What evidence would work?

Probably would be a good idea if you reread the conversation, because it clearly went over your head. Too bad, too, because from the feedback I got, it must have been an entertaining one!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

While that isn't grammatically worded as a question, a question is obviously implied: Why do self-styled "skeptics", whether here or in organizations like CSICOP, display such anger, hostility and even hatred for the subjects of ufos, cryptozoology or 'psi' phenomena? Why are those who believe in such things subject to such abuse? Why do the so-called "new atheists" display similar hatred for religion?

What I'm inquiring about is the justification for the anger and hostility. It seems to me that a similar psychological process is occurring in both the skeptic and the atheist cases.

That string of insults is a great illustration of the kind of anger and hostility that I was talking about, but it doesn't really explain it.

So pursuing things a little: Why are you so convinced that believers in ufos, cyptozoology or psi phenomena, or alternatively, in religion, are "liars/crackpots/frauds/trolls?

Why do you make those perjorative value judgements about people who believe in things that you don't, or possess a rather different worldview than you do? They might indeed be wrong (you might be wrong too) but does that make them evil?

How did MR misrepresent you? You went over the top with your insults. MR just suggested that maybe you had left some choice insults out. I think that "heretic" is quite apt, since Sciforums is so concerned with trying to defend orthodoxy against heresy. In that context your insults really are reminiscent of the flames of the inquisition.

Regarding logic, most of the disagreements here on Sciforums aren't logical disagreements at all. They are epistemological, they concern evidence and the justification of belief. This whole thread revolves around the difficult question of how evidence makes belief more reasonable. So in the case of unorthodox borderline subjects, what kind of evidence (if any) would arguably make belief in them orthodox? It's a difficult question and it requires some philosophical sophistication.

I think that you are more similar than you think. You're both exceedingly credulous, MR about the fringe, you about what you believe is orthodoxy. Neither of you seems all that willing to question your own faith commitments, or seem particularly good at justifying them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yazata, two points.

1. "Why are you so convinced that believers in ufos, cyptozoology or psi phenomena, or alternatively, in religion, are "liars/crackpots/frauds/trolls?"

Some members may go this far, but this is not what RW said. My position - and I think that of many members here - is simple. Some believers in ufos, etc are liars, some are crackpots, some are frauds, some are trolls, and many are just enthusiasts in sampling the wonders of the universe, but who have not yet had an appropriate education in critical thinking or the scientific method.

Those who are liars, but deny lying; those who are crackpots, but claim to be sane; those who are frauds, but insist on their integrity; and those who are trolls, but glibly claim sincerity, all frustrate and eventually anger their audience. They then react in an unattractive, but understandable fashion.

2. I do not speak for others, but my condemnation of the crackpots, etc. revolves around the fog of confusion they erect around what might be important questions. While it is possible that some of their claims may be correct and the conventional view the false one, that does not justify giving it equal weight. In that regard I suggest MR and WR are not mirror images.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But also, why would it matter even if they are "liars/crackpots/frauds/trolls"? What ethos is being appealed to in a naturalism-grounded skeptic culture which makes "evil, etc" such important classifications? How is whatever ethical scheme warranted, justified or proclaimed to be objective / universally valid? Simply appealing to the surrounding society's current values would seem to be a doomed route since those can inevitably be dismissed as folk morality that derives its authority from mere group contract and the momentum of traditions.

Apparently that particular skeptic culture has to fall back on the standards of a specialized (non-global) system which avoids being characterized as concerning morality. Like: "These cranks aren't following the scientific method" or something along that line. Which would thereby make the usage of "evil"and "liars/crackpots/frauds/trolls" inconsistent, since they're taken from the everyday society's folk values.

 

My reason for pointing it out was to highlight the fact that the best way to get answers is to ask questions.

In any case, though you clearly saw my more detailed response, you didn't respond to it. That makes productive discussion difficult.

Those are different, stronger questions than the statement you made previously. You inserted "hatred" and shouldn't have. I have no hatred for MR. It is way too strong of an emotion for something that ultimately doesn't matter. Nor is an angry response abuse. I explained why in that post that you ignored most of...

Also already answered.

That I can't help you with. I'm not an athiest and am not well versed in how such discussions goes.

A liar is a person who lies.
A fraud is a person who lies in order to deceptively gain something he isn't entitled to.
A troll is someone who lights fires just to watch them burn.
[crackpot is broader, incorporating multiple aspects of the above]

These are actions. Behaviors. I am convinced they are because they do: I am convinced a troll is a troll because I've observed him troll. It's really that simple.

You imply something false: this has nothing to do with differing worldview. It's about actions. I dislike people who persistenly behave badly.

Evil isn't a word that applies here, no.

I've answered that in quite a bit of detail. Please feel free to ask specific questions about the answer.

What insult? Please be specific.

He went quite a bit further than that. Perhaps you should reread or quote the specifics you disagree with.

That's absurd. Sciforums is the most open non-subject specific site I've seen. People who get banned from other sites for those infractions end up here and have long, prolific careers.

Haha, wow.

Yes, but it shouldn't be that way. There are very well established and successful logical criteria/processes that work great for investigation of new phenomena. Threads like this exist mostly to put that on the table in part to enable analysis of the abusive methods of people such as yourself and MR.

There is no such thing as an "unorthodox subject". While individual forums might, science itself does not have a list of "unorthodox subjects". Science is about methodology and crackpots are so labeled because they eggregiously violate the established methodology.

The "unorthodox subjects" listed by Sciforums and others are not "unorthodox" because of the subject matter, they are "unorthodox" because of the approach taken by proponents of certain theories associated witht the subject matter.

You haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about. You are well spoken - which makes it odd - but if that is your honest interpretation of how my thought process works, it is a very bad failure in understanding. Not just those two lines, either: the entire post reflects an extremely poor understanding of how I think, despite a sincere effort to explain it clearly and in detail (something, btw, MR works hard to avoid). Not to mention, we and others have had similar discussions here for years. It's bizarre that you have yet to understand how we think, particularly on an issue so straightforward as why we sometimes act with hostility toward MR.

 

Actually those are not "actions" or verbs. They are nouns describing types of persons. A liar is a person who lies alot and is motivated to lie. A fraud is someone who pretends to be someone they're not and is motivated to deceive. A troll is someone who insults and flames posters online and is motivated to do so.. And a crackpot is just an insane person, like a loon, a nutcase, or a whackjob. Your attempt to demonize me as these types of person is an obvious attack on my character and a flame that is indicative of trolling. I asked you to confirm those insults with actual statements of mine. You failed to do it. The conclusion is that you have simply made up things about me because of your hostility towards me.

Yazata is correct to question that hostility. I think it goes to the heart of who is simply providing evidence for unsciency beliefs and who is attacking people because a. they can't refute them..and b. the beliefs don't conform to the mainstream doctrines of science. It's the same sort of hatred for outsiders cultivated within any cultish mindset where the group defines itself as having the absolute truth and the outsiders are condemned and dehumanized as immoral subhumans.

 

While many of them are, most of them are not. Most of them are merely gullible, guilty of nothing more than misplaced trust and magical thinking.

Definitely not; it merely makes them wrong. This is a science forum, and one of its purposes is education. Some people (such as MR here) respond to attempts to educate them with anger and derision. People being people, that anger and derision is often returned.

 

Factcheck: The anger and derision aren't coming from MY corner.

 

To Ophiolite:
MR isn't an idiot. He knows that *a* lie is a noun and *to* lie is a verb and that "lies alot" (his words) is a verb and "lies" (my word, used more than once) is a noun or a verb depending on usage -- used the same as his. Simlarly, an "act" is the noun form of "action". Can you think of a plausible reason why he would try to split a grammatical hair that he actually doesn't disagree with other than to troll?

Just like you're entitled to create your own definition for UFO, you are entitled to create your own definition for "crackpot", but that does not mean that you are entitled to change the meaning of my statement by applying your definition to my word use. I've never used "loon", "nutcase" or "whackjob" to refer to you, that I can remember, and they are not part of my definition.

To Ophiolite: I'm not a trusting person when it comes to this sort of thing, but it is plausible that MR could just be being sloppy there. So I would not conclude that that's a lie, at least not strongly enough to make an accusation of it.

Reread the exchange. The example I gave (you so accomodatingly provided) was clear-cut. While others are entitled to judge that you were just being sloppy, similarly, I am entitled to judge that you did it on purpose.

 

A liar isn't a verb or a behavior. It's a type of person.

A fraud isn't a verb or behavior. It's a type of person.

A troll isn't a verb or behavior. It's a type of person.

A crackpot isn't a verb or behavior. It's a type of person:

"crackpot"
noun
A person regarded as strange, eccentric, or crazy:
crazy, eccentric, lunatic.
Informal: crank, loon, loony.
Slang: cuckoo, ding-a-ling, dingbat, kook, nut, screwball, weirdie, weirdo.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/crackpot

 

Really? So if I find a derisive comment from you, then that statement is a lie, right? This is your chance to back out of it and claim sloppiness. After that, you own it.

 

Agreed!

You are entitled to choose your definition, as I am mine.

 

You're the one that started this whole exchange with the angry derision "liar/troll/fraud/crackpot", which you failed to back up and so lied about. So don't preach sermons on lying to me.

 

"If you'd just quit lying and be honest"
"Waffling has become an pure artform for you"
"your childish and insulting labels"

Let me know if you would like some more demonstrations of the anger and derision coming from your corner.

BTW one of the funniest statements you make regularly is the "I am going to ignore you from now on" statement. I believe the latest one is "It's basically what gets you nothing more than ignored."

 

Statements of fact are now angry derision? Wow..that's new one on me!

 

i am going to reiterate my comments here from the other topic.

 

" we do not have convincing evidence to validate any conjecture "

we might if the government's motive were for the betterment of mankind. the government's motive is control. and just as much as they crave control, they fear loss of control. knowledge is power, but power does not necessarily confer competence. the people at the top of these programs are intellectually very average. they are not capable of making proper use of what has been handed to them, but they have no intention in letting anyone else ever get a chance to solve the puzzle. and let's not forget there's also a real possibility that the government is being manipulated by the extraterrestrials for their own purposes. when you're dealing with beings whose intellect is so far beyond your own, i don't think it's safe to assume that they have your best interest at heart. use your own judgement. that's all any of us can do. there's been so much secrecy and disinformation over the last fifty years, that it has become impossible to prove anything in the face of official denial. of course the flip side is nobody really believes anything that the government says. the only vindication i can imagine would be if the government finally revealed all of what they know about these aliens.

 

on an side note,
it is obvious that anyone of you are not actually interested in the actual conversation(especially when using words such as " logic " , " scientific process ", and " evidence" ) but simply interested in ,only, picking on MR, as usual.
logically, none of you can say that there is no evidence due to the scientific process.

 

how many of you that are picking on MR can say you have access to such things in order to confirm that there is no evidence?
i would put 50k on the fact that none of you do. some in the conversation claim they are intelligent, as i ask for evidence for it since i have not seen it-- get it?

 

And obviously neither have you or MR. While obviously there is some evidence, there is no convincing evidence or extraordinary evidence.
Do you also accept the conspiracy regarding 9/11 and faked Moon landings?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!