Is Skepticicm Dangerous?

[Jeremytt]

Hello, there. This new forum is a continuation of the following closed thread:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=52901

One of the main things about unbridled skepticism is that I believe it can be dangerous. In flat-out dismissing things as fraudulent, or being simplistic about things, as I've seen skeptics do, lives can be endangered.

This refers specifically to the answer on Ouija Boards...at
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mouija.html .I worked as a tech on a mental ward in 1982 with a patient named Mrs.S.A.
She was in treatment for schizophrenia. I befriended her. She seemed a very sane, polite, intelligent woman, so she told me her story.

She had been interested in the occult for quite some time. She had tried everything to develop her mediumship abilities, but nothing she tried worked.

Finally, she tried the Ouija Board. For a while, she was unsuccessful. Eventually messages came through. First, the messages were garbled...then sensible...but the spelling at first was phonetic...for example, "bak" instead of "back"

She continued her experiments with the Ouija. Eventually the messages became clearer and more complex. Some time passed. There came a time when she didn't have to use the board anymore, she heard them in her head.

The voices became menacing. They were telling her to kill herself. Fortunately, her husband was no skeptic. He didn't think Ouija Boards were just "involuntary movements"..instead, he contacted a doctor. She was hospitalized for schizophrenia. The medication she was given worked.

In occult literature, the works of Jane Roberts are featured. It seems very similar to Mrs S.A.'s experience, but instead, Seth's voice seemed to be a "higher-level" hallucination....or whatever. We'll never know.

The thing that rankles me is that The Skeptic's Dictionary, if my memory serves me right, just flat out called Jane Roberts a fraud. Cecil takes the position that Ouija Board experiments are "involuntary movements". While that might be fair, it's awfully simplistic.

My questian: is skepticicm dangerous? In these cases, it seems that it might. A simplistic view, or douwright calling a channeller a "fraud", could cost a human life.

In that respect, I think skepticism is irresponsible. Open your minds up, folks!

[andros]

Oh, my mind is open.

It's just not so open my brains leak out.


Lies are harmful. Accepting lies is harmful. Skeptics do not accept the lies. In fact, skeptics make all effort to keep the credulous, the ignorant, and the easily-fooled from being suckered by pseudo-mystical crap spewed by people like Jane Roberts.

I'm sorry you find attempts to keep people from lying to others to be harmful. But if you really think ol' Jane is not a fraud, you might drop her a line and see if she can make a cool million bucks here: http://www.randi.org

Hey, if she's legit, maybe she'll share the money with you.

[Kyberneticist]

andros, jeremytt seems quite familiar with Randi, if you'll read the thread he linked to. But since this got resurrected in GD... jeremeytt, what do you think of the pig experiment in regards to SHC?

As far as Ouija boards go, yes, some people may be schizophrenic, but the majority of those who get answers from the board probably are not. It is interesting that in experiments on the board the spirits seemed to know only what the person manipulating the board knew (even if it was false).

I don't think its fair to say skepticism endangered that woman's life. A non-skeptic might have ascribed it to demonic influence, and tried to use exorcisms. The husband was still clearly a skeptic when it came to the board having a supernatural cause. He recognised that the negative effects she was experiencing were due to an underlying mental illness. I see nothing in your story that invalidates the hypothesis that Ouija boards, in general, are due to involuntary movements.

If other symptoms develop, such as hearing voices, again a good skeptic would conclude mental illness.

[andros]

Thanks, Kyber.

[Revtim]

Originally posted by Jeremytt
The voices became menacing. They were telling her to kill herself. Fortunately, her husband was no skeptic. He didn't think Ouija Boards were just "involuntary movements"..instead, he contacted a doctor. She was hospitalized for schizophrenia. The medication she was given worked.

Unless the husband believed that the voices were indeed coming from supernatural beings, he sure as hell is a skeptic.

I'm not sure you are using the same definition of "skeptic" that most people use.

[SisterCoyote]

David B already opened a new thread on the topic of SHC and the pig here (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=53643).

Just FYI, and Jeremytt can get his book name and author's name from there.

[Jeremytt]

Andros, I don't know if you realize this, but Jane Roberts has been dead for 16 years.

I was referring to the fact that the Skeptic's Dictionary pretty much flat-out dismissed Roberts as a FRAUD..(like, how the HELL Could he know what was going on in her mind?) when in fact, it's entirely possible, (and in fact probable) that she was having Dusan's higher-order hallucinations.

That kind of flat out dismissal infuriates me to hysteria, because it might endanger people's lives who are in need of medical attention!

[Jeremytt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kyberneticist
[b]andros, jeremytt seems quite familiar with Randi, if you'll read the thread he linked to. But since this got resurrected in GD... jeremeytt, what do you think of the pig experiment in regards to SHC?

Kyber, I found Joe Nickell's experiment both very interesting and believable. I must qualify that, though, in that the source I previously gave you, (the anthropologist at UF) says, in relation to the tsar, this isn't possible.

Let me clarify..it was believed that a couple of the tsar's family's bodies were doused with petrol and burned. The anthropologist in that book says this is impossible.

I, of course, don't know what the truth is. I submit it merely for you to ponder.

[Lemur866]

Jeremytt: I suggest you get James Randi's excellent book, "Flim-Flam".

James Randi has excellent reasons for debunking psychics...as a former professional stage magician, he saw psychics such as Uri Geller using the exact same techniques that he used to use in his act to con and defraud people. What started as a hobby became a cause.

James Randi has a huge amount of credibility with me.

And I fail to see how your OP shows that skepticism can be dangerous. I don't believe in the paranormal. If my wife reported that she was hearing voices in her head I'd suspect schizophrenia, as would any skeptic. How would a skeptic act any differently than the husband in the story? It seems to me that a NON-skeptic would be more likely to ascribe the voices to some paranormal power, and be less likely to seek psychiatric intervention.

And how could calling a channeler a fraud cost a human life? You mean, we should be calling her schizophrenic rather than a fraud, and that her life is potentially endangered by our misdiagnosis? Well, I'm sure she's not gonna seek psychiatric help just because a few skeptics change their theory about why she isn't really channelling spirits.

Oh...and if you thought the "room" was rough over in Comments on Staff Reports, welcome to Great Debates.

[Jeremytt]

Unless the husband believed that the voices were indeed coming from supernatural beings, he sure as hell is a skeptic.

I'm not sure you are using the same definition of "skeptic" that most people use. [/B][/QUOTE]

I want to clarify. I'm referring to skeptic naysayers who say, "Not possible...liar...she's a fraud".


See Skeptic's Dictionary on Jane Roberts, a parallel case.

In these terms, skepticicm might even be medically negligent.

[betenoir]

Originally posted by Jeremytt


Unless the husband believed that the voices were indeed coming from supernatural beings, he sure as hell is a skeptic.

I'm not sure you are using the same definition of "skeptic" that most people use.

I want to clarify. I'm referring to skeptic naysayers who say, "Not possible...liar...she's a fraud".


See Skeptic's Dictionary on Jane Roberts, a parallel case.

In these terms, skepticicm might even be medically negligent. [/B][/QUOTE]

So the Ouiji board is telling her to kill herself, and a skeptic would repond by saying "Ah, she's trying to deceive us."

What skeptic, where in the world?

A skeptic (one who would think she was moving the Ouiji thingee herself) would be all the more likly to think that if SHE HERSELF was saying she should kill herself, it would likely be due to a mental problem.

Jane Roberts is not a parallel case. She made money off those Seth books. Which might make the posssibilty of out-and-out fraud seem more likely. Although, since I am not familar with her story, and since I am a skeptic, I will refrain from speculating on what I do not have evidence on.

[Kyberneticist]

jeremytt, regarding SHC I have given contrary statements based upon observation and experiment in this and the other thread, some by experts in forensics. While you claim to have quotes that see that burning a body is impossible when only lit with gas, I still have no idea how they arrived at that conclusion, what evidence they used, or indeed which anthropologist and where.

Given that, I see no reason to make out SHC to some sort of a mystery, and I see nothing to laud in the post-modern attitude that "I don't know what the truth is."
There is evidence, there are reasonable explanations. There is no need to give equal weight to both the fantastic and the credible.

[Keenan]

Jeremytt, I'll agree that you would have a point if the essence of skepticism were just to deny that other people were having certain experiences.

But skepticism isn't about denying the experience, but questioning what it means, and what we know and can prove about it. Skepticism doesn't mean that you tell a person having auditory hallucinations that they really aren't hearing anything. It means that you examine any claims about those hallucinations (like they're a sign of possession, or communication from the spirit world) very carefully, and see if there is a better explanation that fits the facts (like schizophrenia).

By extension, a skeptic doesn't tell the Ouija board user that they aren't actually spelling out messages. A skeptic examines WHY they're spelling out messages -- is it the result of involuntary movements, or spiritual influence? We can test the difference between the two, and experiments have been done that strongly support the involuntary movement hypothesis. With enough evidence in favor of that hypothesis, and so little in favor of the alternate explanation, skeptics can be excused from not treating each new claim of Ouija board magic tabula rasa.

You're correct, that it goes beyond pure skepticism at times to question the motives of people. Jane Roberts may have had, as you argue, a disorder. However, that doesn't change the underlying basis for skepticism as to how Ouija boards work.

Amending "She's a fraud" to "She may have been a fraud, or may have been delusional" is perhaps an improvement, although I don't believe the late Jane Roberts would have been happy with the change.

In any event, you are right, Jeremytt, to point out that there is a third way that was almost overlooked in the case of the woman with schizophrenia. You are content to blame "skeptics" who you assume would have ignored her symptoms; I, however, feel that the woman's lack of skepticism was the source of negligence here. If she had been skeptical of the belief that an Ouija board could be the source of the voices she heard, then perhaps she could have sought treatment on her own.

In short, I remain convinced that skepticism is a good thing. And if I hear voices, I'm damn well getting some help.

[The Ryan]

Jeremytt, you have not provided any cites of a skeptic holding any of the positions that you claim they hold. In the absecence of such evidence, your argument seems to nothing more than an attack on a straw man.

[Jeremytt]

I might have not made clear in my first post one very important fact--Mrs S.A, before she began experimenting with the Ouija Board, had NO HISTORY at all of any psychiatric illness. And this was a 50-odd year old woman.

