drugs, near-death-like experiences, or meditation. Ah...i just remembered that you owe me some data about researchers on NDE. About not everyone or at least the majority of way more than 90% swearing that the experience was unquestionably more real than real life.
I swear i will not attack the sources as unreliable before rerading them.

But as you have already ruled out any problems in perception on your part then it doesn't seem like you are considering all possibilities.

Honestly i would be surprised if i were proved wrong, but i did not rule out the possible flaws of my perception. But up till now i got substantially compelled to think that something mysterious and real belongs to the realm of consciousness and deep introspection. Again i say that if you have an experience that you mysteriously conceived as being real and not dream like, or having synchronicities happening all the time that are far beyond the unlikelihood of winning the lottery for several subsequent weeks, you get a little compleled to start doubting that those things are bunk if the only materialistic explanation about those things are way too flawed , biased, or based on erroneous premises. Do you want some good material on this? Check this:

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/experts09.html

I beg you to read this entirely. It is so interesting! Susan Blackmore is one of the only well known NDE specialists, which had an NDE. See what it did to her dogmatic skepticism certainties. She often changes her mind about her convictions. But in the end, she do not subscribe to the materialistic skepticism as she did before. Susan is for me the most living example on true skepticism. A healthy one. She is helping on the development of an utter and completely amazing theory, the memetics , which have also Richard Dawkins on the edge of this work. The few things i read from memetics, i can say that this would be a nice start to explain a lot of phenomenons had before as paranormal as well as opening huge gaps for fitting the "global mind" into this equation, imo. Ok , it is just my speculation, but how compelling is that it would be fairly possible!

 

[omegablue]

Have you actually studied psychology?
Because you seem to have a vague knowledge of the fun and interesting aspects of it, like Jung, but no real understanding of how their work is viewed today, or any aspects of perception or brain physiology.

That´s fair of you thinking like that, based on what i wrote. And i´m waiting anxiously on whatever explanation you or anyone could provide me on brain physiology that could change my mind. Do assume that i´m pretty ignorant in psychology. I want to see your points regarding how bunk is the work of jung nowadays , as it relates to the fact that recent brain physiology knowledge would bury it.

What is real is real and your own opinion on the subject will not make any difference.

What is real? So dont you like the philosophy of truth being precisely at the mid-point of the two conflicting extremes? Why? I would read it with enthusiasm.
I´m currently gathering some information in order to continue to your next points.

Now i´,m tired for today, many posts to answer .

 

[aggle-rithm]

That is nice, and i dare to tell you , that you will be doing it again and again, if you are a free thinker.

Not quite. It is not from being a "free thinker" that people embrace questionable schools of thought. They do so because they find them comforting.

There is little comforting about skepticism, other than the comfort in knowing you are embracing reality instead of wishful thinking.

That´s cool, so they are not tottaly rubish? Which part did you consider more to be possible? If you can, answer me just why you think most part of them are crap.

Jung was correct in breaking from Freud in the belief that the nonsensical nature of dreams was due to some sort of repression mechanism. Rather than a deliberate attempt to "hide" from the dreamer the true meaning, Jung thought the often bizaare symbolism in dreams was more of a natural consequence of a homeostatic system -- the unconscious compensating for an imbalance in the mind.

This last part was wrong. The strange nature of dreams is a natural consequence of the fact that certain parts of the brain become hyper-activated, while others lie dormant during REM sleep.

In fact, this is the main weakness of Jung's theories: their heavy reliance on dreams. In his book "Dreaming", J. Allan Hobson makes an excellent case for the argument that psychologists like Jung were on the wrong track when they focused on the content of dreams -- the real discoveries could be made by studying the form of dreams. Unfortunately, these discoveries don't have the wonderful metaphysical glow so characteristic of Jung's theories; they simply offer greater insight on how the brain works. We still have a lot to learn about the nature and purpose of dreams, and what we learn will probably have little to do with archetypes and the collective unconscious.

Wow. Now thats getting interesting. Am I debating with the master of knowledge of the brain? Perhaps if this master is not you....who is it? Where do you get this ideas about Jung being wrong? What did mankind discovered after his life, about human brain , that he didnt know and that could imply severe "damage" on his theories steadiness? And how did you get to know that they did not want to know why they were wrong? I´m anxiously waiting for the response. Psychology is what interests me most.

