Eye for an Eye

[Arouet]

It wasn't someone close to me. It was when I volunteered at a hospital in high school, and I just delivered meals. But that's my point. You have to summon hatred to actually understand where WBC was coming from, and that's why I think it's a good example. It's easy to delude yourself into thinking you understand someone's point of view, but as claimed, yours was extremely mild. To actually empathize and understand the WBC through their eyes, you need to summon the hatred they feel.

In fact, to empathize with them, you have to demolish empathy altogether, as they appear to have none.

Can you help me understand where you are coming from here? Do you believe that adding in their most noxious phrases would have altered the substance of the views I was expressing? As I said above, my intent was not to mimic their style.

Regarding my assessment of my own understanding, I wrote:

Given that I haven't spent more than an hour or two reading their material I don't expect all of what I have written to be accurate, and I'm sure there are nuances I've missed and may have simply interpreted some parts completely wrong.

I tried to be fair in my assessment of my understanding. Perhaps you could clarify where you think I've deluded myself.

Regarding empathy, it was actually Szechuan who mentioned that as the goal. I hadn't been thinking about this exercise in terms of empathy but I've reflected on it now. If by empathy we mean:

understand and share the feelings of another.
"counselors need to be able to empathize with people"
synonyms:identify with, sympathize with, be in sympathy with, understand, share the feelings of, be in tune with;

then I actually don't think my goal has been to empathize. The exercise is to understand the other. However, it is not to attempt to induce the feelings of the other. This is not to say that in making the effort to understand the other this won't result at times in empathy or sympathy. That is my hypothesis in fact! But that is as a result of the exercise. I don't know how one would go about inducing such feelings deliberately but even if I did I don't think its necessary or even a good idea. Let me know if you think otherwise!

 

[Iyace]

Can you help me understand where you are coming from here? Do you believe that adding in their most noxious phrases would have altered the substance of the views I was expressing? As I said above, my intent was not to mimic their style.

But how can you be sure that's how they actually feel? As I stated earlier, you gave me their stated reasons as to their logic behind their claims. I'm arguing that those claims are actually founded by some deep internal hatred ( as I believe many skeptical claims and activities are as well ). It's not enough to simply understand their style, but you need to understand where they're coming from, do you agree?

Steve's writing, for instance, is directly provocative ( as is mine ). If this project is to attempt to understand and resolve the 'us vs them' psychology of debate, then it would serve us well to actually try to summon the very feelings that cause 'us vs them'.

Do you agree?

For instance, your post read as true to their creed and thought processes as I could have written it. However, I was more attempting to capture the mentality behind this ' activism ' ( for instance, when WBC pickets funerals or JREF pickets medium readings ). Maybe we were talking about two different things.

 

[Iyace]

I should probably also mention I've had direct contact with the WBC in the form of counter protests ( sometimes drive 5+ hours to go have a loud chat with them ;) ), verbal altercations, and light shoving and elbowing. So we may need to find a more neutral example.

 

[Arouet]

But how can you be sure that's how they actually feel?

This is a bit frustrating Iyace. I've twice now written "I don't expect all of what I have written to be accurate, and I'm sure there are nuances I've missed and may have simply interpreted some parts completely wrong."

As I stated earlier, you gave me their stated reasons as to their logic behind their claims. I'm arguing that those claims are actually founded by some deep internal hatred ( as I believe many skeptical claims and activities are as well ). It's not enough to simply understand their style, but you need to understand where they're coming from, do you agree?

Again I'm a bit frustrated here. What I wrote was "Do you believe that adding in their most noxious phrases would have altered the substance of the views I was expressing? As I said above, my intent was not to mimic their style. (bolding added)" I also wrote in my original analysis that "I also haven't studied them closely enough to get a firm sense of their style - I've tried to be accurate re: the content but the style is simply my creative flair!" In light of this I'm trying to understand how you would conclude that my focus was on understanding their style rather than on understanding where they're coming from.

