|
|  | | | | 'I Canna Change The Laws Of Physics, Cap'n!' | | | | | found on: The New York Times (registration required)
written by chlim01, edited by Tim (Plastic) [ read unedited ]
posted Thu 20 Jun 9:45am | | | | |
 | "The joyless skeptics of CSICOP are planning a conference to attack what they perceive to be a distressing proliferation of paranormal imagery and themes in popular entertainment." writes chlim01. "Examples cited include the 'increasing number of scenes in soap operas that are set in heaven', and movies like The Mothman Prophecies and the upcoming Signs. It seems to me, however, that these worried skeptics are suffering from a massive misunderstanding of the nature of entertainment. IMHO, they've failed to realise that people derive their kicks from displays of both reality (World's Wildest Police Videos) and unreality (Baywatch). Will CSICOP and the Skeptical Inquirer target cartoons next for their failure to adhere to the laws of physics?"
| |
[ more plastic... ] |
| | | | | | | | 7. further tests needed
| | | | by coquito |  | | | at Thu 20 Jun 10:24am | score of 3 brilliant | | in reply to comment 1 | | | | | |
through the miracle of modern science, boobs can be made to defy gravity.
i'm skeptical until i can test this out with my own two hands.
In Hindu, you have not one God, but many, many, many, many, many gods -- learned Hindu scholar
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | | 80. Re: Why don't they fix the movie physics first?
| | | | by Anonymous Idiot |  | | | at Fri 21 Jun 1:02am | score of 0.5 astute | | in reply to comment 2 | | | | | |
ISMP suffers from a common problem of people who call themselves skeptics - they assume their first knee-jerk interpretation of something is correct and debunking that is sufficient. If no explanation is given, the correct approach would be to think of several possible explanations (and try to think of good ones rather than obviously stupid ones) and work from there.
While the points for most of the movies are valid, the ones related to movies that are set in different times with vastly differing technology compared to ours are pretty stupid.
Take some of the points for Phantom Menace. Like the underwater forcefield - they assume it is somehow designed to hold out water specifically...more likely it would respond to the uniformity of pressure.
And the point about how a primitive race using catapults could have the "explosive marbles". Would it not be plausible for them to be something naturally occurring (or easily processed from something found on that planet, e.g. dried fruits of some weird plant)?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 83. plausibility of SF
| | | | by davidpalter |  | | | at Fri 21 Jun 6:52am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 80 | | | | | |
While many elements of SF in the movies (and elsewhere) are truly implausible, there are many ambiguous cases, where a sufficiently ingenious explanation would make some bizarre speculation or plot device plausible. In the case of the explosive marbles thrown by catapult in The Phantom Menace, I would be very sceptical that such objects as the explosive marbles, which bear so little resemblance to any natural phenomenon that I've ever seen, turn out to be a naturally available product such as the dried fruit of some weird plant. However, it is still not difficult to invent an explanation for them. Even if the Gungan race is itself at a low level of technological expertise, they do live in a technologically advanced galaxy, and might have simply purchased the explosive marbles from some more advanced race that knows how to make them. Alternatively, the Gungans are much more advanced than they appear to be, and are using the primitive mechanism of the catapult to hurl their explosive marbles because of some bizarre love of ancient traditions, or sentimental attachment to obsolete technology. After all, in our world, people do still shoot arrows, hurl javelins, and practice all kinds of martial arts which are technologically obsolete (although admittedly, in times of actual war we like to use the best technology we can get our hands on). --dp
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 96. Re: plausibility of SF
| | | | by slippytoad | | | | at Fri 21 Jun 12:27pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 83 | | | | | |
Actually the marbles seemed to be specifically designed to disrupt electronic devices, which seemed to me to be that they were either 'static' bombs (overloading the circuitry of whatever they touched) or some sort of short-range EMP. Overall I didn't have the kind of problems with TMP's physics that these guys did -- the midiclorians aside.
Woohoo!!!!! FUCK YEAH!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 4. Entertainment, reality, unreality
| | | | by Bearpaw | | | | at Thu 20 Jun 10:12am | score of 3 interesting | | | | | | |
IMHO, they've failed to realise that people derive their kicks from displays of both reality (World's Wildest Police Videos) and unreality (Baywatch). Will CSICOP and the Skeptical Inquirer target cartoons next for their failure to adhere to the laws of physics?"
CSICOP can be a little overly serious, but I think what really concerns them is how many people don't seem to have a clear distinction between what's fact, what's speculation, and what's make-believe.
Here's an example: Cars in an accident do not explode in real life. At worse, they burn, and rarely is it an instantly-engulfed-in-flames sort of fire, aside from rare exceptions like -- under certain very specific conditions -- those notorious Ford Pintos. Unless a car is actively burning, it is usually safer to leave an injured person in the vehicle until trained help arrives.
But because so many people evidently suffer from a "massive misunderstanding of the nature of entertainment", they think cars explode a lot, and often "bravely" -- and stupidly -- drag people out of cars after an accident. This often results in making any injuries worse, sometimes much worse.
Proud member of the reality-based minority.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 43. Re: Entertainment, reality, unreality
| | | | by NH4 | | | | at Thu 20 Jun 2:30pm | score of 0.5 incoherent | | in reply to comment 4 | | | | | |
Now, here's a problem they wouldn't have in Singapore, Bearpaw. One day, the government would announce that no one should attempt to remove injured people from car wrecks, and *everyone would do as they were instructed*! Starting immediately!
How much simpler life would be if everyplace was like Singapore...
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 5. These guys sound like a lot of fun...
| | | | by rombuu |  | | | at Thu 20 Jun 10:21am | score of 2 funny | | | | | | |
...I bet they are the designated driver at parties every time, as well.
While they are at it why don't they point out that most lawyers do lots of uninteresting paperwork, most Cops aren't in shootouts every week, and Jack Bauer would have collapsed into a coma 18 hours into the last season of 24.
Just don't tell me that Iron Chef Sakai actually doesn't cook everything on the show or I'll be crushed...
http://drlunch.com The site that helps you decide where to go to lunch!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 15. Re: These guys sound like a lot of fun...
| | | | by rombuu | | | | at Thu 20 Jun 11:11am | score of 1 astute | | in reply to comment 11 | | | | | |
Well, that is probably true... glad we have to take everything in this world and grind it down to the least common denominator.
http://drlunch.com The site that helps you decide where to go to lunch!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 6. Science Blunders in Movies
| | | | by KingDead | | | | at Thu 20 Jun 10:23am | score of 1.5 helpful | | | | | | |
First off, the afterlife and paranormal elements is a major theme in human art. Humanity experiencing the unknown is a very attractive plot line for many writers. However, it can become insufferable if it is done in a sappy or new-agey way (i.e. Religion blatantly beating science, pristine aliens or dolphins), which I suspect is the reason behind CSICOP's protest. Besides, soap operas are soap operas, of course they're going to have some paranormal element; they can keep their roster of characters and the unknown drives the series on further. CSICOP's conference isn't likely to have any effect. They already have the image of someone who takes this thing way too seriously.
If CSICOP wants something (and better) to do, they should focus their attention (once they get a sense of humor) on the number of science blunders in entertainment. SciFi Science Blunders, Bad Astronomy and the Intuitor are great sites that keep track of the blunders. In movies and TV, sound will somehow manage to travel through a vacuum, spaceships can behave like aircrafts, and laser beams can be visible. No one in the entertainment business seems to realize that a movie can adhere to science and be a good movie.
a.k.a John (Plastic)
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 90. Re: Science Blunders in Movies
| | | | by waldeaux | | | | at Fri 21 Jun 9:01am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 31 | | | | | |
I was disappointed in 2010, but NOT because of the science. I LOVED the science - but they weren't faithful to the book and tried to strongarm Cold War plotlines into the script. It just didn't fit - it felt like 2010 tech mixed with 1980 sociopolitics. They completely ignored the Chinese mission which would've made the movie more interesting.
There's a weird line. No one has too much trouble with say, Star Trek - ships traveling at faster than light speed, transporters, "holodecks" and the like. There's a recognition of where we've crossed over into "fiction". OK some Trek took it WAY too far with technobabble and the "particle of the week" syndrome. Babylon 5 was a lot better at it, I think, but by that time it was possible to show ships animated in 3-D.
But then you hit movies where they introduce bad physics for no apparent reason other than what could be sloppy work on the part of the writers.
(It's OK to get scientists for consultants --- we could use the money! :-) That's where things go bad.
There is one classic case from Star Wars: "I can do the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs." uttered by Han Solo in A New Hope. People GROANED about that one. In one of the books, however, someone actually come up with a tidy explanation for it - they defined the Kessel Run as a navigation obstacle course through some insanely complicated gravitational situation, and the pilot's expertise wasn't measured in the time it took to get through the maelstrom, but the shortest distance traveled. I though that was a cool patch. :-)
Nothing however, can save "Mission to Mars", ;-)
but I have a soft spot in my heart for "The Arrival". Global warming via alien infiltration is a great improvement over the Gorian explantion.
Life is a peanut butter and liverwurst sandwich --- Me, 1977
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 8. Entertainment?
| | | | by thomp |  | | | at Thu 20 Jun 10:24am | score of 4 compelling | | | | | | |
It seems to me, however, that these worried skeptics are suffering from a massive misunderstanding of the nature of entertainment. IMHO, they've failed to realise that people derive their kicks from displays of both reality (World's Wildest Police Videos) and unreality (Baywatch).
