123. Randi's Prize -- Are Skeptics Deceptive?

[Arouet]

Originally Posted by Sandy B

I guess that explains the difference between me and you. I wouldn't cheat to promote my point of view and I wouldn't support a leader who thought cheating was "sometimes" OK.

Can you imagine a scientist who committed acts of fraud, even if only occasionally to promote a cause he liked, being respected by his peers? Is that sort of thing accepted among lawyers?

Look at law enforcement. Sometimes deception is necessary to achieve a greater good.

[Limbo]

Originally Posted by Arouet

Look at law enforcement. Sometimes deception is necessary to achieve a greater good.

Law enforcement, eh? Then parapsychology should get legal protection against the machinations of the much-more-powerful status quo.

[Cyrus Kirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Limbo

Law enforcement, eh? Then parapsychology should get legal protection against the machinations of the status quo.

Interestingly, as Robert discusses in the podcast, it was the Royal Society who had to uproot the status quo in the 1600s in order to bring about an enlightened society, and to help usher in democracy. What was once the fringe became the status quo, and now once again the status quo seems to be out of control.

One skeptic friend of mine, a rather ardent member of the community and friend of Michael Shermer and many others, brought up a point with me as we were standing outside a pizza shop. He asked me what psi has accomplished when materialism helped build society as we know it. Why adopt a new paradigm when the existing one saved us from the church and gave us an enlightened planet?

My answer is that I don't care. What I care about is the truth. Even if that means the status quo has to be uprooted a second time around. If history repeats itself, then the future doesn't bode well for materialism.

[Arouet]

Originally Posted by Limbo

Law enforcement, eh? Then parapsychology should get legal protection against the machinations of the much-more-powerful status quo.

The question was whether dishonesty was ever justified for a greater good.

[Nightrain]

I wonder if it has escaped anyone's attention that James Randi has been involved in fraudulent behavior in the past, along with attempts to cover up.

DENNIS RAWLINS is a cofounder of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal and served on CSICOP's Executive Council from 1976 to 1979. Until 1980 he was an Associate Editor of Skeptical Inquirer. His testimony is quite interesting:

sTARBABY by Dennis Rawlins

[Limbo]

Originally Posted by Arouet

The question was whether dishonesty was ever justified for a greater good.

In law enforcement, even if deception is used to apprehend a suspect, he or she is still entitled to legal protection. Correct?

So if there is to be a mechanism for deception in science, then where is the counter-mechanism for defense?

Why is parapsychology the only science that has organized opposition? Shouldn't it also have an organized defense?

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by Cyrus Kirkpatrick

Interestingly, as Robert discusses in the podcast, it was the Royal Society who had to uproot the status quo in the 1600s in order to bring about an enlightened society, and to help usher in democracy. What was once the fringe became the status quo, and now once again the status quo seems to be out of control.

One skeptic friend of mine, a rather ardent member of the community and friend of Michael Shermer and many others, brought up a point with me as we were standing outside a pizza shop. He asked me what psi has accomplished when materialism helped build society as we know it. Why adopt a new paradigm when the existing one saved us from the church and gave us an enlightened planet?

My answer is that I don't care. What I care about is the truth. Even if that means the status quo has to be uprooted a second time around. If history repeats itself, then the future doesn't bode well for materialism.

thx for a great story... really gets to the point we were discussing... BTW I'm with you... and I don't have much patience for "ends justify the means" types.

[Arouet]

Originally Posted by Limbo

Why is parapsychology the only science that has organized opposition? Shouldn't it also have an organized defense?

Huh? sure, why not? I'd be interested to read whatever such a group produced.

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by Nightrain

I wonder if it has escaped anyone's attention that James Randi has been involved in fraudulent behavior in the past, along with attempts to cover up.

DENNIS RAWLINS is a cofounder of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal and served on CSICOP's Executive Council from 1976 to 1979. Until 1980 he was an Associate Editor of Skeptical Inquirer. His testimony is quite interesting:

sTARBABY by Dennis Rawlins

great... hadn't seen this... couldn't be clear... preserving power/control/ego trumps truth.

[really]

Originally Posted by Sandy B

That's not true. Look up the definition of hoax. It is about being dishonest, not about "revealing" anything.

From: hoax: Definition from Answers.com



Why do you feel the need to defend dishonest behavior?

From Merriam Websters
Hoax:
to trick into believing or accepting as genuine something false and often preposterous
From Oxford Dictionaries:
malicious deception

I hope you can see there are nuances to for the word hoax. However, since you weren't there and you are forming an opinion based upon secondhand story telling many times removed you honestly can't say this was dishonest deception with implied malicious intent. If you do then you are hoaxing us and that would be a dishonest behavior on your part