"The Skeptics Dictionary" Unmasked

Originally posted by Hefficide
I am not married to my skepticism, but it does take a bit of work to get me to cheat on it! ~Heff

What a wonderful quote! Do I have your permission to nick it for my sig? Accredited to you of course.

Thanks, Heff! I can't reply to your U2U because I haven't made 20 posts yet.

reply to post by YouAreDreaming



Excellent post, one of those that I wish I could give more than the star it got, thanks for the great links

Originally posted by Mike_A
You go to the faith healer; I’ll go to the doctor.
You go the mind reader; I’ll see a psychologist.
You get your house built by the telekinetic; I’ll get mine built by an engineer.
You use remote viewing; I’ll use Google maps.
You keep an “open” mind; I’ll stick to my scepticism.

I´ll go to a doctor and a faith-healer for the extra boost.
I´ll go to a psychologist and a Meditation-Expert for the extra boost.
I´ll get my house built by an engineer and employ a feng shui expert for the extra boost.
I´ll use Google maps for stuff we can find and remote viewing for secret stuff.
I´ll use skepticism or an open-mind according to situation.

reply to post by Skyfloating
The skeptic on the show monsterquest drives me insane(I can't remember his name),he has the worst debunking skills(he basically says because I say so?)and is quite laughable,put it this way there are much better debunkers on ATS.

Originally posted by TWILITE22
there are much better debunkers on ATS.

A good Skeptic who knows how to Debunk is rare. ATS has some good ones for sure.

reply to post by Skyfloating


Ah but why won't you rely solely on the faith healer, is it perhaps because you're more than a little sceptical of their claims? But why would that be the case? There are millions of people who will testify as to their efficacy.

Sorry I just find it hypocritical how people bemoan the sceptics but when it comes down to anything of any real importance very few actually stick by the paranormal. Some do of course but then they end up in the news because their daughter died while they sat around chanting; and then the whole of ATS castigates them for not going to a doctor.

I'm not necessarily defending the site referenced in the OP as I have never read it, but I am questioning your sincerity when you put as much weight on personal experience and anecdotes as you do in the OP.

Originally posted by TWILITE22
reply to post by Skyfloating

 

The skeptic on the show monsterquest drives me insane(I can't remember his name),he has the worst debunking skills(he basically says because I say so?)and is quite laughable,put it this way there are much better debunkers on ATS.

I haven't seen the show but he probably laughs as he speaks and doesn't put much effort in, this is a technique meant to show that the subjects are for harmless entertainment and not worth much intellectual rigour, like when the news anchor puts a laugh in their voice if they have to discuss UFOs or a Bigfoot sighting.

Originally posted by Mike_A
Ah but why won't you rely solely on the faith healer, is it perhaps because you're more than a little sceptical of their claims? But why would that be the case? There are millions of people who will testify as to their efficacy.

Because rejecting something that has worked Billions of times (conventional medicine) is stupid. Almost as stupid as rejecting the other thing (Placebo Effect / Faith Healing).

Sorry I just find it hypocritical how people bemoan the sceptics but when it comes down to anything of any real importance very few actually stick by the paranormal.

Ive noticed how you can quickly determine what is true vs. false when it comes to really important stuff. Good point.

sincerity when you put as much weight on personal experience and anecdotes as you do in the OP.

Im an advocate of holistic behaviour, which means taking everything into consideration. If and when someone falls ill, whats wrong with trying more than one thing that seems to have worked?

In my view someone should first try normal medicine and then, if that doesnt work, look at other things.

People should adopt whatever views and beliefs that they are personally comfortable with.

There's no such thing as any collective ''truth'', there is only individual truth, and there is no possible way to judge and compare the accuracy or inaccuracy of one person's and views and beliefs with those of any other person.


I personally recommend a healthy dose of ''self-scepticism''. Don't take your beliefs for granted or don't get complacent about the views that you hold.

Give them a regular and rigorous cross-examination to see whether they stand up to scrutiny.

Everybody';s personal experiences and views change over time, and often people keep hold of a view purely down to force of habit.

reply to post by Skyfloating

Because rejecting something that has worked Billions of times (conventional medicine) is stupid. Almost as stupid as rejecting the other thing (Placebo Effect / Faith Healing).

But anecdotal evidence would suggest that faith healing has worked billions of times so why pick conventional medicine over faith healing if you’re so convinced of the value of personal testimony?

By the way I don’t think any scientifically minded person rejects the placebo effect.

Im an advocate of holistic behaviour, which means taking everything into consideration. If and when someone falls ill, whats wrong with trying more than one thing that seems to have worked?

Because not everything that seems to be is.

Originally posted by Mike_A

But anecdotal evidence would suggest that faith healing has worked billions of times so why pick conventional medicine over faith healing if you’re so convinced of the value of personal testimony?

Black/White thinking has no place in my world. Its not either/or, its both. But normal medicine first, because the norm tells me what has worked for the majority, by mere definition of the word normal. And then, in addition to the doctors visit I will add some placebo-effect by saying a prayer or visualizing health.

By the way I don’t think any scientifically minded person rejects the placebo effect.

Then dont reject Faith Healing.

Originally posted by Becker44
Uhhhm FYI. That site is owned by Phage.

Whoa whoa wait. Can we get back to this post?

Phage is Robert Carroll?

Can Phage confirm this?

Originally posted by Skyfloating

one must move with sufficient speed or one will get burned

Having partaken in a Firewalking-Ritual ten years ago, walking barefoot over burning coals, not quickly but rather leisurely, I can state with certainty that the Skeptics are wrong on this one.

I'm quite heavy, and have no calluses, and I stood still on smouldering coals for several minutes. My teenage son, who had wanted to try it, had something like a petit mal. I was walking behind him on the thick bed of coals, so I picked him up under the arms and held him up in the air until he came to himself again and could keep walking.

The firewalk had been made by a sceptics association, so I'm guessing they'd done it well enough to have a nice thick coating of carbon on the coals. At that temperature the carbon is invisible, because it glows red like the coals it's on, but it still insulates you. However I'm not certain that my determination that I had to do this for my son did not protect me.

I did get one burn, but only where a tiny coal had got stuck between my toes.

reply to post by Skyfloating


You miss my point; in your OP you put a great deal of weight on anecdotal evidence, yet when it comes to your own behaviour this same anecdotal evidence does not carry anywhere near the same weight.

You pick the conventional because it works but according to your OP faith healing works (since that’s what the experience of thousands says) but still it takes a back seat. Why if not for an at least tacit belief that personal testimony just isn’t that good when it comes to evidence?

I’m not saying you have to reject conventional medicine, but why won’t you put your trust in the paranormal alone?

I imagine you’d be perfectly happy seeing a trained doctor, you’d probably be ok with seeing a trained doctor and a faith healer but would you truthfully be happy to see a faith healer alone? Maybe if it was a cold but probably not if it was a brain tumour. The question is why not when anecdotally faith healers should have no problem with any illness you can confront them with; in fact they should be better. The same goes for all sorts of paranormal claims.

Then dont reject Faith Healing.

The placebo effect is a well studied, document and experimentally verified phenomena. Despite being subjected to the same standards of rigour faith healing has never been able to consistently demonstrate the results that practitioners claim for it. Thus I reject faith healing but not the placebo effect.

Originally posted by Mike_A

You miss my point; in your OP you put a great deal of weight on anecdotal evidence, yet when it comes to your own behaviour this same anecdotal evidence does not carry anywhere near the same weight.

Maybe thats because Im not a kook. Not everyone who is open to spiritual ideas or alternative medicine or extraterrestrials is a kook.

why won’t you put your trust in the paranormal alone?

Because Im not a kook.

I actually havent been to a doctor in 15 years because I handle most things with mind-power alone. But thats only my personal, subjective exerience. Only a kook and a quack would recommend not to go to a normal doctor.

What makes you think anyone who believes in alternative realities is a kook?

Why isnt it OK to do Faith Healing after the visit to a doctor? If you believe in the placebo-effect, could the prayer not act as a placebo?

reply to post by backinblack


Well I like phage's posts here. I am very skeptical about the ETH side of UFO s and have gone on record here on ATS. I am skeptical but am a trained and practicing occultist with a degree in Bioscience.

I can only deal with what I have experienced directly or by trusted associates. What I cannot abide about ATS is the way that some skeptics demand the right to troll the paranormal forum. If you are a skeptic fine! May all skeptics live long and prosper! But please controll your evangelical urges or get a religion.

T

PS I have trained a parrot to say "it ain't so".

Originally posted by NewlyAwakened

Can Phage confirm this?

Would be interesting. He's one of the few folks on my friends-list and it turns out I cant stand his site

reply to post by Skyfloating


Again you’re missing the point, in fact you’ve almost turned your own around 180 degrees. You started off this thread attacking sceptics partly based on their non-acceptance of anecdotal evidence; yet now when the prospect of seeing a faith healer over a doctor is mentioned, based on plentiful anecdotal evidence, you think this to be mad. It’s a contradiction.

You lambast the sceptics for ridiculing other beliefs yet you now describe those who follow through on their beliefs “kooks”. It’s a contradiction.

Why isnt it OK to do Faith Healing after the visit to a doctor? If you believe in the placebo-effect, could the prayer not act as a placebo?

Because faith healers don’t claim to be a placebo, faith healers claim to cure you, to cure cancers, aids, chronic diseases etc. The placebo effect cannot cure anything.

Originally posted by Mike_A
Again you’re missing the point, in fact you’ve almost turned your own around 180 degrees. You started off this thread attacking sceptics partly based on their non-acceptance of anecdotal evidence; yet now when the prospect of seeing a faith healer over a doctor is mentioned, based on plentiful anecdotal evidence, you think this to be mad. It’s a contradiction.

You're insisting that I choose either chocolate or vanilla ice-cream and Im telling you I´ll take both, that's all. Difficult to grasp, isnt it?

You see, it's possible to prefer medicine without belitteling alternatives.

It's possible to be...say, an atheist, without belittling the religious.

My opinions have not turned 180, they havent turned at all. It was your prejudice telling you I must be anti-skeptics or anti-doctors or something. But I mentioned in the opening post that I use the Skeptics Dictionary for the purpose of Debunking myself.

Now if I use the Skeptics sources myself, its unlikely that am I kook, isnt it? I´m sorry if I don't match your preconceptions of what a critic of Skepticism is like. I say I take chocolate and vanilla (and chocolate first). In the OP I said that people who only take chocolate are narrow-minded.

And they are.