Is Skepticicm Dangerous?

Great Debates
81

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?

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.

**

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.

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. :slight_smile:

Actually, If there can be said to be proof of God’s existence, the best evidence is most likely the lack of any evidence :slight_smile: 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.

82

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.

83

I am skeptical of this claim

84

Jeremytt said:

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.

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:

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.

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!

And you came to this conclusion by reading a collection of essays? How did you manage that? Mind reading?

Well, 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.

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.

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.

85

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.

86

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.

87

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!

88

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.

**

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.

**

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? :))

89

MEBuckner said:

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.

90

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…

91

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. :slight_smile:
http://www.zeal.com/category/category_forum.jhtml?cid=9274

92

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.

93

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.

94

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.

95

And that giant sucking sound you all hear is Jeremy’s OP being retracting…

96

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.