I am surprised at Cecil Adams. He might be brilliant, but he understands human nature less than an idiot.
He continually, and most especially, quotes the Skeptical Inquirer as if the magazine is fact. That’s unbelievably narcissistic, and the exact same thing creationists do when they quote the Bible!
Doesn’t he know that the word of the Skeptical Inquirer, whose whole existance is devoted to debunking, isn’t worth a hill of beans?
Just as Christians only read the Christian Science Monitor, only skeptics read Skeptical Inquirer.
A link to the column is appreciated. I couldn’t find a column by Cecil that matches your description, so I am assuming you refer to the Staff Report What’s the story on “ganzfeld” experiments?
You seem to have the wrong idea about The Christian Science Monitor. Most Christians I know do not read it, no one I know reads it exclusively, and not all its readers are Christian by any means. I am a god-fearing atheist and I have been known to read it frequently. It is a good and dependable source for international news stories, just as the Skeptical Inquirer is a good and dependable source for debunking bullshit.
One might also point out – parenthetically – that the Christian Science movement is, at best, only marginally Christian, and 100% opposed to mainstream Xtianity on many fundamental issues. However, the Monitor doesn’t, as a rule, get involved in religious doctrine at all.
As to the original point, the readership of Skeptical Inquirer is not the point; the questions to be asked are:
Is it known use authoritative sources?
Is it known to be honest?
Is it known to use valid reasoning?
All else is (to use a fine old British word) bumph.
Welcome to the SDMB, and thank you for posting your comment.
Please include a link to the appropriate column if it’s on the straight dope web site.
To include a link, it can be as simple as including the web page location in your post (make sure there is a space before and after the text of the URL).
The column can be found on-line at the link provided by bibliophage.
I think you all missed the point. What I am saying is a comment on human nature.
Someone listening to an argument isn’t likely to be swayed by a publication that matches the opponent’s viewpoint. If you are in a religious argument with a Muslim, you are not likely to be impressed by quotes from the Koran. Also, an atheist isn’t likely to be impressed when Christians quote the Bible to support their arguments.
As such, truth-seekers, as I call myself, aren’t likely to be swayed by quoting the Bible, the Christian Science Monitor, the Koran, or the Skeptical Inquirer. The thing is, that all these publications are biased, and have an ax to grind.
The whole raison d’etre of the Skeptical Inquirer is to debunk. While this might be interesting to other skeptics, the rest of us just shake our heads. No one is likely to be convinced of anything by quoting this extremely biased magazine…except other skeptics.
Jeremytt, I’m at a complete loss as to what your arguement means. If the Skeptical Inquirer, or, frankly, the National Enquirer, uses scientific, reproducable, documented methods to investigate something, I’d certainly use it as a source. Are you claiming they don’t?
You’re assuming that a quote from the SI is an appeal to authority. It isn’t, it’s referencing research, and as such is very useful in answering questions. Please note the “Fighting Ignorance” message on the home page of this site.
Well, what a nice way to introduce yourself to the Straight Dope Message Board!
Actually, that’d be me that you’re talking about, not the Master. But thanks for the confusion – I can’t think of a higher compliment.
Now, you seem to be a bit confused. I quote from the Skeptical Inquirer because the articles are well-researched, well-thought-out, and generally well-regarded. In other words, it is a good source of information in the battle against ignorance.
Actually, it’s nothing at all like that. Creationists reference the Bible instead of actual evidence. I reference Skeptical Inquirer specifically because it contains evidence.
And you have the facts to back that up, right?
Only doctors read the New England Journal of Medicine. Does that mean it’s a worthless source of information?
Funny, that’s just what I was about to say to you.
Jeremytt went on to add:
So what? When I, as a member of the Straight Dope Science Advisory Board, field a question, my goal is to get the right answer. I’m not going to ignore good sources just because somebody, somewhere might have a grudge against that particular source.
And I’m not impressed with your use of nothing to support your arguments.
If you were, indeed, a “truth-seeker,” then you would be swayed by evidence, which is found in abundance within the pages of the Skeptical Inquirer. So far you’ve posted two messages on this subject and have yet to actually include anything to support your claim that the Skeptical Inquirer is not a valid reference.
