On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The second was that they seemed to have undue confidence in their
> knowledge, leaving them vulnerable to overlooking evidence and explaining
> it away.
>
That's always a danger, but funding agencies and journal editors and hiring
committees still refer to experts like this who have undue confidence
rather than to members of the public like you for advice. I wonder why that
is.
> As a member of the general public coming upon cold fusion recently, this
> impression on my part might be an outlier, or it might be representative
> over the long run. I suspect it will turn out to be representative.
>
You really didn't answer the question of why you think this. You explained
your own path to "enlightenment", but you said that regardless of how it
shakes out, skeptics will be seen as over-zealous. I still say that if it
shakes out in such a way that believers drift away, the type that follow
your path will be few and far between. The general view in science now is
*not* that the skeptics were overzealous, but rather that the believers
were (are) pathological. If believers disappear, that view will only be
strengthened.
>
>> But I'm not entirely sure that specific criticism is always more
>> effective. Many true believers simply don't read detailed arguments. After
>> all, if you look at a site like e-catworld, it is evident that most of them
>> become believers because of who else believes.
>>
>
> Who is your audience? Who are you hoping to convince?
>
It really is not that premeditated. It's a recreation, after all. And like
I said, I mostly respond to arguments I see. So my audience is the same as
the audience to the post I am responding to. If the post I disagree with
makes general arguments, then my rebuttals will be general too. If it is
specific, and I have specific objections, then my post will be specific
too.
Anyway, I'm motivated by what interests me, and I have to say that arguing
about arguing is not my idea of recreation.
> But if you're going to disabuse those who are left to be disabused, you
> have no choice but to engage specific details.
>
I don't follow. Those who are left are as likely to be swayed by general
arguments one way or the other as anyone else. But like I said, my MO,
whether you think it most effective or not, is to express disagreement with
stuff I see posted on-line. And I assure you, I will not lose sleep if I
fail to convert anyone or to keep anyone from falling victim to their
wishful thinking.
> It is clear that you're willing to do this -- you just posted a very nice
> post addressing points in Jed's reply and raising a number of juicy
> details.
>
Like I said, it's not my first time.
> This is the kind of post that will help to advance the conversation. Name
> calling ("true believer," "incoherent ramblings of a bitter man," etc.)
> will only alienate those who are not already firmly committed to some
> position, undermining rather than supporting your intentions.
>
I don't agree. Those whose opinions of natural phenomena are influenced by
their emotional reaction to spirited argument, will not be influenced by
logic anyway. And I did find Hagelstein's essay to be incoherent, and him
to be bitter. So, it's just honest to state my position up front, and then
support it. A little color in the conversation helps keep it less boring,
and while it may not be appropriate in formal literature, I find it quite
suitable in on-line exchanges.
>
>
>> In any case, I did not re-appear here for detailed cold fusion
>> discussions, because it's very clear in the mandate that this is a believer
>> site, and that's fine. I escaped the mass banning a year ago, because I was
>> on self-imposed abstinence for exactly that reason.
>>
>
> I think there is plenty of room for died-in-the-wool skeptics here.
>
But it's not your forum, is it? The charter makes it quite clear that
skeptics are not welcome, and the banning a year ago put the exclamation
mark on that.
> If I might offer some suggestions, based on observations of previous
> bannings:
>
Since I'm not intending to stay, no thanks.
>
> - Be respectful. You may not agree with people, and you may not even
> respect their intelligence or their intellectual integrity, but avoid name
> calling and condescension.
>
> See above. But I see you are suggesting I do as you say, and not as you
do, because your post fairly drips with condescension.
>
> - Don't be annoying by endlessly repeating yourself.
>
>
Impossible not to be annoying to true believers. They are naturally annoyed
at skepticism. As for repeating myself, well that's really a function of
what I respond to. If arguments for cold fusion get endlessly repeated, the
rebuttals naturally get repeated too. But only the rebuttals get complained
about.
