Don't be a Di*k

[Angel of Ioren]

Here's a talk by Phil Plait that generated a lot of talk in the world of skeptics like me. I think it's important and I would like people to take a look - especially people that think that my way of thinking is closed miinded and wrong. Please post your thoughts.



<object width="400" height="225"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="movie" value="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=13704095&amp;server=vimeo.com&amp;show_title=1&amp;show_byline=1&amp;show_portrait=1&amp;color=&amp;fullscreen=1&amp;autoplay=0&amp;loop=0" /><embed src="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=13704095&amp;server=vimeo.com&amp;show_title=1&amp;show_byline=1&amp;show_portrait=1&amp;color=&amp;fullscreen=1&amp;autoplay=0&amp;loop=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="400" height="225"></embed></object><p><a href="http://vimeo.com/13704095">Phil Plait - Don't Be A Dick</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/jref">JREF</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>


Here's where you can read Phil's thoughts on it:
Dont Be a Dick, Part 1: the video | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

 

[exo_doc]

Interesting and informative video, and Phil was funny, and I'm really happy to hear him talk about getting in peoples faces and telling them they are idiots ,...but most importantly how that's NOT the way to go.

A majority of people who call themselves skeptics that I have talked to are just like the kind of person Phil is saying not to be. I've had skeptics talk down to me, treat me like I was some kind of bacteria, call me an idiot, etc.

I might be guilty of the same thing, I need to ponder this.

 

[NTS]

I think skepticism is the right perspective when you're considering scientific or pseudo-scientific claims; e.g. how the world works on a physical basis, historical facts, etc. Insofar as religions or other belief systems make claims about this they should be evaluated skeptically.

I'm less sure that skepticism works as a philosophy of life. At one point in the video, Phil Plait made a statement something like "reality is really good". Oh really? Under the best of circumstances, we're all going to get old and die, probably with a good deal of pain to go with it. Eventually we're all going to be forgotten and everything we knew will crumble to dust. The stars themselves will one day run down to nothing. In the end it will be as though we had never existed at all. That's reality. Is it so good that you want everyone to just accept it? The ultimate end of naturalism (which is basically the philosophy that most skeptics push) is nihilism.

That's not an argument that skepticism is wrong, just that it may be very incomplete as a basis for ordinary human life.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I'm glad you guys watched the video - Plait has seen a lot of backlash from some skeptics regarding his speech and he has defended himself on his blog.

I really hope more people watch this video and comment.

 

[exo_doc]

I think skepticism is the right perspective when you're considering scientific or pseudo-scientific claims; e.g. how the world works on a physical basis, historical facts, etc. Insofar as religions or other belief systems make claims about this they should be evaluated skeptically.

I'm less sure that skepticism works as a philosophy of life. At one point in the video, Phil Plait made a statement something like "reality is really good". Oh really? Under the best of circumstances, we're all going to get old and die, probably with a good deal of pain to go with it. Eventually we're all going to be forgotten and everything we knew will crumble to dust. The stars themselves will one day run down to nothing. In the end it will be as though we had never existed at all. That's reality. Is it so good that you want everyone to just accept it? The ultimate end of naturalism (which is basically the philosophy that most skeptics push) is nihilism.

That's not an argument that skepticism is wrong, just that it may be very incomplete as a basis for ordinary human life.

Blehhh Dude! That's "put a gun in your mouth" depressing. Nihilism sucks. Give me a self deluded fantasy in Lala-land anyday over that! Yeeeeesh.

To quote Jaime Hyneman...."I reject your reality and substitute my own!"

 

[paraschtick]

Blehhh Dude! That's "put a gun in your mouth" depressing. Nihilism sucks. Give me a self deluded fantasy in Lala-land anyday over that! Yeeeeesh.

To quote Jaime Hyneman...."I reject your reality and substitute my own!"

To me most "skeptics" are just fundamentalists. They're the other side of the coin to the out and out believers. I prefer to be the "edge" side of the coin.

Oh and it was Adam Savage by the way I think you'll find

 

[Angel of Ioren]

To me most "skeptics" are just fundamentalists. They're the other side of the coin to the out and out believers. I prefer to be the "edge" side of the coin.

Oh and it was Adam Savage by the way I think you'll find

Adam Savage is one of the most ardent skeptics out there. He's spoken at TAM several times I think.

 

[NTS]

"Blehhh Dude! That's "put a gun in your mouth" depressing. Nihilism sucks. Give me a self deluded fantasy in Lala-land anyday over that! Yeeeeesh."

Well, that's kinda my point. It's why I don't think skeptics like Phil Plait are fully thinking through the implications of their philosophy. They aren't dumb or dishonest but I don't think they see the ultimate consequences of what they say they believe.

 

[Walter Bosley]

Though obviously I don't agree with certain conclusions he expresses in the video, I do appreciate that it's a sanely stated position and a good message to 'skeptics' who are actually just the neighborhood assholes aping their favorite comedians in tone and attitude.

It does confirm a suspicion I have that skepticism is a 'movement' and that's why disciples of it are showing up in places where they clearly have no true interest beyond debunking. He may have shot the 'movement' in the foot, to use a metaphor he likes, because a lot of people not in the hardcore skeptic camp will now be aware that said movement is afoot. (It's a conspiracy!!! Oh NOOOO!!!)

I would say to skeptics: go attack fakers and frauds who are actually taking money from people through provable fraud, or some such other activity that falls within the strict definition of the law as a crime. But where people who do not share the smug conclusions of the skeptical movement are gathered to share and celebrate their beliefs and conclusions, keep out. If they're not ripping each other off -- I mean consciously and criminally defrauding people -- who is a skeptic to come in and force his or her will where it's not wanted? I think it's sort of arrogant of someone who believes in nothing but the material before their eyes to be so annoyed by what others believe that you become 'evangelistic' about making everyone agree with your conclusions.

What I like about the message of the video is that he says be selective in your targets and how you approach them. If a common fallacy is proving to be materially damaging to the majority of society in a measurably destructive way to basic life, then go for it and try to reason with people. But if you simply have a personal vision of how world peace could be achieved if only everyone thought like you do, then you are exactly like the religious fanatics trying to mold the world in their image. Whatever happened to the days when the wise man kept his wisdom to himself mostly and metered it out here and there to better influence and quietly improve humanity's condition? Evangelism of any sort is where advocates often go wrong.

Good message for BOTH skeptics and non-skeptics alike.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

I keep wondering, Angelo, why you are trying so hard to get people here on these forums to "see where you're coming from" or "where your at" in regards to your "skepticism". It's like you are in some way uncomfortable with your own position or your methods of treating any of the subjects that you have been called out on.

As for the video that you have kindly supplied, I tend to agree with Walter in his assessment. Plait, it seems to me, is trying to organise or promote debunking as a popular movement against subjects that they fundamentally do not believe in. Like it's not enough for the individual to make up their own mind on any given subject but that pseudo science, UFOs, Ghosts, Psychics or the belief thereof must be eliminated from society altogether and that individuals are not responsible enough to exist alongside these cancerous elements of our thinking. They must be stamped out at all costs!

In his talk I keep hearing words and phrases like "movement" and "active skepticism" or "practising the art" and "what is the goal of the movement"? Why do sceptics/debunkers have to have a "movement"? Are you part of this "movement"? Are you trying to tell us, Angelo, that you as a subsciber to the theories and methods of Phil Plait and others is to actively infiltrate forums like the Paracast and make it one of your goals to vigorously debunk any of the subjects as the tenets of the "movement" dictates? Like some kind of debunker super spy mole?
Furthermore, is it one of the goals of his "scepticalmovement" to have his people infiltrate forums like the "Paracast" forums and spread the "word"?

The way HE comes across to me is like a passive aggressive zealot who can't accept that some people are receptive to the idea that there are other points of view in this world diametrically opposed to the ones that he subscribes to and not only that but he contends that these ideas must be stamped out "..to show people why they are wrong".
All he is doing is to try and accomplish his goal by being more passive and non war or warrior-like by using a more Ghandi-like intellectual approach.
Why does he think that a persons ideas, if they fall into the realms of pseudo science or the paranormal etc., must be actively discouraged or debunked by an organised "movement"? Who cares if people think like that. It certainly doesn't concern me to the point that i must rise up and go forth and eliminate these logical atheists. His ideas and those of this so called organised movement pre dispose that people cannot live alongside concepts and thought processes without being shielded from or protected by people such as him and his team of sceptodebunkers. (How insulting!!!).
Personally I believe that most critical thinking people, which includes the vast majority of us here, are more than able to discern what is crap and what is not. We don't need people like Plait et al to tell us what to do even if he and his movement had to right to anyway.
I feel sorry for you if Plait and others like him are representative of the way you think about or approach some of the subjects such as discussed on these forums. It's akin to a passive, aggressive, evangelistic, fundamentalist dislike of alternative opinion such as the witch hunts of the catholic church in the middle ages or McCarthyism of the 1950s. Just because Plait, Shermer, Randi or you don't believe in santa claus or UFOs or ghosts doesn't mean that others have no right to believe in them if they want to.

If you are asking us to understand where you are coming from then i believe that you must also understand that people here or elsewhere are not always, if at all, going to agree with you and will actively challenge you in regards to your concepts and thought processes.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

I keep wondering, Angelo, why you are trying so hard to get people here on these forums to "see where you're coming from" or "where your at" in regards to your "skepticism". It's like you are in some way uncomfortable with your own position or your methods of treating any of the subjects that you have been called out on.

As for the video that you have kindly supplied, I tend to agree with Walter in his assessment. Plait, it seems to me, is trying to organise or promote debunking as a popular movement against subjects that they fundamentally do not believe in. Like it's not enough for the individual to make up their own mind on any given subject but that pseudo science, UFOs, Ghosts, Psychics or the belief thereof must be eliminated from society altogether and that individuals are not responsible enough to exist alongside these cancerous elements of our thinking. They must be stamped out at all costs!

In his talk I keep hearing words and phrases like "movement" and "active skepticism" or "practising the art" and "what is the goal of the movement"? Why do sceptics/debunkers have to have a "movement"? Are you part of this "movement"? Are you trying to tell us, Angelo, that you as a subsciber to the theories and methods of Phil Plait and others is to actively infiltrate forums like the Paracast and make it one of your goals to vigorously debunk any of the subjects as the tenets of the "movement" dictates? Like some kind of debunker super spy mole?
Furthermore, is it one of the goals of his "scepticalmovement" to have his people infiltrate forums like the "Paracast" forums and spread the "word"?

The way HE comes across to me is like a passive aggressive zealot who can't accept that some people are receptive to the idea that there are other points of view in this world diametrically opposed to the ones that he subscribes to and not only that but he contends that these ideas must be stamped out "..to show people why they are wrong".
All he is doing is to try and accomplish his goal by being more passive and non war or warrior-like by using a more Ghandi-like intellectual approach.
Why does he think that a persons ideas, if they fall into the realms of pseudo science or the paranormal etc., must be actively discouraged or debunked by an organised "movement"? Who cares if people think like that. It certainly doesn't concern me to the point that i must rise up and go forth and eliminate these logical atheists. His ideas and those of this so called organised movement pre dispose that people cannot live alongside concepts and thought processes without being shielded from or protected by people such as him and his team of sceptodebunkers. (How insulting!!!).
Personally I believe that most critical thinking people, which includes the vast majority of us here, are more than able to discern what is crap and what is not. We don't need people like Plait et al to tell us what to do even if he and his movement had to right to anyway.
I feel sorry for you if Plait and others like him are representative of the way you think about or approach some of the subjects such as discussed on these forums. It's akin to a passive, aggressive, evangelistic, fundamentalist dislike of alternative opinion such as the witch hunts of the catholic church in the middle ages or McCarthyism of the 1950s. Just because Plait, Shermer, Randi or you don't believe in santa claus or UFOs or ghosts doesn't mean that others have no right to believe in them if they want to.

If you are asking us to understand where you are coming from then i believe that you must also understand that people here or elsewhere are not always, if at all, going to agree with you and will actively challenge you in regards to your concepts and thought processes.

Thanks for watching the video Phil - we often tend to clash in views so I am glad you took the time to watch the speech. No need to worry, as I have said in another thread yesterday, I am not here to infiltrate the paracast and undermine the message. When I started listening to the show, I believed that there was something more to the UFO phenomenon, but after listening to almost every episode, I have changed my mind - but I still really like the show, and the forums. I;m pretty sure that Ron will vouch for me if you ask him directly about my motives here.

As for the skeptical movement, I guess I thought that everyone here was in fact aware that there was a movement - the JREF and all the podcasts that they are involved with - TV shows like Bullshit! and Mythbusters - and writers like Dawkins - there is a real movement. However, please be aware that the main goal of it is to stop people from being taken by frauds. The UFO phenomenon is interesting in that there's no real way to test anything - not like a psychic or some other crappy pseudoscience.

Finally, I welcome being challenged - I really want to believe that there is something more to the UFO phenomenon like I used to, so I hope that one day I will change my mind!

Thanks again for all the comments.

 

[Kandinsky]

I can't watch videos recently without ripping them to hard drive and vimeo doesn't allow that. I read the interview instead.

He raises a point that struck me a just a couple of months back and changed the way I write online. I noticed some skeptics on another forum sneering out their replies and challenges to believers. Basically being d*cks. The 'believers' could be 13 years old, they might not have had the education...they might be in the full bloom that many of us get in the early paranormal days. There are a lot of reasons why someone has an idea that is technically wrong.

Attacking them and making them feel crap is a hollow victory. There are many ways of disagreeing without calling them wrong by aspect of stupidity! If they disagree and post a link, read it. Check their sources. They might just have a point. Many skeptics begin as 'believers' and shouldn't forget.

The d*ck approach to skepticism close debates, ends discussions and leaves bitterness or frustration. In all aspects, it's ignorant and encourages ignorance. People pay attention to a quiet, friendly approach on equal terms. If someone speaks to me with a smirk, I'm not hearing what they say and I doubt anyone else would?! There are certainly some believers who hold to their beliefs in opposition and defiance to skeptical debunkery...who can blame them. Nobody wants to inflate someone's arrogance by agreeing with them

As much as a we have a choice in the matter, I've distanced myself from the 'skeptic' tag and prefer the open ground. I haven't lowered my standards, but I'm much more aware of the person on the other side. I'll disagree mildly. It's a false dichotomy, but we're human and we can't help sticking labels on people. Some skeptics are d*cks and their writing will always demonstrate that quality.

