What should we do with this forum?

[Peter Jones]

(Militant? I feel like a member of the Judean People's Front after that keynote motivational speech by Brian...!)

Judean People's Front?!
We're the People's Front of Judea!
Judean People's Front? Cawk! Wankers! Splitters!

[Peter Jones]

If any individuals want to take on the credulous groups they are welcome to try, but don't do it in the name of this forum.

So to me it seems the official uniform to be worn by members of this site is the trusty Anorak. Yip British and boring! That is why there is no interaction taking place it's Anorak-vill at this pace, get adventure in you.

[Trinoc]

If any individuals want to take on the credulous groups they are welcome to try, but don't do it in the name of this forum.

So to me it seems the official uniform to be worn by members of this site is the trusty Anorak. Yip British and boring! That is why there is no interaction taking place it's Anorak-vill at this pace, get adventure in you.

I assume you are already indulging in this great adventure and not waiting for the rest of us to back you up in case things get too hot. Please tell us where to look to see you in action, that we might learn from your example.

[Peter Jones]

OK!! Watch and learn you adrenalin junkies you. You will recognise me as I will be wearing my Pants outside my Anorak. "Up up and Away!!!...."

[Max]

Speaking personally, I love it when we have non-personal objective debate within the skeptical community and between the skeptical and other communities.

But the reason I've dropped out is because the debates rapidly degenerate into personal slanging matches. These sometimes come from the other communities, but also from Skeptics toward people with different belief systems.

I think the short reason that I drop out is when I perceive lack of respect for others' perspectives on these boards.

But I also acknowledge that I am but one voice and that this is a democracy and that others may enjoy the rough and tumble of personal slanging etc. This would suggest there might be space for a more moderated discussion forum too?

Cheers

Max

[Peter Jones]

Speaking personally, I love it when we have non-personal objective debate within the skeptical community and between the skeptical and other communities.

But the reason I've dropped out is because the debates rapidly degenerate into personal slanging matches. These sometimes come from the other communities, but also from Skeptics toward people with different belief systems.

I think the short reason that I drop out is when I perceive lack of respect for others' perspectives on these boards.

But I also acknowledge that I am but one voice and that this is a democracy and that others may enjoy the rough and tumble of personal slanging etc. This would suggest there might be space for a more moderated discussion forum too?

Cheers

Max

I agree entierly I agree entirely with what you say and with the slanging matches that go on here. Having respect within this community is essential; however there are faith healers out there that do not deserve respect what so ever. Personally I would give those swindlers a good kicking for what they are doing, not through this keyboard but physically doing it.
As for respect in this particular community, which I have now probably lost, may be never had. I ask so what? It has ground to a halt any way; this is my perspective so respect it. Too much mamby pam-bying is going on here, “ don’t want to upset this guy or this or that communityâ€

[Max]

Thanks Peter.

But is there not a risk that we are hanging the Faith Healers prior to having tested them? That means we are not being skeptics (testers of extraordinary claims), but fire-from-the-hip judges using inconsistent logic systems much like the Faith Healers we are supposed to be testing?

In other words, even if we are not prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt that their claims are true prior to being proved, we should at least afford them respect as human beings that their intentions are good until we can prove otherwise. If not, we risk becoming vigilantes rather than scientists.

[Trinoc]

OK!! Watch and learn you adrenalin junkies you. You will recognise me as I will be wearing my Pants outside my Anorak. "Up up and Away!!!...."

That's one weird anorak you've got there, man! Anyway, it's now called a hoodie, and it's a sign of street cred - just avoid shopping centres!

[Peter Jones]

OK!! Watch and learn you adrenalin junkies you. You will recognise me as I will be wearing my Pants outside my Anorak. "Up up and Away!!!...."

That's one weird anorak you've got there, man! Anyway, it's now called a hoodie, and it's a sign of street cred - just avoid shopping centres!

Hoddies are defiantly not anoraks. I can do it with an X large size.
Visit: hhttp://www.Skeptic fashion police.com

[Peter Jones]

Thanks Peter.

But is there not a risk that we are hanging the Faith Healers prior to having tested them? That means we are not being skeptics (testers of extraordinary claims), but fire-from-the-hip judges using inconsistent logic systems much like the Faith Healers we are supposed to be testing?

In other words, even if we are not prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt that their claims are true prior to being proved, we should at least afford them respect as human beings that their intentions are good until we can prove otherwise. If not, we risk becoming vigilantes rather than scientists.

Thanks for the sensible and logical reply and don’t let me convert you, we need guys like you about. Whats wrong in being both?
You are quite right, I cannot disagree with you and a scientific methodology should apply to finding out these issues but how long does it have to go on for? While people get false hopes and become poor victims of scams. While evolution is now a fact not a theory. Then it is a fact that the paranormal and supernatural does not exist and lets not waste any more time waiting for it to be proved, particularly while I watch people waste their lives and money on these arsehole psychics alternative medicine gadgets. If I am a vigilante, then let it be, but I am guaranteed that the psychic I will lynch will have no unnatural or super powers.
As for his human rights etc etc…. my arse and bollocks (that’s directed to the Psychic not you), did he care when he pulled a chickens liver out of the persons gut and told them they were cured of cancer, pocketed £200 and sent them home to die. No! As they slowly die in agonising pain they are made to feel guilty because the reason they are dieing is because their lack of faith in the healer. It’s not the healers fault the person dies it’s the person for not believing in him enough. Shoot the bastards

[Tessa K]

Yes, some of these charlatans are despicable people en masse, but as a true skeptics, we should treat each claim individually, making no prior assumptions (hello, Max), otherwise we are not being objective and our own methods will not stand up to scrutiny. Their minds are closed, ours should not be.

The scientific method may not be as lively but it is the only way we can have any credibility.

[Max]

Hi Tessa. I agree.

Wayne Spencer, one the the UK's greatest skeptics in my opinion, believed that skepticism was becoming overly populist and that the behaviour and values of skeptics were beginning to converge with those of the communities whose claims were being tested.

Wayne was of the view that skepticism should not (necessarily) be glamorous - skepticism has its own culture and does not need to emulate the ways of popular culture. Of course in order to be of interest to the popular media, there might be a requirement for some skeptics to behave like "celebs", but this should be an exception rather than the rule.

[Phil McKerracher]

I sort of agree that we shouldn't worry too much about being populist. Personally I'm tired of arguing with the deluded and borderline insane; I find "highbrow" discussions more rewarding.

Having said that, concentrating our efforts where they will make the most difference means discussing skeptical issues with the likes of politicians and newspaper editors, who are populist almost by definition.

[Max]

Of course having high-brow discussions with believers would require that believers adhere to rational argument. These are in limited supply in my experience - almost as rare as skeptics who are well versed in the language and mechanisms of the phenomena they challenge (Mike Heap being a notable exception - e.g. he has exquisite knowledge of NLP and many alternative medical modalities).

Perhaps discussions would be more high-brow if both sides learned more about the methods of the other?

[Tessa K]

hi Max

Can you tell me more about Heap and NLP?