Don’t put my codswallop under the microscope

I was reminded of that Michael Shermer quote recently while engaging in a debate in the comments of this post on the Whirled Musings blog. The exchange below demonstrates that just because someone laughs at one form of woo, he or she can still believe in another form of woo if they don’t apply critical thinking uniformly. The method by which you arrive at your conclusions is, if anything, more important than the conclusion itself.

I became aware of the Whirled blog post via my Google alert for Gregg Braden. Whirled seems to exist to make fun of new age bozos such as Braden, Deepak Chopra etc, and so I posted a comment supportive of the Braden post, with a link back to the Skeptico site. A couple of people checked out my site and chose to post comments critical of my posts on acupuncture. Critical and a little snippy, I might add. Well, they have a right to do that, I suppose, although I wasn’t looking for a debate on acupuncture when I commented about Gregg Braden. Still, if they’re going to criticize me, I’ll respond, as you’ll see if you click the link.

The trouble is, although the owner and regulars at the Whirled blog like to make fun of Braden, Chopra etc (and posts they don’t like at Skeptico), it’s clear that you’re not supposed to question their irrational beliefs. A poster called RevRon’s Rants, apparently the “life partner” of the blog owner Connie, posted that my “summary dismissal of acupuncture just doesn't wash”, and that “it would be advisable to ensure [your] "science" stands up to scrutiny, IMHO”. Ron subsequently (after being asked by me) posted links to some studies. I explained why these studies did not invalidate my original posts, and posted links to scientific studies that had led me to my conclusions about acupuncture. Ron ignored my criticisms of his studies, ignored the studies I linked, and instead fell back on the fallacious reasoning we’re all used to seeing from the numerous woos who post here and elswhere. For example, in short order I was presented with:

• An appeal to Science was wrong before.
• Criticisms of my “objectivity” (without justifying why I was not objective).
• An appeal to Science doesn’t know everything.
• An appeal to personal experience and anecdote.
• An appeal to closed-mindedness.

Just about everything but any science that “stands up to scrutiny”, as Ron had put it. Clearly “stands up to scrutiny” really just means “supports my prejudice”. Fair enough – he’s free to say what he wants and I‘m free to explain the fallacies he’s relying on.

Or not. Unfortunately the blog owner refused to allow my reply to the latest piece of drivel from Ron, with the justification (via email) that her blog is “a mostly lighthearted, humorous blog”, and that the discussion had turned into “a pissing contest”. The blog owner was apparently especially annoyed at my comparing Ron to Deepak Chopra, because apparently Ron is not like that. Well sorry Connie, Ron is like that when it comes to his belief in acupuncture. And he started the pissing contest, not me.

See below, my final comment that Connie didn’t want to publish. Ron’s comments are indented. My censored replies follow.  Ron's first sentence is in response to my comment, "I don’t see any reason to believe “qi” even exists":

Spend a week in a classical dojo and see if you can say that.

Oh come on, personal experience does not make data, and the easiest person to fool is yourself – that’s why the double-blind study has proven priceless. Before double blind studies we used to think a lot of things were true that we now know are not. Wake up.

…or that matter, do some research somewhere besides sources devoted to perpetuating your own preconceptions.

Advice you would do well to take yourself.

But there's a big difference between skepticism and closed-mindnedness, and between believing everything and believing nothing at all. It's in that place where objectivity - and human growth - exists.

Oh no, not the fallacious appeal to be open-minded.  An open mind is open to all ideas, but it must be open to the possibility that the idea could be true or false. It is not closed-minded to reject claims that make no sense, but if you can’t accept the possibility that an idea such as qi might be false, then you are the closed minded one.

Closed-mindedness indeed. You have now used just about every lame argument I have heard over the years from new agers, creationists and other miscellaneous anti-scientists defending their drivel – you’re no better than any of them. I wrote my fallacies section because I got sick of refuting the same tired arguments again and again. The trouble is, you’ve got it fixed in your head that acupuncture has worked for you and you can’t even begin to think rationally about it. Read this article by Michael Shermer - he was writing about major new age bozo Deepak Chopra, but he could just as easily have written it about you:

“… another refrain we often hear in the form of “I’m a skeptic too, but…,” where skepticism is fine as long as it is someone else’s codswallop under the microscope.”

Precisely.

[Censored comment ends.]

