I don’t recall seeing board skeptics on matters of science/alleged paranormal phenomena saying there was no evidence that would ever convince them that they were wrong.
Good reproducible evidence would convince virtually anyone, including hardened, mean, anti-woo slinging skeptics.
So I don’t believe you Peter, but if you can demonstrate your claim that there’s a class of “less good skeptics” on the Dope that are unwilling to be convinced by good evidence, I’ll start believing you. 
Yeah, well, I could do so. But I know from long experience that the less good skeptics would reject the evidence.
So it’s the mark of a less good skeptic to hold a view and reject without attempts to see and understand any alternatives, but acceptable to hold a view and reject without attempts to see and understand any alternatives?
Honestly, “I know that you are wrong, I don’t need to see any demonstrations, there’s nothing that will convince me” in terms of already having made up one’s mind with uninterest and even disdain for potential alternatives seems pretty equivalent to “But I know from long experience that the less good skeptics would reject the evidence”. I’m not sure you can say that to dimiss out of hand is a poor mark against you, and then dismiss out of hand. If you’re supposed to keep an open mind, you’re supposed to keep and open mind, surely?
No, it’s just that I have long experience of dealing with the less good skeptics, And they always accept their faith above evidence.
I don’t see the difference. You’re saying, as I understand it, that they are less good skeptics because they have basically already made up their minds, and they turn up their nose at any evidence that might show them to be wrong. They believe, without even looking at what this evidence might be, they their opponents are wrong, simply for being who they are and believing what they do; they are so certain they simply don’t care about evidence to the contrary.
That seems to be a pretty good summary of your own opinion in this particular case. You’ve already made up your mind, you’re turning up your nose at evidence, you believe they will act one way, because of who they are and what they believe, and you won’t look at potential evidence to the contrary. They always act this way; why do you need to bother yourself with evidence this time around?
Look at it this way; the argument you use there has been used against you, in this very thread. That their opinion of you and their experience of you allows them to make such assumptions about you and your arguments. Now, don’t get me wrong, i’m not agreeing with them - but it seems to me that you cannot crusade for open-mindedness, a fair and reasonable response to new evidence, a state of mind that says “I am willing to look at evidence that might prove me wrong”, and then say “they always accept their faith above evidence”. You can’t say “Don’t assume things about me or my points, don’t let your beliefs go untested. Please, judge what I say on its own merits, not your biases”, and then (to paraphrase) “Oh, those types always act this way. I don’t need to see new evidence”.
It seems to me that I have met few skeptics at SDMB. How often to you see posts from someone with “suspended judgment”?
Dio is the opposite of a skeptic. Maybe Gary is as close as we will get. I would have to go back and read Irishman’s posts more carefully. I know that he makes every effort to be fair and he’s very rational. Mr. Mapcase I am biased about. I never trust writers to be skeptics. (Watch him tell me that he writes for JAMA or something similar.) Czarcasm, you are disqualified for one of the same reasons as Mr. Mapcase.
{b]Mr. Mapcase**, I would be on a first name basis with you, but soon, I might call you by your first initial as I sometimes do. Then it would be “Ah, Sweet Mr. E. of life, etc.” and that’s a horrible song. So let’s just leave it alone. But thank you for the loan of the uh Webster’s. It settled everything nicely.
Marley, thank you for your responses. BTW, I have used “kiddo” with just about everyone I know for years and years including a 90 year old buddy. I was called that as a child by one of my favorite adults and took a liking to it. I call my grown granchildren that. It was not intended as a put down. Friends also call me “kiddo.” It is not uncommon where I live, but not an everyday nickname either. Sorry if it offended.
Funny that. When I suggested ridiculing niqabs, I was told it was rude and insensitive.
In what way? Seriously, what evidence have I rejected? My critics have presented no evidence, just made absurd claims that contradict the facts.
I mean just look at the woo-woo=vagina discussion. I have presented actual evidence to support my statement. The word woo-woo does mean female genitals. There’s plenty of other cites supporting this. My opponents simply ignore the evidence. All they do is claim they’re right, with NO evidence at all to support their position.
And that is the way it usually happens. They have faith, and their faith outweighs the evidence.
It’s not that I believe they will act this way. It’s that they HAVE acted this way.
I haven’t said that. I’m always willing to look at evidence.
What I said was that *they *are refusing to look at evidence and *they *always act this way.
I suppose that whoever made that decision did not want the SDMB to appear to be culturally insensitive to “other” cultures.
It really often depends, I think, on the moderator making the decision at the time. I agree that it is probably insensitive to ridicule any culture’s clothing. But I also think that it is insensitive to call someone “white trash.” Others think that it is a racial slur. Some say that it doesn’t go that far.
It just isn’t easy to decide those things. But “insensitive” – yes, it is that. But I don’t know that there are rules here against insensitivity. Just harassment and hate speech.
I’m glad I’m not a mod.
If someone dresses as a pink penguin wearing a tutu to go to work, if I see them, I am going to laugh out loud. If they then tell me they dress that way because the god they worship requires it, I am going to break down in hysterics. Sorry, that’s just the way I roll.
