|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
 Posted - 11/15/2004 : 15:23:59
|
Now I am not saying any regulars here are close minded at all. I think everyone lies far from that. However, what I see here is a failure to communicate with non-skeptics.
I have been reading over a few posts such as "Be Afraid...Be Very Afraid" where regulars talk to non-skeptics which join the forums. I have tried to put my self in the non-skeptics shoes, and from that standpoint, it really does appear that some of us are close minded. It appears as if we dismiss claims without even listening to them.
Now I know that none of us really do that, but because of past experiences with the same exact claim over and over again, it appears that way in many posts because we already have considered the claim. The problem is, the non-skeptic doesn't know this. It looks to the non-skeptic as if we won't even listen to them.
What I suggest is that every time we reply to a new user who joins the forum or a new post making a claim, try your best to approach it as if you have never heard of the claim before. As questions instead of making statements, but make those questions so they get to the real point. If questions won't do, try suggestions. And if you need something even stronger, when using statements try to make them as friendly as possible.
If you are going to dismiss a claim based on a position of no evidence, make sure that they understand exactly why you are dismissing it and tell them what counts for evidence then ask if they have any.
If anyone has good ways in which we can increase the communication between skeptics and non-skeptics, here is the place to suggest so.
|
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2004 : 20:21:29 [Permalink]
|
Nice post Ricky. What may sometimes seems so obvious to us, a claim having been long since debunked, is not always obvious to those not practiced at critical thinking. The fact that they made their way to us we should see as a good thing. It sometimes means a chance to encourage critical thinking, and in so doing, help a new member to understand the value of skepticism. Speaking for myself, I purposely try to avoid being too confrontational. At least at first. There are ways to make our views known without aiming first at the jugular.
Of course, in some cases, that is not possible. For example, Jerry came here to prove ID to us. He made that known. He knew exactly where he was. He wanted a debate and he got what he came for, and apparently, then some…
It kind of comes down to waiting and sizing up what the new member wants from this forum. Skeptics just fall in and join. However, non skeptics should be treated with respect. Fact is, most people are not skeptics. And we do not want to be an elite group of critical thinkers. We are a part of a movement and we need to remember that sometimes…
Thanks for the ideas and the reminder Ricky…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2004 : 21:26:19 [Permalink]
|
Kil wrote:quote:
Skeptics just fall in and join.
Ideally, this wouldn't happen, either. Just like we don't want to be elitist, we don't want a bunch of "joiners," either. None of us should have any problems with new people asking reasonable questions to "establish" our own abilities to think critically, and really, we should welcome such opportunities.
As to the OP, if you are talking about Jerry in that thread you pointed out, Ricky, then Kil is absolutely correct that Jerry knew exactly what he was getting into, and what he was asking for. If you've reread to the post where I talked about his history on the Web, a tiny bit more research would show you that Jerry has been approached by skeptics in a variety of ways (on a variety of forums), and none of the approaches "worked" in any sense of the word.
And in the general case, a one-size-fits-all "increase the communication" method just won't work. "Friendly" isn't necessarily a good method, as some will see it as condescension (whether it is or isn't). It really is a matter of trying to see where the new people want to go, and meeting them there. With some people, it's quickly obvious that the only thing they want out of the SFN is nasty confrontation and strife. With others - a much rarer sort, people to be helped as much as possible - they really are looking for people who'll show them where they've gone wrong. These are people who really are on a "quest for truth," and I've got a buttload of respect for them.
Along the lines of the last, I suggest you read the latest James Randi commentary, specifically the section, "An Apparently Genuine Conversion." Sure, we don't know the details, and we're ignorant of how far the subject of the piece will take his new-found freedom, but that's the kind of person I can really support.
Anyway, more communications is good, but not always possible. Discussion is, after all, a two-way street.
Also, any examples of me making particularly egregious communications errors would be more than welcome, Ricky. I won't speak for anyone else, but I'd like the opportunity to learn what a tremendous jackass I can be. Or, to defend my words as appropriate to the situation. Just don't bring up anything I've already apologized for.  |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
Posted - 11/15/2004 : 22:00:15 [Permalink]
|
Your first post Dave:
quote:
Another case of an IDist (even a "modern" one) claiming that ID is a science, yet failing to present any evidence, or even a testable hypothesis. These things are the hallmarks of science. ID has none, and so fails to be a science, and even the likes of fellow IDist Del Ratzsch understands this.
At this moment, it takes a dogmatic attitude and a willingness to ignore profoundly contrary evidence to claim that ID is in any way a science.
You responded in general terms to ID claims. You didn't directly respond to his claims or his post, but ID overall. It is not really arguing against Jerry, but ID everywhere. The problem is that Jerry is trying to talk to us, but it isn't directly responding to him.
Same thing with the 2nd post:
quote:
Good reminder, filthy. ID was and is first a political movement, with only pretensions towards science.
Again, responding to the ID movement as a whole, but not Jerry.
Finally by the third post you started to respond to Jerry.
I know when I went over to the skeptictimes, they kept claiming that evolution had included geology and astronomy, while I kept telling them that it didn't. They weren't arguing against me, they were arguing against other people. Could the same thing of happened here?
It seems a bit that way to me. |
Why continue? Because we must. Because we have the call. Because it is nobler to fight for rationality without winning than to give up in the face of continued defeats. Because whatever true progress humanity makes is through the rationality of the occasional individual and because any one individual we may win for the cause may do more for humanity than a hundred thousand who hug their superstitions to their breast.
- Isaac Asimov |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2004 : 14:02:55 [Permalink]
|
Not my idea originally, but the idea that skeptics can communicate with or persuade those who believe in scripture or ID or (any number of irrational beliefs) is not realistic.
It'd be much better to claim a target audience of people who are closer to our own point of view.
People like Jerry and Verlch provide an opportunity for us to do this, by showing them for the irrational people they are. No, it's not kind to them sometimes.... but seriously, think about you and Verlch in a room together.... do you think you could make even a dent in his belief system?
The target audience for the responses (made by most people here) to Jerry and Verlch are the silent lurkers. The people who are interested in skepticism, those who want to learn about critical thinking, ect.... The audience is definitely NOT fundies and crazy "ID scientists".
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2004 : 00:22:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
But I think it is also very possible that maybe we take on an appearance of being closed minded which makes people turn to thinks like YEC and ID.
If demandng evidence gives a closed-minded appearance, then I don't know what to do/say about it.
But that's what critical thinking and skepticism is all about. Evidence. Verfiable and repeatable evidence for all claims.
There is no "nice" way to tell people that belief in unevidenced claims is irrational. Especially if it's something they cling to (like the YEC's and ID) strongly. It's like trying to convince the average 4 yearold that Santa is a con-job put on by their parents. They won't believe you and they will become violently upset with you for just speaking the words.
The gulf between skeptics and (for example)- fundamentalist evangelicals is a staggering one. It's basically a futile excercise to try and reach accross it.
Now, having said that, when anyone makes a request for information I think it's a responsibility to respond in a civil and friendly manner. Offer up what we know, to those who request it, fully and freely. Equally, when somebody makes a claim, we must demand evidence. And, as I said a few sentences ago, there is no "nice" way to tell people they are full of shit. Even just pointing out flawed reasoning and misinformation will offend people.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2004 : 07:47:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
Your first post Dave...
You responded in general terms to ID claims. You didn't directly respond to his claims or his post, but ID overall. It is not really arguing against Jerry, but ID everywhere. The problem is that Jerry is trying to talk to us, but it isn't directly responding to him.
Same thing with the 2nd post...
Again, responding to the ID movement as a whole, but not Jerry.
Finally by the third post you started to respond to Jerry.
Actually, Ricky, early on in that thread, I very much expected Jerry to be little more than a drive-by poster (lines like "Just bored and out surfing around. Not even sure how I got here. LOL." do not bode a long-term relationship), and so specifically did not address him, but tossed out some thoughts to the general audience. As it was, he lasted a whole five days, eight hours before giving us the "7th grade math" kiss-off.quote:
I know when I went over to the skeptictimes, they kept claiming that evolution had included geology and astronomy, while I kept telling them that it didn't. They weren't arguing against me, they were arguing against other people. Could the same thing of happened here?
It seems a bit that way to me.
Jerry, like the folks over at SkepticTimes, wasn't interested in a discussion. He said he was, but hindsight offers some insight. As I see it, Jerry's real goal here was to bait a bunch of people into making statements for which he had easy answers (even if wrong), to make himself think he's smart, and thus boosting his ego. When pressed to actually explain his ideas about math, he fled. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Wendy
SFN Regular
USA
614 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2004 : 07:48:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky
What I suggest is that every time we reply to a new user who joins the forum or a new post making a claim, try your best to approach it as if you have never heard of the claim before. As questions instead of making statements, but make those questions so they get to the real point. If questions won't do, try suggestions. And if you need something even stronger, when using statements try to make them as friendly as possible.
I agree completely, and I think Ricky is on to something important here. Filthy has impressed me repeatedly by expressing opinions to the most abrasive among us in a gracious and courteous manner.
I am not naive enough to think there is anything we can do or say that would encourage verlch or Jerry to think outside their programming. It's too late for them. I think what we should all remember here is that we have many more people who read here than post here. If we are polite when assailing the Jerrys and the verlchs with the facts, those people may see that they need not fear us. That might lead those who have been too timid thus far to make more moderate posts that result in productive discussion.
Hey, it's possible! I can dream, can't I?  |
Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do on a rainy afternoon.
-- Susan Ertz
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2004 : 08:23:08 [Permalink]
|
Wendy wrote:quote:
I can dream, can't I?
Seems like you are, since "filthy" and "gracious and courteous" go together like pickles and pralines.
Seriously, there is a need to think about the unspoken lurkers out there, but their personalities range from arrogant jerkwad to timid doormat. Which audience along that continuum should we strive to bring in, at the expense of most of the remainder? There's no way to be welcoming to everyone.
And so, perhaps it's okay that the mix we've got here as members brings in the mix of new people that it does. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2004 : 08:38:28 [Permalink]
|
Wendy, thank you for the complement, but it's not entirely deserved. I can get as nasty as anyone here, and have. And probably will again.
But I've found that if you speak in a calm and reasonable manner, and have your shit together while you do it, you can't help but come out ahead.
I enjoy the verlchs and Jerrys that turn up here, now and again. They make the board interesting. And Storm seems to be coming along nicely, although I haven't had much to do with that discussion. At least it's not Bible-based, for a change.
Say, does anyone remember that flood-maniac that was bouncing around in here a couple of years or so back? Whassisface? Don't recall the handle, but he was fun! May he return one day, armed with new and exciting data and looking for revenge. 
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2004 : 08:45:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Seems like you are, since "filthy" and "gracious and courteous" go together like pickles and pralines.
Sez he who hogged all the cicadas last summer, and was not kind to poor verlch.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2004 : 08:57:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Sez he who hogged all the cicadas last summer, and was not kind to poor verlch.
Reality has been unkind to V. |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2004 : 09:11:44 [Permalink]
|
| I think the problem with V is that he doesnt fully believe in reality, but that there must be something beyond reality. This deeply held belief will cause him to disbelieve reality for likely his entire life. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Wendy
SFN Regular
USA
614 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2004 : 10:06:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
Wendy, thank you for the complement, but it's not entirely deserved.
That's what I'm talking about! See how polite he is, Dave?
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
I can get as nasty as anyone here, and have. And probably will again.
I do realize that, and it's true of most of us. I can certainly get nasty when I feel I am being provoked, so I would not suggest anyone else refrain when provoked.
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
But I've found that if you speak in a calm and reasonable manner, and have your shit together while you do it, you can't help but come out ahead.
Exactly.
Honestly, guys, I'm not suggesting we be more "Christ-like", but like Ricky, I do feel there are times when we could be more diplomatic.
|
Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do on a rainy afternoon.
-- Susan Ertz
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2004 : 12:41:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Honestly, guys, I'm not suggesting we be more "Christ-like", but like Ricky, I do feel there are times when we could be more diplomatic.
I agree, at least to begin with.......... 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
