Phil Plait, "Don't Be a Dick" (Part 1 of 3)

[hyr00l]

If you say you always end up backing up what you were just trying to disprove, then maybe you are the one not thinking clearly.

[Zaxxen69]

Too bad Hitchens never figured it out.

[Thinkdeep420]

The Lord is not my shepherd for I am not a sheep

[LsBaba]

Phil Plait was brave to give this talk at TAM. He clearly is not at ease presenting this message (from a series of notes), but believes it's important.

Not the most captivating performance, but the point he's trying to make is one that needs to be said and taken on-board by the skeptic community.

[leconfidant]

The main weakness of arrogance and contempt isn't just that you're not very convincing. The other half is you're not in a very good place to appreciate the points of the other person. As someone on the fence with religion, I notice that even creationists make good points now and again. When they do notice that new atheists refuse to budge an inch. Whatever the truth happens to be, in terms of learning ability, open-mindedness and reasonability, I judge these groups to be as bad as each other.

[standauffish]

@leconfidant That is the wisest comment I have seen on here. Refreshing and to the point

[neil73]

Cottingley fairies ftw! Cottingley is less than 10 miles from me! Those fairies are mischeivious bastards, setting off car alarms in the night and breaking into my flat and hiding my socks before I get up. The bastards!

[standauffish]

How is he an astronomer? Seems he is a full time PAID debunker that makes his living debunking others.

I guess selling books and speaking tours debunking UFO's paranormal activity and God is more lucrative than astronomy

Funny think is... Quantum physics is showing that Phil is full of crap. Do yourself a favor and watch "What the Bleep do we know"

"Practicing the art of skepticism what a joke. How many scientist with new ideas have been ostracized by their peers throughout history

[DwknsDnnttHtchnsHrrs]

@standauffish How an astronomer: he's got a PhD in astronomy, worked on the Hubble Space Telescope & STIS, worked for NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, continues to assist active astronomical work happening today. All you present, however, is ad hominem: his qualifications are not in question here but his message of effective conduct. That said, 1. astronomy is not quantum physics, so... 2. Debunking work is useful & worth paying for. 3. Religion has ostracized peers to death, science debunks

[TheAtheologian]

@standauffish Skepticism isn't about saying no to new ideas, it's about not saying yes immediately.

And then there is science, which is about finding out why to say yes or no, and unanimously the skeptic has to show that we say no until we can, honestly and ethically, say yes.

[standauffish]

@TheAtheologian Bull crap... Researchers set about finding answers Skeptics just debunk and never lift a finger to do any real work, just denounce others for trying.

When Galileo tried to tell the world the truth, the Skeptics of his day almost burned him at the stake... took them 600 years to apologize.

Phil needs to get out and get a real job LOL A professional debunker? LMAO He would be out of business if it weren't for people who dare to think outside the norm

[TheAtheologian]

@standauffish Skepticism is what keeps homeopathy at bay. Skepticism is what stops faith healers.

Not to mention that science itself is an exercise of skepticism. If we were to reject an old view and accept a new one on circumstantial evidence, then why is CERN rerunnning the neutrino tests?

And Galileos skeptics were the church, not scientists. These were not rational criticisms because he used a crappy telescope (he did btw, he got lucky) but ideological critics.

[A86]

@TheAtheologian - Actually, there were a lot of Christians back in Galileo's day who supported him and some scientists who didn't who were convinced of Aristotelian crystal spheres and such. The storyline of Galileo being a lone voice in the wilderness among the church while scientists universally jumped on board with what he had to say is a gross oversimplification.

[TheAtheologian]

@A86 I can accept that, but honestly I don't think you view that as a valid criticism of skepticism.

For every genius who gets lucky, there are thousands of crazy people who get it wrong.

Paraphrasing from Shermers book, I can't remember the exact quote.

[A86]

@TheAtheologian - Well, I wasn't trying to criticize skepticism as I'm a skeptic myself. I was just criticizing the oversimplified view that all of the church has always been monolithically opposed to scientific discovery and that scientists welcome new discovery with open arms. Albert Einstein's new physics got quite a bit of resistance in the scientific community as did some of Darwin's theories originally. Unfortunately some scientists can be traditionalists instead of skeptics.

[standauffish]

@TheAtheologian I know many cases where homeopathy and faith healing have helped where medicine failed

Phil is not a skeptic but a rabid debunker. He calls BS on everything just to hear himself talk.. and get paid for it by his mindless groupies

You cannot debunk a belief. If he feels so strong to get his anti religious message out, why not visit Iran and give a speech about the evils of Islam? Oh that's right... they might kill him Good thing we have free speech :~D

[TheAtheologian]

@standauffish No, you don't, you know of plenty of cases were people have gotten better due to their own bodies being awesome, and blaming it on something with a documented effect of nil. I'm sorry to be so harsh but I've had my monthly share of antu-science.

I'm pretty sure saying that new things should not currently be accepted as truths is the dictionary definition of skepticism.

Yes, it is good we have free speech, maybe we can actually manage to come to conclusions about truth.

