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

Poll: Should Skeptics be allowed in this forum?

Discuss PseudoSkeptics and their Fallacies. Share strategies for debating them.

Should Skeptics be allowed in this forum?

Yes
28
62%
Yes but only limit them to the Debating Skeptics board
10
22%
No, it would only bring negative energy and ultimately do no good, as they will not listen
7
16%
 
Total votes : 45

Re: Poll: Should Skeptics be allowed in this forum?

Postby NinjaPuppy » 17 Aug 2010, 04:12

Hi Ellie. This forum was originally created for basic discussion on the 'believers' side of the topics. For some reason, the skeptics just LOVE us to death and can't get enough of us most days. :lol: I haven't done a count but I think we have more active skeptics than we do believers.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Poll: Should Skeptics be allowed in this forum?

Postby Ellie » 17 Aug 2010, 04:22

Oh right, I get you now - however, I think i'm what you would call a 'believer' but what I would call a 'sceptic'. But for me (and for science), scepticism is about retaining the belief in possibilities until proved otherwise. Is that ok, or am I just being difficult? ;)
Ellie
 
Posts: 40
Joined: 13 Aug 2010, 19:25

Re: Poll: Should Skeptics be allowed in this forum?

Postby ProfWag » 17 Aug 2010, 04:57

Ellie wrote:Oh right, I get you now - however, I think i'm what you would call a 'believer' but what I would call a 'sceptic'. But for me (and for science), scepticism is about retaining the belief in possibilities until proved otherwise. Is that ok, or am I just being difficult? ;)

You can believe anything you want here Ellie. Lord knows there aren't very many people here with the same thoughts.
As a skeptic, I think anything is possible and I've said that numerous times here. I just don't think most of what gets discussed here has enough evidence to pronounce it as "proven."
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Poll: Should Skeptics be allowed in this forum?

Postby Ellie » 17 Aug 2010, 05:47

I never really consider things as "proven". More "interesting" and "not disproven" - more fun and progress is had that way ;)
Ellie
 
Posts: 40
Joined: 13 Aug 2010, 19:25

Re: Poll: Should Skeptics be allowed in this forum?

Postby NinjaPuppy » 17 Aug 2010, 20:41

Ellie wrote:Oh right, I get you now - however, I think i'm what you would call a 'believer' but what I would call a 'sceptic'. But for me (and for science), scepticism is about retaining the belief in possibilities until proved otherwise. Is that ok, or am I just being difficult? ;)

It is better than ok, it's PERFECT. At least from my POV. Don't let the occasional cynic get you down or try to tell you anything different. ;)
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Poll: Should Skeptics be allowed in this forum?

Postby Twain Shakespeare » 17 Oct 2010, 01:42

I have a hard time keeping the teams straight here. One person's "Skepticism" is another credulity. I try to stay on the "agnostic" "twain" side, myself, since my "beliefs" as the term is used here, are both outre, and mutable, and cover "all possibilities". "there are more thing on heaven and earth than (can be) dreamed of in...philosophy!" Shut up, Shakespeare!
"What's so Funny about Peace, Love, and Understanding?"
User avatar
Twain Shakespeare
 
Posts: 375
Joined: 20 Jul 2010, 05:19
Location: El Paso Del Norte on the sunny Jornada del Muerta

Re: Poll: Should Skeptics be allowed in this forum?

Postby caniswalensis » 17 Oct 2010, 02:29

Since the word "skeptic" is used in this forum interchangably to describe both a true skeptic as defined by the organization known as SCEPCOP and the polar opposite known as a pseudo-skeptic, I agree with twain that it is hard to keep thing straight here.
"It is proper for you to doubt ... do not go upon report ... do not go upon tradition ... do not go upon hear-say." ~ Buddha
caniswalensis
 
Posts: 208
Joined: 02 Jun 2010, 03:41

Re: Poll: Should Skeptics be allowed in this forum?

Postby Arouet » 17 Oct 2010, 02:36

caniswalensis wrote:Since the word "skeptic" is used in this forum interchangably to describe both a true skeptic as defined by the organization known as SCEPCOP and the polar opposite known as a pseudo-skeptic, I agree with twain that it is hard to keep thing straight here.


How about keeping it simple: a skeptic is someone who accepts propositions only based on sufficient reliable evidence.
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Poll: Should Skeptics be allowed in this forum?

Postby Craig Browning » 18 Oct 2010, 02:40

Yes, it gets very confusing here; especially with the board's owner tossing in so much supposition tied to radical conspiracy theories as being the "real deal". I've mentioned it to others, the fact that this is the sort of thing that not only sours the pot but likewise prevents others from either being active or even joining the forum in the first place... it's too "Out There".