This;
Jackmannii suggested you present evidence of your own to show there are “less good skeptics” on the Dope (not the evidence in question). You said, to paraphrase, that you could take up such a suggestion, but providing that evidence would be a waste; it wouldn’t be agreed with.
The evidence that you have rejected is the results of you bringing your own evidence to show that there are “less good skeptics” on the board. This evidence has the potential (however slight) of proving you wrong in your opinion; those you consider less good skeptics might well take your evidence to heart. You reject that notion, declaring that you know, in advance, what the results of such an endeavour would be.
It’s both. Believing that they have acted this way would be one thing. But you used your understanding of their past behaviour to excuse you from looking at evidence in the present. Your belief that they will act one way was used to point out why you needn’t do as **Jackmannii **suggested.
Then why declare you know what the results would be to a test in advance? Why say that you needn’t search for evidence because you know in advance what the results would be?
Woo: “This is what I believe.”
Skeptic: “Where is the evidence?”
Woo: “There is lots of evidence all around!”
Skeptic: “Alrighty then-please show me your evidence.”
Woo: “If I show it to you, you are just going to reject it out of hand, because you are not a true skeptic!”
Skeptic: “You are woo.”
You missed the last step:
Woo: “This is what I believe.”
Skeptic: “Where is the evidence?”
Woo: “There is lots of evidence all around!”
Skeptic: “Alrighty then-please show me your evidence.”
Woo: “If I show it to you, you are just going to reject it out of hand, because you are not a true skeptic!”
Skeptic: “You are woo.”
Woo: “HATE SPEECH! Stop oppressing me with your hate speech! Hate speecher! I need to be protected from your hate speech! Mommy! He said hate speech at me!”
There was recently a big assed sink hole in Guatemala. You may have seen the extraordinary pictures. The pictures were so extraordinary that many in the skeptic camp assumed them to be photoshoped or otherwise manipulated. It has happened before.
The cool thing was that once the photographs were shown to be accurate, skeptics made fun of their automatic incredulity.
I think Marcello is building an edifice of strawmen.
Skeptics do not in my experience say that their questions and objections constitute “disproof” of someone’s claims.
And contrary to his implication, a skeptic pointing out a flaw in a case report or study of a phenomenon does not have to bear a “burden of proof” similar to that of the individual(s) reporting the phenomenon. It comes close to saying that once an experimental result is obtained, those questioning the conclusions are obligated to “disprove” the findings by doing their own studies. While it’s nice if skeptical researchers have the money and time to refute a particular example of woo, most have more rewarding work that demands their attention, and they have no obligation to waste time on likely unfruitful lines of inquiry.
For example, if you publish an unblinded study of six patients purporting to show that a homeopathic dilution of arsenic cures cancer and the study is riddled with design flaws, critics will properly point out the flaws and doubt the findings (there being an enormous base of doubt already, because homeopathy is nonsensical woo at its finest). The skeptics are not obligated to go out and recruit patients for their own study of the homeopathic arsenic cure; rather the experimenter making the claim needs to conduct a proper trial before his claims can begin to be accepted.
When the “true skeptic” (gotta love how people wrangle over what’s “true” as opposed to “pseudo/false” skepticism) is faced with yet another in an endless series of sloppy, poorly documented claims for a phenomenon that violates well-established physical/chemical laws, there is ample justification for reminding people of the underlying bullshit and requesting yet again evidence to back the claim.
When an antivaxer comes out with the latest alarmist crapola about how vaccines contain aborted baby parts, curdled wombat toes and antifreeze, I’m not going to respond that “the claim is not proved”. Stronger language is called for, despite how it may discomfit the wooist.
Those who are “reporting the phenomenon” should be under no obligation to provide proof at all. If they offer an opinion, you can ask for their reasoning, but you can’t expect people to be eloquent and authoritative on every topic they have an interest in. Sometimes, the demands made by skeptics are ridiculous, asking for proofs that if they were readily available, the subject wouldn’t even be under debate.
Well, it would be, because that’s the nature of discussions where nobody can say they have all the answers, but the debate would take a different path.
Like, say for instance Cheney said he had conclusive evidence of a shadow govt. conspiracy involved in the events of 9/11, all the people who say they know what happened on 9/11 would switch positions with the ones who have been saying they are wrong.
There go those goalposts again. Forget proof-can you provide credible evidence? And if you are going to make a claim, not speculation, but a claim that something or someone is defying science and/or logic as we know it, you damn well better have something more than “secret evidence you are not worthy of.”
Those yellow letters in the red band at the top of the page do not say “MEETING IGNORANCE HALF-WAY SINCE 1973”
You think so?
We might, um, actually ask first to see that “conclusive evidence”. Once we stopped laughing, that is.
What you describe as “less good skeptics” aren’t skeptics at all. They’re just pushing a different belief system.
Gary, I think he means “self-identified skeptics”. Basically, anyone can claim to be a skeptic. Look in this thread, Peter himself has already claimed to be a skeptic. Or “sceptic” if you’re from the UK.
His criticism is that not all self-identified skeptics are actually being skeptical, but rather refusing to consider the possibility. They’re not just asking for evidence, they’re unwilling to consider the evidence presented and dismissing the claimants out of hand.
Whether or not that is an accurate summary is a different argument.