Dr Steve Novella and The (Pseudo?)Skeptics' Guide to the Universe

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by skidoo

Translation: Please go away and stop challenging our critical thinking skills so we can continue to foment our unholy alliances with the destructive effects and pecuniary motives of Sylvia Browne et al and their pseudo-scientific paranormal "investigator" acolytles in the field of psi "research".

Bad translation - since my original post was in (reasonably plain) English, it didn't need translating and meant what I wanted to say!

BTW, I consider your response to Orca quite offensive.

David

[NinjaKitty7]

I appreciate reading the debates on this forum. Most of the proponents of psi, and the skeptics present interesting arguments and give well thought out responses. But I have to say to Skidoo, your overall tone comes across extremely disrespectful and snarky. Comments like "Oh Brother" hardly say anything more than to show a level of immaturity and self-righteousness.
Responding with un- humorous sarcasm will not win you any respect much less debate.
You are not helping your overall position by exemplifying many of the stereotypes that people have of the skeptical community. Quite frankly, your posts are more reflective of "troll" behavior. Please look at the other people on here that hold a similar position (Venom and Paul) to see how your opinions can be argued in an informed and civil manner.
Also, there is no reason to post the entire orca story for a one-sentence question. That is considered poor posting etiquette. I am not making any assertions on yours or any other person's position with this post. I just hate seeing a forum like this or another that people have interest in, being brought down to the level of a teenager myspace debate.

It says something when someone with the screen handle, "NinjaKitty" has to call you out on etiquette and maturity.

[skidoo]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

Lack of evidence? People have experienced certain characteristic phenomena we label the paranormal throughout history and across all cultures. Parapsychological research backs up these experiences. So their certainly isn't due to a lack of evidence for there is a huge abundance of it.

SHOW THE EVIDECENCE. Assertum non est demonstratum. Good grief. Broken-frickin-records, you true believers.

But what skeptics state to me is that personal testimony -- which they label anecdotes -- plays no role whatsoever in their personal beliefs regarding the existence of this phenomena.

Scientific method. Look it up. Case studies are a **SPRINGBOARD**. They do not test hypotheses.

And as for the scientific research they assume as a given that any positive results must be able to be explained by normal means. It doesn't matter how convoluted a normal explanation might be for they feel that any normal explanation will always be somewhat more likely than a paranormal one.

No, that's patently incorrect at best, disingenuousness being the more likely explanation, based on the evidence coming from your own keyboard.

Olden days. Ships at sea. Scurvy. Barrels of citrus fruit. No mechanism of action understood at the time. It worked. That was enough. Your strawmen burn up in flames as soon as you erect them.

In short all the evidence leaves them completely unmoved.

What evidence?! ANECDOTAL evidence? Please go educate yourself about science and the scientific method, and in particular re-read one of the countless re-iterations of the definitions of scientific skepticism that's been posted in this thread. Ignoring it won't make it go away.

Indeed it seems their conviction that none of this phenomena exists is as confident as if no one ever in the history of the world had ever reported such phenomena.

Tsk. Tsk. Here's a tip: If you're understanding of the scientific method is so flawed, you have no business attempting to make authoritatve assertions about the relelvant subjects.

People throughout the history of the world have reported all sorts of paranormal phenomenon. So far NONE of it has stood up to scientific rigor; that same rigor that brings you this Internet connection, artifical hearts, and Victoria's Secret.

The burden of proof is on YOU. And to assert otherwise is arrogant and frankly a little psycho.

In other words their belief is not derived from lack of evidence, but rather a certain metaphysical conviction about how the world must be.

WHERE IS THE F*CKING EVIDENCE?!

You people WOULD crack me up, except for the fact that you cause anquish and death.

[skidoo]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

BTW, I consider your response to Orca quite offensive.

Why?


_____

[skidoo]

Originally Posted by NinjaKitty7

I appreciate reading the debates on this forum. Most of the proponents of psi, and the skeptics present interesting arguments and give well thought out responses. But I have to say to Skidoo, your overall tone comes across extremely disrespectful and snarky.

Typical true believer tactic. "I don't like your tone; never mind the facts!"

Comments like "Oh Brother" hardly say anything more than to show a level of immaturity and self-righteousness.

Getting hung up on rhetorical style is just another dodge of the salient points. Another hallmark of the true believer.

Responding with un- humorous sarcasm will not win you any respect much less debate.

Uh-huh. We'll see.

You are not helping your overall position by exemplifying many of the stereotypes that people have of the skeptical community.

What are you? My life coach? Are my comments cutting a little close to the bone?

Quite frankly, your posts are more reflective of "troll" behavior.

You obviously have (at best) limited experience with legitimate trolls.

Please look at the other people on here that hold a similar position (Venom and Paul) to see how your opinions can be argued in an informed and civil manner.

I'm being perfectly "civil." Sorry you can't take the truth, but frankly, that's not my problem.

Also, there is no reason to post the entire orca story for a one-sentence question. That is considered poor posting etiquette.

I am not making any assertions on yours or any other person's position with this post. I just hate seeing a forum like this or another that people have interest in, being brought down to the level of a teenager myspace debate.

"Teenager myspace debate?" LMAO

It says something when someone with the screen handle, "NinjaKitty" has to call you out on etiquette and maturity.

"Etiquette and maturity?" Why not respond with some actual substance instead of trying to poison the well with irrelevant disagreements over style, NinjaKitty?

[jacob]

I've given Skidoo a warning through the system on bad behaviour on the forum. I'm also posting here the text of the infraction:

Squidoo,

users find your posts offensive and you don't bring good quality to the conversation. Bashing, bad language and ridicule are not accepted here. There are several skeptics in here who really add to the conversation with their knowledge, analytical skills and the ability to correspond constructively.

Learn from Paul and mszalak here, who are, I'm sure, not less skeptical than you are in their views of psi but they don't misbehave. This forum is not JREF or SGU where ridicule of everything "paranormal" seems to be the norm.

Skidoo, continuing in the style will result in a ban. And that's not because you're a skeptic, as I mentioned but because we want to have constructive dialog here.

Administrator.

[skidoo]

Originally Posted by jacob

I've given Squidoo a warning through the system on bad behaviour on the forum. I'm also posting here the text of the infraction:

Squidoo, continuing in the style will result in a ban. And that's not because you're a skeptic, as I mentioned but because we want to have constructive dialog here.

Administrator.

1. I've repeatedly asked for examples of this evidence for psi that y'all keep referring to. So far, NONE has been forthcoming.

2. I haven't attacked anyone personally or engaged in foul language (unlike the patently immature name-calling above, referring to me as "Squidoo".

3. I've repeatedly explained the definition of scientific skepticism, which has been patently ignored.

And all of this has transpired on ONE THREAD. It's not as if I'm jumping all over these forums trying to sabotage your little community.

Surely you see my frustration is justified. If this gets me banned, so be it. But it will speak volumes about the credibility and open-mindedness of this particular brand of true believers. This thread, which has duly been archived, already speaks volumes about the Tsakiris audience, in my oh-so-humble opinion.

Just answer me one question before you boot me: Is Sylvia Browne a fraud? John Edward? Uri Geller?

All I know is, if you guys came onto the SGU forums, which is one of the most illuminating and productive forums on the Internet today (on a variety of subjects), you guys would NEVER get banned (unless you started threatenting people or something). Just something to keep in mind. Something to keep in your "open" minds.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by skidoo

Just answer me one question before you boot me: Is Sylvia Browne a fraud? John Edward? Uri Geller?

Skidoo,

I assume you were addressing this question to Jacob, but thought I'd give my own current thoughts on these people. I feel I don't know enough about Uri Geller to have an opinion. For John Edward and Sylvia Browne, based on what I've so far read about them, I am skeptical -- skeptical about John Edward and even more skeptical about Sylvia Browne. I really should read much more about them. But what I've read so far has not intrigued me enough to do so.

As for Jacob calling you "Squidoo," do you feel that he was being deliberately immature -- after all, he apparently corrected it in the body of his post. Do you feel it could have possibly been an honest mistake?

Mike

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Ian

I've calmed down now though. I've finally realized that that approach is nonproductive. If I go back on in the guise of a sock puppet they'd never realize it was me.

Oops!

~~ Paul

[jacob]

Originally Posted by skidoo

2. I haven't attacked anyone personally or engaged in foul language (unlike the patently immature name-calling above, referring to me as "Squidoo".

That was a simple mistake. I was writing your nick by memory (by how I remember it sounds) and I thought it was written this way, probably since it was a more "logical" spelling, in my opinion. Later, when I looked at the posts again, I noticed that you write your nick differently and I've corrected the post. I haven't corrected in the qoute of the infraction, since it was how I really sent it to you (with the error).

Originally Posted by skidoo

Just answer me one question before you boot me: Is Sylvia Browne a fraud? John Edward? Uri Geller?

I seriously doubt Sylvia is a true medium. I've even written lots about her in the blog (see Sylvia Browne made a cruel false prediction - Parapsychology articles and blog). I've also posed the question about Sylvia's validity as a medium to two other medium whom I've interviewed (we'll leave for now if the other two are real mediums or not). See my interviews Interview with psychic reader DeAna - Parapsychology articles and blog and Interview with Erin Pavlina, a psychic medium - Parapsychology articles and blog. So, I really try to have an overall good skeptical approach to things, in my opinion. I don't know about John Edwards too much. I have heard his name mentioned often in all contexts, probably since he performs on the TV. I've never seen him and don't even know how he looks like.

Uri Geller is the most difficult of the three, since he almost never was caught cheating (if at all) and some people tell of very positive experience with him (see my interviews: Interview with Jeffrey Mishlove - Parapsychology articles and blog and Interview with Cynthia Sue Larson - Parapsychology articles and blog).
Cynthia told the following:

10. Uri Geller is considered to be one the more powerful psychics on earth (at least one the most known), yet he’s also considered by many to be a charlatan. What was your impression of him when meeting in person?

I hand-selected the spoon that I brought for Uri Geller to bend, and I picked it because it was the thickest, sturdiest spoon in my drawer. This was no easy spoon to bend, even by forceful means. When I met Uri Geller, I was impressed that he he held the spoon by the handle and stroked it along the top… so that as it bent, it bent upward, against the force of gravity! At no time was he ever pushing, twisting, or exerting any kind of force. I sensed from meeting Uri Geller that he is an honest man of great integrity.

Dr. Mishlove wrote me the following:

Q: In your Virtual U monologue about Ted Owens you talked about Uri Geller and how controversial he is. What can you tell about Uri Geller?

I sponsored Uri Geller’s first major public appearance in the United States, back in 1973. For more information, see my descriptions in The Roots of Consciousness (and in The PK Man).

Q: Is he who he presents himself to be or is he a charlatan? I asked Cynthia Sue Larson similar question in her interview and she had the impression that he’s a genuine one but you seem to have much larger knowledge about the man.

I cannot attest to everything about Uri Geller. But, I have ample evidence in terms of my own personal observations and those of others whom I trust to ascertain to my own satisfaction that much of what is claims is, indeed, genuine.

And even after both of these testimonies I stay skeptical about Uri Geller, judging his performances and interviews around the original "Phenomenon" show that was in Israel about a year ago.

I hope this clarifies my position a little bit.

Now, back to your dialogues here. At least two people felt that your style is inappropriate and have expressed it. I think you should take this into consideration. If you want to see what the pro-psi people here present as evidence, I suggest you take look at previous conversation that took place here. There were lots of really good discussions on NDE studies, presentiment studies, Quantum mechanics, dog telepathy studies and possibly more. Clear an hour of your time to read previous threads and see how constructive the dialogue has been between the two "camps".

Even the concept of skepticism was discussed here in depth. For example see Use of the words, "skeptic," and "skepticism" and Understanding Scepticism.

Jacob.