Skeptics and dismissiveness.

[Kai]

Skeptics and skeptic websites and talk don't interest me particularly.

In part, it's because skeptics are often preaching to the choir. I understand the need for extraordinary claims to be backed by evidence and a willingness to change one's beliefs based if evidence arrives. The debunking of homeopathy, UFO's, creationism and the like are uninteresting because I already understand why these hypotheses are false. I also don't enjoy arguing with people over their personal beliefs in the above held topics (in public, anyway) so the need to internalize the argument is largely useless. I can get by with understanding what is false, and why, and not think much along those lines because there is nothing interesting going on there.

I honestly don't have problems with anyone's beliefs until they 1) want to push those beliefs as public policy 2) they feel the need to tell me about those beliefs in detail. I never pass up a chance to tell someone that they are full of shit.  I'll have to agree with your statement about preaching to the choir though. Skeptics have done a good job of pushing back on creationism, anti-vaxxers, homeopaths, chiropractors, psychics, etc. They have done a lot of good in the last 20 years that can't easily be dismissed.

I don't mind "skeptics" debunking things, ie doing public education work. It just doesn't interest me. Like I said, preaching to the choir. If I've heard evidence to falsify for example, homeopathy, then I don't need to hear that same evidence over and over. The other thing I would note is, under the idea of Pyrronean skepticism, these people aren't really skeptics at all, they're educators. To be a skeptic you have to suspend judgment on some topic. Debunking isn't suspending judgment.

The other reason skeptic talk doesn't interest me is that it tends to be dismissive. Take religion for example. I am fascinated by religion. It's a very human activity, and there are very few cultures (if any) on this planet that don't have some sort of binding central myth. I find that by studying religion and engaging in religious activities I am a better person, with greater understanding and a greater well-being. Many skeptics dismiss religion. I don't mean to say they actively bash religious beliefs and activities (although sometimes they do) but they tend to dismiss it as something to be avoided.

Why is that? I find that particularly fascinating. Here we have this entirely human activity, so central to the lives of so many people, and while often destructive it is just as often creative, and a skeptic will avoid taking part. Is it because religion has burned them in some way? Is it because they can't rationalize religious activities and therefore it is meaningless? And then sometimes I wonder if there isn't a sort of religion in rationality...but I won't go that direction. I will say that human existence is rather amazing and religion is part of that. There is so much interesting stuff happening in religion, worthy of investigation not just to "show how wrong it is".

Honestly, the reason that I usually dismiss religion is because the religion part of my brain doesn't really work like it does in most other humans. The only times that I can remember have anything close to a religious experience is listening to really good music. None of the other techniques seem to work for me. However I am fascinated about why other people believe like they do. That's why I enjoy reading Dennett and Shermer (except when it comes to politics) and even Karl Giberson. I haven't read much of anything by Dawkins and have only watched a handful of clips of him on Youtube. I'm not really that interested in what he has to say about religion. (I like his biology stuff though.)

I have religious experiences all the time, but then again I seek them out actively. Most of the time not in some special edifice either. If you accept ecology on a global scale it's not very hard to find yourself in the throws of a mystic numinous experience of connectedness.

It seems to me that when a skeptical person is shown evidence that, for example, auras do not exist in the physical energetic sense, they will do either one of two things. A, they will conclude there is nothing interesting to investigate in people who do individual "aural work", or B they will actively talk and type and podcast how much of a bunch of hooey aural work really is. Both endings have a real dismissive tone. I say, lets look at this more closely. There doesn't seem to be this thing called aural energy which sits around a person and can be manipulated by thought. However, this mental exercise has some interesting results, it seems the thought process of imagining this field around oneself and manipulating it changes the way the person reacts to reality, and THAT is very interesting.

It's interesting and useful bullshit. What else do you want me to say? I'm glad that you realize that it is all in your head because there are enough True Believers that will either swallow the bullshit down whole without taking a sniff first or will use New Ageish words to con other people out of money. Neither of these are acceptable.

Emphasis mine. The sort of dismissive statements that I'm talking about. "It's all in your head". So? How does it make the happening any less interesting? And not once did I suggest conning people out of money or "swallowing bullshit down whole". If True Believers do that, it's not my place to stop them. I am not my brother's keeper. I can educate but I can't force people to drink.

"But it's /just/ the placebo effect".

Just? /Just/ the placebo effect you say? That's like saying that the reason photosynthesis continues to function on this planet is /just/ because of photons from the sun. There's something interesting here, in psychosomatic and somatopsychic connections, something so profoundly useful and meaningful that it is, well, STUPID to dismiss.

Which is why I tend to hang out with "New Agers" more than Skeptics. The weird stuff has interesting results.

~Kai

I've never been dismissive about the placebo effect. It's interesting to see how we can mindfuck ourselves. We just have to take a step back every once in awhile and remind ourselves that this isn't real. Don't drink your own jenkem. There's also the fact that certain alternative practices can be harmful. They can give you all of the side effects without any of the positive benefits.

Except it is real. The placebo effect is not fake. It happens. There are real happenings here. What you are saying is that its not physical which is something entirely different; you're saying that auric energy doesn't exist, however, the effect of manipulating visions of the aura in mind is very real, just like the effect of meditation is real (and measurable to an extent).

I'm not going to pretend I don't agree with you that certain practices are harmful and they should be revealed as so. This rant wasn't about that.

[Elder Iptuous]

excellent thread, Kai.

Iason, the link that you put forth to 'whatstheharm.net'  seems to show the 'actively seeking things to disbelieve' attitude that some have expressed an aversion to.  i just clicked on a few of the examples that seemed to stick out to me as not being total crap from what i know.
i saw several examples like:

Cupping is a practice from traditional Chinese medicine where cups are placed on the body and heated to create suction on the skin to enhance the flow of "qi."  Read more about cupping
Here is a person who was harmed by someone not thinking critically.

