Skeptics asked not to post

#82
Yeah, but as I've got older, I find my view of the world is much less black & white than when I was 23.
Same here - not that there was much black and white at 23.

That said, I thought Bart V's actions were poorly judged.
Yes, even if they were enlightening. We'll see what happens. K9! seems to get away with this stuff, but maybe Bart's honesty will be his undoing.

Linda
 
#83
Understood. I do wonder if some take it the wrong way sometimes though and view it as somewhat personal. If we disagree it's better to post why I guess rather than hit the button :)
I agree that it's better to post why. It may be that only a few people are using the system as intended anyway. And even if you can be bothered to pick them out, it's only marginally informative at best.

Linda
 
#84
I am open to the possibility that mind==brain, so in a sense the difference between us is how we weigh the evidence. BTW, I decided to start re-reading Penrose's book, "Shadows of the Mind" because he spends a lot of time refuting arguments that people have put forward to his Gödel argument.

I just think that if science generally treated mind==brain as a hypothesis (which is what it is) rather than a fact - and therefore encouraged the collection of data that refutes that hypothesis, we would be a lot further forward. I also think that anyone who estimates that we may need 200 years (your estimate a year or two back - so maybe 198 to go:D )) of ongoing research before we understand consciousness in physical terms, should realise why alternative ideas have some real force - and that is even before we consider the 'woo' evidence that this site is focused on!
David
I think more to the point is the approach either side uses to investigate. Science in general does not ask why something is, it's ask how . Ask someone that uses NDE's and OBE's as their evidence and they will tell you why it is compelling, but they can't answer how; details of any sort are missing. Ask a neuroscientist how the brain creates and they will tell you how it might. Asking how and asking why may sound alike but are not. Do you see the difference?
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#85
I don't get how four main people and a smattering of other people turned into only four people?
One of the four main people was banned for rosebudding. Another likes to downvote everything. As for the smattering, I would expect to get the occasional downvote because people disagree with the post. Do you think I should infer that those people want me gone and that their opinion matters? If so, then everyone with any downvotes should leave.

~~ Paul
 
#86
You know what I meant. And you better tell someone to change the title of this forum, yet again.

~~ Paul
Yes I do know what you meant. And what you meant continues the misappropriation and misuse of the term skeptic by committed materialists who like to pretend that a - their viewpoint is any less based on belief than any other and b- that what they are doing is something other than nay-saying motivated by the strength of those beliefs.
 
#90
I tried to make a point about your view of the value of likes/dislikes, i showed how easy it is to skew the numbers.
If i were an administrator, i would rather ban people for using insulting language than for showing a weakness in some feature of the forum.
The only thing wrong with the 'box' in which we are posting right now, is the rude way you are posting over here.
that's not a very good way to make a point. you just made a mess that others will have to clean up. pls take a few days off.
 
#92
that's not a very good way to make a point. you just made a mess that others will have to clean up. pls take a few days off.
Still . . . he did make the point. I guess it depends what's more important - if that 's having popular features and encouraging the notion that agreement/disagreement is somehow meaningful than the buttons make sense. If it's having and/or encouraging informed, thoughtful and maybe even genuinely open-minded discourse then they are a distraction. We all are tempted by convenience. But if there's no option to just push a button, one has to at least type "I agree." In taking that step more than likely one might add at least a sentence explaining their perspective.
 
#93
I think more to the point is the approach either side uses to investigate. Science in general does not ask why something is, it's ask how . Ask someone that uses NDE's and OBE's as their evidence and they will tell you why it is compelling, but they can't answer how; details of any sort are missing. Ask a neuroscientist how the brain creates and they will tell you how it might. Asking how and asking why may sound alike but are not. Do you see the difference?
Sometimes science has to look at evidence and decide if it is compelling - even if they can't answer the 'how' question immediately - heck that is how stuff got discovered initially. My feeling is that the science of consciousness is really really primitive - despite the fancy scanners etc - and that it would be better to catalog more stuff - like NDE's - rather than try to ignore them because they don't fit.

If science had behaved this way in the past - and ignored the movement of bats in very low light (say) because it didn't have a theory to hand, it wouldn't have got very far. Nobody is saying don't ask 'how', but people shouldn't turn their backs on real phenomena - such as NDE's - just because they seem to imply that something is wrong with the theory. Someone commented that there are textbooks on psychiatry that don't even have NDE's in their index!

David
 
#94
Yeah, but as I've got older, I find my view of the world is much less black & white than when I was 23.
That said, I thought Bart V's actions were poorly judged.
It's not even a matter of being black and white. I have already mentioned that I was simply using the dislikes thing as an example of the unpopularity of Pauls opinions. Over the three years I've been on this forum, I've seen time and time again people expressing the view that the resident skeptics have nothing of substance to provide, and should be banned. I don't think that is a fair proposal, so giving them their own subforum to post freely in seems like a fair fix.

I do find it a bit silly that you accused the post of being black and white by analyzing it in black and white. If the likes/dislikes metric is too up for debate, would you care for me to use the amount of people who have them on ignore? Or the amount of people who refuse to join the new forum because they're here? Or the people that have left the forum because of them?
 
Last edited:
#95
Sometimes science has to look at evidence and decide if it is compelling - even if they can't answer the 'how' question immediately - heck that is how stuff got discovered initially. My feeling is that the science of consciousness is really really primitive - despite the fancy scanners etc - and that it would be better to catalog more stuff - like NDE's - rather than try to ignore them because they don't fit.

If science had behaved this way in the past - and ignored the movement of bats in very low light (say) because it didn't have a theory to hand, it wouldn't have got very far. Nobody is saying don't ask 'how', but people shouldn't turn their backs on real phenomena - such as NDE's - just because they seem to imply that something is wrong with the theory. Someone commented that there are textbooks on psychiatry that don't even have NDE's in their index!

David
1) it is scientists, not "science", that behave in certain ways, ask and answer questions, etc. This is a pretty important distinction.
2) NDE's aren't ignored just because they don't "fit." They don't get lots of funding because there's no profitable medical technology on the horizon that could benefit from gobs of research. It's not any different there from perplexing, interesting, and potentially informative cognitive experiences that are not assumed to have paranormal implications.
 
#96
It's not even a matter of being black and white. I have already mentioned that I was simply using the dislikes thing as an example of the unpopularity of Pauls opinions. Over the three years I've been on this forum, I've seen time and time again people expressing the view that the resident skeptics have nothing of substance to provide, and should be banned. I don't think that is a fair proposal, so giving them their own subforum to post freely in seems like a fair fix.
I've said this in a private conversation but I don't mind repeating it here - at least the gist of it: I have been very critical of Paul and other regular skeptics here in the past. I believe that my observations at the time were honest as I saw things. But that doesn't mean I want to shuffle them off to a dark corner like TED did with Sheldrake. I followed the discussion with Bernardo and learned a lot - in no small measure due to the opposing view from Paul which Bernardo had to answer. The same could be said for the long running debate with Lone Shaman on the old forum (although that did descend in to repetition before it fizzled out). I can't say that I find Paul or FLS or Arouet convincing but I don't always know how to counter their assertions and am interested to see how others do so. Put another way, my gut tells me that they are often wrong but that is not acceptable as a response. Then Bernardo or Michael Larkin or David Bailey will chip in and put some substance around my instinct.

Having said all that, I think that there are some snipers here who just want to antagonise and disrupt (some of the regulars do that too but they often offer more when they have a mind to). For those who are here to sneer and take cheap shots, I'd say that you are not welcome here.
 
#97
I've said this in a private conversation but I don't mind repeating it here - at least the gist of it: I have been very critical of Paul and other regular skeptics here in the past. I believe that my observations at the time were honest as I saw things. But that doesn't mean I want to shuffle them off to a dark corner like TED did with Sheldrake. I followed the discussion with Bernardo and learned a lot - in no small measure due to the opposing view from Paul which Bernardo had to answer. The same could be said for the long running debate with Lone Shaman on the old forum (although that did descend in to repetition before it fizzled out). I can't say that I find Paul or FLS or Arouet convincing but I don't always know how to counter their assertions and am interested to see how others do so. Put another way, my gut tells me that they are often wrong but that is not acceptable as a response. Then Bernardo or Michael Larkin or David Bailey will chip in and put some substance around my instinct.

Having said all that, I think that there are some snipers here who just want to antagonise and disrupt (some of the regulars do that too but they often offer more when they have a mind to). For those who are here to sneer and take cheap shots, I'd say that you are not welcome here.
I wouldnt consider this a dark corner. This subforum gets the most traffic, by far. It's like saying you can have the living room, but let us have the bedroom. It's the same concept of having a haven, you know?
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#99
I wouldnt consider this a dark corner. This subforum gets the most traffic, by far. It's like saying you can have the living room, but let us have the bedroom. It's the same concept of having a haven, you know?
Again, if thread starters using Mod+ would simply specify their requirements, it would all be good. Only occasionally do people violate per-thread requirements. If I want to participate in a thread assuming mind /= brain, or ghosts, or water having memory, why not? I simply have to follow the requirements stated in the opening post. If I don't want to follow the requirements, I'll stay away.

~~ Paul
 
Again, if thread starters using Mod+ would simply specify their requirements, it would all be good. Only occasionally do people violate per-thread requirements. If I want to participate in a thread assuming mind /= brain, or ghosts, or water having memory, why not? I simply have to follow the requirements stated in the opening post. If I don't want to follow the requirements, I'll stay away.

~~ Paul
Good point.
I get the impression that some people might be seeking a sort of "peer review" of their ideas, where the peers are exclusively "believers/proponents"? If so, that could be stated in the OP.
 
Top