[standauffish]

@TheAtheologian 'Truth' is relative. Today's truth is not the same as yesterdays truth and tomorrow we will find a new truth. To be arrogant and deny everything is just stupid and accomplishes nothing nor is it constructive. All it will do is antagonize and make people dig in to their ideas. Those debunk tactics will never change anyone's mind.

Just makes a laughing stock out of him, a 'scientist' who makes more money selling HIS religion of bunk than he can in his studied field

[TheAtheologian]

@standauffish I can philosophically accept your factual relativism (barely) but the current knowledge and understanding of truth is that homeopathy and faith healing does not do anything beyond a placebo effect. And our only way to relate with the world is to accept the current best understanding, even if it turns out not to be true.

And as a scientist, it is his work to present and argue for the current best explanation for how the world works. This is "truth"; our understanding of the universe

[TheAtheologian]

@standauffish Oh, and if you want to hear my principles on the nature of reality and what is true in a philosophical setting, let me know, I was more operating under the principles you sue, namely the relativism of knowledge etc.

I also think it would be senseless of me to simply sit here defending him, as it is quite obvious that you should deny ideas that make no sense today, and change your mind tomorrow, if it then does make sense, not a second before.

[un4g1v3n1]

@standauffish Plus the fact that once Phil is faced with someone who he ignores or runs from because of being caught lying....As Phil is very good at....He runs like a coward! Cowardly skeptics are the worst!

[raydredX]

@standauffish What The Bleep Do We Know seem like an awful pile of bullshit from the first 20 minutes I've seen.

Do yourself a favor and watch "Lecture 1->10 | Modern Physics: Quantum Mechanics".

[standauffish]

@raydredX No thanks Main stream physics sucks eggs As soon as they tell you one thing they find new answers that prove they were wrong yesterday

Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Albert Einstein

Now THERE was a cool guy :D

[raydredX]

@standauffish (+/-) "They tell you one thing just to proves that it's wrong tomorrow" Yep. That's called honesty, it's fine to admit you don't know rather than relying on absolute answers you either can't or don't want to prove wrong. NOT ONE theory is proven to be right. But they work better than everything else.

Albert Einstein was a cool guy, a physicist, not an ass. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Dishonesty is worse than both.

Or maybe you're just a trollfish.

[Whisper6911]

oh yeah, lets use reason on people who rejected reason a long time ago and life their life in complete ignorance of it.

yeah thats a debate thats going to make a difference.

seriously i cannot think of a more futile and thankless exorcise.

these people are religious FOR A REASON you moron!

truth scares the shit out of them, delusion offers them everything they ever wanted.

these people are simply not buying what you are selling no matter how nice you are.

[Whatistobe]

@Whisper6911 In fact, this is exactly what Plait is addressing: "how do you convince someone that they're not thinking clearly when they're not thinking clearly?" There are strong incentives to be irrational. But Plait doesn't suggest "turning the other cheek." He only suggests that taking the high road is the ONLY way ultimately to prevail. When we merely call others *ahem* "morons," we burn bridges to resolution, and we're better off building them even if most "morons" won't cross them... yet

[Whisper6911]

@Whatistobe no dude, he utterly fails to adress, or perhaps even realise, that these people are not thinking clearly, they never wanted to think clearly!

u can bring a horse to water, but dude if it doesn't drink...

...you might have to kill and eat it.

there is no way to prevail, this is the fallacy.

people who reject reason are not sensitive to reason, period.

u may sway them for a moment, trying to make truth more attractive,

but that only works until they see something shiny.

[Whisper6911]

@Whatistobe these people are so deeply invested in their delusions, that they derive their entire

self image from it.

if their faith falters, their identity falters, and no matter what you try the only result will be not simply the ego defending itself, it will be the ego fighting for its very survival.

so ultimately what you are selling is an identity crisis that is absolute, in that it leaves nothing intact whatsoever.

[Whisper6911]

@Whisper6911 no matter how nicely you say it, the message is: you are bullshit, and you need to be taken apart and redesigned in order to be a real human being.

and this to people who have poked out their eyes and ears and taught themselves thought blocking techniques without anyones help, just to avoid your marketing.

it is far easier to sell an actual physical death with illusions, then it is to sell life with truth.

suicide bombers are a good example of that.

[Whatistobe]

@Whisper6911 In defense of Plait he's fairly clear: we're even genetically wired to "believe;" "skepticism is hard;" we're in an "uphill battle" against overwhelming odds; etc. He establishes that fact because it is folly to take the matter so lightly as to think one can brush the problem off with an insult alone. But the counter-message isn't "you are bullshit." It is "you are a human being, and you need to start thinking critically." Note that atheism IS on the rise. People ARE losing blinders

[Whisper6911]

@Whatistobe maybe, but i think we delude ourselves if we think we have any control over these things.

[Whatistobe]

@Whisper6911 True that people change not just as a matter of persuasion and usually only when they're already reaching out for support to make that decision. However, massive events tend to create the conditions for change that otherwise seem impossible. Modern society is irreversibly based on science, and there's no way back, so that inevitable condition alone creates the material incentive to replace superstition with reason. Plait just advocates meeting that challenge maturely and sagaciously

[Whatistobe]

@Whisper6911 It's certainly not just a matter of persuading people. The ones that leave religion behind are usually already reaching out for the discussion. Plait just advises to keep that discussion viable and welcoming. Social events are changing people's perspective. Modern society requires science and is thus a material reality that provides the survival incentive to defer to critical thinking rather than superstition. There's no return to before technology. Clarity is a need, not a virtue

[bodhrangeek]

Wow. Got a live homeopathy retard up in the comments. lawl.

[DwknsDnnttHtchnsHrrs]

@bodhrangeek It was feeling a bit like a wall, just serving to receive a plaster of anti-Phil posters. I need only stand there and he not only comes up with my arguments for me but also tears them down- so thoughtful and generous of him. I have the feeling he just zeroes in on any video with Plait's name in the title and spams his anti-skeptic/ pro-homeopathy spiel, figuring to score a point

[bodhrangeek]

@DwknsDnnttHtchnsHrrs Well, he has to justify his wasted time pursuing a bullshit path. Pretty much a Scientologist without the Thetans. Homeopathy is always good for a laugh. But good job as I read everything while that was playing, not that there was much.

[Bandershot]

Here's another example. Plait is the president of an organization led by a man (Randi) who offers unilaterally to give $1M for "proof" of any number of things he & Plait don't believe in, such as homeopathy. They claim there's no logical explanation for the action of its remedies, therefore it's a scam. But now MD Anderson (Houston), the nation's #1 rated cancer clinic, is offering homeopathic treatment, citing scientific evidence for its effectiveness in treating cancer. Where' the $1M now?

[Bandershot]

Granted, I'm assuming that you're taking the usual TAM position on homeopathy, but Plait does speaks of it as an example of pseudoscience & he regurgitates his own faith based talking points. Allow me to illustrate a video of me was shown at one of these TAMs, after which Randi refers to me as "this idiot Benneth." Now, if TAM represents balanced objectivity, why wasn't I there for the kind of dialogue Plaitt is calling for, to tear me apart in person? Afraid of the facts? Want more?

[DwknsDnnttHtchnsHrrs]

@Bandershot "Granted, I'm assuming..." Exactly. You assume and haven't asked me a word about my stance on anything, much less homeopathy, and you've now instilled in me a great disinterest. Since you'd rather blather than listen, I'll make this clearer: Plait's message in these videos has NOTHING TO DO with pseudo-science. It addresses concerns he has with the conduct of those paving the way for a new future. You'd know that if you'd actually WATCH the videos you comment on- and not be a dick

[Bandershot]

I can give you plenty of "cases in point." But you can't reasonably evaluate them. Take the homeopathic remedies you say are inert for example. When confronted with in vitro tests that show their biochemical action, you won't be able to accept them. Your belief in the impossible is so strong you may not be able to even confront contradictory evidence, much less accept it. You're too committed to it being impossible. "Skepticism" is really just an excuse to dismiss what you don't want to believe.

[DwknsDnnttHtchnsHrrs]

@Bandershot This video addresses "being a dick," not refuting pseudo-science. As such, although intended to inform and correct fellow skeptics, it applies to everyone. In your case you're merely reacting to the name Plait, presuming my own position on homeopathy, and strawmanning skepticism as a whole. It's no surprise your comments come on Part 1 since I doubt you watched any of the 3 parts. I advise reappraising your arguments and placing them on videos where the "cases in point" are addressed

[Bandershot]

@DwknsDnnttHtchnsHrrs Thanks for illustrating the point Plait failed to make with you. . . and mine too. He wouldn't have made abuse his topic for TAM 8 if it wasn't for embarassing commentary exactly like what you just posted. You're supposed to convince me with logic, remember? What he doesn't understand is that if abuse was taken out of "skeptic" commentary, there'd BE no commentary! If you don't want it in this part of the lecture, you don't need to get insulting, just disable it! ;-)

[DwknsDnnttHtchnsHrrs]

@Bandershot At least you're closer to the point now. However, I wasn't insulting. I was pointing out your own "dickness" by showing how you 1. weren't commenting on topic, 2. invented my stance for an easy strawman, 3. impugned my own skills of "reasonable evaluation." The comments section is open to accommodate meaningful discussion, not spam. And, no, I'm not "supposed to" do anything. You're the one making off-topic claims, not I. Plait's criticism is constructive. Yours is... irrelevant

[Bandershot]

What I find to be curious is how skepticism of the type Plait et al profess never questions its own beliefs and in the end refuses to acept the scientiic literature that contradicts them. Case in point is the recent work by Montagnier that confirmed the work y Benveniste, which atually confirmed earlier work. O what happens is we see the sketical argument turned on its end, now arguing its own superstition of denial against lab experiments. It can easily be put to the test, Phil.

[DwknsDnnttHtchnsHrrs]

@Bandershot What exactly is "the" skeptical argument that it can be "turned on its end?" Skepticism is at base a retention of the interrogative despite the persistence of declarative claims. Skeptics delineate between claims based on their credibility, and in that reasoning you might find "skeptical arguments," though there would be a plethora, not one overriding one. I'd advise addressing "cases in point" rather than skepticism as a method, but Plait's speech is about conduct, not claims, so...