Letter to a trainee skeptic - The Screwtype e-mails

[David Bailey]

Letter to a trainee skeptic - The Screwtype e-mails

You are now well advanced on your training to become a professional skeptic. If you perform well, this job can bring you many perks, such as appearances on television, and the opportunity to write a bestseller book. However, it is extremely important to learn throughly some simple rules that can help you in your craft. Remember, that while success will be rewarded well, failure will not be tolerated.

All being well, your first few efforts at debunking will be easy. There are, after all, a lot of crazy people in this world, and a fair few of them believe they have psychic powers. However, do not let these easy victories lull you into a false sense of security - sooner or later, you will come into contact with an altogether more tenacious kind of scientific heretic - one who has learned the ways of science and uses them against us! A careless encounter with one of these individuals can be utterly catastrophic:

Dialogues and Controversies - Controversies - The Telepathy Debate

or

http://www.sheldrake.org/realaudio/atkins_sheldrake.ram

If you fail an encounter with one of these people, you will be cast out of respectable scientific circles, and you career as professional skeptic will be over, so take extreme care to prepare for all such encounters.

These loathsome individuals perform actual experiments with controls and blind procedures, and statistical analysis - a shocking mockery of real science.

Let us take as an example the issue of dogs that know telepathically when their owners are coming home. Of course, you as a professional skeptic will state categorically that telepathy is against the laws of science, and so impossible in principle. This may well be sufficient for an unsophisticated audience, and you should never offer a more detailed explanation unless forced to do so. Your first line of defence should always be to point out that your busy schedule does not leave you time to debate with such deluded individuals - or even to read their 'scientific papers' in detail. If you use this tactic, it is, however, essential that you do read their 'papers' extremely thoroughly, or you will be caught out.

If you absolutely need to examine such a claim in detail, it is almost useless to analyse one of the 'scientific papers' that these vile creatures produce for statistical flaws - they are much too cunning to make mistakes like that. However, here are a few more subtle techniques to instill a decent respectable doubt in your audience. Remember - you only need to introduce doubt in your audience, nobody is going to actually test anything you say provided you sound vaguely plausible.

Let us say you have examined your opponent's 'data' purporting to show the said telepathic link, and you can't fault it on obvious grounds - enough tests have been done to prove statistical significance, any subjective assessments have been performed blind, etc. This is where you, as a professional skeptic, are supposed to show your worth in the job! Suggest something outrageous, such as the idea that the owner unconsciously leaves more dog food in the dish if he/she is going to be away for a longer period of time. Since your opponent will not have any information regarding the weight of food in the dish at the time of the experiment, this technique can be used to discard a large swathe of otherwise troublesome 'data'. Remember, each time you can find a reason to discard a portion of your opponent's precious 'data' you are lowering the statistical significance of what remains.

At this point, it may be tempting to accuse your opponent of incompetent science because he did not weigh the dog food in the dish, but if used at all, this ploy should be used very subtly. A side remark about how "genuine scientists always try to record all the relevant experimental data" is as far as you can safely go unless you have an unusually cooperative helpful audience. Even a highly skeptical audience usually likes to feel that you have dispatched your opponent in a fair and honorable manner!

Over time, many of our brethren have made great creative use of the idea that our opponents get their 'results' by cheating. You may very well feel that loathsome scientific heretics of this sort, are almost certain to cheat. However, once again, if you feel the need to use this ploy, your best approach should be indirect. You might, for example, comment that you were shocked to discover only after reading the 'paper' that the owner had entered his pet at Crufts. Anyone reading a sentence like that will be left with a vague sense of unease that the owner had an ulterior motive. Note that it does not really matter if a statement like this is true or not - if your opponent contests it, you can subsequently make very useful casual references to the ongoing uncertainty relating to this experiment.

Finally, remember that to become a truly great skeptic, you not only need to dispatch your opponent, but you should do it in style. Think of those melancholic pieces of classical music that come to an end in a paradoxical burst of optimism. When you are sure that your opponent is totally spent, jump up and shake his hand and offer him best wishes for his future research. It may be helpful at this point to explain that the only thing that keeps you in your career is the hope that one day you will finally encounter genuine evidence for paranormal phenomena, and that if your opponent can come up with such evidence you will, of course, be keen to examine it!

I hope these notes will help you prepare for battles to come.

Above all, put your trust in science, and I wish you a long and fruitful career!

[Venom]

Very funny. You should have posted that in the humour section of the forum. Oh, wait, there is no humor section on this forum. LOL

[David Bailey]

Venom,

I am glad you liked it - sometimes humour is the best way to express one's view - even in science!

David

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

You may very well feel that loathsome scientific heretics of this sort, are almost certain to cheat. However, once again, if you feel the need to use this ploy, your best approach should be indirect. You might, for example, comment that you were shocked to discover only after reading the 'paper' that the owner had entered his pet at Crufts.

' Crufts Dogs that run away from the window and hide when the owner is coming home!'



“As a whole, parapsychologists are nice, honest people, while the critics are cynical, nasty people” - Ray Hyman (McBeath & Thalboume, 1985, p. 3)


Die-hard skeptics are very nice people too until the subject of psi is raised ....
'Dogs that try not to know when a Randi fan is coming home?'

