The Huffington Post tells us why skepticism is bad...

[hooplala]

that does not make him a skeptic, just skeptical about some things.

Please explain further...

The difference lies in being skeptical, or in holding a negative position. While it "Could Be" confirmation bias, without evidence to prove that "It Is"confirmation bias a skeptic would not hold that position.  A skeptic shouldn't have conclusions without evidence, neither positive nor negative. Many individuals, however, will conclude in the negative without strong evidence for the positive.

So rather than saying

"I see a flaw in your experiment, variable P also needs controlled before we can determine if this is evidence that supports "

they say

"I see a flaw in your experiment. X is False."

Its a problem that many scientificcally minded people seem to fall into (Royal Society in the 1700's re: meteorites and bats using sonar for example. Or Dawkins debate with Sheldrake).

"The paranormal is bunk. Those who try to sell it to us are fakes and charlatans"

Is not a skeptical statement.

I see that more as a artifact of being a science educator/populizer. If you use too much e-prime and speculative language while trying to teach science you lose people's attention very quickly. You come off sounding "stuffy", "nerdy", and "academical". People don't like it when you sound like a scientist. They want declarative statements. They want an authoritative voice. They want r-prime, dammit!!!

For what it's worth, Dawkins' language seems to change between his writing and when he does interviews. He uses more e-prime type language when asked if there is a god or aliens. I've heard him several times say that there is a possibility that a god of sometype exists but that it definitely isn't the God of the Bible.

The paranormal is bunk though.

I'd just like to point out that E-Prime does not necessitate a timid, stuffy tone.

That sort of limp wristed approach typifies noobs failure to grapple with "is" properly.

Instead of just translating "to be" elements into "seems," people ought to think of the idea of "is" as an indicator of stagnant thought. An active voice describing procesess, operations, and agency should emerge from E-Prime rather than surface substitutions.

Reconstruct how you formulate your thoughts and sentences, or GTFO of E-Prime.

I like where you're going with this, but I'm not certain I understand fully.  Would you mind expanding some?

[Iason Ouabache]

The paranormal is bunk though.

Joke statement, or actual opinion?

Mostly a joke. Yes, I agree that there is a lot of stuff in the universe that we can't explain and may never be able to explain. However, that doesn't mean we can just randomly speculate about spirits, magic crystals, water memory, reptilian overlords, and Zombie Jesus. Let's check to see if there is a natural explanation before we start searching the other dimensions.

[hooplala]

I think its fair to speculate, as long as you admit that that is what it is, and nothing more.

[Kai]

The paranormal is bunk though.

Joke statement, or actual opinion?

Mostly a joke. Yes, I agree that there is a lot of stuff in the universe that we can't explain and may never be able to explain. However, that doesn't mean we can just randomly speculate about spirits, magic crystals, water memory, reptilian overlords, and Zombie Jesus. Let's check to see if there is a natural explanation before we start searching the other dimensions.

I can explain it.

[Template]

The paranormal is bunk though.

Joke statement, or actual opinion?

Mostly a joke. Yes, I agree that there is a lot of stuff in the universe that we can't explain and may never be able to explain. However, that doesn't mean we can just randomly speculate about spirits, magic crystals, water memory, reptilian overlords, and Zombie Jesus. Let's check to see if there is a natural explanation before we start searching the other dimensions.

I can explain it.

Where are you going with this?

[Telarus]

I'd just like to point out that E-Prime does not necessitate a timid, stuffy tone.

That sort of limp wristed approach typifies noobs failure to grapple with "is" properly.

Instead of just translating "to be" elements into "seems," people ought to think of the idea of "is" as an indicator of stagnant thought. An active voice describing procesess, operations, and agency should emerge from E-Prime rather than surface substitutions.

Reconstruct how you formulate your thoughts and sentences, or GTFO of E-Prime.

This. Motherfucking loads of this. One can and should use R-prime and E-prime together (compare the previous to, "R-prime and E-prime are compatible"... really, "are" they? Only if you use your brain hard enough, monkey.)

