# Why do we have to take irrational questions seriously in GQ? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [December 21, 2010, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-have-to-take-irrational-questions-seriously-in-gq/564992 "2010-12-21T19:39:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-have-to-take-irrational-questions-seriously-in-gq/564992/61 "2010-12-22T02:28:33Z")
> [@Red\_Barchetta](#): > > His posts certainly add both a good dose of hostility, bitterness, and possess an amazing ability to derail almost any conversation. > > That’s gotta count for something, right? [Moderating] Let’s refrain from taking potshots at other posters in ATMB. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-have-to-take-irrational-questions-seriously-in-gq/564992/62 "2010-12-22T04:14:24Z")
tomndeb: the worst current mod, or the worst mod ever? Discuss. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-have-to-take-irrational-questions-seriously-in-gq/564992/63 "2010-12-22T07:45:38Z")
Rand, as someone who has fought with tom _extensively_ over the years, in public and private (where he responded to an inordinate number of PM’s and emails that he had every right to ignore and/or tell me to go fuck myself over), and while I will probably continue to disagree with him strongly on certain areas… I have to say you are not only in error, but spouting inflammatory nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-have-to-take-irrational-questions-seriously-in-gq/564992/64 "2010-12-22T12:17:27Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > Arguably, factual answers about such things as practiced by believers are possible. Something like “according to the Church of Woo, to raise a ghost one must dance naked in the light of the moon while spanking oneself with a banana” could be a factual description of the ritual without comment on whether such a thing would work–which is obviously won’t, because there are no ghosts. To the contrary, it obviously WOULD work. If you follow the rituals of the Church of Woo exactly, there won’t be any ghosts in the house. 🙂 > [@Dr Deth](#): > > Are we going to say Feng Shui is irrational? How about Accupuncture? Meditation? > [@Diogenese the Critic](#): > > The first two things are irrational … And yet, there’s lots of Feng Shui that is not only rational, but common sense and consistent with good modern decor. See: [What’s the story with feng shui? - The Straight Dope](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2065/whats-the-story-with-feng-shui) > [@](#): > > From one perspective, feng shui is the art of arranging the environment (the exteriors and interiors of buildings, gardens, and even the body) to optimize the impact on the people who live there. … Up to a point, feng shui is just common sense. Take an office. Even a cynical westerner knows that a cramped, cluttered, barren, and uncomfortable workplace can cause a feeling of discomfort or a negative attitude. That negative attitude can affect performance, and the combination of negative attitude and poor performance can affect “luck” such as raises and promotions. > > Compare that to the worker who rearranges his/her workspace, adds a potted plant, and puts a large cheerful picture on the wall across from the desk. That person has a positive attitude, better performance, and lots of luck with raises and promotions. Both the psychologist and the feng shui consultant nod their heads at this point and say, “Well, naturally.” > > Although feng shui is shrouded in mysticism, the practice generally reflects sound principles of interior design. ---
**Author:** ![billfish678](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@billfish678](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/billfish678)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-have-to-take-irrational-questions-seriously-in-gq/564992/65 "2010-12-22T12:42:48Z")
> [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](#): > > And yet, there’s lots of Feng Shui that is not only rational, but common sense and consistent with good modern decor. Reminds me of a line from some sitcom that went something like this : I hate this office. The Feng Shui is awful. All the funiture is set to evil. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-have-to-take-irrational-questions-seriously-in-gq/564992/66 "2010-12-22T14:42:58Z")
I must admit, **Tom’s** ruling that _“The question was asked for a specific answer. Posting lots comments that there are no ghosts is not a legitimate response”_ made me chuckle. The part about “legitimate response” that is. Somehow, I doubted there would be any legitimate “factual” answers forthcoming. I think this is what Dio’s getting at with this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-have-to-take-irrational-questions-seriously-in-gq/564992/67 "2010-12-22T15:41:26Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It is factual to say that ghosts are a physical impossibility. Allow me to observe, _without any claim that ghosts actually exist_, that this is a false statement. It would be quite easy to define conditions in which allowance for hysteresis of the patterns of consciousness _could_ happen. I would not care to be briefed for the argument that it ever does in actuality happen – but “physically impossible” is a very high hurdle. (Request to **Czarcasn** as a strong skeptic to critique this response. Like a palm tree growing in the U.K., the odds against it are astronomically high, but it is not physically impossible. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-have-to-take-irrational-questions-seriously-in-gq/564992/68 "2010-12-22T16:01:20Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Allow me to observe, _without any claim that ghosts actually exist_, that this is a false statement. It would be quite easy to define conditions in which allowance for hysteresis of the patterns of consciousness _could_ happen. I would not care to be briefed for the argument that it ever does in actuality happen – but “physically impossible” is a very high hurdle. (Request to **Czarcasn** as a strong skeptic to critique this response. Like a palm tree growing in the U.K., the odds against it are astronomically high, but it is not physically impossible. It is not impossible to _perceive_ a “ghost”, bearing in mind that perceptions alone can, and often are, deceptive. Hysteria, bad lighting, and expectation can bring forth something that can be mistaken for a ghost. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-have-to-take-irrational-questions-seriously-in-gq/564992/69 "2010-12-22T16:42:45Z")
> [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](#): > > And yet, there’s lots of Feng Shui that is not only rational, but common sense and consistent with good modern decor. See: [What’s the story with feng shui? - The Straight Dope](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2065/whats-the-story-with-feng-shui) And although the Eastern set of beliefs about the “why” of Accupuncture are bogus “woo”, the placing of the needles has been shown in scientific studies to have a pain blocking effect. I agree about what you said about Feng Shui- a great deal of it isn’t “woo”- just psychology and common sense shrouded in woo. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-have-to-take-irrational-questions-seriously-in-gq/564992/70 "2010-12-22T17:57:17Z")
The position employed in GD, (and I would consider it a valid approach for the whole SDMB), is that a question about the existence of a particular belief may be met with a direct challenge. A question regarding the the Hows of a subject that presupposes the affirmation of a belief should be treated in the context of the relevant belief. I know that this means that one group can’t roar into a thread and howl “It ain’t real!” but it also (for example) prevents Creationists from interrupting a thread on clades or ring species with claims that those are errors or lies from science. It is counterproductive, (meaning it promotes ignorance), to interrupt a thread on the religious beliefs of one group or another or the paranormal beliefs of one group or another to simply insist that such beliefs are inherently false and should not even be discussed. (Interestingly, quite a number of the proponents of shouting have gotten very irritated at advocates of libertarianism or third party politics for “interrupting” discussions of politics or economics over the years. It seems only their truths must be accorded the courtesy of discussion without interruption.) One problem with allowing one group to shout down another group in regards to beliefs is that the board, in general, remains ignorant of the actual positions of the believers. I know that in the minds of the shouters, we’re all supposed to simply scowl and insist that there is no point understanding beliefs on the grounds that they are false and there is no point to them. Unfortunately, that simply means that the shouters are promoters of their own brand of ignorance: “_If i know it is not true, there is no point in anyone else understanding anything else about it._” (Or to paraphrase the line attributed to various book burning theocrats over the years: if it disagrees with our holy book it is false and we should burn it and if it is commentary on our holy book it is superfluous and we should burn it.) It is true that we permitted such “shouting down”: in the past. I think that we have lost a lot of opportunities to examine different beliefs from the perspective of believers by permitting those hijacks. No one is required to accept anyone else’s beliefs. However, it is not really “fighting ignorance” to allow them to be discussed, particularly when shouting down the discussion simply means that we are perpetuating an ignorance of those beliefs. (It is ignorance of actual beliefs that has permittted hordes of Christians to vilify Jews based on misconstructions of Jewish belief, (_e.g._, the meaning of “Chosen People” recently discussed), and similar problems attend relations between Catholics and Protestants, Christians and Muslims, (_we continue have posters believing, incorrectly, that there is a single variety of Sharia and that it insists that men should abuse their wives_), and others. We used to have posters who would provide insights into Wicca and neo-Paganism, but they have pretty much all been chased from the SDMB by the shouters. I don’t hold any of the beliefs of Wicca, but I learned about the people and beliefs when they posted. Ghosts, ESP, and the rest of the paranormal fall into the same categories. Assertions that they are “real” can be met with direct challenges at any time. However, it would have been interesting to see whether anyone who actually believed in ghosts held a belief regarding their exorcism. Even if ghosts do not or cannot exist, it is a point of knowledge to understand how believers see them–knowledge that some posters on this board wish to proscribe. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-have-to-take-irrational-questions-seriously-in-gq/564992/71 "2010-12-22T18:26:48Z")
One problem with allowing horseshit to prosper by granting it special dispensation as you seem inclined to do, is that horseshit prospers. I’ve nothing against people believing whatever gets them through life, but GQ is not the place for factually determining how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Until proven otherwise, that’s simply not a factual question, and treating it as if it is one promotes ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![MsWhatsit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/eb8c5e/32.png) [@MsWhatsit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsWhatsit)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-have-to-take-irrational-questions-seriously-in-gq/564992/72 "2010-12-22T19:16:26Z")
Yeah, that explanation is total nonsense. If someone asks in GQ how to exorcise their house, I think that “You don’t need to exorcise your house, because ghosts aren’t real” is a perfectly legitimate and valid response. If they asked, “How would someone who believes in ghosts hypothetically try to exorcise one?” then fine. But that’s not what the question was. I think it’s completely ridiculous to try to ban people from debunking woo in GQ threads on the grounds that hey, maybe we could all learn something about woo if we pretend that it’s real. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-have-to-take-irrational-questions-seriously-in-gq/564992/73 "2010-12-22T20:10:07Z")
So now ignorance must go unchallenged in order that we may ‘learn’ about it. If this is now the philosophy of the Straight Dope we may as well all pack our bags and go home. The war is over. Ignorance won by presenting itself as ‘alternate beliefs’ and demanding and being granted an equal platform for its nonsense, free from all challenge. Astonishing. ---
**Author:** ![Red\_Barchetta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/da6949/32.png) [@Red\_Barchetta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Red_Barchetta)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-have-to-take-irrational-questions-seriously-in-gq/564992/74 "2010-12-22T20:31:36Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > Astonishing. The only thing astonishing is that some people believe they’ll actually change the minds of one who believes in ghosts or a god. It’s time wasted for zero gain. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-have-to-take-irrational-questions-seriously-in-gq/564992/75 "2010-12-22T22:03:43Z")
Note to all those blathering on about how the OP of the thread about ghosts, will, if not for the tireless, humorless efforts of a few outraged people, destroy our tradition of 'fighting ignorance". See just for one example, Cecil’s column about the best way to kill a vampire! Note that Cecil didn’t say “Wahhh…they won’t let me say vampires aren’t real”. No–he _answers the fucking question as asked_. And it’s one of his 20 or so best columns (IMO). Funny _and_ informative-because cultural and historical info is interesting, even if it’s unfounded. Think how deeply much that column would have sucked if Cecil just spewed out the sentence “There’s no such thing as ghosts” and ended it right there. If someone asks “How is transubstantiation supposed to work?”, someone really interested in Cecil’s mission would answer the question asked. A whiney twat would say “It doesn’t work because there’s no such thing!” and he or she wouldn’t be eradicating ignorance. The so-called mission about eradicating ignorance is about answering questions first, not debating beliefs. If the question is “Are ghosts real?” by all means, debunk away–hell, I’d probably join in. But if the question is “How do I exorcise ghosts?” then either answer the damned question about how ghosts are traditionally exorcised or start your own thread to debunk ghosts. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-have-to-take-irrational-questions-seriously-in-gq/564992/76 "2010-12-22T22:05:58Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > So now ignorance must go unchallenged in order that we may ‘learn’ about it. If this is now the philosophy of the Straight Dope we may as well all pack our bags and go home. The war is over. Ignorance won by presenting itself as ‘alternate beliefs’ and demanding and being granted an equal platform for its nonsense, free from all challenge. > > Astonishing. No one has said any of this. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-have-to-take-irrational-questions-seriously-in-gq/564992/77 "2010-12-22T22:09:56Z")
