View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

This site needs to be renamed

Discuss General Topics.

This site needs to be renamed

Postby JonDonnis » 19 Aug 2009, 16:57

I think that calling this site "Debunking Skeptics" is wrong, you should call it "Debunking Pseudo-Skeptics"
I also have a problem with pseudoskeptics, but pigeon holing us all will only create anomosity.

The skeptical commnity will get behind a good honest mission to debunk the pseudoskeptics, but going after people like James Randi is pointless.

Remember the skeptical cumminty will always be first to out a pseudoskeptic.

When i have made a mistake on my site it is never the believers who point it out, it is always the skeptics.

Whatever your personal belief, you should always try to live your life with critical thinking, logic and common sense.
JonDonnis
 
Posts: 27
Joined: 16 Aug 2009, 18:09






Re: This site needs to be renamed

Postby Eteponge » 19 Aug 2009, 21:07

I agree with this.
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

Re: This site needs to be renamed

Postby brett » 19 Aug 2009, 21:33

pity then that a lot of both skeptics AND pseudo skeptics are quite happy to pigeonhole any of us who happen to have contrary opinions to them as either believers or woos :roll:
LIFE - just filling the bits between birth, death and taxes
User avatar
brett
 
Posts: 436
Joined: 06 Aug 2009, 22:23
Location: Plymouth UK

Re: This site needs to be renamed

Postby brett » 19 Aug 2009, 22:09

and maybe we should rename the site " the jref/randi warzone - the next episode " as the discussion here seems to center round this frankly boorish subject to the exclusion of a lot else :roll:
LIFE - just filling the bits between birth, death and taxes
User avatar
brett
 
Posts: 436
Joined: 06 Aug 2009, 22:23
Location: Plymouth UK

Re: This site needs to be renamed

Postby ProfWag » 19 Aug 2009, 22:10

You're absolutely right Jon and Brett, I concur.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: This site needs to be renamed

Postby The Warrigal » 19 Aug 2009, 22:42

Ditto to all of the points raised above.

I for one would not mind seeing the JREF/Challenge Sub-Forum sink without trace.

SCEPCOP has many promising assets, but the above mentioned Sub-Forum is a liability to this sites continued growth and even more so, to it's credibility as a place where serious discussion and debate happen.
The Warrigal
 
Posts: 119
Joined: 22 Jun 2009, 11:44

Re: This site needs to be renamed

Postby NinjaPuppy » 19 Aug 2009, 23:06

The Warrigal wrote:Ditto to all of the points raised above.

I for one would not mind seeing the JREF/Challenge Sub-Forum sink without trace.

SCEPCOP has many promising assets, but the above mentioned Sub-Forum is a liability to this sites continued growth and even more so, to it's credibility as a place where serious discussion and debate happen.


Add me to the above list, please.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: This site needs to be renamed

Postby ciscop » 20 Aug 2009, 00:19

yep i also support that
i see no reason in the attacks to jref

is like instead of building cases on their own
people chose to attack that institution
is totally pointless
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: This site needs to be renamed

Postby JonDonnis » 20 Aug 2009, 17:21

brett wrote:pity then that a lot of both skeptics AND pseudo skeptics are quite happy to pigeonhole any of us who happen to have contrary opinions to them as either believers or woos :roll:


It is a pity, but that is not the disccusion here.
One thing that you must try not to do is answer any criticism with a counter attack, sometimes you just need to look at what was said and ask yourself if it has any validity.

Many believers think we are just attacking them, but we are not, we are trying to get them to understand a differentpoint of view, one that is based on logic and critical thinking.

For example is it logical to believe that full spirit manefestations can only happen in the dark, and when there are no cameras about? Or is it logical to believe that some kind of trickery is going on?
JonDonnis
 
Posts: 27
Joined: 16 Aug 2009, 18:09

Re: This site needs to be renamed

Postby JonDonnis » 20 Aug 2009, 17:24

brett wrote:and maybe we should rename the site " the jref/randi warzone - the next episode " as the discussion here seems to center round this frankly boorish subject to the exclusion of a lot else :roll:



Spot on.
The credibility of this site is seriously undermined but what many will percieve as a vendetta against Randi and the JREF perhaps enforced by those behind this site?

It sometimes seems that this forum was originally created as an anti-Randi forum, and then the rest of the forum topics were just thrown on to make it look better.

The Warrigal wrote:Ditto to all of the points raised above.

I for one would not mind seeing the JREF/Challenge Sub-Forum sink without trace.

SCEPCOP has many promising assets, but the above mentioned Sub-Forum is a liability to this sites continued growth and even more so, to it's credibility as a place where serious discussion and debate happen.



I dont think that part of the forum should be deleted, as that is counter productive, the JREF challenge should be scrutinised afterall it is an interesting challenge.
However i think attacking Randi all the time, calling him a liar, and demanding he take a lie detector test just exposes the ignorance of some of the members here.

Examining the challenge is a good thing, but lets do it in a productive manner, and not just a way to attack it.
JonDonnis
 
Posts: 27
Joined: 16 Aug 2009, 18:09

Re: This site needs to be renamed

Postby brett » 20 Aug 2009, 18:49

JonDonnis wrote:
brett wrote:pity then that a lot of both skeptics AND pseudo skeptics are quite happy to pigeonhole any of us who happen to have contrary opinions to them as either believers or woos :roll:


It is a pity, but that is not the discussion here.
One thing that you must try not to do is answer any criticism with a counter attack, sometimes you just need to look at what was said and ask yourself if it has any validity.

Many believers think we are just attacking them, but we are not, we are trying to get them to understand a different point of view, one that is based on logic and critical thinking.

For example is it logical to believe that full spirit manifestations can only happen in the dark, and when there are no cameras about? Or is it logical to believe that some kind of trickery is going on?


hi john to answer your points - p1 - if i looked at it and did that i would never post as a LOT of what is said about us "believers" lacks validity - and if the attackers can comment - then we have the right of reply - other wise the whole process is pointless

p2 - agreed and many NEED to to examine some of their viewpoints - even i will concede that , but like wise the skeptics must ALSO realise WE are only doing the same thing to them - as whether you like it or not , logic is not always the final arbiter of what "actually " happens - and the usual accusations about lacking "critical thinking " also have to be put aside as WHEN we are dealing in GENUINE CASES ( note this please ) WHICH IN MY OPINION ARE FAR AND FEW BETWEEN - BUT NEVERTHE LESS THERE ( don't forget personally i also hate all the BS - it clouds the small amount of genuine ) - we have to be able to look at ideas and concepts that may seem to many way out side the box -

what you have to realise with me is you are not dealing with some fuzzy headed WOO ( OK i take the rise out the whole woo .skeptic thing a lot - bit of humor never hurts eh ?? ) - i have seen some- sorry a lot of so called paranormal investigation - and most of it is as YOU must know IS muddled and basically wannabe ghost hunting - i will agree with you there 100% - BUT please DONT CLASS ALL OF US WHO HAVE HAD EXPERIANCES AND SEEN STUFF WITH OUR OWN EYES ,THE SAME - I would love to be able to come up with a "rational " ( mind depends how one defines that ) or "scientific " ( ditto ) explanation for these occurrences - but just don't have the answers - at least not to MY satisfaction , and again i hope you will agree that really that's what its all about , yea sure we can debate till we are blue in the face - but at the end of the day would you not agree that "the truth IS the truth - even if that truth is only known to one person ??

p3 - no it is not logical to believe that when there are many reports of them happening in broad daylight also - as to your point about cameras - do you carry one with you 24 /7 ready to snap the elusive ghost or two ?? - and also i QUESTION IF current technology IS in fact CAPABLE of recording them in the first place ?? ( arguments as to existence accepted ?? ) - in my book we need to sit down and seriously LOOK at whats been done in the past - what technology we have to try and answer this today and see what has worked and what has not ( and i am talking about 99% of the supposed ghost detecting tools that people rely on today - which we KNOW in the main certainly DONT detect ghosts , apparitions or anything else very much - and are in the main again just a con job on the gullible )

of course there is a counter argument i will throw up , in that IF ( little word - lot of meaning ) - IF our quarry IS in any way sentient ( you will excuse my terminology - i am not a scientist or academic by any means ) then is it not "possible " that they don't want to BE RECORDED -or have the ability not to be so ??

again possibilities ;) - and i think if you read my stuff I do NOT make definite pronouncements on things ( eg they exist or don't ) - i am unsure - that's why i research in my own small way ( and yea i don't always do it as per the book - but then that's not been written yet ;) or by "accepted standards " ( who's ?? ) - I will and DO poffer opinions of course :D

trouble is Jon - this WHOLE subject has become sooooooo polluted in the last 10 -15 years by BS ,motive ,money and self interest - that i fear now it is too far gone to do anything with and we may have missed the chance to actually FIND the answers

as always just my personal opinions as an individual with an interest .

great questions - this is the sort of stuff we need - good honest discussion of viewpoints and may be ,just may be when people - serious people (not the shit and giggles brigade :roll:) actually see we" woos" ** :lol: :lol: are NOT all the same - and are actually just striving for answers all be it from a different perspective - then we may make progress - but as long as the infighting - self interest and BS gos on - i personally don't hold out much hope :roll:

** used far too often - be a great help is all sides dropped the term ;)
LIFE - just filling the bits between birth, death and taxes
User avatar
brett
 
Posts: 436
Joined: 06 Aug 2009, 22:23
Location: Plymouth UK

Re: This site needs to be renamed

Postby NinjaPuppy » 20 Aug 2009, 20:43

Very well put Brett. Thank you.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: This site needs to be renamed

Postby leo100 » 21 Aug 2009, 02:36

JonDonnis wrote:I think that calling this site "Debunking Skeptics" is wrong, you should call it "Debunking Pseudo-Skeptics"
I also have a problem with pseudoskeptics, but pigeon holing us all will only create anomosity.

The skeptical commnity will get behind a good honest mission to debunk the pseudoskeptics, but going after people like James Randi is pointless.

Remember the skeptical cumminty will always be first to out a pseudoskeptic.

When i have made a mistake on my site it is never the believers who point it out, it is always the skeptics.

Whatever your personal belief, you should always try to live your life with critical thinking, logic and common sense.



I disagree, most of the skeptical community see all of themselves as open minded skeptics and see believers as making this term called pseudoskeptic was made up.
leo100
 
Posts: 53
Joined: 21 May 2009, 23:22

Re: This site needs to be renamed

Postby NinjaPuppy » 21 Aug 2009, 07:02

leo100 wrote:I disagree, most of the skeptical community see all of themselves as open minded skeptics and see believers as making this term called pseudoskeptic was made up.


You do say 'most' of the skeptical community. Would you not say that there are extremes among the skeptical community? Hence the use of the term pseudoskeptic, so as not to lump all skeptics into one broad category.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: This site needs to be renamed

Postby Purple Scissor » 21 Aug 2009, 07:40

I agree that targeting skeptics instead of pseudoskeptics (pseudoskeptics are those who use pseudoscientific arguments in the service of skepticism), should be changed. As to criticizing JREF and CSICOP, I agree that the way it has been done here sometimes, as with the "Professor," sucks. However, there are verifiable pseudoskeptics among them, so we cannot promise not to criticize them. I believe Randi has done some pseudoskeptical things (a statement which I personally believe, but do not have the time right now to research and support; I hope by this statement to exempt myself from the charge of pseudoskepticism). We should develop articles documenting this.

"For example is it logical to believe that full spirit manefestations can only happen in the dark, and when there are no cameras about? Or is it logical to believe that some kind of trickery is going on?"

It is not illogical. But it is suspicious. But again, it is a huge topic, and for all my research, I do not know enough to comment. I am guessing that you know even less.

Brett.... We should make a rule on this forum: no allcaps. It looks like woo :P
Purple Scissor
 
Posts: 48
Joined: 12 Jun 2009, 10:15

Next

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests