View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          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 caniswalensis » 17 Jun 2010, 04:02

NinjaPuppy wrote:
caniswalensis wrote:Could we get those rule posted in a sticky? :D

I got yer 'sticky' right here. :D

I think they already are actually. Not quite and cut and dry, but the same 'suggestions'. Allow me to go look for them and either make them REALLY sticky.


I think I'm in love! :lol:
"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 Scepcop » 18 Jun 2010, 23:46

caniswalensis wrote:Hi All,

I am a skeptic, and here is my view on this question.

I agree whole-heartedly with friend Indigo that there is a big problem with behavior on this forum right now. Name calling, flaming, & open hostility are all rampant here now.

I think that membership in this forum should be contingent on behavior, not on viewpoints. This forum is essentially claiming the intelectual high ground with it's stated purpose. Excluding people based on philisophical grounds will bring that claim into serious doubt.

A person's viewpoint can be valuable, even if you do not personally agree with it. Limiting the forum membership to certain viewpoints will almopst certainly limit it in value as well.

On the other hand, making a strong effort to eliminate counterproductive behaviors will only increase the quality and volume of discussion here.

The best way to eliminate those behaviors is with a clear & objective set of rules that define what is acceptable and what is not. These rules should be designed to promote a free exchange of ideas and civil discussion. They must be prominently posted for the membership to see, and enforced by the staff. There should also be a clear & objective process set up that outines what steps are taken when infravctions of the rules occur. It also helps to instill in the general membership a spirit of community and helpfulness in keeping the forum clean.

Those are my thoughts, but I have one last thing to say; where I have made statements that are critical of the state of this forum, I do not mean that to be an indictment of the staff here. Since I have joined this forum, I have found the staff to be fair, hardworking & friendly. :)

Regards, Canis


Those are great points Canis and Indigo Child. Both of you make a lot of sense.

Canis, in addition to behavior rules, do you advocate having some boards free of skeptics and others that include their participation?

Indigo Child, do you mean two separate forums altogether or two boards in this same forum? If we divide this into two separate forums, it's possible that all the believers and pro-paranormal crowd will not post on the skeptics forum and only on the pro-paranormal forum. Then the skeptics would just be posting among themselves. It'd be a mini version of the JREF forum essentially. lol

Personally I think a good compromise is to have certain boards of this forum to be skeptic free, while others allowing them. The only question is, which boards and how many in each zone?

The poll in this thread so far shows that some people agree that the skeptics should be limited.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

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

Postby ProfWag » 18 Jun 2010, 23:59

Not that anyone would care in the least, but from my own point of view, if people are allowed to say whatever they want without me being able to ask to clarify or question a fuzzy or incorrect statement just because I'm classified as a skeptic, then this university professor will go find another board to practice and improve my critical thinking skills.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

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

Postby caniswalensis » 19 Jun 2010, 00:31

Scepcop wrote:
Those are great points Canis and Indigo Child. Both of you make a lot of sense.

Canis, in addition to behavior rules, do you advocate having some boards free of skeptics and others that include their participation?



Thank you for the nice compliment Skepcop. :)

To answer your question, I personally would not choose to limits any boards at all. I feel that if people should be willing to listen to all opinions, as long as they are offered in a respectful and polite manner. I would in fact advise people to specifically seek out points of view that differ from their own.

However, everyone is a little different and some might not agree with my opinion on this. I am not the Board manager, so I do not fault you if you want to make a segregated board. That is totally up to your judgement. Although it is very nice of you to have a discussion about it with us and try to be democratic about it. :)

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 Indigo Child » 19 Jun 2010, 00:43

I meant two boards: one for skeptics to post in and one for paranormalists.


Prowag, you are not really a skeptic and nor do you practice critical thinking. Remember,
our recent debate in the Uri Geller thread. You started out by saying, "It is a magic trick"
then when you could not prove it, you finished by saying "I am not going to reveal the magic
trick" This is not skepticism or critical thinking. It is pseudoskeptism and more deeply your
religious beliefs.

