Sceptic agenda

Oryx

There are a lot of sceptics* here, I know most of you by (nick)name by now. What I would like to know about you, is your agenda in your sceptical stance. This is personally for each of you, not a mission statement for sceptics in general. You all invest a lot of time posting here, and Im interested in why, individually, you do that.

*skeptic if you prefer!

Nolanger

Maybe they are just rational and intelligent people who hate seeing gullible others being fooled?

iamhunted

its good to be a sceptic/skeptic - we all are to a degree and it makes sure no-one disappears off on flights of fancy. I find more people on here though arent true sceptics - they're much more cynics in that theres no doubt in their minds the rest of us are all loolaa. when you completely disbelieve in something and do your best to tell others how wrong they are - thats not be sceptical. thats cynical. from dictionary.com

Cynical suggests a disbelief in the sincerity of human motives

- i think that descirbes the attitudes around here.

no, no-one sees ghosts or experiences the paranormal - if they say they do they arent being sincere or are mad .. thats the kind of attitude I find on the Skeptics forum which fits the definition of cynical.

Maybe they are just rational and intelligent people who hate seeing gullible others being fooled?

How nice of them, though I dont see how that actually fits in with the paranormal. who's doing the fooling?

I have an interest in the paranormal and I'd like to know what the story is - does that mean Im being fooled and are gulible?

or does that mean I have a brain and it works normally by letting me question and be interested in finding out things?

Oryx

I dont want this to descend into a row from the start. Nolanger, i hear that kind of negative stock answer so much, its kinda why i asked the question. I do actually want to hear directly from the regulars here about what drives them.

Skeptic_Desu

iamhunted wrote: »

ithey're much more cynics in that theres no doubt in their minds the rest of us are all loolaa. when you completely disbelieve in something and do your best to tell others how wrong they are - thats not be sceptical. thats cynical.

Is it cynical to not believe something for which there is no supporting evidence and is often faked?

iamhunted wrote: »

no, no-one sees ghosts or experiences the paranormal - if they say they do they arent being sincere or are mad .. thats the kind of attitude I find on the Skeptics forum which fits the definition of cynical.

I don't think any skeptic here thinks most believers are mad. But rather believers tend to fall into non-critical thinking and simple psychological effects that all people may experience.
A person is not mental for experiencing the placebo effect or the ideo-motor effect.

iamhunted wrote: »

How nice of them, though I dont see how that actually fits in with the paranormal. who's doing the fooling?

I have an interest in the paranormal and I'd like to know what the story is - does that mean Im being fooled and are gulible?

or does that mean I have a brain and it works normally by letting me question and be interested in finding out things?

Let me ask you a question: Is it possible that you might be mistaken or might have fallen in the same psychological traps many, many other people have fallen into?

???

To be perfectly blunt, boredom! Work on a computer a lot so there's not much else to do!

Oryx

??? wrote: »

To be perfectly blunt, boredom! Work on a computer a lot so there's not much else to do!

I was hoping for something a bit more.. Noble.. I suppose You could just play minesweeper or hang around AH if its just boredom!

Standman

I'm not really a regular here, but I just have an itch that when I hear someone make a claim on something that is unlikely then I would want to see evidence for it. I mean it's just common sense in my opinion. If there were real proof that there exists some kind of paranormal world, I would love to study it and find out more. Imagine, it would be amazing! A whole new unexplored and mysterious world to look into. This is why I would be skeptical and look for evidence of paranormal claims.

Also I have a big problem with mediums and phsychics, as even though most of the time they may be just some harmless fun, from personal experience I know that they sometimes act very irresponsibly, and to be blunt it makes me very angry.

iamhunted

Skeptic_Desu wrote: »

Is it cynical to not believe something for which there is no supporting evidence and is often faked?

then just dont believe any of it. people are often quite fake but that doesnt mean you give up on everyone. If you dont have an interest in the paranormal then fine - for the record, i agree many people get fuped by mediums/psychics etc ...but thats their lookout. theres many a crooked car salesman around too.

I don't think any skeptic here thinks most believers are mad. But rather believers tend to fall into non-critical thinking and simple psychological effects that all people may experience.
A person is not mental for experiencing the placebo effect or the ideo-motor effect.

Over generalisation about what kind of people believe in the paranormal seems to be a skeptics weak point. believers dont tend to "fall into non-critical thinking and simple psychological effects that all people may experience." - some people do but you cant educate bacon. Personally, most of those i know in the paranormal field are quite level head, intelligent astute thinkers and many have had experiences you'd be hard pressed to explain. they certainly dont strike me as ones who have wool pulled over their eyes regularly.

