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?
Thank you for your patience. Multiple posting isn’t easy for the computer novice! Now then…
David posted:
David, I will answer with another member’s quote: Spiritus Mundi said:
David, it appears that one of your own people reached the same conclusion…
AeryonSon said:
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:
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:
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:
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…
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.
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…
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
[QUOTE]
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?* [/QUOTE]
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”.
**
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?
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.
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. . .
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
Hello, folks!
Benetoir wrote:
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:
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:
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.
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)
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.
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.