Are we sliding into too many political discussions?

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

To be fair to Alex, the christian (Atwell) thing is quite real to him. I don't think it's fair to stand at a distance and say, "That's rather silly." I mean, I personally think there is something to cryptoid encounters. I'm sure plenty of people here would find that ridiculous, but to me it is quite concrete. We can't know what factors combined in his psychology to create his current belief system.

I really consider the podcast and the forum to be two separate entities and I think Alex does as well. He seems not to really give a jot about the forum except that it brings up an occasional idea within the threads on the shows. I don't think he reads the non-show threads. Which is kind of funny really.

I'm fine with the Christian/Atheist criticism, but I'm not seeing even the cursory introduction of counter views.

I think if you want to criticise, you should be a lot less cryptic.

Who is embarrassed by the podcasts? I think perhaps Alex wants to interview the whole spectrum of guests - from the hard-line sceptics, through the really interesting people, out to the rather New Age people such as Tim Freke.

David

Heh I thought I was being the opposite of cryptic.

The Luciferian-Atheist compact stuff is an embarrassment, as is the Illuminati in Music Video stuff in that podcast. The Christianity as Roman Fiction isn't much better.

As for who is embarrassed, I would say anyone dedicated to rationality and honest appraisal of evidence.

 

[Backup Liker 2 the Backup]

I'm fine with the Christian/Atheist criticism, but I'm not seeing even the cursory introduction of counter views.

That's Alex's modus operandi. Leopard ain't going to change his spots.

 

[E.Flowers]

The "case closed" approach hasn't helped. None of the subjects discussed on Skeptiko are beyond reproach, and we shouldn't prematurely shut debate on them. Some arguments are compelling and the challenges unconvincing, like non-localised consciousness, but they're still open to good arguments should they ever arrive. OTOH some ideas put out there are completely unfalsifiable and positioned as if they're logically rigorous and the subject of learned research, when they're straight of the National Inquirer. Having fun with what-ifs isn't a problem, but all hypotheses aren't created equal.

Yeah, that's another good point... We don't seem to get any follow-up on past podcasts, not from critics nor the original guests themselves. That pretty much forces the need to give forum to "what-if hypotheses", since there is a constant need for new material. Maybe Alex took note that in today's world people have short attention spans and decided to do a watered-down version of clickbait?

I would love a few throwbacks to Lanza, Tucker or even one where Diane Powell was allowed to address the methodological flaws of her early tests and answer if she took care of them.

To be fair to Alex, the christian (Atwell) thing is quite real to him. I don't think it's fair to stand at a distance and say, "That's rather silly." I mean, I personally think there is something to cryptoid encounters. I'm sure plenty of people here would find that ridiculous, but to me it is quite concrete. We can't know what factors combined in his psychology to create his current belief system.

I really consider the podcast and the forum to be two separate entities and I think Alex does as well. He seems not to really give a jot about the forum except that it brings up an occasional idea within the threads on the shows. I don't think he reads the non-show threads. Which is kind of funny really.

Oh, yeah. He has obvious unfinished business with religion, but is his psychological response to them a fair representation of "following the data"? Because that is how the podcast is being promoted and any lurker that came in here and listened to the "atheists are secret satanists" stuff is most likely going to side with the anti-"woo woo" faction from that point forward. "Following my feelings" would be a more accurate tag for the last year or so, and at least something like that would avoid doing a disservice to the credibility of consciousness studies.

 

[Brian_the_bard]

Right - I mean Christianity is closer to some people than others. I have up Christianity 47 years ago - but others still feel the pull of that religion, and the debunking of that religion still feels important.

David

The only debunking that is important is the debunking of debunkers (on all subjects) as their arguments usually presuppose that they know the absolute truth about something based on cherry picked data and (usually) false logic. Somebody once said that sceptics are essential but debunkers only cloud issues.

 

[Max_B]

Apologies, David, for not responding to your original post until now, and instead focussing on the criticism of moderation.

I'd say that #3 is the main concern, but that #1 is also a concern. Re #2, I'd say it's none of our concern - that people are (and should be) free to decide how to "waste" their time - whether that be via political discussions on Skeptiko, or plaiting their dog's hair (with its consent, of course).

The questions I'd tee up are: (a) how serious are these (two) concerns, and (b) what, if anything, should "we" do to mitigate them?

In answer, I'd say re #1 that we're all adult enough to either look past, or (which is even better) to learn from one another's politics. Speaking personally, you and I are on pretty opposing sides of the political spectrum, and yet I have learnt a lot from your articulation of your views, even where I might not agree with you. I'd argue that this forum is a good place to learn how to do that. i.e. re #a it's both a challenge and an opportunity to the community, and not a matter of serious (negative) concern, and re #b we need do nothing other than encourage others to "walk a mile in one another's shoes", whilst at the same time sticking to their guns should they not be convinced of the other's perspective - a balancing act which one learns to tread in places like this.

