Isn't it awfully ...

[Nettles]

... quiet in here?

Have evil trolls roared through and driven away all the good people?

[Max]

Why do you think it causes it to be quite Nettles? In my opinion, you need at least one of the following to make online communities work:

1. A sense of purpose ("this forum is place to develop a masterplan for throwing ID out of all education")

2. Someone opinionated/charasmatic who continually posts topical content when it is quiet ("Am I the only one who posts here? Oh well - what do you think of this Faith-based science concept - does it have any merit? Can there be science based on 'faith'?")

3. A sense of community ("Hey, my old community mate Nettles has put something up - that's always worth a read")

Right, now this forum doesn't have any of these, hence it's quiet.

Just my opinion

Max

[Killer Blob]

Yes, we need a big-mouthed opinionated South African to keep things moving around here.

[Max]

:) Sadly, I seem to spend most of my time at Bad Science now days.

[Nettles]

It does become apparent why Tessa pointed me to badscience.

[Tessa K]

These forums only really get lively when there is a big dodgy science or paranormal news story. They also get busy sometimes around a Skeptics meeting. But there is very little day-to-day traffic. Perhaps part of the problem is that too many of us agree with each other.

[Nettles]

No clash?

There's an internet rarity.

[exile]

I think you're right, Tessa. That kind of thing does make for an interesting read. To read posts from others who have the same point of view as yourself has very little interest.

The posts in here are interesting and everyone seems to post intelligent and well thought out replies.

I am used to forums where skeptics argue with 'believers'. It amused me to see a post in here somewhere that was arguing whether someone was either a cynic or a skeptic.

We seem to have a need for a little safe conflict in our lives. :D

[Max]

Yes, and when believers do come here, they're told that they are idiots by a mass of skeptics and they run away. So we lose even the tiniest of samples and opportunities to discuss stuff. And the conversations die.

[Nettles]

It's odd that there should be such uniformity of views amongst skeptics.

[Max]

That's an interesting point Nettles. Perhaps the answer will emerge if we find out why people become skeptics in the first place. For example:

1. If the purpose is to bash non-evidence claimants, then skeptics are as subject to pack behaviour as any other creatures and hence why everyone "agrees" with everyone else.

2. Perhaps skeptics are scientists who doggedly follow the rules of science. There is either evidence for claims or there is no evidence for claims. Not much for skeptics to disagree on there then.

I am also beginning to find popular American Skeptics magazines boring because it's ho-hum the same UFO/psychic/medium themes, just the names and places change.

On the other hand, for example, I find research into why people are willing to accept non evidence-based claims interesting precisely because we know so little about it and it is therefore usually novel. However, these topics is not as popular as believer-bashing in skeptical circles (check out headings in these forums to see what the majority of topics are).

A refreshing change from the usual skeptical literature is the The Skeptical Intelligencer magazine edited by Mike Heap of AKSE. For instance, the last issue was themed around the placebo effect with fascinating articles by experts from various disciplines. The final article by Mike was brilliant and I still laugh when reading it: it's about how to set up your own "placebo practice". When you read it, you'll see exactly what every homeopath and alternative healer is doing! And indeed how to start your own and make a million! Mike kindly sent me an electronic copy and if anybody wants one, pm me here with your email address and I'll send it.

I guess what I am suggesting is that there can be more to skepticism than Believer-Bashing which while fun at times tends to get repetitive.

In fact Wayne Spencer, one the finest skeptics I know, believes that in order for skepticism to become an interesting and seriously accepted discipline, it needs to throw off this its populist believer-bashing image. However, while I sympathise with his view, I am not sure that I entirely agree. Serious skepticism can be as dry as any scientific article and therefore not accessible to most members of the public, surely one of the audiences that need it most for their protection. I therefore believe that skeptical populists do a good job of educating the public, but I hope that is not the beginning and end of all skepticism because as we are discovering, it can get rather boring with not much new content to discuss.

[exile]

I think there are people who enjoy airing and arguing their point of view. Whether they are skeptics or believers.

If a person, no matter their beliefs will not listen to anothers argument then they have fixed preconceived ideas and nothing can be gained from the debate. You might as well bang your head up against the wall!

I believe a skeptic has an open mind and will explore any point made no matter what they believe in. I don't think there is such a huge divide between the two.

[Tessa K]

Indeed, too much concensus doesn't make for interesting debate.

While some people are beyond debate, so entrenched in their mad ideas that there is no point debating with them, there are many believers who are genuine, thoughtful people. Chasing them away with pitchforks and flaming torches may make people feel smart but it is a wasted opportunity.

It's interesting to try and find out why someone believes what they do, either from a psychological or an experience point of view. There may also be people who have no firm views either way on the paranormal and are looking for information or a way of approaching the subject. If they come here and just find rants, they are not going to learn much or get any enjoyment from a debate.

We're all human, we all make mstakes and we all have areas of gullibility. coming across as smug, superior and belligerent will achieve nothing.

[Nettles]

I have to say that I was chased away from the skeptical community for years by harsh anti-religious stuff.

[Max]

That's awful Nettles.

In my experience, skeptics often avoid religious skepticism because religion is openly faith-based. Skeptics therefore usually prefer to focus on pseudo-scientific claims.

Would you care to elaborate on your experience? Maybe we can learn from it.