On the other end of that pole we have those that are so critical in their thinking and world view that I'm confident you could turn them into a diamond factory (we'd need to double check with their proctologist however, to confirm the fact that they are a tight ass... and not in the good way). Let's face it, fanaticism is everywhere and when it comes to the need certain self-ordained skeptics have to be superior to one and all, it's easy to see where their evangelic manner comes from. Similarly however, this same kernel is what brings about the ridiculous from within the "believers" side of things.

My view is more Hermetic; it's all the same thing, separated by degree. What you consider to be hot might only be warm to me and vice versa; the same thing, just different points of view.

This is a view that gets reinforced regularly, as I find "science" putting out new words and points of view that more or less "prove' elements behind the paranormal (ESP, Psychics, Magick, ghosts, etc.) but from a supposedly contrasting point of view; they are saying the same thing taught by the educated students of the occult/metaphysics, just using different terms and theoretical points of view. At the end of the day, I think we are all due to wake-up sometime down the road, to realize this and thus, come into a state of agreement. It can't happen however, until humankind learns to find the median in things vs. seeking out a black & white rigidity that simply don't exist in the Universe -- life & existence is grey, always has been. This is one reason why I tend to stand in the middle on things more than not. Granted, there are issues that irritate the hell out of me when it comes to the paranoia and/or delusions presented by both sides, with the "believers" getting a bit ridiculous at times... again, when it comes to belief in Big Brother and Secret Society agendas and such. :roll:

It's not a lack of belief on my part, just the fact that I don't need to allow such things to control or absorb my life. After all, they are much bigger and more influential than I am, been around longer than any of us and thus far, they've actually done a halfway decent job tending to the care & feeding of billions of worker bees. :lol:
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 05:20
Location: Northampton, MA

Re: Poll: Should Skeptics be allowed in this forum?

Postby caniswalensis » 18 Oct 2010, 03:26

Arouet wrote:
caniswalensis wrote:Since the word "skeptic" is used in this forum interchangably to describe both a true skeptic as defined by the organization known as SCEPCOP and the polar opposite known as a pseudo-skeptic, I agree with twain that it is hard to keep thing straight here.


How about keeping it simple: a skeptic is someone who accepts propositions only based on sufficient reliable evidence.


I agree with that, but it is missing my point.
What I am saying here is that there is a looseness in the use of these two words that is hindering conversation. No matter what definition is assigned to a word, it is useless if people keep substituting a different word on their personal whims.

What I am asking for is that people quit using 'skeptic' and "pseudoskeptic" as synonyms. The organization that operates this forum has made it very clear that they are not the same thing, yet most people here are too lazy to diffrentiate. The committe members themselves seem to be the worst offenders.

I don't meant to be abrassive about this, but I have to call 'em like I see 'em. When I see the founding member of SCEPCOP regually posting negative remarks about "skeptics" I cringe. Such a usage is in direct controdiction to this quote from the introduction to his own treatise:

However, standing in the way are groups of organized fundamentalists who call themselves "skeptics" but in reality are dogmatic defenders of establishment and materialistic reductionistic science who reject and deny anything which challenges that. They are pseudoskeptics cause their actions and behaviors are the antithesis to what the word skepticism really means. (More on that later)


I don't know. Maybe I am alone in worrying about this. I just feel that on a site like this that makes such a big deal out of labeling people and putting them in groups, it is important to keep the termonology straight.

regards, Canis
"It is proper for you to doubt ... do not go upon report ... do not go upon tradition ... do not go upon hear-say." ~ Buddha
caniswalensis
 
Posts: 208
Joined: 02 Jun 2010, 03:41

Re: Poll: Should Skeptics be allowed in this forum?

Postby capri2 » 20 Dec 2010, 14:28

The thing about skeptics is that they all ask the same questions;
Q1) What did you see?
Well if the person knew that they wouldn't be worried would they.
Q2) Did you consider you were threatened?
Well of course you might have, but in reality this is a matter of public interest.
Q2) Why should I believe you?
Because DUMMY you haven't asked the right questions in the first place. So for all the skeptics here are the questions.

Q1) What didn't you see?
Answer: Well it wasn't an airplane or a balloon or a helicopter or anything else I have ever seen in my life. So really I don't know.
Q2) You weren't threatened so why ring us?
Answer: Well you are the authorities aren't you? You look after this stuff? If I didn't know who am I supposed to ring?
Their answer: Yes. Right now we are going somewhere.
Q3) So what did it actually look like?
Answer: Well great now we are really getting somewhere! This is what it looked like........................
Our Question) Well what are you going to do about it?
Their Answer) I don't really know.

