Why are you "quite clear in your mind" about this? If it exists, what evidence do you have that people here are part of this "herd mentality"?Originally Posted by Allo Allo
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield
I keep getting this terrible feeling of deja woo.
Michelle,
I have to agree with you here. Especially the arrogance and the "I am always right" mentality. I notice John never replied to that part of your post.
I have to say that that photo says it all really. It's that 80's look of the whiter than white anally retentive public school boy who is too afraid to step out of line and think for himself image!!
The thing is that such inane posts are not worth bothering with.I have to agree with you here. Especially the arrogance and the "I am always right" mentality. I notice John never replied to that part of your post.
I have to say that that photo says it all really. It's that 80's look of the whiter than white anally retentive public school boy who is too afraid to step out of line and think for himself image!!
To any neutral reader all they will see is skeptics arguing the case for/against something and providing reasons and/or evidence to support their case; and credophiles, who will believe anything no matter how silly, who attempt to support their case by insulting those who disagree with them.
All we have here is:
Argumentum ad Hominem: instead of countering the argument you attack the person instead. It is completely fallacious and does nothing to prove your point. Let’s say I am an “anally retentive public school boy who is too afraid to step out of line and think for himself” – how does that support the case for Chiropractic?
The Strawman fallacy: all you’re doing is creating a caricature of skeptics (the strawman) so that you can attack it rather than the reality. Again, even if we were like your invented strawman, how does that support the case for Chiropractic?
Instead of this child-like approach why don’t you ‘believers’ come up with some credible argument to support what you believe in?
If you believe that Chiropractic or Quantum Touch etc. are worthwhile medical interventions then please state your case. If it’s a good one, it will stand up to skeptical scrutiny.
.
Look at this and it may give an indication why Skeptics strongly oppose Chiropractic:
Taken from this thread on the JREF: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64283
It's worth a read.
.
Whatever next: an ad hom on someone's avatar :DAll we have here is:It's that 80's look of the whiter than white anally retentive public school boy who is too afraid to step out of line and think for himself image!!
Argumentum ad Hominem: instead of countering the argument you attack the person instead.
I claim a new fallacy: "Argumentum ad Avatarem" 8) - but then as a short, bald lab rat with delusions of grandeur, who am I to say ...
Dear John,
I'm intrigued.
"I know who you really are and I've read your musings on various ideas."
"I'll publish your articles if you like."
As as scientist and teacher of science I'm intrigued when I hear of people self-teaching science and then passing opinion as if they have a deep understanding of great scientific principles - in my experience these people usually misunderstand more than they understand because they don't have a scientific mind (for example - I've talked to christians who claimed that the universe does not obey the second law of thermodynamics because we are ordered, thus there must be a god..etc..!).
Please publish the articles.
Also, your comments make me proud to be a sceptic and scientist, John - keep up the good work.
http://members.aol.com/boffinprods<br />Novel Greetings Cards for Scientists, Mathematicians, Free-thinkers and Sceptics
To Johnathan,
My articles are not a result of my "self taught" science - sorry - they are old musings from about 9 years ago which I am on my present mission to challenge in every way. So you could not see how I have "self taught" myself - only possibly deluded myself!
I would be very unhappy if John published any of my writing - especially if it were as an internet link, because it would completely destroy my anonymity, which I would find dangerous and sinister.
I have learned a tremendous amount whilst here - I am afraid I am not self teaching, but going on an exploration of knowledge from mainstream scientists.
Some questions I have, remain unanswered - because it seems that currently main stream science has no answer - but thats OK - because I don't know the answer either!
M :)
Something about pots and kettles...Especially the arrogance...
...I have to say that that photo says it all really. It's that 80's look of the whiter than white anally retentive public school boy who is too afraid to step out of line and think for himself image!!
Better sorry than safe.
I'm intrigued - so are you some kind of celebrity or something? otherwise why would you be so concerned to stay anonymous - unless of course you have something to hide... ??? No offence meant of course, just curious why you think it's 'dangerous and sinister' that people know who you are!
Kristie
Dont go around saying the world owes you a living - the world owes you nothing, it was here first - Mark Twain
Michelle's articles are no longer in the public domain so I won't publish without permission.
No, Michelle is not a famous or public figure - so no potential for scandal I'm afraid. :P
Blackmail, however....
May be worth a go.
.
Fair enough Michelle - it seems you had some sort of "woo form" (if you'll pardon the expression, no offence intended) in the past, but you are now challenging your former belief system and thinking critically about these issues.My articles ... are old musings from about 9 years ago which I am on my present mission to challenge in every way.
Good for you
So, to get back to the topic:
1. You posted an anecdote concerning a visit to a chiropractor. John thought that you were employing the classic woo tactic of extrapolating general proof for a complimentary therapy, based on nothing more than anecdotal evidence, confirmation bias and the Post Hoc fallacy. If this is not what you were doing, what in fact were you trying to say when you posted this story?
2. You posted a wider allegation that (if I understand you correctly) some members of this forum are guilty of repeating parrot-fashion some kind of skeptical 'party line' on CAM, based not on critical thinking but on some kind of desire to 'fit in' with the crowd. To repeat Mojo's question, upon what evidence do you base this notion - or was it just a general attack on skepticism?
3. Do you have evidence to offer which contradicts any of the assertions made in the UKS factsheet about chiropractic, or which contradicts the clinical evidence (such as the study to which Mongrel referred) which suggests that there is very little evidence for the efficacy of many claims made by chiropractic?