It seems almost certain, at least in her case, that her experimentation with the Ouija Board led DIRECTLY to her episode with schizophrenia.

Someone mentioned that Jane Roberts and Mrs S.A. weren't parallel.

To the contrary, they are EXACTLY parallel. Jane Roberts' first psychic experiences involving Seth were brought on by using a OUIJA BOARD. I refer to The Seth Material, or How to Develop Your ESP....ibid.

I don't know, and indeed, Jane Roberts herself didn't know, whether Seth came from her own subconscious mind, or was extradimensional, or what. That's not what I came here to discuss.

I'm just saying the skeptic idea of Jane, that is, "liar, cheat, fraud" is downright medically negligible. If you don't believe skeptics say that about her, I refer you to the Skeptic's Dictionary on Jane Roberts.

The Ryan, I am specifically talking to you. Look it up, please, before you presume.

[Jeremytt]

One other point:

If Ouija Board use can lead to psychotic episodes, I think this deserves further medical study....

not accusations by naysayers as "fraud, liar, cheat"..

[Jeremytt]

Keenan, by the way, your objectivity seems rare both in this world, and in this forum. I'm very pleased to meet you..:)

Your post seemed both fair and unbiased..kudos to you.

[The Ryan]

Originally posted by Jeremytt
I might have not made clear in my first post one very important fact--Mrs S.A, before she began experimenting with the Ouija Board, had NO HISTORY at all of any psychiatric illness. And this was a 50-odd year old woman.
"No history" doesn't mean "never had problems".

It seems almost certain, at least in her case, that her experimentation with the Ouija Board led DIRECTLY to her episode with schizophrenia.
Is this conclusion based solely on your conversations with her after the incidents?

The Ryan, I am specifically talking to you. Look it up, please, before you presume.
I am not presuming anything. What part of "you have no cite" do you not understand? "Look it up" is not a cite.

[hansel]

Originally posted by Jeremytt
It seems almost certain, at least in her case, that her experimentation with the Ouija Board led DIRECTLY to her episode with schizophrenia.

That schizophrenia is a bio-chemical brain disorder is fairly well-established; that Mrs. S.A.'s symptoms were relieved by treatment of a bio-chemical brain disorder suggests that (surprise, surprise), she suffered from a bio-chemical brain disorder.

Research on schizophrenia has determined that "late onset schizophrenia" (occuring after age 45) is more common than previously thought. That Mrs. S.A. had no history of mental illness is unremarkable.

You should do some more reading at the Skeptic's Dictionary on the Post Hoc Fallacy (http://www.skepdic.com/posthoc.html).

[betenoir]

Originally posted by Jeremytt
I might have not made clear in my first post one very important fact--Mrs S.A, before she began experimenting with the Ouija Board, had NO HISTORY at all of any psychiatric illness. And this was a 50-odd year old woman.

It seems almost certain, at least in her case, that her experimentation with the Ouija Board led DIRECTLY to her episode with schizophrenia.

Not hardly certain. A possibility. One I don't fine particularly credible, but as a skeptic and an open minded person, I would be happy to listen to any actual evidence that the Ouiji board caused her schizophrenia. The fact that her illness and her interest in the Ouija board coinsideded is proof of nothing (I believe their is a logical fallacy named after thinking it does). How do we know her interest in the Ouijia board wasn't caused by he schizophrenia rather than the other way 'round.





Someone mentioned that Jane Roberts and Mrs S.A. weren't parallel.



That'd be me. The polite thing to do would be to scroll back and find my actual name.



To the contrary, they are EXACTLY parallel. Jane Roberts' first psychic experiences involving Seth were brought on by using a OUIJA BOARD. I refer to The Seth Material, or How to Develop Your ESP....ibid.


No they're not. The reason people accuse Roberts of being a fraud rather than deluded is because she makes money from it. And I believe it's the money making aspect of it that most debunkers are anxious to debunk. That is, their concered about the people who will give money for books or seminars because they believe Seth is a supernatural entity.



I don't know, and indeed, Jane Roberts herself didn't know, whether Seth came from her own subconscious mind, or was extradimensional, or what. That's not what I came here to discuss.



But it is a good reason for her not to charge money to listen to him.



I'm just saying the skeptic idea of Jane, that is, "liar, cheat, fraud" is downright medically negligible.


I had no idea a bunch of strangers who take issue with her claims would therefore become responsible for her medical well-being. I believe they are critisizing her because they think the Seth books are ripping people off. Shouldn't her family and friends be the ones to look out for her mental health?

And I think you meant negligent.

[betenoir]

Post hoc fallacy!

That's the one!

[betenoir]

But hansel, the fact that you posted that just as i was trying to think what it was called means absolutly nothing. :)

[Captain Amazing]

Jeremy,
Skepticism isn't dangerous. It (and I'm talking about modern Skepticism here) is a combination of rationalism, the scientific method and humility. The skeptic starts with the position, "Events that occur in nature have natural causes, and it is possible to identify, classify, and measure these causes. The skeptic also believes that, while every event does have a explanation, that doesn't mean the investigator is forced to come up with one. Admitting you don't know how something works at this time is acceptable. In the case of Jane Roberts, from what I've gleaned on this board, there are several explanations for her behavior.

1. She made up being contacted by "Seth" in an attempt to make money.

2. She suffered from some mental condition, such as schizophrenia, which caused her to believe that a supernatural being contacted her

or
3. She actually was contacted by a supernatural being.

There might be other explanations, but those are the three that I came up with off the top of my head. However, while all of these explanations are possible, they are not equally likely. 3 seems able to be rejected out of hand, because we don't have evidence that supernatural beings exist, or that they contact people.

Most people seem to consider 1 the most likely explanation. This is inferred from the fact that she drew attention to this ability, and made money off it, but both 1 and 2 are answers that skeptics might give. Both answers posit rational explanations to the phenomenon.

[Jeremytt]

Hello, room.

I'm not going to respond to the naysayers...how easy it is to point the finger and say "fraud"...

Captain Amazing, your post is a little more unbiased. Of course, there's a 4th explanation, or maybe a 5th...maybe it's a combination of two factors--maybe she really IS in contact with other spirits AND wanted to make money off it....or maybe she really IS deluded AND wanted to make money off it..it's hard to say..

the Ryan,
I know she had no prior history of mental illness because I saw her chart. It had been her first admission. She had had no prior history of mental illness..I had already told you I worked as a technician at a mental ward..

[Jeremytt]

One other point:

Supposing using the Ouija Board really CAN bring out psychotic episodes...don't you think you guys are ignoring this possibility?

I think it's something that the medical profession should investigate.


Benetoir--I'm referring to the parallels with the Ouija Board, and the possibility that Jane Roberts, like Mrs S.A.,
could have been suffering from some kind of delusion. In that respect, it's VERY parallel.

[JDeMobray]

Or maybe there's a 6th explanation; Maybe she was abducted by aliens and implanted with a transmitter that enables them to speak to her as SETH. Or a 7th; Maybe she is neither delusional or a fraud, but someone was hiding behind her couch right and whispering in her ear. Or an 8th . . . etc., etc., etc.

See, the thing is, there are all kinds of possible explanations for everything. However, if I were to tell you that the Invisible-Book-Thieves were trying to pull my books through the floor and THAT was the reason they fell when I let go of them, it would probably be fair for you to reject that explanation out of hand.

All claims are not equal. It is not the job of science to investigate EVERY claim. The claim made must be consistent, in some way, with what we already know or what can be observed and tested.

[Jeremytt]

One final point...will you guys reread my original post?

There was a steady progression in Mrs S.A.'s case...from no results, to poor results, to phonetic spelling, to complex ideas, and finally, to where she didn't need the Ouija Board.

Doesn't this progression suggest anything to you?

[MEBuckner]

Yeah, skepticism is terribly dangerous...after all, it was skepticism which led people (and still leads people in some parts of the world) to denounce their neighbors as witches or sorcerers, with frequently fatal results. It was skepticism which led people to believe that Jews adbucted Christian children to get their blood for obscene, Satanic rituals, leading to pogroms and anti-Semitic persecutions. It's skepticism which causes people to give their life savings to scam artists.

Oh wait a minute. That's not skepticism, that's credulity.

I realize that's fairly snide for Great Debates, but the title of this thread bugs me. In fact, the thread seems to be more focused on this specific case of this woman who developed schizophrenia after (i.e., subsequent in time to) messing around with a Ouija board than on some kind of sweeping philosophical indictment of, well, not believing everything you hear and wanting to see evidence for stuff and so forth.
There was a steady progression in Mrs S.A.'s case...from no results, to poor results, to phonetic spelling, to complex ideas, and finally, to where she didn't need the Ouija Board.

Doesn't this progression suggest anything to you?
Ummm...some kind of progressively worsening serious mental illness, like schizophrenia?

Of course, IANA psychiatrist, and even if I were, I've never even seen this woman.

[David B]

Jeremytt said:
One of the main things about unbridled skepticism is that I believe it can be dangerous. In flat-out dismissing things as fraudulent, or being simplistic about things, as I've seen skeptics do, lives can be endangered. When, specifically, have you "seen skeptics" do these things?

You have a tendency, as has been pointed out by The Ryan, to make these vague attacks and references, but have yet to give specifics. Please provide specific examples of skeptics "flat-out dismissing things as fraudulent, or being simplistic about things." That is -- dismissing them without looking at the evidence.
The voices became menacing. They were telling her to kill herself. Fortunately, her husband was no skeptic. He didn't think Ouija Boards were just "involuntary movements"..instead, he contacted a doctor. She was hospitalized for schizophrenia. The medication she was given worked. As has already been pointed out -- her husband was indeed a skeptic. He figured there was a medical problem (rather than an occult one) and sought out scientific answers to solve it. That is the work of a skeptic, Jeremy.
Cecil takes the position that Ouija Board experiments are "involuntary movements". While that might be fair, it's awfully simplistic. So it might be right, but you're upset because the right answer might be too simple? Not really a very legitimate argument, is it?

