A list of skeptical lies?

Kamarling said:
Frank pasted the quotes but you're right, he doesn't say they came from the JREF forum. Can't imagine why I might have thought that they did.
Click to expand...

Confusing language mostly. He provides quotes from the news article, but then says:

Frank Matera said:
4. And if you really want to discredit someone and they are female... do what all the hardcore skeptics within JREF and the like do. Use mysoginy to explain why they aren't as intelligent as you.
Click to expand...

The quote hasn't been established as coming from a JREF member, but he hasn't actually claimed that it did. It seems to be two separate statements which can be easily read together. As far as misogyny in the skeptic movement, the only evidence I'm personally aware of was some of the texts "SkepChick" (I think that was her handle) brought up as reasons for leaving some established skeptic groups. But I don't lurk the JREF or CSI forums, and a poor treatment of women isn't really disinformation. If you believe in determinism, then research shows there is nothing to be done because both sexes inherently do the same thing at the hardware level.
 
I've never quite gotten the point of quote mining from youtube or the comments section of a major news site and attaching any significance to them.

The average person, whether they believe in psi or not, has very little clue about parapsychology.

Even many people who do have a clue haven't necessarily looking into it all that deeply - on both sides.

The number of people - whether proponent or not - who have really scrutinized parapsychological papers is actually pretty small. Even on this site it is rare that a paper really gets all that closely looked at.

Most of what we see on both sides is tribal cheerleading.

My view: the handwavers are wrong on both sides. Skeptics who handwave away the research are wrong to say that there isn't something worthy of further investigation and there may be something there. Proponents who handwave objections to the research away are wrong to say that the research is at a level where it should be deemed accepted and a new paradigm established.

Folks - there's nothing wrong in saying "I don't believe in psi but there's some intruiguing stuff going on in parapsychology." Neither is there something wrong with saying "I believe in psi, but the research isn't quite to the point where it should be taken as scientifically established."
 
There are some misogynists in the atheist/skeptic circles. I guess there are everywhere, but we seem to have more than our share. I've figured it's related to the fact that lots of our crowd are science geeks/nerds, and it's not news that many of that group lack certain social skills.

I'll join you in decrying that "woman's place is in the kitchen comment" as pure assholery. Sylvia Browne was a horrible person, and it's just senseless to use that to tar all women with.
 
Arouet said:
My view: the handwavers are wrong on both sides. Skeptics who handwave away the research are wrong to say that there isn't something worthy of further investigation and there may be something there. Proponents who handwave objections to the research away are wrong to say that the research is at a level where it should be deemed accepted and a new paradigm established.
Click to expand...

I disagree that proponents are just handwaving all of the objections. I believe once an objection is raised it becomes the onus of the person objecting to demonstrate the issue, and many issues where that is done academically have been patched over with subsequent psi studies. Some of these objections (e.g. cold reading, such as making supposedly detailed profiles of a person from a first name alone) have not actually been demonstrated within the parameters of the studies, so they are not relevant complaints.

I believe its more correct to say that the evidence of anomalous cognition exists, is consistent, but we need to find out why it is so weak and how to amplify the effect more. Telepathy and minor body field effects don't require a major rewrite of physics, so I don't see why there is so much resistance.
 
Dakota Rider said:
There are some misogynists in the atheist/skeptic circles. I guess there are everywhere, but we seem to have more than our share. I've figured it's related to the fact that lots of our crowd are science geeks/nerds, and it's not news that many of that group lack certain social skills.

I'll join you in decrying that "woman's place is in the kitchen comment" as pure assholery. Sylvia Browne was a horrible person, and it's just senseless to use that to tar all women with.
Click to expand...
Because belief in equality and mutual respect is a ' social skill ' . Give me a break. The skeptic/atheist movement is made up of angry, horrible people. Sylvia Browne may be a charlatan, but she's not a parapsychologist. The skeptic movement is made, organized and run by terribly offensive, mysogynic, and stubborn individuals who's only job is to demolish the reputations of curious researchers.
 
Yeah but you never hear from the moderates because they're too busy quietly sitting in a lab or library somewhere researching and doubting themselves.
 
If a movement involves only the extremist minority then it doesn't really move anywhere. :p
The real movement is carried by moderates, who are the majority, who do the actual research.
 
