BS: Skepticemia

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Sep 04 - 01:40 PM

I hope the 'fluffy bunny' is not frightened off by the rattling keyboards *grin*

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: GUEST,Ooh Aah
Date: 27 Sep 04 - 06:47 PM

Don't worry, here I am. What can I say that is better than Wolfgang's earlier response? Nothing, that's what. So cool and amusing idea Freda, but it doesn't apply to me. Are you seriously suggesting that a desire for reasonable proof for remarkable assertions is something silly?

I think I have coined a layperson's tems for 'gulliblitis' - that is, 'Goldfish Syndrome'. The name comes from the the ability of sufferers to accept whatever is given to them with their mouths open and their brains almost totally inactive. Sufferers swim aimlessly but cosily in a small mental pond of unexamined preconceptions, and are notable for their panicky thrashing about (which may take the form of aggression) when pricked by the sharp hook of scepticism. There is also a complete inability to distinguish between subjective experiences limited to the sufferer's brain and the objective reality outside, and the illusion that what one wishes passionately to be true is in fact real.

That rattling you heard was not Little Hawk's keyboard folks - it was his fins thrashing helplessly on the bank!

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: freda underhill
Date: 27 Sep 04 - 07:36 PM

oh, oo ah! casting nasturtiums?

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Sep 04 - 07:58 PM

Ohh-Ahh, I still say you should apply for a job in the porno industry, and stop harassing people here whom you regard as unconventional in your terms. I am not your problem. My beliefs are not your problem. There are people with far more disturbing beliefs than mine that you could go after in this World. Why not do that instead? If you think you are trying to "help" or "save" people with what you call New Age beliefs from themselves, well then, you are thinking pretty much the same way that born-again Christians seem to think. They want to save us too. There is nothing on Earth that seems to bother fundamentalist Christians as much as the New Age movement. You know why? Because it's inclusive and tolerant. They are exclusive in their thinking, and simply cannot tolerate inclusivity. They're far rather be "right" than be tolerant.

You speak of sufferers. All living beings suffer, yourself included. What I suffer is your intolerance and your casting of judgement on my beliefs.

I'll say the same thing to you that I'd say to the born-agains: Go save yourself instead. Other people don't need the kind of spurious "help" you are offering them. You're not helping, you're flaunting your ego and its defence mechanisms, and seeking to prove that your way is the "only right way". Nobody's way is the only right way.

Live and let live is a good motto to live by.

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: freda underhill
Date: 27 Sep 04 - 08:04 PM

fluffy bunny's been casting nastyurtiums, not judgements, LH!

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: GUEST,Ooh -Aah
Date: 27 Sep 04 - 08:27 PM

I'm not THAT serious when I say I want to 'help' and 'save', LH - don't get your twickers in a knist! This was tongue-in-cheek stuff (I presume you're American - SOME Americans just do not recognise irony when they see it). The point is that if you put up your ideas on a public forum you presumably want them to be talked about. Some will be agreement, some will be disagreement. If you don't want to be disagreed with, don't discuss things online, especially something as controversial as New Age therapies etc.

I am less 'intolerant' than 'amused'. You seem unable to tolerate any response except agreement.
I am always amused by the intolerance of Born Again Christians because they believe in stuff quite as whacky as you do! (Virgin births anyone?)I attack both, but them more, because as you point out, they would like to actually stop people believing what they want to. I am happy for you to believe what you want, and I believe I am happy to take a poke at it now and then if I don't agree with it.
As for live and let live, I would point out that to live fully involves using the brains critical faculty.

Alas, my body's nowhere near good enough for the porno industry. It would beat Primary teaching!

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Sep 04 - 08:39 PM

re:Goldfish Syndrome

not all goldfish swim in the SAME small mental pond....and the pond is not always small.....but the phenomena are similar. And some goldfish dig their own pond, filling it with their own medium to swim in, and suppose that they have now avoided the errors of the gullible fish.

(I never met-a-phor I didn't like....*grin()

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Sep 04 - 08:41 PM

Okay, I didn't know that about your body. :-) Too bad. I had assumed from your chosen name (Ohh-Ahh) that you would be a natural for that line of work.

I am not American, I'm Canadian, and I use irony a great deal myself. It seems to go with the British heritage, doesn't it? I'm sure I have used irony on you at least a few times...

Are you a member of this forum, posing as a Guest, or are you simply a Guest? If the latter, why not join? If you did, I could PM you love letters and we would no doubt soon grow to adore each other and no one would know!

I frankly can't understand why you would pass up such an opportunity.

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Sep 04 - 08:46 PM

Sorry....should have spelled it "Ooh-Aah".

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Sep 04 - 08:47 PM

I've seen posts from Ooh-Ahh before...just not in 'these' threads.

'It' is not regular, or 'it' would have known better than to associate LH with the....'shudder' Americans...

