How I Became Disillusioned with the Skeptic Community
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 кві 2022
- Many leaders in the skeptic community have proven themselves to be untrustworthy sources of information on the topics they speak about. They’ve misled me often about what others believe and why. Moreover, genuine skepticism seems far less important to the skeptic community than the kind of conclusions one comes to. Failure to adopt the required list of beliefs disqualifies one from being a real skeptic, it would seem. In today’s episode, I talk about how my atheism caused me to gravitate towards the skeptic community, and how the same subject caused me to drift away. We also discuss a few ways in which skeptics mishandle the subjects of theism, parapsychology, the JFK assassination, 9/11, and aliens.
For the record, this should not be seen as a comprehensive treatment of the topics raised (e.g. conspiracy theories). My framework was the following: Skeptics told me conspiracy theorists believed X for reason Y, but they were often wrong on both counts. I used a few examples, but I wasn’t aiming to provide a full account of what 9/11 truthers believe, or what alien abductees think, nor was I trying to defend a rejection of the Warren Commission. I especially shied away from that last topic, since it’s a bit different from the others for me. In the case of the JFK assassination, I’m more solidly on the side of the conspiracy theorists. Along with the majority of Americans, I don’t accept the Warren Commission.
linktr.ee/emersongreen
For a more accurate picture of what these common skeptic targets believe and why:
/ JFK
Oliver Stone’s documentary JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass /or/ JFK: Destiny Betrayed [longer version of same doc]
Mark Lane interviewed on JFK assassination (1992) • Plausible Denial: Mark...
/ 9/11
Three-part article in CovertAction Magazine - Peter Dale Scott, Aaron Good, Ben Howard covertactionmagazine.com/2021...
The Road to 9/11 (University of California Press) Peter Dale Scott www.ucpress.edu/book/97805202...
/ Theism
Kenny Pierce defends theism against Graham Oppy (Dialogue) philpapers.org/rec/PEAITA-5
Joshua Rasmussen defends theism against Felipe Leon (Dialogue) philpapers.org/rec/RASIGT
/ Parapsychology
Mitch Horowitz: A parapsychologist’s take on James Randi boingboing.net/2020/10/26/the...
/ Aliens
Nick Pope w/ Michael Shermer on UAPs and UFOs www.skeptic.com/michael-sherm...
Avi Loeb w/ Michael Shermer on alien life and oumuamua • Michael Shermer with A...
This episode is the personification of my own journey finding my own voice, developing sound epistemology and thinking for myself- instead of blindly adopting all Sam Harris' views for the feeling of 'belonging to a tribe.' Something I admit I did for far too long. Great work mate, you gave me all the warm fuzzies inside.
lol sam harris XD
The range of quality in this comment section is a thing of beauty
No one cares, douchebaggette.
Oh, I see your point.
Thanks Emerson. Another topic that most skeptics are deeply unskeptical about is non-human sentient animal ethics. The subject is like kryptonite for most supposedly skeptical minds. Claims like "non-human animals can't suffer" and "animal farming is humane" are accepted without question. Cognitive dissonance, akrasia, motivated reasoning that warps epistemology... the full suite. Of course, many animal advocates and vegans have deeply flawed epistemologies too.
Emerson : I'm so skeptical, that I'm a skeptic about skepticism. 😎
Thank you! I've also distanced myself from online skeptics and atheists. Mainly because of the unyielding dogmatism of what is and what isn't allowed to be considered the Truth™. That arrogance is in direct opposition of intellectual progress and worthwhile discourse.
Water rarely flows upstream. I don't know if can agree with everything you said, but I can relate to most of it. It's been a while since I could say I 'belong' to any community, let along the skeptics. Seems to me that organization at that level almost always requires a certain level of commitment to ideas that I am unwilling to give. That said I would not say that such organization is not without its merits. Oh naunce.
(Edited for clarity)
I get where you're coming from, and I agree with much of it, especially the core issue of misrepresentation. If one is interested in the truth, they ought to seek to truly understand "opposing" beliefs. But, as someone who does consider himself a little too difficult to convince, here are my thoughts.
The possibility that one is unaware of the truth simply because that information is being withheld doesn't warrant belief that a proposed alternate explanation is true, so there's no real incentive for a skeptic to accept that it if it is unusual. Isn't this why skeptics favor disbelief? And being a skeptic doesn't guarantee that one would come to the same degree of certainty as another that a proposition is untrue, especially when understanding of that proposition differs among individuals? If they aren't as familiar with the philosophy that you are, then of course their concept of the subject at hand will be different, and they may feel that they are truly justified in being more certain about their own beliefs.
On that note, Sean Carroll's view is that most of physics is solved: he's talking specifically about physics at the macroscopic level and at standard conditions. While held tentative, there's an incredibly high likelihood that we've already figured out everything there because everyrhing at that level can be explained using the laws of macroscopic physics to such a degree of certainty that any error is infinitesimal. So physicists tend to agree that if a new macroscopic theory was introduced, it would need to account for everything else we've observed and then be able to make predictions. However, we've simply been finding that, given better degrees of precision, our models do hold up well. Therefore it is sensible to cast doubt on the unusual. (This is part of what makes me so crazy about physics, so I confess my bias.) It's an arrogant assertion, and quite an achievement if true, but it doesn't prevent us from acknowledging when these models are incorrect through rigorous testing.