On the other hand, theres plenty of 'orbies' around who'd fit your description perfectly but you are generalising.

Let me ask you a question: Is it possible that you might be mistaken or might have fallen in the same psychological traps many, many other people have fallen into?

mistaken about what and can you be more specific on these "psychological traps" traps you talk of?

Skeptic_Desu

iamhunted wrote: »

then just dont believe any of it. people are often quite fake but that doesnt mean you give up on everyone. If you dont have an interest in the paranormal then fine - for the record, i agree many people get fuped by mediums/psychics etc ...but thats their lookout. theres many a crooked car salesman around too.

Who said anyone has given up on anyone? Does it make one cynical to look for good solid scientific proof of the paranormal and to want more than a fuzzy photo and a poorly remebered ancedote?

iamhunted wrote: »

Over generalisation about what kind of people believe in the paranormal seems to be a skeptics weak point. believers dont tend to "fall into non-critical thinking and simple psychological effects that all people may experience." - some people do but you cant educate bacon. Personally, most of those i know in the paranormal field are quite level head, intelligent astute thinkers and many have had experiences you'd be hard pressed to explain. they certainly dont strike me as ones who have wool pulled over their eyes regularly.

On the other hand, theres plenty of 'orbies' around who'd fit your description perfectly but you are generalising.

Many very intelligent people can fall into non-cricital thinking (Take the Apollo astronaut who recently stated a belief in aliens for example) No one is immune!
And just because said intelligent person can't personally explain something it does not imply the thing is paranormal. That is a logical fallacy called "Argument from Personal Incredulity."

iamhunted wrote: »

mistaken about what and can you be more specific on these "psychological traps" traps you talk of?

I was refering to psychlogical effects such as paredolia, apophenia, confirmation bias and the forer effect to name but a few.

iamhunted

for your last point - I dont really know where you;re going with this but no - i generally wouldnt be the kind of person that would see things in a picture when its only pixelisation/believe someone when they tell me theres a 'spirit' in the room etc etc etc. at the same time i dont delcare that its impossible for things to happen/exist when I cant say that for sure.

Does it make one cynical to look for good solid scientific proof of the paranormal and to want more than a fuzzy photo and a poorly remebered ancedote?

no - what makes one look cynical is when people investigating the paranormal get slagged off for even mentioning the word 'scientific'. As I have said on other threads, you wont develop scientific methodology for the paranormal if you dont try to research and investigate claims of the paranormal. If you dont do that you'll never get far enough to work out a methodology for it.

And just because said intelligent person can't personally explain something it does not imply the thing is paranormal. That is a logical fallacy called "Argument from Personal Incredulity."

That all depends on exactly what cant be explained. If someone, say (and im making this up), hears someone talking in a house with no other occupants and no TV or radio on and far enough away from neighbours to rule out sound from them, then they cant explain it. Most other people would find it hard to explain to. Thats where a paranormal research group would go there and find out exactly how likely it is for sound to come from outside, check and make sure theres no other sound sources etc etc and normally, in circumstances like it, can probably come up with a logical answer.

I cant see how that fits in with the skeptics/cynics idea that everyone interested in the paranormal falls under your "Argument from Personal Incredulity". Obviously if you dont believe someones experience solely because its a personal experience then you are in danger of being cynical. Otherwise I think skeptics tend to have quite a narrow understanding of exactly what the paranormal is meant to entail and doesnt seem to go further than people believing in orbs, spirits or mediums.

Skeptic_Desu

iamhunted wrote: »

for your last point - I dont really know where you;re going with this but no - i generally wouldnt be the kind of person that would see things in a picture when its only pixelisation/believe someone when they tell me theres a 'spirit' in the room etc etc etc. at the same time i dont delcare that its impossible for things to happen/exist when I cant say that for sure.

What I'm asking is: Is it possible that your personal paranormal experiences might be a result of simple psychlogical effects like apophenia and confirmation bias?

iamhunted wrote: »

no - what makes one look cynical is when people investigating the paranormal get slagged off for even mentioning the word 'scientific'. As I have said on other threads, you wont develop scientific methodology for the paranormal if you dont try to research and investigate claims of the paranormal. If you dont do that you'll never get far enough to work out a methodology for it.