Excessive use of IS makes the person come off as passive, submissive, limp, and buffeted by the forces of the world (and remember how language structures our thought patterns). It indicates a passive acceptance of the authority of language and those who have rammed that language down your throats. It indicates that one thinks that the words used actually identify concrete, unchanging things. Fuck that. All 'things' exists as transitory processes in some form of flux. We call 'it' a 'chair' when we sit on it, or think about sitting on it, or consider its purpose as "something to sit on". Should we really call it a 'chair' when we have set it afire? When we stand upon it to rant at the passers-by? When we hurl it across the bar to settle a silly philosophical argument? Really? Does the word 'chair' capture any of the set and setting of those situations? Then why use that word..... because you've been conditioned to. Conditioned to think of the world as 'things' isolated from each other that interact in limited or obvious ways. Bullshit.

Before E-prime, these concepts found crude expression in such esotericisms as:

All is Transitory (maya, illusion).

and

Nothing is True, All is Permissible.

But these remain crude translations into English by those who have not quite grasped the seed of this knowledge. For better allusions, look into good translations of Rumi (Sufi mystic), Oscar Wilde, and Ezra Pound.

I have underlined every use of "to be" in my reply. I haven't used the word 'seem' at all. Go back and look at the passive/active quality of the sentences.

Do you see how much THEY have used language to brainwash you? Now fuck off and practice what you've learned.

Or Kill Me.

(p.s. +5 tons of flax for bringing up Pyrrhonian /Zetetic/ Skepticism )

[Kai]

The paranormal is bunk though.

Joke statement, or actual opinion?

Mostly a joke. Yes, I agree that there is a lot of stuff in the universe that we can't explain and may never be able to explain. However, that doesn't mean we can just randomly speculate about spirits, magic crystals, water memory, reptilian overlords, and Zombie Jesus. Let's check to see if there is a natural explanation before we start searching the other dimensions.

I can explain it.

Where are you going with this?

What do you mean? I just want to share the joy I have of Jesus my savior with you all. Life is so much better when you let Him your God lead the way.

[Template]

The paranormal is bunk though.

Joke statement, or actual opinion?

Mostly a joke. Yes, I agree that there is a lot of stuff in the universe that we can't explain and may never be able to explain. However, that doesn't mean we can just randomly speculate about spirits, magic crystals, water memory, reptilian overlords, and Zombie Jesus. Let's check to see if there is a natural explanation before we start searching the other dimensions.

I can explain it.

Where are you going with this?

What do you mean? I just want to share the joy I have of Jesus my savior with you all. Life is so much better when you let Him your God lead the way.

I'm dissappointed.

[LMNO]

The paranormal is bunk though.

Joke statement, or actual opinion?

Mostly a joke. Yes, I agree that there is a lot of stuff in the universe that we can't explain and may never be able to explain. However, that doesn't mean we can just randomly speculate about spirits, magic crystals, water memory, reptilian overlords, and Zombie Jesus. Let's check to see if there is a natural explanation before we start searching the other dimensions.

I can explain it.

Where are you going with this?

What do you mean? I just want to share the joy I have of Jesus my savior with you all. Life is so much better when you let Him your God lead the way.

OUTTA NOWHERE, DA LEFT HOOK!










Also, I think I'm starting to have trouble with the word "paranormal".  To me, there are a few categories that this word covers, which can be incompatible with each other:

1) Things that science has not explained yet (i.e. more data is needed).
2) Things that science has not explored yet (i.e. no one has done the research).
3) Things that science will never be able to explain (e.g. the existence of god; so-called "scientifically meaningless" questions).
4) Things that have scientific explanations, yet are not accepted by "believers" (e.g. Madjyeek, et al).


All of the above are valid, yet it looks to me like a lot of people mix up which term they're using, and then stubbornly shut down.  Furthermore, many tend to talk about points one and two in terms of, "Science will never be able to figure this out," rather than, "Science hasn't figured this out yet."