Confrontational? Sure. But no more than was I was receiving. And in an argument I didn’t start,remember.

Sadly, it seems we have here a group of people who are happy to make fun of Deepak Chopra when they want, but who presumably didn’t arrived at their views on Chopra through the application of critical thinking. I’m not surprised they are teed-off at my comparing them to Chopra. I’d be annoyed too. But the correct response would be to reevaluate your own arguments, and re-couch them with valid arguments in place of the dopey rationalizations of the kind favored by Chopra and his followers. Readers of Whirled would apparently prefer simply to disallow arguments against them they don’t like.

The method by which you evaluate claims is as important as the conclusions you arrive at. Maybe more so – if you have the wrong method, you will come to the wrong conclusions on some questions.  Sadly, Whirled may be an anti-new age blog, but it’s clearly not a critical thinking blog.

Of course, anyone may disagree by commenting below. I don’t hold comments for evaluation or censor people purely because they disagree with me. But I do call out fallacious reasoning.

Comments

[RevRon]

Skeptico -
Nobody "censored" your ideas. Connie (and I) merely felt that your end of the "debate" deteriorated rather abruptly into personal slams. Unfortunately, such is often the case when someone feels threatened and their personal "issues" are brought to light.

You label yourself a skeptic, and me ... well, I have no reason to regurgitate the list. Actually, I tend to reject such labels altogether, as they are little more than a lazy person's way of avoiding understanding another, or an individual's way of defining themself, - thereby establishing their alleged uniqueness.

In the WM blog, you made a point with which I disagreed. You were immediately dismissive of my disagreement, stating that I had provided no documentation to support my position. When I did provide the documentation from such respected sources as the Mayo Clinic, University of Maryland, and the NIH, you were again dismissive, yet saw fit to enhance your "argument" by denigrating me. I should have realized at that point that you were seeking not truth, but merely to sustain your self-image as an astute "skeptic," and to have the last word. I don't have any reason to continue such a dialog, and choose to leave the pissing contests - and the last word - to the Junior High crowd.

Enjoy.

[cowpie]

And he closes the discussion with an appeal to authority and ad hominems. Nice.

[Eric]

A personal slam, Ron, would be me calling you the fucktard that you are.

Skeptico saying "your evidence isn't very good evidence," and showing you WHY it's not, is hardly an ad hominem attack. But since you've decided to stick your fingers in your ears and say "La La La" until science goes away, I guess there's not much point in continuing this.

In the future, though, do let me know if you need further clarification on what is a personal attack and what isn't. I've got some choice stuff picked out just for you.

[Skeptico]

Skeptico replies to RevRon

You are a liar and a really uncrital thinker.

Re: Nobody "censored" your ideas.

An absolute lie. I posted a comment. Connie would not release it. And she said as much in an email to me, her exact words being “I chose not to publish your latest comment”. That is censorship.

Re: Connie (and I) merely felt that your end of the "debate" deteriorated rather abruptly into personal slams. Unfortunately, such is often the case when someone feels threatened and their personal "issues" are brought to light.

My end? Who started with the “personal slams”? (Hint: it was you.) More to the point, my “slams” were not personal per-se – I merely pointed out that your arguments were the same as those put forward by Chopra and the like. (Your arguments, not you.) They are. Improve your arguments or deal with it.

Re: You label yourself a skeptic, and me ... well, I have no reason to regurgitate the list. Actually, I tend to reject such labels altogether, as they are little more than a lazy person's way of avoiding understanding another, or an individual's way of defining themself, - thereby establishing their alleged uniqueness.

So what? I pointed out that you do not use critical thinking to arrive at your conclusion. That is true whatever labels you or I apply to ourselves.

Re: In the WM blog, you made a point with which I disagreed. You were immediately dismissive of my disagreement, stating that I had provided no documentation to support my position.

True. You hadn’t.

Re: When I did provide the documentation from such respected sources as the Mayo Clinic, University of Maryland, and the NIH, you were again dismissive,

But I wasn’t merely “dismissive” for no reason - I also explained why your studies did not refute my posts. Explanations that you still ignore. The sources you quoted may be “respected”, but this attempted argument from authority does not disguise the fact that the conclusions of the studies you cited do not refute my posts.

Re: yet saw fit to enhance your "argument" by denigrating me.

