Should We Just Listen, Or Show That They Are Delusional?

Ways and means of promoting skepticism
skepticalnotcynical
New Member
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 1:21 pm

Should We Just Listen, Or Show That They Are Delusional?

Postby skepticalnotcynical » Tue Apr 17, 2012 8:19 am

I was wondering. Should we just listen to the woo-woo people talk, or should we correct them? I don't really mind on what someone want to believe, but I just can't stand it when they go and persuade people (who don't know much) to believe that something is true. For example, a guy persuades a innocent friend to seek homeopathy for psoriasis, rather than taking conventional medicine. So, should we stand still? Or should we correct them?

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Has No Life
Posts: 19788
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Should We Just Listen, Or Show That They Are Delusional?

Postby Gawdzilla Sama » Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:19 am

I do my best to put them out of my misery.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"

WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

Tom Palven
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4831
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 12:29 am

Re: Should We Just Listen, Or Show That They Are Delusional?

Postby Tom Palven » Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:29 am

Maybe a gentle hint regarding the the track record for homeopathy would be the way to go, creating a shadow of doubt that your friend might pursue. Persionally, I doubt I've ever persuaded anyone of anything, from my parents, to girls I wanted to have sex with. People have to come to conclusions on their own in an environment where they feel safe and comfortable. Liquor sometimes helps with this..
If one can be taught to believe absurdities, one can commit atrocities. --Voltaire

CMurdock
Poster
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 4:51 pm

Re: Should We Just Listen, Or Show That They Are Delusional?

Postby CMurdock » Tue Aug 14, 2012 4:56 pm

skepticalnotcynical wrote:I was wondering. Should we just listen to the woo-woo people talk, or should we correct them? I don't really mind on what someone want to believe, but I just can't stand it when they go and persuade people (who don't know much) to believe that something is true. For example, a guy persuades a innocent friend to seek homeopathy for psoriasis, rather than taking conventional medicine. So, should we stand still? Or should we correct them?

I have a better idea.

Since psoriasis is not a fatal illness, why not let people try homeopathy if they want to? Maybe it will work and maybe it won't. I should also point out that you are not in a position to "correct" anyone, since all you have is your own personal opinion.

User avatar
Austin Harper
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4855
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit
Contact:

Re: Should We Just Listen, Or Show That They Are Delusional?

Postby Austin Harper » Wed Aug 15, 2012 4:52 pm

The problem is that if you let people think homeopathy will work on non-lethal ailments they're more likely to think it will work on lethal ailments as well.
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10702
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Should We Just Listen, Or Show That They Are Delusional?

Postby xouper » Thu Aug 16, 2012 6:11 am

CMurdock wrote: I should also point out that you are not in a position to "correct" anyone, since all you have is your own personal opinion.

Is that your personal opinion?





Sorry, I could not resist that. :D

User avatar
fromthehills
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9890
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:01 am
Location: Woostone

Re: Should We Just Listen, Or Show That They Are Delusional?

Postby fromthehills » Thu Aug 16, 2012 1:01 pm

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but everyone isn't entitled to their own facts."

And

"Science isn't a democracy, it's a dictatorship. The evidence does the dictating."

User avatar
Austin Harper
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4855
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit
Contact:

Re: Should We Just Listen, Or Show That They Are Delusional?

Postby Austin Harper » Mon Aug 20, 2012 8:04 pm

Hear hear!
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

Bunyip
Regular Poster
Posts: 741
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 11:56 pm
Location: Adelaide South Australia

Re: Should We Just Listen, Or Show That They Are Delusional?

Postby Bunyip » Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:16 am



Should We Just Listen, Or Show That They Are Delusional?

Post #1 Postby skepticalnotcynical » Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:49 pm
I was wondering. Shld we just listen to the woo-woo people talk, or should we correct them?


I try to avoid correcting others,preferring to simply remove myself from the worst idiots. A skeptic,I try to avoid truth claims,preferring to opine. I claim no absolute truths. However,it is hard to sometimes resit,when confronted in person by some talking penises..

EG;

Young earth creationist loons
The 'evolution is just a theory' ignoramuses
Holocaust deniers
9/11 truthers
Ufologists and 'god is an alien' crackpots.'
Paranormal advocates.
Woo 'medicine' such as homeopathy,naturopathy etc.
---and Llibertarians. :twisted:
Man is not so much a rational animal as a rationalising one.

justinrapper
BANNED
Posts: 1022
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:32 pm

Re: Should We Just Listen, Or Show That They Are Delusional?

