NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/sci/skeptic/12979

Text File | 1992-07-21 | 4.7 KB | 97 lines

Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Path: sparky!uunet!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!yale.edu!yale!gumby!destroyer!news.iastate.edu!IASTATE.EDU!danwell
From: [e-mail] (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Self doubt?  I doubt it.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 13:22:07 GMT
Lines: 84

In article <[e-mail]>,
kraus@.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Dave Kraus) writes:
>}} Finally, when skeptics resort to flaming to intimidate and make
>}} fun of others, it is perfectly logical to be skeptical of their motives.
>}
>}   No need, their motives are usually obvious.  I am motivated by total
>}frustration with people believing what they want to in spite of evidence
>}against or internal inconsistancy of their beliefs.  I have no hidden motive,
>}no concealed agenda.
>
>It could be that you are motivated by self doubt in your own beliefs, and
>that is why you protest so vehemently.

   Yeah, it could be, but it isn't.  Take for example the issue of information
channles outside currently accepted physics.  You and Rodger Nelson are both
interested in this stuff.  I flame you, I don't flame him.  Heck, I'm even
reading his work (a review will appear someday; his stuff is nontrivial).  The
difference is that he is attacking the idea rationally while you appear to be
blinded by a need to believe.  Your statment last year about the general
lack of importance, to you, of laboratory verification of this sort of
phenomena is what clued me in.

   Far from having an emotional investment in the current list of infomation
channles I would be thrilled to find new ones.  Remote viewing, retro- and pre-
cognition, an ansible; all these would be wonderful additions to humanities
toolbox.

>}   Why am I so concerned that people adopt standards for judging the quality
>}of their beleifs?  Because those that don't are fodder for the likes of Ron
>}Hubbard, Madam Sosostris, Adolph Schicklegruber (though he had help from
>}circumstance), etc..  There it is: I don't want to be in an asylum run by
>}inmates.
>
> Are you sure that flaming really is the way to prevent this? Could it be that
> it only alienates people from your viewpoint instead of winning them over?

   We've been over this ground before, Dave.  The lurkers.  Never forget the
lurkers.  In addition I'm not trying to "win" people to my viewpoint.  It is
left as an exercise to the student to figure out what other valuable effects
flaming could have besides "winning people over".  Does it force people to
attempt to defend their own views?  What effect could this have?  Besides,
I am (in principle) against flaming _first_.  No first use is a wonderful
position.

> Ignoring someone can do wonders. Unless of course there is too much personal
> ego involved in winning the argument. We all fall into that trap.

   Ah, but I do!  I have not attacked one piece of falacious reasoning in the
JFK thread, have I?

                     --------irrelevance warning---------
        [the rest of this post is for entertainment only.  Please be 18]

>}What, no obnoxious .sig?   Have I convinced you to follow my path of
>}signature minimalism?  If so, I did it by repeatedly flaming your
>}.sig; this would seem to be a repudiation, in a small way, of your
>}thesis that flaming is worthless.  :)   :)   :)
>
>First of all I had way more positive comments on my .sig than negative,
>so you were in the minority.

   Let's see.  Dave Krauss is making an assertion that supports his ego
and I have no way of checking it.  The assertion tends to support the
notion that people liked Dave's .sig and by implication Dave.  He hasn't
even attempted to figure out the probability of someone who thought his
.sig was neat writing him as opposed to someone who thought it was stupid.
In my experience supportive comments are more frequent by about 6:1 than
derisive ones.

   Conclusion:  Dave's childish inability to even consider objective means
of supporting or rejecting a hypothisis is firmly in place.

   Action:  Follow Dave's advice and ignore it.

> The fact that I used it so long may have
>been a problem. Secondly, one could argue that you intimidated me, or that
>I just got sick and tired of listening to your complaints. Basically, I
>wasn't really too attached to it, and letting it go was easier than getting
>into a silly war over it. N'est pas? It was kind of old anyway.

   Right.  How convieeeenient.

Dan
[e-mail]