world-views and agendas

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, reddit is really more like youtube comments. I guess I meant forums on the internet.

I've noticed that whatever you think about psi, it seems to not be predicated on the suckiness/stupidity of skeptics, lyace. :)
 
Well, reddit is really more like youtube comments. I guess I meant forums on the internet.

I've noticed that whatever you think about psi, it seems to not be predicated on the suckiness/stupidity of skeptics, lyace. :)
Well, I'm not the minority view. People who share my views aren't usually the loudest voices, though. It's so easy to target someone like Billy Graham because he makes specific claims.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kay
I've never quite figured out why there is so much interest in the label and packaging people put on these "worldviews". Shouldn't the goal just be to try and figure out what's going on? Focussing on world views just emphasizes our triballistic natures. Yes these drives are built in but why give in to them given their evolutionary origins are no longer necessary?

In the end, approaching these topics from a worldview standpoint reduces our ability to overcome our cognitive biases. It turns discussions into cheerleading for the favourite team and it serves as a perpetual distraction as well as fostering driving wedges between people.

This forum has seen a great deal of this. Why not try and bust the cycle?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kay
I've never quite figured out why there is so much interest in the label and packaging people put on these "worldviews". Shouldn't the goal just be to try and figure out what's going on? Focussing on world views just emphasizes our triballistic natures. Yes these drives are built in but why give in to them given their evolutionary origins are no longer necessary?

In the end, approaching these topics from a worldview standpoint reduces our ability to overcome our cognitive biases. It turns discussions into cheerleading for the favourite team and it serves as a perpetual distraction as well as fostering driving wedges between people.

This forum has seen a great deal of this. Why not try and bust the cycle?

When I see you or one of the other prominent skeptics here move one iota from the entrenched position of denying anything that questions scientism/physicalism/atheism then I might believe you are not defending a worldview. You make such a show of being Mr. Reasonable but your tune never changes and your staunch defence of everything uttered by Paul and fls suggests a team mentality.

How about you busting the cycle? Why not pick a subject - or a single piece of evidence - that you think might reasonably challenge your worldview and defend it in the face of skeptical criticism?
 
Part of what Alex has tried to do is to say that we're all in the same boat. We all have our world-view and our agenda and we'll all defend it come what may. The idea is that just as believers desperately hope that there is an afterlife, free-will, love and meaning and purpose, so non-believers desperately hope (for some bizarre reason) that there is no afterlife, free-will, love or meaning and purpose. This is very implausible on the face of it, so he has to try to come up with some kind of very complicated conspiracy theory about why they hope for this. For example, they hope we're biological robots with no free-will so we can just go on shopping and blowing each other up or whatever. The whole thing makes no sense, but this is the kind of thing he has to say.

What I find funny about your argument is that I hear the same type of argument from religious people. Religious people argue that atheists desperately hope that there is no Diety because they don't want to be held acountable to some higher power for their actions. Atheists want to be their own bosses, the masters of their own domain. They don't wanted to be treated like a two-year old (as I once heard Christopher Hitchens say). Similarly atheists want to be able to create their own morality, to sin without consequence or guilt. On the other hand atheists have to claim that religion is the product of some sort of huge conspiracy to fool and control the masses into believing incredible things and hurting themselves with pointless restrictions and duties.

It is fascinating to me that a skeptic/materialist is using the same argument against "believers." I wonder if in each case the position being projected onto the other, be it the believer or the atheist, is the aspect of the opposing worldview that the presenter of the argument finds most enticing. So the religious person finds the freedom of the atheist enticing and therefore assumes that the atheist takes his position because of that freedom. And the skeptic/materialist finds the meaning and purpose of the believer enticing and therefore assumes that believer takes his position because of that meaning.
 
But yeah, I take your point. I should be a bit more careful before I start accusing Sheldrake and Radin of believing certain things.
People in a position of accountability and influence are not asked to make compromises they are forced to make compromises. If I were a betting man, I would bet the house that Sheldrake and Radin believe in an afterlife.

I don't find them dishonest, I find them patient and sacrificial unlike [anonymous] forum participants who can make claim to any ground they wish with little to zero expectation of retaliation and consequence. It's difficult to change the world when you can't feed your family, ya' know?
 
Last edited:
When I see you or one of the other prominent skeptics here move one iota from the entrenched position of denying anything that questions scientism/physicalism/atheism then I might believe you are not defending a worldview. You make such a show of being Mr. Reasonable but your tune never changes and your staunch defence of everything uttered by Paul and fls suggests a team mentality.

How about you busting the cycle? Why not pick a subject - or a single piece of evidence - that you think might reasonably challenge your worldview and defend it in the face of skeptical criticism?

I've participated in threads before where I took the other side. But Kamarling, my way of testing my own beliefs is to set out my position as clearly as I can and look for engagement by those who disagree with me. It's not always that easy to get any kind of substantive engagement. Take a look at my analysis of the van lommel paper, or my research methodology threads. All designed to challenge my views and get to the crux of these things. I've pointed out many phenomena that I consider intriguing and try to discuss how to most reliably explore them. I've said several times and consider myself to be more open to the psi hypothesis than I was when I first joined. I try to approach these topics respectfully and seriously, bringing up the points that I believe are relevant and seeking engagement on them.

To me, this is a pretty good way to challenge my beliefs. Setting out the issues and looking for constructive criticism is key there. The most common reaction to this however is to be accused of nitpicking or being "stuck on stupid." The issues I bring up are never addressed so why would it be surprising that my overall view hasn't shifted from non belief in psi to belief in psi?
 
Why do I use the word 'hate'? Well, take a philosopher like David Chalmers. He may think that philosophical materialism is false, but for him this really is a purely intellectual position. There is never any sense that he hates materialism or thinks it's to blame for all the evils in the world.

However, if you listen to interviews with people like Sheldrake and Radin, there is often the sense that materialism is somehow to blame for war, consumerism, technology worship, greed, alienation, and all the rest.

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word 'hate' here, but there is something different about the paranormal believer on the one hand and the anti-materialist philosopher on the other.

In any case, with Alex, I think we can all agree that he does 'hate' atheism/materialism.
 
Last edited:
I've participated in threads before where I took the other side. But Kamarling, my way of testing my own beliefs is to set out my position as clearly as I can and look for engagement by those who disagree with me.

So, basically, what you're saying is that you need us proponents? ;-)

Arouet, what you say is fine. But, whether, or not, you are sincere, you're still just one person. If you look throughout history, as well as modern-day science, one of the always prominent road blocks to progress is entrenched world-views. The topic doesn't even have to be religious/spiritual in nature. Within physics, there are many "materialistic" minded scientists concerned today about the new "worldview" forming out of multiverse theory, etc, a big part of which comes from a certain way of viewing nature

I think to say worldviews aren't a problem when it comes to psi getting its fair shake is naive. Don't ya think? So, whether, or not, we here on this forum "bust the cycle" it's still a big hurdle in the world at large.

Also, I don't think most proponents need the engagement you do for them to have confidence in their own views. Some of the frustration you might feel here is trying to engage folks in a type of discussion they don't need, or want and have more than likely moved past.
 
Last edited:
I just did a text search on Sheldrake's 'Science Set Free', and it turns out he doesn't use the word 'afterlife' even once, and the only time he uses the word 'immortality' is to criticize the transhumanist obsession with living forever! So I guess there must be some other explanation for Sheldrake's irrational fear and hatred of materialism/atheism!
His not so rational distain stems from the antipathy shown by the scientific community for his rather poorly supported what if ideas.
 
Why do I use the word 'hate'? Well, take a philosopher like David Chalmers. He may think that philosophical materialism is false, but for him this really is a purely intellectual position. There is never any sense that he hates materialism or thinks it's to blame for all the evils in the world.

However, if you listen to interviews with people like Sheldrake and Radin, there is often the sense that materialism is somehow to blame for war, consumerism, technology worship, greed, alienation, and all the rest.

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word 'hate' here, but there is something different about the paranormal believer on the one hand and the anti-materialist philosopher on the other.

In any case, with Alex, I think we can all agree that he does 'hate' atheism/materialism.
Minus a handful of members all the rest do seem to hate materialism and perhaps even its 1st cousin science
 
In any case, with Alex, I think we can all agree that he does 'hate' atheism/materialism.

I don't read him that way all. Anybody who can run a pod-cast and talk episode after episode about a certain topic is obviously a very passionate person. And that passion appears to be pushing past materialism to a broader view of reality. That's different from "hate". But, it can be viewed antagonistically, if these passions conflict with one's own.

Besides, most folks here, including Alex, if I am not mistaken, believes materialism has been valid and valuable in a certain domain.
 
Minus a handful of members all the rest do seem to hate materialism and perhaps even its 1st cousin science
That’s crap
You put almost any “proponent” on this forum next to a radical religious fundamentalist and they would appear as an atheist or next to a raving newager who divines everyone’s Karma off the top of their head or a Sylvia brown and they would come off as a militant skeptic. It’s context dependant. You seem to see things in black and white and caricaturize proponents by selective viewing with a lot of you own projections. People in general on this forum are far more nuanced and thoughtful in their views except perhaps a few.
 
That’s crap
You put almost any “proponent” on this forum next to a radical religious fundamentalist and they would appear as an atheist or next to a raving newager who divines everyone’s Karma off the top of their head or a Sylvia brown and they would come off as a militant skeptic. It’s context dependant. You seem to see things in black and white and caricaturize proponents by selective viewing with a lot of you own projections. People in general on this forum are far more nuanced and thoughtful in their views except perhaps a few.
Notice I said seem too hate.
 
Notice I said seem too hate.
Seem to hate and hating are equal for all practical purposes in the way you used it. By you insinuating that members of this forum seem to hate materialism, and the a greater effect science, you're stating that they act in a way in which would make one conclude that they hate science. I have seen no one on this forum claim to hate materialism or science, and no one yet has outright act as if they do. In fact, most people are trying to use scientific knowledge to disprove materialistic assumptions.
 
And what is the subtle difference between seem and seem, can you expand? How else should we interpret what you posted?
Maybe "hate" is a strong word but you and others appear to want to be cocooned from steve001's "materialist" views in the greater part of the skeptiko arena...
 
Maybe "hate" is a strong word but you and others appear to want to be cocooned from steve001's "materialist" views in the greater part of the skeptiko arena...

I'll speak for myself here: steve001 contributes almost nothing to any debate I've seen him participate in, except for his seeming preference for one line bumper-sticker philosophies. I've given him a chance to explain his opinion in a thread, his response was to blow it off. What exactly would I be missing if he never posted here again? Convince me that he adds substance and I'll change my opinion.

Here are his last three posts in this thread - convince me that this isn't equivalent to jingoistic posturing:

His not so rational distain stems from the antipathy shown by the scientific community for his rather poorly supported what if ideas.

Minus a handful of members all the rest do seem to hate materialism and perhaps even its 1st cousin science

Notice I said seem too hate.
 
So, basically, what you're saying is that you need us proponents? ;-)

Very much so. I think we learn best in an environment with mixed views.

Arouet, what you say is fine. But, whether, or not, you are sincere, you're still just one person. If you look throughout history, as well as modern-day science, one of the always prominent road blocks to progress is entrenched world-views. The topic doesn't even have to be religious/spiritual in nature. Within physics, there are many "materialistic" minded scientists concerned today about the new "worldview" forming out of multiverse theory, etc, a big part of which comes from a certain way of viewing nature

There's not much I can do about all those people out there. When I first found Skeptiko I was immediately attracted to what I saw as a deliberate invitation and encouragement from Alex to bring all sides of the debate around parapsychology together to explore these issues in a collegial environment. I saw Skeptiko as having the potential to play a unique role in that regard, bringing the various sides together. If we could make headway here, show that the approach works, it might have the effect of spreading out from here and start to have an effect in the greater community. Unfortunately that has not come to pass, and Alex has clearly gone in the opposite direction. An opportunity lost, IMO.

I think to say worldviews aren't a problem when it comes to psi getting its fair shake is naive. Don't ya think? So, whether, or not, we here on this forum "bust the cycle" it's still a big hurdle in the world at large.

But you gotta start somewhere. And even if it doesn't affect things beyond this site, wouldn't it be awesome to actually create an environment where the focus was simply on having substantive discussions, no matter what perspective the people bring? I mean, don't you get tired of the culture war BS sniping that goes on here? Why buy into it? Why not say: let's try something different?

Also, I don't think most proponents need the engagement you do for them to have confidence in their own views. Some of the frustration you might feel here is trying to engage folks in a type of discussion they don't need, or want and have more than likely moved past.

I get that some people aren't interested in that kind of discussion. What frustrates me more is all the peer pressure amongst many proponents here to actively discourage actual engagement on issues that - despite popular beliefs otherwise - have NOT been addressed. How likely are new people who are interested to be to engage in such discussions when they've been labelled - ironically IMO - "Stuck on Stupid"? People are told that focussing on research methodology is "nitpicking" and attempting to obscure. Real issues are glossed over with a wave and a snort. I get some people aren't interested in such discussions but I do admit to being frustrated when rather than not engaging in them there is a protracted effort to squelch it. Again: the irony doesn't escape me.

Despite the issues here Skeptiko is still the best chance to have substantive discussions on these studies between skeptics and proponents. There's simply no other game in town.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top