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: GUEST,Ooh -Aah
Date: 27 Sep 04 - 08:49 PM

OK it's a deal - pure laziness on my part. And if you're a Canadian I might go easier on you!
The name I chose to reflect my liking for English folk music 'Ooh-Aah' as in an agricultural laborer from Somerset, not as in Debby dous Dallas! Recess is over - get back laterd

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah
Date: 27 Sep 04 - 11:21 PM

'It's' a boy! OK it's lunchtime. Little Hawk, the reason I tend to have a go at New Age stuff are twofold - (1) a generally very touchy bullshit detector - everything from politics, to the Iraq war to the constant lies of the Tasmanian forest industry, and (2) I tend to really LIKE a lot of people who are into the New Age. With born again Christians you are dealing with hopeless cases, usually very right wing with utterly closed minds. New Agers are from the same (generally) left of centre, liberal, environmentally aware set that I am, and it cheeses me off seeing them waste their time on a phenomena which is an obvious spiritual eqivalent of western consumerism, with its fads, its fashions, its shallowness, - even the spiritual raw materials are lifted from other cultures, just as 'material' raw materials often come from exploited 3rd world countries. Both you and Carol C contend that there is a 'sensible' aspect to all this stuff, and a crazy fringe, but niether of you seems to be able to suggest how the rest of us tell the difference. Scepticism is the crucial 'honest broker' in all of this. If you can prove levitation, alternative healing etc. exists then why would I not be pleased? But you need to provide hard evidence.
      None of this has anything to do with spirituality, which is not subject to scientific tests, thank the Gods. If you wish to say, for example, that you get spiritual joy from a tree that's not subject to argument. However if you say a tree changes the colour of your aura then you need to provide some kind of backing to the argument that there is such thing as auras and that yours changes colour- not in some New Age magazine but in scientific documents in the wider public domain, so there is a motivation for attackers and defenders. Can you imagine the kudos that wouyld go to the scientists who proved some of the stuff you are into exists? Can you imagine the PROFITS to the companies that would exploit the new knowledge? Hell there goes the duty bell.
I will be joining once I get to my computer at home this afternoon.

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: GUEST,Ooh-Aah
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 04:19 AM

Actually I will re-join when Mudcat sends my password to me (whoops).

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: Mr Red
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 08:07 AM

I was told that gullibilitis is in the new edition of the OED

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 12:46 PM

Ooh-Ahh, you really don't have a very good irony detector if you would assume that Little Hawk is a US American with no sense of irony. He's one of the masters of that art. I guess his Canadian sense of irony is just too subtle and elegant for you to detect. Canadians are way better at subtle irony than people from the UK, and LH's sense or irony is one of the most subtle and elegant I've ever encountered.

On the subject of why I don't try to provide you with any proof in these threads about what I experience, it's because I just don't care whether or not you believe or experience what I do. It's not important to me. If I am discussing these things in this forum, it's because I want to because I enjoy it, or because I feel that someone, somewhere might have a use for what I'm saying. I certainly don't expect everyone to have a use for it. Clearly you don't. That's ok. In the broader scheme of things, it really isn't important.

I agree with LH. I think you're are quite evangelical in your skepticism. You think everyone should believe and experience exactly the same things that you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 01:15 PM

I am on tenterhooks with anticipation...waiting for Ooh-Aah to JOIN Mudcat!

I agree that born-again Christians are usually hopeless to discuss things with. Same goes for most Jehovah's Witnesses. I just leave them alone and hope they will leave me alone too.

Now which books do we start with? Hmm.

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 01:52 PM

like Ooh-Aah and several others here, I have a rather sensitive BS detector, and I suggest that those who MAKE claims about meta/para-physical phenomena read carefully what we usually say.

When claims and discussions are held in a public forum, they ARE fair game.It is obvious that no one can force a believer/'experiencer' to change their minds, and in my case my objections and sceptical comments are written partly to be sure that both sides of any position are reasonably represented for those who might be reading!

Some of the issues that get chewed on here are minor and personal...but sometimes there are areas which affect the general welfare..(such as whether G. Bush uses conservative religious principles to make political decisions)...and the MINDSET that tends to believe (or SEE, if you wish) paranormal and New Age claims carries with it a tendency to view many other issues in a different way, potentially affecting the whole of society. If we are to have a fair, balanced, open comparison of opinions, then the sceptical viewpoint MUST, whenever possible, appear directly beside the various positions that concern us.

If those who espouse New Age or Religious or Para-psychological or Para-physical or Conspiracy or ....etc.. theories wish to compare thoughts in forums where they are NOT challenged and asked for proof and explication, those forums exist by the bucket load! 'Round here, podner, they get poked and prodded.

I know, personally, several of the people I debate with here at Mudcat, and like & enjoy them (and hope to meet others)...and when we meet in person, we tend NOT to get into these issues...we play music or compare recipes, or discuss computers....but IDEAS posted here are fair game! I try very hard to be fair, non-combative and reasonably polite, but still advocate my cause.

On either side, it is best to avoid name-calling and sentences that begin "you think that". I HATE it when anyone tells me what I think. Tell me what YOU think, and tell me why my analysis is wrong, if you can.....but don't expect me not to respond when I see something that streches my credulity.