Psychology is part of the problem. Analysts in the early days had to look for psychological causes and solutions to mental illnesses, because they could do little else. By necessity, they had to take a philisophical approach to patient care because the brain was so poorly understood. My basis for this is simply the fact that fewer and fewer mental illnesses are being treated as purely psychological maladies, as scientists begin to discover their root causes. Doctors now know that it does little good to analyze the dreams of schizophrenics or obsessive-compulsives and grill them about their childhoods. The only illnesses still treated as purely psychological are mild mood disorders such as depression and anxiety. Even these, however, are widely recognized as being caused only partly by psychological factors; environment and heredity are just as important.

More assumptions disguised as facts. You seem not to know how he managed to develop all these theories.

Would it help if I did? Would it make them any less crapulent?

And his theories did not just make sense to him, but to many scientists of his time and from nowadays also, even to some very well versed PhD quantum physicists.

Believe it or not, it is possible to be an excellent quantum physicist and still not be an authority on psychology.

I think you are suggesting that no psychologist today can cope with his ideas because they "have overcame the chasm of ignorance", so these ideas are unquestionably buried in the sands of time. Is that it?

No. There are still Jungian psychologists today. Most psychologists, however, do not subscribe to his theories -- not because they can't handle them, but because they just don't find them useful.

Oh yeah? Which tools? Really, right now you make me very curious. Waiting for your answers.

How about MRI's that allow us to see which parts of the brain are activated when we perform certain mental tasks? How about the vast amount of research that has been done since Jung's death in the early sixties, revealing with ever-increasing detail how neurons work? How about improved scientific method in general when it comes to psychology?

As an example: In Hobson's book, he expressed surprise that Rapid Eye Movement during sleep was not discovered until the mid-20th century. It didn't take any special equipment or sleep labs -- all that was necessary was for someone to watch someone else as they slept. REM is obvious once you know what to look for. This illustrates how psychologists spent many, many years chasing down the wrong path, trying to work things out metaphysically, when they could have learned so much more by simply observing.

Perhaps you will be the one to help me abandon such ideas.

...and I may have already won ONE MILLION DOLLARS in the Publishers Clearing House Sweepstakes!!!

 

[ReFLeX]

Eh? So you thought I was saying that skepticism sells more than paranormal? Do you really think that was my point?

Yes, I do think that was your point. If it's not, then it's a very weak argument. You said skepticism has its own commercial targets. By your thinking, every abstract on the face of the planet has its own commercial target; that is, it's possible to sell books about anything, and skepticism is not an exception. But that doesn't mean skepticism is profitable. The skeptic books I know of are written to promote critical thinking, education, the truth.

Perhaps you are not reading me well.

I hope for your sake that I'm not.

Chances are you are just disguising your assumption as fact here. I might have speculated about something, and you did either. But my main argument, is that skepticism can be also a form of business. Not just a way of thinking. Randi sells his books on debunking, Todd Carrol sells his Skeptic Dictionary. That´s business my friend. $$$$$$$

What assumption? And what business? If a person wanted to publish books solely to make money, they wouldn't be writing about skepticism. Randi and Carroll can attest to that. The fact is, skepticism is not about profit, and it never has been.

The "business" that i might be speculating, is the business "behind the scenes", the affairs between huge corporations moved by materialistic philosophies, which would be sponsoring and helping keeping skepticism alive in order to hold their own hegemony.

Incredible. What does materialistic philosophy have to do with corporations!? How do they "keep skepticism alive"? Finance CSICOP? If you had any idea what you were talking about, you would know that the major proponents of materialism are not necessarily skeptics, and that the two ideas have nothing to do with each other at all.

If you think this is speculation, ok. I would be happy if you could show me that it does not happen.

This is a classic fallacy straight out of the textbook. http://www2.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/burden.html
It is your ridiculous claim, so you need to provide evidence. I cannot conclusively prove a negative. Let me put it this way:

I think Brazil is run by five purple aliens who brainwash all inhabitants into believing conspiracy theories to distract them from their crops being stolen. If you think this is speculation, ok. I would be happy if you could show me that it does not happen.

A way too fuzzy statement. You are too confident on that. I would say, industry must labor hard to buy any expert in healthcare.

The reason I can be confident is that I know skepticism in that sense is nothing more than a character trait. Because that is the only way skepticism can have anything to do with pharmaceutical companies. You've already accused Randi of fraud. Now you're saying that, not only are scientists being bribed, but that their opinions alone are enough to push drugs into the market without being screened. Well, let me clear that up for you right now. That isn't true. This is the purpose of the FDA. No experts can approve a drug merely on their say-so. And if you are going to further speculate that the entire administration is being bribed, then you are going to need solid evidence. Which you can't get, because 1) You are in Brazil, and 2) you have no such authority. It's apparent you never had any evidence, you only have a hunch that skeptics and medications = bad.