Postby justinrapper » Sat Oct 20, 2012 2:38 pm

I think Skeptics should just listen to show that they (non Skeptics) are delusional. Because if Skeptics speak out it will expose their own delusions and give up any advantage they held. Skeptics have less to be delusional about because they have less to deal with. After applying critical thinking and selective processing the only knowledge left is about themselves. Then subtract from that their skepticism and you have very much a blank, a new starting point and, who knows where this delusion ends.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29446
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Should We Just Listen, Or Show That They Are Delusional?

Postby Gord » Sun Oct 21, 2012 5:11 am

justinrapper wrote:I think Skeptics should just listen to show that they (non Skeptics) are delusional. Because if Skeptics speak out it will expose their own delusions and give up any advantage they held. Skeptics have less to be delusional about because they have less to deal with. After applying critical thinking and selective processing the only knowledge left is about themselves. Then subtract from that their skepticism and you have very much a blank, a new starting point and, who knows where this delusion ends.

Yes, but you're a troll, so your advice is only hurtful and should not be followed. :lol:
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

justinrapper
BANNED
Posts: 1022
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:32 pm

Re: Should We Just Listen, Or Show That They Are Delusional?

Postby justinrapper » Sun Oct 21, 2012 12:09 pm

Bunyip wrote:


Should We Just Listen, Or Show That They Are Delusional?

Post #1 Postby skepticalnotcynical » Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:49 pm
I was wondering. Shld we just listen to the woo-woo people talk, or should we correct them?


I try to avoid correcting others,preferring to simply remove myself from the worst idiots. A skeptic,I try to avoid truth claims,preferring to opine. I claim no absolute truths. However,it is hard to sometimes resit,when confronted in person by some talking penises..

EG;

Young earth creationist loons
The 'evolution is just a theory' ignoramuses
Holocaust deniers
9/11 truthers
Ufologists and 'god is an alien' crackpots.'
Paranormal advocates.
Woo 'medicine' such as homeopathy,naturopathy etc.
---and Llibertarians. :twisted:

You are the typical Skeptics who wants to cut through the hoseplay and get the talking penises to back up their claims with evidence. You would sooner muzzle them if that wasn't so premature in the encounter. From your list one can gather you found most to be distasteful. However, as you confessed, you found it hard to resist a talking penis. Most Skeptics would.

User avatar
bigtim
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:04 pm
Custom Title: Skeptical Berserker
Location: Miðgarðr

Re: Should We Just Listen, Or Show That They Are Delusional?

Postby bigtim » Mon Oct 22, 2012 7:17 pm

I recently got into a ghost discussion with someone. I started with the “if I believed ghosts were real that would be cool, but I don’t so it’s not” and to that they replied with all this nonsense about how it proved their existence.

So I said “no {!#%@} way, it’s Leprechauns”

Then I went and systematically used all their data to support Leprechauns.

They now believe it’s not ghosts but Leprechauns…..
~
BigTim
"I'm not entirely convinced that ValHalla isn't real."

justinrapper
BANNED
Posts: 1022
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:32 pm

Re: Should We Just Listen, Or Show That They Are Delusional?

Postby justinrapper » Mon Oct 22, 2012 8:00 pm

bigtim wrote:I recently got into a ghost discussion with someone. I started with the “if I believed ghosts were real that would be cool, but I don’t so it’s not” and to that they replied with all this nonsense about how it proved their existence.

So I said “no {!#%@} way, it’s Leprechauns”

Then I went and systematically used all their data to support Leprechauns.

They now believe it’s not ghosts but Leprechauns…..

There is a big difference. You were working with a bunch of already believers and just got them to switch. I am working with a bunch of Skeptics who won't listen or show that they are delusional. Tough call to make with this OP.

User avatar
bigtim
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:04 pm
Custom Title: Skeptical Berserker
Location: Miðgarðr

Re: Should We Just Listen, Or Show That They Are Delusional?

Postby bigtim » Mon Oct 22, 2012 8:03 pm

justinrapper wrote:There is a big difference. You were working with a bunch of already believers and just got them to switch. I am working with a bunch of Skeptics who won't listen or show that they are delusional. Tough call to make with this OP.



Well, I'm back and have been getting caught up and I don't know what you're trying to convince anyone of. Do you have a "nutshell" post or speech about what you're trying to convince SkepticsTM of?
~

BigTim

"I'm not entirely convinced that ValHalla isn't real."

justinrapper
BANNED
Posts: 1022
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:32 pm

Re: Should We Just Listen, Or Show That They Are Delusional?

Postby justinrapper » Mon Oct 22, 2012 8:10 pm

bigtim wrote:
justinrapper wrote:There is a big difference. You were working with a bunch of already believers and just got them to switch. I am working with a bunch of Skeptics who won't listen or show that they are delusional. Tough call to make with this OP.