Re #3, I'd say that "we" (all of us here on the forum) might simply bring to mind the main and original purpose of this place when posting and especially when creating new threads. We are about "controversial" science, especially as it relates to consciousness. Re #a, I'd say this is a fairly significant concern, but that our backlog of conversations mitigates concern, and re #b I'd say that if the forum continues to stray too far from its original purpose, we might try such (innovative?) approaches as offering awards for the most topical OP, or something like that, to encourage topical posts.

Re whether Skeptiko as a whole is deteriorating, as several members have suggested and affirmed, I am not so sure of that, but I would suggest that if we are to avoid that fate, we need, as the moderation team generally agrees, more debate spurred on by intelligent criticism, lest we become not merely an echo chamber, but a discordant echo chamber. Perhaps we might openly - but selectively - welcome critics as (ongoing) forum members, and not just as (one-or-two-time) podcast guests. Of course, we would want to develop terms of engagement before doing so - such as having them read certain literature - but this seems to me to be the best course for maintaining relevance as a venue of discussion and debate.

Anyway, those are my thoughts, I welcome your responses.

Has anything been decided about David continuing as moderator?

David's post on that AGW thread today is bizarre... he seems to be suggesting that moderators should censor discussion of AGW on the forum because there may be too many posts to read? Instead he suggests that he, Andrew and David will discuss AGW in private, and then later report back to the forum with their conclusions...

...sorry to say it, but this remind me of the sorts of things people begin to say when they are not quite with it anymore... I suspect he's not with it...

 

[Ian Gordon]

It's overzealous moderation at the very least. I thought David came in with the idea of low-key moderation, especially after Craig, almost like "I'll only be helping with spam and what not", but that's not how it seems to have developed. David is a great forum member, but I would prefer minimal moderation.

 

[Laird]

Has anything been decided about David continuing as moderator?

David's post on that AGW thread today is bizarre... he seems to be suggesting that moderators should censor discussion of AGW on the forum because there may be too many posts to read? Instead he suggests that he, Andrew and David will discuss AGW in private, and then later report back to the forum with their conclusions...

...sorry to say it, but this remind me of the sorts of things people begin to say when they are not quite with it anymore... I suspect he's not with it...

Nobody in the moderation team is proposing that David stop moderating. There is sometimes disagreement on moderation decisions - and I've voiced my opinion on the proposed private AGW conversation in that thread - but I think it's going too far to say that David is "not quite with it". David's faculties are fine, and whilst he has thick skin, you are pressing pretty hard, Max. That said, you are perfectly entitled to your views - maybe just try to remember that David is a fellow human being with feelings too.

 

[gabriel]

Oh, yeah. He has obvious unfinished business with religion, but is his psychological response to them a fair representation of "following the data"? Because that is how the podcast is being promoted and any lurker that came in here and listened to the "atheists are secret satanists" stuff is most likely going to side with the anti-"woo woo" faction from that point forward. "Following my feelings" would be a more accurate tag for the last year or so, and at least something like that would avoid doing a disservice to the credibility of consciousness studies.

I agree, following the data is decidedly not what is happening presently. It feels more like favouring anything that challenges accepted wisdom. So far as New World Order claims go, where does the self interest of a financial elite end (a credible conclusion), and the influence of Satanists/ Alien Greys/ Illuminati begin? Spend time listening to Art Bell's interviews with the late Malachi Martin, a priest and exorcist. Like so many advocates of NWO you'll find yourself saying true, true, yes, maybe, ok, really?, nah, WTF! as he leads you from self evident truths, through paranoia, over logical chasms while maintaining the same tone of voice. It isn't that any aspect is completely impossible, and some fit what we know about human nature, but the conclusions bear no relationship to the hypothesis. Like all conspiracists/ mentalists he uses suggestion to plant aberrant ideas within simple truths.

It's clear that shadowy groups trading in evil exist, from child abuse rings to slave traffickers, but their existence in high places does not necessarily mean subscription to those values is necessary to be wealthy and powerful. It seems more likely that the temptations of power expose people to a dark side. Metaphysically speaking, evil is at its most potent when it operates in places of potential good, like charities, the clergy and sound government. As a believer in objective evil it's tempting to characterise the impulse as universal in places of power, but it's more likely that it happens because people don't care enough to call it for what it is.

 

[Silence]

but I think it's going too far to say that David is "not quite with it". David's faculties are fine

That ain't his first time with that rather cowardly attack. I commented on his first offense.