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

[alextsakiris]

“…we complain an awful lot about people like James Randi who apparently subvert what seems to be a perfectly good data and rather deceptively distort perceptions… " -- Rob McLuhan, Randi's Prize

IMO this is provably true... but it seems like many Skeptics don't care, or maybe think it's part of the rough and tumble war-of-ideas game... kinda like negative campaign ads, distasteful but purposeful... necessary for the "greater good".

[Limbo]

Originally Posted by alextsakiris

“…we complain an awful lot about people like James Randi who apparently subvert what seems to be a perfectly good data and rather deceptively distort perceptions… " -- Rob McLuhan, Randi's Prize

IMO this is provably true... but it seems like many Skeptics don't care, or maybe think it's part of the rough and tumble war-of-ideas game... kinda like negative campaign ads, distasteful but purposeful... necessary for the "greater good".

They do distort, but I don't know if its deliberate enough to be truly 'deceptive' in nature. To me, that implies a degree of premeditation and I prefer not to credit them with that, at least not conscious deliberate premeditation to willfully mislead. Rather, I would prefer to say they have succumbed to a pattern of thought that automatically distorts their own perceptions for them, before the perceptions can even reach their conscious awareness.

[Arouet]

Without getting into specifics Limbo raises a valid point. Let's just say from time to time a given skeptic mischaracterizes a certain study, or mistates something a parapsychologist says, it doesn't necessarily mean dishonesty. Error is not the same as lying. It may be careless, might even be ignorance, but that's different from pre-meditated fibbing.

This happens in any discourse. How often do proponents mischaracterize what skeptics say and misstate them? This isn't an excuse, we should all be careful, but we must be cautious before just throwing out labels such as dishonest.

Also as its bound to come up: The Alpha Project is not a good example to show someone is dishonest. It was a hoax. We can debate whether it was fair, good, etc. but a hoax fits in a different category from run-of-the-mill lying.

Also: what's with another skeptic bashing thread? Should I start a: Are proponents dishonest? Thread and start cherrypicking what lies I can find there?

[Hjortron]

Originally Posted by Arouet

Also: what's with another skeptic bashing thread? Should I start a: Are proponents dishonest? Thread and start cherrypicking what lies I can find there?

I would prefer it if you could do this actually, if you've got the time. I would like to have a list of the usual lies that proponents entertain.

[Arouet]

Originally Posted by Hjortron

I would prefer it if you could do this actually, if you've got the time. I would like to have a list of the usual lies that proponents entertain.

No, that's not my focus. My goal here has been to bring the two sides together, not further push them apart. I dislike threads like this. I do point them out as them come up though...

[Sandy B]

Originally Posted by Arouet

Also as its bound to come up: The Alpha Project is not a good example to show someone is dishonest. It was a hoax.

I thought JREF was about protecting the public from frauds, cheats and hoaxes? Do you actually think it's OK to do if it furthers one's cause?

[Arouet]

Originally Posted by Sandy B

I thought JREF was about protecting the public from frauds, cheats and hoaxes? Do you actually think it's OK to do if it furthers one's cause?

Well, I do think a hoax can be an effective way of making a point, but that's besides the point of this conversation.

(incidentally I'm not sure that protecting the public from is a strong focus of JREF: a hoax isn't really a hoax if there is no reveal.)

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by Limbo

They do distort, but I don't know if its deliberate enough to be truly 'deceptive' in nature. To me, that implies a degree of premeditation and I prefer not to credit them with that, at least not conscious deliberate premeditation to willfully mislead. Rather, I would prefer to say they have succumbed to a pattern of thought that automatically distorts their own perceptions for them, before the perceptions can even reach their conscious awareness.

I tend to agree... I also think there is a lot of "ends justify the means" stuff.

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by Hjortron

I would prefer it if you could do this actually, if you've got the time. I would like to have a list of the usual lies that proponents entertain.

good point... it just doesn't happen! Sheldrake, Radin, Jeff Long, Pim van Lommel, Bruce Greyson, Roger Nelson, Charles Tart, etc. these guys have/would never engage in this kind of nonsense... of course, these are exactly the kind of people Skeptics/JREF attacks.

[Sandy B]

Originally Posted by Arouet

Well, I do think a hoax can be an effective way of making a point, but that's besides the point of this conversation.

(incidentally I'm not sure that protecting the public from is a strong focus of JREF: a hoax isn't really a hoax if there is no reveal.)

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

n.
1.An act intended to deceive or trick.
2.Something that has been established or accepted by fraudulent means.

tr.v., hoaxed, hoax·ing, hoax·es.
To deceive or cheat by using a hoax.

Why do you feel the need to defend dishonest behavior?