And rigorous testing is what skeptics love about James Randi. He actually put claims to the test. And we do know that there were issues that he'd changed his mind on, even if it took him a while to do so, so I assume that he also had a higher threshhold for changing his mind. I am not pleased with how he handled the abuse levelled against Rebecca Watson. I'm not happy that he didn't openly challenge that growing sector of the skeptic community. You, Watson and I will continue to acknowledge what he did well, critcize what he didn't, and challenge ourselves and others to do better. While we do not individually have the time to champion every good cause, we should at least empower the voices of those who can instead of ostracizing or disparaging them. Fortunately there are some voices with significant followings doing just that. It's also disapppointing to hear about JREF.
A wish that an object with controversial interpretations not exist is, understandably, an expression of discomfort, yet it is not an expression of denial. As someone who disagrees with many of Avi Loeb's opinions on the scientific community, I am convinced of a nonzero probability that Oumuamua may be artificial, although over the years I've learned of natural reasons for its behavior and shape, and I find further speculation of intent behind its existence or that it contained a mechanism unfounded.
I think you understand the real reason for the majority of conspiracy theorists, probably obtained from actually talking to such theorists themselves. 👍 And I think that many of those skeptics agreeing with the 9/11 Commission do the same. But if the "official" story has more evidencial weight, then I'm not surprised that most skeptics will go with it.
Great video, Emerson! I can't wait to see what you'll put out next! Are you gonna do the JREF video?
I appreciate your thoughts! I have a few other things lined up before I talk about JREF, but it'd probably be worth getting more in the weeds about that million dollar challenge.
@@EmersonGreen Please do!
Damm a thoughtful response on a comment section, what world am I on.
4:51 I love that X-files intro.
Great video Emerson. I think it’s fine if Skeptics reach their conclusions with good enough justification. The problem as you point out is that skeptics don’t do this, they tend to offer lazy reasoning and one liners and then when pushed rely on Ockhams razor (often built on their unexamined presuppositions) to justify their laziness. Bernardo Kastrup once wrote that these sort of fundamentalist atheists “They implicitly define the rules of a private game, assume everyone is playing that same game according to those same rules, and then explain with much bravado how they have won the game.” I think this type of reasoning applies to more than just some cruder forms of atheism. They assume without proper justification that they are the only ones using reason, everyone who differs isn’t.
I’m so glad that more people know about Bernardo Kastrup.
@@gabrielsoto1693 he’s definitely an important influence on my philosophical journey if you will! I’d like to note I’m not necessarily an atheist or a theist, more agnostic but I’m open to the idea of some higher “force”. And I think this quote can apply to atheism, conspiracy theories etc.
@@JustErics101
What do gods have to do with a "force" and how can a force be "higher"?
Emerson, very good video. I came to this conclusion years ago. My interests were far too wide and a intense desire to find the truth could never make me just remain in the popular skeptic fish tank. I try at best to think freely on any and all issues!
I've had much the same experience as you. My background however, is the opposite, being in the "believer" camp initially. I just accepted that Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, psychic powers, various conspiracy claims and UFOs certainly existed/were true as that was presented to me by others as simply a given. References to "skeptics" were invariable negative, dismissive ones. So my discovering skepticism was a revelation for me.
Reading arguments against these things made me stop believing in them. Yet becoming a skeptic over time showed me that, just how you said, many skeptics were very dogmatic and close-minded. There was no point in discussing any idea about cryptids, conspiracies and mysterious abilities or whatever with them-they simply took it as a given that such things were simply false. It was just the exact opposite from what the previous, but often with no better reasoning for this.
Even those who did argue in favor of skepticism and gave reasons to doubt paranormal claims often "forgot" to often. So whole books by Martin Gardner or James Randi were criticisms of various claims, which often seemed reasonable enough. At times however they didn't even bother to provide evidence for why a claim was false, they just ridiculed it. That was apparently enough, according to them. Yet as any skeptic knows, a mere appeal to ridicule isn't valid.
I mostly find this is not much different on either side. Many "alternative theorists" (I'm not sure what else to call them, as they dislike "conspiracy theorists"), parapsychologists and such have also been prone to these problems. All this does not really tell us by itself what's right or wrong. Like you say, that requires legwork many people don't want to do, if it's even possible. A lot of times I simply give up, unable to decide.
Too often, people seem to really be just the opposite from their claims. Often skeptics are entirely credulous on some things, and the people they attack (who often consider themselves skeptics as well), claiming to be open-minded, courageous truth seekers frequently react with hostility to any questioning of their own hypotheses. People are flawed, including the ones who point this out and make it a part of their shtick yet forget it about themselves quite often.
I agree with most of what you said, but I would carve out an exception for Martin Gardner. He seemed alright. In his anti-parapsychology stuff, he did distinguish between serious researchers like Rhine and the unserious ones.
@@EmersonGreen I liked him overall, it just seemed like his criticisms didn't show why a view attacked was wrong always (at least in Fads and Fallacies).
You're not crazy. The skeptic community has come down with a case of tribalism. I think it's because they are only listening to each other. For example I am an atheist. I am a subscriber to your content and I pretty much find myself agreeing with what you have to say. But one habit I've adopted is when ever I find myself agreeing that much with someone I will try to find someone that disagrees with you and hear them out. I've done this with all my favorite atheist youtubers. TMM, Rationality Rules, Godless Engineer, etc. That how I found channels like Inspiring Philosophy, Apologetics Squared, Deflate, etc. People are not good at stealmaning each others arguments and it keeps me from putting myself in an echo chamber. People have forgotten how to listen to people that disagree with them. I think some skeptics have forgotten that they are just as human as everybody else. We can all be fools.