(Incidentally, you need to distinguish between the Staff Reports/Mailbags and the columns Cecil writes. As was already noted in regard to your original attack on the Ganzfeld column, Cecil only writes the ones that have Cecil's name on them.)
My questian: is skepticicm dangerous? In these cases, it seems that it might. A simplistic view, or douwright calling a channeller a "fraud", could cost a human life. But you haven't described skepticism.
In that respect, I think skepticism is irresponsible. Open your minds up, folks!You think it's irresponsible to seek out the correct answer to questions? What a strange attitude...

Supposing using the Ouija Board really CAN bring out psychotic episodes...don't you think you guys are ignoring this possibility? We're also "ignoring the possibility" that you are actually a leprechaun who has come here to the SDMB just to taunt us into looking for your lucky charms. Why are we "ignoring" it? Because there is no evidence for it. When you provide some actual evidence, then we'll consider it. So far, you don't have any.
I think it's something that the medical profession should investigate. Then I suggest you fund the research.
I'm not going to respond to the naysayers...Well, that would make things a lot easier for you. You can say anything you want, and then when people point out that you're wrong, you can just ignore them and merrily go on your way.

[hansel]

Originally posted by Jeremytt
One final point...will you guys reread my original post?

There was a steady progression in Mrs S.A.'s case...from no results, to poor results, to phonetic spelling, to complex ideas, and finally, to where she didn't need the Ouija Board.

Doesn't this progression suggest anything to you?

It suggests that you're taking the coincidence of her Ouija Board use and her schizophrenia and imagining a connection. She never needed the Ouija board.

There's a perfectly reasonable (and skeptically acceptable) explanation for what happened to her: late onset schizophrenia. No symptoms for 50 years, followed by a progression of symptoms, followed by the successful treatment of schizophrenia and relief from the symptoms. You've stipulated all these points, Jeremy, and now you're trying to shoehorn a Ouija board into the story where nothing else is needed to explain what happened.

[vanilla]

I once tried an Ouija board.
It told me to "go look in the mailbox".
I did; there was nothing there.
Good sense of humor there..

[dal_timgar]

the skeptics may just be believers in science.

quite unscientific.

just because the word schizophrenia has been invented doesn't mean they know what it is.

what if it's just their description of possesion by "evil spirits" but they are too SCIENTIFIC to believe in "evil spirits."

see: HOSTAGE TO THE DEVIL by Malachi Martin

just because religion is full of corrupted stupidity doesn't mean it is NOTHING BUT STUPIDITY.

Dal Timgar

[MEBuckner]

I would point out that anti-psychotic drugs probably work better in alleviating the symptoms of schizophrenia than saying "In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, I command these foul demons to COME OUT!" Similarly, it seems more likely that we will be able to develop a diagnosis for schizophrenia based on EEG patterns or some biochemical marker of brain chemistry than one based on the patient's reaction to being doused with holy water. (:splash: "Aaagh! It burns!" "Yep--schizophrenia all right.")

[muttrox]

Good golly Miss Molly.

J, you cite your own interpretation of anecdotal events to prove a very questionable claim. As others have said, your claim is possible, but very unlikely. Attempts to get you to specify more details about your evidence and how it relates to your claim have gotten nowhere.

You also have a view of the Skeptic community that is incorrect. Straw man fallacy of thinking.

From this, you have decided that since <specific claim 1>, <specific claim 2>, and <specific claim 3, mebbe SHC> can have different interpretations that skepticism is dangerous.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Claiming Oujia board usage cause mental disorders is pretty extraordinary. (Most of us would feel that mental disorders cause Oujia boards usage! :D )

J, you've been polite, and have admirably not let this thread degrade into a flame war. But you just aren't going to get the answer you want. Unless you show (a) a real logical argument that connects these specific claims to your general statements, and (b) provide real evidence that stands up to scientific scrutiny for your specific claims -- well, you're just going to get nowhere.

[Lemur866]

You won't respond to "nay-sayers"? Um, then why in YHWH's name are you posting here? If you didn't want to listen to nay-sayers, you should have stayed home.

No, you posted here to attempt to convince others that skepticism is dangerous. So, in order to do that, you have to convince people not to be skeptical. So, in order to do that, you have to answer the objections of skeptics who feel their attitude is not dangerous and convice them that it is dangerous.

If you won't listen to the skeptics, then how are you going to do that?

And you still haven't answered the question: Why are skeptics responsible for diagnosing a channeller's medical problems? Shouldn't her doctor or loved ones do that? Suppose you are schizophrenic (as an example). What responsiblity do I have to make sure that you get medical help? No, I have no such responsiblility, and I can decide that you are a fraud without any ethical problems.

And, I would say most skeptics believe that at least some "psychics" honestly believe in their abilities. Sure there are frauds, but the best frauds believe they are telling the truth.

So, is Uri Geller a fraud, or is he schizophrenic? Or do you have some other theory? And what is our ethical obligation once we diagnose Uri Geller? Should we try to get him admitted to a hospital? Call the cops? Send him a letter saying that we think he's crazy? How should one act if one believes that another person suffers from mental illness? Under our laws, it is impossible to involuntarily commit someone unless they are deemed a threat to themselves or others. So, if we decide that Uri Geller is mentally ill rather than a fraud, what should we do about it? He is not violent, he is not suicidal or self-destructive. What is our ethical obligation?

My suggestion is that our ethical obligation is to point out that Uri Geller uses ordinary magic tricks to accomplish his feats, not psychic powers, and that anyone who gives him money is foolish. This holds whether Uri Geller is a conscious fraud, or schizophrenic.

[Keenan]

At this point I'm just piling on, but I wanted to get my licks in on the post hoc fallacy.

Replace "Ouija board" with "dog" in the woman's case. Your 50 year old woman notices that her dog's barks sound a little like English. The dog's "speech" becomes clearer and clearer, until it's speaking full English sentences. One day, the woman realizes she can hear what the dog is thinking, just when it looks at her.

Now -- did the dog cause the woman's schizophrenia?


And, now I'll probably to stretch my analogy past the breaking point. I've noticed that a number of the mentally ill have had incidents where they believe their pets are communicating with them. Didn't Son of Sam believe he was getting instructions from his dog? Yet, skeptics would say he was a fraud. I beleive that we should really look into this pet-mental illness connection.


Now, Jeremy, upon reading that, were you a little... skeptical?

[muttrox]

Great analogy!

I find it actually more credible. At least dogs have been shown since domestication that they can understand some human speech ("Fetch, sit, go potty.."). Seems more likely than communicating through a block of wood. My $.02

[Screwtape]

Originally posted by Jeremytt
...I want to clarify. I'm referring to skeptic naysayers who say, "Not possible...liar...she's a fraud"...That's not skepticism. Skepticism is just the refusal to believe anything that cannot be proven.

[muttrox]

Hmm... we haven't defined skepticism, have we? Does The Skeptical Inquirer (remember where this thread started!) have any kind of manifesto or statement that would shed light on it's definition?

I would say Screwtape's definition goes too far. After all, the nature of proof is very slippery, there is little if anything that can be proven. We skeptical folk just believe stuff less when there is less evidence for it.

[hansel]

Originally posted by dal_timgar
just because the word schizophrenia has been invented doesn't mean they know what it is.

True, inventing a word doesn't automatically increase someone's knowledge. However, spending millions of dollars and man hours researching and treating schizophrenia has given the medical establishment a pretty good idea that what was happening in Mrs. S.A.s brain was a biochemical disorder, and not evil spirits.

Turns out they were right, at least by Jeremy's account of the details.

[Jeremytt]

Hello, room.

A lot of the chatters have expressed the opinion that I am making a POST HOC FALLACY. There's a very good possibility that they could be right.

There's also a good possibility that they could be wrong, too. My point is that I DON'T KNOW. I don't KNOW if the Ouija Board caused the schizophrenia. I wish I had the funds to investigate it.

Discussions such as these can get hopelessly baroque when discussing the unknown. But flat out labeling my opinions as a POST HOC FALLACY is presumptuous, too. It is well known that environmental factors can trigger clinical depression. Why cannot environmental factors also trigger schizophrenia?

It's difficult to know where to draw the line between a logical conclusion or a POST HOC FALLACY. After all, if someone puts their finger in the fire, and subsequently get a blister, is THAT a POST HOC FALLACY?

I don't KNOW if my opinions are POST HOC FALLACY or not. My mind is open, and receptive to ideas. That's why I'd like to see the research.

My main point is that attitudes like Skeptic's Dictionary on Jane Roberts (liar, cheat, fraud) may not be medically accurate, and downright dangerous. It's dangerous to call someone a "fraud" when she might be in dire need of medical attention!

[Ptahlis]

Originally posted by hansel
Originally posted by dal_timgar
just because the word schizophrenia has been invented doesn't mean they know what it is.

True, inventing a word doesn't automatically increase someone's knowledge. However, spending millions of dollars and man hours researching and treating schizophrenia has given the medical establishment a pretty good idea that what was happening in Mrs. S.A.s brain was a biochemical disorder, and not evil spirits.

Turns out they were right, at least by Jeremy's account of the details.

Oh YEAH?!? So how do you KNOW that the evil spirits weren't driven away by worrying over how to pay the doctor bills? Maybe Prozac is poison to evil spirits? Betcha never THOUGHT of that did you Mr. Smarty-pants Skeptic! Go ahead and refuse to believe in ghosts, spirits, leprechauns, alien abductions, Bigfoot, Nessie, the healing power of crystals, aromatherapy, Qi, astrology, tarot cards, seances, free energy, fairies, black helicopters, demonic possession, Atlantis, love potions, voodoo dolls, mummy's curses, the bad mojo of Friday the 13th, witch riding, dowsing, astral projection, and past life regression! *I* don't care because *I* have FAITH! They say that faith can MOVE MOUNTAUNS, and what does science say? Whole CONTINENTS moving! Even THAT isn't enough for you skeptics! You are just AFRAID to look at the evidence! ASK me about all the spooky supernatural connections between Lincoln and Kennedy! I DARE you! You don't want to believe? FINE! You made me so mad I put a CURSE on YOU. So just try and deny the TRUTH when your elbows turn green, your testicles shrink, and you are afflicted with severe halitosis! So who's laughing NOW science-boy? Huh? You skeptics think you're so SMART! Well *I* have just gotten my first recruit in a SURE-FIRE money-making venture where ALL you have to do is pay $250 to join and then get three others to join under you. Once they start getting recruits, and the recruits start getting recruits, and so on, the money is just going to POUR in! Hah! I will be able to pay off the acupuncturist who is CURING my colon cancer and still have enough left over to invest in a REVOLUTIONARY new automotive engine that will assuredly return $1,000,000 dollars for a measly $10,000 investment! I could write even more, but my tummy hurts real bad and I have to go sit under my pyramid to absorb the healing rays.