If you feel that my points above misrepresent your views or your intentions, then I apologise and I stand ready to be corrected. However, if you have expressed views which you have since realised you cannot support with evidence and critical thinking, then I'm sure nobody will think any the worse of you for just saying so. We're all on a learning curve - I certainly am when it comes to chiropractic - and I'm sure we all want to discuss the issues here and not let things degenerate into personal attacks 8)
I am in the wrong place here. I enjoy ideas, concepts, possibilities and how they develop. I question everything and always have. I don't use any medication, new age therapists, chiropractors, acupuncture, - whatever. I have a woo background -so I know it well. I have grave misgivings about the greed and avarice I see in "New Age" stuff and the uselessness/dangerousness of much of it. My story about McTimony was just MY experience - I am ASTONISHED it rocked anyone's boat! I don't give a hoot about chiropractors - would never use one.
I run no "courses", belong to no "groups", have no "religion" and am what one would call an atheist. I have, through my life developed inner serenity, which I thought was reasonably stable - but I find I am stressing out by what is written on this board! I am observing that there is a "cult" of skeptic - it's as distressing as any other.
My intuition seems backed up by this from Wikipedia
Activist skeptics, self-described "debunkers" are a subset of scientific skeptics who aim to expose in public what they see as the truth behind specific extraordinary claims. Debunkers may publish books, air TV programs, create websites, or use other means to advocate their message. In some cases they may challenge claimants outright or even stage elaborate hoaxes to prove their point, such as Project Alpha.
Because debunkers often challenge popular ideas, many are not strangers to controversy. Critics of debunkers sometimes accuse them of robbing others of hope. Debunkers frequently reply that it is the claimant, whom they many times accuse of exploiting public gullibility, who is guilty of abuse.
Habitual debunkers are sometimes called pseudoskeptics or pathological skeptics and accused of intentionally relying on pseudoscience masquerading as empirical skepticism.
I don't want to have anything to do with this - and I hope this board can retain the ideals that John has for it.
M
See my comments about the Ad Hominem and Strawman fallacies above. These sort of inane comments tend to come from parapsychologists because skepticism is what prevents their sloppy research being accepted as real.Habitual debunkers are sometimes called pseudoskeptics or pathological skeptics and accused of intentionally relying on pseudoscience masquerading as empirical skepticism.
Regarding project alpha: have you read what it was all about?
Parapsychologists allowed themselves to be duped by a couple of young magicians for years. It was a very worthwhile project and illustrated beautifully just how gullible and willing to believe that parapsychologists can be.
Try looking at parapsychology websites (like this one) and look at how much effort they put into attacking science and especially skeptics.
You see, they like to think that they are 'real skeptics' and that people like us who really do adhere to the principles of science and skepticism are the close-minded, materialist, debunking, denying, pseudoskeptics.
Their efforts in attacking skeptics looks more like a pathological obsession to me.
Look on here. I've just set up a page so that we can make a little money with an Amazon affiliate programme and I've had to ask others if they will help out by using it. Does that sound like an infallible leader instructing his blind followers on how to act?I am observing that there is a "cult" of skeptic - it's as distressing as any other.
Now look at the Quantum Touch forum. A leader whose followers take his word as gospel and encourage everyone to "look through the telescope" and believe everything he says - and promote his book.
Skepticism is the opposite of a cult. The whole point is to challenge authority and accepted wisdom. I'm afraid that the "cult" insult is just another well-worn and entirely fallacious ad-hominem.
Finally,
Let's take Chiropractic as an example as it's what this thread started out as.
We don't oppose Chiropractic because we have a pathological need to deny it. We do so because chiropractic does not stand up to scrutiny.
These quacks, amongst other things, claim to be able to treat things like ADHD in children. They will manipulate spines, crack bones, use X-rays, and possibly impose dietry restrictions and advise against things like immunisation; all whilst cultivating the client to become a well-paying repeat customer.
There is no medical benefit to the child. (!)
If you, or anyone else, thinks that standing up against such a perverted interpretation of healthcare is being close-minded, pathological, or that 'debunking' it is not not a worthy cause then you certainly are in the wrong place.
.
Yes John,Michelle's articles are no longer in the public domain so I won't publish without permission.
No, Michelle is not a famous or public figure - so no potential for scandal I'm afraid. :P
Blackmail, however....
May be worth a go.
I came on here to reply to "Johnathan" so I'll post my reply anyway ....
I am no celebrity! As moderator John probably does have the tracking skills to "know" who I am. I have an idea what "musings" he is referring to - I have written for a long time in different styles, and under different names- no fame - no fortune. However, I did have a website on a private server of archived stuff which I have now removed from the Internet - which gave my name, address, phone number, the business I run and other details of my life. I do not want them shared for very obvious reasons! Unless you feel my bank details should also be included? I get enough junk mail, junk e-mail and junk phone calls as it is!
I felt this posting of John's to me was sinister because it was a threat! and not the thoughtful action of the moderator of this board. I wonder what responsibility the moderator has? What responsibility is taken by UKS to honour the anonymity of their postees? My crime here is that I have woo ways with words.
However, I am a writer still - whatever is not now on the Internet exists in book form in many places all over the world and cannot be retracted now. I would avoid becoming a celebrity at all costs. I am reclusive. John knows where to find me and if he called, I would love to meet him.
Some Skeps here have allowed me to grow - I thank them and wish them well.
M
Well I have no powers other than the ability to google.
Sorry if it looked like a threat. :( I was just pointing out that I did indeed know of your ideas when you were challenging me to prove it.
Although I'm one of those nasty skeptics, I do actually treat people with respect. So I'll take your name and address down from the website's main page now.
We'd probably get on well.John knows where to find me and if he called, I would love to meet him.
.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks