fayfreethinkers.com

Dear one and all, this will be my last post for now. I would like to resume the discussion in a few months when my second book is published, as you will surely want to critique it (shoot it down).
In the meantime let me say that I was disappointed to find a debate when I had expected a discussion. Darrel is very good at debate--in fact I have kept a folder of his debates with various fundamentalists--but it is more of a competitive sport than a dialogue.
While I couldn't give it my full attention, at the same time it has really cut into my writing time and energy.

I didn't realize how much we are coming from different perspectives or world views. The following wikipedia articles finally helped clarify the differences:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... ntable+yes
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... ntable=yes
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... ntable=yes
(Oops, my computer time is up and will continue this on the next post)

Okay, I think you, Darrel, and probably most of the group may be described (from above Wikipedia articles) as activist skeptics, "a subset of scientific skeptics who aim to expose in public what they see as the truth behind specific extraordinary claims." Some of what is said in the article on pseudoskepticism also seems to apply, for instance "they become adherents of scientism, the belief system in which science and only science has all the answers to everything." Or, "they seem less inclined to take the same critical stance towards orthodox theories. For example, they may attack alternative methods in medicine (e.g., for a lack of double-blind studies) while ignoring that similar criticisms can be levelled against much conventional medicine."
Also, while your form of skepticism favors orthodoxy, mine probably favors unorthodoxy.
What is perhaps hardest for me to understand is why you would defend the official explanation of 9/11 without even questioning the dozens and dozens of holes in it. I am not talking about specific technical theories, much less bizarre scenarios. Just basic skepticism. Surely it's not because you love and trust Bush and Cheney, or the 9/11 Commission.
Now, I think that I'm also a skeptic, but not an automatic skeptic like this. Nor am I so caught up in winning the argument. Am I sarcastic? You are. Some of my points don't get answered, others get twisted. When I said I didn't care whether science would accept my anecdotal evidence, you accused me of not caring about the truth. I know what is true for ME. And by the way, you have no idea what leg cramps and stiffness might be like.
Most of what we do and decisions we make daily have little to do with the scientific method. And not all the sciences are built on the physics/chemistry model of lab experiments. (You never answered that point.)
I would still like to have the verbatim quote about the ocean that struck me as illogical. VERBATIM!
Like, I'm trying to show you "where I'm coming from" but it's just more ammunition for you to misunderstand and demolish me with. For instance, the reason that I went into some personal medical stuff is to suggest that there's a lot more happening with medical treatment than the science. Something like endemic male chauvinism or racial prejudice can greatly influence medical outcomes. People are unique individuals and don't all respond to the same treatment in the same way.
Well, my time is up again. You can roast my book when it comes out.

coralie.koonce wrote: I would still like to have the verbatim quote about the ocean that struck me as illogical. VERBATIM!

I don't know what the obsession is with this one quote because I can guarantee that it is not the fault of what was said in the film but simply your own misunderstanding of the concept. I can say this because I shared the confusion at first. Anyhow, just so we can lay it to rest already, here is your VERBATIM!

I put in the references from both films we saw that day since I have no idea which one you were referring to.

From the shorter homeopathic film they said "12c is the equivalent of 1 drop in the Atlantic ocean"

From the Dawkins film...The part where he talks about the oceans is in trying to demonstrate the dilution level of remedies that are 30c, which is the recommended minimum dilution according to the founder of homeopathy. "What about a drop in the ocean? It turns out even the sea isn't big enough for the really approved homeopathic recipes. In order to get one molecule of the active substance you'd need to imbibe all the atoms in the solar system."

Both of the above claims are true and can be demonstrated with the simple math that I gave you on the other thread. If this is not clear then it is simply that you are having a hard time grasping it. Math can be tricky for some people.

Tamara

coralie.koonce wrote:Dear one and all, this will be my last post for now.

DAR
Of course, off you go. And you made sure to delete some stuff before you went. I think we need to look at changing that feature. I hate doing research and having someone else delete it because they started the thread. That won't do.

I would like to resume the discussion in a few months when my second book is published, as you will surely want to critique it (shoot it down).

DAR
Probably not. I would rather help you out before you publish, then it's too late. But apparently you aren't interested in hearing critiques of your beliefs.

I didn't realize how much we are coming from different perspectives or world views.

DAR
I didn't realize you had such disdain for science.

In one of the threads you deleted before you ran off you made a comment I think is important to respond to. You quoted some lady, and then mistakenly equated science with positivism, and claimed I, or some other bad skeptics like us, believe science is "omnipotent." That's just an absurd distortion, one of several you have floated. The claims of science are tentative, and open to further to inspection. On some topics like astrology and homeopathy we reach a point where, while we cannot prove the negative that they can't possibly work as claimed, we can say, as the evidence piles up that it is very very unlikely (very x100) that these things work as claimed.

Here is a standard explanation of science I refer to when teaching creationists the basics:

***
"A scientific theory must be tentative and always subject to revision or abandonment in light of facts that are inconsistent with, or falsify, the theory.
A theory that is by its own terms dogmatic, absolutist and never subject to
revision is not a scientific theory.
"The creationists' methods do not take data, weigh it against the
opposing scientific data, and thereafter reach [their] ... conclusions. Instead,
they take the literal wording of the Book of Genesis and attempt to find
scientific support for it." pg. 219
The essential characteristics of science are:
1.) It is guided by natural law.
2.) It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law;
3.) It is testable against the empirical world;
4.) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e., are not necessarily the final word;
5.) It is falsifiable. (Ruse and other science witnesses)." Pg. 217
(--The Creation Controversy, Dorothy Nelkin)
***

So stop this nonsense about people claiming science is omnipotent. Science is just the best game in town if you want to find out the truth about the natural world. It's not omnipotent and no one has claimed it is. If you think you have something better (intuition, "I know what is true for me"), then provide evidence to show how this works better. You cannot because it does not. "I know what is true for me" is the same as the argument from personal religious experience and it fails for the very same reasons. You don't get your own personal truth when it comes to objective reality.

Okay, I think you, Darrel, and probably most of the group may be described (from above Wikipedia articles) as activist skeptics,...

DAR
Oh how you love to put things in boxes.

"For example, they may attack alternative methods in medicine (e.g., for a lack of double-blind studies) while ignoring that similar criticisms can be levelled against much conventional medicine."

DAR
Name one. Be careful when you quote someone's mere opinion from wiki. It means very little.
Conventional medicine has a lack of double-blind studies? You tried a litany of attacks against conventional medicine and I responded to each and every one of them last night. All of it was political and irrelevant, nothing even addressed evidence based medicine versus the only other option: "medical claims without evidence." Arrogant grumpy doctors, corrupt officials, capitalism gone rampant, lack of health insurance, are all red herrings and have nothing whatsoever to do with the question at hand: Science, evidence based medicine versus new age claptrap based on anecdotal evidence and "ancient wisdom."

Also, while your form of skepticism favors orthodoxy, mine probably favors unorthodoxy.

DAR
I don't give a flip about the orthodoxy box. Sometimes orthodoxy is right. When it is, when it has the evidence and measurable results on it's side, I will agree with it. My form of skepticism favors finding out what is verifiable and true. Favoring unorthodoxy is an unnecessary bias that can only skew the results. There is no reason to "favor" either. Follow the evidence. You have a bias against orthodoxy because you fancy yourself a "divergent thinker" and a maverick. Sometimes a position is held only by mavericks, because it is wrong. In fact, this happens a lot.

What is perhaps hardest for me to understand is why you would defend the official explanation of 9/11 without even questioning the dozens and dozens of holes in it.

DAR
Well there we go. You've danced around quite a bit but now you admit you believe in this stuff. If it has "dozens and dozens of holes in it" you shouldn't have any trouble demonstrating a single example of one of these holes. When can we look forward to you doing this? Oh, you ran off for a couple months. See the links I have provided. Get informed on this subject because right now you are not informed. You've been reading junk. Read something other than material that supports your own biases, and supports your desire to be a "maverick" and have that special inside knowledge that only conspiracy believers have the inside scoop on. Do you have 9/11 conspiracy stuff in your book? Uh oh.

Am I sarcastic?

DAR
Would you like examples?

Some of my points don't get answered,...

DAR
If you have a point you would like answered that is not, just ask. That's what I do.

...others get twisted.

DAR
You give not one example.

I know what is true for ME.

DAR
Oh no. You can't have that one. That's a biggie. When you get stuck believing in stuff that doesn't make sense you don't get to create your own objective reality as a solution. It isn't the case that homeopathy (or whatever therapy) is true in Coralie-land but not true in Darrel-land. We are stuck with the one.
My mom says the same thing about Jesus returning invisibly in 1914. It's true for her (and each of the 10 million other completely deluded Jehovah's Witnesses who believe this). It's true for them. Unfortunately, it's not true to anyone else, and more importantly it's not true in reality and the claim that it is, is not worth a penny more in value than your claim that you "know what is true for [YOU]."
Could any comment be more opposed to critical thinking and an honest objective search for knowledge? I say this because Coralie is involved with Dick Bennet's group that promotes critical thinking. It's time someone stood up and pointed out this silliness. No one is going to take them seriously and that would be a shame.

And by the way, you have no idea what leg cramps and stiffness might be like.

DAR
And when you return can we look forward to you providing evidence for how you know this to be true?

And not all the sciences are built on the physics/chemistry model of lab experiments. (You never answered that point.)

DAR
I never claimed, and would never claim "all the sciences are built on the physics/chemistry model of lab experiments" so why would I respond to a strawman like that?

I would still like to have the verbatim quote about the ocean that struck me as illogical. VERBATIM!

DAR
At the meeting I explained this in my presention, the BBC clip explained this, the Dawkins clip explained this, Dr. Cherry tried to explain this to you (exponentials: doubling the rice on the checkerboard), I emailed links to you and everyone which explain this, Tamara probably spent 1/2 an hour writing her explanation for you, I tried again in this forum to explain this to you, twice. Tonight she went and transcribed, VERBATIM, the parts from the video clips in question.

Is there anything else we can do for you?

If you are in an algebra class and not getting it, don't blame the teacher. Everyone else is getting it. Maybe it's you and you should just say, "sorry but I am not getting this." It's not the fault of some quote in the movie (which you have been provided the links for and can watch at your leisure online!). I am sorry you don't seem to understand this straightforward ocean dilution analogy. Maybe you are just not going to get it.

You can roast my book when it comes out.

DAR
Why would I do that? Then it's too late. Why don't you try being open to learning this basic stuff before you write a book with howlers in it? That's my strong recommendation. Then perhaps it will have more "Models" and less "Muddles." I hope you are working with an editor.

D.

Darrel wrote:And you made sure to delete some stuff before you went.

I don't think so. I moved some threads to more appropriate forums, but that's it.

Savonarola wrote:

Darrel wrote:And you made sure to delete some stuff before you went.

I don't think so. I moved some threads to more appropriate forums, but that's it.

DAR
No, I'm quite sure. Yesterday on the forum she made reference to "positivism" and claimed some believe science to be "omnipotent." If you put positivism in the search engine you won't find it except for my references to it being missing. The last reference to "omnipotent" not counting my references to the deleted post, was in January.
So here is a concern. If someone starts a thread and there is a lot of discussion and research put into responses in the thread, if someone doesn't like how it's going and they delete the first post of the thread, is everything gone? That's not good. I hate that having lost good material over at NWApolitics. I am not sure if it is just her own post that was deleted (which is fine) or a whole thread that got nixed (not fine). If anyone can delete a thread because they started it, this should be changed. Since people can always edit their posts (if they join) deleting should probably be by permission only if it can effect the posts of other people.

Oh, and I noticed how you linked these pseudo-science posts over to the science section. She can still find them here but click on them and BOOM, you are taken to the science section. Excellent.

