* * * * *
Before posting, please read the
Charter.
If you are new to proboards, you might find it helpful to read
these suggestions on finding the most recent posts.
It is not a perfectly accurate analogy, as no analogy is, but I was struck by how there are some clear parallels between the inability of the Democratic political party of the United States to combat the smear tactics of Republican political party of the United States and the inability of us believers to combat the smear tactics of the skeptic movement. (Ironically, I believe that most skeptics in the United States at least lean pretty strongly towards the Democratic Party - as do I, though I am clearly not a skeptic) The general idea of the post is that the Democrats seem to have a hard time learning that the Republicans are, for the most part, uninterested in facts, and thus facts have little to no effect in changing these people's minds. As it says in the article:
"Recent town hall displays -- including the swastikas and death threats, explicit and implied -- prove again that it's past time that progressives got a clue and stopped bringing letter openers to gun fights."
Democrats are not the only ones who need to get a clue. Too many people on our side in the skeptic vs. believer debate seem to be allergic to learning this, as well. Somebody like Alex Tsakiris keeps trying to bridge the gap between skeptics and believers. (To be fair he seems to be coming around, slowly but surely...) Rupert Sheldrake, for all the garbage he had to put up with, still seems to think that working with somebody like Chris French (who has a financial motive to be a skeptic, according to Sheldrake) will be fruitful - even after Sheldrake claimed, in his most recent episode of Skeptiko, that French, in a joint experiment with Sheldrake, insisted on unreasonable controls that may have even inhibited the psi abilities of the participants. How many times do so many believers have to stick the fork into the electrical outlet before they realize that there is electricity there? I strongly believe that it is long past time that we stop "bringing letter openers to gun fights." We need to stop arguing with these disrespectful liars and misleaders as if there is a snowball's chance in Hell that they are even going to approach the argument in good faith - to say nothing of the almost nil chances of actually changing one of these people's minds. We need to start treating them as they really are - our enemies.
By the way, I apologize if I am rehashing some stuff that I already posted, but I wanted to draw an analogy to this article, and the fact that skeptics are our enemies needs to be repeated a lot more than it is being repeated. I don't claim to have the solution to how we beat the skeptics and their smear tactics, just yet, but I am pretty sure, at this point, that whatever the solution is it will not be to continue the same "reaching across the aisle" attempts that we have been trying for the past thirty-five or so years that the modern day skeptic movement has been around.
Re: Fight skeptics with guns, not letter openers « Reply #1 on Nov 1, 2009, 5:58pm »
To follow up on what Formosan has already said, we need an application. Not just any application, but one which would be used by lots of people (rather than select groups such as the military, police, or mining companies).
Modern technology, such as GOOGLE Earth and mobile phones, obviously makes this more difficult.
I don't think there is any other way of breaking through the taboo about all these subjects. Endless verbal battles with Paul on the Skeptiko forum have confirmed that!
Re: Fight skeptics with guns, not letter openers « Reply #2 on Nov 1, 2009, 11:12pm »
Thinking more about it, I started to get worried about the possibility that the post that started this thread would be seen as bashing the Republican party. I would like to say clearly that I do not totally agree with some of the things that were in the article, nor was it my intent to bash the Republican party. My only intent was to point out that in the past (and currently) the Democratic party has had trouble fending off some of the smear tactics of some members of the Republican party, and that this parallels the inability of the believers in psi (and most esoterica) to fend off the smear tactics of the skeptics. Further, the attitude of the Democrats - that they can safely ignore the Republican smear tactics and even try to work with those who are trying to smear them in a fruitful collaboration - mirrors the believers' attitudes that simply ignoring the skeptics' smear tactics and even trying to work with those that are trying to smear them will be fruitful. Also, like the article's conclusion that this is not a good strategy for Democrats to adopt, the psi proponents should not adopt this strategy. We should stop simply ignoring or trying to work with people who are clearly (by their own actions) our enemies.
Re: Fight skeptics with guns, not letter openers « Reply #3 on Nov 2, 2009, 12:09pm »
I hope the title of this thread is to be taken in jest - not literally! The real problem is to know how to deal with skeptics, and while doing so, to make sure we do not ignore valid arguments that may appear from time to time. I would still say, a useful spin off would change the situation completely.
OK, this is really off-topic, but I come from the UK, and very few of us have any love for the Republican party, which we see as dangerous. The UK got dragged into a pointless war by Bush, which cost the lives of many of our servicemen, and probably motivated the attacks in London that killed over 50 people. The Bushies also wanted to site anti-missile defences in Eastern Europe, which would have been pretty ineffective (because Iran would have known they were present and sent a bomb by boat!). However, setting up a missile base so close to the former Soviet Union seemed designed to reignite the cold war!
Re: Fight skeptics with guns, not letter openers « Reply #4 on Nov 2, 2009, 5:14pm »
I meant the title to be taken as a metaphor. It is not to be taken literally. I mostly agree with what you have said about the Republican party, and as someone who has to live in the United States I do wish that the international community would put more pressure on the United States than they do. Most people in the United States don't even know what is going on in Canada, let alone across the pond. It would be a way to at least force the US media organizations to report more international stories. That reminds me, I believe that there was a name for the set of laws under which Rupert Sheldrake sued the National Geographic channel. Do you know what that name is? I wish we had similar laws in the United States so that he could have sued them here, too.
I hope the title of this thread is to be taken in jest - not literally! The real problem is to know how to deal with skeptics, and while doing so, to make sure we do not ignore valid arguments that may appear from time to time. I would still say, a useful spin off would change the situation completely.
OK, this is really off-topic, but I come from the UK, and very few of us have any love for the Republican party, which we see as dangerous. The UK got dragged into a pointless war by Bush, which cost the lives of many of our servicemen, and probably motivated the attacks in London that killed over 50 people. The Bushies also wanted to site anti-missile defences in Eastern Europe, which would have been pretty ineffective (because Iran would have known they were present and sent a bomb by boat!). However, setting up a missile base so close to the former Soviet Union seemed designed to reignite the cold war!
David
Here in Canada, Obama is liked better than Bush was, but there continues to be very strong Anti-American sentiment in this country (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/091101/national/poll_cda_us ). One of the questions asked of Canadians was if they felt at home in the States. Before the Bush administration, I think most of us felt very comfortable south of the border. But now, well, I don't imagine Canadians ever feeling that way again. Just crossing the border is such a hassel now that most of us don't bother anymore.
There was a time when a passport wasn't needed to go between our countries, and now you need a passport and the patience to sit for hours while being processed. Not worth it for an afternoon of cross-border shopping anymore.
I was living in the States when Bush made the choice to invade Iraq. It was awful being a foriegner in the US at that point. I begged my husband to ask for a posting back to Canada or I was moving home without him, that's how much I hated living in the states. It would take more than an Obama to convince me that it was OK there now.
That reminds me, I believe that there was a name for the set of laws under which Rupert Sheldrake sued the National Geographic channel. Do you know what that name is?
Rupert filed an official complaint with the British Government Office of Communications, Ofcom, which is charged with ensuring that broadcasters behave fairly. In March 2006, Ofcom issued a Provisional Adjudication upholding two out of three of Rupert's complaints. National Geographic's lawyers appealed against it, but Ofcom rejected their appeal and issued a final Adjudication in Rupert's favour on June 12, 2006. This can be now seen on Ofcom's web site www.ofcom.org.uk and the Summary and full text are shown here (see links below).
Re: Fight skeptics with guns, not letter openers « Reply #7 on Nov 2, 2009, 10:36pm »
Thanks so much, anonymous. I remember that in the United States there used to be something similar called the Fairness Doctrine that was enforced by the United States Federal Communications Commission. Sadly it is no longer in use, although some legislators are trying to get it written into law. It's too bad that there are not more believers filing complaints with Ofcom - given how much skeptics lie and misrepresent. Then again, maybe the rules at Ofcom need to be strengthened. They certainly need to be strengthened from where they currently are in the United States. (none) I need to look into this more. Thanks again, anonymous.
Sorry you can't come to the United States, Sandy. It's really not all it's cracked up to be. Most people in the United States never gave a damn about anyone outside of the borders. It seems like countries that get too powerful usually breed a sense of arrogance among the citizens. Sigh...
I remember that in the United States there used to be something similar called the Fairness Doctrine that was enforced by the United States Federal Communications Commission.
1. The programme did not make false claims about Dr Sheldrake’s research, rather a critique of his analytical approach was offered. This critical point of view was acceptable given both the expectation that scientific research would and should be subjected to examination and that Dr Sheldrake’s scientific referees had raised various queries about the way he analysed his research data. 2. The lack of a balancing view in the programme as broadcast led to the breaking of the guarantee given to Dr Sheldrake regarding the content of the programme. This resulted in unfairness to Dr Sheldrake. 3. The programme makers’ failure to give Dr Sheldrake an opportunity to respond to what would amount to a damaging critique of his research resulted in unfairness to Dr Sheldrake.
The producers were forced to broadcast a summary of the adjudication. That was their "punishment". They weren't forced to broadcast Sheldrake's reply to the criticism.
The fairness doctrine in the US was a little bit different. It said that a TV or radio station that aired one side's views also had to air the other side's views - not necessarily on the same program. It says nothing about whether the views expressed include lies or were misleading in other ways or were expressed in an unfair manner.
This gets complicated when there are more than two sides to an issue. Or, what if a pro terrorist, neo-nazi, racist, sexist, etc organization demanded equal time etc. Who decides what is fair? Some people don't want the government to make that decision, and some people think it was an unconstitutional infringement on freedom of the press.
What if you couldn't have a TV show favorable to parapsychology without giving equal time to a skeptic like Ray Hyman who has been employed by the US government to debunk claims of the paranormal? On the other hand, do you think the same government that utilized the debunking services a professional debunker would really enforce equal time for parapsychology for every materialist science program aired? Not likely. If you are going to ask the government to solve a problem, you have to be careful of what you ask for.
Re: Fight skeptics with guns, not letter openers « Reply #9 on Nov 3, 2009, 12:37am »
You bring up some issues that would have to be worked out if a new Fairness Doctrine was created. Certainly the old Fairness Doctrine was not perfect, and I am not claiming to have all of the answers as to how to ensure, on a practical level, that the media organizations are fair, but it is a real problem that the media organizations can get away with misleading reporting, and even outright lies in the United States. I would rather have the government regulating them than no one.
Also, I want to touch on something else that you said:
"On the other hand, do you think the same government that utilized the debunking services a professional debunker would really enforce equal time for parapsychology for every materialist science program aired?"
Yes. I do. The FCC is not the same part of the government as the Department of Defense. This is a tactic that many skeptics use and I have to say that it irritates me. Sometimes this sort of thing can get into the subconscious. This is all the more reason that the skeptic movement needs to be stopped. The United States government has shown instances of remarkable brilliance and other instances of complete incompetence. Too many skeptics focus on the incompetent instances to try to make their point (usually about conspiracies) and ignore instances like the Manhattan Project.
Oh, and I would have no problem with pro terrorist, neo-nazi, racist, sexist, etc organizations wanting to be treated fairly just like the rest of us.
Re: Fight skeptics with guns, not letter openers « Reply #10 on Nov 3, 2009, 4:11am »
Hyman was hired, as I see it, as part of a disinformation campaign that was conducted for national security purposes. Discrediting claims of the paranormal would help protect the US from the development of foreign psychic spies and saboteurs and help keep clandestine psi projects in the US secret.
I'm pretty confident that the same argument could be made to influence the FCC. Why? Because there is good evidence the national security argument was used to cover up the evidence collected by the National Transportation Safety Board that flight 800 was shot down by a missile.
The NTSB had compiled a statistical analysis of the eyewitness evidence in the Witness Group Factual Report: Exhibit 4A, which included the following findings:
"102 [eyewitnesses] gave information about the origin of the streak. Six said the streak originated from the air, and 96 said that it originated from the surface."
Days before the hearing began and in response to a letter from then FBI Assistant Director James Kallstrom, NTSB Chairman Jim Hall banned all eyewitness presentations from the hearing. Kallstrom's letter contained objections to public eyewitness discussions, in part, because of the possibility "of undermining the CIA’s work." Ultimately, no eyewitness testified and no discussion of eyewitness evidence or the CIA animation was allowed at the hearing.
Some researchers tried to persuade the media to discuss the witness evidence publicly, since federal investigators refused to. But the major networks were silent. Their reporting of the NTSB hearing seemed as hollow as the hearing itself.
If the NTSB can be coerced, the FCC can be too.
The manhattan project is the exception that proves the rule - it was important for national security purposes.
Re: Fight skeptics with guns, not letter openers « Reply #11 on Nov 3, 2009, 10:50pm »
Ya know, I'd be lying if I said that I did not think that you made some good points, but I wouldn't say that the Manhattan Project was an exception. There have been other successful conspiracies, like the successful CIA attempts to destabilize Iran in the 1950s. (I think) I don't know much about the flight 800 thing, so I'll take your word on it. My main point, though, is that I think that we can craft the laws that make up the "Fairness Doctrine" in a way that makes this sort of conspiracy more difficult for the government to pull off. Openness and transparency in the laws, combined with diligent public watchdog groups, could make it hard for the government to cover things up. (at least without acknowledging that there is a cover up) I want to repeat that I do not claim to have all of the answers, and before the legislation is crafted we would need to sit down and think long and hard about the language that would need to be in there, but it can be done. Skeptics aren't even the only problem, either. When a channel like Fox News is allowed to get away with 1/10th of what it can get away with it's time for some regulation.
Re: Fight skeptics with guns, not letter openers « Reply #12 on Nov 4, 2009, 4:19pm »
Sandstone (and others),
In a way, the UK is not so different from the US. Our democracy has degenerated very much like in the US. After all, 'we' went to war in Iraq for all the same bogus reasons. However, it may be a mistake to fall into the trap of thinking things can only get worse, I feel the mess in Afghanistan - awful as it is - may be concentrating minds - forcing politicians to realise that spin (UK word for verbal deception) and bluff can't work forever against an awful reality.
In a way, the UK is not so different from the US. Our democracy has degenerated very much like in the US. After all, 'we' went to war in Iraq for all the same bogus reasons. However, it may be a mistake to fall into the trap of thinking things can only get worse, I feel the mess in Afghanistan - awful as it is - may be concentrating minds - forcing politicians to realise that spin (UK word for verbal deception) and bluff can't work forever against an awful reality.
David
Hi David,
In my opinion the news reporting on these subjects has been pretty incompetent. It seems to me it has been just as bad as the reporting on parapsychology.
It's true that large stock piles of chemical weapons were not found in Iraq but large stock piles of precursor chemicals (insecticides) were found camouflaged on military bases in Iraq. Also the scientists from the biological weapons projects had strains of microorganisms at home in their refrigerators. Weapons of mass destruction have that name because a little bit can kill masses of people. As long as Iraq was run by Saddam and he had access to people with expertise and relatively simple biological and chemical industrial technology, the argument about WMD was not bogus.
That's my opinion. I think the Iraqi victims of Sadam's chemical weapons, from when he used them in his own country, would agree with me. So would the Israeli victims of terrorists aided by Saddam. So would the Kuwaitis.
After the invasion, most of the news media repeatedly said the insurgency war in Iraq was lost until ... it wasn't.
Remember during the invasion how Baghdad Bob (the Iraqi communications minister I think) consistently reported how the Iraq was utterly destroying US forces? The entire Arab and Moslem world believed him .. up until the US tanks drove into Baghdad and the same media who covered Baghdad Bob's press conferences broadcast the iconoclasm outside the Palestine Hotel live on TV when the Statue of Saddam was pulled down by an American tank maintenance vehicle.
The western media did exactly the same thing with their reporting about the insurgency operations (reported that the US was losing until that story couldn't be supported anymore) after the invasion and most westerner's swallowed it.
My understanding is that casualties are up in Afghanistan because the fighting has recently moved into into the tradition Taliban strongholds. They won't disarm without encouragement. At the same time Pakistan has finally been going after them on their side of the border. Not everyone considers the situation a mess.
For anyone who is interested, one good (in my opinion) source of information on these subjects is Strategypage.
I also think that the biggest way to make a "mess" of the situation is for democratic NATO countries to give up due to pressure from a misinformed public rather than the actual strategic and tactical realties of the war. In that case I would agree that the situation is a mess.
When a channel like Fox News is allowed to get away with 1/10th of what it can get away with it's time for some regulation.
I don't watch TV so I'm not an expert on Fox News but ...
Conservatives think the other stations are exactly like Fox news except that they support the democratic/liberal viewpoint.
People tend not to recognize their own bias in others because they see that bias as "normal". However the conservatives contention is supported by the data. There is a liberal bias in the news media:
While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.
These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.
It seems to me that you want the government to fix something you percieve is a problem when in reality the situation is the exactly opposite of what you think it is. This is why I don't want the government to be involved enforcing someone's opinion. Government if it is a democracy is going to represent the biases of the majority. The US is a democracy but the constitution also protects the rights of minorities through things like freedom of the press, free speech, freedom of religion etc.
I don't like much of the media, right or left they consistently do a poor job. However putting the government in charge of making their reporting fair is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house.
* * * * *
Before posting, please read the
Charter.
If you are new to proboards, you might find it helpful to read
these suggestions on finding the most recent posts.
![[Search This Thread]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/search2.gif)
![[Send Topic To Friend]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/sendtopic.gif)
![[Print]](http://s1.images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif)
Author
Logged
![[avatar]](http://images.meez.com/user/7/0/3/4/1/8/6/7034186_headshot_100x100.jpg)
![[avatar]](http://lh6.ggpht.com/_8_NV85AAnjM/Suy4PwoeW3I/AAAAAAAAAEI/6wXHNzVLKtw/s800/proboards_avatar.jpg){kind=avatar}