Sure, you see it as entertainment; but there are millions of people who worship the tube, believing the tripe they see and hear. All these little bits and pieces of fantasy congeal into semi-coherent memes that are accepted as fact. And then some ignoramus proposes that alternate 'theories' of natural phenomena should be given equal time in our schools.
And then I have to explain to my kids the differences between good science and bad science and how people should always think critically about everything they read and/or hear, which is a huge hassle because "The World's Wildest Police Videos" is on FOX in less than five minutes.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 41. Re: Entertainment?
| | | | by NH4 | | | | at Thu 20 Jun 2:25pm | score of 2 succinct | | in reply to comment 8 | | | | | |
"[T]here are millions of people who worship the tube, believing the tripe they see and hear."
And we need to save them from being infected with those "semi-coherent memes," eh, Thomp?
Although I can personally relate to your theme ("everybody's stupid but me" or its more liberal version "everyone who disagrees with me is stupid"), an insistence on the right to inculcate "correct thought" into the minds of the masses is more generally associated with authoritarian regimes than free countries.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 76. What was that?
| | | | by iarnuocon | | | | at Thu 20 Jun 9:55pm | score of 1.5 astute | | in reply to comment 41 | | | | | |
And we need to save them from being infected with those "semi-coherent memes," eh, Thomp?... an insistence on the right to inculcate "correct thought" into the minds of the masses is more generally associated with authoritarian regimes than free countries. Wow, you read an awful lot into the article, the organization, and the previous post. What, is your Saturn in retrograde?
1) Unlike some organizations, CSICOP has not purchased a senator, lately.
2) CSICOP has not had any legislation proposed, geared toward "inculcating 'correct thought'" into the minds of anyone.
3) CSICOP members were not, I repeat, were not on the grassy knoll.
relax, buddy...
insanus omnis furere credit ceteros... ecce signum
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 92. comparative intelligence
| | | | by davidpalter | | | | at Fri 21 Jun 10:30am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 41 | | | | | |
It is an inherent problem of a public discussion such as this, that those who have the humility to consider themselves no more intelligent or better informed than anybody else, will naturally not be so presumptuous as to express an opinion, whereas anybody who does express an opinion is going to be susceptible to an accusation of arrogantly thinking that "everybody's stupid but me".
I would hardly say that everybody's stupid but me, and indeed, there are many people who are demonstrably smarter than I am. Nonetheless, there are also a lot of stupid people and/or poorly informed people out there. Sometimes I actually do have the capacity to shed light on some particular issue, however presumptuous it may be of me to do so.
I also do not assume that everybody who disagrees with me is stupid, although they often are. However, I will give serious consideration to contrary opinions, & I have been known to change my own opinion as a result. Even on Plastic.
So, although those particular accusations were not (yet) directed at me personally, I don't like that line of argument. Also, you & I are on different sides of this particular issue, so I am getting your first objection out of the way in advance.
As for the supposed agenda of CSICOP to inculcate "correct thought" into the minds of the masses, that is a somewhat distorted way of looking at it. I see it as an attempt to get the public to see both sides of the issue of mysticism vs. science.
Mysticism has myriad spokespeople. It is preached in churches and in every newspaper which runs a daily astrology column, sold on TV in the form of psychic hotlines, spread by rumor & superstition, it saturates the tabloid press, it is everywhere. Science is understood by only a minority of the population and has relatively few spokespeople; its concepts are more complex than those of mysticism, and require a knowledge of mathematics for full comprehension, so most people can't be bothered. We live in a world in which more people know how to make a voodoo doll, or which numbers are unlucky, or what their astrological sign is, than the number of people who could correctly answer any basic question of a scientific nature, even something utterly elementary, such as, what is the boiling point of water (at standard pressure), or what planets are closer to the sun than the Earth. Lots of people don't know that, although they do know that black cats are unlucky, & witches ride on broomsticks.
I am, therefore, not alarmed to see that some people want to speak up for a scientific viewpoint. This is not a sinister authoritarian plot, it is public education. Not a bad thing. --dp
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 61. Re: Entertainment?
| | | | by NH4 | | | | at Thu 20 Jun 4:25pm | score of 1.5 astute | | in reply to comment 57 | | | | | |
If you are a regular reader of Skeptical Observer, A.I., you'd know that CSICOP advocates a lot more than "debunk[ing] bad science by using the tools of the trade -- logic and reason."
The magazine publishes "guides" to "debunking" that would do Macchiavelli proud, and which rely on the manipulation of language and psychology to the virtual exclusion of any "tools of the trade." These people aren't about "logic and reason," they are about *winning the argument* between atheists (Good) and religious believers (Bad) by any means at their disposal.
In deference to their name, I am extremely Skeptical when anyone associated with the Skeptical Observer opens his mouth. Oh, that's not the type of skepticism they intended?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 77. Bullshit.
| | | | by iarnuocon | | | | at Thu 20 Jun 10:13pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 61 | | | | | |
they are about *winning the argument* between atheists (Good) and religious believers (Bad) by any means at their disposal.
Stepped on your metaphysical toes, did they? Hmmm... I happen to have two issues of Skeptical Inquirer sitting right here on my desk-- March/April, 2002 and Nov/Dec 2001. Let's take a look at the table of contents, shall we? - Blooming Shroud Claims: News of pollen and plant-image findings on the Shroud of Turin are based on earlier, scientifically discredited research
- The Universe and Carl Sagan
- The Millenium Thought Contagion: techno-apocalyptic ideas swirling around the Y2K bug
- Debunking the Debunkers-- A Response to an Astrologer's Debunking of Skeptics
- The Physics Behind Four Amazing Demonstrations: Walking on broken glass, dipping one's fingers in molten lead, breaking a concrete block over someone lying between beds of nails, and picking up an orange-hot piece of silica tile
- Another Lunar Effect Put to Rest: Flaws in the reports that lunar soil helps plants grow
- Bioterrorism and the NCCAM: The Selling of 'Complementary and Alternative Medicine'
- 'Mothman' Solved!
- Bigfoot at 50: Evaluating a Half-Century of Bigfoot Evidence
- Cripplefoot Hobbled: hoaxing a crippled Bigfoot trackway
- Pseudohistory in Jerry Vardaman's Magic Coins: The Nonsense of Micrographic Letters
- Are Science and Religion Compatible?
- The Emptiness of Holism
Wow. Of 13 main articles, I see that two have something to do with religion. Of course, only one actually has anything to do with questioning religion, per se. And on perusing that one I see this quote, "I think that religion and science are compatible, depending of course on what is meant by religion. Religion has performed an important function that cannot be simply dismissed."
In short, be as skeptical as you like. But I hope you don't mind if I am skeptical of your skepticism.
insanus omnis furere credit ceteros... ecce signum
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 85. Sceptical Inquiries
| | | | by davidpalter | | | | at Fri 21 Jun 7:11am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 77 | | | | | |
You are doing an excellent job of defending scientific rationality in these current comments, iarnuocon, so despite our previous elaborate disagreements on another topic, I'm with you on this one.
We live in a society which on the whole has a grossly inadequate respect for logical thought. It is always socially acceptable to present ill-defined and fraudulently supported concepts, as long as they make people feel good about themselves, or inspire some kind of fuzzy spirituality, at the expense of clear thinking and intellectual rigor.
To pick an obvious example, the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi tells us that all problems can be solved by meditation, but if it were that simple, our problems would have been solved long ago. And the Natural Law Party, which is based on Transcendental Meditation, for some reason can never get any candidate elected! What's the matter, aren't they meditating enough? --dp
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 110. Re: What was that?
| | | | by NH4 | | | | at Sat 22 Jun 9:50am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 76 | | | | | |
Despite your witty suggestion of ill-humor on my part, I don't think Saturn would have anything to do with it, Iarnuocon. But perhaps you and I do have a Mercury opposition. (Next time, I'll buy a Hyundai.)
CSICOP doesn't have to purchase a Senator or propose legislation to press its agenda. "Science" already maintains a privileged place in American society, even among those who know little or nothing about science. Scientists (actually engineers, but why quibble?) are the new Magi, the people who brought us cars, computers, TV, jet airplanes, and the rest of the high-tech toys that most of us don't understand but use anyway. Doctors have extended life expectancies by decades, wielding techniques and drugs that are beyond ordinary people's understanding. If a doctor makes a statement about our health, we are apt to believe it; if a scientist makes a statement about the nature of the universe, we nod our heads respectfully. Yet with some regularity, people with real scientific credentials make statements or suggest theories that are as unverifiable as religious statements -- about things like the origin or development of life or the origins of the universe -- and most people treat these statements the way our ancestors might have treated the pronouncements of a Pope. And the authority of "Science" and scientists continues to grow even as the authority of traditional religion continues to fade. Hence, CSICOP's activities are unnecessary to prevent people from losing faith in logic, rationality, or science: all of these are firmly established in the American secular religion.
[Yes, I'd probably rather have scientists making those sorts of statements and being slavishly believed than having the Pope or some mullah making such statements and having credibility, because unlike religious leaders who have served as rulers in their societies and thus been corrupted by power, scientists in the West don't exercise power directly.]
