BS: Skepticemia

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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Sep 04 - 08:46 PM

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

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: 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: 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: freda underhill
Date: 27 Sep 04 - 08:04 PM

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

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 - 07:36 PM

oh, oo ah! casting nasturtiums?

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: 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: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Sep 04 - 01:08 PM

How do you know Pied Piper is ignoring your line of reasoning and concentrating on his own?

Same answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: Pied Piper
Date: 27 Sep 04 - 12:00 PM

How do you know when LH is trying to distract you from the evidence?

Answer

His Keyboard rattles.

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: freda underhill
Date: 27 Sep 04 - 11:34 AM

refreshed for a certain fluffy bunny...

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: Wolfgang
Date: 07 Jun 04 - 07:13 AM

Since I am frequently a 'plain language' editor, I find Wolfgang's empirical arguments maddening (dianavan)

Dianavan, nothing can force you to read my posts, but if you do you may expect also in future to read arguments based on experience and observation rather than on speculation.

Though I must say I don't really understand what has brought you to post that sentence more than a month after my posts here.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: freda underhill
Date: 05 Jun 04 - 05:55 AM

Most of the latin in Professor Shorthair's comments is mutations of various medical sounding terms (eg diverticulitis to divercontradiculitis), my word gymnastics combine imagination with pragmatism! use of Latin is just as baffling to me, Dianavan, I can't understand a word of it. But I have a good latin quotes site that I dip into regularly!

Potes currere sed te occulere non potes .....




- (You can run, but you can't hide!)


fredum hidum underhillium

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: dianavan
Date: 05 Jun 04 - 04:00 AM

Go Freda! Since I am frequently a 'plain language' editor, I find Wolfgang's empirical arguments maddening but I must say your use of Latin is also baffling. I think I understand most of it but I would be hard pressed to translate any of it into plain English. Very funny. I'm not sure but I think I may have had gullibilitis.

It started when I was a schoolgirl. I was walking home with a couple of older boys the day the first manned spacecraft returned to Earth. They strung me along and then asked, "Don't you think its sad that after all that hope, the astronauts drowned in the space capsule?"

That night at dinner (trying to appear worldly) I informed my father of the sad fact. It took him a long time to convince me I was wrong. After that incident, I became a little more cautious about believing everything I heard.

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: Pogo
Date: 04 Jun 04 - 08:49 PM

And to that I add

Stercus stercus mortitum sum

and

Fabricati Diem Punc

(pardon if anything is misspelled {OP)

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: freda underhill
Date: 04 Jun 04 - 06:42 PM

Et tu, dux...

Farrago fatigans!........................










Thuffering thuccotash!

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 04 Jun 04 - 02:38 PM

Why? Did you do something to me?

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jun 04 - 02:09 PM

This thread has reached the level of Shatnerization. Excellent. The skeptics said it couldn't be done, but they were WRONG! :-) (as usual)

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jun 04 - 11:01 AM

:>))

A

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: freda underhill
Date: 04 Jun 04 - 10:56 AM

Illius me paenitet, dux ...



...Sorry about that, chief!

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jun 04 - 10:51 AM

GAwd, freda, you keep this up and we'll all be speaking Latin for lunch!

Which, considering its decline as a true and living language, is illogical in the extreme.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: GUEST,Professor Splithair
Date: 04 Jun 04 - 07:24 AM

(no relation to Professor Longhair)

A new and virulent form of skepticaemia has recently infiltrated Mudcat. Related to skepticaemia, pulmonary articulary skepticaemia
is a rare form of skepticaemia in which the patient exhibits the following conditions:

Pathology, symptoms

The disfunctional response arises when the pulmonary articulated divercontradiculee is confronted by a piece of hyperanaemia mentalgymnaferia (bloody mindedness).

Interestingly, the pulmonary articulary divercontradiculee exhibits a form of reactive Oppositional Behaviour Disorder, in which they move into a pattern of subective divercontradiculitis.

this also manifested by moving into the Rant thread.

Prof. I. Splithair

Health and Mind
Volume 27, Chapter 11 Contraindications for contradictions.

full transcript available
$142 (includes postage) )

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: 42
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 05:41 PM

you rule in our hearts LH. Anyone who is able to verbify Shatner ie: "I've been shatnered!" deserves everything he gets!

j

here's to the slow and painful death of language!

