Mod+ 236. ROME VIHARO, WIKIPEDIA, WE HAVE A PROBLEM

Discussion in 'Skeptiko Shows' started by alex.tsakiris, Jan 14, 2014.

  1. Alan Amsberg

    Alan Amsberg New

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Messages:
    188
    This is a great idea. Loved it.

    Here's what I think:
    -It is supposed to be known at least by some of us. Those of us who look hard enough (and have the opportunity because we have spare time and access to the internet/books etc). I don't think that makes us "better" than others, by the way.
    -The proof is the clues left for us (by God in my opinion). These clues are the all the stuff we talk about on Skeptiko. If we weren't supposed to know then this stuff would not exist.
    -My view is that all the Skeptiko stuff is Easter Eggs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_egg_(media)) left by God (in one way or another).

    So, anyway, I think all this stuff is just one way to God. There are many. And, of course, knowing it intellectually is much easier than believing it in the gut which is much easier than acting on the knowledge.

    It is all just a game (which is tricky/ sometimes painful /sometimes violent/ sometimes scary/ often confusing / high stakes). This is why my avatar is a game piece.
     
  2. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,615
    you may be right... the net is the x-factor.
     
  3. Alex

    Alex New

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    Messages:
    2,615
    wow... never considered that :)
     
  4. Michael Larkin

    Michael Larkin Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    2,132
    I liked this because I've wondered about something similar myself but not expressed it before. If we are spiritual beings, then there's probably a purpose in "forgetting" who we are whilst incarnate. If we don't forget, then maybe we can't learn, and there should be some "added value" in the learning. I mean, what would be the point of incarnating if we didn't add value like that? So in a sense, being incarnate and forgetful might provide opportunities to evolve spiritually that we wouldn't otherwise have.

    But then again, there are NDEs to think about. They're life-changing, which prompts one to ask why we couldn't all be born with the awareness they bring, and thereby lead more compassionate lives. I can only think that that's not enough. People who have NDEs might not actually make as much spiritual progress as they would without the experience.

    I can't say I've resolved this issue: my ideas are vague. Whatever, it's a conundrum.
     
    perandre likes this.
  5. Saiko

    Saiko Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2013
    Messages:
    2,181
    I see that as a non-starter. Individuals differ greatly in their motivation for their beliefs/actions. What we can say is that many people tend to make their strongly held beliefs and perspectives part of their identity. Of course this is as true of many who have beliefs that reach beyond materialism as of those who are staunchly materialist.
     
  6. Saiko

    Saiko Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2013
    Messages:
    2,181
    'm dubious that materialists have a higher percentage of people with a desire to be in "control" than those who think and/or those who know there is much more than the physical. Also there is nothing about moving beyond materialism that hinges on not having that desire. In fact I'd say that those who do objectively know the non-physical expanse have access to much more "control" than those who hold to the perspective of materialism.
     
  7. williamhunt

    williamhunt New

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2014
    Messages:
    1
    I appreciate this interview and related ones regarding cyber bullying and the lack of integrity of Wikipedia and TED on the issues addressed. I certainly noticed, before coming to Skeptiko, Wikipedia's biases against parapsychology and spiritual issues and bias in favor of materialism. I never went down the rabbit hole on these issues before. This reminds me of when, in the 60s, I was privileged to sit in on a small workshop with Thomas Kuhn discussing the ideas in his, then popular book, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". How political and social matters of science (and technology) still are.
     
  8. Philemon

    Philemon Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    79
    Good show - really sums up the possibilities for abuse and disinformation on Wikipedia and its vulnerability to being hijacked. I always see those ads on Wikipedia asking for donations. I'd be more inclined to give if they'd fix up some of these issues, first.
     
  9. Andrew Paquette

    Andrew Paquette Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2013
    Messages:
    327
    Home Page:
    Now that you've done a show on the Wikipedia scandal regarding Sheldrake, is there any chance of pulling out the guns on RationalWiki as well? I'm biased on this, ever since they posted a defamatory and inaccurate page on me (written by a person at JREF for the purpose of using it to support a comment he wanted to make *idiot*). I took a look around and saw what appeared to be libelous articles about almost anyone you'd care to name from the field of parapsychology including Alex, Sheldrake, Craig, Radin, etc. My feeling is that the site should be shut down for the same reason the KKK shouldn't be able to have a legal license to exist: their sole purpose is to promote hatred of a group of people, segregated from others on the basis of their beliefs. In this case, many of those beliefs are founded in religion, which is something that American businesses are not allowed to use as the basis for discrimination. Wikipedia, though more genteel and with more variety in their offerings, is doing something not much different in the parapsychology category of articles.

    AP
     
  10. bishop

    bishop Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2013
    Messages:
    641
    I wouldn't normally weigh in on something like this, but rational wiki is definitely obnoxious. What makes it so devious is that most of the information on the site is true, and it's the spin that is difficult to combat. The best bet is to face it head on, and I think talk of trying to shut it down in any legal way is going to get you mired in free speech issues.
     
  11. Alan Amsberg

    Alan Amsberg New

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2014
    Messages:
    188
    Last night I went to the Tintern Philosophy Circle in my village of Tintern here in the UK.

    The speaker gave a fairly sympathetic talk on Sheldrake's The Science Delusion book.

    At the beginning she gave some background on Sheldrake and admitted that she had just taken the information from Wikipedia!
     
    alex.tsakiris likes this.

Share This Page