Quality of Debate

davros

Time to review the quality of debate around here - it's obviously causing some distress, not to mention ridiculously long threads.

Some people have noted the very light moderating touch on this board. There is a reason for this. The type of content I imagined I would see on this board includes (but is certainly not limited to):

- surveys of quackery, anti-scientific theories, etc.
- proposals for action
- discussion of the merits of alternative medicine, creationism and other highly-questionable beliefs

For such discussions, I would like creationists, UFOlogists, etc. to feel welcome to put their points of view. Call it my own bias, if you like, but I don't expect them to be able to back up their arguments with strong, scientific evidence. In fact, the nature of such arguments is often a dogmatic restatement of unfounded opinion. The purpose of the Irish Skeptics Society is to lead such people to a different view. I think that requires a gentle, patient approach. It would be nice if logical argument worked from the beginning but it clearly doesn't.

Instead of getting frustrated, I expect that seasoned, sensible debaters will withdraw from the argument if they feel they are getting nowhere. What is the point of beating your head against a wall?

In other forums, people might get banned for the poor quality of their debate but I'm very reluctant to do it here because I expect it in topics that are genuinely of interest to the Irish Skeptics Society (and I reiterate that the Society is formed to counter the extraordinary claims of psychics, astrologers, etc.).

Now, I'm not thrilled to see VVAT appear as a topic on the Skeptics board. I thought there was a genuine point to be made in the thread title, i.e. regardless of the merits of the MMR or VVAT arguments, is public opinion swayed in the same way? But the thread immediately reverted to a debate on the actual merits of VVAT, which doesn't belong here at all. I let it go because one of the parties was banned from the appropriate forum when other parties clearly wanted to continue debating with him (and if you agreed with the ban, why didn't you observe it instead of shifting the discussion here?). (I'm not criticising the ban itself - that's entirely a matter for the mods on the other board.)

So, to summarise, there are banning offences on this board (e.g. personal insults) but ignoring logical argument isn't one of them.

By all means, feel free to comment on or disagree with this approach.

Egalitarian

Originally posted by Davros

I would like creationists, UFOlogists, etc. to feel welcome to put their points of view. Call it my own bias, if you like, but I don't expect them to be able to back up their arguments with strong, scientific evidence. In fact, the nature of such arguments is often a dogmatic restatement of unfounded opinion. The purpose of the Irish Skeptics Society is to lead such people to a different view.

Whilst I share your desire to welcome open debate, I do not believe that skeptics should waste their time weaning irrationalists away from their prejudices, but must point out the irrationality of the positions taken. If you have no conviction in scientific knowledge, then how do you expect to win the argument for science. This forum should aspire to persuade readers that creationists, homeopaths and naturalists are entitled to believe in their personal fetishes, but we must not derogate our responsiblity to privilege scientific evidence. This means challenging irrationalists to substantiate their claims or concede that their views are based on quasi-religious sentiment. In the process, I hope that skeptics will contribute towards scientific understanding of the specific credos.

pooka

Well, I have to say that I have been disappointed with this forum. I was very much looking forward to contributing, and enjoyed reading the first set of posts.

However, while I agree with a light approach to moderation, the fact is that one sufficiently loud and dogmatic poster really can kill a forum like this. If everything on a sceptical forum comes down to a group of reasonably sceptical posters responding to a ton of posts from a highly unsceptical individual, readers (and posters) will lose interest.

I realise that this is pretty much what filtering is for, but unfortunately filtering is not much use if everyone takes the bait.

My honest (if blunt) 2c,

Cian

Sparks

I don't agree davros. If there is no requirement for logical debate, I may as well say that Apollo-hoax believers are wrong because I spoke to a Leprechaun that was on Apollo 11 with Neil and Buzz.

Further, why would I post here on a topic if anyone is allowed use that tactic? It's a waste of time, a rather valuable commodity.

Further than that, if this is the offical forum of the ISS, then it doesn't do much for the ISS's image if the standard of discussion here is on a par with bar conversation after the sixth tequila.

davros

I have to admit, I'm not happy with the way some threads have gone. Way too much noise that makes them painful to read.

I think I was wrong to expect much defence of quackery here anyway so my argument for light moderation is moot.

Typedef

I think that heavy moderation stifles debate.

I notice that when I lock a thread or some such that it tends to discourage people from posting.

That's why these days, I only lock a thread, edit a post if somebody is 'consistently' abusive, or posts non-family friendly content, other then that, I say, let discussions evolve.

Much less hassel for you then davros.

If two, three or more posters want to have at it, let them. If they start calling each other idots/**** and just get to the level of abuse... only then, I think should you care 'what' they say.

GuanYin

Originally posted by davros
For such discussions, I would like creationists, UFOlogists, etc. to feel welcome to put their points of view. Call it my own bias, if you like, but I don't expect them to be able to back up their arguments with strong, scientific evidence.

Erm, its not the creationists etc that are the problem.... usually they *try* to make scientific arguementsm its the skeptics that are the ones failing here, and they would be the ones you would expect to have a scientific arguement.

The general retorts have been "you're wrong", "I don't believe that" and "you're a Luddite". Occasionally they site a book, no summary, just like "well read this". If someone points out a flaw in the summary of the book given, we go back to "you're wrong" etc....

This is what I'd *expect* from creationists (no offence lads), not skeptics!

Originally posted by davros

So, to summarise, there are banning offences on this board (e.g. personal insults) but ignoring logical argument isn't one of them.

Then whats the point of the board? Seriously, the minute I saw the way threads were going here, I lost the initial enthusiasm I had for the board.

Ignoring logical argument is a nice polite way to say "trolling" and "thread-spoiling".

Does this mean I could reply with totally objectionary posts to everyone elses threads without ever making an argument or point myself, and you won't do anything?

I've posted this three times so far, and it basically mirrors what Sparks and pooka have just said. This is a very poor reflection of Irish Skeptics.

There *is* no debate here. You get one side trying to make a valid point and the other site spamming the thread with propaganda and irrelevent nonsense, while ignoring all the issues the original poster alluded to to begin with. Thats not debate.

Personally, I'd urge you to do something about it before all the sensible posters stop bothering and this place is left as a pulpit for extremists that are so engrained in the ideal of skepticism that they've become the blind fanatics that the sceptic community formed to combat.

[edited to merge two posts]

Typedef

Syke : who decides what is logical argument?

The mod, the mod's friend?

Somebody may 'believe' that the founder of the Church of Scientology 'is' going to come back to earth in a Space ship... if Tom Cruise were on this forum, he might be arguing passionately this point.

Would that make him an illogical troll, or just and idot with who'd pay somebody else, to subscribe to that sort of nonesense[1]?


[1]You pay to buy .... 'litreature' from the Church of Scientology... and this gets you closer... to the promised ... spaceship.[2]

[2]This is not a drill.

What is Scientology?

Not even the vast majority of Scientologists can fully answer the question. In the Church of Scientology, there is no one book that comprehensively sets forth the religion's beliefs in the fashion of, say, the Bible or the Koran.

Rather, Scientology's theology is scattered among the voluminous writings and tape-recorded discourses of the late science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard, who founded the religion in the early 1950s.

Piece by piece, his teachings are revealed to church members through a progression of sometimes secret courses that take years to complete and cost tens of thousands of dollars. Out of a membership estimated by the church to be 6.5 million, only a tiny fraction have climbed to the upper reaches. In fact, according to a Scientology publication earlier this year, fewer than 900 members have completed the church's highest course, nicknamed "Truth Revealed."

<snip>

Hubbard first unveiled his Scientology theories during a series of often breathless lectures he delivered in Wichita, Kan., Phoenix and Philadelphia in 1952.

His talks were sprinkled with tales of interplanetary adventures he said he had experienced during earlier lives.

There was the time, for instance, that Hubbard said he was resting in a peaceful valley on a barren planet in some remote galaxy, and decided to spruce up the place. He said he "fixed up a lake" and "managed to coax into existence a few vines."

Then, "all of a sudden -- zoop boom -- and there was a spaceship," Hubbard recalled, saying "I got pretty mad about the whole thing."

"I remember bringing a thunderstorm," Hubbard said. "Moved it over the ship.... And then (I) let them have it."

Hubbard told associates that he had been many people before being born as Lafayette Ronald Hubbard on March 13, 1911, in Tilden, Neb. One of them was Cecil Rhodes, the British-born diamond king of southern Africa. Another, according to a former aide, was a marshal to Joan of Arc.

After Hubbard's death in 1986, a Scientology publication described him as "the original musician," who 3 million years ago invented music while going by the name "Arpen Polo." The publication noted that "he wrote his first song a bit after the first tick of time."

http://www.rickross.com/reference/scientology/series/scien232.html

No syke, even delusional people can debate.

ecksor

I basically agree completely with pooka, syke and Sparks. I mostly agree with Egalitarian, except to touch on something that came up on a previous thread. I don't mind someone having completely barmy views (the irony of claiming to make the judgement of a view being "barmy" in an "objective" way here doesn't escape me ) as long as they don't ignore or fail to deal with any inconsistencies in their stance that are pointed out rather than dogmatically repeating their views. Lastly, some of the debate tactics have been rather disagreeable I think. If a poster is making judgements about poster they are responding to rather than responding to the points being made then there is a problem.

On the VVAT and MMR thread, I think the insinuation was "are people who believe this claptrap all alike". Yes, it went into the merits of VVAT, but surely the pro-VVAT side should come along and give an account of themselves to help answer the question that was posed. I don't know if there are anti-MMR folks on boards.

Disclaimer: This is merely my opinion, not the 'word of law' that such a post might be regarded as coming from an administrator. This is a community forum and the judgement of how this forum can best serve the ISS is entirely up to davros and the ISS.

ecksor

Originally posted by Typedef
No syke, even delusional people can debate.

Sure they can, and some of them can do it so very well that it's quite disarming. That's not quite the same as the guy who sticks his fingers in his ears and just keeps shouting the same thing over and over again.

DadaKopf

Moderation isn't a question of 'logic', it's a question of ensuring respect is shown to other posters.

In the thread on sustainability, after a reply and (linked) reading suggestion I made, williamgrogan said:

Was Leslie Sklair’s paper actually written by Ben Elton?

This isn't an argument, it's a cynical insult.

This kind of thing shouldn't have any place in any forum.

Is this to be the impression people have of the Irish Skeptics?

Egalitarian

I'm finding this thread extremely tedious and wonder whether posters are such fickle creatures that a contemptuous riposte does untold damage to their self-esteem. I was considering attending the next ISS meeting on April 7.

I don't think it's too hard to distinguish an inarticulate rant, a vacuous post and a passionate response. I am interested in reading all but the second. Let us decide the content of posts, for pity's sake. And stop the finking

williamgrogan

When you tell an Irish Catholic that’s he’s not a Catholic because of his “faith”, that its not logical, that it’s only a superstition, that he can’t prove it and its entirely caused by the accident of his birth he gets very annoyed. When you say that Philosophy is bullsh1t it is to be expected that anyone who went to the trouble to get a degree in it would be annoyed. When you say that Agnosticism was effectively invented by pre-historic man, is not a half way house between religion and Atheism and is no better or sustainable than Scientology then you annoy him too.

It’s too easy to scoff at Homeopathy, “Blue Water”, Acupuncture and now that it’s discredited the anti-MMR position. They are obviously rubbish.

When you tell a bunch of activists who are part of the anti-eVoting/pro-paper lobby that they are in the same class as the above they really get annoyed.

I can’t win. I have been accused of too many posts and also not answering the questions raised even though I have literally answered many posts point by point to try and stop this argument. I do believe I have shown that the Internet based global anti-eVoting lobby is just another silly “anti” crowd.

Many of you are not skeptics, you just think you are. Many of you immediately jumped on the pro-VVAT bandwagon just like the ICS without being skeptical and are still there. It is totally obvious why you are pro VVAT. It’s part of a wider agenda.

I have no big axe to grind with VVAT but I wanted to try and show you were making the same mistakes as the other gullible types that you laugh at. I actually tried to get an anti-Fluoridation, anti-MMR type to debate here which is more than can be said of the rest of you.

