Objectivity test for Skeptics here - Should it be required?
Posted: 23 Jul 2009, 20:50
Hi all,
Most of you have probably noticed that I am not a control freak, like most forum owners/moderators are. And that I am far more open, objective and rational than most people are. That's why I open issues up for discussion (for Christ's sake, at least give me credit for that, most people are not that open and objective!)
Nevertheless, as I said in the beginning of this site, I would like this forum to be a community of objective people rather than one of faith based belief or faith based denial.
Now that skeptics are pouring in, I propose this objectivity test for them. Let me know what you think.
On my mailing list, there is this skeptic I know who is very smart, well read and knowledgeable on a variety of topics. He is one of those rare people you meet in life who know a lot about any topic, compared to average people at least. He also argues without ridiculing and attackers others. However, I have caught him lying red handed once about his Ebay user name profile. The whole thing was proven and detailed here. You will see that he was caught lying red handed and has no explanation to offer for giving false info.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Page5.htm#Ebay
Now here's the test to skeptics here.
What do you think of this? Are you willing to admit that a fellow skeptic is wrong for lying and deliberately giving false data about his Ebay username? Or will you religiously deny it, cover up for him, and try to pin the blame on me, like a religious cultist/dogmatist would?
I think this would be a good test, because an honest, objective truth seeker not blinded by dogma will admit that lying is wrong, even when it's by someone on their side. Don't you think? Most truth seekers will admit this of those on their own side, while on the other hand, people who are purely subjective will cover for their side and for their hero/icon even if they are wrong or lying. So the question is, will skeptics here do the same?
The rationale behind this objectivity test is this:
"If someone cannot even admit that one of their own is wrong for lying, even though they were caught red handed, then what good is it to spend time discussing or debating with them? What good could come out of it, when their objectivity and honesty are obviously shot? What hope is there of reasoning with them?"
Do you see my point?
I'm thinking of this objectivity test as a requirement for skeptics to remain here. What do you think? Good idea? Or flawed? Why or why not?
Most of you have probably noticed that I am not a control freak, like most forum owners/moderators are. And that I am far more open, objective and rational than most people are. That's why I open issues up for discussion (for Christ's sake, at least give me credit for that, most people are not that open and objective!)
Nevertheless, as I said in the beginning of this site, I would like this forum to be a community of objective people rather than one of faith based belief or faith based denial.
Now that skeptics are pouring in, I propose this objectivity test for them. Let me know what you think.
On my mailing list, there is this skeptic I know who is very smart, well read and knowledgeable on a variety of topics. He is one of those rare people you meet in life who know a lot about any topic, compared to average people at least. He also argues without ridiculing and attackers others. However, I have caught him lying red handed once about his Ebay user name profile. The whole thing was proven and detailed here. You will see that he was caught lying red handed and has no explanation to offer for giving false info.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Page5.htm#Ebay
Now here's the test to skeptics here.
What do you think of this? Are you willing to admit that a fellow skeptic is wrong for lying and deliberately giving false data about his Ebay username? Or will you religiously deny it, cover up for him, and try to pin the blame on me, like a religious cultist/dogmatist would?
I think this would be a good test, because an honest, objective truth seeker not blinded by dogma will admit that lying is wrong, even when it's by someone on their side. Don't you think? Most truth seekers will admit this of those on their own side, while on the other hand, people who are purely subjective will cover for their side and for their hero/icon even if they are wrong or lying. So the question is, will skeptics here do the same?
The rationale behind this objectivity test is this:
"If someone cannot even admit that one of their own is wrong for lying, even though they were caught red handed, then what good is it to spend time discussing or debating with them? What good could come out of it, when their objectivity and honesty are obviously shot? What hope is there of reasoning with them?"
Do you see my point?
I'm thinking of this objectivity test as a requirement for skeptics to remain here. What do you think? Good idea? Or flawed? Why or why not?