In any event, this was an exercise not a full blown study. As I said above: "In the context of the exercise this one is hard to do because we're not actually dealing with a THEY who ever interacted with US. " Remember my goal is for us tp do this kind of analysis with each other in the context of back and forth discussions where we can ask each other questions and provide clarifications.

Steve's writing, for instance, is directly provocative ( as is mine ). If this project is to attempt to understand and resolve the 'us vs them' psychology of debate, then it would serve us well to actually try to summon the very feelings that cause 'us vs them'.

Do you agree?

As I said above: "I don't know how one would go about inducing such feelings deliberately but even if I did I don't think its necessary or even a good idea."

For instance, your post read as true to their creed and thought processes as I could have written it.

Thank you.

However, I was more attempting to capture the mentality behind this ' activism ' ( for instance, when WBC pickets funerals or JREF pickets medium readings ). Maybe we were talking about two different things.

I actually touched on WBC picketing, though not in detail, when I wrote "We have been commanded by God to cry out and show people their transgressions towards God. ". I agree that this is exactly the kind of thing we should be trying to understand from the other side.

I think I just figured out one way where we perhaps are talking about two different things. I'm picking up that you may be coming at this analysis as an effort to devine the subconscious roots of people's actions. If that's the case, that's not at all what I've been looking at. I've been looking at how people consciously view their own beliefs, motives and actions.

 

[Szechuan]

With respect to the empathy consideration, while I don't love wikipedia, sometimes it's quite helpful as in this case.

Empathy has many different definitions that encompass a broad range of emotional states, such as caring for other people and having a desire to help them; experiencing emotions that match another person's emotions; discerning what another person is thinking or feeling; and making less distinct the differences between the self and the other.

It also is the ability to feel and share another person’s emotions. Some believe that empathy involves the ability to match another’s emotions, while others believe that empathy involves being tenderhearted toward another person

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy

I don't think that narrowing empathy to the specific state of 'trying to feel the way another person feels' is particularly helpful except as an academic exercise in semantic distinctions. As the quote expresses, there are several concurrent (hopefully) factors involved. My long-term goal as a human is to grow towards other people and humanity as a whole. Approaching an 'other' that is prima facie entirely different to me is a confronting and instructive way to not only find points of commonality with them, but expose the prejudices that unthinkingly influence my own behaviour.

To put aside the WBC and draw on another example: living under drones in parts of Pakistan. Though I cannot summon the feeling of hatred that would be cultivated, I can very, very easily comprehend how an innocent, ordinary citizen can become radicalized in the circumstances. Imagine yourself living under the shadow of drones. Knowing they are up there. The constant fear of a whoosh and explosion, wondering when it will happen. Fearing to rush in and help the injured because attacks against first responders have occurred. The feeling of powerlessness, of fear, of everyday becoming a experience of dull terror. Seeing friends, family, killed or maimed in intentional attacks. The helplessness, the lack of legal recourse, the impotency of international opinion, the desire to hit back, the seeds of violent reprisal. Yes, it's very easy to imagine what thoughts would occur and how certain feelings would arise.

What then is the point of attempting to understand why another thinks the way they do?

Either it is merely an intellectual exercise and that is a wholly egoistic approach.

Or it is an attempt the understand 'the other' as a human whose unique experiences have influenced the formation of beliefs and actions that differ from our own in order to look for ways to approach bridge building rather than gulf widening.

 

[Arouet]

With respect to the empathy consideration, while I don't love wikipedia, sometimes it's quite helpful as in this case.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy

I don't think that narrowing empathy to the specific state of 'trying to feel the way another person feels' is particularly helpful except as an academic exercise in semantic distinctions. As the quote expresses, there are several concurrent (hopefully) factors involved. My long-term goal as a human is to grow towards other people and humanity as a whole. Approaching an 'other' that is prima facie entirely different to me is a confronting and instructive way to not only find points of commonality with them, but expose the prejudices that unthinkingly influence my own behaviour.

To put aside the WBC and draw on another example: living under drones in parts of Pakistan. Though I cannot summon the feeling of hatred that would be cultivated, I can very, very easily comprehend how an innocent, ordinary citizen can become radicalized in the circumstances. Imagine yourself living under the shadow of drones. Knowing they are up there. The constant fear of a whoosh and explosion, wondering when it will happen. Fearing to rush in and help the injured because attacks against first responders have occurred. The feeling of powerlessness, of fear, of everyday becoming a experience of dull terror. Seeing friends, family, killed or maimed in intentional attacks. Yes, it's very easy to imagine what thoughts would occur and how certain feelings would arise.

The way you're describing it here I think is much more in line with how I've been approaching this. As I tried to elaborate above (perhaps not well!) I believe going through this type of analysis will often result in feelings of empathy/sympathy and bringing people together. What I read Iyace as saying, and what I disagree with, is that triggering empathy was a deliberate step in the process leading up to the result, rather than as a byproduct of the process.

Our feelings of empathy and sympathy I believe will often arise natually after we've taken the effort to really understand the other. Other times indeed the opposite may happen and the result is feelings of anger/distrust, etc. I believe that the former will happen more often than the latter. I don't know it for sure, but I think its certainly worth giving this a good shot in order to find out!

[/quote]Or it is an attempt the understand 'the other' as a human whose unique experiences have influenced the formation of beliefs and actions that differ from our own in order to look for ways to approach bridge building rather than gulf widening.[/quote]

The bolded is exactly what I've been aiming at with this campaign.

 

[Iyace]

I think I just figured out one way where we perhaps are talking about two different things. I'm picking up that you may be coming at this analysis as an effort to devine the subconscious roots of people's actions. If that's the case, that's not at all what I've been looking at. I've been looking at how people consciously view their own beliefs, motives and actions.

I think you nailed it on the head here, and I'm going to make a case for why I believe my way of approaching this exercise will garner better results:

As you have argued ( and I have agreed with ) many times in this forum, people's experiences of the paranormal variety are open to scrutiny. While they may consciously be damn sure of their own experiences, etc. that doesn't really tell me very much of what their actual position is. You bring up the instance of tribalism in our subconscious arsenal of reflexes that may provide us some false information about who it is that's on the other side of the table ( US vs THEM ).

I was using this example of WBC as an inlet to demonstrate that sometimes we delude ourselves into thinking something that is rooted in something entirely different. For instance, my hypothesis is that WBC espouses hatred of homosexuals, jews, etc. as a deep concern for biblical literacy when at it's base root is just malice. They're no more concerned with people going to hell than they are with spewing hateful words and indulging in the hatred they receive back.

This, in effect, takes me back to the point I was trying to make about organized skepticism. While I agree that skepticism is the best route to understanding or dismissing phenomena that are not well demonstrated, organized skepticism does not mimic that principle. Psuedo-activist skepticism ( in such a case as JREF picketing medium readings ) claims it's doing it for the good of people and to expose charlatans just as the WBC claims that their demonstrates are being done for the good of the people ( saving people from hell-fire ) and to expose the evil that's causing strife in the world ( because of the gays, jews, etc. ). I was trying to get down to the root of what actually drove both activist groups; not what they think drives them.

 

[Arouet]

I think you nailed it on the head here, and I'm going to make a case for why I believe my way of approaching this exercise will garner better results.

As I head off to sleep I'd like congratulate the two of us for not just suspecting we were talking past one another but actually figuring out how and resolving the confusion! Well done! Go us!

(Tomorrow I'll explain why I think not only will your approach not garner better results but will accomplish little positive and serve to make things worse for everyone! 'Nite! :))

 

[Kamarling]

I wasn't on the debate team (I went to one meeting of the debate club and never went back). I've never been taught debating tactics and semantics to obfuscate nor have I ever deliberately made an argument with the goal of obfuscation...

Obviously I don't know what you did at university. I didn't go to university but I know that students are often exposed to, and tutored in debating tactics. I do remember you saying, way back, that you like to use the forum to hone your debating skills. To me, that means the emphasis is upon winning the debate, not attempting to get at the truth.

Ok! This gives us some openings to perhaps make some headway here! I think it is fair to say that I quite readily narrow the focus in discussions so we'll start by accepting that. I started to address these points and I will but I'd like to ask something of you first if I may. You've stated how you view my posts. Based on what you've seen of what I've written, how do you think I view my posts? Do you think I agree with your assessment of my posts? How do you think I interpret your assessment of my posts? What do you think I think of my time here? Further, how do you think I see your assessment of my posts? I'd ask you for this to base your assessment solely on what I've written. I'll give my answers after you've given yours and maybe we can test my hypothesis of how we can improve communication on this forum.

I've already said that I try to understand why people say the things they say. You are no exception. I see that the discussion between you and Iyace has moved on somewhat sice I went to bed (it is 7:00 AM as I write this). For me, I have a lot of trouble with your posts. Gabriel said that at least with D. Shropshire, you knew what to expect and knew exactly where he was coming from. I can't say that I do so with you. Your tone is sincere but the content is rigid. If you insist on an answer, I have to say that I see you as someone who settled on a worldview in your teens and that involved a rejection of all things spiritual at the same time as the complete acceptance of science as your guiding light. Chris French has a bit of a habit of summarising his responses to evidence of the paranormal by saying "well, of course, science tells us that none of this is possible". I believe that you share his view.

Thus, when you concentrate on the minutiae or on the precise experimental procedure, you are effectively saying that if we examine this closely enough, we will find reason for doubt and that is science doing its job. You seem, however, to have already made your mind up that the evidence will be found to be in error. Because of this, you can extrapolate that error detection process to explain all of those millions of seemingly convincing anecdotes: they are all error prone and, taken on individually, you are certain that there will be discrepancies. That is why you seem to have more respect for someone like Johann, who is an accomplished data sifter, than others here who are perhaps more intuitive and accept what people say because it feels right and true. So to answer how do I think you view my posts: I think that you can't understand why I get frustrated and annoyed when all you are saying is let the data speak for itself: the stories we find convincing are, to you, sub-standard evidence. I'm saying, put aside the OCD for detail for a moment and look at the whole thing. Can you not see that there is something profound going on?

Well, I agree I didn't reply to it. I made a plethora of substantive posts last night including one the one in this thread that took me several hours. I have much less ability nowadays to read and post during the workday. There are plenty of posts that I have opinions on that I don't reply to: there are only so many hours to the day so I pick and choose like anyone else. Nonetheless I've written on this topic many many times over the years, and even over the last few days. I'm going to impose again but asking you to go through this exercise again: based on what I've written in the past, what do you think I think about his post? Again I'll give my reply after you.

See above for my answer. But the reason I pointed out that you didn't reply to that particular question was because I think it is at the crux of the matter. I still don't understand the motivation to spread the word. If anything, I do see the volume of posts from a few dedicated skeptics as an indication of an ideological mission.

Other than the fact I have about 175 posts on the JREF forum (have you actually read my posts there? what do you think of them?) I'm not sure what you think here applies to me?

As I said earlier, I am not a member of JREF. I used to be able to read the posts without a login but they seem to have closed that door now. I did read a few of your posts and you did defend Skeptiko against some of the more rabid detractors. Nevertheless, I did not get the impression that you had any ideological distance from the prevailing worldview expressed over there. My point, yet again, was to say that I don't feel the need to join JREF and take on the skeptics in their own back yard. I believe that one or two proponents did persist in that folly but I'm at a loss to understand what they thought they would achieve.

 

[Arouet]

Obviously I don't know what you did at university. I didn't go to university but I know that students are often exposed to, and tutored in debating tactics. I do remember you saying, way back, that you like to use the forum to hone your debating skills. To me, that means the emphasis is upon winning the debate, not attempting to get at the truth.

This is good! Let's see if we can make some progress here!

Let's take my statement that I "like to use the forum to hone my debating skills." Sounds like something I might say so let's start from there.

You've now stated what "like to use the forum to hone my debating skills" means to you. That is: "the emphasis is upon winning the debate, not attempting to get at the truth." Fair enough, I have no problem with that. Next step: shift your focus and ask yourself what you think that phrase might mean to me. Start by looking at the actual posts where I made the statement (I suspect there are more than one, including variations such as honing my argument skills, etc. How did I frame the issue? Did I provide any context or elaboration and how does it fit in with other posts of mine? Given what detail I did provide do you have enough information to make a confident assessment of what I meant or is additional detail needed?

I've already said that I try to understand why people say the things they say. You are no exception.

I honestly believe that you and don't doubt it for a second. But let's not pretend its easy! Just look at all the questions involved in interpreting just one phrase of mine!

I see that the discussion between you and Iyace has moved on somewhat sice I went to bed (it is 7:00 AM as I write this). For me, I have a lot of trouble with your posts. Gabriel said that at least with D. Shropshire, you knew what to expect and knew exactly where he was coming from. I can't say that I do so with you. Your tone is sincere but the content is rigid. If you insist on an answer, I have to say that I see you as someone who settled on a worldview in your teens and that involved a rejection of all things spiritual at the same time as the complete acceptance of science as your guiding light. Chris French has a bit of a habit of summarising his responses to evidence of the paranormal by saying "well, of course, science tells us that none of this is possible". I believe that you share his view.

Ok, this is your assessment, fair enough. I'll address the specifics in a bit but first let's focus on what we do with such an assessment. We all make them. We probably have little narratives we tell ourselves about all the posters here. But what do we do with these assessments in approaching people's posts? Are we using them as a filter to interpret new posts or are we using new posts as more data to adjust our assessment? Probably both! I often say that we should take each post on their own and I make an effort to do that. But I don't think I should pretend that I can completely shirk the influence of the filter - and that's with focusing on it! If I don't draw my particular attention to the filter its going have even more impact.

I think we have to keep this in mind. But now let's think about what happens if our assessment is not accurate? We are instinctively applying a filter that is actively distorting our interpretation of the other's post! This is where the real internal battle begins!

Like I said, I don't think we can completely shake off the filter. So what do we do? We need to deliberately turn our thoughts to reflecting on how we might be biasing ourselves by the narrative we create for the other person. We have to ask ourselves how confident we feel about our narrative. And we should ask ourselves what steps we can take in trying to improve the accuracy of our narrative. Again: none of this is easy! Each step involves asking the types of questions I set out above.

(Continued in next post)

 

[Arouet]

Ok, let's turn to your narrative of me. I've given you other homework above so I'm going to go straight to my answer. I've written about all of this many times on the forum. There are a lot of posts to read so perhaps you just simply didn't catch them. I'll just lay it out briefly here but feel free to ask follow up questions and I'd be happy to elaborate.

1) rigity: I can see I think why you might interpret my posts as rigid. How I view myself: I don't view my positions as rigid - I ask myself so many questions and don't feel like I have all that many firm answers that I don't think rigidity is the right term! I do try and take a fairly rigid approach to trying to figure this stuff out though. I am aware of my biases. In order to attempt to control for them I go through a certain thought process. I try to lay out my thought process in my posts in the hope of generating responses to give myself the best chance of detecting errors. I'm prepared to change my views in relation to the response. The thing is, I don't consider it likely that my views will change in response to a reply if the reply hasn't actually addressed the concern or argument in my post!

2. my world view settlling as a teen. I've written about this several times on the forum over the years. I became an atheist around the age of 12. I can't pretend my thought process was all that rigourous at the time. I can recall going to Sunday school, hearing all these stories and gradually I just stopped buying it. But from my perspective, that's about as far as I got for a REALLY long time! I can't recall ever giving these questions all that much thought until university. If you would have asked me directly at the time whether I believed in spiritual things I would have probably answered no but I can't recall ever spending all that much time thinking about spiritual topics prior to university. I thihk I've posted this before but I can't recall even having come across the term "worldview" before getting being exposed to skeptical podcasts like Skeptiko. Certainly I had never thought about it in any formal way prior to then!

3. science: you're actually WAY off on this one, and I've written about this before as well. I had little interest in science before being exposed to Skeptiko and other skeptical podcasts and I've expressed regret on this forum that I didn't develop an interest sooner in life. I took the minimum amount of science classes in school and never cared much for the ones I had to take. My university degrees were history/polisci and Law. My interest in science was born when I discovered skeptic podcasts. For all intentst and purposes my scientific knowledge pre-Skpeptiko should be considered utter ignorance. All of my knowledge about science has come since that time. I'm playing catch up here.

As for my guiding light. My thought process has unquestionably been influenced significantly by what I've learned about the scientific method in recent year. No question. But my guiding light? You're looking at it right now! It's my thought process. My posts are me working out these issues in real time. Setting out my arguments on this forum isn't just me relating my views to you, it is part of my process of coming to my views. Putting these thoughts in writing, I'm not just trying to get you to understand me, I'm exploring my own understanding. You interpret the doubt you see in my posts as a tactic to spread doubt. I perceive it as the way I process, challenge and aspire to resolve my own doubts.

4. "well, of course, science tells us that none of this is possible". I accept that you believe that I share this view but I'll be honest I'm not sure how you get there since it is pretty well the opposite of my position. I HATE arguments that something is not possible! Outside of math and logic I consider them to be the epitiome of arguments from ignorance. I have made so many posts against such arguments and it is so fundamental to my approach to these problems that I can't fathom how you've picked up that this is what I believe! I'd actually appreciate it if you would point me to some posts of mine that lead you to this impression because either you're completely misunderstanding me or I'm expressing myself in a way that does not reflect my actual views. If its the latter I'd really like to correct it.

5. Error detection: this is getting real long so I'll keep it to this: when I bring up the fact that our current state of knowledge on these topics is based on research that is of a high risk of error I am not suggesting that this explains what is going on. I am precisely saying that basing our conclusions on such work does not allow us to make confident assertions about the explanation. I think that unreliable premises make for unreliable conclusions, and that more unreliable premises does not correct that. I get the instinct to believe that it does. It is singled out as a logical fallacy for a reason: our instincts should not be trusted on this point. I get the instinct to look at the forest and feel that it must be so, but I think that's part of our hard-wired pattern seeking programs at work. We have reason not to trust it. Keep in mind that I get those same feelings as anyone else. I just don't consider them reliable.

See above for my answer. But the reason I pointed out that you didn't reply to that particular question was because I think it is at the crux of the matter. I still don't understand the motivation to spread the word. If anything, I do see the volume of posts from a few dedicated skeptics as an indication of an ideological mission.

But can you imagine other explanations that could be at work?

As I said earlier, I am not a member of JREF. I used to be able to read the posts without a login but they seem to have closed that door now. I did read a few of your posts and you did defend Skeptiko against some of the more rabid detractors. Nevertheless, I did not get the impression that you had any ideological distance from the prevailing worldview expressed over there. My point, yet again, was to say that I don't feel the need to join JREF and take on the skeptics in their own back yard. I believe that one or two proponents did persist in that folly but I'm at a loss to understand what they thought they would achieve.

When I joined Skeptiko it was billed as the place for Skeptics and Proponents to meet. I thought it WAS my backyard! It became my home and intellectual refuge. I won't pretend it didn't sting when certain people here rejected me who I thought considered me part of their community. I wish there was another place like the old Skeptiko but there isn't. JREF certainly doesn't feel like my home. So where else to go?

 

[Kamarling]

Arouet, I appreciate the time you must have taken on that reply but I'm not sure I can, or want to, follow you down this path of analysing every detail of your posts. Yes, I make assumptions about your intent. You must realise that if you state you are coming from a starting position of skeptic/materialist/atheist then everyone here is going to peg you as I did. When I talk about rigidity (it might have been too strong a word), I mean there is a consistency in your approach. By your own admission, you don't trust anyone's story. I guess that's true to being a skeptic. But you expect me and others to trust your motives.

I am not going to wade through your back posts to find examples of why I formed the impression of you that I have. Just accept that I have such an impression and that I must have got it from somewhere. I'm sure you have an impression of me based upon your memory of things I have written previously.

You don't need to be interested in science to believe that science has the answers and those answers seem to agree with your atheistic position. There must be millions of atheists with little or no scientific education but, as we have discussed at length here, the media is at pains to confirm the impression that science and atheism are compatible.

But here is where I come from: I was about 14 when I also rejected my religious indoctrination. I also became, if not an atheist (although I thought I was at the time), then anti-religious. Later, I considered that the Abrahamic God was not something I could believe in but that another concept of God - if I had to use the word - was more in line with a concept of a universal mind. The more I thought about it, the more it made sense. I later realised that I was not alone in thinking like this - I had stumbled upon a very old philosophy: idealism. It became clear that the few first-hand, and the much larger catalogue of second-hand experiences of the so-called paranormal, were perfectly in tune with the idealistic view. So that is my bias, if you like. That is why I don't question every detail as you do. Why I have more trust in people than you do.

I don't care how many times you invoke file drawer effects, or p-values, or whatever the jargon of experimental parapsychology might be. If that is your route to the truth, enjoy yourself with it. I really don't think it will get you there because I don't believe such phenomena are easily pinned down. At some point, when someone says I looked down from the ceiling and I saw a doctor do this and that, I have to say - who am I to call him a liar or deluded? When thousands of people come out with similar experiences I have to say - who are YOU to call them liars or deluded?

 

[gabriel]

Chris French has a bit of a habit of summarising his responses to evidence of the paranormal by saying "well, of course, science tells us that none of this is possible". I believe that you share his view.

The attachment to what science says is a sentimental one. It comes from people who have been inside a reward system for fact based science, and are extremely reluctant to leave it behind. Science doesn't tell us, "none of this is possible", ever. Chris French tells us its so to maintain his media profile as hard-nosed skeptic, and keep the approval of his social peer group. It's a performance, every bit as much as Westboro Baptist Church pickets are a performance. Neither French nor the WBC are serious about saving people from error, they want attention. Nothing French and his skeptical cronies say is abstract or disinterested (and consequently "scientific"), it's all propaganda for the materialist metaphysic and if truth is a casualty, well it's better than the alternative of being irrelevant.

 

[Arouet]

Arouet, I appreciate the time you must have taken on that reply but I'm not sure I can, or want to, follow you down this path of analysing every detail of your posts.

Sure, I certainly can't force you. I will note that this is not the first time you've described you doubts about my sincerity, your assessment of my posts as tactics, and how you don't understand why I would spend so much time here if not for some agenda. I've replied in detail each time. Next time I suppose I will simply refer back to this thread.

[/quote]
Yes, I make assumptions about your intent. You must realise that if you state you are coming from a starting position of skeptic/materialist/atheist then everyone here is going to peg you as I did. [/quote]

Well, I've quite clearly stated numerous times that I don't consider myself a materialist. That aside, if someone is going to form their opinion about me based solely on my self identification as a skeptic and atheist there's not much I can do about that. And while I do think there are some misconceptions about my views from some members even then I give them far more credit than you do. I may disagree with them about many things and disagree with their thought processes at times, but I don't think most people's analysis if me is that simplistic. Certainly not the regs.

[/quote]
When I talk about rigidity (it might have been too strong a word), I mean there is a consistency in your approach. By your own admission, you don't trust anyone's story. I guess that's true to being a skeptic. But you expect me and others to trust your motives.[/quote]

Again, I think you need to read what I write a bit more carefully. I have never said that I don't trust anyone's story. There are plenty of scenarios where I evaluate a persons story as reliable enough to draw conclusions on. I guess I won't bother elaborating further since you've said you're not interested but this is a very context dependent question.

You don't need to be interested in science to believe that science has the answers and those answers seem to agree with your atheistic position. There must be millions of atheists with little or no scientific education but, as we have discussed at length here, the media is at pains to confirm the impression that science and atheism are compatible.

