the need for activism?

#1
Hey All -

I've been following a few skeptic forums on Facebook and within sometime realized that it was largely nothing short of a crazed hate movement.

No one there seemed interested in science, advocating for anything worthwhile - instead they just wanted to fight "woo" wherever they deemed it existed. Anything uncomfortable to them is declared to be "Woo".

Now, I've stumbled across this site and the work of Rupert Sheldrake and it's the same cast and crew of characters arguing against NDE and other things with the same mentality.

So it seems we have an army of angry skeptics at war with not only the idea of conciousness but also fighting against the use of evidence based practices in health care that aren't "mainstream" enough.

What can we do to fight back?Take Wikipedia for example - should we have our own 'guerrilla skeptics' on Wikipedia?

Should we begin petitions to warn wikipedia about how it's been hijacked? I'm sure there are many in health care that would sign such a petition.
 
#2
Hey All -

I've been following a few skeptic forums on Facebook and within sometime realized that it was largely nothing short of a crazed hate movement.

No one there seemed interested in science, advocating for anything worthwhile - instead they just wanted to fight "woo" wherever they deemed it existed. Anything uncomfortable to them is declared to be "Woo".

Now, I've stumbled across this site and the work of Rupert Sheldrake and it's the same cast and crew of characters arguing against NDE and other things with the same mentality.

So it seems we have an army of angry skeptics at war with not only the idea of conciousness but also fighting against the use of evidence based practices in health care that aren't "mainstream" enough.

What can we do to fight back?Take Wikipedia for example - should we have our own 'guerrilla skeptics' on Wikipedia?

Should we begin petitions to warn wikipedia about how it's been hijacked? I'm sure there are many in health care that would sign such a petition.
I'm surprised no one has yet sued Wikipedia for defamation and libel. There is very good ground to do so in my opinion, given what the guerilla skeptics have done to many bio pages of prominent scientists. I don't think much will change there unless these people (or Wikipedia) faces real life consequences for their actions.

Other than that, I don't know. Science is suppose to be an objective pursuit with peer reviewed journals etc. Scientists supposedly are free to pursue what they want - especially established professors. Yet it seems that this is becoming less and less the case in academia.

There has been some response by concerned scientists/scholars on this website here: http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/ And the SPR and other parapsychological institutions and research centers such as Rhine and Windbridge Institute among others are still quite active. Yet it does appear that the Skeptics are able to dominate mass media outlets such as Wikipedia or Ted Talks, or popular science rags to a degree that is harmful to the active pursuit of legitimate science regarding psi or nde research. Again, I am not sure, given the level of disinformation that is now being disseminated in these outlets how it might be countered, unless some of these Skeptics are really brought to task for their blatant mis-characterization (and defamation) of working scientists or their constant willful misrepresentation of scientific research published (such as the NDE research of Van Lommel).

My Best,
Bertha
 
Last edited:
#3
Hey All -

I've been following a few skeptic forums on Facebook and within sometime realized that it was largely nothing short of a crazed hate movement.

No one there seemed interested in science, advocating for anything worthwhile - instead they just wanted to fight "woo" wherever they deemed it existed. Anything uncomfortable to them is declared to be "Woo".

Now, I've stumbled across this site and the work of Rupert Sheldrake and it's the same cast and crew of characters arguing against NDE and other things with the same mentality.

So it seems we have an army of angry skeptics at war with not only the idea of conciousness but also fighting against the use of evidence based practices in health care that aren't "mainstream" enough.

What can we do to fight back?Take Wikipedia for example - should we have our own 'guerrilla skeptics' on Wikipedia?

Should we begin petitions to warn wikipedia about how it's been hijacked? I'm sure there are many in health care that would sign such a petition.
Would you provide some links? I'd like to see for myself.
 

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Member
#4
Now, I've stumbled across this site and the work of Rupert Sheldrake and it's the same cast and crew of characters arguing against NDE and other things with the same mentality.
Can you link to folks arguing "against NDE"? I think you'll find they are arguing against certain interpretations of NDEs, not against the phenomena themselves.

So it seems we have an army of angry skeptics at war with not only the idea of conciousness but also fighting against the use of evidence based practices in health care that aren't "mainstream" enough.
Who is fighting against the idea of consciousness?

~~ Paul
 
#5
Hey All -

I've been following a few skeptic forums on Facebook and within sometime realized that it was largely nothing short of a crazed hate movement.

No one there seemed interested in science, advocating for anything worthwhile - instead they just wanted to fight "woo" wherever they deemed it existed. Anything uncomfortable to them is declared to be "Woo".

Now, I've stumbled across this site and the work of Rupert Sheldrake and it's the same cast and crew of characters arguing against NDE and other things with the same mentality.

So it seems we have an army of angry skeptics at war with not only the idea of conciousness but also fighting against the use of evidence based practices in health care that aren't "mainstream" enough.

What can we do to fight back?Take Wikipedia for example - should we have our own 'guerrilla skeptics' on Wikipedia?

Should we begin petitions to warn wikipedia about how it's been hijacked? I'm sure there are many in health care that would sign such a petition.
The Society for Psychical Research is developing an on-line encyclopedia. Have a look at this thread:

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...psychical-research-on-line-encyclopedia.1256/

I don't know what the status is. It is supposed to be on-line the first half of this year.
 
Last edited:
#6
I not sure what to say about activism. I don't think the root of the problem is skeptics. They did everything they could to prevent National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine from being funded by the US government and they were entirely ineffective. The problem is lack of funding for nonmaterialist research and I think the reasons for that are somewhat shadowy. The elite that run things behind the scenes don't want to compete with a higher power for the loyalty of the "sheeple", and they don't want to encourage geopolitical competitors to develop programs in psychic espionage and sabotage. At the highest levels of society I think they know about psi, probably more than parapsychologists because they approach it from a practical angle rather than a scientific angle. I suspect like with other rumored breakthrough technologies, they want to keep a monopoly on it and try to suppress public awareness of it.

http://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/suppressed_parapsychology


Rather than trying to fix wikipedia which is broken in many other areas and for many reasons, I think helping organizations that fund or conduct research like those mentioned by Bertha above and also the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture and the Forever Family Foundation would be a better outlet for any energies someone wanted to devote to the problem. Otherwise, learning as much as you can and sharing your knowledge, for example on internet forums, can be helpful.

You might find this site of interest
http://wikipediocracy.com/
Our Mission:

We exist to shine the light of scrutiny into the dark crevices of Wikipedia and its related projects; to examine the corruption there, along with its structural flaws; and to inoculate the unsuspecting public against the torrent of misinformation, defamation, and general nonsense that issues forth from one of the world’s most frequently visited websites, the “encyclopedia that anyone can edit.”
I am also beginning to wonder, given the many problems with mainstream science, whether it is a blessing in disguise that the government doesn't fund non-materialist research.
 
Last edited:
Top