FriendsCommunitiesMetaphyiscalHeader

Forums Forums Answering Skeptics and Debunking Cynics The evidence for anomalous cognition – a skeptical analysis.

6 voices
17 replies
  • Author
    Posts
  • #69853
    lucianarchy
    Participant

    Originally posted by VTFlowerGirl

    But how well do anthropologists fare who ignore local customs and are insulting to their subjects? If the anthropologists is considered rude and intrusive do the subjects being observed become aggressive and defensive?

    Bottom line is if you irritate enough people here (or only ONE that matters as far as that goes), you aren’t going to stick around here for long.

    I suggest that is the way to “answer skeptics”, using the standards and values they set.

    No, I disagree. Maybe if we were in a skeptic forum. This is a friendly JE forum and you came here. You are the guest here, and you are the one who needs to use “standards and values” as they pertain to the readership here, not the other way around, in order to effectively communicate your thoughts to this crowd.

    Pam and Steve both have it completely right. When it’s a struggle to read and comprehend a post because of unfamiliar terms or too much scientific jargon then many tend to not read the post completely or just ignore it.

    I don’t think anyone’s been “rude” or “insulting”, have they?

    If anyone’s ‘glazed over’ at these terms, then why are they reading a folder entitled ‘Answering Skeptics and Debunking Cynics ‘ ?

    How do you interact or discuss with skeptics if you don’t use the terms which are used in the scientific method? Don’t you think there is too much division in this world? Isn’t it about time ‘skeptics’ and ‘believers’ found some common ground, they have a lot to offer each other.

    #69868
    Pam B
    Keymaster

    Isn’t it about time ‘skeptics’ and ‘believers’ found some common ground, they have a lot to offer each other.

    You’re so right about that. Let’s move forward. :)

    #68388
    prudy
    Participant

    Hi gang,

    Reading this thread put me in mind of something that happened to me not too long ago. I was at a conference about environmental indicators, and a disagreement ensued over the term “health” being used when evaluating various habitats. There was a faction at this conference who had problems with the word, and we wasted a lot of time debating the relative merits of the term. Finally, some wizard came up with the term “homeostasis”, and this sounded sufficiently scientific to please the attendees. Not only is it a term that the general public won’t understand, the act of coming up with it prevented the attendees from doing any actual work on the salient issues.

    I’m proud to say that I no longer work in the sciences. I am, however, a bona-fide whiz at crossword puzzles. Homeostasis, indeed.

Viewing 3 posts - 16 through 18 (of 18 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.