[David Bailey]

Here is a bit more humour, which might appeal more to the skeptics - even though it is on Dean Radin's blog:

Entangled Minds: Finally, a practical use for PK

David

[Pollux]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Letter to a trainee skeptic - The Screwtype e-mails

I came across the piece below a while ago and it immediately struck me, `This is the same BS-rhetoric I hear when discussing with die-hard skeptics´

The subject in the text is a diffrent one than what is discussed with skeptics but the manner and argument technique is spot on.

A tight-arsed arrogant expression and a condescending tone of voice to top it off makes a complete setup for a large deal of skeptics I`ve come across, not all though.
Some skeptics are very polite and humble and make their views come across without being condescending.

"How to argue effectively
By Dave Barry

I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win on argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me. You too can win arguments. Simply follow these rules:

Drink Liquor
Suppose you are at a party and some hotshot intellectual is expounding on the economy of Peru, a subject you know nothing about. If you are drinking some health-fanatic drink like grapefruit juice, you'll hang back, afraid to display your ignorance, while the hotshot enthrals your date. But if you drink several large martinis, you'll discover you have strong views about the Peruvian economy. You'd be a wealth of information. You'll argue forcefully, offering searing insight and possibly upsetting furniture. People will be impressed. Some may leave the room.

Make Things Up
Suppose, in the Peruvian economy argument, you are trying to prove that Peruvians are underpaid, a position you base solely on the fact that you are underpaid, and you'll be damned if you're going to let a bunch of Peruvians be better off. Don’t say: "I think Peruvians are underpaid." Say instead: "The overage Peruvian's salary in 1981 dollars adjusted for the revised tax base is $1,452.81 per annum, which is $836.07 below the mean gross poverty level.” NOTE: Always make up an exact figure. If on opponent asks you where you got your information, make that up too. Say: “This information comes from Dr. Hovel T. Moon's study for the Buford Commission published an May 9, 1982. Didn't you read it?" Say this in the some tone of voice you would use to say, "You left your soiled underwear in my bathroom."

Use Meaningless Rut Weighty -Sounding Words and Phrases
Memorize this list:
Let me put it this way
In terms of
Vis-a-vis
Per se
As it were
Quo
So to speak

You should also memorize some Latin abbreviations sued as “Q.E.D.”,”e.g.” and "i.e." These are all short for "I speak Latin, and you don'" Here’s how to use these words and phrases. Suppose you want to say: "Peruvians would like to order appetizers more often, but they don't have enough money." You never win argument talking like that. But you WILL win if you say, "Let me put it this way. In terms of appetizers vis-a-vis Peruvians quo Peruvians, they would like to order them more often, so to speak, but they do not have enough money per se as it were. Q.E.D." Only a fool would challenge that statement.

Use Snappy and Irrelevant Comebacks
You need an arsenal of all-purpose irrelevant phrases to fire back at your opponents when they make valid points. The best are:
You're begging the question.
You're being defensive.
Don't compare apples to orange.
What are your parameters?

This last one is especially valuable. Nobody other than engineers and policy wonks has the vaguest idea what "parameters " means. Here's how to use your comeback:
You say: "As Abraham Lincoln said in 1873…” Your opponent says: “Lincoln died in 1865.” You say: "You're begging the question."

Compare Your Opponent to Adolf Hitler
This is your heavy artillery, for when your opponent is obviously right and you are spectacularly wrong. Bring Hitler up subtly. Say: "That sounds suspiciously like something Adolf Hitler might say." or "You certainly do remind me of Adolf Hitler.”
So that's it. You now know how-to out-argue anybody. Do not try to pull any of this on people who generally carry weapons."

[David Bailey]

Pollux,

Wow - how many times have we read these expressions in various posts on this forum:

You're begging the question.
You're being defensive.
Don't compare apples to orange.
What are your parameters?

The interesting thing is that these phrases are not meaningless, but they can be used unfairly, and often are. They are hard to counter because explaining why they are inappropriate in any particular instance would be excessively tedious.

I reckon skeptics resort to a whole range of rhetorical tricks much more than the rest of us here (though others may differ).

David

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

Pollux,

Wow - how many times have we read these expressions in various posts on this forum:

You're begging the question.
You're being defensive.
Don't compare apples to orange.
What are your parameters?

The interesting thing is that these phrases are not meaningless, but they can be used unfairly, and often are. They are hard to counter because explaining why they are inappropriate in any particular instance would be excessively tedious.

I reckon skeptics resort to a whole range of rhetorical tricks much more than the rest of us here (though others may differ).

David

It's Ockham's razor which infuriates me. They always wheel it out when they're on the defensive, and they always interpret it to support their own position. It's tedious in the extreme.

[Pollux]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

It's Ockham's razor which infuriates me. They always wheel it out when they're on the defensive, and they always interpret it to support their own position. It's tedious in the extreme.

Continental drift was a obvious event that was clear to anyone watching a map.
But ooh no, that cant be possible cause we dont have a theory or mechanism for continental drift therefore it cant be true.
There´s a Ockham's razor situation if any.

But Ockham's razor used by skeptics is a dull butterknife.

So, bottomline for skeptics is, `things´ doesnt happen unless you have a testable theory, if `things´ happen, ignore or ridicule and hope it goes away.