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 05:32 PM

I am proud that only Amos has exceeded me in Wolfgang's survey! :-)

Now, Wolfgang, would you please do a search for the following words or phrases:

Shatner
weiner dog
bereftitude
shatnerization
Neeh!
smegma
turpitude
penguin

Pretty please, Wolfgang? I want to see if I still rule on the coolest words and expressions.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: freda underhill
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 06:52 AM

wolfgang, you have very effecient, methodical technical & research skills, the findings are most interesting!!

the only person that I'm aware of naming as a scepticaemic was myself (on the UFO thread) - check it out. and I think i made the point that true skepticaemics wouldn't last long around mudcat as they don't have enough of a sense of humour!

but then, humour is such a strange thing, it varies from culture to culture. I was at a barbeque with some Afghan interpreters one night, and watched for some time as they told each other jokes, LTAO, so to speak. On each occasion as they cracked up, I was still waiting for the punchline!

my own sense of humour is so dry, it can fly right past people sometimes (or is that so bad?)

however, I would advise keeping away from Nurse Ratched's treatments - she is the only one to have truly experimented on skeptomaniacs - perhaps you should ask Giok - he seems to like it!

best wishes

freda

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: Wolfgang
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 06:02 AM

One more and that's enough:
'Irrational' used in posts:

Amos 20
Little Hawk 9
Shambles 9
McGrath 5
Bill D 5
Wolfgang 4

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: Wolfgang
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 05:56 AM

Yes, I agree, the outcome of a search for the whole database is definitely interesting (though of course those who have posted since long are overrepresented). Let me tell you what Freda didn't tell:

I have searched for uses of the word 'illogical' in all posts by posters who have posted since long and are often prominent in the 'paranormal' threads, two from each side:

Amos 18
Little Hawk 14

Wolfgang 1 (citing L.H.)
Bill D 5

as a control I did a search for a prolific poster who is usually not involved in the 'paranormal' threads:

McGrath 4

The winner, BTW, was Shambles (19), solely due to his PEL posting orgy.

Who did you say, Freda, was throwing about words like 'illogical'?

Wolfgang (empirically yours)

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: jacqui.c
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 03:20 AM

Kendall here. Yeah, what Freda said.

Jacqui here - I'll second that.

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: freda underhill
Date: 20 Apr 04 - 02:48 AM

Wolgang, I don't know how to search for words within a particular thread, but I did one on the whole database for the word "illogical" - yes, it was a very interesting outcome!

English/oz/european is sceptic - I used skepticaemia because it was a made up word, and a bit like septicaemia (blood poisoning)

freda

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 01:46 PM

Mostly: sceptic (European), skeptic (American)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: GUEST,Oyster Hog
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 11:38 AM

BLASHEMERS! Raw Oysters are to ambrosia as ambrosia and the nectar of the gods are to ordinary foodstuffs.

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 11:33 AM

Sometimes skeptic. Sometimes septic.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 11:31 AM

It's a brave thing to reject superstition, conventionality, and powerful authority structures in any society. Those who do so take considerable risks.

Then too, one can be skeptical about almost anthing, can't one? One person is skepitical about the accuracy of private UFO sightings, another is skeptical about the government's official stated view of those sightings. :-)

And is it "skeptic" or "sceptic"?????? ARGH!

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: freda underhill
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 07:51 AM

thanks Wolfgang - almost all the words I used in this post probably had the wrong meanings (and I made up and/or grossly misused a few medical terms as well!).

I know its a brave thing to reject superstition, and I admire that in anyone. I just have a streak which erupts occasionally, I like to look at things from different sides of the fence.

we all know the true skeptomaniacs, they don't last long in mudcat. I wouldn't recommend any of Nurse Ratched's treatments tho - that woman is a freak.

best wishes

freda

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: Wolfgang
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 07:31 AM

Hey, Wolfgang....I think we're being picked on! (Bill)

Perhaps that was the intention, Bill, perhaps not, I don't know. But why put on a shoe that doesn't fit at all? Some years ago I have posted what I consider a true sceptic after I had read some posts that displayed a profound ignorance of scepticism. I hardly have anything to add to that post.

Freda beautifully analyses a frame of mind I find contemptible to the extreme: Not to be bothered by facts or evidence in what one considers to be true or at least the best available explanation for something.

I have met a few fellow sceptics with that frame of mind, a person for instance who long time ago had made up his mind that corn circles were made by whirlwind activity and that's it. Which at the very beginning would have been a possible explanation wasn't one later. But he never bothered whether his theory was still applicable to more recent evidence.

However, much more often I have met this frame of mind in the 'true believers'. While paying lip service to the open mind they had made up their minds and scanned all the available information whether it could be used for their pet theory (good information) or not (to-be-dismissed information): People believing in Velikowsky's ideas, pyramid power, astrology etc. who never had even bothered to read anything even remotely critical of their beliefs.

The only thing that really bothers me in Freda's post is the use of the word 'sceptic' for a frame of mind which I would rather have termed 'dogmatic' and which I find comparably rare among sceptics.

Just for the fun of it, I took one of Freda's signs, namely using the word '(il)logic***' and looked who had used it most often in the recent UFO thread. I admit I did grin when I saw the result.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: Hrothgar
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 05:45 AM

Freda,

I will help out by drinking the money myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: Ellenpoly
Date: 19 Apr 04 - 05:09 AM

Bravo, freda! I found a few postings after your initial one to be pretty ironic, but you most certainly deserve any money that comes your way...xx..e

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Apr 04 - 06:15 PM

Ah! That was the series which inspired the American show "All In The Family", wasn't it?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: HuwG
Date: 18 Apr 04 - 05:06 PM

LH - "Alf Garnett" was a character, played by Warren Mitchell, in the BBC series "Till death us do part", shown in the late 1960's and 1970's. Alf Garnett was a bigoted, narrow-minded and ill-mannered boor, an East London petit bourgois who was ready to adopt and parrot phrases such as, "'Cause there's all these asians like, who are all coming over here in ships full of curry powder, just so they can take our jobs. And it's all your Labour government's fault!" [Harold Wilson's Labour party was in power for much of the time the series was written.]

The series was dropped for a while, ostensibly because Mitchell was involved in an off-screen scuffle with someone, but perhaps because it was becoming too provocative in content.

Incidentally, the series featured Tony Blair's future father-in-law, Tony Booth, as Garnett's son-in-law. (Garnett's daughter was played by Una Stubbs, his wife by Dandy Nicholls, no longer with us.)

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: Mudlark
Date: 18 Apr 04 - 03:39 PM

There is nothing wrong with oysters, so long as you like sand and grit in your food, dont mind swallowing raw slimy things and have no sense of taste.

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Apr 04 - 03:11 PM

Who is Alf Garnett?

I've eaten raw oysters. They are pretty gross. I much prefer cooked oysters. Anyone who wants the facts on raw or cooked oysters should go to the East Coast and get the lowdown from the locals in places like P.E.I. or Newfoundland or Maine.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: Mudlark
Date: 18 Apr 04 - 01:17 PM

Funderhill...

Brilliant piece of writing--clear, articlate and humidifying. I would like to point out that some of the psychical 2nd stage symptoms sound suspiciously like what is commonly called "niacin flush," an unpleasant occurrance in supplementiasis. While not serious in itself, it has been known to bring on other symptoms of anxiety, irritability and irrational thinking, leading straight to the type of 3rd stage udderances you mention.

Am copying an $83 bill and sending it via email jpeg for full transcript.

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 18 Apr 04 - 12:41 PM

Eh?
:0)

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: mack/misophist
Date: 17 Apr 04 - 06:05 PM

The essential difference between those suffering from skepticemia and gullibilitis is that when a skepticemic does something, it tends to work. It's also susceptible to explanation. For the gullibiliac, this is almost never true.

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: freda underhill
Date: 17 Apr 04 - 12:27 PM

Good points made there, Jeri, getting to the kernel of things with a few pearls of wisdom.

Yes, I think a skepticaemiac is more than a sceptic, moving more into the territory of hypercyniciopontificude.

Now are you sure that oysters find each other attractive? if so, why do they put those big shells around themselves? seem pretty self contained to me, but I wouldnt know, I havent eaten one for over 30 years.

antibiotics, isn't that a form of germ warfare? well, whatever you say, you seem to know what you're on about.

yes, fax the cash, that's a good idea.

best wishes

fred

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: Jeri
Date: 17 Apr 04 - 12:09 PM

Freda, may I just fax you the cash?

Skeptic(a)emia is different from being a skeptic. That's how I'm choosing to read it. It doesn't involve true skepticism and is the exact opposite side of the coin from gullibilitis. They are both conditions that can make a person look stoopit. As far as I'm concerned, a true skeptic investigates the truth of everything - including his own opinions, and changes what he believes is true based on what he learns. When facts and evidence isn't available, he considers the likelihood that a thing is true.

Raw oysters are uncooked: this is a fact. I've done research on this, following the oyster from its natural state in the seafood department right up until it's eaten, and I can verify that it was never cooked.

Row oysters are gross: there have been no double blind, randomised studies on them that I've been able to discover. There would be some difficulty in finding a suitable placebo for a raw oyster anyway, and if one used, say, toast, the test subject would immediatley know it wasn't an oyster. Because it isn't gross. I've done some personal research, and I've come to the conclusion that I believe they're gross. I also realise that, in the absence of empirical evidence, others may very well hold other beliefs. Some people, and probably most oysters, might think they're attractive.

My main problem with skepticemia is that people often can't spell it, and wind up with scepticemia, which is a completely different condition. The call themselves 'sceptics' and I worry that they don't know there are some good antibiotics available these days.

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: freda underhill
Date: 17 Apr 04 - 03:04 AM

for the 239 catters who have pm'd me re the $83, that will be international money order thank you, Australian dollars. Sandra, jennyo, Bob Bolton and Jack Halyard will join me in drinking the profits (after saying grace, of course!)

freda

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: HuwG
Date: 17 Apr 04 - 02:32 AM

McGrath of Harlow, I believe that Gullibilitis is referred to in some texts as credulosis. Sometimes known as "Alf Garnett's Syndrome".

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: Bill D
Date: 17 Apr 04 - 02:19 AM

Hey, Wolfgang....I think we're being picked on! We must have strained their cognitive faculties again. *smile*
will you join me in a rousing chorus of "Quatch, mit sauce"? for these rapscallions!

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Apr 04 - 12:37 AM

Heh! Heh! Lovely, freda. I have compassion for skepticaemaniacs, but I have little mercy on them, and it drives them to fits of denial and absoluticism which are indeed chilling to behold. Skepticaemaniacs love the security of a world where there is already an established and unbreakable rule for absolutely everything. They are extremely at home in any powerful authority system, such as: any fundamentalist church, any exclusive club with rigorous membership requirements, the police force, the armed forces, the science establishment, the engineers' faculty in any university, the AMA or any other mainstream medical organization, political party bureaucracies, the IRS, the FBI, the CIA, and motorcycle gangs. They are the primary force constipating the creative brain of humanity, and standing in the way of human liberation from the superstitions and idiocies of the past.

They are often quite pessimistic regarding basic human nature...whether or not they see it in religious terms. Some do, some don't.

They executed some of the most brilliant scientists, prophets, and philosophers in history for rocking the boat by suggesting new ideas. They forced others to recant what later was proven to be entirely correct. They are as predictable as the sunrise, but a lot less desirable in their effect.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: wysiwyg
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 11:41 PM

Yeah, cuz you is in a funderhillian world, and the other lacks that essential aspect.

Foverthehillian?

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: freda underhill
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 10:59 PM

WYSIWYG

better to be funderhillian than overthehillian..


freda

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: Mark Clark
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 10:41 PM

Freda, That was truly wonderful.

      - Mark

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: wysiwyg
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 10:30 PM

I've been wrongly and roundly accused of being a fundamentalist but now I can dispel that one for good. I'm a funderhillian, clearly, and friends may quote me at will on that.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 09:40 PM

Both of these disorders (skepticemia and gullibilitis) are most often triggered by excessive exposure to the verbal excrementation of the commentariat punditocracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 09:23 PM

The opposite disorder isgullibilitis, which involves a tendency to accept the most unlikely things on the basis of inadequate evidence.

I couldn't begin to write it up the way it deserves to be written up. But there's a lot of it about.