This is True. It is also obvious that Many of them Exarate and Twist what Christians say to make it more sinister or Fit a Narrative of How evil they are, and that Moat of them Overlay an expected Script onto their "De-COnvrsionStory", which is Nothing but an evangelical Christian Testimony, Only for Authentic Humanism. I have Never been an evangelical Christian. I grew up in a Church called Evangelical on many sources Online, ut its not. The Churches of Christ. I never had a "Testimony" to give and was never Expected to. Yet when You hear The Prophet Of Zod describe Christianity, He says "Testimony is Vitally Important", then again he makes Any time Any Christian Relays Anything about Their Experiences in Their Faith is a "Testimony", so me simply telling You I grew up in The Churches of Christ is My "Testimony" somehow... And I have had Some of them Ask about My past then say I did have a testimony then accu Me of Lying , as if I;d It is also Clear that they were not Really Devout Christians Who became Atheists by Reading The Bible as they All Recite the same handful of ArGuents in the same terminology. They also get WronG what hey claim Their church Taught them. I have seem many say "I use to be catholic" then Act as if catholics Believe The Bible is The Sole Source of Authority with the Only difference between Catholics and protestants being Catholics think only he Pope can interpret The Bible. They also Spend so Much Time hating Christianity and Hating Christians that They have Created a Mythology which Clearly shows they have No Real understanding of Christian Beliefs.
At This Point it is so Bad that They have basically depicted Christianity as Pure Evil, then say This is what Christians Think of Atheists., Saying Christians have No Empathy or Compassion and are Immoral, and Saying They believe Things they Clearly don't, is very Rampant.
It's good to be skeptical of everything including skeptics.
How true. A good video.
An acquaintance of mine, as a youngster about age 18 or 19, joined an online atheist community. He felt great to start off with. Cool, reasonable, rational people who made sense. He enjoyed the community. They bagged theists and were amazing in just how rational and sensible they were.
But after a while he noticed that as soon as guns, abortion, and euthanasia were mentioned by a forum member, out came the anger, and the nastiness. Then he found atheists brawling with each other and forming tribes within a tribe. They behaved in the same way as the way they claimed theists were wrong for behaving.
He withdrew from the forum in disgust.
I think skeptics need to learn to give their opponents a whole lot more grace than they actually do. I really don't think we are all that different.
Your message needs to be hammered over and over and over.
No, I think we need to be emotional and militant about way more topics. Not to be overlooks the ethical urgency of eliminating horrendous views such as compatibilism.
I love this video. You are speaking to so many thoughts I have had.
Re Fox v CNN etc., I follow both. The main difference (opinion hosts like Tucker Carlson aside) is a matter of emphasis rather than truth. For example, during the BLM protests, CNN emphasized instances where police harming peaceful protestors while Fox emphasized protestors causing damage. Both things were happening, but clearly a big difference if you only see one half of the story.
Great episode
I used to be very active in many Skeptic, Atheist, Freethought and Secularist organizations, national, regional and local. These included some of the largest and most prestigious organizations in the USA, and many smaller ones.
Frankly, I got tired of putting up with them. I, and other serious activists that I volunteered with, were slandered, had our work deliberately sabotaged on multiple occasions, and had enormous amounts of our time wasted trying to placate people whose only talent was making everyone else sorry they ever met them.
So I left and never looked back. Good riddance. I'm not alone. The vast majority of serious Freethought/Secularist/Skeptic/Atheist activists whom I know personally have done the same.
The good news is that much of this activism, and many of these communities, are now on-line. Many groups have formed. There are lots of great web sites, UA-cam channels, blogs, online social networking groups, etc. Many of these groups provide the essential social interactions to the Atheist, Freethought, Skeptic and Secularist communities that used to be provided, very inadequately, by in-person groups. Some even provide intellectual leadership, via well-documented and articulately presented facts, that was almost impossible to provide to in-person groups.
This works, IMO, because a good moderator can limit the damage that malcontents can do to the online group, blog, UA-cam channel, etc. Of course, the bad apples can form their own online groups. But the bad apples' inherent laziness and crappy attitudes are limited to their own group (which often fail), and they have little power to contaminate other groups.
In the "good old days", a great speaker and/or leader had to spend large amounts of time reaching a relatively small number of people. Thanks to modern technology, the same amount of effort can now help tens of thousands of people.
So, in my opinion, what is now happening online is far better than the older, in-person model. Lots of great things are happening, and, after 25+ years of my own personal frustration, it's great fun for me to observe and participate in as best I can.
Your UA-cam channel, Emerson Green, is one very good example of the great things that are happening online. Thank you, and keep up the good work!!!
I appreciate that! I also didn't have a great experience with the in-person skeptic stuff, but I bailed out a lot sooner.
So many people bounce from one dogma to another. To consistently upend one's "worldview" in pursuit of truth is disorienting, difficult, and requires one to say "I don't know" when they don't know. This kind of disposition doesn't facilitate group cohesion. It doesn't make an "us" and "them."