Bullshit and another total lie. I responded to your studies with this:

I’ve seen these before. They do not compare acupuncture in the wrong place with acupuncture in the “right” place. They just show that sticking needles in people can sometimes relieve pain. I explained on my blog why randomly applied needles may appear to work (for the same reasons other alternative therapies seem to work), namely:

• Misdirection (the needle makes you forget the other pain)
• The cyclical nature of the illness (it goes away by itself)
• Incorrect diagnosis to start with
• Temporary mood improvements due to the personal nature of the treatment
• Psychological investment of the patient in the success of the therapy
• Other medicines the patient is taking.

In addition, sticking people with needles may stimulate the release of endorphins.

and

Not a study, but a write up of a supposed success story. However, this is not acupuncture – it included an “electric stimulator to a couple of needles, which generated a low current”. Since the ancient Chinese didn’t have electricity I hardly think they were doing this, and this is not acupuncture, regardless of what the Mayo has decided to call it.

Also, your cites just talk about pain relief But remember, this is a list of things acupuncture is supposed to cure.

and

Why this matters

It is important to note that the studies you cite do not control for sticking the needles in the “wrong: place, nor for those that rely on electrical stimulation. Also, they just refer to pain modulation. It is important, because without controlling for these, and when only pain is reduced, the yin / yang qi explanations for acupuncture are not supported. Consequently the complex procedures and years of training for acupuncturists are probably a waste of time. In addition, as long as believers stick to the yin / yang qi magic explanations, the real reason (if there is one) that acupuncture sometimes seems to work, will never be determined.

And that’s if there really is an effect. Studies tend to suggest the effect may be illusory anyway. For example there is this review of 50 acupuncture trials:

How is any of that “enhance[ing my] "argument" by denigrating [you]? How is that even denigrating you in any way? On the contrary, it was a clear, logical and strictly non-personal refutation of your studies and a re-presentation of studies I had cited.

You responded to the above with an appeal to science was wrong before (the aspirin story), that I refuted. You responded to that refutation with criticisms of my “objectivity”, although you didn’t explain what was not objective, and you followed that with an appeal to science doesn’t know everything. At that point I called you on your fallacies – still not a personal attack, but clearly you are not used to being called on your bullshit, and so you took it as one. What a baby.

Re: I should have realized at that point that you were seeking not truth, but merely to sustain your self-image as an astute "skeptic," and to have the last word.

And I would say all that right back at you.

Re: I don't have any reason to continue such a dialog, and choose to leave the pissing contests

Interesting you keep referring to a “pissing contest”. This is what you started, remember? Even so, I never think of these things like that. I think of this as a debate, where each side gets to present evidence (or not) to support their position. Usually I learn something from such a debate. Occasionally I change my position based on the evidence presented by the other person. But it is an evaluation of the evidence to come to a conclusion. The fact that you choose to call this a pissing contest tells me a lot about how you viewed this discussion from the beginning. It tells me a lot about you, actually. You thought you would be able to show me you were the bigger man by “pissing” further or longer, or whatever, didn’t you? Perhaps this line of argument works with the people you normally try to put down, but this is a critical thinking blog and you have to do better than that to be taken seriously here.

Re: - and the last word - to the Junior High crowd.

And from the evidence presented above, that would be you.

The truth is, you thought you would easily put me down. I handed you your ass and you couldn’t handle it. Now you’re taking your bat and ball and going home. Lame. Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out.

[Cosmic Connie]

Skep, as I just now explained again in a private email to you, I "censored" your last comment not because I disagreed with you; after all, I'd already published several of your comments. I chose not to publish your last remark because (1) I felt the same ground had already been covered very well; (2) I felt the level of acrimony in that last comment was excessive; and (3) you were attacking someone I care about (which certainly influenced my judgment on point number 2). I sensed that your last comment would add nothing to the discussion, and would only cause it to deteriorate further.

Of course, it’s now moot, since your “censored” comment has taken on a life of its own. Oh, my, another victory for First Amendment rights.

You are correct, Skep, in stating that Whirled Musings is not a "critical thinking" blog. But so what? Here's a news flash: Whirled Musings was never intended to be a critical thinking blog, and was never advertised as such.

And although I have been a critic of the New Age/self-help/pop spirituality subcultures for many years, I have always based my criticism and satire more on the silliness and annoying qualities of the cultures than on their bad science. It's not that I'm unaware of the psuedoscience and faulty reasoning that prevails in these cultures. It's just that I am not a scientist and don't pretend to be; rather, I am a person who was once very much into the stuff I now make fun of, and for various reasons grew disillusioned and then disgusted with it. I leave the "heavy lifting" in the areas of science and critical thinking to Skeptical Inquirer, et al.

In other words, my blog is for entertainment purposes only. It may not pass the purity test in the world of rationality and critical thinking, but it wasn’t intended to.

It's really too bad this had to come to blows so soon, when just the other day you were praising WM. I really wish I'd censored the whole friggin' debate now.

[Cosmic Connie]

Skep, let me clarify point number (3) above (i.e., my claim that you were attacking someone I care about). I should have said, "It appeared to me that you were attacking someone I care about." I realize that from your perspective, you were only engaging in debate. To me, however, it *seemed* more like an attack than like mere refutation of his points.

[John Marley]

So, Ron and Con,

Do you still believe in acupuncture woo?

[Cosmic Connie]

Well, John Marley, I can't speak for Ron, but do you really think that being repeatedly insulted in the name of "critical thinking" is going to convince me that I have been wrong, about acupuncture or anything else? Y'all need some better PR here.

My position about acupuncture is and always has been that it needs more study before being dismissed as "codswallop" or "woo."

As for my position about the name-calling and insults leveled against Ron by various people here (e.g., calling him a "fucktard" and a "baby")...if that kind of name-calling is what it takes to be taken seriously on a critical thinking blog, I'm going back to Woo Land, and I won't let the door hit my ass either. SAYD.

[Surani]

Skeptico knows all about censoring people. I have asked him time and time again to come to NY City, bring Dr. Steven Barrett, James D. Watson, and anyone else, and debate myself, Gary Null and Oliver Sacks… but Skeptico never took on the challenge.

[Skeptico]

Surani:

In what way have I censored you?

I don’t remember any previous conversations with you, and certainly no invites to visit NYC to debate. Not that I would bother to come to NYC anyway - you can debate me here or here anytime – and unlike an oral debate, you wouldn’t be able to get away with making unsubstantiated claims. But so what? In what way have I censored you?

[Surani]

Skeptico, I can not believe what a charlatan you really are. Stop pretending that I have never asked you to come to NY and take on my 2 million dollar challenge.

Also, i can count 58 times where i have been censored here....

[Skeptico]

According to my logs this is the first time anyone has posted here as “Surani”. Nice try.

[Skeptico]

Connie:

Yes I’m sorry too that the debate went where it did. That certainly wasn’t my intention when I posted my supportive comments on your blog. But if you want to know why it went where it did, you will need to look to what Ron wrote, starting with his first comment. A perusal of my comments (see above) will show I was debating the data; he was the one being personal.

But you should also look to your own actions. The problem was that you allowed this debate to start but then cut it off when it looked like your precious Ron was taking a beating. If you don’t want acrimonious debates then tell him not to start them on your blog and/or don’t publish his initial cheap shots that start the bad feeling. It is intellectually dishonest and cowardly to allow your friends to make their points, but then not allow his opponent to make his in return, and then just leave the whole thing hanging so that it looks like your friend made such a brilliant point that his opponent just couldn’t think of anything to say in response.

I’m also finding it a little hard to accept your #3 reason for not allowing my comment, namely that I was attacking someone you care about. Are you kidding me? Ron’s such a delicate flower he needs your protection from the big bad Skeptico? He hardly looks that precious in his picture.

As for other commenters being insulting – well I like to allow free speech as much as possible, and unless anyone says anything really vulgar, I let it stand. I don’t necessarily agree with everything everyone says, and I might not always have said what someone said in exactly the way they said it, but that’s life. I’m sorry if you were offended. But it was me who called Ron a baby, and if he couldn’t take my telling him some home truths about his flawed thinking, then he is one.

[Cosmic Connie]

You are right in your perception, Skeptico, that my "precious Ron" is more than capable of defending himself. *I* was the one who took offense at what I perceived as your attacks on him, and I based my decision not to publish your remark partly on my feelings. Call me irrational, emotional, or whatever, but that's how I felt.

As a matter of fact, Ron wouldn't have minded if I'd gone ahead and published your last remarks on my blog. But no doubt he would have responded, and then you would have responded again, and the acrimony would have continued to grow more intense. I had to cut it off somewhere.

Besides, frankly, I was getting pretty bored with the whole discussion.

I *have* read your remarks and Ron's, and despite the way you perceive the debate, it appears to me that you got in your share of snide personal remarks as well. (Being a passive-aggressive sort myself, I recognize it when I see it.) It really seems to me that this became a personal battle for you as well as a battle for critical thinking.

In regard to your remark, "I like to allow free speech as much as possible, and unless anyone says anything really vulgar, I let it stand"... I suppose Eric's calling Ron a "fucktard" is not vulgar?

And calling someone a "baby" because he disagrees with your assessment of his "flawed thinking" seems...well...kind of babyish.

You and I are in agreement about one point in all of this, Skeptico. I do take responsibility for allowing the debate to start at all. I shouldn't have done it. In retrospect, it all seems so useless. As is the case in most online arguments, nobody has convinced anyone to change his or her mind regarding the original topic of the debate, and all that's left are some bad feelings. But hey, at least it gave you something to blog about today.

[RevRon]

Smug condescension noted. Wholly unjustified, but noted, nonetheless. You obviously misunderstood my statement where I decided not to participate in your little game any more. Frankly, I found it boring, rather than threatening in any way. When someone thinks they have all the answers, as you apparently do, and gets livid when his profound "truths" aren't universally accepted, there is nothing to be gained from further discourse, and it is time to move on to more positive pastimes. I have a pretty full life beyond the realm of these little blogs, and what some might think to be "matters of consequence" here are little more than minuscule ripples in a very small pond. I actually find them amusing, knowing that the dialog would progress very differently without the shield of anonymity and safety inherent in online discussions.

I certainly don't need to be protected from anything you might say or do, but I do appreciate having someone who cares enough about me to want to defend me when I am attacked. But perhaps such a relationship is just a manifestation of my "flawed thinking." Very well... I can live with that. And given the level of discourse I've seen, I can think of no reason why I would ever want to be included in the ranks of "rational thinkers." Being the fool that I am, I seem to encounter more in life to appreciate than to criticize, thus disqualifying me from donning the mantle of skepticism you seem so proud of. As an added bonus, I've got some great material for my next blog. So thanks! :-)

[Skeptico]

Skeptico replies to RevRon

Re: You obviously misunderstood my statement where I decided not to participate in your little game any more.

My little game? Who started this, again? (You did.)

And as for not participating – isn’t this the second lengthy comment posted here? And didn’t you end your last comment by saying it would be your last? I think you protest too much.

Re: When someone thinks they have all the answers, as you apparently do

No I don’t. That was a Straw Man fallacious argument, btw.

Re: and gets livid when his profound "truths" aren't universally accepted

Again, no. Not livid. No profound truth. I just called you on your fallacious reasoning. Although you are probably right that there is nothing to be gained from further discourse – your mind was too closed to even look at what I wrote in reply to your cites. What could you possibly learn if you ignore all contrary arguments.

Re: I seem to encounter more in life to appreciate than to criticize

And yet you were the one who started with the criticisms. The irony.

[Big Al]

I attended a traditional dojo (Jin Sei Kai) for six years, studying Wado-Ryu and reching second kyu (the second brown belt grade, two grades below first dan) before a serious injury caused me to give it up.

I learnt about extending ki, of course, but I felt no magical power course through me. Much more, it involved acute body awareness, breathing control and optimal.

The kiyi shout, I believe, involved striking on the expire to increase control, not a release of power; also, it can intimidate the opponent and psych up the striker. Without the shout and the rapid expression of breath, target shooting also stresses firing on the exhale for maximum steadiness.

The discipline stressed the avoidance of fights more than combat, and it has a variety of blocks, dodges and misdirections. The main elements in these were a smoothness of application perfected by repeated practice.

Wado-ryu taught me to be more aware of my body than anything else, but I do not think it brought out any mystical power in me. Despite no longer practicing Wado-ryu, I think a lot of its lessons of respect for oneself and others and avoiding conflict are good ones, and I still try to stick to them.

I never felt any ki at all, but my sensei never noticed. In fact he sometimes congratulated me on my extension of ki.

If all ki is is about feeling good, well, yes, Wadu-Ryu did that for me. But so does playing the guitar in public.

[valhar2000]

Revron and Connie, you shot yourselves in the foot here. You kept giving answers not to the things that Skeptico said, but to things that were only similar, and using a lot of other silly rhetorical tricks.

If you had not written anything we might at least entertain the idea that Skeptico was not giving us the whole story, but now...

[Bronze Dog]

So, are they going to extend into gay and suicide jokeoids, next? I've seen this pattern before, and it's not pretty.

How about you two try actually arguing with Skeptico, rather than whacking at the cardboard cutout Hollywood manufactured for you? It helps to read what he actually says.

[Paul]

Holy cow! This is a much less civil debate than the one I have recently engaged in. Although the astrologers I have been speaking to have used most of the same fallacies and excuses to avoid any critical examination of their claims as the accupuncturists you have taken on. I have linked to your What do you mean, "test" astrology? post in several places during the debate (including from one of my recent blog posts), and no one on the astrology side will address the thirty-nine studies you mentioned. I suspect most of them have not even bothered to examine them, as they keep saying things like, "I have never seen a scientific study like the one you describe." Denial of the facts doens't make them go away, people. Whether it be astrology, accupuncture, or homeopathic medicine, the science speaks.

[Rockstar Ryan]

come to NY and take on my 2 million dollar challenge.

What is this 2 million dollar challenge of which you speak? Is it one of those "prove there's no such thing as (insert woo-woo claim here)" challenges?

Can I win the 2 million if I prove that you can't prove there aren't invisible gremlins in my house?

[Corkscrew]

Re: Big Al's post. I did Wado Ryu to 4th kyu (purple belt - about halfway to black). Obviously that's not advanced enough to comment authoritatively, but my understanding of qi is the same as Al's.

When an expert punches someone, even a light tap can cause severe pain. When an amateur punches someone, a hefty whack can basically bounce (especially if they're punching an expert). The difference is a whole range of factors, such as using your hips to drive the punch and twisting your fist as you strike. The most interesting one is the skill of stopping your fist at the right point - if your timing is perfect, the vibration will ride up through the flesh of your arm and increase the shock power of your punch.

It's factors like this one that, as best I can tell, give rise to the metaphor of qi. It's a superb way of visualising the various contributing factors, but IMO it misses the point somewhat to believe that qi is physically real.

As far as the debate is concerned, obviously I'm coming in halfway through it - but from the limited portion I've seen Skeptico would appear to be focusing more firmly on the evidence. I'd suspect that at least some of the antagonism just results from different responses to frustration. Skeptico responds by engaging more strongly, so can come across as angry. Connie and Ron respond by disengaging, so can come across as patronising. Instant vicious cycle.

[Rockstar Ryan]

Skeptico:

Apparently RevRon didn't take it well.

I posted a response but I don't know if it'll get posted so I preserved it on the new blog.

I'm sure I'll be called "one of Skeptico's henchmen/yesmen" or the like, but I'm defending science and reason. I bet this guy has spouted woo like this his whole life, and when he's called out on it he runs to his blog and hides.

[Skeptico]

LMAO – what a dick. Get this:

…never engage someone who claims irrefutable rightness!

.. Yeah - like him. He first tells me my “summary dismissal” of acupuncture “doesn’t wash”. “Summary dismissal”? Actually a detailed review of several studies. No matter. I provided studies that contradicted his point of view – he ignores them because they contradict his preconceived (ie irrefutably right), position. Then he claims I think that I think I “have all the answers”. Me! What alternate universe is he living in? Talk about doesn’t get it.

And get this:

Those feelings, however, are somewhat offset by the knowledge that there will probably always be those who are so heavily invested in their own self-image that any challenge to anything they say or do will be taken as a direct attack upon that self-image, and upon their inherent worth.

Am I nuts or is he describing himself?

I’m glad some other people now have read the exchange and confirm what I thought of it. His version (and to a lesser extent, Connie’s), is just so far from reality I was beginning to doubt my own sanity. They could be in the Bush administration with this degree of denial of the facts.

And btw, I bet he won’t allow your comment. What a coward – needs to turn comment moderation on. Must be because he is so heavily invested in his own self-image that any challenge to anything he says or does will be taken as a direct attack upon that self-image, and upon his inherent worth. Or something.

Hey, congrats on the new blog – just noticed it. Bronze dog hijacked the old one then?

Hey Bronze Dog – didn’t you write some doggerel about people who claim they just couldn’t be bothered to debate any more or who claimed they had more important things to do than debate us skeptics? Ron pulled both of these just before taking his bat and ball and going home. Funny though, for someone who doesn’t care, has more important stuff to do, he writes hell of a lot about it. And this was only his third post on his blog in over six months.

[John Marley]

Connie:

I haven't seen any hostility towards Ron that he didn't invite.

And I believe Skeptico provided reference to several studies that show no significant effect, ie: it's woo.

[Bronze Dog]

Well, after I've gotten some rest, I think you can look forward to #59.

[Tom Foss]

When someone thinks they have all the answers, as you apparently do, and gets livid when his profound "truths" aren't universally accepted, there is nothing to be gained from further discourse,

Oh dear. My irony meter broke at that one. Skeptico, this guy has a serious problem with projection.

[angry doc]

"I freely admit to not being a “critical thinker,”"

"I do not require empirical data to prove to me the existence of things which I do not understand,"

I guess that settles it?

[angry doc]

"I freely admit to not being a “critical thinker,”"

"I do not require empirical data to prove to me the existence of things which I do not understand,"

I guess that settles it?

[Bronze Dog]

Pretty much nailed it there, doc.

So, anyone want to bet he believes in teleportation because he saw some guy in a tuxedo do it to a chick in a sequined outfit after stuffing her in a box?

[Citizen Deux]

Skep, I urge you to not take things so personally. I am a big fan of your site and Connie's! Not everyone chooses to take the hardcore road. One of my biggest dilemma's is when to put on the hard science and when to let things ride. Humor is a great bridge between the woo and non-woo.

I find that as a parent I have had to delve into the woo world (Santa Claus) in order to buoy up an eight year olds burgeoning cynicism. Connie represents a great perspective, one which we should respect - as I do yours. Among all the woo philosophies, one thing I do agree with is that we should recognize ourselves in one another and find that love.

Ciao.

[Skeptico]

angry doc:

You nailed it for sure. As I wrote, the method you use to evaluate claims is if anything more important than the conclusion you draw. If you don’t have a reliable consistent method for rejecting invalid claims, you are in freefall – you can believe in anything.

Citizen Deux:

I didn’t take anything personally. But when something I have written is questioned, it is intellectually dishonest to ignore the challenge. And it pointless to defend my conclusions but not point out the fallacious reasoning being employed, or questions dodged, by my opponent.

[Bourgeois_Rage]

I really don't care for the strawman that skeptics don't enjoy life and can't love. Can people really believe that? I don't just go around scowling at people all day long. But if I had to interact with nobody except the woowoos, I might.

[Tom Foss]

Bourgeois_Rage: Allow me to quote from the only page of The God Delusion which I've read (the book arrived yesterday; cut me some slack!):

'Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it, too?'

Quoting, of course, the sorely missed Douglas Adams. I almost wish there was an afterlife, so I'd still have a chance to shake his hand.

The point is that woos don't understand that we can be fascinated by and awed by and entertained by the world as it is. We find beauty in the surface of nature, in the vastness of the universe, and in the complex framework of laws and forces and everything else that holds it all together. They can't fathom that the world can be all these things to us without some metaphysical 'reason' or 'cause' or whatnot. The only beauty they see is what they imagine to be there.

Some people look to the sky and see evidence of the majesty of God, of countless life forms scuttling between the twinkling planets, of some universal energy field that manifests itself in or around or as people. I look to the sky and I see where we came from (in the most Carl Sagan sense of that phrase) and where we are going. I see the distant past of long-dead luminescent gases and the distant future of an interplanetary humanity. I see stars, and that is enough. And that is more amazing, more unique, and more staggeringly awesome than anything that could be dreamt within the confines of the human imagination.

[Cosmic Connie]

Beautifully written, Tom (your second comment, obviously, not the first; I think projection works both ways). Carl Sagan is one of my favorite writers, and "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors" is one of the best books I've ever read. Believe it or not (and despite the recent hostilities, and notwithstanding the way you might have interpreted Ron's blog post), neither Ron nor I delude ourselves that skepticism/critical thinking, and a sense of wonder and beauty, are mutually exclusive. That would be as foolish and wrong as believing that people who occasionally avail themselves of acupuncture treatments are incapable of sound thinking. I believe that regarding skeptics, Ron was alluding to extreme cases, and was referring not to skeptical ideas but to the way they are sometimes expressed.

As for me, I think that for anyone who examines life instead of taking it for granted (whether we do it by scientific method or something more informal), it is impossible *not* to have a sense of wonder. It's the kind of wonder that Jody Foster's character was expressing in one of the climactic moments of the movie adaptation of Sagan's novel "Contact," which, as it happens, Ron and I watched again just the other night.

Despite my own irrationality, I am perfectly capable of perceiving wonder and beauty in this vast universe without imagining there are fairies or sprites or ghosts. I do, however, believe that the Earth is held aloft by an enormous tortoise.

If you're interested in my views of science and mysticism, here's a link to an essay I wrote over ten years ago, long before "Whirled Musings" was even a twinkle in a blogsophere that did not yet exist:
http://home.swbell.net/moonshad/wet-blanket.html

[Tom Foss]

I think projection works both ways

Perhaps, but it was only working one way in Ron's post.

I believe that regarding skeptics, Ron was alluding to extreme cases

He wasn't alluding to extreme cases, he was alluding to a strawman. These are very different things. Show me an "extreme skeptic" in the Ron model.

Despite my own irrationality, I am perfectly capable of perceiving wonder and beauty in this vast universe without imagining there are fairies or sprites or ghosts.

Just mystical energy that can be stimulated by puncturing the skin with needles.

I do, however, believe that the Earth is held aloft by an enormous tortoise.

And it's turtles all the way down. I love that particular story, but there's a similar tale I like just a bit more, one which shows just how shaky a worldview built on turtle-stacking (even magical energy turtles) really is.

I guess this means we can call Skeptico "Mack."

[Infophile]

And it's turtles all the way down. I love that particular story, but there's a similar tale I like just a bit more, one which shows just how shaky a worldview built on turtle-stacking (even magical energy turtles) really is.

Well, not exactly. And the turtle doesn't support the world directly, either; it has four elephants on top of it that hold the world (this helps to prevent it from tipping over and falling off). There's also no need for it to stand on anything at all. You see, it doesn't stand in space, it swims through it.

Er, wait. That's Discworld, not Earth. But wait again! Earth, or "Roundworld," also exists in a glass sphere held at Unseen University, which is on Discworld, so I see that Connie was indeed right that Earth is supported by a giant turtle - albeit indirectly.

[rockstar ryan]

I think projection works both ways

Not believing in something for a reason<====>believing in something for no reason/fallacious reason.

Sorry, I fail to see how.

[Melissa G]

I am a Wado-Ryu black belt, FWIW, and I, too, believe qi is merely a metaphor for scientifically explainable physical systems of leverage, applied force, and the seemingly-mystical experience of focusing your intent on a goal and seeing it happen. The latter is not mystical at all, but it might seem so to one unacquainted with the complex interactions of the brain and body.

[wrg]

What's an "extreme case" of skepticism, anyway? Where's the harm in seeking truth instead of settling for comfortable notions? Certainly, we're always thinking in imaginary models rather than having perfect knowledge of reality, but we can at least try for the best practical approximation. How can one be too rational?

Although, like anyone, I can be stubborn and irrational at times, I believe that I should always be ready to improve my ideas in the face of evidence. I don't want to end up in some rut like counting the angels on the head of a pin. Depending on how popular the particular rut is, I might well find a lot of company there, but why bother when reality is not only real, but also so much grander than our imagination?

Science doesn't have to be done by professors and their harried grad students. The heart of science is trying something and watching what happens, while trying your best not to deceive yourself or others. Making sure you don't fool yourself is much harder than a lot of people, who "know what they saw", think.

If you want to be open minded, probably the biggest hurdle is accepting that you might be wrong even when you think you just couldn't be. That doesn't mean you should always assume you're wrong, but that you should always keep an eye on the quality of your arguments. That's precisely why Skeptico's so critical of fallacies.

Take offense at attitudes expressed in some of the posts if you want. Some of the calling of names might irk a person, sure. But rejecting reason ('I can think of no reason why I would ever want to be included in the ranks of "rational thinkers."') is simply deciding to fool yourself. People who occasionally avail themselves of acupuncture aren't necessarily incapable of sound thinking, but it's not sound thinking if they believe it works, just because.

[Skeptico]

Infophilia commented on this issue further in his Why Skepticism? (Part 3) post – a pretty good analysis in my opinion. Note that RevRon, despite claiming to find this discussion “boring” etc, just can’t resist commenting again.