Bashing the skeptics

[Venom]

For the moment I'm going trought the podcast, and there is some really interresting stuff in it.

But, why so much bashing of the scientific skepticism? OK, well I get that this is a pro-parapsychology podcast. I understand that.

Nevertheless, when there is a really interresting skeptic or materialist on the podcast, Alex Tsakiris don't shut up and listen. He's always talking a lot! That's annoying, because I want to ear what the skeptics have to say. On the other hand, when there is a spiritualist on the forum, Alex Tsakiris is just extatic and listen a lot to what he says... And on top of that, at the end usually there is a speach that skeptics do have a confirmation bias in the way they receive informations. Yeahhhhhhh... I mean simply listenning to the podcast, and you can ear that Alex Tsakiris do have a strong confirmation bias himself. LOL

Well, ok he wants to "confront" skeptic (that's the word is using), so of course trying to open de dailog (or simply being fair) between sides is out of the loop. The only thing he wants to do is "confront the skeptic" with what he knows being True (with a big T): "the materialistic paradigm si wrong" (according to him).

In summary: the podcast is really interresting, but when Alex Tsakiris interviews some skeptics, can he please shut up a little, so we can ear what they have to say. We know Alex Tsakiris's belief system. So let us enjoy the interviews. Thank you.

[David Bailey]

My impression is that nobody comes to this topic without a bias, and it is really hard to avoid it showing. I know there is supposed to be something called an unbiased interview, but when you listen to political arguments, how many of them seen unbiased to you?

Sometimes I think I am the only unbiased observer - but I am sure everyone who posts here feels the same

Try to imagine yourself interviewing Rupert Sheldrake!

David

[Larry Boy]

Well you have to admire Alex for at least trying to be fair to both sides. Most podcasts and websites on the paranormal simply ignore the other side, more or less.

[David Bailey]

Larry,

I do indeed admire Alex for that - and I am sure he genuinely wants to get to the bottom of this subject - in so far as that is possible.

There is an inevitable asymmetry in the two kinds of interviews. The ψ researchers are reporting their experiments and theories. The sceptics are (quite inevitably) trying to poke holes in other people's research. There is nothing wrong with that, but they absolutely must have their facts straight and not descend into general waffle. If they have posed questions to Sheldrake (say), they should know and understand his replies. Alex has succeeded in getting one retraction from a sceptic - and that is extremely interesting.

In a nutshell, people who do a lot of bashing, have to expect more bashing in return!

David

[Venom]

Today I listened to the "NDE Research From a Christian Perspective" episode, with Rusty Wright.

Well, there is a perfect example of the crazy bias in this podcast:

In the podcast with Tom Clark, about materialism, Alexis don't stop interrupting him (in this podcast, I think that Alexis speaks almost as much as Tom Clark, if not more!!!). But when Rusty Wright says that the young earth hypothesis is, according to him, supported by a lot of evidences, here he doesn't say anything!!!

Come on, Young Heart (!!!). You can be serious... Alexis should have interrupt him at that point and argue with him on that.

But no, because this foundamentalist christian is not a materialist (Alexis's belief), everything goes (Intelligent Design, young earth hypothesis, and so on). Even when Tom Clark says that there is strong evidences that Jesus rised from the dead, nothing is said against that...

It's really the world (and science) upside-down.

[davidsmith73]

Originally Posted by Venom

Today I listened to the "NDE Research From a Christian Perspective" episode, with Rusty Wright.

Well, there is a perfect example of the crazy bias in this podcast:

In the podcast with Tom Clark, about materialism, Alexis don't stop interrupting him (in this podcast, I think that Alexis speaks almost as much as Tom Clark, if not more!!!). But when Rusty Wright says that the young earth hypothesis is, according to him, supported by a lot of evidences, here he doesn't say anything!!!

Come on, Young Heart (!!!). You can be serious... Alexis should have interrupt him at that point and argue with him on that.

But no, because this foundamentalist christian is not a materialist (Alexis's belief), everything goes (Intelligent Design, young earth hypothesis, and so on). Even when Tom Clark says that there is strong evidences that Jesus rised from the dead, nothing is said against that...

It's really the world (and science) upside-down.

Perhaps you should just look at the podcast as a convenient resource for researching both sides of an argument. We all have our thoughts and biases on these issues. I think someone would have a very hard time justifying the young earth hypothesis, and I don't believe there is evidence for it (depending on how you define "young" of course). But I don't really care if someone wants to talk about it on the podcast. Just focus on what you find interesting...

[Open Mind]

Venon,

With the exception of one single interview, the David Lester interview, I think your comments are completely off the mark. Alex has done an excellent job interviewing all the other guests IMHO, he has been fair to them. Keep up the good work Alex

The problem with the David Lester wasn't Alex's inserted comments (which were valid ) it was just a bit unfair to insert these after the interview, ideally these should be asked at the time... But even so this is nothing compared to the bias of Randi commentary which isn't necessarily going to publish a rebuttal or many other debunkers biased presentation.

I am not against bias As long as the person is willing to consider an alternative. In arguing the merits of hypotheses one must adopt a bias, at least temporarily. Also it would make for very dull interviews, if he just listened and didn't ask ackward questions, politely of course.

What you interpret as a wrong bias, could also be viewed as the correct bias of Alex defending open mindedness towards unconventional claims in science.

"I ask you, which is the greater threat to science and mankind,
accepting a claim that can have no possible benefit, or rejecting a
claim that can have great benefit?" -Dr. Edmund Storms

[Venom]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

With the exception of one single interview, the David Lester interview, I think your comments are completely off the mark. Alex has done an excellent job interviewing all the other guests IMHO, he has been fair to them. Keep up the good work Alex

Let's take another exemple then: the interview with Steven Novella.

In this episode, Steven Novella did an amazing job at explaining why we should all be skeptical of parapsychological claims.

But what was completely surrealistic in this episode was that the only way Alexis could counter-argument was to bring up this clip by Ray Hayman and to say to Novella: can you explain this clip (completely out of context of course) of Ray Hayman.

Well, if Alexis has a question about what Ray Hayman said in his episode, he should ask Ray Hayman about it. Not Novella. What kind of question is that (could you explain to me why another guy said such and such)???

That was another unfair move by Alexis (or he should have given the clip to Novella wayyyyy before the interview).

And even more surrealistic of course is that after all that, Alexis says now that Novella is the one being dismissive.

I mean, listening to this podcast is like being Alice in Wonderland.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by Venom

Well, if Alexis has a question about what Ray Hayman said in his episode, he should ask Ray Hayman about it. Not Novella. What kind of question is that (could you explain to me why another guy said such and such)???

If skeptics are just going to place faith in the comments of other skeptics being right and the skeptic source is in error, then pointing it out is justified. Remember Novella doesn't conduct any psi research, he just trusts the opinion of other skeptical revisionists like Hyman (who didn't conduct the actual research either, nor has Hyman conducted many (if any) psi experiments long enough to test for weak effects)

I hope Alex continues to get guests to comment on the words of other guests, if he hadn't, Hyman's comments just seemed correct until corrected by Radin.

Increasing the dialogue and discussion between opposing viewpoints is good. I felt the problem with the David Lester interview is that Alex's comments were not made at the actual time for skeptic Lester to comment upon (a reduced dialogue) so it seemed a bit unfair to add these later. This is very different circumstances from asking people to comment on other people's quotes (increased dialogue)

It is all very well for us to sit here and nitpick Alex's interviews but he is doing a difficult job very well indeed. Far better than most could do, he is doing such a good job you are listening your way through all of these

[alextsakiris]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

If skeptics are just going to place faith in the comments of other skeptics being right and the skeptic source is in error, then pointing it out is justified. Remember Novella doesn't conduct any psi research, he just trusts the opinion of other skeptical revisionists like Hyman (who didn't conduct the actual research either, nor has Hyman conducted many (if any) psi experiments long enough to test for weak effects)

I hope Alex continues to get guests to comment on the words of other guests, if he hadn't, Hyman's comments just seemed correct until corrected by Radin.

Increasing the dialogue and discussion between opposing viewpoints is good. I felt the problem with the David Lester interview is that Alex's comments were not made at the actual time for skeptic Lester to comment upon (a reduced dialogue) so it seemed a bit unfair to add these later. This is very different circumstances from asking people to comment on other people's quotes (increased dialogue)

It is all very well for us to sit here and nitpick Alex's interviews but he is doing a difficult job very well indeed. Far better than most could do, he is doing such a good job you are listening your way through all of these

Steve Novella interviewed Ray Hyman and asked the question about Radin's work. They published the interview on Skeptics Guide to the Universe, including all their snickering about how crazy Dean Radin is. So, it was completely appropriate to ask Steve these questions . Also, I tried several times to contact Ray Hyman and he didn't reply.

BTW I never have gotten an answer on this from Novella, or any of his many fans. The answer can be easily gleaned from the published research. Either Radin is wrong, or Ray Hyman wrong... gee, I wonder why Skeptics never dig into this stuff?