Poll: Should Skeptics be allowed in this forum?

[caniswalensis]

[Scepcop]

[ProfWag]

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.

[caniswalensis]

[Indigo Child]

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]

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.

[ProfWag]

[ProfWag]

[ProfWag]

[caniswalensis]

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

[Indigo Child]

[NinjaPuppy]

Yes, please stay on topic. I would be glad to move these off topic posts as soon as I can find an appropriate location.

[ProfWag]

Oops, my bad. Sorry. I would like my post kept somewhere more topical though, if possible...
ADDED BY MODERATOR- YES, I GET IT.

[Scepcop]

[Scepcop]

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?