It wasn’t obvious to me that the OP was kidding, and we’ve had plenty of posters who really do believe in ghosts. Satirical intent is more obvious with vampires because those are not something that millions of people really believe in and take seriously (unless they’re talking about the goth role players or fetishists), or something that has an entire industry of con artistry behind it. If the OP had been more clear about the question being whimsical, I wouldn’t have given it a second thought. Tom certanly appeared to have gotten the impression that the OP wanted serious answers. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-have-to-take-irrational-questions-seriously-in-gq/564992/78 "2010-12-22T22:11:52Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > Think how deeply much that column would have sucked if Cecil just spewed out the sentence “There’s no such thing as ghosts” and ended it right there. Especially since the column was about vampires, not ghosts. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-have-to-take-irrational-questions-seriously-in-gq/564992/79 "2010-12-22T22:54:13Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > So now ignorance must go unchallenged in order that we may ‘learn’ about it. If this is now the philosophy of the Straight Dope we may as well all pack our bags and go home. The war is over. Ignorance won by presenting itself as ‘alternate beliefs’ and demanding and being granted an equal platform for its nonsense, free from all challenge. > > Astonishing. Piffle. Nothing I said indicated that there could be no comments regarding the validity of ghosts. If anyone wished to include a disclaimer that they believed no ghosts existed, but that they were presenting the forms, rubrics, or rituals of an exorcism in which they did not believe, that would have not have violated my instruction. Similarly, one could present an exorcism with an additional comment that it was going to be a waste of time because no non-existent ghost was going to wind up exorcised. What was prohibited was any direct effort by multiple posters to simply dismiss and ridicule the OP while failing to provide an answer. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Tom certanly appeared to have gotten the impression that the OP wanted serious answers. I have taken enough grief about how I supposedly put words in the mouths of others. I _accepted_ the statement of the OP of that thread as serious, regardless what I believed the OP might possibly have perhaps intended in some hypothetical construction. = = = Beyond that, [see the post by Fenris](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13280672&postcount=75). ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2010, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-have-to-take-irrational-questions-seriously-in-gq/564992/80 "2010-12-22T22:57:18Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > It wasn’t obvious to me that the OP was kidding, and we’ve had plenty of posters who really do believe in ghosts. Satirical intent is more obvious with vampires because those are not something that millions of people really believe in and take seriously (unless they’re talking about the goth role players or fetishists), or something that has an entire industry of con artistry behind it. If the OP had been more clear about the question being whimsical, I wouldn’t have given it a second thought. Tom certanly appeared to have gotten the impression that the OP wanted serious answers. The OP of the original thread has provided this explanation in the current Pit thread on the matter: > [@I have goblins in my pants, please Straight Dope, tell me a factual answer to getting rid of them.](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-have-goblins-in-my-pants-please-straight-dope-tell-me-a-factual-answer-to-getting-rid-of-them/564951/80): > > Sorry, thought my atheism was well-known (given my username) and that ghosts and such would be lumped along with that. Didn’t think I needed to put all the disclaimers and such, but I should have known people would take it seriously and tell me that ghosts aren’t real. Thanks. Got something to tell me about Jesus? Because I haven’t heard about him or The Word either. > > At any rate, if you read further down you’ll see that I posted it drunk. I probably would’ve made the effort to post the disclaimers otherwise. Guess I’m not as famous around here as I previously believed… 🙂 To reiterate what I said previously, a thread on such a subject might be permitted in GQ if there had been disclaimers, such as a discussion of what the common folkloric or religious beliefs are with regard to getting rid of ghosts. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-have-to-take-irrational-questions-seriously-in-gq/564992.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-have-to-take-irrational-questions-seriously-in-gq/564992.md?page=5)