Skeptics ( Unwitting ) dupes?

[Open Mind]

Conspiracy or not ....confident disbelief is often wrong

‘....The energy produced by the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine….’- Ernst Rutherford, 1933

'....There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will ......" - Albert Einstein, 1932

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Rod

I have been pondering why Skeptic organizations are so anti-research.

Say what?

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

2) engaging with [psychical investigations], but explaining them away with all kinds of implausible scenarios which in any other context no one would entertain for a moment.

~~ Paul

[hoggworks]

Originally Posted by Psibeliever

As I said, never argue with a true believer over his religion.

I don't believe in conspiracy theories either, but deception and disinformation is part of the intelligence game.

Are you calling me a true believer? Do you see the irony in that at all?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by hoggworks

Holy crap, this thread is unbelievable.

The thread was quite interesting until your contribution! Personally I don't know what to believe. Unlike you I simply lack the knowledge to have an informed opinion.

[hoggworks]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Conspiracy or not ....confident disbelief is often wrong

‘....The energy produced by the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is talking moonshine….’- Ernst Rutherford, 1933

'....There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will ......" - Albert Einstein, 1932

Cute quotes, but aside from the endless litany of them I could drum up in support of how confident belief in psi (which is to say the non-belief that psi isn't real), confident disbelief, depending on WHY, is quite often right.

It's all about the why.

Also, your comparisons are failed, because the stated views would obviously be reversed ONCE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY WAS SHOWN.

[hoggworks]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian

The thread was quite interesting until your contribution! Personally I don't know what to believe. Unlike you I simply lack the knowledge to have an informed opinion.

You don't know what to believe? Bull, you state your beliefs quite confidently all through this forum. Faux humility isn't becoming of you, sir.

The thread was quite interesting, also? That's a subjective impression, and I obviously can't tell you that it wasn't, but prior to my contribution, it was a big ol' meeting of the tinfoil hat brigade.

The skeptics that run the world are being run by another group that really run the world!

I don't, by comparison, imagine some kind of conspiracy as necessary to explain the enduring popularity of common misconceptions that lead to the belief in psi. You just need a bunch of individuals to interpret something a given way.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by hoggworks

And skeptic organizations are anti-research?

It is true neither JREF or CSIcop have conducted any long-term parapsychology experiment in their existence (30 years or so)

'... In fact, CSICOP instituted a policy against doing research itself. CSICOP’s highest priority has been to influence the media. Its rhetoric and activities are designed to appeal to a broad audience rather than to scientists who investigate unusual or controversial phenomena

...In fact, after the first five years, CSICOP abandoned its own scientific research (“Policy on Sponsoring,” 1982). ....

Dennis Rawlins, an astronomer and member of the Executive Council of CSICOP ...... Rawlins charging that serious mistakes had been made and that Kurtz had undertaken a Watergate-style cover-up. Rawlins (1981) was forced out of CSICOP, and he published an expose in Fate. There was no real answer to the charge of a cover-up, and much was published about it in Zetetic Scholar. The upshot was that several of the more moderate people resigned from the Committee. Rawlins’s article appeared in the October 1981 issue of Fate, and that same month CSICOP instituted a policy of not conducting research itself (“Policy on Sponsoring,” 1982).

After the moderate members left, little dissent or criticism of the Committee has been seen in the pages of SI. The magazine nearly always presents only one side of a controversy in its articles. Although SI sometimes publishes letters of complaint, full papers from CSICOP’s critics almost never appear. This is in remarkable contrast to refereed parapsychology journals and even some of the pro-paranormal magazines.

CSICOP and the Skeptics: An Overview by George P. Hansen

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

It is true neither JREF or CSIcop have conducted any long-term parapsychology experiment in their existence (30 years or so)

Possibly, but that doesn't mean they are anti-research, now does it?

~~ Paul

[hoggworks]

Exactly.

By that logic, wouldn't all of you here be anti-research, considering none of you (so far as I'm aware) have conducted long-term parapsychology research?