[JDeMobray]

Originally posted by Jeremytt
My main point is that attitudes like Skeptic's Dictionary on Jane Roberts (liar, cheat, fraud) may not be medically accurate, and downright dangerous. It's dangerous to call someone a "fraud" when she might be in dire need of medical attention!

What position do you propose taking in response to someone who claims to experience visions and/or hear voices from beyond?

How do you believe that position differ from that of a skeptic?

Originally posted by Jeremytt
The voices became menacing. They were telling her to kill herself. Fortunately, her husband was no skeptic. He didn't think Ouija Boards were just "involuntary movements"..instead, he contacted a doctor. She was hospitalized for schizophrenia. The medication she was given worked

You are misunderstanding the situation here. A skeptical position (i.e. "The Ouija Board itself cannot channel spirits; it operates by involuntary movements") leads naturally into the next question, "Why does my wife think that the Ouija Board is telling her to kill herself?" The husband in your story very clearly adopts this position, asks that very question, and in response seeks qualified psychiatric help.

A non-skeptic, one who believes in the supposed POWERS of the Ouija Board would be the one unable to offer here any help. If the spirits from beyond really are asking you to kill yourself, what are you going to do after all?

Originally posted by muttrox
Hmm... we haven't defined skepticism, have we? Does The Skeptical Inquirer (remember where this thread started!) have any kind of manifesto or statement that would shed light on it's definition?
[/i]"Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to test natural explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent that it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some things, such as water dowsing, extrasensory perception, and creationism, have been tested and failed tests often enough that we can provisionally concludethat they are false. Other things, such as hypnosis, lie detectors, and vitamin C, have been tested but the results are inconclusive, so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses until we can reach a provisional conclusion. The key to skepticism is to navigate the treacherous straits between "know nothing" skepticism and "anything goes" credulity by continuously and vigorously applying the methods of science."
- Michael Shermer (Publisher of Skeptic Magazine), Why People Believe Weird Things[/i]

[Spiritus Mundi]

Jeremytt, perhaps listing the full name will let you understand your error more clearly. The fallacy lies not in concluding that one event has caused a succeeding event. It lies in concluding that the causality is implied by the temporal relationship.

We have a great deal of empirical evidence that placing fingers in a fire can cause burns, and that burns can cause blisters. We also have well understood mechanisms for the "prpogation" of the observed effect (heat transfer, cellular damage, etc.) You have simply mentioned one instance in which a woman was diagnosed as schizophrenic after using a ouija board. To draw a conclusion from such an anecdote is a logical fallacy. To believe that a connection is equally as likely as unlikely under such circumstances is also a fallacy.

You started this thread after I vomited on an aircraft over Georgia. It is POSSIBLE that this thread was caused by my vomiting. You do not KNOW that there was no relation. Both of those statements are true in the most rigorous senses of "possibility" and "know". Nevertheless, to keep your mind open to such "possibilities" will soon result in a head full of vomit.

[Spiritus Mundi]

the skeptics Dictionary labels her a fraud. Do you think it is possible (using your open mind) that the author(s) based that decision on more factors than the facts that she used a ouija board and claimed to hear voices?

[Unauthorized Cinnamon]

I did a search for Jane Roberts on skepdic.com, and this was the most extensive mention I found:

http://www.skepdic.com/channeling.html The channeling craze began in earnest in 1972 with the publication of Seth Speaks by Jane Roberts and Robert Butts, her husband. They claim that "Seth," a very wise "unseen entity," communicated his wisdom to Jane, who dictated to Butts while she was in a trance. Though Roberts, a somewhat accomplished poet, was obviously very literate and widely read in many religious and occult traditions (including Jung), her advocates portray her as communicating ideas beyond her ability. They take this as proof she was inspired. This is true: Roberts and Butts were probably inspired by the depth of human credulity. Emphasis added.

This was the most damning statement I found. Maybe there is another section discussing her use of Ouija boards and denouncing her categorically as a fraud. Or perhaps you are referring to a different source? In any case, please give us a link.

[Captain Amazing]

Jeremy,
I've worked for a law firm for over a year, and before then, was a student for six, and one of the things I've learn in both an academic and a legal environment is that it's a bad idea to state a fact or draw a conclusion without being able to cite the fact you're stating, or be able to clearly explain how you came to that conclusion.
You seem to have suggested that Ouija boards cause, or somehow contribute to schizophrenia. Supporting that claim, you give an example of a woman diagnosed with schizophrenia who had, prior to her diagnosis, used an Ouija board. However, when using inductive reasoning, one case is insufficient. You can't generalize from one case...and that's the problem some people have with what you wrote...it seems to them like you are.

[Jihi]

I was speaking with a family member over the holidays and he brought to me an article he'd found on the internet about some machine or another that could apparently detect some sort of 'aura' around human beings (I think it was by some Russian scientist who's now deceased but I can't recall all the exact details). Being a self-identified skeptic he got the reaction he was lookign for when I said that, as I'd never encountered the story before, that I would have to do further research before giving any concrete opinions on the subject but the idea seemed rather farfetched.

From there the discussion turned to the merits of scientific periodicals and the skeptical media, (such as Nature and the Skeptic's Dictionary and SI), which I have quoted liberally from in the past during discussions. He told me that he doesn't believe the articles in those publications any more than he believes the ideas put forth by creationists and their ilk because they also have agendas which they push just as aggressively. "Maintaining of the status quo" I believe was his exact assertion. I assumed what he was talking about was what is considered generally accepted knowledge, of which I think aura detecting machines are not.

He also said that he thought the scientific method was inherently flawed but I didn't pursue the conversation much further.

This is probably a slight hijack, and if it is I apologize, but I thought the experience was relevant to the thread.

[The Ryan]

Originally posted by Jeremytt
the Ryan,
I know she had no prior history of mental illness because I saw her chart. It had been her first admission. She had had no prior history of mental illness..I had already told you I worked as a technician at a mental ward..
I have been paying attention to your posts. Could you pay attention to mine? I didn't question how you know she had no history of previous mental illness, what I questioned was how you know that she had no previous mental illness. We have no history of people living more than a few thousand years ago. Does that mean that humans have existed for only a few thousand years? About the same time that people started keeping histories, advanced agriculture developed. Does that mean that advanced agriculture caused humans to appear out of nowhere? Or does it mean that agriculture made the humans that already existed more noticeable?

[andros]

Spiritus:

to keep your mind open to such "possibilities" will soon result in a head full of vomit

You have such a way with words. ;)

Jihi, welcome to the SDMB. I don't think you were hijacking at all. One of the main oppositions to science and skepticism is indeed that scientists somehow have some agenda they're pushing. I suspect that many have their own agendas and perforce assume that everyone else must as well--I see this all to often in discussions of creation "science."

He also said that he thought the scientific method was inherently flawed but I didn't pursue the conversation much further.

Again, this happens a lot. "I don't understand it, so it must be flawed." Fortunately, we're here to stamp out ignorance. :)

[andros]

I suspect that many have their own agendas

Many of those opposing science, that is.

[David B]

Jeremy: Instead of just posting general messages to the "room," how about addressing the specific points that have been made?

[Scylla]

Originally posted by David B
Jeremy: Instead of just posting general messages to the "room," how about addressing the specific points that have been made?

Actually I think the vague and obtuse approach is the only weapon in this particular arsenal.

[Jeremytt]

Would anybody here be generous enough to show me how to do multiple quotes? There are at least 4 people who have made very good points, and I'd like to address them..

So far, I've little luck with this. Thank you..

[The Ryan]

There are a couple of ways. One is to cut and paste, placing the phrase "quote" surrounded by brackets at the beginning, and "/quote" surrounded by brackets at the end. Another way is to press the "reply with quotes" button at the end of each post (right most button at very end of post). If you want to have all of them in one post:
on a PC, right click on each button, then choose "open in new window". Then cut and paste all of the resulting windows into one window.
on a mac, click and hold down. Choose "open in new window" and proceed as previously described.

[Dangerosa]

Obviously, Ouija boards don't cause mental illness - they are nothing more than wood, paint, and IIRC a little bit of metal on the pointer thingy - nothing too likely to cause brain disturbance. But, I think Jeremy might be on to something that MAY have been handled in someone's doctoral dissertation somewhere:

Are people who believe in the supernatural more likely to be diagnosed with mental illness?

and/or

Are people who believe themselves to be "sensitive" more likely to be diagnosed with mental illness?

[vanilla]

Good questions. Which came first the board or the illness?
Many christians think the ouija will attract evil spirits. Of course, many folk used to think evil spirits were what caused epilepsy too.

[dal_timgar]

religious thinking permeates this culture. even atheists often sound like they think RELIGIOUSLY.

the dictionary definition of BELIEVE i usually find is "to accept something as true without absolute proof." the first problem with this definition is the word absolute. what is the difference between a "proof" and an "absolute proof?" this implies there are DEGREES of proof, or is at the very least redundant. and what constitutes PROOF in physical reality. there are almost always alternative explanations they may just SEEM improbable. how often has what seemed to be improbable turned out to be true, there were just other unknown factors involved. time slowing down because of gravity and near light speed still seems totally wierd to me.

so the definition of BELIEVE that i use is: to accept something as true without sufficient evidence. therefore belief is stupid by definition. i either KNOW or SUSPECT.
now the psycho-drugs could disable brain functions which enable communication with hypothetical invisible entities. it is not the ouija board that matters but the opening of the mind and inviting contact. what kind of decarnate humans might accept the invitation. the "evil spirits" are simply human beings not occupying bodies at the current time. i admit the "evil spirits" sound silly without a complete paradigm. you have to include reincarnation and these people are just hanging out in "sheol." of course that is the old testament word translated as HELL.