Scepticism, properly applied, is NOT 'making fun of' people you differ with, but a carefully thought out way of testing unusual ideas and avoiding the worst errors of analysis.

Almost everyone uses scepticism in some ways, they just get testy when it hits their favorite notions.

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 02:21 PM

Did you catch that "tenterhooks in anticipation" in LH's 28 Sep 04 - 01:15 PM post, Ooh-Ahh? That's it... subtle irony at some of its best.

Bill D, advocating for your cause is certainly an admirable thing. But where it appears to creep into the realm of judging the other person instead of their beliefs is when you start expressing exasperation in your posts through the use of emotive devices such as *sigh* and things of that nature, when people don't conform to your idea of what they should or should not believe. Why not just accept that people are going to see things differently than you and just put your ideas out there without judging what others believe, think, or experience?

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 03:44 PM

the *sighs*, Carol, I try to reserve for inappropriate reasoning about their beliefs, and for total mis-readings and mis-interpretations of MY posts. I am abjectly sorry if any of my statements or arguments seem to be judging a person, rather than an idea or concept. In many ways, we are all a compilation of our beliefs and attitudes, but with care, we can compare ideas, and just agree to disagree.

"... when people don't conform to your idea of what they should or should not believe." I hope I am not guilty of actually suggesting that anyone should believe only my way.

In another thread, someone posted to the effect "what are you gonna do if it turns out there IS a God...isn't it better to bet the safe way?"

My response was "this is Pascal's Wager, and a bad reason for belief...I'd much prefer to have someone explain that they believe 'just because'..."


I welcome suggestionsas to what I should do differently...besides "go away and shut up if you don't like the way the topic is going"...*grin*...neither you nor I are able to do that easily!

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 03:50 PM

Good points, Bill.

In another thread, someone posted to the effect "what are you gonna do if it turns out there IS a God...isn't it better to bet the safe way?"

My response was "this is Pascal's Wager, and a bad reason for belief...I'd much prefer to have someone explain that they believe 'just because'..."

In this case, if you want to just give your reasons and allow the other person to have their own reasons for doing what they do, you can just communicate the idea that the other person's "bet the safe way" approach might be the best one for them, but that you don't see any reason to do it that way yourself (for whatever reasons you have for prefering to do it your way).

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 05:09 PM

I guess I express my points the way I do, is because I am pushing 'thinking', rather than any specific viewpoint. If I use the "best way for them" approach, I undermine my own point that some aspects of interaction should not be subjective. Conclusions and final positions may be subjective, but certain points of logic and linguistic definition are not....a bad defense IS a bad defense, and people weaken their own position when they resort to one. They are not required to agree with MY beliefs, but I am trying to get across the logical/linguistic version of "You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear!"

Still, as you imply..perception is important, and I will honestly try to be as genteel, inoffensive and 'neutral' as I can in my debates.

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: Ooh-Aah2
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 10:45 PM

Well I've joined, so LH can getoff his tenterhooks (ow, ow)- subtle irony? About as subtle as an elephant's fart - or was that just Carol being ironic in her turn?

Perhaps because I have just joined I will kind of state my point-of-view clearly and simply, rather than responding to others as I have so far.

Spirituality: I'm for it. We can't live without it. You can believe whatever you want, and view the world the way you want to and it's fine by me. If you choose to discuss your spirituality on a public thread I may disagree with you, while in no way denying your right to be into whatever you want. The only exception to this rule is if your spirituality has notable negative effects, eg a desire to convert/burn/bore everyone else, allow your children to die because the treatment doesn't gel with your beliefs, or destroy other people's books/art/temples.

Science: a tool only. Nothing whatever to do with spirituality in normal circumstances.

My main gripe: when people claim unproven things do exist, eg the power of crystals, levitation, some alternative healing techniques, 'magic' in the dictionary sense of the word etc, and offer no proof or evidence. When they then claim that the scepticism they then experience is an arrogant attack on their spirituality. When they continue to put forward these claims and complain, while all the time saying that it's no one else's business what their spiritual beliefs are.

Main point: spirituality is a very subjective thing, but the phenomena under discussion are claimed to have an OBJECTIVE reality. No one can 'prove' your spirituality, but if you claim that an aspect of your spiritual path is objectively true in the world exterior to yourself than THAT can be proven or disproven, and it's certainly legitimate to have a good poke at it if no adequate evidence is forthcoming.

Bows and walks off.

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 10:51 PM

Well I've joined, so LH can getoff his tenterhooks (ow, ow)- subtle irony? About as subtle as an elephant's fart - or was that just Carol being ironic in her turn?

You'll never know, Ooh-Ahh.

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: Bert
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 11:34 PM

...Science: a tool only. Nothing whatever to do with spirituality in normal circumstances...

Hmmmm, Science is the study of the way things are. Using your logic, then would that imply that spirituality is NOT.

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Sep 04 - 11:53 PM

...well, Bert...there are other possibilities than a mirror definition....but you 'almost' have a good point. If two definitions are identical, with no equivocation in language, then the objects are identical, so science and spirituality must be 'different', as in having different goals and techniques, but there can be many differences besides NOT.