Odd-Inge Haagensen
Age: 44
Oslo, Norway
He had a stiff neck. His doctor tried to treat this with cupping. The alcohol used in the cupping procedure caught fire, and he was burned. He will need treatment for at least a month.

that's a stretch....  these guys put an entire practice into the horsefeathers bin because of this accident?  i noticed that they didn't have any categories for ....oh, say, RF neural ablation.  but accidents happen there, too.  there's an obvious pattern that they're following that shows a bias.
after seeing a few more examples like that i closed the page and felt a little more annoyed by the 'crusading skeptic' type.
i understand that critical thinking is certainly important with all the crap out there, and that trying to instill this in others is noble. but the overly zealous 'skeptics' perhaps should consider backlash over some of the perceived attitudes they can put out.
perhaps they need a 'what's the harm' category for skepticism?

[LMNO]

It seems to me that many of the skeptics that Kai doesn't like are really anxious about leaving things in the "unknown" column for too long.  They want to file it under "true" or "false" as soon as possible, so they look for any reason to verify or debunk, no matter how tenuous.

Of course, this leads directly to Lo5, and bias confirmation.  

[Kai]

It seems to me that many of the skeptics that Kai doesn't like are really anxious about leaving things in the "unknown" column for too long.  They want to file it under "true" or "false" as soon as possible, so they look for any reason to verify or debunk, no matter how tenuous.

Of course, this leads directly to Lo5, and bias confirmation.  

Incidentally I think this is why skeptics don't often make scientific discovery, because discovery is often irrational, based in metaphor and insight that comes almost randomly. Barbara McClintock didn't come by her understanding of transposable elements through careful rational thought; she assembled massive amounts of data and just let it churn over and over in her subconscious, when suddenly the answer would just occur to her. I believe the helical structure of DNA came to Francis Crick as he was ascending a spiral staircase. This sort of insight won't happen if I can't allow myself to entertain all sorts of weird notions.

[Cain]

I thought Crick had a dream he was ascending a spiral staircase.

While he was on acid.

[Triple Zero]

Cram: "Check it out, those cars have nearly identical license plates, isn't that cool?"
Skeptic: "It's just random chance."
Cram: "FUCK YOU MY CAT DIED OF RANDOM CHANCE!! MY LAPTOP FELL DOWN THE STAIRS BECAUSE OF RANDOM CHANCE!!!! YOU KNOW THAT TIME I ALMOST GOT KICKED OUT OF MY APPARTMENT??!! FUCKING RANDOM CHANCE!! AND FUCK YOU FUCKING FUCK I DIDNT WIN THE LOTTERY BECAUSE OF FUCKING RANDOM CHANCE SO FUCK YOU AND YOUR FUCKING CHANCE IF YOU SAY ITS FUCKING JUST FUCKING RANDOM FUCKING CHANCE YOU FUCK THESE FUCKING CARS WITH THEIR FUCKING LICENSE PLATES BEING THE FUCKING SAME, YOU SAY THATS FUCKING RANDOM CHANCE?? RANDOM CHANCE RUINED MY FUCKING LIFE YOU FUCKING PIECE OF FUCK"
Skeptic: "..."
Cram: "Check it out, those cars have nearly identical license plates, isn't that cool?"
Skeptic: "Awesome."

[Kai]

I thought Crick had a dream he was ascending a spiral staircase.

While he was on acid.

I can't quite tell if you're pulling my leg. 

[Cain]

I'm pretty sure either a dream or an altered state of mind was implied, if not outright admitted.

I know the structure of several molecules and compounds has been dreamed, though.

Also, as an aside, my problem with skeptics is they don't go far enough.  Cool, you've educated people on why so and so isn't real.  Why haven't you applied your skeptical skills to something outside the realms of parapsychological and religious crankery?  I swear to god, I'd love it if skeptics took a swipe at....say, game theory.  Or the persistent myth of appeasement in Munich, 1938.  Restricting their skepticism to a few choice topics is sad.  They should take it to its logical conclusion, and undermine faith in everything.

As an aside, its worth noting that many "Decent Liberals" in the UK (essentially the British answer to American "centrists" like Liberman) have a great interest in more facile areas of skepticism.  I suspect this is not because they care about the truth and questioning everything, but more because they are interested in setting and patrolling the borders of acceptable debate, both in politics and science.  Disagree with them on politics, and you're a "dhimmi", disagree with them on science and you're a "dangerous crank".  They're addicted to setting down boundaries and attacking those who refuse to fit into their set paramaters.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/pseudo.html

This is a good essay on the topic.

[Bu🤠ns]

I think it just comes down to the difference between BEING a skeptic or simply just USING critical thinking. 

[Reginald Ret]

Crick:
http://www.serendipity.li/dmt/crick_lsd.htm

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Crick:
http://www.serendipity.li/dmt/crick_lsd.htm

"Print a word of it and I'll sue"

[Kai]

http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/pseudo.html

This is a good essay on the topic.

This was referenced in the link yhwmzy posted.

[Thurnez Isa]

And it is not a person's place to mock and crush someone else's worldview. 

When it comes to things such as new agers and shit, people's feelings never pop into my mind.
It's just not there

[Kai]

And it is not a person's place to mock and crush someone else's worldview. 

When it comes to things such as new agers and shit, people's feelings never pop into my mind.
It's just not there

Mind you, I put "new agers" in quotes because I wasn't quite sure what to call them. Better term would probably be psychonauts, and I don't mean with the drug connotation either. People exploring consciousness in ways that knutzian skeptics would balk at. The truth is that there seem to be more psychonauts among the new age crowd than any other subculture.