D.
-------------------
ps Does this place have a recycle bin? I thought I saw that somewhere. You could look there.

Just popped by to see if anyone was saying anything nasty about me, which of course they were.
I didn't delete any threads because I don't know how and it didn't occur to me as something to do.
Not only is Darrel turning me into a monster ideologue for the game's pleasure but now he thinks I know a lot more about computers than I do.

coralie.koonce wrote: Not only is Darrel turning me into a monster ideologue

DAR
So now other people are making you (your words) "gullible" "foolish" "demolishing you" and pushing you to be a "fundamentalist" and now this latest, I have turned you into a "monster ideologue." You have quite an imagination, and a bit of a persecution complex. It's unfortunate that your beliefs got brought into this. I would much rather talk about the topics and completely ignore your personal stuff. I have zero interest in that. ZERO. But then what would you do if you couldn't complain all the time that people are calling you names (no one has) or beating you up or making you into something you aren't?

So I will gladly ignore anything with regard to what you believe. Don't care. Wipe the slate clean. I welcome that because then I can stop tip-toeing around and turn the burners up on this crack-pot new age hooey. I've been holding back out of the kindness of my heart.

Now, do you have any other reasons for not responding to points or answering questions?

...now he thinks I know a lot more about computers than I do.

DAR
I know how little you know about computers. I taught you how to cut and paste, remember? If you didn't delete the post on purpose you did it by accident. My concern was that a thread (entire chain of posts) was deleted and that this included posts from others. SAV got it figured out.

D.

Mary Midgley, an English moral philosopher, used the word OMNICOMPETENT. Neither she nor I ever said that scientists were or claimed to be omnipotent.

Darrel, please don't keep comparing me or my beliefs to your mother and her beliefs. That may be part of the problem here.
I believe you have turned free-thinking into an ideology and are arguing with me as if I had some contrary ideology. You will do better arguing with creationists than somebody who has a more nuanced POV if you consistently refuse to recognize those nuances.
Apparently I am too much of a free-thinker for the Free Thinkers.

coralie.koonce wrote:Mary Midgley, an English moral philosopher, used the word OMNICOMPETENT. Neither she nor I ever said that scientists were or claimed to be omnipotent.

DAR
Okay. But since neither science nor scientists claim science is "omnicompetent" I don't see how this changes much if anything. It is still attacking a strawman version of science. There are lots of areas where science has no competence whatsoever (spiritual realms etc).
Science does seem to be the best game in town for discerning the truth about claims regarding the material world. If you know of something better do tell.

"I know what is true for me" doesn't count.

D.

coralie.koonce wrote:Darrel, please don't keep comparing me or my beliefs to your mother and her beliefs. That may be part of the problem here.

DAR
You don't quote what you are referring to so I have to guess. Perhaps you are referring to this comment of mine?

"I know what is true for me" is the same as the argument from personal religious experience and it fails for the very same reasons. You don't get your own personal truth when it comes to objective reality."

I'll try to not compare your beliefs to my mothers. Why don't you try to not assert the exact same sort of beliefs and make it easy for me to do this?

COR
I believe you have turned free-thinking into an ideology and are arguing with me as if I had some contrary ideology.

DAR
I have not referred to any ideology. Try to avoid putting me in another box please. It's pretty clear that on several specific issues here we have disagreed. No need to call it an ideology. I have tried to be very specific and respond to your points directly. I hope you will do the same so we can learn something new and advance our knowledge about these subjects. Are you up to that challenge?

COR
You will do better arguing with creationists than somebody who has a more nuanced POV if you consistently refuse to recognize those nuances.

DAR
It's pretty clear that our disagreements here amount to much more than nuance.

COR
Apparently I am too much of a free-thinker for the Free Thinkers.

DAR
I wish I could agree with you but I cannot. I think it is more likely you can't handle the freethinking around here and aren't enough of a freethinker or you would defend your claims and respond to points rather than pop up with a snipe only to quickly run away.

Again, why don't you consider taking my offer of not making this about you, or even your beliefs. I am not interested in attacking you, or your beliefs. That's just a distraction you keep bringing up. I am interested in finding out if the claims of homeopathy and the 9/11 conspiracy claims are likely to be true. If they are, I want to believe in them and will believe in them. So lets set aside your personal beliefs regarding these things so you can stop feeling like you are being attacked every time I critically examine these topics (or whatever topics). It's really not about you. I really don't care what you believe about these things, other than... hmmm... to the extent that you are writing a book about critical thinking and it would be a real shame if you don't have your ducks in a row. I would like to endorse your book for others to read and I can't do that if it has a bunch of howlers in it.

Homeopathy and 9/11 conspiracy theories are howlers.

This is not difficult to show.

Someone (not you of course) who doesn't know this, does not have their ducks in a row. Getting ducks in a row and removing howlers is something I, and others around here, have a knack at. You can be the big strong freethinker you want to be and make free use of this golden opportunity to test some of these claims by asking questions and examining the contrasting evidence about these things, or not. But please don't ask anyone to swallow this notion that running away from this opportunity is "being too much of a freethinker." As you know, it's precisely the opposite of that.

D.

With all respects to both Darrel and Coralie, this is the sort of stuff that drives me crazy. It is the source of many of the rants I have made on this forum regarding the creeping menace of post-modernism both within and outside academia. The basic project of the Enlightenment was that human reason and empiracle evidence were the best sources of knowledge, not mysticism, myth, superstition, and authority. The Enlightenment project was and is that those sources of knowledge would guide us as we built a society based on reason and evidence rather than one on Gods, and tradition, and authority. Ideologically, we all are born from the Enlightenment. Conservatism itself, via Edmund Burke particularly, is in fact, a reaction against the Enlightenment. For the longest time the "Left" was allied with science and reason against conservatism that rejected it. This has changed only in the last few decades. But it is still why most "freethinkers" are on the political left (there are some exceptions of course). But the confluence of all us lefties on here is no coincidence. It is part of the heritage of our intellectual/political/philosophical history.
But this has changed. The "New Left" that arose in the 1960's threw off the Enlightenment rationalism of the "Old Left". Thus they abandoned the Enlightenment project. Many see the Enlightenment as the enemy. Science and reason as THE problem. This is an inherently conservative position, yet it is happening amongst the "New Left". The rise of New Age superstition, mysticism, and relativism is the symptom of the New Left (that's what I mean when I keep saying "Froofy Lefties" though I myself am a proud Enlightenment descendent of the "Old Left"). This post-modernism springs from the New left and is creeping everywhere. Even in History, there are historians, almost all of them New Left 1960's folk who argue that all history is a social construct. That any version is as good or as "true" as any other. We see it regarding science as well.
Epistemological Relativism has to stop. Folks have to understand that there really is a 'truth' about the world out there, whether we can get to it or not. Things cannot be both A and Not A at the same time. How we attempt to get at that truth is not equal. They must learn to understand that if things are simply "True for me" then they are espousing relativism, and then we go back to not using reason and evidence and might as well invent new religions and superstitions and incantations etc. etc. Then the Enlightenment is dead. We step back. It is conservatism.
We are defending the very Enlightenment itself here from the dark ages. The battle is vitally important and terribly frustrating to have to still be doing in the 21st Century.

I have been put in a false position on the Forum and very much resent it. These discussions which I entered at Darrel's invitation are not about the topics I'm most interested in and are taking time away from my work, yet without presenting my own ideas properly.
I didn't know this was going to be a full-bore debate or that I would be put in the strawman position of upholding oversimplified beliefs that in fact I don't hold. At the outset I told Darrel that I didn't know much about homeopathy and wasn't a strong defender of it. I also told him that I wouldn't have much time to be on the forum because I am trying to complete a second book.
But when I try to leave the field he acts like I'm running away.
I didn't realize that the only way Darrel interacts intellectually is in this pseudo-skeptic debate mode.
Things I've said off the top of my head or included as context for why I think the way I do are treated as "claims" or attempts to prove a case by anecdotes. I am not some GD Creationist, or even a New Age fundamentalist and I don't hold rigid ideological beliefs of any kind.
As for conspiracy theories, I tried to break us out of that box with the link to the Lobster article above, which evidently nobody read. In my current book about ideologies and propaganda, I try to make the distinction between classic (paranoid) conspiracy theories and the investigation of actual political/legal conspiracies often by investigative reporters such as Seymour Hersh or Greg Palast and exemplified by the Rolling Stone article by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in which he summed up the evidence for massive electronic and other voting fraud in the 2004 election. There is a range of beliefs under the one term "conspiracy theory" and some have credibility others none. Tony, you are quite right about the intellectual relativism that's going around with half-digested Derrida and Foucault and their ilk. That's not my problem.
Maybe if somebody would just read my first book (in the public library, MODELS, MYTHS AND MUDDLES) you wouldn't keep laying all this crap on me.

coralie.koonce wrote: These discussions which I entered at Darrel's invitation are not about the topics I'm most interested in...

DAR
Then talk about the topics you are most interested in. You started these threads and chose the topics.

and are taking time away from my work, yet without presenting my own ideas properly.

DAR
Present your own ideas however you like. I am always careful to directly quote what I am responding to in order to minimize this problem. It would be really nice if you could do the same.

At the outset I told Darrel that I didn't know much about homeopathy and wasn't a strong defender of it.

DAR
Good, then there should be no problem with these strong criticisms of homeopathy. Can we try to talk about these things without constantly going back to your personal beliefs about them? Please?

I also told him that I wouldn't have much time to be on the forum because I am trying to complete a second book.
But when I try to leave the field he acts like I'm running away.

DAR
I should add that you taunt before you say you are going to leave. To quote: "Apparently I am too much of a free-thinker for the Free Thinkers."

I didn't realize that the only way Darrel interacts intellectually is in this pseudo-skeptic debate mode.

DAR
Can you please stop with the phony boxes? That would be nice. I am sorry that you find it necessary to think a criticism of an idea like homeopathy or 9/11 conspiracy theories is an attack on you. I have proposed solutions but you don't seem interested in trying them. Talk about the issues without reference to your personal beliefs about them. It is possible.

As for conspiracy theories, I tried to break us out of that box with the link to the Lobster article above, which evidently nobody read.

DAR
I have affirmed for you twice here and once in an email that I have looked at it. Let me put sugar on it and say I couldn't be less impressed. If you see anything specifically of merit, please point it out and I will be glad to look at it in more detail. Did you look at the material I gave you? I promise not to call you a liar if you say you did.

In my current book about ideologies and propaganda, I try to make the distinction between classic (paranoid) conspiracy theories and the investigation of actual political/legal conspiracies often by investigative reporters such as Seymour Hersh or Greg Palast and exemplified by the Rolling Stone article by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in which he summed up the evidence for massive electronic and other voting fraud in the 2004 election.

DAR
Seymour Hersh can be good but he has been really really wrong lately on some of his very specific predictions regarding Iran. I was on Greg Palast's email list for a long time. He is witty and caustic but you have to look at his claims very carefully. Sometimes he goes way over the top. His chapter about peak oil in his book was absolute garbage and has been thoroughly roasted on this forum. I was really impressed by RF Kennedy's evidence for massive electronic voting fraud until I read a thorough rebuttal to it. Not much was left standing and I lost a lot of respect for him at that time. Unfortunately there is a lot of crapola floating around on that issue. It's been quite a while since I looked at it.

Let me know if you are interested into looking into more detail about these subjects. The R.F. Kennedy article would certainly deserve it's own thread. It's pretty old news too.

It might be an idea to consider more than two categories here. You give:

"...classic (paranoid) conspiracy theories and the investigation of actual political/legal conspiracies..."

Those are two main poles of course but I think it is more of a sliding scale. There is a big gray area in the middle and guys like Palast are quite capable of going back and forth between the two.

D.