What good do skeptics do?

pH

Sometimes being a skeptic you get accused of lacking a spiritual purpose, mocking things, being too cynical, an intellectual bully etc. etc.

Sometimes it's worth standing back and looking a what you do and why you do it. Are those labels correct?

With that in mind, here are two Sylvia Browne videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dU0Q208HKI&NR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFNKsmwgw8w

Ms. Browne is one of the US's most famous psychics. The point of these videos is not to make fun of her, but to remind us that 'psychics' exploit very vulnerable people in the most despicable way possible. Making money by pretending that you can talk to dead loved ones is one the least 'spiritual' ways to live your life.

Yet Browne gets a very uncritical airing on shows like Montel and Larry King, a few voices way back in the crowd shouting 'rubbish' and 'Prove it' seem a measured and proportionate response.

monkeyfudge

Wow... she's terrible.

Hasn't she ever heard of cold reading?

Zillah

This seems somewhat relevant:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51965463&postcount=10

pH

Zillah wrote:

This seems somewhat relevant:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51965463&postcount=10

Those closed minded ghost-botherers will just ban you, the paranormal forum's charter is by far the silliest thing I've read in a long time. Here is a quote:

Regarding sceptical debate on Paranormal issues

Sceptical debate and discussion is restricted solely and specifically to threads where the original poster has asked for explanation or discussion on phenomenological issues or events.

Did the OP on that thread ask for an explanation?

torinoblue

Those videos are tragic. They would be funny, except she is scamming people who are so vulnerable.

At the least hopefully the first woman will know that psychics are talking out of their ass. This is America's best and she could not even pick up the vibes of America's most traumatic event. (Psychics and ghost hunters usually use the level of trauma of an event as some sort of measure of its impact on the psychic realm)

shay7

pH wrote:

What good do skeptics do?

They hopefully encourage people to think for themselves.

Myksyk

I think skeptical groups have two functions: First and foremost they should aim to offer information to allow people make more informed choices or decisions and also aim to support people in developing critical thinking skills - in other words they should see their role as primarily about public education.

Secondly they should challenge those who make claims which are questionable. It is not the role of skeptics to berate those who believe in strange things or who are convinced by the claims of charalatans and quacks (i.e. the consumers) but rather to engage the purveyors of these claims in robust, challenging debate.

6th

Myksyk wrote:

I think skeptical groups have two functions: First and foremost they should aim to offer information to allow people make more informed choices or decisions and also aim to support people in developing critical thinking skills - in other words they should see their role as primarily about public education.

Secondly they should challenge those who make claims which are questionable. It is not the role of skeptics to berate those who believe in strange things or who are convinced by the claims of charalatans and quacks (i.e. the consumers) but rather to engage the purveyors of these claims in robust, challenging debate.

I think the thread ended after the above post because he got it so right. As a very regular user of the Paranormal Forum it might be expected of me to have a problem with skeptics - this isnt the case at all. Genuine sceptics seem to be rare enough and around these part, my problem is with people whop use the title of skeptic to hide behind so they can freely slam peoples beliefs and label people crazy, delussional, etc. They have no interest at looking at the individual cases and seeing what may or may not be happening.

The investigation and study of what are commonly known as "paranormal" occurances need to be look at on a case by case basis, not swept away in general as being unquestionably true or false.

robindch

> The investigation and study of what are commonly known as "paranormal"
> occurances need to be look at on a case by case basis [...]

What are your feelings on Susan Blackmore, who's spent almost thirty years studying "paranormal" events professionally, and found nothing at all:

http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/journalism/NS2000.html
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Chapters/Kurtz.htm

Sangre

6th wrote:

I think the thread ended after the above post because he got it so right. As a very regular user of the Paranormal Forum it might be expected of me to have a problem with skeptics - this isnt the case at all. Genuine sceptics seem to be rare enough and around these part, my problem is with people whop use the title of skeptic to hide behind so they can freely slam peoples beliefs and label people crazy, delussional, etc. They have no interest at looking at the individual cases and seeing what may or may not be happening.

The investigation and study of what are commonly known as "paranormal" occurances need to be look at on a case by case basis, not swept away in general as being unquestionably true or false.

As I already alluded to in another thread, why would any rational person examine these individually on a case by case basis? In an ideal world yes, we could try and learn everything but the average 'skeptic' hardly has time to examine each new 'paranormal' claim.
Since science is so firmly against the existence of ANY paranormal claim so far, why bother looking at each claim. Its perfectly logical to dismiss them off hand based on our current knowledge. I think this is a perfectly acceptable practice in a practical world, you might call it cynical, I call it time saving

Call me a cynic but I'm not going to examine your claims you've an invisible tree fairy behind you, you prove it to me first.

It is a long established code of practice, those who make a claim should be the ones backing it not, it should not be up to others to try and prove a negative.

Myksyk

6th wrote:

The investigation and study of what are commonly known as "paranormal" occurances need to be look at on a case by case basis, not swept away in general as being unquestionably true or false.

