Anti-skeptic anger

[Mizzark]

Reading some of the posts about anger in one of the threads I started I got to thinking - it would be great if there was an anti-skeptic movement started to counter the skeptic movement and protect researchers in some of these less-respected areas of knowledge. It is hard for actual researchers like Radin and Sheldrake to do their work and defend against the skeptic movement at the same time. These "mainstream" scientists that hate areas of research that are outside of what they say is acceptable seem to have realized that they could not easily attack these areas of research while they still dedicate a full day's work to their own research. Thus, the skeptic movement was born. (Okay, it might have been a little more complicated than that, but this is at least part of the motivation that brought about the modern skeptic movement) Now the orthodox scientists are free to attack non-orthodox scientists by proxy through the actions of the modern skeptic movement, and researchers in alternative areas are left to defend themselves. That's not a fair fight. I think that we should create an anti-skeptic movement in order to protect researchers in alternative areas of science and knowledge from losing funding and from unfair, unanswered ridicule.

[Perig]

Yes.
I'm in.
(True) philosophers (not sophists) welcome.

[anonymous]

It seems to me that the biggest problem with closed minded skepticism is that it restricts government funding for research. I'd rather see an organization devoted to lobbying the governemnt to support research in areas for which there is substantial evidence of phenomena. Such an effort would play an important role in educating the public which, I think, is the best way to counter closed minded skepticism.

Once that battle for government funding of research is won I think a lot of the other side effects of closed minded skepticism will be ameliorated.

I'd also rather see an organization devoted to a positive, constructive goal rather than a combative, confrontational one. That doesn't mean it wouldn't point out the flaws in close minded skepticism, but it would help to keep the debate foucsed on facts and not personalities.

[David Bailey]

I am not sure, but I think this site is run by Rupert Sheldrake:

Skeptical Investigations - Home Page

David

[Mizzark]

Originally Posted by anonymous

I'd also rather see an organization devoted to a positive, constructive goal rather than a combative, confrontational one.

Too bad. Sometimes we need to get combative and confrontational. They don't seem to mind getting combative and confrontational with us.

[Edgar]

Originally Posted by anonymous

I'd rather see an organization devoted to lobbying the governemnt to support research in areas for which there is substantial evidence of phenomena.

Just because you bought into there "substantial evidence" doesn't mean that's the good standard. I don't accept you telling me what evidence is substantial.

[Perig]

Let me quote my post in the other thread, as it better suited for the present discussion:

Originally Posted by Perig

Edgar, you spoke my mind.
One reason why pseudoskeptics demand "extraordinary evidence" is because believing in something that is outside the ordinary is felt as inherently wrong, i.e. "I cannot believe/aknowledge this because it would destroy science as we-the-guides-of-the-masses know it". Medical (and psychology -- many pseudoskeptics have this background) training tends to inhibit moral development exactly in this sense, presenting deviations from the norm as "wrong somewhere, somehow". Those are stage III-IV of the Kohlberg scale of moral reasoning. See/google Niyonsenga, Fafard et al, CMAJ.
The most honest pseudoskeptics will come back to their (anti-)beliefs, even after discussions with people like Alex Tsakiris, because they feel that they have a higher good to protect.
People who are superior -- yes, superior -- morally will ask: but if the majority is wrong, and countless anecdotal evidences (people talking about things they care deeply about, in truth) are slammed outside the temple of respectable rational discourse, simply because extraordinary results are not in yet, what SHOULD we say about this respected temple?
That it is a fascist institution, as some commentators said. I don't care as much as before about extraordinary evidence -- I tend to see results about telepathy between loved ones (including dogs), ESP focussed on crime victims, NDEs as explorations of deep psychology (not para-), of what psychology has to say about profound empathetic links.
We, so-called believers, should realize that we can be pompous, arrogant, proud: we represent the children, the dying, the 99,99% who, during Human's history, felt/believed those things that Radin, Sheldrake, Richet, ., .. fight(fought) for. This evening, my children lost a baby gerbil they cared sooo much about. Ethically, the fact that I said they might see the animal in their dreams (it happened previously in a similar situation) is ethical, while saying that we will all rot is, in a context where nihilism/materialism is challengeable and challenged, profoundly irresponsible (and cold-hearted/fascist).

I am angry. Mizzark is angry. I dare to think that we feel the same about those self-appointed guardians of the commmon good, and that more people should be judgmental about the pseudoskeptic herd/mob.

[Perig]

Originally Posted by David Bailey

I am not sure, but I think this site is run by Rupert Sheldrake:

Skeptical Investigations - Home Page

David

I couldn't find hints to Sheldrake's paternity, but I did find a goldmine. Thanks David!!

I recommend the followiing:
Pride and Prejudice in Academia, Stephen Braude (Anomalistics Pride and Prejudice)
3 quotes:

Before I began to investigate the evidence of parapsychology, I still believed that intelligence was a weapon in the war against evil, that my colleagues in academia (especially in philosophy and science) were committed to discovering the truth, and that intellectuals would be pleased to learn they had been mistaken, provided the revelation brought them closer to this goal. I now realize how thoroughly naive I was.

I have also come to realize that members of academic and other professions tend to be strikingly deficient in the virtue that, ideally, characterizes their field. I have seen how scientists are not objective, how philosophers are not wise, how psychologists are not perceptive, how histo*rians lack perspective, not to mention (while I'm at it), how physicians are not healers, attorneys are not committed to justice, psychiatrists are crazy, artists lack taste, etc.

So it was no accident that my second book, The Limits of Influence, and various articles written thereafter, have occasionally taken a polemical and antagonistic tone. In the past, those who defended the evidence for large scale psychokinesis have too easily allowed themselves to be put on the defensive. In my opinion, they have responded too timidly, or graciously, to their most vocal opponents, especially to those motivated more by the love of publicity than by the love of knowledge. However, I believe that the skeptic must be put on the defensive. The more evangelical of the lot inveigh against the forces of irrationalism.

[Mizzark]

Originally Posted by Perig

In the past, those who defended the evidence for large scale psychokinesis have too easily allowed themselves to be put on the defensive. In my opinion, they have responded too timidly, or graciously, to their most vocal opponents, especially to those motivated more by the love of publicity than by the love of knowledge. However, I believe that the skeptic must be put on the defensive. The more evangelical of the lot inveigh against the forces of irrationalism.

This is good stuff. As I said earlier it can sometimes be hard for the real researchers to respond in the strategic manner that is called for here when they have all of that research to do. Also, ideally, they should be doing research and not having to defend themselves against this skeptic movement that is not even really qualified (more often than not) to be attacking the experts in these less-well-respected areas of study. This gets to the point of why I think that we need an anti-skeptic movement whose sole purpose is the annihilation of the modern skeptic movement - and barring that at least provide an effective defense against the skeptic movement.

[Perig]

I am afraid that several people will feel that being anti is bad. I wholly disagree (I'm anti-hunger, anti-fiscal havens and several other things, and here we're dealing with organized scientific fraud and controlled media: who finds this positive "to some extent"?)

However, what is needed, I believe, is an anti-skeptic movement which will help people realize the damage done by these Crusaders.

Let's suppose that the Intention experiment led by Lynn McTaggart (author of The Field) does have a positive and indeed life saving impact on the war in Sri Lanka. What would happen if the pseudoskeptics weren't undermining the efforts of Taggart and those who join her in this experiment? There could be a wider media coverage. A recognition that religious people, most of Humanity, are doing something good. More people to join her and any other group who recognize that there is such a thing as a global consciousness (see the Global Consciousness Project).

There are of course many other matters of life and death if we consider alternative medicines. Homeopathy is mind over matter, spirit in matter. It might be the only way to treat, for instance, several toxicological problems (see the studies on arsenic intoxication in India). Do people realize the pain and diminished quality of life caused by a dogmatic rejection of this kind of... magic, even though there are several serious studies out there to confim that it is NOT a placebo? Acupuncture, with its track record with pain and undesirable emotions (see Emotional Freedom Techniques).. do we realize that it is not only an interesting scientific question, but a tool that we can't afford, ethically, to do without? The Crusaders will say that believing in this will destroy their Science. Well, yeah, let's destroy THEIR Science! It's urgent!

I could go on and on, and I wish other people would join me to do so, to try and get a vision of a world where these fraudulent people would be brought to their knees, and where science would serve the common good.