CSICOP's actual agenda is to debunk a particular religious orientation, what might be called New Age. (Of course, attacking New Age religion is like attacking a hydra: no sooner do you cut off one tentacle than another appears.) Since I am a New Ager, I resent it. Simple enough, really.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 111. Re: Entertainment?
| | | | by NH4 | | | | at Sat 22 Jun 10:04am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 57 | | | | | |
In its efforts to "inject healthy skepticism into social discourse," A.I., CSICOP chooses its enemies, mostly New Agers, and demeans and/or ridicules them as a key part of its strategy.
If I have personally experienced, e.g., ESP, or have seen it demonstrated by other people, CSICOP needs to tell me that I was deluded or hallucinating or bringing "magical thinking" into play or outright lying. Unsurprisingly, I find this strategy offensive. Most New Agers find CSICOP and its antics offensive.
Maybe CSICOP should go after the Scientologists for a while...
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 112. Re: comparative intelligence
| | | | by NH4 | | | | at Sat 22 Jun 10:19am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 92 | | | | | |
Before I read your post, David, I replied to someone else's with an argument that people believe the pronouncements of Science and scientists these days the way they once believed the Pope, even if they have no idea what a particular scientist or doctor is talking about. So it was with a sense of ironic pleasure that I saw your list of mysticism's spokesmen.
So tell me true: if you were to take 100 people at random in an American city and make them listen to a scientist, a religious leader, and a spokesman for mysticism, who would have the most credibility? Do you really figure it would be the voodoo priestess? (Or are all religions the same from "spokeman for mysticism" perspective?)
And why does CSICOP feel the need to attack "mysticism" or New Age thought when it doesn't feel any special need to attack Mulims or Catholics?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 113. Stepping on Toes
| | | | by NH4 | | | | at Sat 22 Jun 10:44am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 77 | | | | | |
You have pointed out an important flaw in what I have been saying about CSICOP, Iarnuocon: I have said that CSICOP attacks all "religious believers." You are correct in noting that CSICOP does not attack any of the old established religions. I should have said that CSICOP attacks mysticism (in any religion) and New Age thought; perhaps then you would even have agreed.
"Stepped on [my] metaphysical toes, did they?" Most certainly they did. People who think my religious beliefs are stupid, insupportable, etc., have been attacking me for much of my adult life, always in the context that they are doing me a favor by trying to open my eyes. The favor always involves telling me that I am delusional, schizophrenic, or using other words of invalidation. If this sort of behavior took place in the context of a Catholic harassing a Jew for adhering to his stupid religion, most Americans would smell the stench. That's what CSICOP's activities look like to me: aggressive and snide attacks on people whose religious beliefs offend them -- not much different in tolerance level from Muslims contemplating American secularism.
So now, let's look at your articles from the S.I.
Blooming Shroud Claims is an attack on Catholic mysticism; the Millennium Thought Contagion is an attack on apocalyptic religious thinking; Debunking the Debunkers is an attack on occult studies; the Physics Behind Four Amazing Demonstrations is one of those rare S.I. articles that acknowledges that stuff they weren't so sure could really be done can -- oh, enough! By my count, nine out of thirteen of the articles were attacks on mysticism, New Age thought, the occult, or the credibility of eyewitness accounts (when the eyewitness sees the wrong thing).
In short, when you feel that attacking other people's religions is basically cool, please remember that there will always be those who find the exercise offensive. CSICOP is a self-declared voice of anti-New Age intolerance; as such, it has chosen me (and others like me) as its enemy. Please don't expect me to like them, okay?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 116. I don't expect you to like them.
| | | | by iarnuocon | | | | at Sat 22 Jun 1:42pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 113 | | | | | |
I merely expect you to extend the same courtesy that most religions expect to be handed, i.e. the courtesy to not misrepresent what they say, do, or stand for. Yes, if you had said that CSICOP attacks mysticism and New Age thought, I probably would have agreed with you.
People who think my religious beliefs are stupid, insupportable, etc., have been attacking me for much of my adult life, always in the context that they are doing me a favor by trying to open my eyes. People who think my agnosticism is stupid and insupportable have been doing much the same to me for most of my adult life, and in exactly the same context, but with the proviso that because I don't feel as they do I am an unrepentant sinner. In this context the harassment is called caring for one's fellow man. If most people weren't religious hypocrites, they would smell that stench. But I digress.
CSICOP, indeed most skeptic organizations, view the scientific method as intrinsic to their worldview. To quote from Skeptic magazine's mission statement, "Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas-- no sacred cows allowed... skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are "skeptical," we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe." To me, that doesn't seem like a snide or agressive attack on someone's religious beliefs. While skepticism may be contrarian, in that skeptics essentially seem to go around primarily saying "that's not true," why do you so eagerly defend someone who makes a claim that is not demonstrably true. I mean, certainly people should be allowed to make those claims if they want to, or to believe those claims if they so desire, but I fail to see where there is an obligation on the part of disbelievers to remain silent about evidence which shows such beliefs are based on irrationality or faulty evidence.
In essence, what you are repeating is the often used argument that skeptics are engaging in "scientism." i.e. the view that the scientific method or rationalism is the best way, and, perhaps even the only way, to gain knowledge about the world. It's entirely possible that some, or even most skeptics ascribe to this view. However, when one looks at the proposed views put forward by other sources, New-Age, occult, religious sources, one cannot help but recognize when such sources make quantifiably measurable claims. Is it then scientism to evaluate such claims? If a claim is testable, why shouldn't it be tested? Because to do so "steps on metaphysical toes"? I find that argument to be less than compelling. Science certainly may not be the answer to all questions in all walks of life, but in regards to testing quantifiable hypotheses, it has shown to be remarkably effective. I'll go you two better, and say that 11 out of the 13 articles attack New-Age, occult, or religious explanations for phenomenon, precisely because those explanations are couched in terms that can be quantified. And skepticism has absolutely no obligation to avoid testing such claims, while arguably it has quite a definite obligation to investigate them, especially when they are used to defraud people of money, time and health.
Please don't expect me to like them, okay? I don't expect you to like them, merely not to misrepresent them. Please don't expect me, or anyone else for that matter, to stand idly by while quantifiably false statements are passed off as a mysterious form of knowledge immune to scientific inquiry. Whether or not there is a god is a question that science cannot answer. Whether or not astrology "works" is one that science quite definitely can.
You are welcome to your view that the occult is an alternate way of looking at reality. I don't feel it is my duty to change your mind. But neither is it my duty (or SI's) to avoid presenting reason as a viable alternative to the occult.
insanus omnis furere credit ceteros... ecce signum
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 117. mysticism vs. science
| | | | by davidpalter | | | | at Sat 22 Jun 1:54pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 112 | | | | | |
From a viewpoint of strict philosophical consistency, CSICOP should be attacking Islam & Catholicsm as well as New Age thought. All of these are based upon mystical and non-scientific (if not actually anti-scientific) thinking. And actually, considering the persecution of scientists by the Church, in the middle ages (the burning at the stake of Giordano Bruno, the trial of Gallileo) it would only be fair for science to return the favor.
But in a practical sense, it is much harder to deal with major organized religions than disorganized fads. The Catholic Church, for example, runs schools & hospitals & orphanages & various other important institutions which serve many functions other than the promulgation of mystical beliefs. One could, for example, also say that since the British monarchy has always justified itself on the basis of "divine right" that the monarchy is equally based on mystical thought & should also be attacked by CSICOP. Well, if CSICOP were the most powerful & influential organization in the world, who knows how far-reaching their reforms might be. As it is, they are not all that powerful - certainly they are not even close to being as powerful as the Catholic Church - & must choose realistic approaches to the defense of scientific thinking.
It is true that science is well respected by a lot of people, and yet those same people would be found (if you were able to talk to them in depth) to nonetheless have many wildly unscientific beliefs. It's a very odd phenomenon. Most people respect the evident fact that scientists have tremendous knowledge, and can create amazing machines, cure diseases, & perform all manner of technological marvels, yet these same people simultaneously prefer to adopt a non-scientific philosophy & give credence to pseudo-sciences such as astrology. To really try to imagine what the average person thinks, it would be something like "no matter how smart those egg-head scientists are, I really know more than they do, about the things that really count - eternal life, ghosts, UFOs, Bigfoot, etc." It doesn't make sense, but then, why should we expect people to make sense? Making sense is seldom a high priority of human existence.
So who has the most credibility? It really depends upon the context. If a scientist offers advice on a clearly scientific issue, such as "is there bacterial contamination in this water sample?" they are likely to believed more than the voodoo priestess. Yet, the voodoo priestess will be believed by more people, if she speaks on an issue of mysticism, e.g.,a claim that the local abandoned factory is haunted by the spirits of dead Indians. --dp
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 9. My God, what a steaming pile of Merde
| | | | by Prairieman | | | | at Thu 20 Jun 10:26am | score of 3 funny | | | | | | |
Examples cited include the 'increasing number of scenes in soap operas that are set in heaven'
Oh yeah, Soap Operas reflect the reality of my every day life otherwise.
My mother was framed for murder, twice, by her scheming mulatto voodoo priestess half sister who is embezzling millions from my father's multi-million dollar cosmetic factory (yet we still live in the suburbs). My sister is carrying the child of someone who will be killed in a horrible automobile accident sometime next month. My dad is having an affaire with five women. My brother is blackmailing the governor (which is surprising, as I didn't realize until just yesterday that I had a brother in the first place). And my doctor is actually a deranged serial killer who carves "I love you" into the torsos of his victims.
