Bertha Huse
New
They engage in dishonesty on a number of counts:
1. They dishonestly misuse and game the Wikipedia rules to make sure their POV remains, while banning and harrassing dissenting opinions in an organized fashion.
2. They make use of Skeptical written resources and ignore other source material that contradict their citations. They ignore any evidence that would contradict a Skeptical source, and pretend the Skeptical source is 100% biblically correct.
3. They dishonestly present a limited contextual biased view of the biographies they target on Wikipedia of those they wish to smear. For example, if you have a well-known medium such as Mrs. Piper, they will present one single case of her mediumship in the bio, and ignore any of the hundreds of other cases that remain veridical. They imply the one single case is evidential of Mrs. Piper being a fraud.
4. They make sure any criticism of Skeptic's biographies on Wikipedia are kept clean, and game and misuse the Wikipedia rules to make sure no fair criticism is visible of Skeptic Society members..
5. They have managed to get Wikipedia itself to label psi research as a "pseudo-science" when by all known definitions of science, parapsychology has had real scientists engage in real scientific experiments using empirical methods. They are also able to label scientists engaged in psi research as "pseudo-scientists". Both are misleading, dishonest terms - and are used frequently by Skeptics to abuse and game the Wikipedia rules further.
6. They are often dishonest in their claims to knowledge of psi & nde research. Often when pressed, they know very little about the actual scientific research that has been conducted now over 100+ years. Polemics you usually receive from Skeptics come from resources they use heavily from Skeptical websites. Most Skeptics remain ignorant of the details of the actual scientific research they vigorously attack. This too is dishonest, as they present themselves as being knowledgeable. Real Skepticism is not the same as Denial.
7. They pretend they speak for Science, when the Skeptic's Society is not even a scientific organization. Whereas organizations such as the Society for Psychical Research is a scientific organization and has conducted empirical studies now for over 100+ years. The Skeptic's Society as a rule discourages its members from performing scientific work in psi. This too presents a dishonest equivalency between real scientists and propagandists.
8. They are dishonest when they engage with people they call "proponents". The conversation is not based on a "good faith" dialogue, but instead, usually follows a well-established Skeptic's talking points agenda. Where proponents will be hammered with repeated attack lines, and are repeatedly asked to "Provide Evidence" - while at the same time, if any research is provided, the Skeptic will then use abrasive Skeptic talking points to dismiss whatever the proponent presents. Note that this kind of dialogue does not require the Skeptic to actually look at the empirical research themselves (and few of them do) - they simply use well-worn Skeptic talking points to deny the empirical study provided. The Skeptic almost never looks at the case study for themselves in greater detail.
9. When looking at the evidentiary data, the Skeptic will ignore veridical data and only look at data that is flawed and has the semblance of buttressing their denial of the research. A good example, recent studies demonstrating rats have an eeg burst just before death, was
latched on by many Skeptics as proof that NDEs are brain based. But veridical observations by NDErs who claim they are looking down upon themselves during an NDE and provide specific, unfakeable details of say resuscitation efforts is routinely ignored by Skeptics. This is intellectually dishonest.
I sort of went here from details of Wikipedia Skeptics to Skeptics in general. But my general thrust here is to demonstrate just how intellectually dishonest these new brand of Skeptics are. And that it is very difficult to engage in any kind of rational give and take with those who are deliberately engaged in dishonest conduct. It's like attempting to win a game of dice with someone who has decided they will only play the game with their dice loaded.
My Best,
Bertha
1. They dishonestly misuse and game the Wikipedia rules to make sure their POV remains, while banning and harrassing dissenting opinions in an organized fashion.
2. They make use of Skeptical written resources and ignore other source material that contradict their citations. They ignore any evidence that would contradict a Skeptical source, and pretend the Skeptical source is 100% biblically correct.
3. They dishonestly present a limited contextual biased view of the biographies they target on Wikipedia of those they wish to smear. For example, if you have a well-known medium such as Mrs. Piper, they will present one single case of her mediumship in the bio, and ignore any of the hundreds of other cases that remain veridical. They imply the one single case is evidential of Mrs. Piper being a fraud.
4. They make sure any criticism of Skeptic's biographies on Wikipedia are kept clean, and game and misuse the Wikipedia rules to make sure no fair criticism is visible of Skeptic Society members..
5. They have managed to get Wikipedia itself to label psi research as a "pseudo-science" when by all known definitions of science, parapsychology has had real scientists engage in real scientific experiments using empirical methods. They are also able to label scientists engaged in psi research as "pseudo-scientists". Both are misleading, dishonest terms - and are used frequently by Skeptics to abuse and game the Wikipedia rules further.
6. They are often dishonest in their claims to knowledge of psi & nde research. Often when pressed, they know very little about the actual scientific research that has been conducted now over 100+ years. Polemics you usually receive from Skeptics come from resources they use heavily from Skeptical websites. Most Skeptics remain ignorant of the details of the actual scientific research they vigorously attack. This too is dishonest, as they present themselves as being knowledgeable. Real Skepticism is not the same as Denial.
7. They pretend they speak for Science, when the Skeptic's Society is not even a scientific organization. Whereas organizations such as the Society for Psychical Research is a scientific organization and has conducted empirical studies now for over 100+ years. The Skeptic's Society as a rule discourages its members from performing scientific work in psi. This too presents a dishonest equivalency between real scientists and propagandists.
8. They are dishonest when they engage with people they call "proponents". The conversation is not based on a "good faith" dialogue, but instead, usually follows a well-established Skeptic's talking points agenda. Where proponents will be hammered with repeated attack lines, and are repeatedly asked to "Provide Evidence" - while at the same time, if any research is provided, the Skeptic will then use abrasive Skeptic talking points to dismiss whatever the proponent presents. Note that this kind of dialogue does not require the Skeptic to actually look at the empirical research themselves (and few of them do) - they simply use well-worn Skeptic talking points to deny the empirical study provided. The Skeptic almost never looks at the case study for themselves in greater detail.
9. When looking at the evidentiary data, the Skeptic will ignore veridical data and only look at data that is flawed and has the semblance of buttressing their denial of the research. A good example, recent studies demonstrating rats have an eeg burst just before death, was
latched on by many Skeptics as proof that NDEs are brain based. But veridical observations by NDErs who claim they are looking down upon themselves during an NDE and provide specific, unfakeable details of say resuscitation efforts is routinely ignored by Skeptics. This is intellectually dishonest.
I sort of went here from details of Wikipedia Skeptics to Skeptics in general. But my general thrust here is to demonstrate just how intellectually dishonest these new brand of Skeptics are. And that it is very difficult to engage in any kind of rational give and take with those who are deliberately engaged in dishonest conduct. It's like attempting to win a game of dice with someone who has decided they will only play the game with their dice loaded.
My Best,
Bertha
Last edited: