FYI, I believe it was The Black Widowers Club.
That’s the first name that came to my mind, but for some reason I wasn’t sure that was it. Thanks.
Yeah, why can’t we just discuss why Arcanum doesn’t play right for me without getting into my computer specs and hardware capabilities. I mean it isn’t like they’re at all related. . .
I can completely understand and accept that.
Now why is it Randi still has his million dollars?
As tragic is this is, this is her choice. Feel free to attempt to expose such people to other alternatives, but remember, in the end - it is the individual’s choice.
They sound pretty low to me, but unless they forced her to give them money, she MADE her choice. For all we know, she sought them out. In America, people are entitled to make bad choices in peace, as long as they don’t pester the rest of us.
Once again, people are allowed to make bad choices. If these choices do not infringe on your rights, you just have to allow people to make them. Sure, you can try to tell them how you feel, (and I don’t blame you) but there’s always a point where it is beyond useless, and you are only being a pest.
There have been many lawsuits and discussions on this issue. If this kid wasn’t allowed traditional medical treatment because of his parents’ beliefs, that is a problem, because the parents’ “crackpot” beliefs infringed on another human’s - their son. If this kid was of legal age, and made his own decision, it was his decision, tragic as it was.
I understand your frustration, and I share it with many of these issues. However, this does not excuse, nor explain some people’s obnoxious and arrogant attitudes towards anyone who they deem to be “crackpot”. And my point is - that unless you feel there is some compelling evidence that someone’s beliefs are hurting someone else, (or possibly themselves, in the case of life-or-death, or losing their life savings) then perhaps you should consider minding your own business.
After all, think of it this way - if 90% of the people in America believe in some sort of diety, that makes the other 10% to be the “odd man out” or the “crackpots”, right? So do you want more of the 90% pestering you and annoying you, for “your own good”? I know that a certain faction of the deists already DO pester those who do not believe - do you like this? Do you appreciate their efforts? After all, they are fighting this fight because they believe they are helping you (the collective you), and “saving your soul”.
What makes you think that you are any different, if you were to pester people who believe in things you don’t agree with? Why should they think you are any different than the annoying, preachy deists who are trying to “convert” everyone?
Well, you are not alone in this feeling. Deists and “crackpots” feel just as strongly as you do, I am sure. Some of them believe that their particular beliefs and insights will enhance humanity, bring more health and quality of life. They believe that they have some of the answers to the universe, they feel they have discovered new realities, and all some of them want to do for you is to share their pearls of wisdom. So this is why they fight. They just want to help you - see? See? It’s all for your own good. See? See?
As far as I am concerned, we’d all be better off trying to be less intrusive, and less annoying to each other. I’m not suggesting that you stop trying to discuss these issues with “crackpots”. But there is a difference between “discussing” something with someone who is interested, or telling someone about your concerns. It’s worth a shot, and you are of course free to express yourself. But there is a point where you are just irritating someone who is minding their own business. They have made their choice, they aren’t bothering or hurting anyone, and all they want is to be left alone. I say - leave 'em alone.
My, isn’t this an interesting topic!
Anyway, I have little to add to the current slant, that I hadn’t foisted upon you already, but I felt I must add this tidbit, in regards to the “danger” posed by frauds and charlatans:
“And a former Atlantic City, N.J., man sued boardwalk fortune-teller Sole Mio Balaam Nicola after he had given her $200,000 over a 13-year period, closed his real-estate business, left his wife and moved from the area, all in order to comply with various curse-avoidance behaviors she sold him. (The lawsuit was settled in May).”
Admittedly, the above is snipped from News Of The Weird, and by no means incontestible. Take it at whatever value you deem it.
However, something very similar happened with the Widow of the man who developed the Winchester rifle. (I should know names, but there you go.) After his death, she was advised by a medium/fortune teller that the spirits of the men killed by the Winchester rifle were angry. And that she should use some of the profits to build them a huge house for all the spirits to live in.
So for the next, what, thirty years? She hired an army of contractors to build on the house incessantly. The poor woman was afraid to sleep in the same bedroom two nights in a row (else the ghosts’d get her, don’cha know) and the construction undoubtedly cost her millions- and that’s turn-of-the-century “millions”, too.
Yeah, belief in the paranormal is harmless. What’s it hurt?
I can see three items in this thread that I consider problematic.
The first problem is such broadcasts. Hastur, in the final analysis of the claims, no one really cares who in your opinion is a genuine psychic or not unless you specify what your methods and evidence are. What really counts is the evidence, of which there is none. In almost 150 years of rigorous investigation into all aspects of the paranormal, not one shred of verified proof in the favour of the claimants has emerged. Not one in well over a century of dedicated investigation.
So when you say that in your opinion some psychics are genuine, those who have looked into the matter with a little more thoroughness than the formation of an opinion based on a single individual’s experience are far from impressed. One of the most important rules in this business is: anecdotal evidence is not evidence, because anyone can spin a tale or misinterpret (deliberately or not) what he/she sees. Another paramount rule is the one James Randi exemplifies, which is: almost everyone can be fooled by a clever trickster, which is why it’s very important to have an expert in trickery evaluate the claims alongside the scientists and “experts” in the paranormal.
This is the second problem, and in light of events in the last week it’s a pretty serious one. You are generalizing that all sceptics are venomous, hostile, and hateful, which is bunk. As I and others said, some of us become very irritated with the persistance of ignorance, and sometimes we show it (to our regret, usually). But scepticism is a method, not a position, and as such the nature of a sceptic is subject to the wide range of human behaviour. When you think about it, there are venomous religious leaders as well as kind ones, hateful politicians as well as gentle, and hostile bakers along with the harmless ones. The same goes with sceptics. All sceptics are trying to do is establish the truthfulness of claims. They do this by refusing to believe claims without adequate evidence. You might as well say that all scientists are venomous and hostile because they use the scientific method.
The third problem I see is the usual obsession with religion. In response to Yosemitebabe’s somewhat stinging retort, I don’t find Airman Door’s, USAF claims about the nature of faith unreasonable at all, although they are understandably controversial. He qualified very clearly that faith, to a certain extent, is destructive, etc. He didn’t deny that faith does not have its good sides or its advantages, although the precise extent of such effects varies so greatly that they are difficult to establish reliably. As a parallel, consider that most medicine your doctor prescribes for you actually does your body harm as well as good. No need to get upset about it, it’s just something that everyone ought to be informed about, for medicine as well as religion. The difference between the two fields is that one is documented and supported, the other is not.
Faith is typically instilled through the problematic method of indoctrination, often conducted by important figures in life such as parents or educators. The majority of people who are religious, after all, are the same religion and sect as their parents and, in many cases, their neighbourhoods and even countries. If a substantial amount of people are making a fully informed and researched choice when choosing a religion (or none), and assuming that all religions are equally good and available, we would expect to see more diversification than we see today in practically every country’s native culture.
Yosemitebabe, in response to the claim that religion is indoctrination and many of its adherents make less of a choice than most would like to believe, you say “Maybe some do, but many of us don’t. It’s hard to go through your entire life, adhering to something so specific like a religion, without giving it a “second thought””. While no doubt true, this does not invalidate Airman Doors’s point. For example, growing up in a family or society with a bias towards one religion, whether or not that bias is overt, will typically have a very strong influence on the subject’s examination of the problem, even at a later date–whether or not the subject recognizes or admits this.
I too always insist that religion is a private belief. At the same time, the bold claims made by most religions are subject to legitimate sceptical inquiry if and when they are broadcast and are no longer private belief. Understandably (because faith by definition is the acceptance of claims without supporting evidence), sceptics are not too thrilled when bold religious claims make it out to the public. In the most ruthlessly impartial analysis of the situation, the sceptical method determines that most religious claims are invalid because they are wholly unsupported. Again, this will irritate those of a religious nature, but it shouldn’t. Most sceptics do not engage in such discussions because of hostility or venomousness, but because they are concerned when the public is subjected to claims that are unfounded. It doesn’t make for a good didactic environment.