So is The Straight Dope – we’re biased against ignorance. Deal with it.
First, remember that you cannot debunk that which is not bunk. Second, that isn’t the whole reason for its existence anyway – it exists to foster scientific investigation.
Yes, I thought I heard something rattling…
Certainly nobody is going to be convinced by your ranting without actually providing evidence to back up your claims.
Oh, and here’s something for you to look forward to: My next Staff Report features citations from Skeptical Inquirer, Skeptic magazine, The Skeptic’s Dictionary, and two books written by well-known skeptics. The horror!
Just a friendly reminder from the Forum Administrator: personal attacks and vitriol should be put in the forum called “BBQ Pit.” If you want to challenge (or defend) sources in an air of respectful debate, that’s fine for this forum. There’s a fuzzy grey line out there somewhere, and I want to remind all the combatants to please stay on this side of that line in this forum.
First of all, I’m both pleased and amused at the can of worms I’ve opened! I just reread my original post, and I am surprised at how strong my language is. I was just speaking from a viewpoint of exasperation. However, I didn’t mean to offend anyone. Let’s put down our gun, and chat.
I think we are talking about apples and oranges. I wasn’t really referring to the veracity of SI investigations. I was merely referring to the wisdom of quoting it.
Neurolinguists have a term called “cognitive dissonance”. This mean, briefly, that when someone is confronted with a fact that interferes with their belief system, it won’t be accepted. For example, you can’t talk civil rights with someone who uses the n-word, and Christians will never be convinced of a biological origin of homosexuality. You wouldn’t be able to convince Cecil of the merits of cats. It interferes with belief systems, and that’s human nature. We can accept human nature, or we cannot.
The trouble is, the word “skeptic” to most Americans has very negative connotations. If you don’t believe me, just ask 100 people on the street their opinions on skeptics, and be prepared to hear some pretty strong opinions! They’re seen as narrow-minded naysayers, and anything skeptics say to most people “interferes with their belief systems”, and won’t be accepted.
Funny thing. Perception is everything. Case in point: the OJ trial. Never mind overwhelming evidence–the LAPD was “seen” as being racist tamperers. You don’t need facts in the court of public opinion. You only need to convince the jury.
Example 2: Apple computers are “seen” as slow. Never mind the fact that, tit for tat, their processors are faster. Steve Jobs,“Appearances are everything”. Facts are nothing. Apple sales and market share remains flat.
In this tradition, SI’s investigation would have been taken as fact if it had been done by almost any other magazine: Omni, Science, Discover, et al. But the simple fact that SI investigated it will cause almost all Americans not to accept it as fact. That ugly word, “skeptic” again. Cognitive dissonance…the PERCEPTION of bias…never mind the facts…
Cecil’s column touts “enlightening minds since 1972”. A big part of that seems to be persuading people. Do yourself a favor. Don’t quote SI in order to be taken seriously by most of America.
Actually, I strongly suspect that “almost all Americans” have never even heard of SI.
The goal of the Straight Dope is to fight ignorance (not “enlightening minds”). If SI happens to have an article that does the best job of it, so be it. Where else would you normally find articles on Ganzfeld experiments, the “face” on Mars, etc.? Fate magazine?
If somebody wants to come here and argue on the merits of an article, that’s one thing. But to argue that we shouldn’t use certain references because they are good references, but some people won’t like 'em, is just plain ridiculous.
I think Jeremyttdoes have a point – which he manages to communicate in his third post in this thread. It is hard to know how to approach ignorance when it is not a simple lack of information, but rather cognitive dissonance or worse, wilful ignorance. Finding a way to get inside a person in order to get them to confront conflicts in their world-view is tricky. If Cecil referred only or mainly to the Skeptical Inquirer in his columns, he would be less persuasive than he is. But his rhetorical skills are appropriate to the task: many and varied.
David B has a different audience for his mailbag answers (am I right in thinking these appear only on line?) and it is appropriate that he uses different methods of persuading his readers. Most readers here need to be informed more than persuaded. Most of them come to this site on a regular basis and can be counted on to have a view of the SI which is not dismissive. If they do have problems they can post on the boards where they will have to submit to the blow-torch to the belly. Some will shy away and some will stay.