Well, I'm back and have been getting caught up and I don't know what you're trying to convince anyone of. Do you have a "nutshell" post or speech about what you're trying to convince SkepticsTM of?

Just trying to say Skepticism is not healthy. Don't see it working for the people who advocate it. You gotta live and let live. OP Why you might not be a Skeptic................. but just an insecure person.
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=18799&start=120

User avatar
bigtim
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:04 pm
Custom Title: Skeptical Berserker
Location: Miðgarðr

Re: Should We Just Listen, Or Show That They Are Delusional?

Postby bigtim » Mon Oct 22, 2012 8:17 pm

justinrapper wrote:Just trying to say Skepticism is not healthy.


Here, drink this, trust me it's good for you.....

I think before one enters a conversation about skepticism we have to define it.

what does it mean to you?
~

BigTim

"I'm not entirely convinced that ValHalla isn't real."

justinrapper
BANNED
Posts: 1022
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:32 pm

Re: Should We Just Listen, Or Show That They Are Delusional?

Postby justinrapper » Mon Oct 22, 2012 8:24 pm

bigtim wrote:
justinrapper wrote:Just trying to say Skepticism is not healthy.


Here, drink this, trust me it's good for you.....

I think before one enters a conversation about skepticism we have to define it.

what does it mean to you?

I started with David Hume the first Skeptic and progressed to Carl Sagan.

User avatar
Austin Harper
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4855
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit
Contact:

Re: Should We Just Listen, Or Show That They Are Delusional?

Postby Austin Harper » Mon Oct 22, 2012 8:27 pm

Good luck getting a real response from him on that, Tim.
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

User avatar
bigtim
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:04 pm
Custom Title: Skeptical Berserker
Location: Miðgarðr

Re: Should We Just Listen, Or Show That They Are Delusional?

Postby bigtim » Mon Oct 22, 2012 8:30 pm

justinrapper wrote:I started with David Hume the first Skeptic and progressed to Carl Sagan.


Those are people not a definition and it doesn't tell me what it means to you.
~

BigTim

"I'm not entirely convinced that ValHalla isn't real."

justinrapper
BANNED
Posts: 1022
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:32 pm

Re: Should We Just Listen, Or Show That They Are Delusional?

Postby justinrapper » Mon Oct 22, 2012 10:15 pm

bigtim wrote:
justinrapper wrote:I started with David Hume the first Skeptic and progressed to Carl Sagan.


Those are people not a definition and it doesn't tell me what it means to you.

Sorry Bigtim. A lot of material has already been covered while you were away. I referenced Hume as the philosophical basis for Skepticism, Carl Saga as an advocate for scientific Skepticism and several links to studies on critical thinking and its limits. Where programs designed to increase critical thinking and problem solving actually saw a decline in both in test scores.
When you separate the ideal from the possible it still comes down to the individuals ability and disposition. And dull minds will continue to remain dull no matter what you wring it through.
Waiting for the great debate Obama vs Mitt. Ours will have to push it for another day. Welcome back.

User avatar
bigtim
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:04 pm
Custom Title: Skeptical Berserker
Location: Miðgarðr

Re: Should We Just Listen, Or Show That They Are Delusional?

Postby bigtim » Mon Oct 22, 2012 10:36 pm

justinrapper wrote:
bigtim wrote:
justinrapper wrote:I started with David Hume the first Skeptic and progressed to Carl Sagan.


Those are people not a definition and it doesn't tell me what it means to you.

Sorry Bigtim. A lot of material has already been covered while you were away. I referenced Hume as the philosophical basis for Skepticism, Carl Saga as an advocate for scientific Skepticism….


Thank you. But I’m aware of both Hume’s and Sagan’s work.

That still doesn’t answer my question. When you enter into a discussion about a topic it’s best to define the topic per each person’s perspective. You linking to two individuals and their work does not tell me what your definition of skeptic is.

Which, since you brought up Hume, I’d think you would be eager to focus on the definition of terms before engaging in any discussion.

justinrapper wrote:…. and several links to studies on critical thinking and its limits. Where programs designed to increase critical thinking and problem solving actually saw a decline in both in test scores.
When you separate the ideal from the possible it still comes down to the individuals ability and disposition. And dull minds will continue to remain dull no matter what you wring it through.


So, you’re saying stupid is as stupid does and you can’t fix stupid? Is that your point?
~

BigTim

"I'm not entirely convinced that ValHalla isn't real."

justinrapper
BANNED
Posts: 1022
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:32 pm

Re: Should We Just Listen, Or Show That They Are Delusional?

Postby justinrapper » Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:21 pm

bigtim wrote:
justinrapper wrote:
bigtim wrote:
justinrapper wrote:I started with David Hume the first Skeptic and progressed to Carl Sagan.