Skeptics want US to tell them what we DID SEE, well if we knew that we would tell them BUT we don't know. What we do know is what we didn't see. And here we come to the logic the skeptics have to prove it. Not even in Blue Book did they ever asked the right questions, read the information, the questions are all the same-WHAT DID YOU SEE!!!
It comes down to the three things
1. You saw something you couldn't identify;
2.You had a legitimate reason for being where you were; &
3.You have absolutely no ulterior motive.
Having a camera or recording device today means nothing, everyone owns a mobile phone. And just by the way for the skeptics the number of UFO photos has increased dramatically since these devices have been on the market, contrary to popular belief.
capri2
 
Posts: 7
Joined: 20 Dec 2010, 12:40

Re: Poll: Should Skeptics be allowed in this forum?

Postby ProfWag » 20 Dec 2010, 22:24

capri2 wrote:The thing about skeptics is that they all ask the same questions;
Q1) What did you see?
Well if the person knew that they wouldn't be worried would they.
Q2) Did you consider you were threatened?
Well of course you might have, but in reality this is a matter of public interest.
Q2) Why should I believe you?
Because DUMMY you haven't asked the right questions in the first place. So for all the skeptics here are the questions.

Q1) What didn't you see?
Answer: Well it wasn't an airplane or a balloon or a helicopter or anything else I have ever seen in my life. So really I don't know.
Q2) You weren't threatened so why ring us?
Answer: Well you are the authorities aren't you? You look after this stuff? If I didn't know who am I supposed to ring?
Their answer: Yes. Right now we are going somewhere.
Q3) So what did it actually look like?
Answer: Well great now we are really getting somewhere! This is what it looked like........................
Our Question) Well what are you going to do about it?
Their Answer) I don't really know.

Skeptics want US to tell them what we DID SEE, well if we knew that we would tell them BUT we don't know. What we do know is what we didn't see. And here we come to the logic the skeptics have to prove it. Not even in Blue Book did they ever asked the right questions, read the information, the questions are all the same-WHAT DID YOU SEE!!!
It comes down to the three things
1. You saw something you couldn't identify;
2.You had a legitimate reason for being where you were; &
3.You have absolutely no ulterior motive.
Having a camera or recording device today means nothing, everyone owns a mobile phone. And just by the way for the skeptics the number of UFO photos has increased dramatically since these devices have been on the market, contrary to popular belief.

I'm not sure you actually pinpointed the question skeptics are really asking when we ask "what did you see?" What I want to know when asking that question include: Flying or sitting, day or night, distance, size, shape, speed, weather conditions, topography, trees, number of witnesses, duration of sighting, etc. etc. etc. Unfortunately, we don't usually get very good answers to these questions, but when we do, I like to think the skeptics take the sighting seriously...
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3846
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Poll: Should Skeptics be allowed in this forum?

Postby Eternally Learning » 24 Mar 2011, 00:47

Haven't read through all 117 posts, but how would one go about identifying who was a "skeptic" reliably? Some are self-identified sure, but you're basically talking about banning those who express dissenting viewpoints from your own. I think banning people should be strictly on a case-by-case basis and based off of behavior primarily. If someone wants to be obtuse and unreasonable in your estimation, then simply ignore them and they'll give up. If they insist on trying to provoke you then ban them. Seems simple to me.

ETA:
Forgot to mention, this is your forum so you make the rules. If you want some sections to be off-limits to debate, then make that a rule and restrict those who violate it.
User avatar
Eternally Learning
 
Posts: 56
Joined: 24 Mar 2011, 00:28

Re: Poll: Should Skeptics be allowed in this forum?

Postby Arouet » 24 Mar 2011, 06:37

One thing I'll give scepcop credit for is allowing people with opposing views to post . He may ignore them, but he'll allow it!

If skeptics were banned from this site there would be very few people left posting!
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Poll: Should Skeptics be allowed in this forum?

Postby Eternally Learning » 24 Mar 2011, 07:13

Arouet wrote:One thing I'll give scepcop credit for is allowing people with opposing views to post . He may ignore them, but he'll allow it!

If skeptics were banned from this site there would be very few people left posting!


Good to know. Always appreciated when people don't try to unfairly squash dissent. Who wants to post in an echo chamber?
User avatar
Eternally Learning
 
Posts: 56
Joined: 24 Mar 2011, 00:28

PreviousNext

Return to PseudoSkeptic Fallacies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron