Irish Skeptics

ecksor

This sounds interesting. Mind you, I didn't think you came across terribly well on the Marian Finucane show at the time.

These sorts of threads crop up quite frequently on the Science boards though.

davros

Originally posted by ecksor
This sounds interesting. Mind you, I didn't think you came across terribly well on the Marian Finucane show at the time.

See, if there had been an Irish Skeptics board, you would have had somewhere to make that observation (Incidentally, Society reps have been on that particular show 3 or 4 times so far.)

These sorts of threads crop up quite frequently on the Science boards though.

Part of the point would be to comment on the society itself - suggestions for speakers, whether there should be an annual "bent spoon" award, that sort of thing.

So how does this thread get moved to Feedback so I can canvass for members' votes?

Originally posted by DeVoreOf course I dont believe you will.

Aha, a new recruit!

davros

Originally posted by ecksor
When you say want to set up a 'community' board, do you mean you have a community behind this ready to use it, or do you mean that you want somewhere to promote your society, or both?

'Yes' to the first part anyway. This is a real society with paid membership. 130 people turned up to the last meeting.

These meetings only happen every two months however, so there is limited opportunity for discussion. And they are not so convenient if you live outside of Dublin.

I don't know how many Society members have Boards IDs. I don't know how many will sign up and post. But it will be a completely open forum so anyone with an interest or who happens along to one of the lectures is just as likely to wade in online.

Regarding promotion of the society, it's not really my aim here. I imagine most people would find the forum via our newsletter or website rather than idly thumbing through the list of community boards (though I do that myself from time to time :-)

Apologies, DeVore, for having a discussion on the Admin board

albertw

Originally posted by davros
I'm asking here because I reckon some of you astronomers already know of the society through recent links with Astronomy Ireland

Yea we frequently have threads wondering if we actually believe in the existance of `Astronomy Ireland` or whether its just a marketing name for a company. As you can probably already guess I'm skeptical of anyone who has links with A&S Ltd. ;-)

- The Irish Skeptics Society (ISS) was represented at Astro-Expo 2003

Luck you. Im still pissed off that my local astronomy society (and all other astronomy socieities inthe country for that matter) was not only not invited, but was excluded from having an exhibit at this event.

David Moore and Paul O'Donoghue of the ISS appeared together on the Marian Finucane show to debunk astrology

So? Sounded more like he appeared to promote himself and insult the other panel members. Something which I felt anyway left the listener feeling sorry for the astrologers with the critical (not skeptical) abuse they recieved! Poor old Fergus!

The forum will be for society members to discuss society matters and for anyone at all to ask questions about or discuss the extraordinary claims of astrology, alternative medicine, psychics, etc.

Your society already has a fourm of sorts on your webpage so why bother? Promoting yourselves this way will surely just detract users from your own webpage I would have thought?

Finally, you seem assume that we would be interested since you asume that we are interested in David Moore which isn't reflective of eveyone here. Furthermore I refer you to copies of the `Journal of Astronomy Ireland` from 1992 which carried articels on UFO paths across Ireland, so perhaps Astronomy & Space Ltd. are no as sceptical as you would assume :-)

since there are the links between our societies.

This is not a society nor represesentative of the views of `Astronomy Ireland`, just want to be clear on that :-)

You have establised that you have links with AI/A&S Ltd., I don't see any link between you and any of the other 10 or so Astronomy Soceities in the Country. Though if you have speakers who would be interested at talking or having exhibits at Astronomy events around the country then let me know and I can give you the emails of the organisers, and perhaps they could suggest some people that you may be interested in having to talk, particularly in the broad topic of `aliens`.

Apologies if I come across harsh, I usually do when people assume that if you are interested in astronomy in Ireland then you subscribe to A&S :-)

Good luck!

Cheers,
~Al
--
www.irishastronomy.org

davros

Originally posted by albertw
Your society already has a fourm of sorts on your webpage so why bother? Promoting yourselves this way will surely just detract users from your own webpage I would have thought?

We have a weblog on the home page and people can attach comments to each entry. But I don't think there is any comparison between that and a properly threaded forum like this board. To take only one example, there is no way for someone to start a new topic.

The core of the society should be discussion and argument but we are really not offering the "space" for that online currently. I also hope that a board would attract a much more diverse audience, more critical and not composed solely of supporters or members of the society.

Finally, you seem assume that we would be interested since you asume that we are interested in David Moore...

Well, yes, it did come across like that. But I was really trying to appeal to your reputations as rational observers of the universe, rather than to your various (non)affiliations.

Though if you have speakers who would be interested at talking or having exhibits at Astronomy events around the country then let me know and I can give you the emails of the organisers, and perhaps they could suggest some people that you may be interested in having to talk

Excellent! I'll pass that on.

Apologies if I come across harsh

No, not at all. It has all been very enlightening :-)

GuanYin

We get a good bit of traffic on the science boards that would probably cross over into this, creationism, John Titor etc etc.

That said, I like the idea of the forum alot and have seen it work well on other forums (anomilies have a good website) but really I don't know if it would get much posting traffic.

I really thought someone said we had some sort of private X-files community board (although it may have been an ironic comment in retrospect) but as a community board or an add-on to the science sub-catagory, I endorse

Myksyk

Sorry thread killer...can't let you have the last word. Was at the Skeptics' talk tonight in Wynn's hotel after their appearance on the Marian Finucane show this a.m. Over 100 people at it. Excellent. Stimulating brain-food ... you don't have to agree with everything ... just think!!

ecksor

That chap from NUIG on the radio this morning didn't help the self-righteousness image. He's very fond of that word 'placebo' though

Calibos

Tis a great word! I used it quite a lot in the Homeopathy thread on P.I. :D

davros

Originally posted by ecksorThat chap from NUIG on the radio this morning didn't help the self-righteousness image.

I've just gone back and listened to the show again via the Net. I have to say I just can't hear the "self-righteousness". On the contrary, he sounded very calm and reasonable and he gave plenty of credit to alternative medical practitioners for taking time to make patients feel relaxed and understood (conventional medicine is truly awful in that regard and it really does have a negative impact on health).

Anyway, it was no harm to hear the word 'placebo' a few times on that show because we don't hear it anywhere else in the media.

But I'd be happy to adjourn this discussion to a sceptical Community Forum I notice there is more than the requisite 5 votes now for an administrative decision from your good self and your fellow admins. Or do we need to garner more feedback still?

Myksyk

Re 'self-righteousness' and the other term heard on the show - arrogance. I can't understand these criticisms. I think they smack of middle-of-the-road extremism - i.e. don't hold a firm position on anything! The nuig guy seemed neither arrogant or self-righteous to me, he merely holds an opinion which he is happy to rigourously defend through rational debate and argument. In my book that means you're going to annoy some people. So be it. It seems some people are unable to reply with cogent argument regarding the issues.

ecksor

Originally posted by Myksyk
Re 'self-righteousness' and the other term heard on the show - arrogance. I can't understand these criticisms. I think they smack of middle-of-the-road extremism - i.e. don't hold a firm position on anything!

I said 'self-righteous', but I have actually been known to have a firm position on an issue occasionally.

However, if I'm of the opinion that he's not doing the aims of the society much good through the image he projects, and others are of the same opinion (that he presents such an image), then perhaps my opinion has some basis? That's a simple examination of the situation that justifies you having a good sceptical examination of whether he projects a good image of the society, in my opinion.

To be clear, he was an million times better than some of the previous spokespersons I've heard and I couldn't fault his assertions or his dogged determination to consider the hard evidence available. Also, I didn't say he was 'self-righteous', I commented that he didn't help that image.

For example, it doesn't seem consistent to criticise bio-healing (mis-remembering that bit perhaps) purely on the basis that there isn't a scientific explanation for it. The aims of a campaign to raise awareness about such issues should emphasise why scientific methods are considered important. And I have nothing against the word 'placebo', but again while he seemed to dismiss the effectiveness of certain treatments on the basis of the placebo effect, he never really made a clear argument as to why anyone should care why something is effective or appears to work.

And finally, he never really gave the impression that he would admit the possibility that some therapies might actually work, even if the scientific evidence wasn't to his satisfaction. (Note: Again, I'm talking about the impression he portrayed, not his own views).

If I've mistakenly used the word 'representative' or 'spokesperson' here then please let me know.

It seems some people are unable to reply with cogent argument regarding the issues.

I don't think that's entirely fair. He stood his ground very very well, but he did get some knowledgeable and intelligent comments and arguments from callers.

davros quizzed me about the comments I made at the start of this thread, so I'll repeat the response I made to him here:

In response to the question of why some earlier representatives on the radio made the society look bad

The stated aims are fine. However, when I heard your representatives I didn't think they were doing much to promote critical thinking or rational examination of the evidence (which is sorely lacking in society, I agree). I felt they were just ridiculing and belittling the point they were brought on to be a counter-example too. Amongst a group of fellow sceptics, this wouldn't have sounded so harsh btw, but in a setting where it was supposed to present the group's viewpoint to the public, it didn't sit very well

People shouldn't be encouraged to confuse scepticism and cynicism. In the grand scheme of things, your members and scientists in general don't know much more about the state of the universe than the astrologers and politicians and they should appear to examine their own views and assumptions with the same critical thought if they are to promote those practices amongst others.

davros

Originally posted by ecksor
If I've mistakenly used the word 'representative' or 'spokesperson' here then please let me know.

Dr. Brian Hughes, Marian Finucane's guest this week, is not a spokesperson for the Irish Skeptics Society. But his views are entirely consistent with the society's. And he was the speaker at this week's meeting.

However, if I'm of the opinion that he's not doing the aims of the society much good through the image he projects, and others are of the same opinion (that he presents such an image), then perhaps my opinion has some basis?

I'm sure you are well able to separate the medium from the message but I strongly suspect that, for many people, it is the message itself that leads people to form a negative opinion of the society.

I understand that there are good reasons for that. The conventional medical profession often treats patients with condescension and rudeness. The natural reaction is to say "who are these self-appointed keepers of medical know-how anyway? There is so much in this mysterious world that they cannot understand." Even without opening their mouths, sceptics get associated with the arrogance of medical consultants and are seen to defend that attitude. It's something we have to overcome. Image is very important and ecksor's and others' feedback is very valuable.

For example, it doesn't seem consistent to criticise bio-healing (mis-remembering that bit perhaps) purely on the basis that there isn't a scientific explanation for it.

It's not purely on this basis. There is no scientific explanation AND there is no evidence that it works. There are plenty of medicines and treatments that are not fully understood. But they have been shown conclusively to work through double-blind clinical trials.

If someone proposes a bizarre method of treatment like bio-healing and offers no evidence that it works, well they should at least have a plausible explanation as to why it works. If they have neither then what should we say?

he never really made a clear argument as to why anyone should care why something is effective or appears to work.

You are right, he didn't and he should have. The problem arises when society confers credibility on alternative medicine (which we do through the media, VHI, BUPA, Boots, etc.). If someone with undiagnosed cancer goes to an alternative practitioner, assuming they genuinely are an "alternative", and receives a placebo, they will not get better, their cancer will progress and the opportunity to treat them properly will pass.

If you suspect, as the Skeptics Society does, that there is no basis in fact for most of alternative medicine, then you have to start raising questions in public so our health system does not go backwards and start killing people instead of saving them.

they should appear to examine their own views and assumptions with the same critical thought if they are to promote those practices amongst others

I couldn't agree more.

Originally posted by Calibos
you'll even be able to move threads about the merits of €2000/metre speaker cable from the Home Entertainment forum!!

davros

A thousand thanks to the admins for granting us this forum. And especially to ecksor, whom we hope will be a regular visitor here!

A huge cheers too to you guys who supported the idea. Let the debate begin!

Yoda

I am not really sure about this board. Is it for the Irish Skeptic Society? If so, I guess I'm not particularly interested, since I'm not interested in joining such a society.

If it's for discussion of Scepticism in general, then it should be renamed Scepticism.

davros

Originally posted by Yoda
I am not really sure about this board. Is it for the Irish Skeptic Society?

It is. But you are very welcome to raise any issue related to scepticism without joining or implicitly endorsing the society.

Yoda

Why not general Scepticism, though?

davros

That would have been a very hard sell. A community forum is more focused and more easily justified since it has an existing offline society behind it. Time will tell if the forum is popular enough to move out of the Community section (along with a renaming as you suggest). It has only existed for a month so far.

Yoda

Eh? Buddhism is happy in the Community section, as is Paganism, but neither of those represent a particular organization.

davros

Perhaps you could say there is a Buddhist community that you are hoping to bring together on Boards? I didn't follow the discussion for either of those proposals but my understanding of Community boards is that they represent particular groups or organisations (going by the FAQ anyway).

It hasn't happened yet, but I'm hoping that we can get enough of the offline Irish Skeptics membership on to Boards so that we can start discussing specifically society-related matters too. We will draw members' attention to the forum at the next meeting/in the next newsletter.

GuanYin

I have to say, poor show by alot of you guys so far. Some of your guys seem to almost have a cult-like belief in skeptical stances.

There seems to be alot of blindly accepting scientific dicums while blindly denouncing other areas.

Shouldn't you guys be encouraging free and open thought and puching the idea that even skeptical standpoints should be questioned.

Many buddhist teachings call to question everything, perhaps not always practical, but a healthier attitude that towing a community line.

davros

Originally posted by syke
Shouldn't you guys be encouraging free and open thought and pushing the idea that even skeptical standpoints should be questioned.

Yes, of course. This forum is open for anyone to post, no matter what their opinion is. I fully expect argument - the skeptical point-of-view does not prevail in society.

A lot of discussion on this forum (i.e. the God thread) has got into areas I just don't touch (Popper's theories on scientific discovery, etc.). Interesting conversation but it doesn't help to convince people that homeopathy is nonsense.

I'll go out on a limb here, and guess that most members of the Irish Skeptics Society already have well-formed opinions on alternative medicine, psychics, alien visitations and so on. And those opinions are not favourable. But they came by those views after careful consideration of the evidence. I don't believe this is a "community line", just the natural outcome of a due regard for scientific process.

The Irish Skeptics Society would simply like more questioning of extraordinary claims in the media and among the general public. No need for blind denunciations, just the raising of questions and the challenging of assumptions.

Yoda

Davros said

Perhaps you could say there is a Buddhist community that you are hoping to bring together on Boards? I didn't follow the discussion for either of those proposals but my understanding of Community boards is that they represent particular groups or organisations (going by the FAQ anyway).

We opined that people would want to talk about Buddhism in the same way that people would want to talk about Christianity or Paganism. Or Scepticism.

It hasn't happened yet, but I'm hoping that we can get enough of the offline Irish Skeptics membership on to Boards so that we can start discussing specifically society-related matters too.

Well, yuck. I think it would be fun to discuss Scepticism, but I wouldn't be very interested in joining a Society for it or for discussing Society-related matters. For me, it would seem that the latter should be a private Board, while a general discussion list for Scepticism (and so named) would be of general interest. That's my opinion anyway.

davros

Originally posted by Yoda
Davros saidI think it would be fun to discuss Scepticism, but I wouldn't be very interested in joining a Society for it or for discussing Society-related matters.

Well, you don't have to read all of the threads.

For me, it would seem that the latter should be a private Board

Society meetings are open to the public. This is a place for the discussion to continue at leisure. Anyway, it's about openness and transparency and all that good stuff. The Society has nothing to hide and who can tell where a good suggestion might come from? There is no reason to make it private so, by default, it is public.

Myksyk

Originally posted by syke
I have to say, poor show by alot of you guys so far. Some of your guys seem to almost have a cult-like belief in skeptical stances.

I don't think it's fair to say 'a lot of you guys' here. In fact the longest thread on the forum is full of debate and argument from just about all quarters. In particular there are specific arguments against scientism. Of course, people's views will differ ... that's par for the course ... however annoying to an opposing side!

When you say 'your guys' you assume that all posters are members of the Irish Skeptics Society, which they are not; and that if they are that they talk on behalf of the society, which they do not. This is a public forum and as such the Irish Skeptics Society have only 'moderator control' over who posts and what is posted. If it is not abusive or libelous then it is welcome. The other posters have to deal with the opinions offered which may come from the scientific fundamentalist to the religious fundamentalist.

Yoda

I move that this board be renamed "Scepticism". If the ISS needs to have a private forum for their business and discussion they should use one. Otherwise we're going to have this kind of contention about "you" and "us" on this board from time to time. Guaranteed.

davros

The timing of your proposal could be better. A month ago on Feedback would have been ideal. I don't want to go back to the admins so soon (I'm not against the suggestion itself).

How about holding off for a few months, until we have a fair idea of the sort of traffic on this forum? In the meantime, use it to discuss scepticism in any way you like. You will then have a good case for a renaming and a moving out of Community (which I think would go with the proposed renaming).

Yoda

The Admins aren't that stroppy; could be approached now.

Why would it move out of Community? The other isms are happy enough in Community and don't represent any organizations?

ecksor

Syke just wants me to move it under Science so he can impose his evil non-sciency viewpoint on the rest of us.

As things stand, it's a community forum that's quite busy and could certainly justify being moved to the Society hierarchy (which is where I would personally think it fits best). But that wouldn't be a community forum any longer and society business is surely a good thing to discuss here. So, I think it's working fine as things stand, but I wouldn't be averse to having it elsewhere. It'd also need a slight name change (when I moved Irish Athletics under the sports hierarchy I changed it to just Athletics, for example). I'd probably rename the new forum Skepticism or Scepticism.

Yoda

I guess I don't really understand the Community vs the Society division. How does discussion of Buddhism, Christianity, or Paganism differ from discussion of Scepticism?

As an Irish forum, the correct spelling for the generic title would be "Scepticism", as I documented in that thread.

davros

Originally posted by ecksor
So, I think it's working fine as things stand, but I wouldn't be averse to having it elsewhere. It'd also need a slight name change ... Skepticism or Scepticism.

That pretty much sums up my own thoughts (and I'd go with 'Scepticism'). But I'd still rather wait a decent interval to see how the traffic holds up and if there is much interest in discussing Society business here. There is no great harm in leaving it as it is for now, it seems to me.