Skeptics and dismissiveness.

[Thurnez Isa]

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.

I can think of tons of them from Lemark, to Hooker, to Sagan (who actually had discovery's that people forget about), to Lowell... the list is actually endless

[LMNO]

LOL, Sagan.

[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

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.

Take it from someone who dated a new ager/neopagan for 8 years and helped her build a few communities, and even a tarot card reading business once, new age is all about feeling good. That's it. Nothing more.

[Thurnez Isa]

LOL, Sagan.

Ok how about an oldy goldy Gaspard Monge was a mathematician and the inventor of Descriptive geometry back in the time of Napoleon

Or one of my favorites, who I forgot about Simon Newcomb... and that story about him be skeptical of the possibility of flight is crap, what he actually said that fight would have to be continuous, before of course the use of helicopters

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

This thread makes me think of what Dave Elman called "the critical factor." According to Elman, bypassing this faculty is when hypnosis occurs. Critical factor = fundamentally dismissing ideas.

Skeptics don't want to be duped, make decisions they regret, or fall prey to wishful thinking. I think they feel like habitually suspending critical thought will lead to a diluting of their critical abilities which they believe to be their primary skill in avoiding exploitation, making sound decisions and attaining slack.

I guess they don't see how using illusions are compatible with their high value on objective truth. They see it as lying to oneself, rather than using an innate feature of your biology. While by definition, the placebo is a lie, hypnosis is not necessarily a lie. You can bypass your critical thinking without lying to yourself.

[Thurnez Isa]

I disagree.
I think that being skeptical is all about exploring. Not accepting an answer just because it seems to be constant with some world view. Cause when you make a discovery it almost always contradicts you world view.
People who are not skeptical accept the hypothesis as fact, usually cause it feels good to, rather then explore.
Being skeptical is being curious.
Not being skeptical is the lack of curiosity.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

I disagree.
I think that being skeptical is all about exploring. Not accepting an answer just because it seems to be constant with some world view. Cause when you make a discovery it almost always contradicts you world view.
People who are not skeptical accept the hypothesis as fact, usually cause it feels good to, rather then explore.
Being skeptical is being curious.
Not being skeptical is the lack of curiosity.

Who and what are you disagreeing with?

[Thurnez Isa]

sorry Net I misread your post

my bad
Im blaming it on my insomnia and lack of morning coffee

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

sorry Net I misread your post

my bad
Im blaming it on my insomnia and lack of morning coffee

It's all good.

That's a bad combination that I'm all too familiar with.

[Captain Utopia]

The skeptic seemed quite tuned into defeating meaning. Telling me that this event was meaningless, "just random chance", as if the idea that this synch emerged from happenstance makes it any less meaningful (to me).

I think sometimes it's a lazy power game - with very low risk - the skeptic cannot easily be proved wrong if at all.

Plus there is a juicy implication to play with - "aww cute little child amused by trinkets". Attractive self-satisfaction - "yes I already know and it's not interesting enough for me to reconsider". Though I don't know if this profile matches your skeptic at all.

[Template]

An atheism that denies fun is the correct response to a theism that denies fun.

It is?

An atheism that denies fun is the correct response to a theism that denies fun.

Sounds to me like trading one flat, boring, angry perspective for another. I'd rather run around being curious and having fun instead of grumping my way through life.

I meant it in jest.  Thanks for your replies.  Worldviews that suck, suck.

[Iason Ouabache]

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.

I swear that I read this as orifice the first time.  

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.

Notice that I specified that it is "interesting and useful bullshit". Mindfucks can be fun and help you learn more about yourself. It can even occasionally help you come up with things unconsciously. Just don't mistake it for reality. Use Crick as an example. Sure he (allegedly) got his ideas about the double helix from a drug induced dream. But people didn't believe him because of the dream, they believed him because he followed that up with empirical research. Alternative methods can lead to inspiration but you have to back it up with science at some point.

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.

I never said that the placebo effect is fake. There are things physically happening in the brain that we seriously need to take a look at. But that doesn't excuse people from using methods that can be harmful or fraudulant just because it can sometimes induce the placebo effect.

[Iason Ouabache]

The skeptic seemed quite tuned into defeating meaning. Telling me that this event was meaningless, "just random chance", as if the idea that this synch emerged from happenstance makes it any less meaningful (to me).

I think sometimes it's a lazy power game - with very low risk - the skeptic cannot easily be proved wrong if at all.

Plus there is a juicy implication to play with - "aww cute little child amused by trinkets". Attractive self-satisfaction - "yes I already know and it's not interesting enough for me to reconsider". Though I don't know if this profile matches your skeptic at all.

FUCK YOU! I'M RIGHT; YOU'RE WRONG. DEAL WITH IT!!!!   

[Template]

Notice that I specified that it is "interesting and useful bullshit". Mindfucks can be fun and help you learn more about yourself. It can even occasionally help you come up with things unconsciously. Just don't mistake it for reality. Use Crick as an example. Sure he (allegedly) got his ideas about the double helix from a drug induced dream. But people didn't believe him because of the dream, they believed him because he followed that up with empirical research. Alternative methods can lead to inspiration but you have to back it up with science at some point.

I never said that the placebo effect is fake. There are things physically happening in the brain that we seriously need to take a look at. But that doesn't excuse people from using methods that can be harmful or fraudulant just because it can sometimes induce the placebo effect.

First part: In a sense, it's always been about what you bring back to mundane reality.  Prometheus wasn't fucking awesome and able to throw fireballs, he stole fire from the gods to keep men warm.  For example.  It's not that Crick backed up his intuition with science, it's that his intuition inspired his science.  He made imaginings concrete.

Second part: We might get somewhere if we start with the claim, "Fraud and harm can happen everywhere, including the occult.  Defraud or cause needless harm, and you're a dick."  Also, I'd like to set aside the phrase, "placebo effect", since I'm not confident the idea is general enough to cover that portion of the map.  IDK.

[Iason Ouabache]

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.

Forgot to mention that this is a brilliant idea. If you did a Skeptical History blog I would help pimp the fuck out of it. The only problem I could see with something like that would be the constant accusations of being revisionist and "having an agenda". I'd still love to see someone try to pull it off.