So it is cynical then to criticise an organisation for claim to use the scientific method but clearly do not use it at all?

iamhunted wrote: »

That all depends on exactly what cant be explained. If someone, say (and im making this up), hears someone talking in a house with no other occupants and no TV or radio on and far enough away from neighbours to rule out sound from them, then they cant explain it. Most other people would find it hard to explain to. Thats where a paranormal research group would go there and find out exactly how likely it is for sound to come from outside, check and make sure theres no other sound sources etc etc and normally, in circumstances like it, can probably come up with a logical answer.

I cant see how that fits in with the skeptics/cynics idea that everyone interested in the paranormal falls under your "Argument from Personal Incredulity". Obviously if you dont believe someones experience solely because its a personal experience then you are in danger of being cynical. Otherwise I think skeptics tend to have quite a narrow understanding of exactly what the paranormal is meant to entail and doesnt seem to go further than people believing in orbs, spirits or mediums.

Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence. People's experiences are subject to many many factors that invalidate it, such as selective or incomplete memory to name a few examples.

Standman

Skeptic_Desu wrote: »

What I'm asking is: Is it possible that your personal paranormal experiences might be a result of simple psychlogical effects like apophenia and confirmation bias?


So it is cynical then to criticise an organisation for claim to use the scientific method but clearly do not use it at all?

It's cynical to disregard anything based on what you believe the motives are behind it, without ever checking the evidence.

Skepticism is the process of reviewing the evidence at hand to see if there is any truth in whatever the claim may be. Although you may question the motives, they alone are not grounds to disbelieve any claim. This is the difference between spketicism and cynicism.

A very common form of cynicism that you hear nowadays is some people who disbelieve anything that George Bush says just because he is George Bush and they don't like him/his policies. Whether there is any truth/merit in what he says does not enter the equation.

Cynicism is where I believe most if not all conspiracy theories can be traced back to and in my opinion is the opposite of skepticism.

Skeptic_Desu

Standman wrote: »

It's cynical to disregard anything based on what you believe the motives are behind it, without ever checking the evidence.

Skepticism is the process of reviewing the evidence at hand to see if there is any truth in whatever the claim may be. Although you may question the motives, they alone are not grounds to disbelieve any claim. This is the difference between spketicism and cynicism.

A very common form of cynicism that you hear nowadays is some people who disbelieve anything that George Bush says just because he is George Bush and they don't like him/his policies. Whether there is any truth/merit in what he says does not enter the equation.

Cynicism is where I believe most if not all conspiracy theories can be traced back to and in my opinion is the opposite of skepticism.

I think you misunderstand (or should that be "misunderestimate" ), I know the definition of cynicism quite well.
What I don't know is why we are called cynical when we are not allowed to ask for evidence to determine the truth.

Oryx

God but you guys dont half go off topic... Anyway.. Please dont sulk that you arent allowed to ask for proof, you have you own zone to ask what you like. However dont be disappointed if people are reluctant to interact with you if the only response they get is a variation of youre deluded/lying/stupid every time. All that does is alienate those you query and cause distrust here.

Skeptic_Desu

Oryx wrote: »

God but you guys dont half go off topic... Anyway.. Please dont sulk that you arent allowed to ask for proof, you have you own zone to ask what you like. However dont be disappointed if people are reluctant to interact with you if the only response they get is a variation of youre deluded/lying/stupid every time. All that does is alienate those you query and cause distrust here.

As I have said I don't think believers aren't for the most part deluded or lying or stupid, merely mistaken and not using good critical thinking. Though I'm sure there are a few skeptics who would disagree with me and there most certainly is a very few believers who are deluded lying or plain stupid.

Oryx

Skeptic_Desu wrote: »

As I have said I don't think believers aren't for the most part deluded or lying or stupid, merely mistaken and not using good critical thinking. Though I'm sure there are a few skeptics who would disagree with me and there most certainly is a very few believers who are deluded lying or plain stupid.

Im not sure if the double negative was intentional, but while you have been kind enough to use pc words, your stance boils down to the same thing. Mistaken/deluded.. potato/patata.. The common factor i see among all who post as sceptics here is a reluctance to ever look beyond those easy assumptions.

Skeptic_Desu

Oryx wrote: »

Im not sure if the double negative was intentional, but while you have been kind enough to use pc words, your stance boils down to the same thing. Mistaken/deluded.. potato/patata.. The common factor i see among all who post as sceptics here is a reluctance to ever look beyond those easy assumptions.