I'm happy to talk about The Weird Shit.  I'm even happy to talk about ways to possibly manipulate The Weird Shit.  I just have problems when people think they "know" what The Weird Shit is, without evidence or proof.

[hooplala]

Word.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Hrmmm... well that went in a different direction than I thought it would.

I do note that my examples were e-primish, but that wasn't the point.

The position of a skeptic is an agnostic position (not just sometimes agnostic). If the skeptic requires evidence in support of an explanation of phenomenon X which sounds like woojoo, they should also require evidence to accept the mundane explanation of phenomenon X. Taking the negative position is not skepticism.

So if Mr. Teaparty says "I don't accept your evidence of anthropomorphic global warming, its obviously from the sun spot activity." He isn't being a skeptic... he's being skeptical about one claaim, but then simply accept what appears to him as the more rational claim. A skeptic should accept no claim without evidence.

Recently, one of the MLA courses focused on Rupert Sheldrake and his theories about Morphogenetic fields. Personally, based on my review of the material and the experiments etc. I remain unconvinced. However, Sheldrake has done experiments, he has followed the scientific method and he has published his work so that other people can repeat the experiment. When he was asked to debate the topic with Dawkins though, there wasn't a discussion of the experiments and evidence. Dawkins holds the belief that Sheldrake is wrong... even though Sheldrake claims to have evidence, Dawkins said something along the lines of "I'm not interested in your evidence".* He said the purpose of the videotaped interview was to debunk Sheldrake.

Now, I am not saying that Sheldrake shouldn't be debunked... I'm not saying that its bad to be a White Knight in Science... but I am saying that such a position is not the position of a skeptic.



*Obviously I wasn't there so who knows how precise this is...

[LMNO]

At the same time, there are still plenty of experiments going around that "prove" the earth is flat.

There has to be some point at which you can say, "enough already".

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

At the same time, there are still plenty of experiments going around that "prove" the earth is flat.

Think about all the perfectly rational phenomena that were dumped on by the scientific community for years... decades... centuries. For example, in the 1700's there was a theory that bats used some kind of hearing to perceive the area around them. This was a guy named Lazzaro. He noted that bats could fly in the dark, and he even did experiments where he stopped up bat ears with wax and documented how they collided with objects versus the bats he blinded which still flew just fine. He was ridiculed, his work was rejected and sonar stayed undiscovered for another century or so.

Evidence is key.

There has to be some point at which you can say, "enough already".

Sure...  that point is called evidence... Do you have evidence collected through an objective, repeatable process? Yes, cool show me. No, sorry thats the line you gotta cross so...  STFU Flat Earther".

If we say "Enough Already" then we fall victim to the same flaws of the past, thinking that what we "know" now... or that our current models are True... rather than our current best guess.

After all, if the holographic universe theory ever gets some real evidence from experiments, round earthers and flat earhers would both be wrong.... 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

At the same time, there are still plenty of experiments going around that "prove" the earth is flat.

Well, yes.  Because it is.  I can prove this conclusively, in one short paragraph.

[LMNO]

At the same time, there are still plenty of experiments going around that "prove" the earth is flat.

Think about all the perfectly rational phenomena that were dumped on by the scientific community for years... decades... centuries. For example, in the 1700's there was a theory that bats used some kind of hearing to perceive the area around them. This was a guy named Lazzaro. He noted that bats could fly in the dark, and he even did experiments where he stopped up bat ears with wax and documented how they collided with objects versus the bats he blinded which still flew just fine. He was ridiculed, his work was rejected and sonar stayed undiscovered for another century or so.

Evidence is key.

There has to be some point at which you can say, "enough already".

Sure...  that point is called evidence... Do you have evidence collected through an objective, repeatable process? Yes, cool show me. No, sorry thats the line you gotta cross so...  STFU Flat Earther".

If we say "Enough Already" then we fall victim to the same flaws of the past, thinking that what we "know" now... or that our current models are True... rather than our current best guess.

After all, if the holographic universe theory ever gets some real evidence from experiments, round earthers and flat earhers would both be wrong.... 

So, you agree with the Birthers, then.  Good to know.