I'm starting to think that communities of people need some shared beliefs that define the members (as some consequence of human psychology I don't fully understand). There are two ways for a community to develop those special in-group beliefs: a belief can be true but so novel or esoteric that most people either haven't heard it yet or just don't care; or a belief can be false so the out-group has a reason not to adopt it. Topics that lead to people assembling for the former reason can be healthy communities, but in my experience atheists/skeptics tend to hold a lot of false beliefs about religion, philosophy, and history. It's saddening.
i call myself an occultist, but more specifically, im a pop cultural pagan with an ecclectic practice who works with lovecraftian entities and demons.
i spent some time in an atheist discord recently and made some observations about how people applied skepticism to my beliefs and statements. my beliefs seem pretty ludicrous on their surface, but what i found was that barely a fraction of the server could even hold court with me and ask me real questions. the vast majority of my interactions were either bad faith, assumptions that i was christian, or intensely dismissive of my beliefs because "Lovecraft is fiction"
if i am being irrational, they utterly failed to make their case, too distracted to actually make coherent points and instead relying entirely on pedantry or mockery to be persuasive.
now this is only one server, but a relatively large one. and i am by no means particularly secretive about my beliefs with the caveat that i know how they sound and am wary of bad faithers. but it pains me as someone who values skepticism and atheism, to see them represented this way, even now as a theist.
Yeah, I've noticed that a lot of those kind of people really struggle with Paganism/Polytheism because it isn't fundamentalist Christianity.
@@DarthT15 it's ironic that there's discussion about getting christian evangelists to go "off-script" in a lot of atheist spaces. everyone operates on scripts as i see it.
The thing is that it's completely implausible that you actually believe the things you profess to believe.
You know precisely the fictional origin of Lovecraft's outer gods. So it's save to assume that you're just making a performance.
What would you say if someone took a dump on the ground, turned around and professed "I believe a unicorn took this shit"?
You wouldn't believe that they believe what they say they believe.
And you writing in coherent sentences rather than schizophrenic rants just confirms the conclusion that you're insincere.
I just subscribed to your channel. You're a very good speaker. You're bringing up things I've been thinking about for years now as well. After seeing how vitriolic and shallow some of these skeptic communities were like 9 years ago, I decided to do religious studies on my own time as a hobby to see religious and spiritual practices on their own terms. I've come to the personal conclusion that the skeptic community has no idea what they're talking about in terms of theology or spirituality. It's abundantly clear. and what you say is very true: the "skeptics" have landed on their own conclusions based on the "Aesthetic of Science and Reason" and they won't budge. After years of learning about religion, science, and consciousness research, I don't really see their arguments for absolute scientific materialism holding up as well as the skeptics claim them to be. There's a lot of weird things going on, and I'm glad that reasonable people are beginning to address them without fanaticism or outright rejection.
The question still remains though.. Where's the evidence for any gods or spiritual things? You must remain skeptical until it can be shown to be the case. Our wants and assumptions do not make things true.
@@dustinellerbe4125 i think I can answer best in points.
1). The main issue is the definition of gods that the skeptic community uses: supernatural beings with power over our world. This is the literalist definition. But it’s not the only definition. There’s Christian texts from very devout Christians in the early Middle Ages and even the late Roman period that define God as an impersonal abyss full of creative potential that holds our entire reality and our conscious experience. Look at Meister Eckhart or Marguerite Porete, or Dionysus the Areopaguite for examples. The Skeptic community does not address this definition of God. It’s only concerned with the same interpretation of scripture that Fundamentalists use. If the Godhead I believe in is an emptiness unbound by time and space, can you even say that I believe in God? Wouldn’t that make me an Atheist if the first principle in my world view is impersonal? This is where the definitions the skeptic community calcified start to dissolve. I don’t believe in a personal god, but I also don’t consider myself an Atheist.
2). There is little that Science can do at the moment to even fit consciousness into its models of physics and the world in general. The hard problem can’t really be probed with equipment at the moment and even the foundational axioms of Materialism are losing hold. How do we define evidence in the context of a Non-Materialistic paradigm? We’re moving into territory where meditative experiences and psychedelics could add valuable knowledge to our sense and view of the world.
@@gabrielsoto1693 so you're more of an idealist?
On your point 1.. Your type of god has been addressed by skeptics as well. Again, there is no evidence for the god you believe in or the god the Christians you stated above believe in. That's the point of my comment. If there was evidence, I would consider it. There are many great arguments against idealism or some deistic god/gods. All we want is the evidence. Not feelings. Not concepts.
Point 2.. We know without the body or brain or hardware necessary for consciousness, it doesnt exist. Its directly produced by and the physical is necessary for conscious experience. We have no evidence it exists outside of an entity that's physical. If you have some, I'd like to see it. The evidence is what would change my mind. Everything I've stated can be verified. Again, it comes down to evidence. Arguments aren't evidence. Feelings and thoughts aren't evidence. Could they be true, its possible, but the evidence is still the critical part and that's what is lacking.
@@dustinellerbe4125 you’re also making claims that can’t be substantiated with satisfactory evidence. The hard problem of consciousness is hard because there is no evidence that shows the causal relation between brain states and phenomenal first person experience. To make the claim that without the physical there is no consciousness, you’d have to take for granted that first person subjective consciousness is an epiphenomenon of brain states or similar physical processes. There’s just no evidence for that. We can find the *correlation* between brain states and behavior/emotions/perception. But there is not one local or global brain state that we can find to say “there, that’s the state that generates phenomenal experience”. Furthermore, you’re assuming that physical matter is necessary, but we know that matter is that which can be thoroughly defined through mathematical language. Matter, as far as I’m aware is an abstraction that we can use to model and predict the behavior of the world. We can’t derive the essence of the world from modeling its behavior. What you say is matter could also be processes of mental / non-material essences seen and measured from the second perspective.