David, I don’t know if you realize this, but you just proved my point.May I quote?
Where else would you normally find articles on Ganzfeld experiments, the “face” on Mars, etc.? Fate
magazine?
End quote.
The fact remains for most of us (including you) that FATE magazine is “seen” by most of us as being a Fringe magazine (including me). Would it be wise to quote from it?
Congratulations on making no sense at all, Jeremy.
Yes, Fate is a fringe magazine. Skeptical Inquirer is not. So what, exactly, is your point?
Again, to argue that we should avoid using certain good sources just because somebody, somewhere, might not like it is just plain ridiculous.
Now, if you have an argument based on actual merit, I’d love to hear it. But so far, your argument seems to be based on “they might not like it” – which isn’t much of an argument at all.
Seems to me that there are some resources that Staff tend to use fairly often. When it comes to word origins, we rely heavily on Evan Morris’ Word Detective, or Patridge, or the OED, for instance. When it comes to historical questions, we’ve often used Encyclopedia Britannica. For urban legends, we often rely on snopes or Brunvand. When it comes to questions about the paranormal, Skeptical Inq is a respected and notable source.
When it comes to “Best Kept Secret of WWII: Hitler was a Woman”, of course, we go to the National Enquirer.
Anyway, my point is that we have some good resources for certain types of questions, and we use them. We wouldn’t go to Skeptical Inq for questions about word origins, and we wouldn’t go to TAROT WEEKLY for information about much of anything.
Hello again. I would be happy to answer your question about where to go for answers for paranormal questions…
Almost any other science magazine would do. Omni, Science, Scientific American, Discover. You could also check the files of the (aphasia attack here)…I think it’s named the Society for the Scientific Research of the Paranormal…funny, I’ve blocked out the exact name. Do you know the Society of which I’m referring?
To the other poster…I have seriously considered writing a letter suggesting a name change for SI. I believe they could call themselves Scientific Inquirer, or some such, and there’d me MUCH less cognitive dissonance. Or your idea for the magazine might do. Like it or not, folks, there really are strong negative connotations in America to the word “skeptic”. Especially in the South, and parts of the Midwest, where they like their skeptics over easy, with a side of bacon.
Thanks again for the opportunity to voice my opinion.
I just realized that I failed to address one of your other points, David.
Fate magazine is “seen” as a fringe magazine by most of us. But Skeptical Inquirer is also “seen” by quite a few people as a fringe magazine (I may or may not agree. My opinion on that is moot)
My point is that quoting the SI won’t be BELIEVED. You DO want to be believed, don’t you? Surely you do. Otherwise, you wouldn’t write this column.
How many articles on Ganzfeld and/or the “face” on Mars have there been in any of those magazines? Go ahead – check and get back to me.
Incidentally, Omni is, I believe, out of business – and when they were in business, their articles on fringe science were about as believeable as those in Fate.
Why? How do I know how reliable this group is? You still have not given a legitimate reason to use something other than Skeptical Inquirer, except that you believe some people won’t listen 'cus they don’t like it.
I don’t know of anybody who sees SI as a “fringe” magazine. I know of some people who don’t like it because they don’t like skeptics. Tough shit. Some people don’t like Cecil 'cus he debunks stuff, too. That’s their problem, not ours.
The people who won’t believe me when I’m quoting SI won’t believe me when I debunk them no matter what sources I use. Do you really think that the True Believers will suddenly say, “Oh, well, if it was in Discover magazine, then I guess I was wrong…”? Hell, no!
I write the answers to help fight ignorance. Some people revel in their ignorance, though. If they want to argue against SI, then let them come here and argue. If they want to ignore me, then nothing I say will change their minds anyway.
Incidentally, it occurs to me that you picked an awfully strange Staff Report to use as your model of a complaint about Skeptical Inquirer, since the person posing the question specifically asked about the people who publish that magazine!
Actually, it’s nothing at all like that. Creationists reference the Bible instead of actual evidence. I reference Skeptical Inquirer specifically because it contains evidence.