Those are people not a definition and it doesn't tell me what it means to you.

Sorry Bigtim. A lot of material has already been covered while you were away. I referenced Hume as the philosophical basis for Skepticism, Carl Saga as an advocate for scientific Skepticism….


Thank you. But I’m aware of both Hume’s and Sagan’s work.

That still doesn’t answer my question. When you enter into a discussion about a topic it’s best to define the topic per each person’s perspective. You linking to two individuals and their work does not tell me what your definition of skeptic is.

Which, since you brought up Hume, I’d think you would be eager to focus on the definition of terms before engaging in any discussion.

justinrapper wrote:…. and several links to studies on critical thinking and its limits. Where programs designed to increase critical thinking and problem solving actually saw a decline in both in test scores.
When you separate the ideal from the possible it still comes down to the individuals ability and disposition. And dull minds will continue to remain dull no matter what you wring it through.


So, you’re saying stupid is as stupid does and you can’t fix stupid? Is that your point?

Or a lack of epistemological understanding.

User avatar
bigtim
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:04 pm
Custom Title: Skeptical Berserker
Location: Miðgarðr

Re: Should We Just Listen, Or Show That They Are Delusional?

Postby bigtim » Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:35 pm

justinrapper wrote:
bigtim wrote:
justinrapper wrote:
bigtim wrote:
justinrapper wrote:I started with David Hume the first Skeptic and progressed to Carl Sagan.


Those are people not a definition and it doesn't tell me what it means to you.

Sorry Bigtim. A lot of material has already been covered while you were away. I referenced Hume as the philosophical basis for Skepticism, Carl Saga as an advocate for scientific Skepticism….


Thank you. But I’m aware of both Hume’s and Sagan’s work.

That still doesn’t answer my question. When you enter into a discussion about a topic it’s best to define the topic per each person’s perspective. You linking to two individuals and their work does not tell me what your definition of skeptic is.

Which, since you brought up Hume, I’d think you would be eager to focus on the definition of terms before engaging in any discussion.

justinrapper wrote:…. and several links to studies on critical thinking and its limits. Where programs designed to increase critical thinking and problem solving actually saw a decline in both in test scores.
When you separate the ideal from the possible it still comes down to the individuals ability and disposition. And dull minds will continue to remain dull no matter what you wring it through.


So, you’re saying stupid is as stupid does and you can’t fix stupid? Is that your point?

Or a lack of epistemological understanding.


I'm very glad you favor Hume and Epistemology -- both those fit into carefully defining the terms as you see them when you engage in a discussion.

So, now that you've laid the foundation of your perspective, can you share your working knowledge of skepticism?
~

BigTim

"I'm not entirely convinced that ValHalla isn't real."

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29446
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: Should We Just Listen, Or Show That They Are Delusional?

Postby Gord » Tue Oct 23, 2012 5:14 am

bigtim wrote:So, now that you've laid the foundation of your perspective, can you share your working knowledge of skepticism?

No, he doesn't answer actual questions. Usually he makes up his own questions and then doesn't answer them either. :mrgreen:
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

justinrapper
BANNED
Posts: 1022
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 4:32 pm

Re: Should We Just Listen, Or Show That They Are Delusional?

Postby justinrapper » Wed Oct 31, 2012 4:32 pm

My working knowledge of Skepticism? Skeptics are generally uneducated and the ones who are prey on those less educated than them. Carl Sagan and Richard Muller comes to mind.
Richard Muller was skeptical about Climate Change and then turned believer after he repeated the test and arrived at the same conclusion. He then sought to publish and promote his work even after it was denied peer review.
Carl Sagan was obsessed with flying saucers and aliens. He later turned Skeptic but continued to exploit the public's fascination with UFOs and the paranormal by writing several books on UFOs and alien contacts.
My experience with Skeptics on Skeptic forums was less than noteworthy. Just a bunch of shallow insecure people wallowing in doubt and uncertainty while claiming to apply critical thinking but lacking the fundamentals of sound reasoning.
Skepticism is at its best when challenging religion or the paranormal. But when applied to issues like Climate Change, vaccines and autism, 9/11, moon landing and other generally accepted conclusions. It is ignorance and not critical thinking that underlies their skepticism.
Even in the areas of religion and the paranormal Skeptics are a fringe minority. Their foolishness is as the Dutch philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard, wisely said: “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”
I believe Skeptic forums are not the place to discuss topics of general interest or matters of complex nature. It is the place to discuss Skeptics, their skepticism, their doubts, their uncertainty and their insecurity.


Return to “Skeptical Activism”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest