Carrol, Novella vs Alexander, Moody

malf said:
Hmm... That would be a poor skeptical argument on its own. The skeptical position appears to be that the evidence we have makes it impossible to back any firm conclusions.
Click to expand...

Going by some of Johann's recent posts, it seems that the "skeptical position" is that proponents are automatically wrong and there is no possible avenue of which they could be proven to be not wrong...
 
JCearley said:
Going by some of Johann's recent posts, it seems that the "skeptical position" is that proponents are automatically wrong and there is no possible avenue of which they could be proven to be not wrong...
Click to expand...
Not so much as that, but it's: Heads I win, tails you lose.

Either skeptics win by pointing out the lack of psi evidence, or ' tails I lose ' because the statistical evidence surrounding psi only indicates problems in methodology as a whole.

Under no condition in that game will a proponent win.
 
bishop said:
I don't know about Novella's debating skills. If it's anything like this train wreck with Dr. Oz I don't have too much hope.
Click to expand...
Is that Novella interview re-edited to make everyone look cranky, because they're all talking over each other.
 
gabriel said:
Is that Novella interview re-edited to make everyone look cranky, because they're all talking over each other.
Click to expand...
Yep, and not very subtle, you can watch the original material from Oz's site.
Part 1, part 2, and part 3.

Dr. Novella got a few important points in, despite having no control over the final edit.
It even surprises me a bit, given the bias of the host, that the edit is that favorable.

You can hear the SGU people discuss it on their show: #episode 302, discussion of this starts at about two and a half minutes.
 
Last edited:
Bart V said:
It even surprises me a bit, given the bias of the host, that the edit is that favorable.
Click to expand...

I'm not certain how to think about that; its not exactly unheard of for drastic censorship and chopping measures to be taken by either side of the fence. It would be much nicer if we had more agnostics with hallowed ground for these kind of discussions. That way one could at least guarantee that a skeptic wasn't edited to appear cranky and a proponent wasn't edited to appear like an unthinking baffoon.
 
gabriel said:
Is that Novella interview re-edited to make everyone look cranky, because they're all talking over each other.
Click to expand...

I don't have much time for Novella but I have to say that if the interview actually went like that I wouldn't have blamed Novella for reaching for a baseball bat. The guy asking questions and talking over the attempted answers was a complete dick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tim
That's funny, Kamarling.

I agree, but surely it's been "doctored" (npi) ...it's ridiculous

Just checked it out, part 3 anyway. Just a normal give and take....pity
 
Last edited:
So far Alexander is the only one of the four to provide anything of substance in their opening 7 minute polemics. Moody was incoherent, Carroll tried to be cute and hyperbolic, and Novella is playing the age-old mind-playing-tricks card.

Sigh...
 
Devane said:
Yep. It's like watching 3rd graders slug it out.
Click to expand...

It's typical your typical truncated, "stuck-on-stupid" debate that is pervasive in the sound-byte driven culture of the west. Carroll and Moody are clearly out of place in this sort of dialogue; each of them is muddying the waters with nonsense. They are barely debating the wide-ranging corpus of evidence at all. I guess most of us are spoiled with the in-depth and informed dialogue that usually occurs on these forms.
 
John Maguire said:
It's typical your typical truncated, "stuck-on-stupid" debate that is pervasive in the sound-byte driven culture of the west. Carroll and Moody are clearly out of place in this sort of dialogue; each of them is muddying the waters with nonsense. They are barely debating the wide-ranging corpus of evidence at all. I guess most of us are spoiled with the in-depth and informed dialogue that usually occurs on these forms.
Click to expand...
It's a shame. Greyson would have won this debate with a bottle of whisky as his parter.
 
Carroll is priceless. He says he would change his mind quickly with better evidence, and, within the same breath, says the case is closed, the question is no longer worth pursuing. How do these guys get PhDs?
 
Devane said:
Carroll is priceless. He says he would change his mind quickly with better evidence, and, within the same breath, says the case is closed, the question is no longer worth pursuing. How do these guys get PhDs?
Click to expand...

"Higher" education is about obedience and playing politics, not about critical thinking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top