Violent discourse offputting, says new member

[Matt Colborn]

Hi,
I'm a regular listener to the podcasts on the Skeptiko forum, and I joined this forum so that I could contribute to the discussion. I must admit to be a little distressed at the unpleasant nature of some of the posts, because this is one of the things that has put me off academic discussion in general and discussions on psychic research in particular.

I've been interested in this field for over twenty years now, and one thing I've learned is to withhold judgment and not to jump to conclusions. The closer I've examined the data of psychical research, the more complex it has proved, and in many senses resistant to hard conclusions. I think that this situation makes it very easy for individuals and groups to jump to their own conclusions about what the data amounts to. This is one of several reasons why I actively reject the label 'believer' or 'skeptic.' For me, neither really capture the essence of what I feel about the subject. Incidentally, I've been labeled as both by different people over the years!

I think also that we need, as a community, to think a little bit more about our own personal weaknesses, and to try and be more empathetic with those whom we consider to be on the opposition. This includes thinking about how hurtful name-calling can be. I personally come away from reading some of these posts feeling a little emotionally battered, even though many of these comments are not aimed at me.

I've been reading a number of sources on alternative means of argumentation and discourse, and those interested might wish to follow these up;


Tannen, Deborah (1998) 'The Argument Culture,' Virago.

Argues (!) that splitting all disputants into opposing sides gets in the way of understanding and polarizes people unnecessarily.

De Bono, E. (1990) I am right and you are wrong. Viking.

Sets out suggestions for using a 'water logic' that is based on the way we perceive things rather than a 'rock logic' of absolutes. pp204--210 suggests an alternative to the 'advocacy' view of things (e.g. debates settled in a 'courtroom' style with a defence and prosecution). Quote;

"different points of view, different values and different propositions can all be laid down on the table alongside each other. Then they can be compared and combined. When you are planning a road trip you use a map to see the alternative routes to your destination. The routes are all there on the map. one route is better in summer. Another route is better outside peak hours.... In the end you travel along one route, or a combination."

To me, exploration of ideas and data makes better sense and is more constructive than simply splitting everything into a dispute between 'believers' and 'skeptics.'

Finally: non-violent communication. It's a little cheesy, and you can buy hand-puppets to assist, but it's well worth looking into;

The Center for Nonviolent Communication

I would like to ask other forum members how they've been affected by the disputes on these pages, and also whether they would be interested in exploring other ways of exploring these issues. I would also like to know how these disputes make you feel, emotionally, and to make this explicit. I would also like to ask what needs others feel these disputes serve, and how we as a community might better serve people's needs on both a factual scientific and emotional level.

The 'argument' culture is deeply ingrained in everyone, including myself. But I am personally sick of it, and am trying to learn a new, less destructive way of discourse, if only so I don't walk away from the computer feeling upset. Am I alone? Please respond privately if you feel the need.

Matt.

[jacob]

Hello, Matt.

Wow, your post on the culture (or partial lack of thereof) of the debates really hits the mark.

Although, personally, I think that the conversations on this forum are, in general, on a higher level than on some other, more one-sided forums, there's still a room for improvement.

We, as a community, try to control the level of name-calling from both sides by either banning simple name-calling bashers or by warning those who are close to the edge but it's proving to be hard. Moreover, people have different levels of understanding about what can be said in a forum like this.

You are right, though, that there should be a collaborative way, where the facts are discussed in a serious manner. I seems to me that this is the way that Alex Tsakiris wants the discussion to be in his podcast and we should also follow this spirit here, on the forums.

[eyemsougly]

I think we all get along pretty well here. If this was a political forum things would be about a billion times more heated then they are now.

[David Bailey]

Thanks, Matt for that post.

I basically agree that a few posts go over the top (I will not mention names!) and I think this is always difficult. We are, after all, contrasting an explanation of Ψ-phenomena that is based around accusations deceit and incompetence with one that seems to imply that science is very incomplete. Those who want to propose the former position will inevitably sound disparaging towards experimenters with positive results, while those in the latter camp can slip into scornful references to conventional science - forgetting that it has delivered so much in recent years (plus a few things we wish we didn't have).

One partial solution I have suggested is to reserve one thread in which people have to argue from the opposite point of view to the one they believe in - but nobody seems to want to run with this idea

Whatever, I suggest that you stay around and join in - you can always ignore really intemperate posts, or in extreme cases send a private message to Jacob proposing some more drastic action.

David

[Larry Boy]

Very nice post, Matt. Maybe Edward de Bono's "Six Thinking Hats" method could be an interesting experiment to try out in a thread on this forum?