Most of you are intellectual snobs and as such are part of the reason the bulk of the population are still being conned.

The article that looked like a Ben Elton spoof is in my opinion total bullsh1t. “Transnational Capitalist Classes”. J****s I thought that crap disappeared when the Berlin Wall fell. Anyway, that’s my opinion and I’m entitled to it.

Stop replying to points I make you disagree with and I’ll stop making them.

PS

Most of you have no sense of humour..........

GuanYin

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I do believe I have shown that the Internet based global anti-eVoting lobby is just another silly “anti” crowd.

Most of you are intellectual snobs and as such are part of the reason the bulk of the population are still being conned.

Most of you have no sense of humour..........

Yes, name calling. Way to make your point :rolleyes:

williamgrogan

Interesting you should ignore the rest of it?

PS

What's this?

This is what I'd *expect* from creationists (no offence lads),

davros

Right. I think the way forward is at least partially clear:

- no name-calling
- no casting aspersions on the intelligence of other posters
- respect (fake it if you have to) for the opinions of others
- adherence to the thread topic

That should get us a fair distance. As Typedef says, it's a lot of work to analyse the content of an argument and I'm not sure I have the time (TBH, I'm not sure I even understand what people are talking about sometimes) to uncover sins against the rhetorical arts.

I'm afraid the Ben Elton thing went over my head. I have it in the back of my mind somewhere that he wrote a book on development issues. For all I know, he might agree with Sklair. I did start to read the Sklair article but it's a style of writing not designed to be clear or easy to read (at least to those who lack a background in the humanities). It's certainly not amenable to skimming. If I can block off some quiet time, I'll go back to it.

Sparks

Originally posted by davros
Right. I think the way forward is at least partially clear:
- no name-calling
- no casting aspersions on the intelligence of other posters

Both of which are ad hominem attacks and quite uncivil, so yes, in total agreement with you on that, though the second is open to interpretation in some cases - "You're a total idiot" is obviously out, but what about "Are you seriously saying that the earth is flat???", which could be judged to be verging into that area...

- respect (fake it if you have to) for the opinions of others

Not a hope in hell. Look, I respect the right of a creationist to have his own point of view, but I most certainly don't have to respect that opinion, because it is demonstrably wrong and intellectually harmful - and as to wackier varieties of "alternative medicine", they're physically harmful as well.
So you can have those opinions if you want, and that right is sacrosant - but asking anyone to respect those opinions is simply unacceptable. It'd be like saying that it's perfectly fine to teach creationism in schools in Georgia because we have to respect the opinions of creationists.

- adherence to the thread topic

Again, agree with you, but interpretation is needed. The VVAT/MMR thread, for instance, is strictly speaking well off topic - but it went to the merits-of-VVAT topic because that was argued to be the difference between VVAT and MMR debates - that one had scientific merit accepted by the bulk of professionals, cited instances of the kind of problems worried about having happened, perfectly acceptable alternatives to use instead of the proposed one; and the other didn't.

I'm not sure I have the time (TBH, I'm not sure I even understand what people are talking about sometimes) to uncover sins against the rhetorical arts.

To be honest, the majority of logical flaws will get pointed out by posters in debate anyway, the only point where moderatorship is called for is ad hominem attacks, or blatent refusal to argue points (where a poster simply repeats himself dogmatically without providing proof for his assertions in the face of criticism).

williamgrogan

The VVAT/MMR thread, for instance, is strictly speaking well off topic - but it went to the merits-of-VVAT topic because that was argued to be the difference between VVAT and MMR debates - that one had scientific merit accepted by the bulk of professionals,

This was not my sole reason for raising it. I do agree that that is a difference but then it has been very common for the bulk of professionals to think something that is wrong. I would say that up to the 1950’s most Scientists were religious. It is not off-topic. We are an organisation that challenges weird ideas and imho VVAT is a weird opinion. I mean printing, storing and manually counting paper ballots along with an electronic system designed to replace paper writing, storage and manual counting?

A point I have made several times is that we are all suckers for daft ideas. Maybe ISS people are less likely to believe in hockus pokus but I now know that some of you do and you react with the same anger that those confronted with attacks on their favourite superstitions do.

I agree that name calling is wrong in these threads but I am certainly more sinned against than sinning.

BTW, I don’t think that Luddism is name calling any more than Creationist is. Luddism is a well known and common expression for people that oppose change and in particular technology. There are millions of such people, e.g. Tom McGurk, Cathal O’Shannon, Vincent Brown?, The Labour Party, The Green Religion?

PS

I will restrict myself to one A4 sized post per day on this thread. OK?

Sparks

Originally posted by williamgrogan
I do agree that that is a difference but then it has been very common for the bulk of professionals to think something that is wrong.

To be honest, that's rather untrue in the vast majority of their professional fields. Individual practises which are incorrect may linger longer than would seem logical to us, but:
1) They're individal items in large fields;
2) The nature of professional technical bodies is that they have inertia for a reason - most "revolutionary" new ideas turn out to be incorrect. As a result, most professional bodies wait for sufficent proof to amass before changing position. It's not so much covering your ass as it is acceptance of the enormous weight that falls behind the stated professional opinion of professionals and their groups.

We are an organisation that challenges weird ideas and imho VVAT is a weird opinion. I mean printing, storing and manually counting paper ballots along with an electronic system designed to replace paper writing, storage and manual counting?

And that's perfectly fine - up until someone points out to you, logically and with documented examples, why eVoting is not actually designed to replace the paper in paper voting, but the human counters; and why eliminating a seperate, immutable paper record of the votes is a bad idea.

Continuing to hold an incorrect opinion after it is demonstrated to be incorrect, and providing no supporting evidence for that opinion - that's not skepticism, that's dogmatism, the very think the ISS is supposed to oppose.

PaulP

Is our experience with the VVAT thread really typical? I was amazed at how it came to be so ..erm.. lively, and have tended to think it just hit a raw nerve with some people, so a little extra tolerance/patience is required on the part of the reader with some posts.

I wonder if this could tie in to another point made, that mostly these threads are accessed by like-minded skeptics and that therefore this thread is unusual in that it features a fundamental disagreement.

davros

Originally posted by Sparks
Continuing to hold an incorrect opinion after it is demonstrated to be incorrect, and providing no supporting evidence for that opinion - that's not skepticism, that's dogmatism, the very think the ISS is supposed to oppose.

It's very human to be dogmatic. It would be nice if all debates consisted of polite exchanges of exquisitely honed points, ending with mutual agreement on where the truth lies. But honestly, does that happen in real life? Arguments are often two sides talking completely across each other, each side refusing to cede an inch, dogmatically repeating favourite "facts". That's human nature.

You are right, the ISS would like to inject some rationality into matters of public interest. That surely entails going head-to-head with entrenched and unchangeable viewpoints. Is censorship the correct response to a dogmatic refusal to engage with reason and science? To blot out all dissenting voices?

The ISS can't be seen to ban people for not accepting the "truth" as promoted by the Society. If you can't change somebody's mind with good arguments, stop trying. Your points will not have been wasted on others listening in or participating in the discussion.

davros

Originally posted by Sparks
Both of which are ad hominem attacks and quite uncivil, so yes, in total agreement with you on that, though the second is open to interpretation in some cases - "You're a total idiot" is obviously out, but what about "Are you seriously saying that the earth is flat???", which could be judged to be verging into that area...

Depends on the situation, I'm sure. If it contributes constructively to the discussion, fine. If it's just the "I'm fed up with the idiotic claptrap I'm hearing" variety, then it isn't fine.

Look, I respect the right of a creationist to have his own point of view;

That's all I meant. It's a more precise way of saying what I was trying to say. I don't expect anyone to like opinions they don't agree with.

Sparks

Originally posted by davros
It's very human to be dogmatic.

It's also very human to be cruel, vicious, self-serving and downright nasty. I don't see many people protecting those aspects of human nature...

You are right, the ISS would like to inject some rationality into matters of public interest. That surely entails going head-to-head with entrenched and unchangeable viewpoints. Is censorship the correct response to a dogmatic refusal to engage with reason and science? To blot out all dissenting voices?

No. However, it's not sensible to allow a few verbose dogmatists monopolise a resource like a forum, constantly pushing a disproven point of view. In effect, you're just acting as advertising for them.

The ISS can't be seen to ban people for not accepting the "truth" as promoted by the Society. If you can't change somebody's mind with good arguments, stop trying. Your points will not have been wasted on others listening in or participating in the discussion.

And they tend to then claim that their points are accepted because of a lack of opposition when in fact rational people have just thrown their hands up in fustration at the amount of effort expended without return.

Egalitarian

All this talk about dogmatic posters is really infantile. What in the world is wrong with posters holding a conviction about a particular subject? Other participants can judge the merits of the two sides, and are not so childish to presume that the poster who retires, after a concerted effort to discuss the issue, is the loser.;)

I do not want a moderator in the prefect mould. We're all adults I trust.

Sparks

Originally posted by Egalitarian
What in the world is wrong with posters holding a conviction about a particular subject?

Depends on whether or not the conviction is demonstrated to be provably false. After all, we have a word for people who believe in things that are demonstrated to be wrong - fanatic.

williamgrogan

Sparks, I think you could do with some Reflexology!

davros

Originally posted by williamgrogan
Sparks, I think you could do with some Reflexology!

Let's try to have a discussion without getting personal, eh?

GuanYin

Originally posted by davros
Let's try to have a discussion without getting personal, eh?

Look, its your community to mod whatever way you want, but you're going to end up with a ghost town unless you get your shop in order.

Your post rate has already dropped significantly since the initials weeks, look at the trend in your threads and tell me why you think that is.

And have a look at who starts argueing with who? It isn't always the "scientific voice of reason" jumping in to save the day, its also about thread hijacking.

I think you have had alot of independant consensual views from some very respected posters on this site, if that doesn't tell you anything, then I don't see the point of this thread.

I actually watched a film tonight, based on the paranormal, it was brought up in threads on boards before, but I wanted a fresh skeptical approach, then I logged on, look at you forum and decided there was no way I wanted to get into the type of thread that all the others have been allowed to decend into.

And I'm sorry if this seems like I'm questioning you, but hey, you asked for opinions, you got them, so now its up to you to decide what to do. I guess it comes down to whether you wanted actual feedback to build on, or if you just wanted to defend and justify your action/inaction.

davros

Originally posted by syke
And have a look at who starts argueing with who? It isn't always the "scientific voice of reason" jumping in to save the day, its also about thread hijacking.

Yes, I know. And why people respond I just don't understand.

I think you have had alot of independant consensual views from some very respected posters on this site

It is noted and appreciated. And I defer to the weight of modding experience above. I'm going to try to tighten up the debates around here and nip the unproductive tangents in the bud.

I actually watched a film tonight, based on the paranormal, it was brought up in threads on boards before, but I wanted a fresh skeptical approach, then I logged on, look at you forum and decided there was no way I wanted to get into the type of thread that all the others have been allowed to decend into.

Well, I'm all for the paranormal in films. Hope you reconsider starting a thread on the topic.

And I'm sorry if this seems like I'm questioning you

Not at all, I invited it. I'm very susceptible to the power of a good argument.

williamgrogan

Hang on a minute I was responding to this..

Depends on whether or not the conviction is demonstrated to be provably false. After all, we have a word for people who believe in things that are demonstrated to be wrong - fanatic.

If that was aimed at me, what am I a fanatic of?

BTW sorry, I left out after the word, Reflexology.

These criticisms are all one sided. There is an element of bullying here. As Davros said, if you don’t want to argue with someone then don’t respond. Most of my posts are responds to other posts.

In fact I have avoided even referring to 90% of the jibes thrown at me.

[stuff on VVAT edited out for being off-topic - davros]

This is my last post on this thread and the VVAT one. From now on I will try and only post in threads where we all agree with each other.

PS

I was thinking of starting a thread on whether “Chernobyl Heart” is a myth.

Sparks

William, that's called thread hijacking.