Dal Timgar

[Captain Amazing]

Well, Dal, the first step then would be to prove that reincarnation and sheol exist. And, I'd sort of disagree with you that "sheol" can best be translated as "hell". I mean, that is a common translation, but "hell" has connotations of suffering and punishment that "sheol" doesn't.

[JDeMobray]

Originally posted by dal_timgar
so the definition of BELIEVE that i use is: to accept something as true without sufficient evidence. therefore belief is stupid by definition. i either KNOW or SUSPECT.
I'm separating this for a reason. I disagree with your definitions, but am interested in your own internal consistency.

Originally posted by dal_timgar
now the psycho-drugs could disable brain functions which enable communication with hypothetical invisible entities.
What evidence leads you to SUSPECT that human brains can communicate with "invisible entities?"
What evidence leads you to SUSPECT that psycho drugs disable these functions?
Originally posted by dal_timgar
it is not the ouija board that matters but the opening of the mind and inviting contact.
What evidence leads you to SUSPECT this?
Originally posted by dal_timgar
the "evil spirits" are simply human beings not occupying bodies at the current time.
What evidence leads you to SUSPECT that human beings are capable of disassociating their "spirit" from their bodies?
What evidence leads you to SUSPECT the existence of a "spirit?"

I SUSPECT that you don't have any evidence of these things. Instead, by your own definitions, you simply BELIEVE in all these things.

[Jeremytt]

I haven't forgotten the multiple-post I was planning to do. I'm simply very short on time.

No one addressed my point. Cecil said that Ouija Boards are caused by involuntary movement..that's physical. External. Environmental.

We all know that environmental factors can induce schizophrenia. Ever seen a Vietnam veteran?

If war can induce schizophrenia, why not the Ouija Board and "involuntary movements", both being environmental?

[Jeremytt]

Thank you for your patience. Multiple posting isn't easy for the computer novice! Now then...

David posted: You have a tendency, as has been pointed out by The Ryan, to make these vague attacks and references, but have yet to give
specifics. Please provide specific examples of skeptics "flat-out dismissing things as fraudulent, or being simplistic about things."
That is -- dismissing them without looking at the evidence.

David, I will answer with another member's quote: Spiritus Mundi said: the skeptics Dictionary labels her a fraud.

David, it appears that one of your own people reached the same conclusion..

AeryonSon said: This was the most damning statement I found. Maybe there is another section discussing her use of Ouija boards and
denouncing her categorically as a fraud. Or perhaps you are referring to a different source? In any case, please give us a link.



Aeryon, IBID..there are two of us who reached the same conclusion about Skeptic's Dictionary on Jane Roberts. No, SD doesn't come right out and call her a fraud. But they come as close as they can, don't they?

Jidi said: From there the discussion turned to the merits of scientific periodicals and the skeptical media, (such as Nature and the Skeptic's
Dictionary and SI), which I have quoted liberally from in the past during discussions. He told me that he doesn't believe the articles
in those publications any more than he believes the ideas put forth by creationists and their ilk because they also have agendas
which they push just as aggressively. "Maintaining of the status quo" I believe was his exact assertion. I assumed what he was
talking about was what is considered generally accepted knowledge, of which I think aura detecting machines are not.



Jidi, that's exactly my position. It has been extensively discussed in the previous thread at GANZFELD: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=52901

The neurolinguistic term for this phenomenomn is called COGNITIVE DISSONANCE. Basically, it means that if you tell a person a fact that conflicts with their belief system, it won't be believed/accepted as fact. Oddly enough, only one other member was able to understand this point: pmrcr. COGNITIVE DISSONANCE is a part of human nature, being skeptical, religious, medical, or whatever frame of belief system.

Captain Amazing said: You seem to have suggested that Ouija boards cause, or somehow contribute to schizophrenia. Supporting that claim, you give
an example of a woman diagnosed with schizophrenia who had, prior to her diagnosis, used an Ouija board. However, when
using inductive reasoning, one case is insufficient. You can't generalize from one case...and that's the problem some people have
with what you wrote...it seems to them like you are.

Captain, you are absolutely right, within the constraints of what I have offered I plead guilty. It's very difficult to see oneself objectively. However, like I complained about in the original thread, quoting SI isn't effective for most of America because of cognitive dissonance. Likewise, I could quote at least two other sources about OUIJA Board usage leading to schizophrenia, but because of cognitive dissonance, those sources wouldn't be accepted here as fact.

Andros wrote: Jihi, welcome to the SDMB. I don't think you were hijacking at all. One of the main oppositions to science and skepticism is
indeed that scientists somehow have some agenda they're pushing. I suspect that many have their own agendas and perforce
assume that everyone else must as well--I see this all to often in discussions of creation "science."

Andros, in the previous thread, I had read a collection of essays on SI writers. I assessed them into 2 groups. The "debunker" group seems to have this mindset of a WILL TO DISBELIEVE..as such, their will to disbelieve is so strong that they seem capable of any type of fraud, intentional, unintentional, physical, or disingeniousness, in order to defend their belief systems. I'm not saying ALL skeptics, I'm saying MANY.

More is coming. Ryan, thank you for your help with this quoting..

[Captain Amazing]

Jeremy,
Sceptics believe many things, just like naive people do. I believe the sun will come up tommorrow. In fact, I'd bet my bottom dollar, that tomorraw, they'll be sun. The sceptic just doesn't like to believe things that there aren't any evidence for if there's an easier explanation that there is evidence for. I don't think the general public has ever heard of S.I., and therefore, don't have strong feelings either way. Just wondering, what sort of "fraud, intentional, unintentional, physical, or disingeniousness" have you found in most sceptics? A mistake I think you've made is that it seems to you that scepticism is a defense of the status quo. That's not neccesarily true.

[Jeremytt]

Captain:

This discussion is necessarily going to diverge from the concrete to the abstract here, because to answer your question, I have to offer opinion...necessarily subjective.

I group skeptics into the admittedly arbitrary headings based on what I've seen in life.(I think we ALL base our opinions on subjective experience.) Many whom I've known who describe themselves as skeptic really seem to come under "truth-seekers"...such as you, and Carl Sagan...(see NOT NECESSARILY THE NEW AGE for insight). Others seem to fit very neatly into the debunker category, including Martin Gardner, Randi, and David here (notice, he's not acknowledged a single one of my points as being valid [and David, cognitive dissonance is a researchable subject]). These people would necessarily be more interested in defending a viewpoint, rather than searching for the truth. The difference seems to be based upon how open-minded the individual is.

I base my opinions on the SI staff on their essays. If you read them yourself, (and even read the posts in this forum) you might notice they do, indeed, seem to fall into those 2 categories.

To be more specific, you might want to read Martin Gardner's writings. When he's confronted with a fact he can't explain, he resorts to blanket statements, uses selective reasoning, etc. Captain, you know enough about logic to be able to find these logical flaws.

Right here in this room, we've been talking about Skeptic's Dictionary's entry on Jane Roberts. Captain, don't you assess SD's entry as a blanket statement? (Perhaps more accurately it could be described as an unsupported conclusion) The editor of SD didn't even stoop to tell us how he'd reached his conclusion.
(I, personally, would like very much indeed to see evidence of Jane Roberts' alleged fraud.)

Admittedly, Captain, this post is mostly abstract. But if you look at the same sources (or even reread the various posts in this room) I believe you (whom I assess as being open-minded enough to understand) might reach the same conclusion..

[Captain Amazing]

Jeremy,
Well, so far I haven't seen anything DavidB's posted here that I really disagree with, and I think he'd say the same about me. We have a different posting style, just like Sagan and Gardner, to take two examples, have a different writing style, and it's possible that you prefer one style over the other.

As for the Sceptic's dictionary, it doesn't make a statement condemning Roberts. It says, "This is true: Roberts and Butts were probably inspired by the depth of human credulity." This is speculation, if not very charitable, and your theory that she was schizophrenic might be true, but without knowing her case (I hadn't heard of her till you brought her up), I can't say. As for evidence of fraud, she said that she was contacted by some supernatural being, wrote a book saying that, and sold it for money. Profiting off something that isn't true and that you expect others to believe is true is fraud, but without more information about Roberts, and clinical training, I can't say if she was schizophrenic or not. To the best of my knowledge, except for claiming that Seth spoke through her, she didn't show any other symptoms. I do think it's possible to agree though, whether she was halucinatory and delusional or just fraudulent, Seth didn't speak through her.

[JonF]

No one addressed my point. Cecil said that Ouija Boards are caused by involuntary movement..that's physical. External. Environmental.
We all know that environmental factors can induce schizophrenia. Ever seen a Vietnam veteran?
If war can induce schizophrenia, why not the Ouija Board and "involuntary movements", both being environmental?

Er, I would say that "involuntary movement" is physical, internal, and non-environmental, and that therefore your questions are irrelevant.

"in·vol·un·tar·y (in-vol'?n-ter'e)
adj.
Acting or done without or against one's will: an involuntary participant in what turned out to be an argument.
Not subject to control of the volition: gave an involuntary start."

I submit that the second definition applies here: the movements are caused by the person, but not consciously.

Oh, and I am a Vietnam veteran. I presume that you didn't mean your implication that all Vietnam veterans are mentally ill. I do have to correct one error; there is no connection claimed by anyone that I can find between Vietnam and schizophrenia. Post-traumatic stress disorder, now, yeah, there's lots of claims of that.

[JDeMobray]

What position do you propose taking in response to someone who claims to experience visions and/or hear voices from beyond?

How do you believe that position differ from that of a skeptic?

[Spiritus Mundi]

jeremy:
My statement regarding the Skeptic's Dictionary entry on Jane Roberts was simply an acceptance of your claim. I did not verify the entry personally. At the time I made the post, I had no reason to believe you were either dishonest or extremely careles with simple facts. That is no longer the case. Please do not use me as support for your egregious reading of a simple text.

I could quote at least two other sources about OUIJA Board usage leading to schizophrenia, but because of cognitive dissonance, those sources wouldn't be accepted here as fact.

