Worth it?

[SkipTic]

I came across this guy's blog after he had commented on some of the posts in my own blog and in turn I commented on a few of his here and more recently, here. The problem is that he's a lot smarter than me particularly in regards to science, especially since I have a mere Arts major and the only things I know about science I have learned on the Skeptics Guide podcast.

So is this guy even worth reading or arguing with?

He has a lot of issues with skeptics and skepticism and the arguments we use.

What are the best ways to approach his arguments?

http://www.braham.net/Phil/Blogs/Esoteric_New/Esoteric.html

 

[Katana]

How does he describe himself?

He seems to enjoy contrasting his own approach to that of supposed skeptics (I admit that I didn't read everything, but I wonder just who it is that he has been talking to), so what is he?

 

[SkipTic]

I don't blame you for having not read much of the blog, it is long and full of references to other parts of his blog. he also waffles on a lot.

I don't think he has a label, but he definately belives in supernatural things such as psychic power. In one post he dismisses a test that psicop did with Richard Wiseman, regarding a girl who could see into people's bodies and detect their illness.

But I guess from this quote: "If we take the research in the example I gave, someone who believes in God, in spirits or the afterlife is deluded. (One might ask if someone who believes in black holes would be considered deluded, as one has never been seen.)", he does believe in god, spirits and the afterlife.

 

[John Jackson]

The problem is that he's a lot smarter than me

Are you sure of that?

I've only had a cursory read of his blog but it looks like a mass of logical fallacies and misrepresentations of his opponents' views. It doesn't look like he understands much of what he's ranting about to me.

So is this guy even worth reading or arguing with?

I think it would be worth looking up logical fallacies and getting a good understanding of the errors people make in their reasoning. Whether it's worth debating such people - it depends. I think many skeptics 'cut their teeth' on such endeavours (and learn a lot from it) but give it up as a futile exercise after while.

Whether you engage them or not, woos are always worth studying - then the patterns in their thinking emerge.

 

[SkipTic]

He appears to be more learned and well read on some of the claims I made in my blog, especially when they were science related.

He does misrepresent other's views and I have tried to point them out. There is definately something off about his writing: his grammar and spelling is off at times and I never seem to understand his analogies.

 

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

I might have been willing to give this guy the time of day until I read what he wrote in his post "Discussions with Skeptics" which included:

I used to have email discussions with skeptics. When I started doing this I worked on the assumption that I was dealing with intelligent, if misguided, people who would at least acknowledge that their simplistic views were just that – simplistic.

and this

He stated that science must be correct because peer review guaranteed it. Stunned by what I assumed to be his simplistic view of the world...

So if only we would acknowledge that our view is simplistic, we would be intelligent. That's a flash of arrogance to say the least.

One might be able to consider a skeptic's view "simplistic" in the sense that skeptics believe in going where the evidence leads them. But I get the impression that for all his bluster about skeptics not wanting to examine their "worldview", he doesn't seem to have done much research on what a skeptic actually is -- or to have done much critical examination of his own "worldview."

I read through several of his posts. He seems reasonably intelligent, although he seems to fancy himself to be considerably smarter than he is. The science he discusses is stuff you can read about in Brian Greene or Stephen Hawking's books. Personally, I think that he seems pretty set in his belief that he has it all figured out, so I wouldn't bother with him. But that's just me.

You might want to ask him to do a little reading on what Occam's Razor actually means:

Skeptics often refer to what they call Occam's Razor. They interpret this as ‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof’.

Urr... no.

 

[Buckaroo]

The problem is that he's a lot smarter than me particularly in regards to science, especially since I have a mere Arts major and the only things I know about science I have learned on the Skeptics Guide podcast.

Nah, don't sell yourself short. This guy doesn't have a clue about how science works -- he just tosses around a lot of buzzwords that he learned by reading the The Tao of Physics, and, I'd bet, The Dancing Wu Li Masters. Generally the people who start spouting the kind of quantum mumbo-jumbo he does here have never had a class in it in their life, and wouldn't know Schrodinger's equation if it bit 'em on the ass. And speaking of asses, he is a pompous one, ain't 'e?

Seems to me that despite being a "mere Arts major," confused: "mere?" I wish I'd gone that direction, myself) you've already shown that you're way ahead of him in understanding how science really works, simply by virtue of your attitude towards evidence.

 

[SkipTic]

This is one of my favourites from his site:

I previously pointed out that the atheistic idea that that if there is a ‘good’ God then how is that ‘bad’ things happen, is simplistic. There are no ‘good and ‘bad’ events: there is simply life.

Atheism doesn't say anything about good and bad things.

He dismisses the idea as "simplistic" yet replaces it with the idea that there is 'simply' life.

This was my first thread so thanks for your comments everyone, now I'm feeling good about myself again.

 

[SkipTic]

You might want to ask him to do a little reading on what Occam's Razor actually means:

Skeptics often refer to what they call Occam's Razor. They interpret this as ‘Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof’.

Urr... no.

He probaby didn't read further than what I mistakenly wrote on my blog instead of just doing what everyone else does and go to wikipedia.

(thanks for the correction)