On Mar 27, 2010, at 12:19 PM, OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson wrote:
[snip his thoughtful essay on the ethics of journalism and our
behavior on vortex-l]
Regards,
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Thank you Steven for your informative and salving post.
Discussion of list behavior and its impact on the list it seems to me
is always on topic, especially when things go off the deep end. When
that happens I think everyone shares to some degree in the
responsibility, even if only through inaction, and the loss.
I would like note there was an appeal to the rules By Steve Krivit.
For that reason maybe it is appropriate to simply post the rules set
down by the moderator, Bill Beaty, and located at:
http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wvort.html
Notice especially the sneering rule! Sneering might be easily
dismissed as undetectable and thus the rule unenforceable, but
snearing is readily detected by the collective consciousness of those
on this list, and the moderator in particular!
Begin quote of Bill Beaty's material:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
William J. Beaty
6632 Corson Ave S
Seattle, WA 98108
206-543-6195 USA
Vortex-L Rules:
1. $10/yr donation
2. NO SNEERING
3. KEEP MESSAGES UNDER 40K
4. DON'T QUOTE ENTIRE MESSAGES NEEDLESSLY
5. DON'T CC OTHER LIST SERVERS
6. NO SPAMMING
1. If VORTEX-L proves very useful or interesting to you, please consider
making a $10US/yr donation to help cover operating expenses. If you
cannot afford this, please feel free to participate anyway. If you
would like to give more, please do! Direct your check to the
moderator, address above.
2. NO SNEERING. Ridicule, derision, scoffing, and ad-hominem is
banned. "Pathological Skepticism" is banned (see the link.) The
tone
here should be one of legitimate disagreement and respectful debate.
Vortex-L is a big nasty nest of 'true believers' (hopefully
having some
tendency to avoid self-deception,) and skeptics may as well leave in
disgust. But if your mind is open and you wish to test "crazy"
claims
rather than ridiculing them or explaining them away, hop on board!
MORE (please read.) [appended below]
(For a good analysis of the negative aspects of skepticism, see
ZEN AND THE ART OF DEBUNKERY at http://amasci.com/pathskep.html)
3. Small email files please. The limit is set to 40K right now, those
exceeding the limit will be forwarded to Bill Beaty. Some
members are on limited service, or have to pay for received email.
Diagrams and graphics can be mailed to me or John Logajan and posted
on our webpages for viewing.
4. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE: when you reply to a message DON'T include the
ENTIRE message in your reply. Always edit it a bit and delete
something. The entire message should only be included if: (A) you
are replying to a message that is many days old, or (B) you are
doing
a point-by-point reply to many parts of a message. Many vortex
users
must pay by the kilobyte for receiving message traffic, and large
amounts of redundant messages are irritating and expensive. So,
when including a quoted message in your reply, ALWAYS DELETE
SOMETHING,
the more the better.
5. Please do not include any other email list in the TO line or the CC
line of your messages to vortex-L. In the past this has caused
storms of "thread leakage" between lists and redundant messages as
replies from subscribers go to both lists. It's OK to manually
forward
mail from other lists to vortex-L, as long as the TO line and CC
line
has only vortex-L and no other list.
6. "Junkmail" email advertising will not be tolerated. While not
illegal
yet, widecasting of junk-email ads to listservers is against the
Unwritten Rules of the Internet. Anyone who spams vortex-L with
junkmail
will be referred to the Internet Vigilante Justice team. ;)
Occasional on-topic advertising by long-time vortex-L users is
acceptable.
- Bill B.
THE VORTEX-L DISCUSSION GROUP
To put it bluntly, Vortex-L is a forum for "true believers."
Skeptics are tolerated but not welcomed. For yet another definition of
the two types of people, see the excellent article in a recent issue of
SKEPTIC, V5 #2, "Skepticism and Credulity: finding the balance between
Type I and Type II errors" by B. Wisdom.
The article discusses the philosophy behind two types of mental
attitude:
1. 'Scoffers:' those who, in order to reject all falsehoods,
don't mind
accidentally rejecting truths.
2. 'Believers:' those who, in order to accept all truths, don't mind
accidentally accepting falsehoods.
A few people fall between these two descriptions. However, there is
significant polarization as well: whose who are solidly in one camp or
the other greatly outnumber those who succeed in remaining between the
two.
I have observed that each highly-polarized camp holds great disrespect
for the other, bordering on hatred. The Scoffers regard the opposite
camp as dangerously gullible "true believers" who would allow science to
be damaged by irrational beliefs in things such as UFOs, psi phenomena,
Free Energy, etc. And the Believers regard the other side as
dangerously
closeminded "pathological skeptics" who stifle curiousity, block free
investigations, and "preserve" science from the crazy time-wasting
projects of folks like Galileo, Goddard, the Wrights, Margulis, etc.