And these guys are concerned about the number of storylines set in the hereafter? What, they finally figured out why the Howells packed so damn many clothes for a three hour cruise?
"News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress. Everything else is publicity." --Lord Northcliffe.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 18. Re: My God, what a steaming pile of Merde
| | | | by mischief | | | | at Thu 20 Jun 11:19am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 9 | | | | | |
No, you only think he was killed in that horrible automobile accident, actually he was flying to DC to get doctored evidence from 'a secret government organization' that will clear the governor. The body in the car was burned beyond recognition, because of a spell thrown by the voodoo priestess. However, the doctor was at the airport and saw the man leaving on the private jet, so now he is headed to your sister's home to do her in. Your father is also headed to your sister's home because he has papers she needs to sign to help cover the embezzlements from snoopy investors, one of whom just happens to be your long lost brother, and this is the real reason he showed up in town in the first place. You see it was just coincidence that he stopped off at the bar and overheard your mother discussing her affair with the governor.
"And then... and then... and then...", and then the man who stuttered died, his last words an echo of his life
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 40. Re: My God, what a steaming pile of Merde
| | | | by NH4 | | | | at Thu 20 Jun 2:14pm | score of 1 disingenuous | | in reply to comment 9 | | | | | |
Like CSICOP, the government of Communist China also feels strongly that superstitious themes in films and entertainment are to be avoided, and has shown its willingness to censor movies it thinks promote superstitious thinking as well as to ban groups that promote superstitious activities or beliefs (like the Falun Gong or that portion of the Catholic Church in China which remains loyal to the Pope).
Why does the Chinese Communist government care? For the same reason CSICOP does: both are aggressive proponents of atheism, and find opposing religious perspectives pernicious, even dangerous.
Randi and his friends are as closed-minded, cock-sure, and fanatical as Robertson or Falwell. Thank God we don't have to heed CSICOP's views here in America as we would be forced to in Communist countries.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 93. The Amazing Randi vs. communist China
| | | | by davidpalter | | | | at Fri 21 Jun 10:43am | score of 1.5 astute | | in reply to comment 40 | | | | | |
Just because both the Amazing Randi and communist China agree on an scientific or non-mystical world-view, does not mean that Randi and his friends are as guilty as China of silencing opposing viewpoints. The two are not comparable. China has a totalitarian government which infringes upon the freedom of speech (& various other freedoms) of its populations; Randi isn't banning, or trying to ban anything, but merely wants to present an opposing viewpoint to the torrent of mysticism with which our society is inundated.
There is a fundamental difference between Randi & Falwell, to whom you also compare him (as if communist China wasn't bad enough!) Falwell is truly closed-minded, because he believes himself to be (or at least pretends to be) in possession of Divine Revelation which requires no evidence & cannot be challenged. Randi speaks on the basis of actual observation & logical reasoning, & is prepared to change his opinions if and when new observations and/or superior reasoning should be brought to his attention. Science, you see, does advance and change. Only religion is based on immutable & fixed beliefs, etched in stone by the hand of God. So the religious viewpoint is generally much more closed-minded than the scientific.
That's not to say that scientists are never closed-minded. Scientists make mistakes too. But science eventually clears up the mistakes that scientists sometimes make, because unlike religion, it contains self-corrective mechanisms. --dp
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 10. Dark Age Minds in the 21st Century
| | | | by Anonymous Idiot | | | | at Thu 20 Jun 10:27am | score of 1.5 astute | | | | | | |
Given that most Americans believe in the paranormal, and that constant references to it in motion pictures, TV dramas and soap operas reinforces their superstition, CSICOP might as well do what they can.
It's pretty hopeless though. Look how many morons thought "Blair Witch Project" was real.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 45. Re: Dark Age Minds in the 21st Century
| | | | by Anonymous Idiot | | | | at Thu 20 Jun 2:31pm | score of 0.5 funny | | in reply to comment 10 | | | | | |
Look how many morons thought "Blair Witch Project" was real.
Pfft. All talk. I have yet to see any evidence demonstrating that it was faked.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 12. It's Corrupting our Youth!
| | | | by scott_d | | | | at Thu 20 Jun 10:42am | score of 2 clever | | | | | | |
'increasing number of scenes in soap operas that are set in heaven'
You see, soap operas are just GATEWAY paranormal fluff. They lead to the hard shit, like 'Touched By an Angel'. Just say "NO" to faith, kids.
'Don't you know this game is crooked?' 'Yes, but it's the only game in town.'
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | | 14. Boy I wish I was smart!
| | | | by alaffin | | | | at Thu 20 Jun 11:06am | score of 2.5 compelling | | | | | | |
OK, so basically the argument here is that people are too dumb to discern what parts of their entertainment are real and what are complete garbage right? So that maybe some level of reality should be maintained in movies and such?
Knock it off. Seriously.
First off people in general aren't quite as profoundly stupid as they're made out to be. I realise that there are hundreds of examples of truly inspired imbecility (I can't believe that's an actual word!) but those are exceptional cases.
I simply refuse to accept the idea that we must cater to the lunatic fringe and the horribly mentally deficient. It's entertainment. It's supposed to be different from the real world. Leave it the hell alone.
satire
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 23. Re: Boy I wish I was smart!
| | | | by Anonymous Idiot | | | | at Thu 20 Jun 12:22pm | score of 0.5 intriguing | | in reply to comment 14 | | | | | | |
It's entertainment. It's supposed to be different from the real world It's also part of the universe of discourse we have about our society and what we're doing and so forth. Some people (myself included) are of the opinion that the current social conversation is both delusional and indicative of a rapid return to the Middle Ages. People aren't too dumb. What's wrong right now is first that the media of our society has become monolithic, so that the conversation is largely filtered by a few privledged sources. These sources have decided it's OK to mislead people about what's real (Larry King, Faux News, etc), and it's OK to show this stuff with no critical analysis beforehand. News has morphed into entertainment, mostly in the last 15 years, though most people don't seem to be aware of it. And there's the overriding concept that "If I saw it on TV, someone approved it, someone who knows what they're talking about." Probably some urban folklorist could give that idea a label. Whatever it is, it's wrong and misguided. Almost nothing you see on TV is real, including the news, and CSICOP is just pointing that out, as are many other advocacy groups.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 30. Re: Boy I wish I was smart!
| | | | by YCDK | | | | at Thu 20 Jun 12:45pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 23 | | | | | |
Some people (myself included) are of the opinion that the current social conversation is both delusional and indicative of a rapid return to the Middle Ages. ... These sources have decided it's OK to mislead people about what's real (Larry King, Faux News, etc)
If we don't get rid of the O'Reilly Factor, the Inquisition will have won.
The can knows who to whoop.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 55. Re: Boy I wish I was smart!
| | | | by pyramid termite | | | | at Thu 20 Jun 3:48pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 23 | | | | | |
It's also part of the universe of discourse we have about our society and what we're doing and so forth. Some people (myself included) are of the opinion that the current social conversation is both delusional and indicative of a rapid return to the Middle Ages.
And overall, the Middle Ages were bad? Let's see, it saw the invention of science, the reintroduction of Greek and Latin thought into Western discourse, literature written in the vernacular, the reintroduction of the idea of democracy in governance and countless improvements in many fields of endeavor. And before anyone gives me a list of all the negatives, ask yourself one thing - did they ever decide to accumulate enough bombs to destroy the world and just how does that make us morally or intellectually superior to them?
Furthermore, you seem to be attacking news programs, which is fine - they should get their facts straight and be realistic. But it's ridiculous to criticize soap operas for having scenes about heaven and movies about the "supernatural" - these works are fiction, not fact and clearly labeled as such. CSICOP can expose psychics and psuedo-science all they like, but if they're going to go in for art criticism, they need better credentials and a broader view. When they come up with a artistic scientific rationalist movie that entertains and educates the public properly, then they'll have made a real contribution to the artistic culture.
What's next? Criticizing Faulkner because no one could get inside all those people's heads and know what they were thinking? Pointing out that there could be no real Strawman in the Wizard of Oz because straw couldn't be formed into real bone and muscle structures? Observing that rabbits don't really walk around on two legs and say, "What's up, doc?"
For people who supposedly represent the rational enlightenment, they sure are coming up with some banal observations.
Oh - someone should tell Mr. Kurtz that AA does not require belief in God as the "higher power" (not higher spiritual power), just a belief in a higher power, which could be rationality or self interest. Or the AA group itself. And although there are references to God in the 12 steps, one is not required to believe in God to participate in AA. In short, as a rationalist, he really ought to try to get his facts straight.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 64. Re: Boy I wish I was smart!
| | | | by Anonymous Idiot | | | | at Thu 20 Jun 4:37pm | score of 0.5 astute | | in reply to comment 55 | | | | | | |
And overall, the Middle Ages were bad? Let's see, it saw the invention of science, the reintroduction of Greek and Latin thought into Western discourse, literature written in the vernacular Um, those activities were generally considered to be part of the Rennaisance, which was the rebirth or reintroduction of classical learning, arts, and sciences. In particular to this argument, the model of scientific inquiry we use today, pioneered by fine fellows like Democritus (who was a champion of atomic theory and the sun-centered universe, among other things), was discarded and hustled out of town by Plato and Aristotle and the like, replaced by a world of spheres and caves and "ideal realms." Overall, the Middle ages are considered to stretch from about the fall of the Roman Empire in ~300-400 A.D. to the 1400's or so, when exploration, investigation, and invention started. But it's ridiculous to criticize soap operas for having scenes about heaven and movies about the "supernatural" - these works are fiction, not fact and clearly labeled as such Your comment about the supernatural movies is interesting. Most of the time when the supernatural appears in a film it of course is a special effect, and I've noticed that it's usually a bad special effect. Since none of those things have ever actually been seen by anyone, it's usually up to some art department to visualize them from whole cloth. Unlike a science fiction movie, where at least we've seen moons and planets and spacecraft of some kind. Anyway, back to the point, the article mostly seemed to focus on shows like the notorious "Crossing Over" program, which is a medium purporting to communicate with the dead. These people are given special credibility by the media (again I refer to Larry King) with almost no critical thought applied or indeed allowed. The antics of these people are "news," and they also tend to "cross over" (excuse my pun) into fictional media, where they become memes that seem to be valid. It's not like this is a government agency. These people do this entirely out of their own free time and energy, and support themselves by donations. Consider that this one project has an $11 million budget, compared to the billions and billions that organized religion has, and I don't see why you have a big problem with it They're merely proselytizing their beliefs to the public. Pointing out that there could be no real Strawman in the Wizard of Oz because straw couldn't be formed into real bone and muscle structures? The only straw man here is your own argument. This is about critical thinking, not anal-retentive detail-picking.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 70. Re: Boy I wish I was smart!
| | | | by pyramid termite | | | | at Thu 20 Jun 7:11pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 64 | | | | | |
Um, those activities were generally considered to be part of the Rennaisance, which was the rebirth or reintroduction of classical learning, arts, and sciences.
William of Occam (d. 1347), the Divine Comedy (1300), Chaucer (d. 1400), Carolingian Renaissance (Charlemagne aided copying of most Latin classics, poetry and prose, around 800), Latin translation of Aristotle (around 1250-1300), Roger Bacon (13th century), Magna Carta, 1215, - there was a great deal of exploration, invention and investigation in the Middle Ages and the Renaissance was a continuance of it. The "Dark" Ages weren't as dark as some have made them out to be.
The antics of these people are "news," and they also tend to "cross over" (excuse my pun) into fictional media, where they become memes that seem to be valid. (...)Consider that this one project has an $11 million budget, compared to the billions and billions that organized religion has, and I don't see why you have a big problem with it
Look, if they want to debunk the Crossing Over program or astrology or any of the other things they like to debunk, that's fine, as these things are being represented as news and shouldn't be. However, I have a problem with debunking fiction - if you think about it, it really can't be done. It's not the business of "skeptics" to critique a work of art for say, depicting people in heaven - the only truly effective critique of a work of art is a better work of art. You can't investigate literature or movies the way you can Jeanne Dixon or Uri Geller - an investigation of art IS anal-retentive detail-picking, even if it can be a great deal of fun. In short, they're going past their area of qualification when they do such things. I should take CSICOP's debunking of astrology, etc. seriously, but I certainly don't take their views on art, or for that matter, religion seriously. (To say there is no God is as big an assumption as saying there is one. And no, Occam's Razor does NOT apply here, as a universe that "just happened" is as much of an unnecessary entity in a casual universe as is a God who created it.)
They're merely proselytizing their beliefs to the public.
I would certainly agree that they have beliefs - it's interesting you chose that word, isn't it?
The only straw man here is your own argument.
Nope. They were being critical of works of fiction for containing what they felt were fictional elements. That's absurd. I simply pointed out the obvious absurdity of it.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 94. the CSICOP movie
| | | | by davidpalter | | | | at Fri 21 Jun 10:52am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 55 | | | | | |
You know, the late Carl Sagan was a director of CSICOP, and he wrote a novel called Contact, which was made into a movie of the same name, and this movie was in fact (if not quite as successfully as in the original book) an artistic scientific rationalist movie that entertains and educates the public. Therefore, your requirement has actually been met. (Of course, one movie isn't enough. We need more.) The earlier movie 2001: A Space Odyssey (& its sequels) was also of this type, although it pre-dates CSICOP. Strangely enough, for a movie made in 1968, even before the Apollo moon landings, it remains the one movie which has most seriously and accurately depicted the process of space travel (with, of course, some more fantastic elements thrown in at the end, just for fun). --dp
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 29. Re: Boy I wish I was smart!
| | | | by gparizot | | | | at Thu 20 Jun 12:38pm | score of 2 compelling | | in reply to comment 14 | | | | | |
First off people in general aren't quite as profoundly stupid as they're made out to be.
Last weekend, "Scooby Doo" made over $54 million at the box office.
I rest my case.
"Just 'cause you feel it doesn't mean it's there" - Radiohead
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 44. Re: Scooby Doo and skeptics
| | | | by rm421 | | | | at Thu 20 Jun 2:30pm | score of 1.5 informative | | in reply to comment 29 | | | | | |
Actually, I'd think that CSICOP-style skeptics would have fond memories of the old Scooby Doo cartoons. The plots generally involved the Scooby gang investigating a ghost (vampire, monster, etc.) which turned out to be a non-supernatural contrivance by some old guy to scare people away.
Don't know (or care, really) whether the movie follows this scenario.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 47. Re: Boy I wish I was smart!
| | | | by NH4 | | | | at Thu 20 Jun 2:34pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 29 | | | | | |
Last week, Gparizot, every parent in America with a kid under 10 heard about Scooby Doo's movie until s/he capitulated and took the kid to see the movie.
Is that really a sign of stupidity, sufficient to rest your case on? It must be comforting to be so divorced from the birth cycle...
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 86. leaving entertainment alone
| | | | by davidpalter | | | | at Fri 21 Jun 7:25am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 14 | | | | | |
I do agree that it is perfectly acceptable to have unrealistic, or fantastic entertainment. I loved the Lord of the Rings movie. I wouldn't for a moment suggest that it shouldn't be shown, due to fantasy elements which present an unrealistic view of reality.
But at the same time, we do need to know when we are watching a fantasy, that it IS a fantasy, otherwise it becomes a delusion. The public does not understand science or logical thought nearly as well as it should, and hence CSICOP has legitimate concerns. Perhaps mysticism is inherently more dramatic than science, but the predominance of mystical world-views in entertainment is almost total, and despite your high opinion of public intelligence, a lot of people are being mislead. Look at the number of people who purchase the fraudulent services of phone psychics. This is not healthy. --dp
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 16. It was a dark and stormy night...
| | | | by HerbieTheElf | | | | at Thu 20 Jun 11:12am | score of 4 brilliant | | | | | | |
I'll never forget the look in his eyes. I was chasing Road Runner across the desert and craggy plains of the American West, traveling on my ACME rocket booster roller skates to keep up with his NASCAR-like swiftness.
Through the rain and the darkness, at my incredible rate of speed, I failed to realize the rugged road had disappeared from underneath my very roller-skate-clad paws. I was suspended in mid-air as if time had stopped, but the reality of my inevitable fall was on my mind as I whipped out a sign from an alternate universe which read "Oops!"
Road Runner, standing on the edge of the cliff I had just blown past, mocked me for having studied the Law of Gravity. Education and intellect apparently were my undoing.
The next thing I know, I'm rising up from a crater in the ground amidst the smoke and dust of my apparent 900-foot descent into the earth. Somehow, I had managed to survive! I was alive! Alive!! Suddenly, life had a new and precious value, and my hatred of Road Runner seemed so pathetic and superficial (so what if he used to call me a bastard when we were in grade school? Sticks and stones, y'know?). I decided at that moment I would find Road Runner and bury the hatchet, put our past behind us, and run down the remainder of life's road as friends.
Then the anvil hit me.
"You never ask questions when God's on your side." -- Bob Dylan
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | | 19. Scooby-Doo, where are you?
| | | | by YCDK | | | | at Thu 20 Jun 11:21am | score of 1.5 brilliant | | | | | | |
a distressing proliferation of paranormal imagery and themes in popular entertainment
Don't worry. James Randi will pull the bedsheet off and we'll find out that the producer of Passions was really creepy old Mr. Withers from the haunted amusement park.
The can knows who to whoop.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 20. This is important.
| | | | by eataTREE | | | | at Thu 20 Jun 11:25am | score of 2.5 compelling | | | | | | |
As a former member of CSICOP (no great rift between us, I just let my membership expire and never got around to renewing), nothing makes me more glad than to learn that the author of this writeup has a firm grasp of scientific fundamentals and is fully capable of distinguishing between TV-and-movie land and the real world. However, a distressing number of people in the U.S. of A aren't so fortunate.
People have an annoying tendency to be uncritically accepting of what is shown them by the media. It seems most people in America don't get a good grounding in the fundamentals of science from school. Thus when they are shown uncritical depictions of paranormal, supernatural, or just-plain-impossible events, they assume that, hey, that must be the way it really is. If it wasn't true, they wouldn't let them show it on TV, would they?
Democracy only works in the context of an educated population who are skilled in critical thinking. Unfortunately, we're rapidly losing both these properties. And when the media persists in uncritical, positive portrayals of dodgy-at-best phenomena like mediums and crop circles, it doesn't help matters. If most people do not get any sense of critical thinking or scientific background from the media, they will get it from nowhere. Eventually, we become a nation of people turning to crystals and the Psychic Hotline for guidance on dealing with problems of global significance. And that is not going to be pretty.
I for one am damn glad to have CSICOP pointing out that crop circles aren't caused by alien visitation and that psychics can't really predict the future. After all, it seems that no one else will.
And a thousand thousand slimy things lived on; and so did I. - Coleridge
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 24. You're going to love this story, then.
| | | | by MAYORBOB | | | | at Thu 20 Jun 12:24pm | score of 1.5 informative | | in reply to comment 20 | | | | | |
Disney, aka "The Evil Empire", is planning on hiring people to go out to the hinterlands to create crop circles as part of the marketing effort for "Signs". No word on whether they plan to let any of the "locals" know what the straight dope on the circles is.
Tending to final details.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 38. Re: You're going to love this story, then.
| | | | by nme! | | | | at Thu 20 Jun 1:52pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 24 | | | | | |
Hmmm. Mickey Mouse's head is basically three circles, when seen straight on. That'd work, done in a corn or wheat-field medium, Right? Hmmm.....
-nme!
Virgo: (Aug. 23 - Sept. 22) It's all over but the shouting, but don't worry: It's going to be great shouting.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 28. Huh - some psychic friends THEY are
| | | | by waldeaux | | | | at Thu 20 Jun 12:37pm | score of 1.5 funny | | | | | | |
... if they were REALLY my Psychic friends, they'd call ME and tell me when there was going to be trouble! Ms. Cleo never calls ME now! (or should that be cahls?)
Life is a peanut butter and liverwurst sandwich --- Me, 1977
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 34. I don't understand the griping about movies...
| | | | by n29_w95 | | | | at Thu 20 Jun 1:27pm | score of 2 astute | | | | | | |
... but I've always liked csicop, and here's why:
"The television networks are selling communication with the dead with abandon," Mr. Kurtz complained as he sat in the headquarters of the Center for Inquiry in Amherst, N.Y., near Buffalo, the secular humanist organization that is the umbrella group for all his interests. Mr. Kurtz pointed to John Edward's show, "Crossing Over," and to James Van Praagh and George Anderson, mediums who also appear regularly on television claiming to talk to the dead.
Guys like Edwards (or faith healers), at one level, are just entertainers performing magic tricks for dupes; but they're also exploiting people who've suffered personal loss, (or worse, convincing sick people that they don't need competant medical help). Any group that wants to publicly issue a humiliating smackdown to guys like him is ok by me.
---Pie is good!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 39. Line in the sand
| | | | by pete_townshend | | | | at Thu 20 Jun 2:11pm | score of 2 funny | | | | | | |
The joyless skeptics of CSICOP are planning a conference to attack what they perceive to be a distressing proliferation of paranormal imagery and themes.
OK...great...whatever.
But if they get all up in Buffy's business, I will not be held responsible for what I might do.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 46. science vs. superstition
| | | | by Anonymous Idiot | | | | at Thu 20 Jun 2:34pm | score of 1 astute | | | | | | |
Q) How many US newspapers have a daily science column?
A) Practically none of them. (Can anyone supply an example of one that does?)
Q) How many have a daily astrology column?
A) Practically all of them. (Can anyone supply an example of one that doesn't?)
A lot more people believe in astrology than astronomy; superstition is more fashionable than reality. Popularizing delusion doesn't help anyone.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 56. Re: science vs. superstition
| | | | by pyramid termite | | | | at Thu 20 Jun 4:09pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 46 | | | | | |
Q) How many have a daily astrology column?
A) Practically all of them. (Can anyone supply an example of one that doesn't?)
It's been awhile since I looked at the print edition, but I don't ever recall seeing one in the New York Times.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 68. Re: science vs. superstition
| | | | by YCDK | | | | at Thu 20 Jun 5:33pm | score of 1.5 helpful | | in reply to comment 46 | | | | | |
Q) How many have a daily astrology column?
A) Practically all of them.
And how many people do you know who plan their lives around what their newspaper's daily horoscope says? Me, I don't know any. Maybe I just have smarter friends than you do.
A lot more people believe in astrology than astronomy; superstition is more fashionable than reality.
Two minutes a day of lighthearted entertainment appeals to more people than a smarmy, condescending skeptic constantly hectoring them. Film at 11.
The can knows who to whoop.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 51. Crescat Scientia
| | | | by mrwarmth | | | | at Thu 20 Jun 2:48pm | score of 1.5 nuanced | | | | | | |
I sympathize with their concerns, but I think they are attacking the wrong target. The people who are given to believe in the paranormal aren't going to stop and become Popperian positivists if Buffy stops believing in vampires. Conversely, people are quite able to compartmentalize their belief systems, such that they believe in evolution but are happy to read their daily horoscope.
I think the issue isn't so much a decline in belief in science so much as there is a decline in knowledge of science. That decline mirrors the great decline in intelligent reporting on science to a general audience. Yes, I know there's the Tuesday edition of the New York Times. But in most other meda (including the Discovery Channel), science is only pitched as part of a narrative story designed to garner interest and viewers. The science itself is secondary.
Likewise, note how so many of the old Science columns in newspapers and newsservices have now become "Science and Tech" columns, with far more space devoted to tech gadgets than to science.
Here I think we have the real culprit. It's high tech, not Crossing Over, that has muscled science out of the limelight on almost all popular fronts. And for two main reasons: First, you can sell technology as a consumer good, where you can't do the same with scientific knowledge. Second, since you don't have to understand technology to use and enjoy it, this further reinforces the unimportance of knowing science.
CSICOP should be attacking silicon valley and its media machine, not Miss Cleo.
-Niall
Where is Ratko Mladic?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 118. Re: Crescat Scientia
| | | | by mrwarmth | | | | at Sat 22 Jun 6:40pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 101 | | | | | |
You're being too literal. Why do they want to debunk claims of the paranormal? Because they see belief in the paranormal as not only incompatible with science, but that belief in the paranormal is replacing belief in science.
If that last clause isn't true, then the first clause becomes a description of a misplaced concern.
-Niall
Where is Ratko Mladic?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | | 54. Fantasy and Escapism
| | | | by Marty | | | | at Thu 20 Jun 3:44pm | score of 1 | | | | | | |
There is a strong drive for people to incorporate elements of myth and fantasy into our idea(s) of what the world is - For one, it helps make this world a little more bearable. It's why really shitty sci-fi books still sell so well - you can effectively transport yourself into a simpler, more empowering alternate reality. It's the same with wanting to believe in psychic powers (because it means there's something extra special about humanity), or conspiracy theories (since that gives you a tangible force to blame for why your life sucks more than you think it should), or in what you see on TV (because it's more glamorous than real life, and easier - and most problems can be resolved in 30 minutes, minus ads).
People have been making fairy tales for millennia to define how they see the world, and to communicate sociological concepts (see Aesops fables for example). The real problem is that (increasingly) many people haven't developed the skills to differentiate between their childhood beliefs and the adult real world.
The problem is, as Arthur C Clarke once said; "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" - What we can't easily explain using our (scientific) knowledge, we make up an explanation for using the paranormal, the supernatural or the religious - or we believe what we're told by the nearest 'expert'. Because of familiarity, TV is our drip-feeding expert source of choice (or failing that, the bible / koran et al). Due to the general lack of education in science, we're becoming a race of idiot-savant cavepeople.
For example, how many people know even basically how a microwave oven works? - You just put the food in, press the button and wait til it goes 'bing'. Magical!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | | 60. Flawed writeup
| | | | by freek | | | | at Thu 20 Jun 4:20pm | score of 2 informative | | | | | | |
This is a link to CSICOPs schedule of events for the 4th Annual World Skeptics Conference. It doesn't have much (anything) to say about television or movies at all. Here's a clip from their press release :
The overall theme is "Prospects for Skepticism: The Next Twenty-Five Years." We not only want to examine issues that are important today, but also try and focus on topics that will influence science and skepticism in the future. Thus, we are planning sessions on alternative medicine, unsubstantiated psychotherapies, confidence and financial scams, intelligent design and attacks on evolution, education and young skeptics, urban legends, a meeting of local skeptical organizations, and other topics.
I could only speculate as to why the Times and/or Dr. Kurtz played up and anti-tv angle. Maybe it's because John Edward is a heartless charlatan making millions off the pain and grief of the credulous among us.
I'm just happy there are few groups out there who are willing to defend rationality. It seems to be a commodity in short supply.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 75. Re: Flawed writeup
| | | | by iarnuocon | | | | at Thu 20 Jun 9:45pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 73 | | | | | |
CSICOP is less in need of media attention than Plastic. From the article:Mr. Kurtz, 76, [is] an emeritus professor of philosophy at the State University of New York at Buffalo and author or editor of 35 books, including the "Secular Humanist Manifesto II." ... Mr. Kurtz's operations have an annual budget of $11 million. The center has small branches in Los Angeles and Montclair, N.J., and has about 40 employees overall. There are affiliated groups in Russia, France, Peru, Germany, Africa and other locations... Mr. Kurtz publishes magazines and newsletters, including The Skeptical Inquirer, which Mr. Kurtz said had a circulation of about 50,000. Other magazines include Free Inquiry, The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice and a few others. Mr. Kurtz also operates a publishing house, Prometheus Books, which brings out about 100 books a year. In addition the center sponsors a student organization, the Campus Freethought Alliance, and S.O.S. (for Save Ourselves), a secular alternative to Alcoholics Anonymous. I often see Skeptical Enquirer and Free Inquiry on the shelves of Border's, Barnes and Noble, Newsworthy, and many other bookstores/magazine vendors. Yeah, CSICOP and the skeptics are dying from lack of exposure.
insanus omnis furere credit ceteros... ecce signum
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 74. Joyless Skeptics? Massive misunderstanding?
| | | | by iarnuocon | | | | at Thu 20 Jun 9:35pm | score of 1 | | | | | | |
I find it truly amusing that the writeup (and indeed many of the posts) characterize the skeptics of CSICOP as "joyless," "worried," "suffering from a massive misunderstanding," blah blah blah... It's a vastly overstated case. In the first place, the conference is not planned to "attack" the distressing proliferation of pseudoscience, unless one can call discussing such proliferation an "attack." No doubt at some point CSICOP will develop a plan of action for dealing with the issue, but the idea that CSICOP is advocating dispensing with fiction is, in and of itself, exactly that-- fiction. CSICOP is, however, concerned with an apparent lack of critical analytical skills on the part of the public. And that lack makes films such as the Mothman Prophecies and Signs particularly problematic. Because they draw on purported "actual events," they are often taken as being substantially factual. A bridge really did collapse on the Ohio River, crop circles actually have appeared in farmers fields, there really is a "psychic" named James van Praagh who "helped" with police investigations. And none of the movies on those subjects give any indication that the events portrayed are "for entertainment purposes only." For an uncritical person, movies such as this, and television programs such as "Alien Autopsy," "Crossing Over," and conspiracy/religious hokum such as the Shroud of Turin and NASA's "faked" moon landing can arguably be very confusing. And pseudoscience presents a danger precisely because for some people it makes science seem nothing more than just another religion.
Skeptics are suffering from a massive misunderstanding of the nature of entertainment? After having known several people who worked on "Psychic Hotlines," what I can tell you is that, even when something is noted as being "for entertainment purposes only," there will be enough people willing to part with their hard-earned cash to make you a millionaire. And not one of those people thinks that they are spending that money on "entertainment." Talking to dead husbands, determining this week's stock picks, divining whether a loved one is philandering, yes. Entertainment, no.
When someone claims "people aren't generally stupid, and can tell the difference between fact and fiction," I like to note the following - 75% of americans do not know that antibiotics kill bacteria but not viruses.
- 57% don't know that electrons are smaller than atoms
- A significant proportion of college undergrads do not know that the stars rise and set each night, or even that the Sun is a star.
- the percentage of the population believing in evolution is higher in China than in the US.
- people believe a lot of weird things for which there is no evidence: astrology, alien abductions, satanic ritual abuse and cannibalism, creationism, Holocaust denial, theories of racial superiority, etc.
So there's a valid problem, and CSICOP sees TV and movies as just one element where the portrayal of rationalism and skepticism could be increased and improved. Far from failing to realise that people get their kicks from both fact and fiction, skeptics realise that a near constant portrayal of fiction as fact blurs the distinction between the two. Finally, I'd point out a study by Markovsky and Thye of U of South Carolina, Sociological Perspectives, (Vol 44, No 1, 2001) noted in the March 2002 Skeptical Inquirer which found that changes in beliefs or behavior are affected by the real or implied presence or actions of other individuals. In their experiment, subjects were given oral instructions that included a brief review of "evidence" for a pyramid's special powers. They were told that the previous week the experimenters had selected two equally fresh bananas, and one was put under a pyramid, while the other was placed under a box. They were then asked to rate them on five characteristics. In fact the bananas used in all conditions were virtually identical. In sessions where a "confederate" posing as a test subject gave responses rating the banana under the pyramid as fresher, subjects were influenced by the confederates responses. Researchers found that the influence was heightened by a high status confederate and that confederate influence was scarcely diminished when an absent confederate's judgements were reported to the subject by the experimenter. In other words, people are much more likely to believe something is true if they see that some other reputable person believes that it is true. To quote the authors, "Our findings suggest that paranormal claims endorsed by proximal, legitimate, higher-status others are especially contagious." I'll leave you to speculate as to the effect when television and Hollywood present paranormal themes, claims, and documentaries uncritically.
And, BTW, while I love Bugs Bunny, I never liked the Road Runner, precisely because of its crappy physics. You gotta think that Wile E. would have, at some point, killed that little fucker.
insanus omnis furere credit ceteros... ecce signum
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 78. Re: Joyless Skeptics? The stars say yes.
| | | | by YCDK | | | | at Thu 20 Jun 10:37pm | score of 1 interesting | | in reply to comment 74 | | | | | |
And none of the movies on those subjects give any indication that the events portrayed are "for entertainment purposes only."
Oddly enough, the jar of salsa on my desk does not give any indication that the contents within are "for food purposes only". My computer's case fails to include a sticker that says it is "for computing purposes only". I dare not even mention the lack of warning labels on my bookshelf, bed, or kitchen shears. Perhaps movies lack warning labels for the same reason.
What would you like them to say, anyway? "The following is a complete work of fiction, except for the parts which actually happened, which are being misrepresented for dramatic effect in the hopes that you gullible mouth-breathers will suck it right up" sounds like it'd be a just dandy voiceover.
people believe a lot of weird things for which there is no evidence: astrology, alien abductions, satanic ritual abuse and cannibalism, creationism, Holocaust denial, theories of racial superiority, etc.
Remember, kids, if you read your horoscope in the morning, there's no practical difference between you and Hitler!
Seriously: what the hell is it with astrology, dude? For 95% of people who "believe" in it, and I use the word loosely, it involves taking two minutes out of your day to look at the horoscope column next to the daily crossword. You could be out taking on David Irving, and instead you're fighting to take six column inches out of the Picayune Daily-Star.
CSICOP gets its reputation as a bunch of humorless whiners (a reputation that none of the CSICOP-supporting posts in this thread have done anything to damage) because of such petty, trifling crap as this. What, are you scared that daily horoscopes are some sort of paranormal gateway drug? Are superhighways at this very moment collapsing into ruin because the engineers who would otherwise repair them are running astrology camps in Tibet? Do your panties get in a wad that people's brains can no longer be stuffed to the brim and beyond with a healthy respect for the scientific method that permeates everything they do?
For an uncritical person, movies such as this, and television programs such as "Alien Autopsy," "Crossing Over," and conspiracy/religious hokum such as the Shroud of Turin and NASA's "faked" moon landing can arguably be very confusing.
Or, for those who prefer their worldview filtered through Simpsons paraphrases, "Won't someone pleeeeeeeease think of the stupid!?"
The can knows who to whoop.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 82. Re: Joyless Skeptics? The stars say yes.
| | | | by iarnuocon | | | | at Fri 21 Jun 5:24am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 78 | | | | | |
Oddly enough, the jar of salsa on my desk does not give any indication that the contents within are "for food purposes only". Who said anything about "warning labels"? Your response reminds me of NH4's. "Wahh!!! 'Correct thought.' Wahh!!! Warning labels! Wahh!!! Authoritarianism and atheists!" Honestly. Did you even bother to read the article?
Let me give you the short version: the television and movie industries give short shrift to rationality and skepticism. If CSICOP is doing anything, they're discussing how to enocurage those industries to better portray and/or increase the numbers of shows positively portraying rationality and skepticism.
Remember, kids, if you read your horoscope in the morning, there's no practical difference between you and Hitler! Yeah, you busted me. That was exactly what I was saying. sigh.
For 95% of people who "believe" in it, and I use the word loosely, it involves taking two minutes out of your day to look at the horoscope column next to the daily crossword. Yeah, you're right. That's why astrology is a billion dollar industry-- because nobody believes in it.
CSICOP gets its reputation as a bunch of humorless whiners (a reputation that none of the CSICOP-supporting posts in this thread have done anything to damage) because of such petty, trifling crap as this. If you're referencing your own post on the subject, then I agree. So far, I haven't seen any evidence that CSICOP is doing anything other than discussing the issue, and after perusing the schedule of the conference that someone helpfully posted, I see that CSICOP hasn't even heavily advertised/listed this particular segment of the conference. Yeah, (subliminal man) CSICOP really deserves (a friggin' break) that reputation (for rationality) as a bunch of humorless whiners (look in a mirror).
What, are you scared that daily horoscopes are some sort of paranormal gateway drug? Every year, gullible people die because they believe in "alternative" medical treatments (crystal therapy, homeopathy, rebirthing, ad nauseum) that amount to wishful thinking. Every year, groups try to water down science standards by including as a reasonable alternative to evolution the myth that an invisible man in the sky caused dinosaurs and humans to roam the earth together. Irrational beliefs have an impact on society. Do I think astrology is a "gateway drug"? No, and I'm also not the one bitching that skeptics want to take the joy out of the world.
You could be out taking on David Irving, and instead you're fighting to take six column inches out of the Picayune Daily-Star. Yes, or we could be discussing how John Ashcroft is essentially wiping his ass with the Bill of Rights. Instead, we get to talk about the bone-chilling possibility that somebody, somewhere, is having a conference on how shitty movies are. yawn.
insanus omnis furere credit ceteros... ecce signum
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 95. Re: Joyless Skeptics? The stars say yes.
| | | | by YCDK | | | | at Fri 21 Jun 11:13am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 82 | | | | | |
Let me give you the short version: the television and movie industries give short shrift to rationality and skepticism.
You forgot to post a link to your roller-coaster non-stop thrill ride screenplay adaptation of "The Demon-Haunted World". A hit movie, after all, will do more to fix the industry than any amount of after-the-fact whining that Passions doesn't have an astrophysics consultant.
Yeah, you busted me. That was exactly what I was saying. sigh.
If you do not think that astrology and Holocaust denial are equally bad, maybe you should leave one of them out of your list of "irrational beliefs" next time.
Every year, gullible people die because they believe in "alternative" medical treatments (crystal therapy, homeopathy, rebirthing, ad nauseum) that amount to wishful thinking
All this from a daily horoscope! (And I left out the part where it gets creationism into the schools, causes tooth decay, and helped kill the Archduke Ferdinand.) I wasn't aware that "Today will be a good day for making new friends" had that much power. Have you campaigned to have Rob Brezsny indicted for murder yet?
The can knows who to whoop.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 105. Wow. This is fun, we could do this all week.
| | | | by iarnuocon | | | | at Fri 21 Jun 2:25pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 95 | | | | | |
If you do not think that astrology and Holocaust denial are equally bad, maybe you should leave one of them out of your list of "irrational beliefs" next time. Is astrology irrational? Yes. Is Holocaust denial irrational? Yes. Is there some rule that says moral or ethical equivalency is the only condition under which lists can be constructed? No. Does anyone beside YCDK automatically assume that all items in a list are morally equivalent (particularly one as varied as irrational beliefs)? No. So does including astrology in a list with Holocaust denial mean that the two are pragmatically equivalent? Not unless you're an idiot. Are you an idiot? Tell me again why astrology and Holocaust denial shouldn't both be on a list of irrational beliefs.
All this from a daily horoscope! No, all this from irrational belief. You're missing the metaphorical forest for the metaphorical tree. (Actually, I suspect you really aren't, but that you think no one will catch onto your oh-so-sub-tle straw man arguments. Whatever.)
I have gazed into my crystal ball, and foresee terrible misfortune in your future. That'll be $24.95...
insanus omnis furere credit ceteros... ecce signum
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 106. Re: Wow. This is fun, we could do this all week.
| | | | by YCDK | | | | at Fri 21 Jun 3:19pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 105 | | | | | |
Is astrology irrational? Yes. Is Holocaust denial irrational? Yes. [...] Tell me again why astrology and Holocaust denial shouldn't both be on a list of irrational beliefs.
Because it makes you look like you can't be bothered to make distinctions between genuinely harmful things and harmless sidelines. You are using the same logic we receive from the War on Drugs, where they ask what's so wrong with listing "crack cocaine, pure uncut heroin, horse tranquilizer ... oh, and pot" as "dangerous, harmful, and illegal drugs". It is technically true, hilariously misleading, and undeniably condescending.
Not unless you're an idiot. Are you an idiot?
I guess I must be, because I still don't see how daily horoscopes cause the death of millions. If only I was as smart and rational as you, it would all be clear to me.
I have gazed into my crystal ball, and foresee terrible misfortune in your future. That'll be $24.95...
I'm sorry, you've confused me with someone who believes in psychics.
The can knows who to whoop.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 109. Re: Wow. This is fun, we could do this all week.
| | | | by iarnuocon | | | | at Fri 21 Jun 10:25pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 106 | | | | | |
OK. So let's see where we went off-track, here. I made a post which suggested essentially four things. 1)CSICOP is not advocating banning anything. 2)many of the items decried by Kurtz are productions which conflate fiction with fact. 3)the argument that people aren't stupid, generally, and recognize the difference between fact and fiction is not self-evident given a list of conditions which suggest exactly the opposite, and 4)there's experimental evidence suggesting that legitimate, high-status figures may sway belief by presenting slanted "evidence."
Paraphrased, you responded: Fiction doesn't need attention called to the fact that it is fiction. The conditions stated as evidence that people don't recognize the difference between fact and fiction can be discounted because it states that there is no practical difference between horoscope readers and Hitler. Combatting irrationality in the form of astrology is a useless exercise that rightfully causes scorn to be heaped upon skeptics, because nobody believes in astrology anyway. Skepticism shouldn't be taken seriously because you disagree with one of its concerns. (would you say that this is a fair summation of your position?)
Essentially, you didn't really address my points. The claim that CSICOP is advocating "banning" movies such as the Mothman Prophecies is vastly overstated. Saying that people don't conflate fact and fiction is no refutation of the opposite, lacking evidence to the contrary. It's simply a contrary statement. Likewise, focussing on the inclusion of astrology in a list of weird things that people believe with no evidence because you see the inclusion of Holocaust denial in the same list as an equivocation of the two simply deflects the argument into a tangent in which the main point is missed. People believe weird, irrational things with no supporting evidence: therefore we can state that people often confuse fact with fiction. While the tangential discussion of whether astrology and Holocaust denial merit mention in the same list (and I think they do) may be interesting, it isn't really germaine to the question of whether people readily distinguish fact from fiction. And you simply ignore the evidence which suggests that the media plays a hand in promoting irrational belief.
So I propose that we dispense with the tangential discussion of whether astrology is "real," whether people believe in it, whether it causes "damage," etc. and proceed with the original discussion.
If you'd rather focus on the tangential discussion, instead, I can oblige you there, too. But recognize that this is a separate issue that you've brought up. The moral/ethical equivalency of astrology belief with Holocaust denial is an assertion that you made, not something implied by my list of people's irrational beliefs.
insanus omnis furere credit ceteros... ecce signum
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 119. Why horoscopes hurt people
| | | | by waldeaux | | | | at Tue 2 Jul 12:03pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 95 | | | | | |
I once worked for a company that supplied online content to high schools. One of the producers was of the "read my horoscope every morning" ilk, and would make the claim that it was all in the name of entertainment.
However at one point we had to deliver on a product and he decided that horoscopes would be included as part of the "news" section. I balked claiming that it had no place there - we were supposed to be producing a quality education piece and this was inappropriate. I suggested instead that we get a partnership with one of the many online daily science digests. This was immediately dismissed because science was "boring" and astrology was a good as any of the other stuff anyway. Plus, kids like it and they should be able to have it there.
If you'll notice the progression, it went from "entertainment and fluff" to "equal to science and should preempt science" very quickly when challenged. That's the danger that should be avoided --- by not setting a good example and having high standards, we send the wrong message.
If it's as innocent as you'd like us to believe, you wouldn't be defending it as strongly as you do. After all it's meaningless, right?
Life is a peanut butter and liverwurst sandwich --- Me, 1977
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 84. The truth is out there
| | | | by Anonymous Idiot | | | | at Fri 21 Jun 7:02am | score of 0.5 astute | | | | | | |
And the truth is that people are stupid. Some are stupid by nature. Too many are stupid by choice.
We have libraries of books dedicated to evolution, with all the latest scientific knowledge of the subject. More books come every day. Yet, ask someone who believes otherwise; "Its only a THEORY" they cry. Yeah and so is relativity, but it doesn't stop people from using it to make weapons that can vaporize the city of New York, does it?
So let them believe that the planets and the universe was thought into existence. Let them believe that only 750,000 dead people can dance on the head of a pin. Hell, let them believe that Winona Ryder actually was shoplifting in Saks. I don't care. I can find out what is true or not. And I can certainly make a buck off of those who don't want to know the truth.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 99. Re: The truth is out there
| | | | by slippytoad | | | | at Fri 21 Jun 1:12pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 84 | | | | | | |
More books come every day. Yet, ask someone who believes otherwise; "Its only a THEORY" they cry. Yeah and so is relativity Actually, evolution is a fact. It's a fact the same way that the blueness of the sky is a fact. Evolution by natural selection is the part that's theoretical. What's so pathetic about creationism and its apologists is that they don't even want to allow the basic facts about biology and geology to be taught in our schools, let alone the theoretical framework we use to describe how they came about.
And creationism doesn't even satisfy the basic requirements for either factual basis or theoretical explanation. It's not falsifiable.
People keep saying "c'mon man, these are just movies, this isn't that important." Well, I for one think this is one of the most important debates of the coming century. If we don't believe in our own science, we have a serious problem. People are of the opinion (already) that this stuff runs because it's magic. I don't know how many people I work with imagine the computer has a malevolent personality, or who hear a high-pitched test tone when I start explaining how the stuff works. Maybe it's a symptom of a technological civilization, but I'm more inclined to say it's a massive failure of our educational system; nobody seems to really be interested in how things actually work, or why. This has frightening implications for the future.
Woohoo!!!!! FUCK YEAH!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 87. Free Thought?
| | | | by waltb555 | | | | at Fri 21 Jun 8:04am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
I was a subscriber to "The Skeptical Inquirer" for a few years. I finally got tired of their superior attitude. Their philosophy seems to be that everyone is free to think what they wish but unless you think as they do you are ignorant. I think what Kurtz and his cronies do is just a match away from book burning.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 104. Book burning?
| | | | by freek | | | | at Fri 21 Jun 1:44pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 87 | | | | | |
You're kidding right? They're the exact opposite of book burning, prefering to bring on the ideas and shoot them down logically rather than assume them false.
Their philosophy is a bit harsh in comparison to the "everyone's opinion is equal" crap that seems common, but what do you expect? If you're writing an article debunking something that has been contradicted by every scientific study related to it, that it's adherents are ignorant (or malicious) seems like the only conclusion to draw.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
|
| | Member Login | | | |
|