If you post your sources, then each of us can evaluate them for reliability in whatever means we choose. Cognitive dissonance is not the only reason why a claim might be rejected. Sometimes the claim is wrong. Sometimes the claim is not strongly enough supported to be relied upon. And sometimes the person making the claim has demonstrated that they are not trustworthy.

[Lemur866]

"Cognitive Dissidence"? Jeremy, you are accusing us of intellecutal dishonesty. You are saying that since we don't believe in the paranormal, NO evidence will convince us that the paranormal exists.

We'll lie, cheat, fudge, defraud, do anything to keep our precious world-view intact.

Don't you see how convenient a belief that is for you? Because now, rather than take our arguments seriously, you simply dismiss them without bothering to think about them. After all, we are liars, cheats, and frauds. So why bother listening?

Uh huh.

You STILL haven't explained why you think schizophrenia is caused by Ouija boards, except that you once knew a woman who used a Ouija board and was schizophrenic. I once knew a woman who had a pet cat and she was schizophrenic. My theory is that schizophrenia is caused by cats. Why won't the medical extablishment listen? Aw, it's all cognitive dissonance...believing in cat-induced schizophrenia would be against their world view, so they lie, cheat, and defraud to hide the evidence.

After all, no scientist would ever want to discover something new, would they? No, scientists hate discovering new things, and cover them up and destroy them whenever they emerge.

Uh huh.

[Jeremytt]

Originally posted by JDeMobray
What position do you propose taking in response to someone who claims to experience visions and/or hear voices from beyond?

How do you believe that position differ from that of a skeptic?



It's very late at night, so at the moment, I can only answer one post. Thank you all for your patience.

JheMobray, what you are asking is an opinion, you know. That moves from the tierra firma of fact into the murky waters of opinion..

I don't know where those voices come from, personally. I don't know if there are disembodied spirits, and if there are, whether or not they can speak through us. It's possible, and it's possible that it's not. The jury will always be out on that question 'till we pass on.

I believe some, but not all, of the voices heard are hallucinations. A psychiatrist named Von Dusen once studied this. He determined the hallucinations fell into 2 distinct categories. lower- and higher-order hallucinations. The lower- ones accounted for 93%. Being stupid, repetitive, like drunken bums...But 7% he named higher-order because of the incredible complexity of the messages.

I would, privately, assess Jane Roberts' Seth as a higher-order hallucination. You all seem to think that just because she made money off him, she's necessarily a fraud. Why?

Singers use their talent to make money. Artists do the same, as do writers. If I heard higher-order hallucinations of incredible complexity, you better believe I would want to sell my talent. Why not?

I'll get back to the rest of you later. Sorry.

[Jeremytt]

I failed to address the second point. My position would differ a lot from a skeptic, because a skeptic wouldn't accept any POSSIBILITY of anything but fraud or hallucinations. I accept the possibility, if not the probability, of an extraterrestial spirit...I'd have to view the preponderance of the evidence.

[betenoir]

Originally posted by Jeremytt
[QUOTE


I would, privately, assess Jane Roberts' Seth as a higher-order hallucination. You all seem to think that just because she made money off him, she's necessarily a fraud. Why?

I don't. I never said I did. I think given that she makes money off it, given that humans will defraud one another for money, the POSSABILITY that she is an out-and-out fraud does exist. Whether or not she is a fraud herself, I beleive the concern of the skeptics who want to debunk her- the claim that sells her books- is that she is in touch with a higher entity. I don't recall her books being marketed under the heading "Some of my better higher-order hallucinations".



Singers use their talent to make money. Artists do the same, as do writers. If I heard higher-order hallucinations of incredible complexity, you better believe I would want to sell my talent. Why not?


Hallucinating is not a talent. As an artist who has had her fair share of hallucinations I can tell you it isn't. But if you can articulate your hallucination in a way that has meaning for other people- St. John the Divine, Blake...possibly this Roberts chick- then maybe you are an artist. And sure you can cash in on it. But i thought your concern was for her mental well being?

[betenoir]

Originally posted by Jeremytt
I failed to address the second point. My position would differ a lot from a skeptic, because a skeptic wouldn't accept any POSSIBILITY of anything but fraud or hallucinations.

I'm a skeptic. I accept the possibility of something other than fraud or hallucination. I merely doubt.


Your problem seems to be with Cognitive Dissonance. You bring up a good point. Cognitive Dissonance does effect skeptics too. It's something I think we need to look out for. It's something we cannot pretend we are immune from.

But skepiticisim is still the best defence against it. Nothing here defends your idea that skepticisim is dangerous. All you have said is that possible skeptics may be close minded too. And I think we are less so than others- but like I said we should not think we are immune. Thanks for the warning.

[JDeMobray]

Originally posted by Jeremytt
JheMobray, what you are asking is an opinion, you know. That moves from the tierra firma of fact into the murky waters of opinion..

Well, since the entire thread seems to hinge on opinion (Yours, that skepticism is dangerous) I didn't think it was unreasonable to try to find the source. . .

I don't know where those voices come from, personally. I don't know if there are disembodied spirits, and if there are, whether or not they can speak through us. It's possible, and it's possible that it's not. The jury will always be out on that question 'till we pass on.

A very skeptical position. So far, I see no reason why any skeptics would disagree. I also note that you missed my second question: How do you believe your position differs from that of a skeptic?

I believe some, but not all, of the voices heard are hallucinations.
So what do you suppose the other voices heard are? I'm aware that Von Dusen classifies the different types of hallucinations. However, simply because some hallucinations are complex doesn't stop them from being hallucinations. What accounts for the rest, in your opinion? And what leads you to that conclusion?

You all seem to think that just because she made money off him, she's necessarily a fraud. Why?

Singers use their talent to make money. Artists do the same, as do writers. If I heard higher-order hallucinations of incredible complexity, you better believe I would want to sell my talent. Why not?
Do you suppose that anyone would want to read a book full of your hallucinations, if it were billed that way? How many copies of Jane Roberts Hallucinates do you think the publisher of Seth Speaks would have sold?

More importantly, I believe that it is relatively simple to completely reverse your OP's intent. If someone were themselves experiencing 'voices', let's use your terms and say they are having lower-order hallucinations, and were to come across Seth Speaks they might think that what they were experiencing was normal. Jane Roberts work might cause them to negelct the medical treatments that they need in the, by your own admission 93% likely to be mistaken, belief that they were in contact with a higher consciousness.

[Timon of Athens]

How are we usung this term? By my understanding it refers to the state that you enter when confronted by something that conflicts with a previously held belief. You can a) ignore the new information or b) adapt your beliefs to accept the new information. This assumes that the information is incontravertable.

I would believe that the sceptic checks out the validity of the new information before choosing the second option. The first option would seem antithetical to a true skeptic.

[JDeMobray]

Originally posted by JDeMobray
I also note that you missed my second question: How do you believe your position differs from that of a skeptic?
D'oh! D'oh! D'oh! D'oh! D'oh!
Sorry about that I completely missed your second post, Jeremytt. Meow culpy and stuff :)

Anyway, in reference to your second post, I must again disagree. I would refer you back to my (well, Michael Shermer's definition, really) definition of skepticism that I posted back on page 1.

The reason a skeptic might immediately dismiss the possibility of your or Jane Roberts contact with a higher consciousness is simply that those claims are nothing new. Skeptics have heard those claims time and time again, and each time they have been tested the claims have been proven untrue. A modern skeptic would happily examine any new evidence of such contact, and test it the same as before. However, at this point spirit channeling has fallen into the same category as ESP or dowsing; provisionally false barring new information.

I don't believe that there has been anything offered to substantiate a link between Ouija Boards and schizophrenia. Is it possible? Sure, any skeptic would concede that. However, they would also tell you that no positive evidence for such a link has ever been presented. What testing has revealed about Ouija Boards is that they seem to function based strictly on normal involuntary movements in the body and a normal human willingness to see paterns and correlations.

[Jeremytt]

Hello, folks!

Benetoir wrote: Your problem seems to be with Cognitive Dissonance. You bring up a good point. Cognitive Dissonance does effect skeptics too. It's something I think
we need to look out for. It's something we cannot pretend we are immune from.

Thank you, Bentetoir. So far, you're the only "skeptic" who's admitted that. :)

Many of the chatters seem to think this Cognitive Dissonance is a willful process. It isn't really. A person cannot accept a conflicting believe not because they don't WANT to, but because they CANNOT.

JMobray said: Do you suppose that anyone would want to read a book full of your hallucinations, if it were billed that way? How many copies of Jane Roberts
Hallucinates do you think the publisher of Seth Speaks would have sold?

ROFL! you have a good sense of humor! Truth is, nobody would want to read a book of hallucinations. But the thing here is that most schizophrenics, presumably including Jane, believe that their hallucinations are REAL. I believe Jane really did think Seth was extraterrestial.
JDeMobray said: More importantly, I believe that it is relatively simple to completely reverse your OP's intent. If someone were themselves experiencing 'voices', let's use
your terms and say they are having lower-order hallucinations, and were to come across Seth Speaks

Very true, JDeMobray. But the thing is, absolutely no one would be fooled by a book full of lower-order hallucinations. :) They're on the order of "Hey, you, chump! Eat my finger!"

One simple test will prove to your satisfaction that Jane, at least, believes her hallucinations are real. Just read a couple of chapters of DREAMS AND THE PROJECTION OF CONSCIOUSNESS. The tome is far too subjective (she tests herself), IMHO, to ever be called "fraud". "Deluded" perhaps, but not fraud.

Finally, more about the differences between the 2 skeptics. A simple, theoretical test. (You have to be honest with yourself on this one) Suppose, for the sake of argument, you witnessed a geniune demonstration of telekinesis. The subject was muzzled, naked, and hands shackled..but the target MOVED.

A truthseeker would leave the room, baffled, very badly shaken (belief systems don't come down easily), but reluctantly admit he had witnesses genuine telekinesis.

A "debunker" would leave the room, baffled, absolutely certain he had been "tricked".

;) Which category do you fit in?

One final test--this time with cognitive dissonance..go home to your loved one and tell him/her this--you have found irrefutable evidence of the existance of GOD...(heh heh)

Watch with relish the utter disbelief on his/her face. This is cognitive dissonance.

[Jeremytt]

Benetoir:

one other point. You admitted possible COGNITIVE DISSONANCE in the skeptic community.

Similarly, Susan Blackmore and Susan Sontag's essays in NOT NECESSARILY THE NEW AGE..were 2 out of only 3 essays I found completely unbiased....

Do you think it's possible that, by nature, the female animal is less rigid-minded, more open and receptive to ideas?

(No wonder I love women so much) :)

[muttrox]

I'm not sure I agree with your application of cognitive dissonance. First of all, it is not always a given which belief is changed, the "large" one or the "small" one. If there are enough small ones over time... otherwise people would never change their mind about any big issue, right? Secondly, it might not be a rational process at the time, but you are always free to evaluate your own beliefs rationally and examine your evidence, etc for believing a certain thing. That's pretty much the difference between following hunches and following science right there -- a scientist has a bit more to rely on than an unexamined feeling, they can weigh the validity of that feeling.

Of course there are always prejudices, but some are more informed than others! :)

I answered your question as firmly in the debunking camp, "I was tricked somehow!" On the other hand, your example stinks. Their is an incredible amount of room for trickery. How about an example where all possible methods of deception are removed, and telekinesis is still observed, not once, but over many trials, in many settings with many observers, etc. In other words, a real scientific test. I would still tend to disbelieve, but I would certainly value the test much more highly. Show me a bunch of tests like that and you might convince me. (In fact, tests like these are what Randi does, and his million dollars is still safe.) Give me a physical theory that doesn't contradict every other branch of science, and I'll really start thinking I've been wrong all these years.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Einstein's claims were extraordinary, but he provided a number of tests to check on his hypothesis. His theory was easily falsifiable and it held up in every scientific setting. Same with quantum mechanics, the theory is easily falsifiable, and it hasn't been. Telekenisis is also a extraordinary claim, but isn't easily falsifiable (as a theory or in practice), and has completely failed to hold up under scientific settings. Against that background, you would need to provide a lot more that a guy with a blindfold and manacles to convice me.

[JonF]

Finally, more about the differences between the 2 skeptics. A simple, theoretical test. (You have to be honest with yourself on this one) Suppose, for the sake of argument, you witnessed a geniune demonstration of telekinesis. The subject was muzzled, naked, and hands shackled..but the target MOVED.

A truthseeker would leave the room, baffled, very badly shaken (belief systems don't come down easily), but reluctantly admit he had witnesses genuine telekinesis.

A "debunker" would leave the room, baffled, absolutely certain he had been "tricked".

How about a third category? A skeptic might leave the room wondering exactly what did happen, and interested in further investigation. Especially investigation by those who are experts in detecting trickery and fakery. Not to say what you described would necessarily be trickery or fakery; but there are many ways in which intelligent people have been fooled.

[JDeMobray]

Originally posted by Jeremytt
But the thing here is that most schizophrenics, presumably including Jane, believe that their hallucinations are REAL. I believe Jane really did think Seth was extraterrestial.
The next logical question is; do you believe that Seth was an honest to god extraterrestrial consciousness? Or do you believe that he was simply a product of her schizophrenia?

Very true, JDeMobray. But the thing is, absolutely no one would be fooled by a book full of lower-order hallucinations. :) They're on the order of "Hey, you, chump! Eat my finger!"
Which is a fine point, although completely unrelated to what I asked. Let me try again.

Here's John. John has, what you describe as, lower-order hallucinations. Heck, let's acutally use your example and say John's hearing voices that say "Hey, you chump! Eat my finger!"

Now, John is confused about these voices. He doesn't tell anyone about them, for fear of being branded a 'loony'. Now keep in mind that the voices seem absolutely real to him.

John goes to a bookstore. There, out on the shelf, is Seth Speaks. John picks it up, looks through it and realizes "Hey! Other people hear voices and this woman has done a lot of 'reasearch' and concludes that they are higher alien consciousnesses. I guess I am allright, I just need to find out what MY alien means when he says 'Eat my finger!'

John, reassured, never seeks out treatment or counseling, instead choosing to focus on communicating with his alien voice. His schizophrenia worsens. Bad news all around.

That's the real danger. Not skepticism.

One simple test will prove to your satisfaction that Jane, at least, believes her hallucinations are real. Just read a couple of chapters of DREAMS AND THE PROJECTION OF CONSCIOUSNESS. The tome is far too subjective (she tests herself), IMHO, to ever be called "fraud". "Deluded" perhaps, but not fraud.
Unfortunately, even the most scrupulous of scientists will can and do fall prey to self delusion. I don't doubt that Jane Roberts, at some point, believed that Seth was real. What causes me to question her is the lack of any sort of peer review. Were Jane Roberts abilities ever tested by disinterested other parties? Have others been able to duplicate her techniques and contact Seth or a member of Seth people? Have those people been tested? Where is review? Where is the evidence? It's simply cold fusion all over again.

Finally, more about the differences between the 2 skeptics. A simple, theoretical test. (You have to be honest with yourself on this one) Suppose, for the sake of argument, you witnessed a geniune demonstration of telekinesis. The subject was muzzled, naked, and hands shackled..but the target MOVED.
I can't say how I'd react. I don't really believe you can say how you would react either. What would you do if a hand reached out of your computer screen right now and waved to you? What if a cow suddenly appeared in your living room?

I imagine the best I can say is that I would look for an explanation for the phenomena. How did it move? If the telekinetic moved it with his mind, how did he do that? Doesn't action at a distance equal free energy and thusly violate the laws of thermodynamics? Can he do it again? What about his mind is different than other peoples? Is this a learned skill? Does the size of the object matter? Can he move things he cannot see but is aware of? How about things that he is unaware of?

I'd like to think that I would really enjoy something like that, just for the thrill of discovering and testing something new. :)

One final test--this time with cognitive dissonance..go home to your loved one and tell him/her this--you have found irrefutable evidence of the existance of GOD...

Actually, If there can be said to be proof of God's existence, the best evidence is most likely the lack of any evidence :) But that again is just MHO.

I've tried to avoid your cognitive dissonance subthread, because it really doesn't have very much to do with the main point. I agree with betenoir, the best defense against it is skepticism.

[JDeMobray]

Originally posted by Jeremytt
Benetoir:one other point. You admitted possible COGNITIVE DISSONANCE in the skeptic community....Similarly, Susan Blackmore and Susan Sontag's essays in NOT NECESSARILY THE NEW AGE..were 2 out of only 3 essays I found completely unbiased....Do you think it's possible that, by nature, the female animal is less rigid-minded, more open and receptive to ideas?...(No wonder I love women so much) :)

This, on the other hand, is worse than off-topic. It's meaningless speculative gobbeldygook. Really, if you want to discuss wheather men are from venus or whatever move it to a different thread. It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, and there are still so many points from page 1 in particular, that haven't been adressed.

[Spiritus Mundi]

A person cannot accept a conflicting believe not because they don't WANT to, but because they CANNOT.

I am skeptical of this claim

[David B]

Jeremytt said:
No one addressed my point. Cecil said that Ouija Boards are caused by involuntary movement..that's physical. External. Environmental. For at least the second time, I said it, not Cecil. I noted that it was involuntary -- specifically, the ideomotor effect. Where you got the idea that it was "external" is beyond me.
If war can induce schizophrenia, why not the Ouija Board and "involuntary movements", both being environmental?Because the Ouija board's movements are caused by the person -- unconsciously. Besides, this isn't a game of "what if this was caused by little fairies" -- either there is evidence or there is not. Just remember that correlation is not causation.

I had said: "You have a tendency, as has been pointed out by The Ryan, to make these vague attacks and references, but have yet to give specifics. Please provide specific examples of skeptics 'flat-out dismissing things as fraudulent, or being simplistic about things.' That is -- dismissing them without looking at the evidence." You replied:
David, I will answer with another member's quote: Spiritus Mundi said:
the skeptics Dictionary labels her a fraud.
David, it appears that one of your own people reached the same conclusion.. Well, as you know by now, Spiritus was simply giving you the benefit of the doubt. But beyond that, you seem to not even understand the very words you are using. Even if the Skeptic's Dictionary did say she was a fraud, that is not the same thing as "flat-out dismissing things as fraudulent, or being simplistic about things." They explained why they had their opinion -- that is not a "flat-out dismissal," but is instead a look at the evidence. A flat-out dismissal would be if somebody said something like, "James van Praagh can't be psychic because psychic power doesn't exist."

So, again, I ask you to back up your statement. Or, if you choose, to correct it.

if you tell a person a fact that conflicts with their belief system, it won't be believed/accepted as fact. Oddly enough, only one other member was able to understand this point: pmrcr. COGNITIVE DISSONANCE is a part of human nature, being skeptical, religious, medical, or whatever frame of belief system. Only one other member was able to understand it? No offense, but you're hardly in a position to judge what other people understand. You've been forced to correct yourself at least, what, three times already in just a few days?

Speaking for myself, not only do I understand it, I have given lectures on it!

I had read a collection of essays on SI writers. I assessed them into 2 groups. The "debunker" group seems to have this mindset of a WILL TO DISBELIEVE..as such, their will to disbelieve is so strong that they seem capable of any type of fraud, intentional, unintentional, physical, or disingeniousness, in order to defend their belief systems. I'm not saying ALL skeptics, I'm saying MANY. And you came to this conclusion by reading a collection of essays? How did you manage that? Mind reading?

). Others seem to fit very neatly into the debunker category, including Martin Gardner, Randi, and David here (notice, he's not acknowledged a single one of my points as being validWell, I sure as hell won't complain about being put into a group with those two luminaries! As for being called a "debunker," I again remind you that only bunk can be debunked. Finally, as for your points -- I'll acknowledge one as being valid as soon as you make a valid point.

I base my opinions on the SI staff on their essays. As has been explained to you at least once already, people who write for SI are not "SI staff" (in general). They are a wide variety of different authors, researchers, etc.
Right here in this room, we've been talking about Skeptic's Dictionary's entry on Jane Roberts. As has, again, been pointed out to you at least once, there is no "Skeptic's Dictionary entry on Jane Roberts." She was mentioned briefly in the entry on channeling, and also in the entry on reincarnation.

[MEBuckner]

Is James Randi no more than a "debunker"?