You’re also taking axiomatic stances that you’re taking as a priory and you’re also working from a framework that is certainly not the sole and only valid one. You’re essentially arguing from authority by saying that other skeptics have debunked idealism and there’s many great arguments against it. But that’s not the same as actually making an argument yourself. As far as I know, there are good arguments against idealism, but the arguments against materialism are just as strong if not stronger.
@@gabrielsoto1693 what is consciousness? To me, it is the awareness produced by a physical being that posseses the capable hardware necessary to produce such a phenomenon. All of the examples of consciousness come from physical beings/things right? If you have other examples outside of physical entities, can you please show them to me. If not, then this lends very high evidence that it only exists and is produced by such physical entities. Like digestion or bloodflow. When the body dies, all 3 cease to exist. All 3 are produced by the body because it has the necessary hardware.
I have questions for you.
What is consciousness to you?
Where does it come from?
What is it made of?
How does it produce phenomena?
How does it interact with the physical?
If consciousness is data, where did the data come from?
If consciousness is awareness, how did it become aware without a physical world existing simultaneously?
Is the physical necessary for the consciousness, or can it exist alone? If it can exist alone, why do we only see the physical?
Btw, no one has ever answered any of my questions with evidence.
I'm not familiar with the responses James Rhandi had to conspiracy theories, but his work regarding pseudoscience was top notch. His challenge was the same as any scientifically literate individuals would be, provide the experimental process utilized to be replicated by other scientists. I don't really listen to many atheists channels, I've been an atheist for thirty years. I do listen to James Fodor, he does some atheistic topics, but also philosophy and physics. I was interested in what you had to say about panpsychism, because I'm not very familiar with it. I will say that I personally tend to be skeptical about conspiracy theories, especially any that include alleged global groups, or an entire branch of scientific research, or an entire field of academic study, i.e. history or archaeology. Doubting that the whole world is out to get you, without evidence isn't good for your mental health.
I have seen some of the things you have, so the question I have is: have you found a community that embodies critical thinking, truth-finding and "type 1" skepticism?
You make some good points. I used to be pretty involved with the skeptics after leaving religion as well, but have kind of separated. Part of it is due to what you describe, they're so rigid and it's such a hassle to bring up _any_ interesting idea and get shouted down. I have even more problems with the rationalist community but that's one area in which they're better. They like exploring wild concepts of what's "possible."
I think there are parts where you're a bit uncharitable. I think politics are just hard to prove. I'm pretty firmly anti-woke, but otherwise liberal. I'd love to see healthcare for all, much more progressive tax structures, more government services, etc. But I think Horgan's critique was pretty crummy, he started it off just saying he's a contrarian and when invited he wanted to find things to poke the skeptics about. I think it's just really hard to say that anything is a proven in the political realm. But, to be charitable to you, I agree with you that the issue is more that often the skeptics don't even *consider* positions that go against their politics, or will use *bad* arguments to support their preferred politics.
And I think Gorski is one of the worst in that sense. He's so unabashedly liberal that I see no way that doesn't influence his skepticism. (He really needs to get off twitter). I feel like Cara is the same way, to be honest. I was really disappointed in them all when they pulled the review of Shrier's book by Harriet Hall and replaced it with just really poorly sourced articles that fit their narrative. Let the hate ensue for this comment, but Jesse Singal gets a bad rap and in my opinion he's a very thoughtful actor in this domain and he pointed out just how ideologically motivated their responses were. So I guess I agree that the skeptics aren't skeptical enough but I think it's mostly in the woke direction.
You be you. Being skeptical is a good way to find "true things". Requiring justification is not a bad thing. Questioning is a good thing.
There are skeptics, but also people whose gut instincts just happen to lean towards skeptic-ish conclusions.
Skeptic community not skeptic of capitalism? That's new to me
It's an age thing (generational) - older skeptics are more likely to have experienced some form of socialism in the world or the results thereof and are thus more skeptical of socialism. Younger skeptics have grown up in a predominantly capitalist world and are more likely skeptical of capitalism and - LESS skeptical of socialism. It's not that one group is more skeptical than the other, but rather their life experiences inform them differently about which way they lean.
I'm an older skeptic and I am more fiscally right wing (compared to younger skeptics in my region). But this is not due to a faith in capitalism but rather a lack of faith in socialism. Capitalism is flawed and there's more than likely better ways to do economics. But having lived through a much more socialist world I have very little faith in old school Marx based socialism being a better option. Having said that - I am open to the welfare state and social reforms such as universal healthcare. I'm not American though - so these sorts of things like welfare and universal health and education don't spook me.
Not claiming I'm right or that age conveys rightness - just a different experience of the world, a different perspective.
You know before there was actual photographic footage from the holocaust camps people would have called that a conspiracy theory too. For totally psychological reasons I would probably have liked to think that that one was fake. In the end personal attacks about psychology etc are just easier and give a continuous topic so many atheist UA-camrs opt for this „fast food“ strategy.
The problem is the same issue with every ideology, philosophy, religion and movement. The originators are "true believers", they come together for their shared beliefs. When it becomes Popular, and especially if it achieves Fad status, it becomes filled with people that do not actually care about the movement/idea, they only want to be with the "In Crowd".
A prime example of this, is the Hippy "Free love, drugs and music" Movement of the late 60's. It started out in the late 50's as a group of University Students that wanted Academia to concentrate on Classic subjects, e.g., Science, Math, Philosophy, etc, and not deviate to the new Social courses that were beginning to taint higher education. The great Scientists and Philosophers all had Long Hair, which had passé in America, so works of Mozart and his contemporaries, were called "Long Hair" music.
Once it began being getting traction, a lot of people joined just to rebel for rebellion's sake, not because they actually stood for anything of substance or value.
❤❤
I struggled to understand your position. What I heard from your critique is you question the motivations of the individuals who participate in the skeptic community. You consider them pseudo skeptics because they do not specifically address the claims of certain conspiracy theory adherents and that James Randi was running some form of fraud. Is my understanding correct?
Fun and interesting video. Asking for a friend. Can I be an atheist skeptic who worships Daedra and preaches the silly logic of the quantum multiverse? I mean we all know that ghosts and paranormal events are just the fluctuating states of quanta suspended in a thaum field made manifest by generous application of physical and metaphysical energy... right? We all know that, right? :P
daedric pagans exist.
im not one but i am adjacent as a Lovecraftian Pagan.
you might think it's silly but youre gonna dismiss me out of hand because of that silly sound rather than investigate what the real people youre talking about are actually saying?
ok
@@HadalStreetlights Sooo. You are saying there are people out there who seriously worship literal alien beings from lore of a video game first created in the early 1990's? Cause you got me searching. I've scoured the webs high and low, and other than fan-fiction head nods some cosplay for conventions, I can't find anything serious about this.
@@LoneWolfUsul ive shared discord servers with them. yes they exist.
@@HadalStreetlights
Ok and about a billion times more plausibly, it's a performance. They don't actually believe Daedra exist.
@@HadalStreetlights
Lol, ok.
So if I had a perfect oracle and held a gun to your head and forced you to guess whether Shub Niggurath exists, you would say yes to save your life?
A genuine skeptic to me is Robert Lawrence Kuhn.
Do you have reasons independent of panniftyism to oppose Carroll's point about the Core Theory? "But I really am conscious!" is theory-neutral.
Not sure how panniftyism bears on this issue, but I think Carroll's point can be undermined in a few ways. An emergentist (strong emergentist, that is) could accept that our physical theories are accurate within their domains, but reject the reductionism implicit in Carroll's claim. Maybe there are new substances or powers that come into being at higher levels of emergence (e.g. in the biological realm). Then there's a (less plausible, imo) route that relies on pessimistic meta-induction. Scientific theories are tentative, and we probably can't imagine what our descendants will be talking about millennia down the line!
@@EmersonGreen Freudian slip, I meant to write psychism.
I'm not sure how the emergentist would go about arguing for novel powers given that consciousness seesm to be the only thing that gives us some (defeasible) reason to think that the biological realm isn't as boring as the Core Theory would suggest.
I think that, on the contrary, appealing to pessimistic induction is in theory more plausible, but in actuality it's not going to work. The first problem is formulating the skepticism such that it doesn't collapse to a self-defeating global skepticism (like Stanford's does, like Mizrahi has shown in his response papers). Even if that problem is solved, I think the statistic was something like 90% of all scientists who have ever lived are alive today - If one compares the history of science (or inquiry more broadly) from the Big Bang to the 1500s and from the 1500s to today, I think the difference is astronomical and any inductions on the history has to take that into account.
@@jolssoni2499 An emergentist would disagree! Though, now that you say you meant psychism and not niftyism, I have to point out that panpsychists have zero issue with the core theory. We don't think that there's any new power or substance that emerges. That's what leads some of us to affirm panpsychism -- concern for maintaining physics as it is without having to believe some hand-waving story about the emergence of subjective experience offered by physicalists.
I do think you have a very strange view on skeptics. This seems to fit more on people like sargon of akkad who i would not view as a skeptic.
My understanding was that JREF literally had documentation showing that there was 1 million dollars held in a JREF controlled account. If you go to the One MIllion Dollar Paranormal Challenge wikipedia page and go to footnote 20 you get a link to the document I'm talking about. It says March 2013 and it shows 1.4 million dollars in the account. That's pretty good evidence that they had the money to pay out. And there were people who took on the challenge and agreed to the judging criteria and failed the tests using rules they agreed to.
I would love if you had a discussion with someone like Steve Novella on this and the book that him and his group wrote. The issues you have with it. That would be great.
I wasn't challenging the legitimacy of the prize on those grounds (though I don't think the actual financial situation worked exactly as you outlined there). I think Randi already knew ahead of time that no one would succeed. For one, because he wasn't interested in actually checking anything. He already knew he was right before he had to empirically research anything -- that's why I included the NPR journalist's correspondence with him. And two, because the organization had a few tricks up its sleeve. That's worth exploring in more detail; I didn't get into the weeds of that at all.
To be honest, I have no interest in discussing things with Steven Novella. I've listened to dozens (if not hundreds) of hours of his podcast, I've read much of his book, and I used to read his blog often. I used to be a fan; it's not like I'm unaware of what he thinks. This is not some kind of plea for skeptics to woo me back. I'm not having a come to Jesus moment here. Some skeptics are not persuadable and not really worth talking to. Besides, I can just accuse myself of committing informal fallacies without Steve present.
@@EmersonGreen I think Randi was confident nobody would win because he didn't believe in the supernatural and paranormal. There were people who took on the challenge and they agreed to the testing procedures beforehand and failed the tests coupled with that accounting statement I referenced previously, make me think the prize and challenge were most likely legitimate.
I'm not trying to get you back into skeptic circles. It's just I have never heard some of issues you have brought up (who weren't crock pots) and I would love to hear how someone like Steve Novella would respond to your critiques and concerns, that's all.
I find skeptics to be extremely narrow-minded, just like religious fanatics. Coincidence?
Well funnily enough, a lot of them apparently were religious fundamentalists at one point. Or at least claim to have been raised in that environment. Which is certainly no coincidence.
How interesting, I have cringed several times at Shermer (his interview with Julia Galef is a real cringe-fest). Randi seems much more like a true sceptic to me, I've seen him actually perform experiments with proper blinding and even when shown to be right being modest and saying "this doesn't prove that I am right, it's just one test".
That said, he looks like a curmudgeon though. (Also, just 13m in so you may present awesome evidence against my current stance and I'll eat my words)
(The story about Randi being dismissive about that woman's experience seems pretty bad)
I know that Richard Dawkins had said he would not attend any conference that Rebbeca Watson was at but have never heard that Randi did anything similar.
That stuff about people desperately trying to find holes in official narratives that are clearly true reminds me of what Christians say when non-Christians point out key differences in the resurrection accounts.
It Reminds Me of when People Point Out Key Differences in The Resurrection Account in Christianity and Demand People Resolve them, Only to Deny Ay Reason for Not seeing them as a problem and then Shouting "You are Using Mental Gymnastics" as if that Proves what is said Wrong. Like pretending The Number of Women in Each Gospel is different simply Because Some Gospels Mention Names others don't. I mean, We are often Told The Gospel of John says Only Mary Magdalene went, She Alone went to The grave of Jesus, when that can't be true given in The Gospel Of john it Clearly Says She told The Apostles that She and the Other Women saw The Empty om Et All. The Differences aren't Really Key Diffeences and Not Really Contradictions, but People like You Insist they are.
@@skwills1629 first, please type without capital letters on every word it is quite hard to read.
Second can you please provide an example to me of a contradiction that cannot be harmonised.
@@BavidDigg - Once You Insulted My Capitalisation like All of Your Tribe does it Really did Prove My Point. Do does that Stupide Smug Harmonization crap. I am Really Sick and Tired of how You Bully Boy Mindless Atheist Drones Think You can Insult Your way to Victory. By the way Idiota, I didn't Harmonize Anything, I Pointed Out how The Stupide Atheists like You Who say The Gospel Of John Reports that Mary Magdalene went Alone to The grave are Idiotas Who have never Read The text since it actually says She did not Go Alone. Why are You so Stupide?
This video deserves a lot more attention and recognition than it has so far.
ALIENS❤
I accept your criticism but I think you are absolutely incorrect.
Its not that I have a "handed down" set of beliefs, but I understand how science works, I understand what is MOST likely, I understand how to calculate odds, I don't accept one person or organizations claim on subjects. Skeptics research them all, spend time to look through it.
James Randy didn't just go, "well that's impossible because I think it is" he actually knew how the trick was done and so was justified in non belief.
"Bush did 911" yeah there is a hint of truth in that, as the US government in the first Bush admin, funded Islamic extremists, which bit us in the butt, same as Germany funding the soviet take over, or Russia funding the middle east. But we know extremists took two huge planes, with little security at the time, and rammed them into the center of buildings that needed the center to stay up, with cut corners on fire prevention and tons of flammable items in the buildings. Which is more likely, a conspiracy involving most of the government at the time, or what I said above?
Same thing for Christianity, is it MORE likely a apocalyptic preacher became a cult leader, said a bunch of crap, and his fans wrote down stuff for years later that got more and more embellished. OR is it more likely a dude was born unto a virgin, crucified for our sins to forgive our sins (which he himself made and could forgive as 'god') and the proof is 3 day later resurrections that only 1 person says they actually saw (who knows if he did).
Oumuamua, it is extra solar, its not artificial based on our readings of it, from my knowledge and memory all original stories that came out, were specifically either magazines, or people thinking it was weird how it was shaped and its orbit. Okay...how does that make it extra solar artificial? We use evidence in the world to determine facts, we skeptically look at it and narrow down what we know till we figure it out. Thats what SCIENCE IS. Is it fun to think its something else? Yes. Is it POSSIBLE its some alien trash slowly pushed out an airlock in a log shape floating through space and just seems natural, sure. But WHY would that be the most likely?
Again the point is to assess these critically and skeptically, not just go "hey lots of people believe it" or "they are conspiracies lets ignore them" a popular conspiracy is just what the public believes. Like the whole "uses 10% of our brain" bull crap. How about Vaccines? When I was younger and dumber, I took it that people who knew more than me and said vaccines and needles were gross knew what they were saying. Years later and I now know what Vaccines do to us, the NON evidence against vaccines and I support them more then the best preachers.
Knowledge gives us power, that is the key, research, reliable sources. Vibe checks is how "skeptics" and "conspiracy theorists" work, not people who understand. Not the fact that we are skeptics.
Skeptic 2? I've never encountered a skeptic that went off "vibes" or the official narrative and I don't think it is fair to make that claim of James Randi. You mischaracterize the Bayesian argument used to dismiss conspiracy theories, it is not that it contradicts the prevailing narrative but that it is highly improbable a priori even if there are a few real large scale conspiracies. You're taupe fallacy is better known as the survivorship bias. You cite some odd statement someone made about Oumamua and claim that it represents the "skeptic community" and I don't see that as representative. Your brief reference to "elevator-gate" is not at all accurate. Don't agree at all that a lot of skeptics are "true believers in the system", whatever you think is the system, and they don't have unwarranted belief that what is on the news (mainstream media) is true. I think your perceptions here are just off base. Your claim that skeptics do not question things published in NYT, WaPo, etc. That's not true. Also, recognizing that these publications have occasionally lied does not necessarily point to any specific change in world view. The idea that there is a norm for Skeptics to accept information gained through torture is unfounded. I don't know why you make that claim. Do you have some quotes to back that up? You equivocate on the meaning of belief when you say "I can't find any official narrative that they don't believe". The skeptics I know do not "believe" any official narrative, they simply do not endorse an alternative narrative where evidence is lacking. I think you've confused those things.
Not well thought out. misrepresents. Misunderstands scepticism in general.
He will grow as a thinker.
Skeptics are insufferable Exhibit #47185829945. Give an example of what you’re talking about or stfu
Emerson, I am in shock. I have agreed with nearly everything you have said in your podcasts with the exception of pansychism which I don't except but only because I don't understand it well enough. I feel like you are pulling an april fools prank. You have straw maned the claims and beliefs of skeptics. I listened to this a second time and tried to make notes of where I think you are misrepresenting or misunderstanding the claims of skeptics but the list got too long. I am not a skilled debater so I am hoping that a prominent Skeptic challenges you on this and that you can engage them honestly.
Isn’t parapsychology just nonsense?
Michael Shermer is definitely a liar and misleading source
All the things you listed that the skeptic community attacks are false ideas that have maintained memetic hold on the irrational human mind
i think skepticism is good but skeptics are often shit at utilizing it.
i also think skeptics are prone to overlooking truths in things that arent literal.
maybe, just maybe, no community is perfect or rational. even skeptics.
@@HadalStreetlights I would actually say ideas like Pyrroian skepticism where they actively believe that nothing can be known not even whether or not we can know something is just not a worldview from which one can build a reasoned life. I don’t think we are anywhere near close to knowing anywhere near everything and I know there are domains of existence that we have no way of truly comprehending. What is it like to be a Mantis Shrimp with its many light coned eyes? What is the experiencial phenomenology of single celled organisms? I hear even a few major cosmologists who keep suggesting that consciousness may be primary but what would convey/carry that consciousness? I am open to believe that our brains have a purpose in evolving the spiritual senses but is it just a means of ensuring social cohesion around a set group of beliefs or actual communications from beings beyond our 3 dimensional reality? Occam’s razor and all that….
@@HadalStreetlights
I think you're confused about how the word "truth" applies to things.
When I say "kangaroos live in antarctica" that's false, even though kangaroos exist and antarctica exists and kangaroos are the kind of thing that could be somewhere and antarctica is the kind of the something could be in.
@@MrCmon113 I don't think I am. In fact, I think you are.
Sam Harris strikes me as a true skeptic.
Sam Harris is a literal spiritual guru what are you talking about?
@@konstantine4847
Yeah, three months after installing the Waking Up app, I buy Sam's groceries and he sleeps with my wife.
lol
@@konstantine4847 Along purely empirical lines - he isn't promoting an ideology.
@@Scarletpimpanel73 yes he is okay there, but I noticed he only invites republican or centrist democratic speakers to share their viewpoints. Sam is generally a conservative, he just hates Trump. And the problem is he seems to get caught in an echo chamber where he only invites people with similar views. Like the last time he had a progressive on, must have been years ago when he got in trouble for not pushing back on Charles Murray in an interview they had on IQ and related areas.
No one is perfect so I don't really fault him for it. But technically speaking, he has failed as a skeptic, because he doesn't self-critique his own position anymore, he just looks for people that amplify it.
I agree with much, but you're doing yourself what you accuse others of doing, namely misrepresenting the other side. E.g., you clearly know nothing about the million dollar price, and just write it off as a publicity stunt (by citing someone else who knows nothing about it, probably because of the confirmation bias of both of you, or bringing up irrelevant facts about how/what Randi was paid by JREF), much like you can find some skeptic who doesn't know anything about some particular conspiracy theory and writes that off like crazy.
If it's just a publicity stunt then you shouldn't have any problem finding instances where they've acted in bad faith. Can't? Because that didn't happen, because while it was for publicity (as it should be), it was also, more importantly, an honest way to actually verify if someone had the supernatural powers they proclaimed to have. Nobody did. The tests were fair, and conditions agreed to by all parties involved, and it turned out that nobody had the powers they claimed.
Hey dipshit, I *did* think the million dollar prize was a real thing *until* I started reading stories from people who’d applied for it and Randi’s responses to criticisms over the topic. Why is every skeptic like this jfc
@@EmersonGreen Nice name-calling there... Maybe you could provide some actual proof of your claims, eh?
Most skeptics are selective skeptics. Only skeptical about what fits their ideology.