From: Terry W. Colvin (fortean1@mindspring.com)
Date: Thu Jun 12 2003 - 16:36:16 MDT
> > - The beginnings of a book
> > manuscript, "Debunking for Dummies."
>
> Or "Ranting By Example" would work equally well.
Was this comment meant to be clever or enlightening?
> (snipped lots of reasonable-ish text descending gradually into ranting)
>
> I'm picking this up here where the writer really begins to go off the rails.
> Hopefully someone else will have the time/energy for a point-by-point
> debunking.
You just had the time/energy for general smarminess?
> > One pertinent point to note from this statement is how pseudo-
> > skeptics always talk in terms of how the general public needs to be
> > told what is best for them (by the pseudo-skeptic of course). And
> > yet they wonder why the public is disdainful. The other point is
> > that the jealousy of the debunker has at its root their deep-seated
> > desire to have their particular worldview validated.
>
> Bzzzt, no. In a complex society such as our own, no one has the resources or
> ability to research every claim. We rely on each other's efforts to validate
> a small portion of the claims out there, using a common frame of reference -
> rationality. It's not always perfect, for many reasons, but it's important
> that somebody makes the effort to check claims, and when frauds/bs are
> found, it's quite valid to publicize it as widely as possible. I know that I
> personally appreciate this.
This is reasonable. Frauds/bs should be shot down, I think we all
appreciate this. What isn't appreciated is shooting down claims that have
not been demonstrated to be frauds/bs. To believe something without proving
your belief is to fall back on what can be surmised to be a psychological
need. Or a template of handling data. In either case, many rational
individuals find fault with that behavior.
See, you don't have time to investigate the claims, but you do have time to
"debunk" them. That's like saying you don't have time to mow the lawn, but
you do have time to tell every person within five miles of you that your
lawn doesn't need mowing. The claims are there to be mowed, but mowing
takes physical effort. Rhetoric is easier.
> > So what is the underlying reason for the debunkers position? Why do
> > they feel the need to "portray science not as an open-minded process
> > of discovery, but as a holy war against unruly hordes of quackery"
> > (14)? The obvious conclusion is that behind this behaviour lies a
> > large amount of insecurity.
>
> "obvious": code for "bullshit" in most contexts
Huh? Is this an obvious declaration on your part? Are you trying to prove
your own thesis?
Skeptics have no problem declaring that (thisgroupofpeoplewhobelieveXYZ) is
insecure; when they are called insecure for the beliefs that they hold, they
can't appreciate the analogous reasoning behind the claim. I don't know if
this skeptic or that skeptic is an insecure person. However, anytime anyone
says that their belief is above question, they are certainly being insecure
in that instance
> > In particular, anxiety that a carefully
> > constructed world-view, which helps them to make sense of the world
> > and also often bestows upon them a position of power, may be
> > dismantled at any moment. Any attempts by 'pseudo-scientists' to
> > investigate outside this world-view are regarded as a threat, an
> > attempt to pull the comfortable rug out from beneath the debunker's
> > feet. As much as the true skeptic harbours doubts about their
> > stance, the debunker attempts to convince themselves and others,
> > through any means possible, that they are right. How can the
> > debunker, therefore, ever be considered anything more than a pseudo-
> > skeptic.
>
> The flimsy crap about debunkers wears really thin by now. I think this guy
> is attacking a strawman (or a horde of them)... any pro-science person worth
> their salt knows that paradigms shift in all kinds of disciplines all the
> time. Doubt and science go together. That's the very reason for the
> aggressive critical stance!
If you truly believe this, than the person who wrote the article (the same
article that you didn't have time to debunk point by point) isn't speaking
about you. Doubt and science go together. No one is saying that people
should not be aggressively critical. The key word is critical. Criticism
is not equivalent to trumpeting "bullshit" at something that goes against
your belief system. That's aggressive name-calling.
> > That's not to say, however, that criticism of alternative theories
> > is incorrect or somehow morally wrong in any way. Ideas and theories
> > should always be questioned, but in a respectful manner, and with
> > the humility to realise that any position may prove to be completely
> > incorrect.
>
> What is a respectful manner? It'd be sad if "alternative theorists" had
> their feelings hurt I guess. Wannabe scientific theories are guilty until
> proven innocent.
A respectful manner means pointing out, detail by detail, why something is
incorrect. Failure to do so reinforces the conception that science is too
often a hyper-sensitive refuge for people who cannot tolerate the
questioning of their own beliefs.
> > We should always question what we believe, and also why
> > we do so. In the end though, it is each person's inalienable right
> > to construct a view of the world which fits the evidence of their
> > experience best, and helps them to understand the world.
>
> Sure, and let natural selection sort them out...
Depends on the selecting mechanism. Who is doing the selecting, and what is
the rationale behind the selecting? By "them", are you referring to people
or ideas? If you are referring to ideas, note that ideas (good or bad)
never die out. If you are referring to people, note that people have always
believed what they want to believe and will continue to do so.
> > The
> > debunker does not believe in this philosophy however, and feels the
> > need to impose their personal viewpoint upon others.