Phil Plait has just found out that his fellow skeptics aren't 'fellow' at all and as happy to be a d*ck with him as with anyone else. It reiterates the point that some people are just d*cks regardless the label they are given or choose.

 

[exo_doc]

To me most "skeptics" are just fundamentalists. They're the other side of the coin to the out and out believers. I prefer to be the "edge" side of the coin.

Oh and it was Adam Savage by the way I think you'll find

Aw damn, it was Adam. I watch Mythbusters all the time, love the show, but I still get Jaime and Adams names confused.

---------- Post added at 09:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:03 AM ----------

Some good points here.
Phil does seem to lean in the direction of getting everyone to think like he does. He makes some good points too though.

But another excellent point was brought up; Why do some people seem to get beligerent and down right mean when someone wants to beleive in fairies, or poltergeists, flying saucers or ancient astronauts? There's no harm done there.

Now religion I can understand getting pissed off about because it directly affects everyones lives every single day. I mean think about it;
Laws get passed barring same sex marriage because of religion.
Stem Cell research is stopped in it's tracks because of religion.
Women are considred sub-human and cattle because of religion.
Sex is treated as something shameful and dirty because of religion.
Factual, provable beyond doubt science such as Evolution is disbeleived and denigrated because of religion.
Disease and population growth go almost unchecked in certain parts of the world because contraception is forbidden in some religions.
People are getting blown to bits everyday around the world because of religion.
Need I go on?

So I can see why people get angry over religion, ....I do. Because religion has stopped comforting people and has become a major source of their suffering.

To a lesser degree, I can even understand flim-flam psychics taking money from people being targeted for anger.

But unknown aeriel phenomena getting the same treatment?
Yeah there's kooks out there I think we can all agree, space brothers and all that. Who can forget Heavens Gate?

But really, what harm does it do to want to know what's flying around in the skies over our planet? Who is hurt by open-mindedly researching UFO's?

Skeptics get sooo angry when people won't think like they do, and they get irrational. (SOME skeptics...SOME, not all.)

So until a UAP beleiver walks into a market and blows up a bunch of non-beleivers with a strapped on bomb, I think I'll continue to look for answers.

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Aw damn, it was Adam. I watch Mythbusters all the time, love the show, but I still get Jaime and Adams names confused.

---------- Post added at 09:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:03 AM ----------

Some good points here.
Phil does seem to lean in the direction of getting everyone to think like he does. He makes some good points too though.

But another excellent point was brought up; Why do some people seem to get beligerent and down right mean when someone wants to beleive in fairies, or poltergeists, flying saucers or ancient astronauts? There's no harm done there.

Now religion I can understand getting pissed off about because it directly affects everyones lives every single day. I mean think about it;
Laws get passed barring same sex marriage because of religion.
Stem Cell research is stopped in it's tracks because of religion.
Women are considred sub-human and cattle because of religion.
Sex is treated as something shameful and dirty because of religion.
Factual, provable beyond doubt science such as Evolution is disbeleived and denigrated because of religion.
Disease and population growth go almost unchecked in certain parts of the world because contraception is forbidden in some religions.
People are getting blown to bits everyday around the world because of religion.
Need I go on?

So I can see why people get angry over religion, ....I do. Because religion has stopped comforting people and has become a major source of their suffering.

To a lesser degree, I can even understand flim-flam psychics taking money from people being targeted for anger.

But unknown aeriel phenomena getting the same treatment?
Yeah there's kooks out there I think we can all agree, space brothers and all that. Who can forget Heavens Gate?

But really, what harm does it do to want to know what's flying around in the skies over our planet? Who is hurt by open-mindedly researching UFO's?

Skeptics get sooo angry when people won't think like they do, and they get irrational. (SOME skeptics...SOME, not all.)

So until a UAP beleiver walks into a market and blows up a bunch of non-beleivers with a strapped on bomb, I think I'll continue to look for answers.

I pretty much agree with you across the board. I'm ardent towards anti-vaxers, truthers, psychics, religious leaders that take people's money, etc.

UFOs or UAPs are really interesting (and fun to speculate about) - even if the vast majority are bunk, there could be something to several events. Nothing convinces me that it's paranormal or extra-terrestrial. I lean more towards some undiscovered phenomena that will eventually be studied and confirmed.

Skepticism towards UFOs themselves is difficult because they do exist - there are genuinely unidentified objects that are in the sky. Where my skepticism begins is with some of the proposed theories about the cause.