I'm saying that I never gave it much thought at that time.

But here is where I come from: I was about 14 when I also rejected my religious indoctrination. I also became, if not an atheist (although I thought I was at the time), then anti-religiously. Later, I considered that the Abrahamic God was not something I could believe in but that another concept of God - if I had to use the word - was more in line with a concept of a universal mind. The more I thought about it, the more it made sense. I later realised that I was not alone in thinking like this - I had stumbled upon a very old philosophy: idealism. It became clear that the few first-hand, and the much larger catalogue of second-hand experiences of the so-called paranormal, were perfectly in tune with the idealistic view. So that is my bias, if you like. That is why I don't question every detail as you do. Why I have more trust in people than you do.

I don't care how many times you invoke file drawer effects, or p-values, or whatever the jargon of experimental parapsychology might be. If that is your route to the truth, enjoy yourself with it. I really don't think it will get you there because I don't believe such phenomena are easily pinned down. At some point, when someone says I looked down from the ceiling and I saw a doctor do this and that, I have to say - who am I to call him a liar or deluded? When thousands of people come out with similar experiences I have to say - who are YOU to call them liars or deluded?

I know you're not interested in searching through my posts, but if you did you'd be hard pressed to find all that many where I called anyone a liar or deluded. That said, it's one thing to challenge my ideas - that's why I'm here. It's another to regularly accuse me of using tactics in the pursuit of some agenda. I'd ask you to avoid that in the future unless you're willing to also present me with the posts that back that up.

 

[gabriel]

Skepticism is stuck in materialism. The more intelligent skeptics realise materialism is hokum, but can't bring themselves to leave behind the security and certainty it represents. It's as though they're attached by elastic, they move towards its limits, only to spring back because they can't break the bond. It's the reason why the same argument takes place over and over again. Because they're not debating the evidence but their own assumptions, skeptics adopt disingenuous tactics to trick themselves into believing the insupportable.

 

[steve001]

Skepticism is stuck in materialism. The more intelligent skeptics realise materialism is hokum, but can't bring themselves to leave behind the security and certainty it represents. It's as though they're attached by elastic, they move towards its limits, only to spring back because they can't break the bond. It's the reason why the same argument takes place over and over again. Because they're not debating the evidence but their own assumptions, skeptics adopt disingenuous tactics to trick themselves into believing the insupportable.

I've edited a few words out and replaced them with other words. You'll see the point you make is just as applicable to proponents.

Proponentism is stuck in immaterialism. The more intelligent proponentents realise immaterialism is hokum, but can't bring themselves to leave behind the security and certainty it represents. It's as though they're attached by elastic, they move towards its limits, only to spring back because they can't break the bond. It's the reason why the same argument takes place over and over again. Because they're not debating the evidence but their own assumptions, proponents adopt disingenuous tactics to trick themselves into believing the insupportable.

 

[Kamarling]

OK, Arouet, so you are not a materialist, you are not here to defend or promote any point of view, you don't think that psychics, NDE experiencers or mediums are liars nor deluded, and you approach every case on merit, without preconceptions. From now on, I will indeed avoid accusing you of any of those things if your posts reflect those qualities. I only hope that I can be so open-minded too.

 

[Kamarling]

I've edited a few words out and replaced them with other words. You'll see the point you make is just as applicable to proponents.

Do you really think that people fall for this kind of "No, you're ugly!" type of response?

 

[Typoz]

OK, Arouet, so you are not a materialist, you are not here to defend or promote any point of view, ... etc.

I don't believe that is possible - for any of us. We all have a point of view. Otherwise why say anything at all?

 

[gabriel]

I've edited a few words out and replaced them with other words. You'll see the point you make is just as applicable to proponents.

You haven't argued why I'm wrong, so I assume you have no answer. Using words like 'immaterialist' assumes materialism is beyond reproach, and things can only be described in opposition to it, which is nonsense. I know of no proponents who describe themselves as immaterialists. Materialism is an ideological approach to a method of investigation, there is nothing empirical about it. It's political, not scientific.