This is an interesting one 6th. I was only thinking about this last night. I have to say I have difficulty with the 'sitting on the fence' scenario; I don't think it's tenable. I believe in taking a position on the current evidence for things. Therefore I my position with regard to paranormal phenomena, for example, is that they don't exist - I believe that's what the evidence suggests. Equally, I believe the evidence shows astrology to be bunkum and I will hold that position until there is compelling evidence to suggest otherwise. A case by case approach while superficially tempting seems to me to be intellectually emasculating - it runs the risk that you don't hold a position on something if it HASN'T been proved.

However, as all knowledge is tentative, I will be happy to change my mind if compelling replicable evidence should emerge in the future. In the meantime I will entertain paranormal claims with extreme skepticism. A permanent state of "I don't know-ness" seems impractical to me. I agree with Sangre when he suggets that the ball is in the Claimants' court. Compelling evidence is, to me, the only reasonable reason to change one's position on something. In the meantime we should not be afraid to hold a firm position on x or y.

Of course, I don't really need to remind anyone that believing that something is bunkum does not mean holding the belief that those who do believe it are stupid. It's the old ad hominem thing again - keep personalities out of it and have a stimulating time attacking ideas ... that should be part of any staple intellectual diet imho.;)

6th

Excellent post Myksyk, you approach is absolutely understandable. Good to see that you are open to having it proved to you, thats what most seem to be lacking.

There are too many personal attacks going around.

robindch

> Good to see that you are open to having it proved to you, thats what
> most seem to be lacking.

Who's lacking it? I haven't seen anybody saying that they're not open to having something demonstrated to them on the basis of solid evidence...

pH

My kind of skeptic ...

"Work in this field is a complete waste of time. Although it is politically incorrect to dismiss ideas out of hand, in this case there is absolutely no reason to suppose that telepathy is anything more than a charlatan’s fantasy."

Professor Peter Atkins of Oxford University, on Sheldrake's latest announcement that he had positive results in a phone "telepathy" trial.

Sangre

6th wrote:

Excellent post Myksyk, you approach is absolutely understandable. Good to see that you are open to having it proved to you, thats what most seem to be lacking.

There are too many personal attacks going around.

Where are you getting this nonsense from? Its almost if you want to believe people here hate the paranormal. If anything those who are relying on current facts and science will be the first to accept a new position, as long as it has been proved. The only reason they hold their current 'belief' is because science backs it up, its not because they don't want to believe in the paranormal.

I think you just like being interested in a minority field.

robindch

> There are too many personal attacks going around.

6th -- if you can't back up your claim about how common are personal attacks, then I think it would be polite to withdraw it.

thanks,

- robin (moderator)

.

ISAW

6th wrote:

Excellent post Myksyk, you approach is absolutely understandable. Good to see that you are open to having it proved to you, thats what most seem to be lacking.

There are too many personal attacks going around.

Were you ever called Dublin6th?
If so I find the above post ironic.

Zillah

ISAW wrote:

Were you ever called Dublin6th?
If so I find the above post ironic.

Yes. In fairness he was attacking Mysteria, who was [not very nice].

EDIT: Diplomacy.

Calibos

Zillah wrote:

This seems somewhat relevant:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51965463&postcount=10

Whats the gist of that thread? I'm banned from the paranormal forum

pH

Calibos wrote:

Whats the gist of that thread? I'm banned from the paranormal forum

Just log out and read it. Being banned from a forum can't stop you from reading it (if it's public)

Zillah

Calibos wrote:

Whats the gist of that thread? I'm banned from the paranormal forum

Essentially I give Ms.Browne a thorough flaming. Links and all

Obni

My son recently asked me "What is the point of jelly-fish? What are they for? They can't fly or jump or even stand-up out of the water. They just float around and sometimes sting people. As animals go they're really crap!"

I tried to point out that his argument only had any value if they were created to perform a role within a designed world. When in fact they exist because as organisms they evolved into very effective forms to successfully exploit the resources available in their environment. They're not 'for' anything. They simply 'are'. At this point I realised the ads were over and his interest in the topic had vanished.

If an environment contains an organism which is self-aware and is curious about some 'big' questions...
How it and it's enviroment work?
From where did it all come?
What if anything is the point?
How can it make sure that it stays functioning in this enviroment as long as possible?

It is inevitable that some of these creatures will develop the ability to point out when other creatures make extraordinary claims concerning the big answers, especially when those claims seek to defraud yet another group of creatures.

So, what good to skeptics do? About as much as jelly-fish!
Skeptics aren't here to do good. We're here to be skeptics.
We eat, float, make little skeptics, and occassionally sting people.

6th

ISAW wrote:

Were you ever called Dublin6th?
If so I find the above post ironic.

Its nice to be remembered

Personality clashes cant be avoided sometimes and sure that all in the past now.

robindch

> So, what good to skeptics do? About as much as jelly-fish!

Jellyfish? Nah, a gadfly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadfly_(social)

Of course, they killed Socrates for asking difficult questions!

.

robindch

Folks - no more silly "You said blah!"/"No, I didn't" exchanges.

- robin (moderator).