A few years ago the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup was increasingly
becoming
a battleground for the two types. Those who reasoned that "we must
study
cold fusion because there is some evidence that it is real" were
constantly attacked by those who believe "we must reject cold fusion
because there is little evidence for it." And vice versa. Particularly
shameful was the amount of hostility including sneering ridicule,
emotional arguments, arrogant self-blindness, and great use of the low,
unscientific techniques outlined in ZEN AND THE ART OF DEBUNKERY.
(See http://amasci.com/weird/wclose.html)
I started this group as an openminded "quiet harbor" for interested
parties to discuss the Griggs Rotor away from the sci.physics.fusion
uproar. It quickly mutated into a "believers forum" for discussion of
cold fusion and other anomalous physics. I created Rule #2 to prevent
this list from becoming another battleground like the sci.physics.fusion
newsgroup. Vortex-L is intended to be a discussion area for researchers
who practice extreme openmindedness and who will "accept falsehoods in
order to avoid rejecting truths".
I believe that many scientists reject new ideas because they unknowingly
maintain an illusory worldview which is based on concensus of colleagues
rather than upon evidence, and as a result they become irrational. They
are very intolerant of ideas which violate that consensus, and will
reject
evidence supporting them. This forum is for those with a low
tolerance for
consensus-think and a high tolerance for "crazy ideas."
Vortex-L is for those who see great value in removing their usual mental
filters by provisionally accepting the validity of "impossible"
phenomena
in order to test them. This excellent quote found by Gene Mallove
clearly
states the problem, and reveals the need for "true believers" in a
science
community otherwise ruled by conservative scoffers:
"It is really quite amazing by what margins competent but
conservative
scientists and engineers can miss the mark, when they start with the
preconceived idea that what they are investigating is impossible.
When
this happens, the most well-informed men become blinded by their
prejudices and are unable to see what lies directly ahead of them."
- Arthur C. Clarke, 1963
So, on Vortex-L we intentionally suspend the disbelieving attitude of
those who believe in the stereotypical "scientific method." While this
does leave us open to the great personal embarrassment of falling for
hoaxes and delusional thinking, we tolerate this problem in our quest to
consider ideas and phenomena which would otherwise be rejected out of
hand
without a fair hearing. There are diamonds in the filth, and we see
that
we cannot hunt for diamonds without getting dirty.
Note that skepticism of the openminded sort is perfectly acceptable on
Vortex-L. The ban here is aimed at scoffing and "hostile disbelief,"
and
at the sort of "Skeptic" who angrily disbelieves all that is not solidly
proved true, while carefully rejecting all new data and observations
which
conflict with widely accepted theory.
************************************************************************
SYMPTOMS OF PATHOLOGICAL SKEPTICISM (c)1996 William J. Beaty
************************************************************************
THIS PAGE: http://amasci.com/pathsk2.txt
MAIN PAGE: http://amasci.com/weird/wclose.html
Many members of the mainstream scientific community react with extreme
hostility when presented with certain claims. This can be seen in their
emotional responses to current controversies such as UFO abductions,
Cold
Fusion, cryptozoology, psi, and numerous others. The scientists
react not
with pragmatism and a wish to get to the bottom of things, but instead
with the same tactics religious groups use to suppress heretics:
hostile
emotional attacks, circular reasoning, dehumanizing of the 'enemy',
extreme closed-mindedness, intellectually dishonest reasoning,
underhanded
debating tactics, negative gossip, and all manner of name-calling and
character assassination.
Two can play at that game! Therefore, I call their behavior
"Pathological
Skepticism," a term I base upon skeptics' assertion that various
unacceptable ideas are "Pathological Science." Below is a list of the
symptoms of pathological skepticism I have encountered, and examples of
the irrational reasoning they tend to produce.
(Note: all the quotes are artificial examples)
1. Belief that theories determine phenomena, rather than the reverse.
"The phenomenon you have observed is impossible, crazy stuff. We
know
of no mechanism which could explain your results, so we have grave
suspicions about the accuracy your report. There is no room for
your
results in modern theory, so they simply cannot exist. You are
obviously the victim of errors, hoaxers, or self-delusion. We need
not publish your paper, and any attempts at replicating your
results
would be a waste of time. Your requests for funding are misguided,
and should be turned down."
2. Erecting barriers against new ideas by constantly altering the
requirements for acceptance. (A practice called "moving the
goalposts.")
"I'll believe it when 'X' happens" (but when it does, this
immediately
is changed to: "I'll believe it when 'Y' happens.")
Example:
"I won't believe it until major laboratories publish papers in
this
field. They have? That means nothing! Major labs have been
wrong
before. I'll believe it when stores sell products which use the
effect. They do? That means nothing, after all, stores sell
magic
healing pendants and Ouija boards. I'll believe it when a Nobel
Prize winning researcher gets behind that work. One has? Well
that means nothing! That person is probably old and dotty like
Dr. Pauling and his vitamin-C..." etc.
3. Belief that fundamental concepts in science rarely change, coupled
with a "herd following" behavior where the individual changes his/
her
opinions when colleagues all do, all the while remaining blind to
the
fact that any opinions had ever changed.
"The study of (space flight, endosymbiosis, drillcore bacteria,
child abuse, cold fusion, etc.) has always been a legitimate
pursuit. If scientists ever ridiculed the reported evidence or
tried to stop such research, it certainly was not a majority of
scientists. It must have been just a few misguided souls, and
must
have happened in the distant past."
4. Belief that science is guided by consensus beliefs and majority rule,
rather than by evidence. Indulging in behavior which reinforces the
negative effects of consensus beliefs while minimizing the impact of
any evidence which contradicts those beliefs.
"I don't care how good your evidence is, I won't believe it
until the
majority of scientists also find it acceptable. Your evidence
cannot be right, because it would mean that hundreds of textbooks
and thousands of learned experts are wrong.
5. Adopting a prejudiced stance against a theory or an observed
phenomena
without first investigating the details, then using this as
justification for refusing to investigate the details.
"Your ideas are obviously garbage. What, try to replicate your
evidence? I wouldn't soil my hands. And besides, it would be
a terrible waste of time and money, since there's no question
about
the outcome."
6. Maintaining an unshakable stance of hostile, intolerant skepticism,
and when anyone complains of this, accusing them of paranoid
delusion.
Remaining blind to scientists' widespread practice of intellectual
suppression of unorthodox findings, and to the practice of
"expulsion
of heretics" through secret, back-room accusations of deviance or
insanity.
"You say that no one will listen to your ideas, and now the
funding
for your other projects is cut off for no reason? And
colleagues
are secretly passing around a petition demanding that you be
removed? If you're thinking along THOSE lines, then you
obviously
are delusional and should be seeking professional help."
7. Ignoring the lessons of history, and therefore opening the way for
repeating them again and again.
"Scientists of old ridiculed the germ theory, airplanes, space
flight, meteors, etc. They were certain that science of the time
had everything figured out, and that major new discoveries were no
longer possible. Isn't it good that we researchers of today
are much
more wise, and such things can no longer happen!"
8. *Denial* of the lessons of history. An inability to admit that
science has made serious mistakes in the past. Maintaining a
belief
that good ideas and discoveries are never accidentally
suppressed by
closed-mindedness, then revising history to fit this belief.
"Throughout history, the *majority* of scientists never ridiculed
flying machines, spacecraft, television, continental drift,
reports
of ball lightning, meteors, sonoluminescence, etc. These
discoveries are not examples of so-called 'paradigm shifts', they
are obvious examples of the slow, steady, forward progress
made by
science!"
9. Using circular arguments to avoid accepting evidence which supports
unusual discoveries, or to prevent publication of this evidence.
"I do not have to inspect the evidence because I know it's wrong.
I know it's wrong because I've never seen any positive evidence."
"We will not publish your paper, since these results have not been
replicated by any other researchers. We will not publish your
paper, since it is merely a replication of work which was done
earlier, by other researchers."
10. Accusing opponents of delusion, lying, or even financial fraud,
where
no evidence for fraud exists other than the supposed
impossibility of
evidence being presented.
"Don't trust researchers who study parapsychology. They
constantly
cheat and lie in order to support their strange worldviews.
Very
few of them have been caught at it, but it's not necessary to do
so, since any fool can see that the positive evidence for psi
can
only be created by people who are either disturbed or dishonest.
11. Unwarranted confidence that the unknown is in the far distance, not
staring us in the face.
"Your evidence cannot be real because it's not possible that
thousands of researchers could have overlooked it for all these
years. If your discovery was real, the scientists who work in
that
field would already know about it."
12. Belief that certain fields of science are complete, that scientific
revolutions never happen, and that any further progress must occur
only in brushing up the details.
"Physics is a mature field. Future progress can only lie in
increasing the energies of particle accelerators, and in
refining
the precision of well-known measurements. Your discovery cannot
be true, since it would mean we'd have to throw out all our
hard-
won knowledge about physics."
13. Excusing the ridicule, trivialization, and the scorn which is
directed
at 'maverick' ideas and at anomalous evidence. Insisting that
sneering and derisive emotional attacks constitute a desirable and
properly scientific natural selection force.
"It is right that new discoveries be made to overcome large
barriers. That way only the good ideas will become accepted.
If some important discoveries are suppressed in this process,
well,
that's just the price we have to pay to defend science against
the
fast-growing hoards of crackpots who threaten to destroy it."
14. Justifying any refusal to inspect evidence by claiming a "slippery
slope." Using the necessary judicious allocation of time and
funding
as a weapon to prevent investigation of unusual, novel, or
threatening
ideas.