So: of course some sceptics are jerks. And of course most of us will lose our patience eventually when confronted with the same nonsense repeatedly. That is no reason to categorize all of those who employ scepticism as being “hostile” all the time. You are free to point out when you think someone in particular is being a jerk–you will find that far more productive than making sweeping claims.
This subject comes up every now and then on these boards, under such guises as “why are ‘evolutionists’ so nasty” or “sceptics are close-minded” and so forth. Every single time, a number of people make the case for the sceptical (or the closely related scientific) method. That’s what I mean when I say that many of us are tired of being on chapter one in the tome of basic human knowledge. Hastur, I’ll gladly, give you the benefit of the doubt, but the weakness and generality of your case so far leads me to hypothesize that you had a beef with scepticim or with a particular sceptic, and posted your OP as an attempt to strike back. If I am incorrect please accept my apologies.
My sister is legally blind because of a traditional doctor. In no way was he a “charaltan” doctor. She trusted him, she has permanent nerve damage to her eyes. Don’t you think this issue is more wide-spread than just “crackpots”? The medical profession has major problems, IMO. If there are “doctors” that are deceiving people in the way that you describe (and I appreciate the cite) then something should be done. But of course, something should be done about the kind of doctors who caused my sister’s blindness, too.
I understand that there is some dangerous “Crackpot” healing going on, but I’d like to know where you draw the line. For instance, when I get a cold, I take garlic and echinacea pills, instead of a traditional, over-the-counter medications. Is this “crackpot” enough for you? Wanna wrestle the garlic pills outta my hand? 
(I’m just kidding there, hence the smiley.) I mean, where do you draw the line, and how crackpot is too crackpot, or is there a level of “crackpot” that you will tolerate, and leave alone?
yosemitebabe, I don’t think I understand what you are saying. Are you saying we should sit back idly and watch people make harmful decisions based on anything but silence? Or are you saying that we should try to tell them that they are endangering their lives but shouln’t be obnoxious about it?
And I am also unclear on what exactly being obnoxious entails. Saying
is obviously not the way to go. But in terms of content is it so different from saying
?
It’s true that it’s their choice, but I think everybody has the right to make an informed choice, and I’m convinced that the majority of the people who believe in “paranormal activities” are ignorant of real science, and need to be informed.
silence=science
Information–that which eludes so many in this world. Charlatans always prey on the ignorance and gullibility of others. Ignorance and gullibility result from lack of reliable information, not from a subject’s eagerness to make a dangerous choice. Everyone is entitled to an informed choice by law. Why do you think that cigarette packs are required by laws around the planet to display clear warnings about the health hazards of smoking? You do not (I hope) expect would-be smokers to hold off smoking for a few weeks while they go to the local library and establish for themselves whether smoking is dangerous?
For you to suggest that fraudulent and dangerous behaviour can be condoned because everyone is entitled to a choice, disregarding whether that choice is informed, is both callous and anti-social. Some people simply don’t know any better, or are so desperate that they will grasp any “remedy” at all, particularly if its efficacy is touted as miraculous by testimonials (how many of the general population are aware that testimonials = anecdotal evidence = unreliable? Fewer than 10% I would wager). The task of those of us who do know better is to prevent these tragedies from happening; we can do this by spreading only accurate information, teaching everyone the value of scepticism, and exposing frauds. We don’t fight ignorance just for the hell of it! Ignorance kills (or harms, at the very least).
No, I have made specific (and several) mentions that when someone feels that another person is in immediate and serious danger, they should speak up.
However, in the end, the choice is the person’s.
I think that a vast majority of “crackpotism” is a milder form. So what if someone enjoys looking at the horoscopes? As long as they are not 1) endangering their health 2) risking their life savings 3) making drastic and bizarre life choices (divorcing their husband, etc.) then leave 'em alone. I have a friend who enjoys astrology, I never have seen her be fall prey to the above three things. So I leave her alone. She also is a pagan who believes in many New Age things I do not believe in. But she’s a reasonably stable person, who manages to get through life OK, and function in society. So why should I try to argue with her about her beliefs? To do so would be…obnoxious, IMO.
There is a huuuuuge difference between “informing” and “pestering”. There is nothing wrong with discussing a particular issue with someone, and mentioning certain scientific facts that you have available to you. If the person was unaware of them, they will probably let you know. And then a discussion can proceed. But if they have already been informed, they know. OK?
Think of it this way: a person starts to smoke, they are told about the dangers of smoking, they are encouraged, cajoled, etc. to stop smoking. Yet they persist to smoke. Do you really believe that they are not “informed” on the dangers of smoking at this point? There comes a time where you are just being an obnoxious pest, when you doggedly try to “inform” someone of something they already know about. They’ve made a bad choice, but it is their choice.
Same goes for religion, and any other faith-based/“crackpot” belief. If the person makes it obvious that yes, they have been exposed to the pearls of wisdom you wish to impart, and no, they really don’t wish to talk about it with you - why pester them? Unless you fear they are hurting someone else, or in a life-or-death situation, of course.
I’d also like to stress that all bets are off once the “crackpot” person comes to you and wishes that you accept and believe their claims. Debate and argue with them all you wish. After all, they started it. But if they are minding their own business…it is an entirely different kettle of fish.
Mean ol’ skeptics, asking for your “proof”. A pox on your evidence! You’re all just nasty!
Abe: Simulpost! 
I believe I have answered most of your questions in my previous post.
Yosemitebabe: yes you did address similar issues I raised in my last post, and it’s amusing we both drew on tobacco to illustrate the argument. I believe that where my thinking differs is that I don’t think it is possible to educate people instanter if they have little previous experience in scepticism. Knowledge tends to go out the window when it contrasts with beliefs, be they on astrology, crystals, pseudo-science, medical quackery, etc.
A person who makes an informed choice needs to be in command of all the facts of the situation. If you go up to a person who is dying of cancer, and who believes that diseases are caused by God, or negative attitudes, bad energy, or any other factors except pathogens, and you then inform her that her particular belief is bunk and she ought to try chemotherapy, that won’t get you very far. Beliefs don’t collapse overnight, but require a concerted program of education to negate them, or at least incorporate them into a more balanced and adjusted view.
I am not sure, but you might refer to this attitude as pestering. Certainly I am of the opinion that you can never have too much accurate information. When it comes to ignorance, what seems harmless today can snowball to something that is extremely harmful tomorrow (for example religion becomes fundamentalism thanks to various social factors, or an apparently harmless liking of horoscopes causes one to lose life savings on the stock market). And the more people let little pieces of ignorance go by unchallenged, the more the ignorance becomes rooted in society, the harder it is to eradicate if it turns to nasty ignorance.
Most people have their quirky beliefs, but it is important to stress to every last member of society what the facts are in order to prevent accidents and thwart frauds.
Most people who smoke, for example, were NOT properly educated on the health hazards of smoking. They hear references to lung cancer, or birth defects, or more such dangers, but feel somewhat removed from them. That’s probably because they lack the full understanding of what tobacco smoke may do to your health. I doubt whether the average person can acquire such understanding in one sitting. Besides, on the subject of smoking, it does little good to you to learn AFTER you are addicted that smoking is harmful. An amazing number of children pick up smoking because they believe it is “cool” and they do not understand the health risks. This belief in “smoking cool” is merely another piece of ignorance that needs to be corrected.
By “pestering” people, there is a chance you can improve the situation, for them or for others. If you pester a smoker about the health hazards of smoking, you may help him build up enough determination to quit, or at the very least not to smoke near others and spare them second-hand smoke. If you pester an astrology or magic nut on the inconsistencies of these wholly unsupported beliefs, you may prevent them being passed on to her daughter or sister (you would thus help reduce the multiplication of ignorance, which in the large scale of things is an admirable thing for society).
Let us not forget about the need to educate the tabula rasa of the easily influenced young also. Such education must take place 24/7 to combat the stream of rubbish that our media and our very own people spew forth every day. That may be regarded as pestering!
I wonder why the O.P. doesn’t ask Cecil Adams?
After all, what are Cecil and his crew if not skeptics fighting to enlighten a public full of credulous believers and the woefully underinformed?
Didn’t he read the purpose of this site? It’s all about “Fighting Ignorance”! That is exactly what skeptics are trying to do!
Sheesh!
Odd that it took so long for me to make the connection.
As I was writing a reply to http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=87966 I was struck by the irony that the Holy Land, the purported Birthplace of Christ, the site of such Sacred Relics as the Wailing Wall and the Black Stone of the Kaaba, is, as a whole, one of the bloodiest, most violent and dangerous places on Earth.
Why?
Because of Faith. Belief. Blind- yes, blind- faith in that which cannot be sensed, touched, detected or proven, but will be defended unto death by all parties.
By extension, 300 are known dead and over 5,000 missing because of faith.
Yup, simple belief is totally harmless, isn’t it?
Abe, you bring up excellent points, and I don’t disagree with most of them. Thank you for articulating them very well, you have given me much to contemplate.
I agree that education is important, and this cannot be done overnight. So, a certain amount of subtle, kind and low-key “pestering” is probably necessary, in some instances. But, I will repeat, there comes a point where an attempt to “educate” just become plain old pain-in-the-ass pestering, and “nagging”. It does more harm than good. I’ve seen this with many smokers, for instance. THEY KNOW. THEY KNOW. The more they are nagged, the more they resist the “holier than thou” people who feel like it is their Mission in Life to “save” all smokers. It’s irritating. It’s grating. It’s obnoxious. It doesn’t work, it doesn’t help. Enough is enough. The person has made their choice, leave them in peace with it. They are far more likely to quit cigarettes when they are left alone, and given some breathing room.
I also want to ask certain things, that no one has really answered:
Where do you draw the line on “crackpots”? Am I a crackpot because I take garlic pills for my colds? Is my New Age friend a “crackpot” because she enjoys Astrology, even though she functions well in society? There are many examples of people who live and die with little “crackpot” quirks, but these quirks never escalate to anything dire. Do you feel it is your duty to tirelessly “educate” us, for fear that we will progress into something you deem “dangerous”? Are not adults allowed to have quirks and weird beliefs, and be left alone with them?
And, who gets to decide what is “crackpot”? Most of us can discuss the extreme cases of quackery, where real physical harm is happening. But what about the less extreme cases (that I feel are also quite common)? People who enjoy listening to psychics on TV (John Edwards, etc.), but never invest any money on psychics themselves? People who enjoy consulting their horoscopes? People who buy a lot of health food products, or enjoy aromatherapy, but do not eschew visiting a regular doctor? I know a lot of people like this. (Hell, I am this kind of person, with my garlic pills! ) How do you react to these kinds of people? Are they at terrible risk? Do they need your help?
And we haven’t even gotten to the regular, run-of-the-mill religious person, who goes to church. Perhaps attends Mass each week. Is that not “crackpot” as well? Or not? (And if not, why not?) Do you feel the burning desire to “educate” them, and save them from the errors of their ways? And how far do you go in your attempt to “educate” them? Is there a point where you give up and let them believe what they wish in peace, as long as they are not hurting anyone?
Some think that vegetarians are “crackpots”. More than a few threads have been devoted to this subject. (Oh my word - more than a few!) Do you think vegetarianism is “crackpot”? If not, why not? Many people argue that some of the reasons for vegetarianism (and veganism) are not sound. So they argue, and pester vegetarians, even though the vegetarians in question dearly want to be left alone.
And I’ve already brought up the fact that religious and/or “crackpot” people believe they are right, just as strongly as you do. And they feel obliged to “save” you, just like you feel obliged to “save” them.
Don’t you find it all this “saving” and “pestering” and educating (on both sides) to be rather exhausting? I sure do.
Doc Nickel, I, for one, find it rather appropriate to use the recent tragedy as a means of scoring cheap points in a debate.
Rather INappropriate, of course. It’s been a long day. SPOOFE’ems go beddy-bye, now.
::sigh::
Then my apologies. I considered it relevant at the time, didn’t consider the taste.
And yeah, I figured what you’d meant in the first one.