Years ago, I read a short fiction story he published in Omni called "Lesson One". Unfortunately, I no longer have a copy; a web search indicates that Randi did publish a story by the title in the January 1980 edition of Omni. Going from memory, the story went something like this: A magician (prestidigitator) was teaching a class on stage magic. At the end of the class, one student raises his hand, and asks "Yes, but what about the real magic?" The teacher sighs, and replies that there is no such thing. Later, the teacher finds the student in a classrom (the teacher hears something strange or smells a strange odor), concentrating on a pencil on a desk. As the teacher watches, the pencil begins to lift off the table. The teacher then sits down with the student, and together they begin levitating the pencil together--now, of course, the teacher is the student, and the student is the teacher. That's all; it was a pretty short little story, IIRC.

Of course, this doesn't mean Randi believes in telekinesis--the story was clearly labeled as fiction (unlike some of the things Omni published about ESP and faces on Mars and other woo-woo subjects). But I think it's clear the man who wrote that story might like to discover something as amazing as real psychic powers, even if he's never done so.

[hansel]

Jeremy, you seem to depend quite a lot on the idea that a skeptic will dismiss certain ideas unreasonably, by saying things like people hearing voices are frauds or just hallucinating. Let's call these ideas out-of-scope for the skeptic; she just can't consider them. You've suggested cognitive dissonance as a mechanism for that dismissal - that skeptics are simply unable to process certain ideas outside of their worldview, like evil spirits and such.

I think that you're mistaking the skeptical perspective in this way: a skeptic is not necessarily incapable of considering out-of-scope ideas, so much as skepticism has taught her that some ideas are not worth considering, namely those ideas so low in the hierarchy of plausibility or probability that they're a waste of time. This says nothing about her ability to process such ideas, only that she has no motivation to do so.

The idea that Mrs. S.A. was contacted by evil spirits, and that schizophrenia resulted, or that Jane Roberts was in touch with supernatural beings, isn't impossible for me to comprehend. I just don't bother trying to, because in each case the balance of evidence is against that possibility. Spiritualists have been widely demonstrated to be con men and hucksters and self-delusional. Mrs. S.A. developed signs of schizophrenia, was treated for schizophrenia, and got better, which demonstrates a well-known medical condition called "late onset schizophrenia". Generally, the rationalist, naturalist approach of science has yielded tremendous dividends, materially and intellectually, for making sense of and coping with the world in which I live.

In comparison, superstition and spiritism seem like quaint and mistaken attempts to do the same, and have been rightfully and usefully discarded in favour of better methods of understanding the world, namely skepticism.

[Jeremytt]

Originally posted by JDeMobray
Originally posted by Jeremytt
Benetoir:one other point. You admitted possible COGNITIVE DISSONANCE in the skeptic community....Similarly, Susan Blackmore and Susan Sontag's essays in NOT NECESSARILY THE NEW AGE..were 2 out of only 3 essays I found completely unbiased....Do you think it's possible that, by nature, the female animal is less rigid-minded, more open and receptive to ideas?...(No wonder I love women so much) :)

This, on the other hand, is worse than off-topic. It's meaningless speculative gobbeldygook. Really, if you want to discuss wheather men are from venus or whatever move it to a different thread. It has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, and there are still so many points from page 1 in particular, that haven't been adressed.
Good gracious, Mobray, what a sourpuss you are! The female/male comparison is a tangent, admittedly, but it has to do with skepticicsm in general...

I'll get back to the rest of you. The attendant intellectual ideas here are easier than the cutting/pasting/quoting, etc!

[betenoir]

Originally posted by Jeremytt
Hello, folks!

Benetoir wrote: Your problem seems to be with Cognitive Dissonance. You bring up a good point. Cognitive Dissonance does effect skeptics too. It's something I think
we need to look out for. It's something we cannot pretend we are immune from.

Thank you, Bentetoir. So far, you're the only "skeptic" who's admitted that. :)

Many of the chatters seem to think this Cognitive Dissonance is a willful process. It isn't really. A person cannot accept a conflicting believe not because they don't WANT to, but because they CANNOT.

Well, thank YOU. However the rest of my point was that skeptisim was, if not perfect vaccine againts congnative dissonance, the best defense we have. Cognitive dissonance may not be a willful process but skepticism and the habits of mind it encourages (reserving judgement, seeking and weighing evidence) are. And these are exactly the habits of mind that help people overcome their tendency to cling to a belief system at odd with the evidence.

In fact I'd say your characterization of cognative dissonance seems a tad fatalistic. We CANNOT accept an idea that contradicts our belief system? People do it all the time. Skepticism encourages it.



Finally, more about the differences between the 2 skeptics. A simple, theoretical test. (You have to be honest with yourself on this one) Suppose, for the sake of argument, you witnessed a geniune demonstration of telekinesis. The subject was muzzled, naked, and hands shackled..but the target MOVED.

A truthseeker would leave the room, baffled, very badly shaken (belief systems don't come down easily), but reluctantly admit he had witnesses genuine telekinesis.

A "debunker" would leave the room, baffled, absolutely certain he had been "tricked".


Oh for goodness sake. I agree with JonF, there is certainly a third catagory beyond "absolutely certain" and "reluctantly admitting". "Reluctantly admitting" is a terrible idea, considering how often intelligent, not particularly credulous people have been impressed by some demonstration that latter turned out to be a trick.

And I can't imagine Randi, who you put firmly in the debunking/non-truthseeking column, leaving there thinking "I know I have been tricked" but rather "What test can I devise to see if there is a trick here?" There's a world of difference between those two thoughts.




One final test--this time with cognitive dissonance..go home to your loved one and tell him/her this--you have found irrefutable evidence of the existance of GOD...(heh heh)

Watch with relish the utter disbelief on his/her face. This is cognitive dissonance.

Perhaps it is. But if he's a good skeptic, after the look will be the question "And what is the nature of your proof, darling?"


(PS Not to seem petty but, if you love me so much, could you please spell my name right at least once? :))

[David B]

MEBuckner said:
But I think it's clear the man who wrote that story might like to discover something as amazing as real psychic powers, even if he's never done so.I would say this is true for most of us horrible evil debunkers. I would personally love to find out that some of this stuff is true. Alas, I cannot make myself believe just because I want it to be so.

[Jeremytt]

David, I have to digress for one moment, for a reason you'll plainly see in a moment. Will you permit me?

During this whole thread, something vaguely wrong has been bothering me. I only realize today what it was.

Most of my posts, if not all, are abstract in nature. My opinion, my assessments, etc.

Most of the forum chatters seem to be scientists, or science-minded people. Such people, working with data all their lives, and proof, facts, figures, graphs, etc, would necessarily, I Believe, think in more concrete terms.

I wasn't really interested in discussing skepticism in terms of scientific proof, investigations, etc, but rather, discussing skepticism in terms of abstract thought such as cognitive dissonance, rigid-mindedness, selective reasoning, blanket statements, unsupported conclusions, etc. As such, I think I have stumbled into the wrong room, and I apologize for wasting your time.

Thank you for allowing me to express my views...

[Kyberneticist]

You're mostly right in your assessment. However, I can't imagine where you could go to find a chat room where people would allow you to make statements about biases and unsupport conclusions without expecting you to provide evidence for your statements.

Yes, theoretically, a skeptic could be susceptible to these things, but if you are going to make claims about it being a trend in skepticism you'd darn well better have data to support that trend.

I wish you luck in finding your own cozy group of skeptic haters, I'd recommend trying to find a parapsychology message.
Here, this one is empty, maybe you could start a discussion in it. :)
http://www.zeal.com/category/category_forum.jhtml?cid=9274

[Kyberneticist]

Ick. That's what happens when I try to dash off a message before heading for home.
That should be "parapsychology message board."
And those two sentences should not be joined with a comma.
And there was a spelling error in the paragraph above it.
and...
Oh, I give up.

[Captain Amazing]

Well, Jeremy, what I think some people are trying to tell you is that you're not really interested in discussing skepticism. You're interested in discussing narrow mindedness, and how we come to accept or reject certain beliefs. That's what I got out of your OP, anyway, but, untill you stop saying "Skeptics are bad because they're narrow minded", which is the impression I think a lot of people thought, all that will happen is, you'll have skeptics saying, "You don't understand skepticism, and we're not really narrow minded", and we'll never get on to the things you seem to be interested in.

[Jeremytt]

Originally posted by Captain Amazing
You're interested in discussing narrow mindedness, and how we come to accept or reject certain beliefs.

Captain Amazing: I couldn't have said it better. You have it 100% correct.

Kyber: you are mistaken. I have found much merit in skeptics' investigations.

Unfortunately, I think I'm in the wrong place. Sorry to waste your time.

[Lemur866]

And that giant sucking sound you all hear is Jeremy's OP being retracting....

[dal_timgar]

to people that haven't tried it.

i started researching the occult in 1974 after someone loaned me the book THE ULTIMATE FRONTIER. i tried a stupid experiment. i've heard voices. now of course you can conclude i'm crazy. that is the point of this, people cannot know what is going on in someone elses brain/mind.

i did not say HELL was the correct translation of SHEOL only that is the one made in english bibles. in greek bibles it is HADES, but greek mythology had no heaven. the translations in my cruden's concordance is "place of the dead" that is similar to what is in my encyclopedia britannica. random house gives 2 definitions 'dwelling place of spirits' and hell.

these arguments/discussions can go on forever, people rationalize and justify their own BELIEF systems. how do you make a judgement on them? atheists and anti-religious say religion evolved from superstition but i could never buy that argument. the religions are too complicated and have numerous comonalities when you dig deep enough. religious leaders have done enough stupid nonsense to alienate almost anyone that can think their way ou of a paper bag so the atheists have significant grounds to be pi$$ed off. that is why i look at religion as religious power games. some people do want to play mind games on dummies and cause confusion but i think there is something REALLY THERE to cause confusion about. you may run across something called the battle between the sons of light and the sons of darkness. confusion is one way to maintain darkness. you're stuck sorting it out for yourself.

i've suggested books b4 check them or not, your choice.

Dal Timgar

p.s. plus a lot of discussions turn into ego games. some people don't care about figuring things out, just winning. by their definition.