Iyace said:
Because belief in equality and mutual respect is a ' social skill ' . Give me a break.
Click to expand...
Of course it is. What else is it?

The skeptic/atheist movement is made up of angry, horrible people. Sylvia Browne may be a charlatan, but she's not a parapsychologist. The skeptic movement is made, organized and run by terribly offensive, mysogynic, and stubborn individuals who's only job is to demolish the reputations of curious researchers.
Click to expand...
Huh? So we ignore Sylvia Browne because she is not a parapsychologist. That means we should also ignore any "skeptic/atheist" who is not some sort of scientist. What are you trying to say?

~~ Paul
 
Dakota Rider said:
There are some misogynists in the atheist/skeptic circles. I guess there are everywhere, but we seem to have more than our share. I've figured it's related to the fact that lots of our crowd are science geeks/nerds, and it's not news that many of that group lack certain social skills.
Click to expand...

I think "more than our share" is an understatement. I also actually don't believe lack of social skills and geeks/nerds have anything to do with it. I think Mysoginy and Skepticism are rather symptoms of a certain personality type and that is why they are so often found together. That personality type also resembles many of the symptoms found in people who suffer from Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

NPD sufferers so things like always believing to be in the right, bringing others down to make themselves look better, ridicule, Arrogance, overexaggeration of accomplishments, feeling they are better than everyone else etc etc. All of the sort of stuff you see in guys like Randi, Shermer and the like.

Mysoginy is a natural extension of that. Females are more naturally intuitive... we know that and call it "Mothers intuition"... so they are more likely to know psychic ability, telepathy etc is real... so are more open to possibility of Psychics and Mediums. The skeptics look at that as gullibility through lack of education... and before you know it all women are uneducated housewives who are gullible and believe anything they see on Oprah.
 
steve001 said:
Yes Frank, people can be jerks no matter which side of the fence they stand.
l look forward to reading all the alcolades upon hearing of the death of Randi. I'm sure the grief expressed will be heartwarming.
Click to expand...

Actually I will probably treat Randi's inevitable death the same way I treated Sylvia Browne's death.... and that is "If you don't have something nice to say... then don't say anything at all".

I was one of Sylvia's biggest critics and she did the entire PSI movement way more harm than good. If she was ever a good medium (And I have several friends that used to work with her and train with her... who said she was very very good 20 years ago) well she sure wasn't towards the end of her life. Her ego got in the way and she kept believing she couldn't be wrong and that's where she got herself into trouble. Her personality and gruff way of presenting herself just added fuel to the fire and she became the postergirl for all skeptics which is unfortunate.
 
Frank Matera said:
Actually I will probably treat Randi's inevitable death the same way I treated Sylvia Browne's death.... and that is "If you don't have something nice to say... then don't say anything at all".

I was one of Sylvia's biggest critics and she did the entire PSI movement way more harm than good. If she was ever a good medium (And I have several friends that used to work with her and train with her... who said she was very very good 20 years ago) well she sure wasn't towards the end of her life. Her ego got in the way and she kept believing she couldn't be wrong and that's where she got herself into trouble. Her personality and gruff way of presenting herself just added fuel to the fire and she became the postergirl for all skeptics which is unfortunate.
Click to expand...
I agree it is at times better to hold ones tongue. As for what people will say about Randi after his death, I don't think people will be kind. They certainly are not now.
 
Last edited:
Frank Matera said:
Mysoginy is a natural extension of that. Females are more naturally intuitive... we know that and call it "Mothers intuition"... so they are more likely to know psychic ability, telepathy etc is real... so are more open to possibility of Psychics and Mediums. The skeptics look at that as gullibility through lack of education... and before you know it all women are uneducated housewives who are gullible and believe anything they see on Oprah.
Click to expand...

But there are female skeptics, so that doesn't work either. Or are female skeptics prone to misogyny as well?

steve001 said:
I agree it is at times better to hold ones tongue. As for what people will say about Randi after his death, I don't think people will be kind. They certainly are not now.
Click to expand...

His public obituary will be filled to the brim with skeptics mourning the loss of the grandfather of critical thinking, and lamenting how without his guidance the entirety of humanity will descend in to permanent stupidity. What he does wrong is just as ignored as what a potential psychic does right.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Of course it is. What else is it?]
Click to expand...

Social skill is any skill facilitating interaction and communication with others. Social rules and relations are created, communicated, and changed in verbal and nonverbal ways.

Misogyny is the hatred or dislike of women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women.

You can have great social skills and be misogynic. You can have terrible social skills and not be misogynic.


Huh? So we ignore Sylvia Browne because she is not a parapsychologist. That means we should also ignore any "skeptic/atheist" who is not some sort of scientist. What are you trying to say?
Click to expand...

Of course we ignore Sylvia Browne. Just like we ignore Randi. There are plenty of people, myself included, who are proponents and feel that most psychics are charlatans. Randi and the whole JREF crew being charlatans themselves.

~~ Paul[/quote]
 
Iyace said:
Social skill is any skill facilitating interaction and communication with others. Social rules and relations are created, communicated, and changed in verbal and nonverbal ways.
Misogyny is the hatred or dislike of women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including sexual discrimination, denigration of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women.
You can have great social skills and be misogynic. You can have terrible social skills and not be misogynic.
Click to expand...
You can have great social skills and be a misogynist whose hatred does not show. But if you can't control the demonstration of your hatred, then that is a lack of social skills. You are incapable of following the social rules.

Granted, my response to you was too simplistic, because you said "belief in equality." The belief itself is not merely a lack of social skill. However, from the point of view of everyone else, one's beliefs talis qualis are irrelevant.

Of course we ignore Sylvia Browne. Just like we ignore Randi. There are plenty of people, myself included, who are proponents and feel that most psychics are charlatans. Randi and the whole JREF crew being charlatans themselves.
Click to expand...
But your statement sounded as if all parapsychologists are okay because the nasty people (e.g., Sylvia Browne) are not parapsychologists. If that is supposed to have some relation to the "skeptic/atheist movement," then surely there needs to be a qualifier about scientists. Or skeptics/atheists who are not in the movement. Or something. Otherwise what do parapsychologists have to do with anything?

~~ Paul
 
Frank Matera said:
I think Mysoginy and Skepticism are rather symptoms of a certain personality type and that is why they are so often found together. That personality type also resembles many of the symptoms found in people who suffer from Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

NPD sufferers so things like always believing to be in the right, bringing others down to make themselves look better, ridicule, Arrogance, overexaggeration of accomplishments, feeling they are better than everyone else etc etc. All of the sort of stuff you see in guys like Randi, Shermer and the like.
Click to expand...

Wow, this thread really went downhill.

I think "believers" are the way they are because they were abused by their mothers and they've all been arrested for having sex with chickens. :eek:
 
JCearley said:
But there are female skeptics, so that doesn't work either. Or are female skeptics prone to misogyny as well?
Click to expand...

Absolutely women can be misogynistic. We just have another name for it... bitchiness ;)
 
I am very much pleased to tell on this forum that there is now a good and much needed site where the reality of organized skepticism can be exposed, and it is here:

https://sites.google.com/site/skepticalconcepts/home

They have an invitation to write there about the theme:
Invitation

We intend this website to document skepticism in both its worst and best forms. We invite anyone who identifies a good example of either constructive or destructive skepticism to submit it to the webmaster. This is what we would like to have:

1) good examples of constructive, useful skeptical comment. Though such may be difficult to accept, this is an essential ingredient in effective, healthy science.

2) examples of skeptical disinformation "pronouncements." We can post a counter-disinformation item which does a clean job of the sort we aim for -- factual, anonymous, informational, etc.
Click to expand...

I already have sent there my humble contribution. In my opinion a good article about the Guerrilla Skepticism is needed there. Perhaps somebody here can write such an article or give a hunch about good existing blog items?
 
Lusikka said:
I am very much pleased to tell on this forum that there is now a good and much needed site where the reality of organized skepticism can be exposed, and it is here:

https://sites.google.com/site/skepticalconcepts/home

They have an invitation to write there about the theme:


I already have sent there my humble contribution. In my opinion a good article about the Guerrilla Skepticism is needed there. Perhaps somebody here can write such an article or give a hunch about good existing blog items?
Click to expand...
You have a broken link to http://www.opensourcescience.net/index.php?title=Main_Page which should, I think, be to http://www.opensciences.org/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top