It seems to me that, paradoxically enough, it is possible to suffer from a form of both complaints at the same time.

Subject: RE: BS: Skepticemia
From: Amos
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 09:08 PM

Freda:

That is the finest piece of technical writing I have seen on the 'Cat!! Dang, gal!! You on de MONEY!

A

Subject: BS: Skepticaemiacs
From: freda underhill
Date: 16 Apr 04 - 08:59 PM

what is skepticaemia? (related to bureaspeak, adminbrain, cafescience, and sauteed mushrooms) is a rare form of brain infection in which the sufferer experiences extreme rigid mood dismorphia (sometimes referred to as skeptirigormorphius).

The mood dismorphia (skepticaemia) is triggered when the skepticaemiac, or skepticaemaniac as they are referred to in some schools, is confronted by a piece of evidence which contradict's the perceiver's dogma or safe world view.

Pathology, symptoms

The pathological response arises when the skepticaemiac is unable to effectively process two disparate and contradictory pieces of information. The right side of the brain ceases communicating with the left side of the brain, and the skepticaemiac displays an increasingly irrational and illogical response, which arises from the left side of the brain.

A true skepticaemiac will initially utter sentences connected with words such as "objective", "rational", "logic", "sequential" or "analysis". This is an attempt of the part of the skepticaemiac to impose order and control, in order to fend off the arising psychological tension experienced by the skepticaemiac.

As the skepticaemiac moves into second stage skepticaemianiacal disfunction, he or she will experience rapid brain activity in the temporal lobe, may become highly focussed on particular external exponents, and can experience some gastric flushing and hyper nerve sensation to the upper pulverisary artery.

The skepticaemiac now utters sentences with more emphasis, using words such as "subjective", "irrational", "illogical", "asparagus" or "disparagus".

In this heightened mode of activity, the skepticaemiac may then experience pauses between the registering of information in the brain and its processing, and moves into the last stage of disfunction, known variously as hyperskepticaemia, cyberskepticaemia, or schizoskepticaemia, depending on the particular classification (see Illingsworth et al).

The skepticaemiac now utters increasingly intense sentences with more emphasis, using the words "science", "scientific",in a number of different ways. The skepticaemiac may experience a form of physiological reaction, related to sciatica, but of the arm, in which the hand forms into a fist, the elbow moves backward and forward and the fist hits the table (this is known as tablethumping in layman's terms).

In the final, cumulative phase, the skepticaemiac now moves into a more lateral phase of expression, in which latent childhood fears (arising from an overactive brain, early childhood memory manipulation or counterfaeriedysphonia) emerge, overwhelming the
skepticaemiac. Words muttered could included phrases such as "fairies", "superstition", "witches", or in extreme cases, "Little Hawk".

Treatment

There are two schools of treatment for the skepticaemiac. The first school, informed by early Freud, late Jung, and Post-Modernism, requires a period of observation counselling followed by group therapy. The skepticaemiac can slowly be exposed to new ideas in a non threatening environment, and learns slowly to "let go" of his rigidly held world views in a safe and supportive invironment.

Where the skepticaemiac proves rigid, where there is a perceived unwillingness to accept change, and further extreme symptoms of lateral temporal lobe skeptidismorphia, a more rigorous form of therapy is advised. This therapy has not been fully tested, but results in Edinburgh have claimed success (Ratched et al). It involves an imposition of discipline, using a number of methods which are still under debate (Lancet, Vol, MXII, ps 131-257). While the hyper disciplinary approach has been received with caution, its main exponent, Nurse Ratched MD (short for MudcaD)has demonstrated that a number of dismorphiac shizoskepticaemiacs responded positively to her techniques.

We await further advice on the treatment of skepticaemiacs, but advise the following:

1. skepticaemiacs can often be found on threads regarding religion, philosophy, mysticism or UFos.

2. While purporting to invade these threads out of a sense of concern, or even with a view towards clarification, the skepticaemiac is actually secretly obsessed about such topics.

3. do not be alarmed, just ensure the skepticaemiac does not achieve their goals which include thread creep, cyber domination or disasparagazia (similar to casting nasturtiums).

4. be kind.


f.underhill
Health and Mind
Volume 23, Chapter 14 Cyber maladies, melodies and meladies.

full transcript available
$83 (includes postage)