If i´m not prohibited to post something of skepticalinvetigations, let me just put two interesting articles right here.

No, you're not prohibited, but you are probably wasting your time. An article about purple aliens ruling Brazil would also be interesting.

Do not question the site,

Why not? If the author has an agenda, he can easily print things out of context to change meanings.

do question the information.

I question everything, as a rule.

Mine for it in other places, measure what you find with your critical thinking.

Recall burden of proof. Here's a pickaxe. Get to it.
The bought scientists are hardly being skeptical, but being bought all the way. It is a lie huh? This site is bunk, so every piece of information of theirs is false...

The bought scientists are hardly being skeptical, but being bought all the way. It is a lie huh? This site is bunk, so every piece of information of theirs is false...
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/objectivity/smoking.htm
Leading German public health experts who played down the dangers of cigarettes - including one who argued that discrimination against smokers was like the Nazi persecution of the Jews - have been secretly financed for years by the tobacco industry, it has been alleged.
...Professor von Troschke was said to have received
...Dr Siegrist was said to have been persuaded

You're missing key words. Obviously, your site is only repeating what one magazine said. And so, at this point, those are nothing more than claims (allegations). Maybe it will be proven. No one ever said the entire medical profession is honest. Besides which, those doctors may have been hardcore fundamentalists, for all you know. Their bad behaviour has nothing to do with skepticism. They weren't being skeptical? So what? All you're saying is that, if they were skeptical, that would be a good thing. So skepticism is good after all?

Here is another good one:

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/objectivity/Smith_pharm.htm

This is plain gobbledygook eh? Too biased towards paranormal nonsense...

That article is more interesting actually. You will note it is properly sourced and that the author has a relevant position in the industry. However. Although it is indeed possible to question the truth of this information, let us take it at face value and see how it supports your argument.

In the same year, Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, lambasted the industry for becoming “primarily a marketing machine” and co-opting “every institution that might stand in its way” [2]. Medical journals were conspicuously absent from her list of co-opted institutions, but she and Horton are not the only editors who have become increasingly queasy about the power and influence of the industry. Jerry Kassirer, another former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, argues that the industry has deflected the moral compasses of many physicians [3], and the editors of PLoS Medicine have declared that they will not become “part of the cycle of dependency…between journals and the pharmaceutical industry” [4]. Something is clearly up.

These people are being skeptical, are they not? Without a skeptical attitude, why should they even question the drug companies?

...there are many ways to hugely increase the chance of producing favourable results, and there are many hired guns who will think up new ways and stay one jump ahead of peer reviewers.

Okay, so what does this have to do with skepticism, again? You say the drug companies keep skepticism alive, but it seems the peer reviewers are the skeptics here. They are the ones figuring out the lies being perpetrated by the journal contributors. You seem to mistakenly associate skeptics as agreeing with anything the medical profession does, perhaps to suppress alternative medecine. Well, I tell you what. No skeptic I know is selectively critical in that way. Some may seem to have an agenda against alternative medecine, but they would never say that fudged clinical trials are A-OK as long as they are with real drugs.

Sorry for quoting them again! hahaha... but i can´t think as you do. I cannot be sure that they are an unreliable source. Which would be a reliable source? I really need some clarification on this.

The entire world needs clarification on this. The problem is, skepticalinvestigations has been examined and refuted here on a number of occasions, such that it isn't trustworthy...

Which would be corroborating evidence? More "unreliable sources" for you to bitch about? So how many corroborating evidences do you need for starting thinking that the subject is argueable?

One. I need one other source. Because if theirs is an objective account of the truth, then one other article will report the same events, right? But I don't think you will be able to find corresponding lies. So show us it really happened with one other source.

What do make an argument dubious just for coming from one source even if many professionals in these areas compose their staff?

At least half of their "advisors" have serious investments in the paranormal; which tells us that if the JREF has a fact-twisting agenda, their staff are just as likely to have one.

I need just one serious and intriguing claim about something that is of my interest in order to go mine for more. This is me. I don´t know about you. So , attacking their credibility would come after that i measured both sides with my critical thinking.

We only need one serious claim as well, except as a caveat, we require evidence, because, being interested in the truth, a skeptic wants to see real support for a claim, not just a claim that can't be evaluated.

 

[ReFLeX]

I beg you to read this entirely. It is so interesting! Susan Blackmore is one of the only well known NDE specialists, which had an NDE. See what it did to her dogmatic skepticism certainties.

There is no such thing as dogmatic skepticism, by definition. You apparently subscribe to the idea that all skeptics have a set of beliefs that they promote shamelessly. This is simply false.

She often changes her mind about her convictions. But in the end, she do not subscribe to the materialistic skepticism as she did before. Susan is for me the most living example on true skepticism. A healthy one. She is helping on the development of an utter and completely amazing theory, the memetics , which have also Richard Dawkins on the edge of this work.

It is not at all surprising that an extremely disturbing experience such as an NDE could have an effect on one's beliefs. ...so?

The few things i read from memetics, i can say that this would be a nice start to explain a lot of phenomenons had before as paranormal as well as opening huge gaps for fitting the "global mind" into this equation, imo.

Evidently, it was very few things. Your opinion seems to come from a severe misunderstanding. Meme theory comes from observation, while a "global mind" does not. Perhaps it comes from, I don't know, maybe Jung? However. The philosophical implications of meme theory would be to support determinism, that in fact, there is not even necessarily real individual consciousness... but that argument isn't really relevant.

Ok , it is just my speculation, but how compelling is that it would be fairly possible!

You seem to think compelling, attractive ideas deserve more attention. It seems intuitional, but that's what leads to institutions like homeopathy and other unsupported claims being perpetuated. Bad attitude! Bad!

 

[delphi_ote]

And his theories did not just make sense to him, but to many scientists of his time and from nowadays also, even to some very well versed PhD quantum physicists.

Hi. I hope you're enjoying yet another installment in our award winning "Protracted Battle Against Nonsense series." For those of you keeping score at home, that was the Vitriolis Point in this thread. Now back to the show!

 

[omegablue]

And his theories did not just make sense to him, but to many scientists of his time and from nowadays also, even to some very well versed PhD quantum physicists.

Argh, i assume that this one is terrible as I put it. What a shame...

I was trying to say that even some phd Quantum physicists such as Fred Alan Wolf , who is for example very well versed on psychology as i can read in his texts, are simpathetic for Jung´s theories, and even approach his (Jung´s) ideas of global mindness with the problem of quantum uncertainty and non-local implications. I am not saying that Wolf is an outstanding psychologist. I´m just saying that Jung´s theories are supported by many professionals of several fields who seem to philosophically think that it might be possible such an approach, even many full fledged academic psychologists.

As i´m busy, i cant respond to the huge ammount of posts in this discussion right now. I´ll keep doing it later on.

 

[Fluffy]

I was just reading a reply from some man in Portugal. Replying to the article of commentary by Dr Sheldrake on Animal Magic.

I look forward to reading about his(Dr Sheldrake's) application on the above website: (Randi.org) just think what a successful passing of the test would do to both the Doctor's reputation and book sales quite apart from the effect on his bank balance.

Can we but hope Dr Sheldrake does or has he taken up the challenge?

 

[omegablue]

Not quite. It is not from being a "free thinker" that people embrace questionable schools of thought.

Oh , so perhaps you are saying skepticism is an unquestionable school of thought. This is it? That would be a prize winning fallacy.

If you happen to have the impulse of elaborating some school of thought which has, as its core ideal, the intention of promoting and validating the legitimate and unbiased state of doubting, why their pupils would not be allowed to question even their own school? Why his own school would be ruled out of the scope of questionable things? That seems to me a fallacious paradox. Or perhaps dogma? Hm....unquestionable truth?. If you seed the state of DOUBT, why to be so CERTAIN that a given phlosophy, like deterministic materialism, is the "true" one? Again, a strange and paradoxal idea. You do embrance doubting everything and is SURE that is tenable NOT DOUBTING something, such as this conviction, or dogma. Dogmas are unquestionable truths if you don´t know, and hence associated with religiosity, and belief. Hardly it seems to be fair naming your practicing of skepticism, an unbiased one. It´s own definition compromises its own consistance.

Back to the pupils, could they, people who have learned by extensive suggestion that they cannot question their own school of thought without being called a fraud, a naive, and a guillible person, be called "free thinkers"?

As i think more and more about your above statement, the far I get from spotting any doubting attitude towards what may be the true tools for undesrtanding this barely explored universe.

Makes me think if there is the possibility of any of the peoples who subscribed to this discussion and call themselves skeptics, being more accurately labeled as "convicted materialists" rather than what they think they are. They do not doubt materialism, their school should be named deterministic materialism, because naming it skepticism would put it´s own definition into question as they deliberately apply some unquestionable truths to it. A puzzling paradox? Or a bunk and hard-to-be-put-into-practice definition?

They do so because they find them comforting.

Wow. So there is plenty of conforting evidence about thinking on living after death and being on an eternal spiritual evolution and quest? It is confortable having to be always responsible and aware of the cause-effect relationship and balance of EVERY action or decision of ours which could eventually result in being dumped in some hellish realm of existance for a really hot and long vacation enjoying extreme suffering and despair?

All the above things are deffended by the average believer, often avidly and unquestionably. Is their philosophy appears to be any conforting?

It seems not to be tenable of you to generalize that people do embrace "questionable schools of thought" because they "are confortable with it" , while some of these school´s implications might be annoying and quite grim to our emotional control?

I should equally generalize that being skeptical its more confortable because you have the feeling of walking the right path, as well as being confortable with the idea that you will have no post morten responsibility over your mundane actions, even if you happen to be the most evil and grotesquely violent and destructive creature of all. So, hey what are we waiting for? Lets phuck up the world, harvest for money, piss on each other, fight, kill, defile, compete on success and wealthy accumulation, destroy our enemies, destroy our oppositors, bring them hell and bombs, it will all come to an end and then we will never be conscious again, we will vanish forever and forget about what we lived here. So, come on, lets bring it all on. BANG! BOOM!

The above is not necessarily the truth about the conforting potential of practicing skepticism, it is a extreme generalization about it. Generalizations seem not to be tenable at all.

Among the believers, there is a type who believes that they will be forever meeting loved ones, seeding eternal love affairs, and evolving as a ruling god in the future. But there are people who you do call believers who do not believe this certainty. All they do is questioning materialistic skepticism. A kind of dogmatic and biased phylosophic school.

There is little comforting about skepticism, other than the comfort in knowing you are embracing reality instead of wishful thinking.

Oooohhhhoho ho ho so certain. Where is your doubting, skeptic one???

So you do possess the knowledge of reality as a whole? So tell me the secret behind the quantum measuring problem. Show me the solution for the quantum uncertainty. Show me the solution for the mind-body problem as well. Would it not be wishful thinking being sure of udnerstanding reality based on the few and doubtly consistent things we could conclude about nature and life?? And as it seems, everybody embraces reality, everybody lives reality, skeptics doubt, believers assume and are sure about things, varying greatly from believer to believer.

You, being sure you are understanding reality, rather than doubting it for considering about the possibility of being tricked by your elusive mind, possibly being more a believer than a skeptic person.

You seem to be sure and convicted by having developped the right tools for understanding and explore how the universe works even without our existance. This tool was developed using your limited and imature knowledge, acquired and developed by your elusive mind, which benefits greatly from intuitive insights in order to make the biggest and most amazing breakthroughs on your convictions, forever upgrading itself.

The exact proccess in which you capt , interpret and traces the relationship between externally acquired information with your mind/brain is still impossible to be explained and demonstrated using your only current strong convictions and unquestionable scientific method.

So what to do? Do wait, do not get any dangerous delusional road towards the occult nonsense. Doubt, but do not doubt anything, just doubt what do not conflicts with what you are sure and convinced about. Use with unquestionable certainty, your incompletely developed scientific tool. Do interpret reality according to what your mind thinks and intelectualize about what was acquired by your severely limited 5 senses that you experience on your day to day waking state of consciousness. There are many other known states of consciousness but doubt them all, doubt them all even without experiencing them. Do believe in who says not to trust these states over your waking state of mind. Why? Because they are saying you can only really "experience" things with your elusive mind while you´re awake. Do it all, but do not call yourself a skeptic.

 

[omegablue]

Doubt, but do not doubt anything, just doubt what do not conflicts with what you are sure and convinced about.
[QUOTE/]

The bove should be corrected as below:

"Doubt, but do not doubt anything, just doubt what do conflict with what you are sure and convinced about."

 

[aggle-rithm]

Wow. The strawmen are amassing for attack.

Oh , so perhaps you are saying skepticism is an unquestionable school of thought. This is it? That would be a prize winning fallacy.

When I say "school of thought", I am referring to a system of ideas that takes a number of assumptions to be true. Often these assumptions are necessary because there is no clear answers to questions that are important to the school of thought.