So skeptics are arguing that because a layperson does know about the placebo effect they are deluded? I don't think so.
In fact that brings us neatly back to the topic at hand, skeptics are trying to educate people on how critical thinking works.

So why would skeptics look beyond these so called easy assumptions when there is rarely evidence to warrant investigation and when there is such evidence a rational explanation is always found?

Oryx

I really hate this inevitable conclusion every thread comes to. You have set out above that the 'rare' evidence that arises is always explained by rational means. Always. The result is in and we should all go home. Thats very final, and quite a massive assumption, even given the amounts of rational explantions that can be applied. You leave no room at all for an alternate. I think in your responses i have got to the crux of the question i posed. Essentially you are not here to test the paranormal to see if it could be true, but to debunk based on your assumption that it cannot be real.

Skeptic_Desu

Oryx wrote: »

I really hate this inevitable conclusion every thread comes to. You have set out above that the 'rare' evidence that arises is always explained by rational means. Always. The result is in and we should all go home. Thats very final, and quite a massive assumption, even given the amounts of rational explantions that can be applied. You leave no room at all for an alternate. I think in your responses i have got to the crux of the question i posed. Essentially you are not here to test the paranormal to see if it could be true, but to debunk based on your assumption that it cannot be real.

Perhaps I should have said "so far, always".
I for one am very interested in testing the paranormal. However to test something and determine the truth of the matter you need more than an anecdote and a fuzzy photograph.

Oryx

What do you propose?

Skeptic_Desu

Oryx wrote: »

What do you propose?

For what type of phenomenon?

Oryx

Skeptic_Desu wrote: »

For what type of phenomenon?

It doesnt matter to me. I only asked what you suggest as an alternate tothe photograph/anecdote you mention above. In this environment you have very few options open to you. (Which is probably why all we do is argue.)

Skeptic_Desu

Oryx wrote: »

It doesnt matter to me. I only asked what you suggest as an alternate tothe photograph/anecdote you mention above. In this environment you have very few options open to you. (Which is probably why all we do is argue.)

Well by that I was referencing ghosts and UFOs and such. They are slightly harder to test empirically than psychics or dowsers.
But maybe a ghost pictured or filmed by several cameras at the same time.
If the ghost was the same in each photo or movie clip one can rule out tricks of the light or photographic artifacts.
Or perhaps a study of conditions in which ghosts are more likely to appear.

???

With all the instruments they wave about, I'd just like a good solid reason for why ghosts "appear in a spectrum difficult to see in bright light". You know, given that that spectrum doesn't exist!

Something as simple as saying that an unexplained EMF spike of x value is consistantly found in houses reported to be haunted. We think that if a spike of value x is detected it is a good reason for further investigation. Anything would be better than:

[waving thermometer] ooh the temperature drops near the window, it must be ghost cold!

Oryx

Thanks ??? But that really belongs in the other thread. Got anything to add on your own personal stance apart from boredom?

Zombrex

Oryx wrote: »

Thanks ??? But that really belongs in the other thread. Got anything to add on your own personal stance apart from boredom?

Can't speak for everyone, but wouldn't the reason "skeptics" come to this forum to discuss things be the same as the reason "believers" do, because it is interesting?

I mean, why does anyone discuss anything?

iamhunted

or are you sure it isnt because they can try and 'look down' on those they believe to be stupid or deluded?

As I said before, this isnt a Skeptics forum - its full of cynics. A lot of people invovled in the paranormal are skeptics, but at least they have open minds.

iamhunted

Skeptic_Desu wrote: »

So it is cynical then to criticise an organisation for claim to use the scientific method but clearly do not use it at all?.

As I mentioned to wicknight, you cant say they dont use scientific methods as you've never went on an investigation with them.

You assume a lot from a website.

Dave!

iamhunted wrote: »

As I mentioned to wicknight, you cant say they dont use scientific methods as you've never went on an investigation with them.

You assume a lot from a website.

Well if I had a website called www.imnotaracist.com, and on it I said:

"I hate blacks. That is all."

...then it would be safe to say that my website name is a bit misleading.

Skeptic_Desu

iamhunted wrote: »

or are you sure it isnt because they can try and 'look down' on those they believe to be stupid or deluded?

As I said before, this isnt a Skeptics forum - its full of cynics. A lot of people invovled in the paranormal are skeptics, but at least they have open minds.

There's that classic we're closed minded thing again.

Tell me, why is it closed minded to not accept something till there is some good solid evidence? I don't get it.