Quote:
Originally Posted by mszlazak  They don't exactly come out and say Wiseman or Hyman are frauds but imply deception in their writings. Whether it's self-deception or willful deception is what one has to decide based on their deceptive behavior. |
Two books written by authors who clearly have an agenda of their own and then you conclude by their mere suggestion that Hyman and Wiseman are willingly or unwillingly deceptive. That does not make them so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mszlazak Hyman: Probably more self-deception than willful deception. He is to invested in an ideology and just will not let go no matter what. My slogan for him is "name that pathology.". |
The fact that the authors you listed have an agenda of their own could suggest deception on their part (Crater and McLuhan). The fact that those two are unwilling to given in or apologize for their ideas means they could be self-deceptive.
Do you see how this can be played out, this finger pointing? That is rather silly. I would never say that about those two because that requires a lot of critical evidence to base such statements on. But it seems that the authors might be willing to ignore the “kettle calling the pot black” for Hyman or Wiseman. Or are you the only one saying Hyman and Wiseman are conmen?
You have to show real proof of their deliberate deception to amount to anything substantial. Do those authors provide a real clear cut example of Hyman or Wiseman's deception or do they simply disagree with their conclusions and make ad hominem attacks?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mszlazak Wiseman: More willful deception than self-deception. He's and opportunist of minor talent that will step on others backs to get a head. My slogans for him are "back stabber" and "candy coated bullshit.". |
Wow, besides from what I have read on Wiseman’s conclusion on Sheldrake’s experiment I have yet to see why the need for childish attacks. Wiseman is following science, the only issue is you happen to take one side of the matter and make it personal. Scientists constantly refute each other's work and then the process is repeated to see who actually had the better case study. Given this, I have not yet seen a real deliberate effort of Wiseman to be deceptive. I have seen sharp contrasts of interpretation of the results and methods, but that is just how these things are done. Nothing new there.
It appears to me that Sheldrake's fans tend to point the fingers and automatically declare Wiseman a cheat. It is a bias disposition of anger and it is similar to how political groups act. It is rather sad. I assume that Sheldrake maintains himself at a higher moral standing by not taking that path of scorn.
I have never heard many skeptic or Wiseman himself call Sheldrake a "scrap of the bottom of their shoe" or a back stabber even if they disagree with him. Name calling doesn't change a thing and only makes one side look bad. If you assume skeptics are guilty of name calling consistently you are dead wrong, a few have been rude but most have not. But even if all skeptics did use blatant aloof attacks, why counter it with the same? Why not take the higher ground?
Linear Mode