Skepticism, to me, is a system by which belief is separated from fact by examination of the evidence. This kind of thinking is crucial to me in my job as a software developer, and it carries over into my everyday life. I wouldn't call it a "school of thought" because the only assumptions made are very basic axioms that everyone can agree on (2 + 2 is 4, a totally black object cannot be also totally white, etc.) Where skeptics disagree with others is in claims that come into conflict with the facts that have already been established. Of course, the skeptic always keeps in mind that these "facts" might prove to be wrong, but it's the overwhelming probability of truth that is convincing.

Back to the pupils, could they, people who have learned by extensive suggestion that they cannot question their own school of thought without being called a fraud, a naive, and a guillible person, be called "free thinkers"?

The naive, gullible frauds are not the ones that question skepticism, but fail to question extraordinary claims. There's a big difference.

Wow. So there is plenty of conforting evidence about thinking on living after death and being on an eternal spiritual evolution and quest? It is confortable having to be always responsible and aware of the cause-effect relationship and balance of EVERY action or decision of ours which could eventually result in being dumped in some hellish realm of existance for a really hot and long vacation enjoying extreme suffering and despair?

All the above things are deffended by the average believer, often avidly and unquestionably. Is their philosophy appears to be any conforting?

YES! These beliefs are comforting because they reinforce the idea that there is order, purpose, and meaning in the Universe. I can't overemphasize how important this belief is. Nothing is scarier to the average person than cold, indifferent randomness. On the other hand, history has shown that people are willing to die if they think their death will have some greater meaning, and will contribute to a greater sense of purpose in the world.

Also, the average person believes that they are much more moral than the people around them. Most Christians I know believe that Hell is for other people, not them.

I'd love to continue, but I have to go to work....

 

[omegablue]

Yes, I do think that was your point. If it's not, then it's a very weak argument.

Ah, now that you are close to understanding that i was not saying that skepticism beats paranormal on the sales, you are showing your own oppinions on the subject, which is fairly acceptable and welcome. I did not know how you could object so much about my original states such as:

-"skepticism has its own comercial targets."
Now you realize that perhaps you or other people here are potential targets for "skepticism"´s business, for there is a chance you have already purchased any of the books of the best known skeptics.

-"skepticism has its own business": i,e , book commerce, and it is profitable as long as the authors benefits from the money that comes from who acquire their books, like you or any other self-proclaimed skeptic person in this board.

So, it make me conclude that you did not understand me too well before, I could not undestand it before reading your above statements. Even thinking this objection was nonsensical i tried to explain you why i happen to think this way.

As my argument being week or not, if simply put this way without further explanations, is just you oppinion. I think i stated that is hard to tell, and i bet you cannot tell also, when skeptics are being really skeptical on something or they are being biased towards their materialistic convictions, specially because there is business and 1 million dolar involved. It also may involve their reputation, intelectual integrity and pride.

And plus, the fact that apparently many of the best known , trusted and respected skeptics obviously shows bias sometimes, may imply that this "skepticism" that they are trying to "sell" is not the one of the core definition, i,.e , the state of doubting and not being sure of things that are incomplete and has shown inconsistent as we investigate more and more about it. I´m not here to charge Randi but to call up some sense over the definition of "being skeptic". It would appear to me be way more tenable calling this materialism and not skepticism, because materialism not necessarily implies truth, specially because it does not embrace quantum physics and mind for instance. Many materialists do apply skepticism to SOME EXTENT, but there are some things that they assume as being true because they are willing to. Why not implemented the state of doubt over materialism also? If you happen to disagree with that, and if you want, just let me know why.

 

[omegablue]

Wow. The strawmen are amassing for attack.

What is a straw man? I dont know this jargon. Might it be like we call in portuguese a "scarecrow fallacy"?

If you want to continue giving me your points after you work, I´ll wait to answer you about them all.

 

[Bronze Dog]

Here's the Wikipedia entry for it.

 

[omegablue]

Here's the Wikipedia entry for it.

Thanks. The below is not necessarily for you but for those who charges me of using this rhetoric artifice on my posts.

I do not always have to answer to all the points of a person in a given post in order to show that i am correctly debunking this person. I dont even want to show that i am debunking someone here. I am not here to debunk, but to exchange knowledge through discussions.

As Reflex put, it seems like i am forcing the conclusion that i debunked every argument of him just because i currently gave a bigger importance to that statement about "skepticism vs believing potential for conforting someone".

So, i could equaly point out many strawmen that many people have used against my arguments as well. At any rate , i will try not to use what you call "strawman" anymore.