"If we take your unlikely discovery seriously, all scientists
everywhere will have to accept every other crackpot idea too,
and
then we'll waste all of our time checking out crackpot claims."
15. A blindness to phenomena which do not fit the current belief system,
coupled with a denial that beliefs affect perceptions.
"Thomas Kuhn's 'paradigm shifts' and sociology's 'cognitive
dissonance' obviously do not apply to average, rational
scientists.
Scientists are objective, so they are not prone to the
psychological
failings which plague normal humans. Scientists always welcome
any
data which indicates a need to revise their current knowledge.
Their
"beliefs" don't affect their perceptions, scientists don't have
"beliefs", science is not a religion!
16. A belief that all scientific progress is made by small, safe,
obvious
steps, that widely-accepted theories are never overturned, and
that no
new discoveries come from anomalies observed.
"All your observations are obviously mistakes. They couldn't
possibly be real, because if they were real, it would mean that
major parts of current science are wrong, and we would have to
rewrite large portions of we know about physics. This never
occurs. Science proceeds by building on earlier works, never by
tearing them down. Therefore it is right that we reject evidence
which contradicts contemporary theory, and recommend that funding
of such research not be continued."
17. Hiding any evidence of personal past ridicule of ideas which are
later
proved valid. Profound narcissism; an extreme need to always be
right, a fear of having personal errors revealed, and a habit of
silently covering up past mistakes.
" X is obviously ridiculous, and its supporters are crack-
pots who are giving us a bad name and should be silenced."
But if X is proved true, the assertion suddenly becomes:
"Since 'X' is obviously true, it follows that..."
18. Belief in the lofty status of modern science but with consequent
blindness to, and denial of, its faults. A tendency to view
shameful
events in the history of modern science as being beneficial, and a
lack of any desire to fix contemporary problems.
"It was right that Dr. Wegner's career was wrecked; that he was
treated as a crackpot, ridiculed, and died in shame. His
evidence
for continental drift convinced no one. And besides, he did not
propose a mechanism to explain the phenomena."
19. A belief that Business and the Press have no tendency towards close-
mindedness and suppression of novelty, and that their actions are
never are guided by the publicly-expressed judgement of scientists.
"If the Wright Brothers' claims were true, we would be reading
about
it in all the papers, and flying-machine companies would be
springing up left and right. Neither of these is occurring,
therefor the Wright's claims are obviously a lie and a hoax.
20. Refusing to be swayed when other researchers find evidence
supporting
unconventional phenomena or theories. If other reputable people
change sides and accept the unorthodox view, this is seen as
evidence
of their gullibility or insanity, not as evidence that perhaps the
unconventional view is correct.
"I'll believe it when someone like Dr. P believes it."
But when Dr. P changes sides, this becomes:
"Dr. P did some great work in his early years, but then he
destroyed
his career by getting involved with that irrational crackpot
stuff."
21. Elevating skepticism to a lofty position, yet indulging in hypocrisy
and opening the way to pathological thinking by refusing to ever
cast
a critical, SKEPTICAL eye upon the irrational behavior of scoffers.
"Criticizing skeptics is never beneficial. It even represents a
danger to science. One should never criticize science, it just
gives ammunition to the enemy; it aids the irrational, anti-
science
hoards who would destroy our fragile edifice."
22. Belief that modern scientists as a group lack faults, and therefore
clinging to any slim justifications in order to ignore the
arguments
of those who hope to eliminate the flaws in Science.
"I think we can safely ignore Thomas Kuhn's STRUCTURES OF
SCIENTIFIC
REVOLUTIONS. Despite his physics training we can see that Kuhn
was
an outsider to science; he obviously doesn't have a good grasp on
real science. Outsiders never can see things in the proper
positive
light, it takes a working scientist to see the real situation.
Also, he stressed his central themes way too much, so I think
we can
ignore him as simply being a sensationalist. And besides, if he's
digging up dirt regarding science, then he must have a hidden
agenda.
I bet we'll find that he's a Christian or something, probably a
creationist."
23. Blindness to the widespread existence of the above symptoms. Belief
that scientists are inherently objective, and rarely fall victim to
these faults. Excusing the frequent appearance of these
symptoms as
being isolated instances which do not comprise an accumulation of
evidence for the common practice of Pathological Skepticism.
"This 'Pathological Skepticism' does not exist. Kooks and
crackpots deserve the hostile mistreatment we give them, but
anyone who does similar things to skeptics is terribly misguided.
Those who criticize skeptics are a danger to Science itself,
and we
must stop them."
See also:
Zen and the art of debunkery, Dan Drasin
http://amasci.com/pathskep.html
Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Skepticism
http://mathpost.la.asu.edu/~boerner/seven%20warning%20signs.html
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
End quote of Bill Beaty's material:
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