By the way I love the title of your post, I mean the way you're referring to yourself in third-person, it had a somewhat comical effect

Originally Posted by David Bailey

One partial solution I have suggested is to reserve one thread in which people have to argue from the opposite point of view to the one they believe in - but nobody seems to want to run with this idea

I think this is a great idea. If nothing else, it would be a good exercise in trying to present the situation in as balanced a way as possible in one's own discussions. If taken real seriously, it would also give us an opportunity to explore more closely the literature of our opponents. I would certainly recommend you to start a thread like this and see what happens. I, for one, would like to participate if time allows.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Larry Boy

I think this is a great idea. If nothing else, it would be a good exercise in trying to present the situation in as balanced a way as possible in one's own discussions. If taken real seriously, it would also give us an opportunity to explore more closely the literature of our opponents. I would certainly recommend you to start a thread like this and see what happens. I, for one, would like to participate if time allows.

Great - If there is a bit more support, I will try to set a thread up. I think perhaps each contribution should be prefaced with a boiler-plate reminder that this is not the author's true position, and it should be understood by all that it would normally be inappropriate to quote such messages out of that context!

David

[Larry Boy]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Great - If there is a bit more support, I will try to set a thread up. I think perhaps each contribution should be prefaced with a boiler-plate reminder that this is not the author's true position, and it should be understood by all that it would normally be inappropriate to quote such messages out of that context!

Good idea.

Another important thing is that each contributor tries to present the arguments in as strong a way as possible, so that skeptics don't feel their positions are being caricatured, and vice versa.

[Open Mind]

Matt,

I would like to completely agree but I am not convinced it quite works. On the whole parapsychology has just presented data in a calm manner ..... the response by opponents to the very concept has tended to be cynical with the goal posts getting moved.

My first experience of encountering aggressive debate was at the JREF forum, I made a few posts and it was like a wolf pack pouncing on every word Now I thank the JREF aggressiveness because it made me look closer at the evidence .... and I later found out their confidence was largely misplaced.

If JREF posters hadn't been so aggressive, if they had sounded more like 'well maybe, I'm just not convinced' ... I wouldn't have bothered to look closer still.

One of the sad things about modern human culture is that it impressed by confidence, a person who might not be best for a job gets it due to display of confidence. When we lack information, we choose upon expressions of confidence and so people like James Randi sound compelling.

Now is my above comment too personal a criticism of James Randi. I don't think so as he is harshly critical himself. I would like to say I like Randi as an entertainer and if someone is claiming strong psi under personal command ... his challenge is fine, there are charlatans out there, people totally deluding themselves too. However the problem is ....

The JREF type challenge can only test claims of strong psi under personal command... the public love the idea of such things but it is a very rare claim ...with the exception of Geller, a few Russians psychics during cold war, some in martial arts, etc. ... on the whole the claim of strong psi under personal command is a very rare claim indeed.

The most common type of paranormal claim is either ...

(1) strong paranormal experience not under much personal command things like NDEs, recalling life of the past, mulitple witness reports of seeing the same apparitions, mediumship (who don't claim the source) , poltergeist like movement of objects claims, etc.

OR

(2) Weaker imperfect psi under a some degree of personal command in labs ... things like telepathy, precognition, remote viewing, dowsing, etc.

Neither of which can be appropriately tested by the JREF prize challenge, JREF have raised the e bar to strong effects only in short trials (i.e. non-scientific trials) and justified doing so by offering a large prize sum. The JREF challenge is the absolutely fine to test claims of strong, self-evident psi under personal command... but frankly they have not tested as many people as most skeptics think, they see hundreds of applications, extremely few of which reach a preliminary test. ... so one cannot quite rule out strong psi under personal command either but it is probably the least plausible type of claims and this was known long before Randi's challenge, others did such a challenge before Randi.

To sum up ..... a little provocative debate can be a good thing... perhaps the only way to get the die-hard skeptics to lrealize their confidence should not be solid is to provoke them into checking up and actually doing proper trials even if just to prove opponents wrong ..... perhaps one can put some doubt back into 'skepticism' where it belongs, if they have more doubts than previously about completely ruling out psi... they will be a better 'skeptic' IMHO .

I agree the process isn't always pleasant though

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Matt Colborn

I think also that we need, as a community, to think a little bit more about our own personal weaknesses, and to try and be more empathetic with those whom we consider to be on the opposition.

I personally don't wish to do that. How is it possible to feel empathy for people who are unable to understand anything and who are so transparently obviously wrong.

[David Bailey]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

I personally don't wish to do that. How is it possible to feel empathy for people who are unable to understand anything and who are so transparently obviously wrong.

Well because it is not OBVIOUSLY wrong. I too think it is wrong, but there is a subtlety here. Science has progressed far with ideas that were hard to believe, and yet yielded lots of results. Try to remember the first time you learned that matter is made of incredibly tiny atoms that are composed almost totally of empty space.

The skeptics here simply want to carry that tradition forward - consciousness isn't what it seems to be, and we all just have to accept the truth, however weird.

In a way, I suspect the true nature of consciousness will indeed be weird - but a lot weirder than they think!

David