77. Mark Ireland Seeks Proof of Psychic Medium Communication (Podcast)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

Some 'skeptics' (disbelievers who lack doubt) seem to be under the misconception that those who find or see the weight of evidence leaning towards psi existing are not being skeptical .... but it is nonsense.

Oh no, I'm quite happy with those leaning toward psi. It's the ones eating it up with abandon that make me smile.

Just because you're not going with the status quo doesn't mean you're open-minded.

~~ Paul

[Eric Debois]

wrt: Alex being fawning/rude...

I don't know, to me it sort of makes sense. Some guests are authors that are on the show to sell books, and not really a part of what ever debates are going on.

Being tougher with skeptics who's claim to fame (so to speak) lies in debating these very things seems reasonable to me.

It's a lopsided situation, not sure it's Alex's fault.

I guess he could invite some evangelical preachers who are in it for the arguing.

[sr332603]

Originally Posted by Eric Debois

wrt: Alex being fawning/rude...

I don't know, to me it sort of makes sense. Some guests are authors that are on the show to sell books, and not really a part of what ever debates are going on.

Being tougher with skeptics who's claim to fame (so to speak) lies in debating these very things seems reasonable to me.

It's a lopsided situation, not sure it's Alex's fault.

I guess he could invite some evangelical preachers who are in it for the arguing.

What about the Catholic woman he had on a couple months ago? He was trying to attack her religion based on "evidence" from NDEs, and not being overly civil about it. Certainly shows he's willing to debate authors. Seems the only people he won't debate are those that largely agree with him.

It just all seems like a bit of a ruse to me. Its his show and he is free to conduct himself however he wants, but that doesn't mean that we need to give him a pass. If he wants to maintain any credibility whatsoever, he will start asking tough questions to all guests.

Follow the data? Intelligent, hard-nosed debate? Hardly!

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by CKava

Suggesting that die-hard skeptics are being rude by wanting Alex to actually ask some challenging questions of guests who he ideologically agrees with is a bit off.

Have you also complained to the 'Skeptics Guide to the Universe' about the lack of challenging questions asked of prominent skeptics?

Hmm .... can you imagine the following interview from the SGU?

Welcome Ray Hyman to the program .... in a prior interview with Michael Shermer you say as a young magician you never believed in psychic mediumship yet by college days were charging money for palmistry which you believed ..... any chance if the CIA were to offer to pay you money to discredit psi research, would you find the offer tempting?

Ray back in 1985 you wrote for CSIcop funds . 'belief in paranormal phenonena is growing and the dangers are real ... the Defense Department is spending millions of dollars on 'psychic arms' ... please help in this battle against the irrational. Your contribution in any amount, will help ... however you were also a member of the 'psychic entertainers' club which encourages members to present magic as psychic phenomena (according to magician George Hansen) .....do you believe in encouraging fake psi claims while just opposing scientific research claims?

Ray, lets move on to the late 1980s, you sat on the board of the National Research Council that was reviewing evidence for psi phenomena, why did the board ask the leading expert on statistical analysis, Robert Rosenthal, to 'suppress' his analysis favourable to the existence of psi and the report was excluded by the board without any scientific reason?

Or how about ...

Hi James Randi, welcome to the SGU ..... can you tell listeners why in some interviews you have counted failed applications as actual tests which gives the impression you have tested far more people than you actually have done so over the years? Do you sometimes make up information just to discredit claims or was it false memory when you claimed you had tested dogs for the prize challenge but hadn't?

Or how about ....

Guest on SGU today is Ben Radford of CSIcop ...... CSIcop present themselves to media as experts on paranormal yet haven't conducted any proper long term scientific experiment on psi in their 30 year existence. No attempted replications of any parapsycholgical lab claim either. Instead CSIcop have decided to fund sleptical groups and skeptical magazines around the world ..... Ben, can you tell us what is scientific about imagining counter explanations and presenting these like facts?

The point being .... . you aren't going to hear the above rude questioning from political skeptics either.

"I ask you, which is the greater threat to science and mankind, accepting a claim that can have no possible benefit, or rejecting a claim that can have great benefit?" -Dr. Edmund Storms

[Eric Debois]

Originally Posted by sr332603

What about the Catholic woman he had on a couple months ago? He was trying to attack her religion based on "evidence" from NDEs, and not being overly civil about it. Certainly shows he's willing to debate authors. Seems the only people he won't debate are those that largely agree with him...

Yeah I guess. But that show was a real dip in quality too. If all "book shows" were like that I doubt I'd want to listen anyway.

[CKava]

The skeptics guide to the universe is a show by skeptics about skeptical topics with skeptical guests. They aren't promoting themselves as a show with no particular viewpoint.

Alex on the other hand pitches his show as if it is a neutral examination of controversial science topics. That's not what it is. It's a pro-psi/paranormal show which occasionally features guests Alex argues against because they don't agree with his beliefs.

In terms of asking challenging questions in a devils advocate role see 'point of inquiry' interviews. I don't think DJ Groethe always manages his task but he does a much better job of controlling his bias than Alex does.

Oh and as far as your potential questions I suspect they wouldn't be asked because they aren't very good and most involve buying into the type of paranoid conspiracy theories that the SGU is fighting against.

And Eric I would say many of Alex's guests who he agrees with are in fact involved with 'the debate' in the sense that they often spend the good part of an hour along with nudging from Alex complaining about skeptics. There are also a good number of psi advocates and the like who appear and when that is the case it's basically an hour or so of Alex repeatedly saying how great their research is and explaining why he doesn't like skeptics. For instance, in a number of his recent shows he has actually corrected his guests when they have said they have time for well informed skeptics by pointing out that he doesn't believe there are any really well informed skeptics who get the research.

[Open Mind]

Originally Posted by CKava

Oh and as far as your potential questions I suspect they wouldn't be asked because they aren't very good and most involve buying into the type of paranoid conspiracy theories that the SGU is fighting against.

Paranoid? So you approve of Hyman having double standards ..... Randi misreporting information to discredit claims .... and CSIcop dodging proper research for 30 years?

Statisitician Robert Rosenthal claims he was asked by National Research Council board to 'suppress' (his word) his analysis favourable to psi ... and you dismiss it as being paranoid.

You don't need to view it as a 'conspiracy theory' ... viewing it pathological disbelief by prejudiced skeptics fits better

If you don't like Alex programme, why are you listening? Why are you here?

[NinjaKitty7]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

If you don't like Alex programme, why are you listening? Why are you here?

I can't answer this for anyone but I have often wondered that. It seems all to often go beyond a civil debate and creeps into self serving snarkyness. It seems that many, certainly not all, of the "skeptics" who frequent these boards are not so concerned with sharing ideas but proving themselves right. It seems to fit with the current trend of viewing atheism as a side of a battle against the irrational masses. I'm not making any claims about truth, just the general attitude that seems to be taken. It just seems kind of pathetic, or at least childish, to get your self worth by trolling sites to fight this "battle" with sarcasm and snark instead of discussing in a more civil tone. But that's elitism, and it's just as annoying coming from a hardcore christian as a militant athiest, or whatever. And I guess it's a bit lonely unless so they look for constant validation. You can always tell the people who get their kicks from giving themselves mental high fives while sitting in front of the computer. But then again, ideas rarely change over an online conversation. Sort of the nature of the beast.

[Purple Scissor]

"Alex on the other hand pitches his show as if it is a neutral examination of controversial science topics. "

Hmmm, what about "Each episode features lively discussion with leading researchers, thinkers, and their critics."?

Is is just me, or does that really sound basically biased? He is biased, and really the worst thing is the lectures he gives the guests he disagrees with. They are rather painful. However, it is also true that skeptics should not complain too much to be treated in the same manner that they have been treating their guests for years. Alex has done some real debunking of skeptics who have made false or foolish claims.

[CKava]

Originally Posted by Open Mind

If you don't like Alex programme, why are you listening? Why are you here?

Because I am interested in listening to what the other side says. When I first heard about Alex's podcast I was actually very intrigued and was looking forward to good natured but heated debates chaired by an impartial presenter. Then when I listened to Skeptiko I quickly learned that it was nothing like that.

As for why I am here:

1. Because these kind of topics interest me. Hence why I listen to the show.
2. Because despite mounting evidence to the contrary I am still hopeful that there are believers who can present good arguments and engage in useful debate.
3. Because I think that if you are going to criticise something you should be willing to make your perspective known to the people you are criticising.

Originally Posted by Ninjakitty7

I can't answer this for anyone but I have often wondered that. It seems all to often go beyond a civil debate and creeps into self serving snarkyness. It seems that many, certainly not all, of the "skeptics" who frequent these boards are not so concerned with sharing ideas but proving themselves right. It seems to fit with the current trend of viewing atheism as a side of a battle against the irrational masses. I'm not making any claims about truth, just the general attitude that seems to be taken. It just seems kind of pathetic, or at least childish, to get your self worth by trolling sites to fight this "battle" with sarcasm and snark instead of discussing in a more civil tone. But that's elitism, and it's just as annoying coming from a hardcore christian as a militant athiest, or whatever. And I guess it's a bit lonely unless so they look for constant validation. You can always tell the people who get their kicks from giving themselves mental high fives while sitting in front of the computer. But then again, ideas rarely change over an online conversation. Sort of the nature of the beast.

Herein lies the problem.

Kitty calls skeptics "childish", "pathetic", "militant atheist", "a bit lonely", "self serving" and "people who get their kicks from giving themselves mental high fives while sitting in front of the computer". In the same post where she is complaining that skeptics on the site are not civil. Have a bit of self awareness for flip sake!

My experience here is that skeptics points get consistently ignored why believers in almost every single thread trot out the reasons that they think skeptics are mean and socially inept. Your post kitty is indicative of this kind of thing. It's insulting and argumentative and it's wrapped up in layers of 'I'm above all that because I'm an open minded person who doesn't discuss things on internet forums". If you think internet discussions are a waste or that they require you to have an unfulfilling life I respectfully would ask why you are here? Is it just to tell everyone else who don't agree with your ideology how 'pathetic' they are?