In the debunking pseudoskeptical fallacies on UFO's I gave you two cases to examine, Bent
waters and the Japanense airliner. You declined the first one citing personal reasons, and
you have not responded to the second. Still, you claim there is no evidence.

In our debate on astral projection. I presented you several experiments which showed beyond
a reason of doubt that astral projection was taking place. You responded by saying insufficient
controls in the experiment, without actually showing where the controls are insufficient, the mere
possibility was your entire argument.

In our various philosophical debates I presented you sound reasoning for why the mind is not the body
in order to refute your claim that the mind is the brain. You failed to respond to any of the argument and
in the end told me you don't have time to respond, but just reasserted your belief, "mind is brain"

So what skepticism and what critical thinking? You have consistently shown you are not skeptical and nor
are you a critical thinker.
Indigo Child
 
Posts: 327
Joined: 22 May 2009, 08:01

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

Postby Indigo Child » 19 Jun 2010, 00:53

I think the problem is not with skeptics. I am a skeptic myself, and most
paranormal researchers are skeptical. The problem is with these pseudoskeptics
which post in every thread where the paranormal is being discussed, do not critically
engage with any evidence being discussed, scoff, ridicule and name-call and repeat the
mantra, "there is no evidence" like mindless zombies. What tends to happen is us genuine
skeptics get involved in pages and pages of discussion with these mindless zombies, and despite
all the evidence we produce, they continue to repeat to the very end, "there is no evidence" How
can anybody have a mature and intelligent discussion with such children running about ?


Unfortunately, most people who claim to be skeptic are pseudoskeptics.

I really don't think we should allow this to continue as it is, because it undermines the very
ethos of this web site to allow pseudoskeptics to take over this forum. So either we split the
boards into a skeptic and non skeptic zone or we really crack down on the pseudoskeptic infection
on this board and bring them in line with proper skeptical practice. In order to do this we need to
institute the rule that all claims made in any discussion will have to be backed up with evidence and
evidence provided by another member must be critically engaged.
Indigo Child
 
Posts: 327
Joined: 22 May 2009, 08:01

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

Postby ProfWag » 19 Jun 2010, 02:24

This is funny (emphasis mine)
Indigo Child wrote:I think the problem is not with skeptics. I am a skeptic myself, and most
paranormal researchers are skeptical. The problem is with these pseudoskeptics
which post in every thread where the paranormal is being discussed, do not critically
engage with any evidence being discussed, scoff, ridicule and name-call and repeat the
mantra, "there is no evidence" like mindless zombies. What tends to happen is us genuine
skeptics get involved in pages and pages of discussion with these mindless zombies, and despite
all the evidence we produce, they continue to repeat to the very end, "there is no evidence" How
can anybody have a mature and intelligent discussion with such children running about ?

You say we ridicule and name call, but then the VERY NEXT sentence, you call me a mindless zombie. I believe that might classify as an example of the word "hypocrite." Wouldn't you think?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

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

Postby ProfWag » 19 Jun 2010, 02:29

Indigo Child wrote:I think the problem is not with skeptics. I am a skeptic myself, and most
paranormal researchers are skeptical.

This statement is also comical to me. A skeptic would not use the word "conclusive" when commenting on an experiment that has never been replicated. A skeptic would look at that experiment and say something like "Fascinating! Can't wait to see him do it again! He won't do it again? Oh? Perhaps there is something more that I'm not being shown..." A "believer" looks at that one experiment and says to the skeptic: "Look! Conclusive proof!"
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

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

Postby ProfWag » 19 Jun 2010, 02:31

Indigo Child wrote: In order to do this we need to
institute the rule that all claims made in any discussion will have to be backed up with evidence and
evidence provided by another member must be critically engaged.

Great idea Indigo Child!
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

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

Postby caniswalensis » 19 Jun 2010, 02:33

I have to wonder why we are discussing the posts of individual members in this thread. it seems like just more bickering to me.

I don't think it is necessary or appropriate. This thread is about the forum as a whole, not individual members.