>
> Well, not really. A sceptical person may feel a moral (!) duty to point out
> bullshit (even potential bullshit) that preys apon the unwary.
Thanks for the refreshing honesty! All of this is a morality play. We have
placed each other into classifications (scientists, sceptics, debunkers,
believers, ignorant masses, fanatics, obscuritists, intermediasts) and have
decided how each classification that isn't our own needs to be treated. Our
personal beliefs compel us to act in a certain way, and a failure to act in
that way would go against the morality that our own belief demands of us.
Now all I can suggest is that we be more appreciative of other person's
moralities. Your morality (if I have understood the above comment
correctly) demands that you watch out for the uneducated, or those who lack
the intellectual ability to fend off ideas that you consider false. This
influences the way in which you do so. Treating ideas that you have decided
to be false with respect would make them commensurate in the eyes of who you
classify as "the unwary", so you determine it is better to treat the ideas
you believe are false with contempt. That is your morality. I disagree
with your morality. And understand, many people who you classify as "the
unwary" disagree with your morality as well.
> What isn't
> said here is that one's worldview is not just a touchy-feely matter of
> choice; it shapes one's life in many ways.
Exactly. It shapes your morality and behavior. Your morality and behavior
speak for itself. I can only judge you on what you've written here. It is
a result of your world view, and a demonstration of how that world view has
influenced you. There's nothing touchy-feely about this.
> A poor choice of religion can rob
> the unwary of their personal possessions and freedom.
Nietzsche's religion robbed him of his life.
> A bad alternative
> therapy can kill not only the believer, but those in his/her charge.
How many people die in hospitals every day? "Alternative therapy" suggests
a normative therapy. A history of medicine will detail case after case of
normative therapies being disastrous for not only the believer, but those in
his/her charge. Let's just find the best therapies, and lose the
alternative label. Call the alternatives "bad" if they kill people.
> A reliance on suspect divination and pseudo-psychological techniques can
> irreparably damage a person's mind.
Damn straight. Look at Carl Sagan. His first two wives had some horrible
things to say about the state of his mind. But neither of those two women
were scientists, so what did they know? Carl's Sagan's first three kids
don't like him either, but how dare they expect a father with a stable mind?
A reliance on ANYTHING can irreparably damage a person's mind. Like
marijuana and Carl Sagan.
> And because everyone can't evaluate all
> the evidence all the time, and some people can't really evaluate much of it
> at all, it is important that those who can do a decent job of it are really
> vocal about problematic and potentially dangerous theories.
"Those who do a decent job of it." A decent job of it is not a declaration
of "bullshit". I can and do respect a decent job of debunking. Of course
"decent" is a tricky word. Decent should not necessarily mean that which
provides a result that fits my world-view. It can mean that, and it may
often mean that.
What about the people who evaluate the evidence of anomalous claims, and
come up with conclusions that do not fit your world-view? Those must have
been in-decent jobs, right? Decent is what fits your morality, and
in-decent is what doesn't. You are ably demonstrating that this is about
your morality more than anything else.
> > It is high time
> > that all parties showed more respect for philosophies different to
> > theirs, and made an attempt to understand them.
>
> All of them???
I agree with you here. I don't think that all philosophies are worthy
enough to be understood. But if we are talking about philosophies which, at
least, claim to be based on things that occurred, those are worthy of
investigation. And if you are going to investigate something, you should
have a detached attitude (ie RESPECT) for that something. Akin to a
reporter who has to cover a story. Be objective. That is being respectful.
Don't use inflammatory language. That is being an editorialist.
> > If the pseudo-
> > skeptic does not take my word for it, perhaps they'll listen to
> > James Alcock, who wrote in Skeptical Inquirer (with the emphasis
> > added being mine) "we may differ in our assumptions about the
> > underlying nature of reality, but we are much the same as each
> > other" (15).
>
> Personally, I'll take the red pill.
> Emlyn
You believe what you want to believe. Graham Hancock believes what he wants
to believe. Your beliefs are different, your morality is different, but
each of you is driven by your beliefs and morality. In that way you are the
same. Objective reality is superior to you, him, and all of us. Our
theories and beliefs can approach objective reality, and some will approach
much closer than others. Let's just respect everyone who is on the same
quest.
> (ooh, I just noticed this tidbit:
> "As physicist Henry Stapp argues, physicalist science on
> its own is dangerous, because it leaves "no rational basis for
> anything but self-interest the collapse of moral philosophy is
> inevitable"(9)."
> It reminds me of that idea, disturbingly held by real christians that I have
> met, that Atheists can have no morality and must be happy to run around
> killing people and commiting all kinds of debaucherous acts.)
I've met real Atheists who believe that Christians have no morality and are
happy to kill abortion doctors and homosexuals all the live-long day. Which
just proves that all peope have the same silly prejudices about people who
are "other".
-Elliot
-- Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1@mindspring.com > Alternate: < fortean1@msn.com > Home Page: < http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html > Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB * U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program ------------ Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List TLCB Web Site: < http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org >[Vietnam veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 12 2003 - 16:45:31 MDT