Poll: Should Skeptics be allowed in this forum?

[ProfWag]

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?

Yes! Who wants to post in an echo chamber?

[ProfWag]

Back to the subject of the thread though, should one side of a debate be totally banned from participation? For example, one of the main articles on msn.com this morning was a guy who filmed bigfoot a couple days ago. Now, let's say there is a thread that only people who believe that was really bigfoot were allowed to comment on. Assuming we had a lot more "believers" posting, then that story would get totally overblown without a chance of a skeptic stepping in and saying, "hey, this film is way out of focus and even what we do see, the thing obviously looks like a dude in a costume." Without skeptics, there could be a world of people afraid to go to sleep tonight because they're afraid they'll get abducted by aliens, that Bigfoot will eat their rose garden, that el chupacrabra will eat their dog, or that their partner will read their mind and know about his fantasy with the neighbor.
IMHO anyway.

[Eternally Learning]

I would refine that to say without a skeptical attitude many of these scenarios could be true. Skepticism pops up in all walks of life regardless of what beliefs a person may have. That’s one of the reasons why I feel this proposed ban would be impractical at best. What if someone believes in Bigfoot, but not that UFOs are aliens? Or what if someone believes in PSI, but not in ghosts or souls? How would you go about keeping them out of the way when they disagree, and available when they don’t?

[Arouet]

In fairness this thread is almost 2 years old. The consensus of this thread seems to have been to allow skeptics to be here, and this has been encouraged. Since no one is actually proposing this now, we can probably let this thread lie.

[ProfWag]

In fairness this thread is almost 2 years old. The consensus of this thread seems to have been to allow skeptics to be here, and this has been encouraged. Since no one is actually proposing this now, we can probably let this thread lie.

I wholeheartedly agree, but it's just been so boring on here in recent days that any chatter was good chatter. For me at least...

[Eternally Learning]

Yeah, I usually don't resurrect old threads like this, but as it's about the forum as a whole I feel my stance should at least be known should it become considered again.

[Finny]

Isn't the question a non sequitur? I mean, as if it is not ok for a "sceptic" to be a sceptic, but for a "non-sceptic" to be sceptical of a sceptic, that's fine....

Being sceptical is a function of intellectual maturity.

[Arouet]

Isn't the question a non sequitur? I mean, as if it is not ok for a "sceptic" to be a sceptic, but for a "non-sceptic" to be sceptical of a sceptic, that's fine....

Being sceptical is a function of intellectual maturity.

Skeptic is being used her in a slightly different way. Proponents will often describe themselves as skeptics. We often use Skeptic slightly incorrctly as a broad category to differntiate between those who believe in psi and those who don't. Incorrect, but most of the time its pretty clear what is meant. So far, no one has presented a better word.

Welcome to the forum, hope you're not one of a constant stream of new members who just make a short post, then insert a spam link!

[really?]

Isn't the question a non sequitur? I mean, as if it is not ok for a "sceptic" to be a sceptic, but for a "non-sceptic" to be sceptical of a sceptic, that's fine....

Being sceptical is a function of intellectual maturity.

Skeptic is being used her in a slightly different way. Proponents will often describe themselves as skeptics. We often use Skeptic slightly incorrctly as a broad category to differntiate between those who believe in psi and those who don't. Incorrect, but most of the time its pretty clear what is meant. So far, no one has presented a better word.

Welcome to the forum, hope you're not one of a constant stream of new members who just make a short post, then insert a spam link!

I've heard the term skeptical believer used by proponents of all things psi to describe themselves.

[RideTheWalrus]

I think each skeptic has to be taken on a case-to-case basis. The ones who mock, belittle, and generally behave like cynical asses should be banned, but not the ones who politely and respectfully voice their point of view. Opposition makes us stronger.

[meryem]

I have clicked the third option in the poll just to feel good. To add my opinion over the topic I will say it will be OK to let skeptics take part here if they are willing to listen at least what others are saying before replying back.

[inFamousOne]

If the url = debunkingskeptics.com and this is the forum for debunking skeptics, then i see no reason why such a question or poll should ever be asked. Of course you must allow for skeptics to posts, for if you don't you my friend have successfully created your own "religion" in essence, and want nothing to do with other ideas of people who differ in opinion, and as far as I can see, doing such a thing, would be evidence that you are afraid of skeptics not because they can argue their points better than you, but rather, because you yourself are skeptical of whatever it is that you claim to know....(or believe)

So, my opinion is, skeptics are essential if a discussion is to continue.

[Arouet]

Yeah, this is a pretty old thread and the issue has been resolved along those lines!

[questor777]

yes everyone should be allowed to have a voice wherein others can criticize them and give them the feedback or credence that they themselves require. i like to state that from my experiences that what others think as telepathy could be just two or more people's think process to be alike where they come to or see the same conclusion. i totally believe in science and logic. Everything, even the way we perceive can be rooted in science, but perhaps our ability to make non linear connections are still in antiquity mode! we need common sense, but our imaginations need to have ability to be used too! maybe more buyer beware conditions should be required in selling any product to an unaware public! Or maybe scientists are using scientific quantitative tools to explain qualitative opinions!Everyone has an opinion, and life experiences that they call on to give rationale for their opinion! Even Randi has to agree with that!

[Arouet]

Hey Questor! Welcome to the forum! just to let you know that this issue was settled long ago here and skeptics are indeed welcome at the present time (or I wouldn't be here!)