Rather than offer a subjective critique of a specific member's quality, can't we simply discuss the quality of behavior & discourse we would like to see in this forum?

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 Indigo Child » 19 Jun 2010, 02:34

ProfWag wrote:
Indigo Child wrote:I think the problem is not with skeptics. I am a skeptic myself, and most
paranormal researchers are skeptical.

This statement is also comical to me. A skeptic would not use the word "conclusive" when commenting on an experiment that has never been replicated. A skeptic would look at that experiment and say something like "Fascinating! Can't wait to see him do it again! He won't do it again? Oh? Perhaps there is something more that I'm not being shown..." A "believer" looks at that one experiment and says to the skeptic: "Look! Conclusive proof!"


It hardly matters how many times you repeat an experiment, because repetition never
proves an experiment. Even one experiment is enough to confirm the paranormal.

Some experiments are not replicable due to the rarity of the phenomena, such as
studying supernovas. In the case of rare experiences such as seeing a ghost or a
UFO, again one cannot expect replicability, however one experience of these things
is enough to give one conclusive proof.
Indigo Child
 
Posts: 327
Joined: 22 May 2009, 08:01

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

Postby NinjaPuppy » 19 Jun 2010, 02:39

Yes, please stay on topic. I would be glad to move these off topic posts as soon as I can find an appropriate location.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

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

Postby ProfWag » 19 Jun 2010, 02:43

Oops, my bad. Sorry. I would like my post kept somewhere more topical though, if possible...
ADDED BY MODERATOR- YES, I GET IT. :lol:
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

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

Postby Scepcop » 20 Jun 2010, 17:05

Indigo Child wrote:I meant two boards: one for skeptics to post in and one for paranormalists.


Prowag, you are not really a skeptic and nor do you practice critical thinking. Remember,
our recent debate in the Uri Geller thread. You started out by saying, "It is a magic trick"
then when you could not prove it, you finished by saying "I am not going to reveal the magic
trick" This is not skepticism or critical thinking. It is pseudoskeptism and more deeply your
religious beliefs.

In the debunking pseudoskeptical fallacies on UFO's I gave you two cases to examine, Bent
waters and the Japanense airliner. You declined the first one citing personal reasons, and
you have not responded to the second. Still, you claim there is no evidence.

In our debate on astral projection. I presented you several experiments which showed beyond
a reason of doubt that astral projection was taking place. You responded by saying insufficient
controls in the experiment, without actually showing where the controls are insufficient, the mere
possibility was your entire argument.

In our various philosophical debates I presented you sound reasoning for why the mind is not the body
in order to refute your claim that the mind is the brain. You failed to respond to any of the argument and
in the end told me you don't have time to respond, but just reasserted your belief, "mind is brain"

So what skepticism and what critical thinking? You have consistently shown you are not skeptical and nor
are you a critical thinker.


You got it. That's cause pseudoskepticism is a religion. It's not about critical thinking or open minded inquiry. Like I said, they always start and end with the following:

- Paranormal claims are all bunk and cannot be true. There is no evidence for them.
- Conspiracies are all false. There is no evidence for them. Official sources are not to be questioned.
- Anything that challenges the status quo and materialism is wrong and must be debunked.
- Only natural materialistic explanations are acceptable. Paranormal ones are not.

The problem with ProfWag is that he says he wants you to CONSIDER his views. But the thing is, we already do consider them. So what does he offer that we haven't already considered? He just pushes his views on you until he gets you to agree with him on the four dogmas above. That's clearly the tactic of one with an agenda, rather than one who seeks open ended inquiry.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

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

Postby Scepcop » 20 Jun 2010, 17:16

So everyone, what would be the downside in having different zones here? For example, having skeptics allowed only in a board called "Debate the Pseudoskeptics"?

Would that be discouraging to them to be limited like that? If so, why? They can post all they want in that one board. Why is it so important for them to be able to post in every thread? If they saw a thread about remote viewing for example and disagreed with it, they could start up their own thread in their own zone and explain why they disagree.

What is wrong with that?
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

PreviousNext

Return to PseudoSkeptic Fallacies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron