massage and bodywork professionals
a community of practitioners
Critical thinking in Vancouver
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Christopher A. Moyer on
-
Ha! Pretty outrageous to call someone chickenshit, and then when they accept your challenge to decline it.
I can understand him not wanting to do it there - it was a planned event.
Yeah, I understand that, and under normal circumstances I would agree. But if someone is going to go around and say that his would-be opponents are "chickenshit," that person needs to be ready to accept challenges then and there.
The whole thing is laughable in any case.
You ask about who would/should debate him. The thing is, debating folks like him isn't necessarily such a good idea. For one, it gives him more credit than he deserves. But more important than that is that we must recognize that he isn't limited to facts - he can say any crazy-assed nonsense he likes, and sees no responsibility for supporting his claims. Debating someone like that may not be worthwhile, in my opinion.
-
-
Most real skeptics don't believe in God because there is no evidence for the existence of God
Oh dear. Why did you have to use the G word? :)
We stir things up enough around here when we express doubts about chakras. Speaking for myself, I don't even want to get involved in religious topics on this site.
-
-
Thanks for joining in Brian. You make good points.
-
-
Best evidence can't be applied to God or spirituality and critical thinking skills is totally different from anything got to do with spirituality.
Not everyone would agree.
-
Permalink Reply by Vlad on
-
Christopher A. Moyer said:Most real skeptics don't believe in God because there is no evidence for the existence of God
Oh dear. Why did you have to use the G word? :)
We stir things up enough around here when we express doubts about chakras. Speaking for myself, I don't even want to get involved in religious topics on this site.
You can't bring up Chopra without bringing up God, man. The thing is, it's dangerous when people mix God with thinking critically. I don't think it's a good idea to put people off development of critical thinking skills by bringing spiritual leaders into the equation.
-
-
Christopher A. Moyer said:Best evidence can't be applied to God or spirituality and critical thinking skills is totally different from anything got to do with spirituality.
Not everyone would agree.
I know that.
Here's what I think. Evangelistical atheists are no different from evangelistical theists. When science is viewed or used as a method for conversion, that's not cool. Now, I'm not saying you're one. But I know enough people that are in that whole Skeptic/atheist movement to know that it can be totally off putting.
Science needs to be made good again and God needs to be taken out of the picture.
-
-
It seems to me that skeptics should set-up their own sell-out events, like Chopra does. Let the people decide who they would like to listen to.
Well of course. Some do. And just to be clear, I think DC and everyone else have a right to freedom of speech. People should be allowed to say just about any crazy nonsense they like, and other people should be free to pay to hear it, if they like.
"Spiritualists" tend to drive "skeptics" nuts,
I can only speak for myself. I'm not even sure what a "spiritualist" is, but I do know that the word spirit and the word spiritual get used frequently when people don't want to or can't define their terms.
and I wonder why. Dr. Moyer, does psychology offer an explanation why that may be? Perhaps some research is necessary to get to the bottom of that.
There are many interesting developments in the psychology of belief, including religious and spiritual beliefs. I'm not an expert in that area, though, so I won't attempt to comment on it. If it really interests you, I might be able to point you in the direction of the persons who are doing the work on it. (For example, some psychologists are examining the possibility that the capacity for religion and spiritual beliefs evolved as a social phenomenon that forms communities.)
I just don't get the reason for the emotional charge. If you don't like what a person says don't listen to him, what's the big deal?
I tend to agree with that sentiment in most cases. Again, speaking for myself, it's a simultaneously interesting and frustrating phenomenon to see someone like DC be so successful in spreading nonsense. It's indicative of the fact that many people have difficulty with critical thinking under certain circumstances or applied to certain ideas or beliefs.
Of the many issues in this world, I would think that Deepak Chopra (who by the way is a medical doctor and comes from a family of medical doctors)
So?
is probably near the very bottom - or am I wrong?
No, you're probably right. He's a lot less important than the Gulf Oil spill, but that's not the topic of this thread. DC is the current topic.
Deepak Chopra is not the only scientist who irritates skeptics
DC a scientist?! DC is definitely not a scientist. (You're right that he's trained as a physician, but that doesn't make him a scientist.)
-
Permalink Reply by Emmanuel Bistas on
-
Christopher A. Moyer said:
Well of course. Some do.
Who are they?
I can only speak for myself. I'm not even sure what a "spiritualist" is...
I borrowed the term from some other post..
There are many interesting developments in the psychology of belief, including religious and spiritual beliefs.
No, I was talking about a psychological explanation on why certain people get so ticked off about people like Chopra
I tend to agree with that sentiment in most cases. Again, speaking for myself, it's simultaneously interesting and frustrating phenomenon to see someone like DC be so successful in spreading nonsense.
You will find that, if you focus on yourself, Chopra will not matter as much. I know that sounds a little new-agey :)
Of the many issues in this world, I would think that Deepak Chopra (who by the way is a medical doctor and comes from a family of medical doctors)
So?
It is very important that he is a trained medical professional, an endocrinologist, chief of a medical center, etc. Based on his training, I am inclined to think that he knows more than you do about the stuff he talks about.
No, you're probably right. He's a lot less important than the Gulf Oil spill, but that's not the topic of this thread. DC is the current topic.
I am definitely right. And poverty, and the economy, and many other issues. I wondered what prompted you to post the link in the first place, didn't I?
DC a scientist?! DC is definitely not a scientist. (You're right that he's trained as a physician, but that doesn't make him a scientist.)
I stand corrected, he is someone who studied western medical science and practiced it for only 20 years. Then, when he started talking about a mind-body connection, he somehow lost any recollection of it. Are you out of your mind?
-
-
I didn't see the Oz link.. How come nobody commented on the Dr. Lipton links?
Vlad said:How come nobody commented on the Oz link?
-
Permalink Reply by Brian Lynchehaun on
-
I'm going to briefly touch on a number of points in one go here, rather than creating a variety of posts. I've read over it a couple times to edit out any snark, my apologies in advance if I missed some.
"Best evidence can't be applied to God or spirituality"
I would agree that this is frequently asserted. The basis for the assertion seems to be generally a demand that this particular belief be privileged, that it be opted out of the search of evidence.
Why?
I have yet to hear a reasons that amounts to anything other than the following two: "when you apply 'evidence' to god, it makes me uncomfortable", or "I have defined 'god' such that evidence doesn't apply".
Here's how it works: if you believe in the Christian god, but not the Hindu gods, or not Leprechauns, then you have a reason for believing in one over the other. You may not be aware of that reason, but it's buried in your mind someplace. That reason can be dug up.
For many people, the reason is "because I grew up in culture x". This is not a good (justifiable) reason for believing anything, although it may be the empirical cause of your belief.
To opt out an area of (what's claimed to be) knowledge requires a good reason. To merely claim "oh, because your methods don't apply" must be backed up with some sort of evidence. Otherwise scam artists can use that defense (cf. Peter Popoff, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Popoff).
If you believe in something spiritual, or a deity, you need to ask yourself what differentiates you from the paranoid schizophrenic. If the answer is 'nothing', then you should seek a psychiatrist. If the answer is "because I have reasons for my belief", then those reasons are subject to a "best available evidence" heuristic.
"You can still be a critical thinker and believe in God."
Only if you arbitrarily opt your belief in god out of the critical thinking process.
"Promoting critical thinking skills is different from promoting Going on Best Evidence."
As someone who is a Philosophy major, and who teaches critical thinking skills (Philosophy of Science, and Ethics are my primary areas of interest), I respectfully disagree. "Going on best evidence" is part of a critical thinking tool set. Logical arguments are part of critical thinking, absolutely, but without evidence all one has is a fancy argument.
Additionally: the citing of my background isn't an attempt to seize the 'expertise' ground, but merely to present my background so ye have an idea of where I'm coming from.
"And when you add people's unresolved issues and a dynamic of conflict, then you end up with militant skeptics who go to someone else's event to stir up trouble."
That assumes a lot.
"It seems to me that skeptics should set-up their own sell-out events, like Chopra does. Let the people decide who they would like to listen to."
The truth, and public health, is not a popularity contest.
There is right, and there is wrong. The knee only bends to a right angle in one very specific direction, for example.
There's a common response to skepticism (and other points of view too), and that is to immediately start pondering the motivations of those involved. This is an instance of the Ad Hominem Fallacy, and is an attempt to dismiss their claims on the basis of "oh, well, you're only doing this because your parents didn't love you as a child".
This is irrelevant. Because of the anti-science drivel propounded by Chopra (and others), Measles is now a genuine problem in Canada and the UK.
Just sit with that for a moment.
Children are now dying from an illness that was all but wiped out in wealthy nations.
http://whatstheharm.net/vaccinedenial.html
I'm sorry that you don't think this is a concern. There are plenty of people dealing with the oil spill. I'm focused on a long term problem, not a short-term problem (which is not to diminish the importance of the oil spill, but merely to point out that there's plenty of stuff to go around).
As irrelevant as it is: I get so ticked off with people like Chopra because they perpetuate an anti-science stance that undermines all other education. That generates ignorance. That causes perfectly curable diseases to be underfunded. That costs health systems of various countries billions in unnecessary expense. And that ultimately kills people.
I get angry because I see a causal chain between what he is doing, and the idiocy that is vaccine denial (which, again, results in dead children).
Please note the big hole in my response where I don't turn the question around: I'm not about to question your psychological investment in the things you are invested in. Either they are worthwhile things to do, or they are not.
""Spiritualists" tend to drive "skeptics" nuts,"
Yes. Anyone who commits fraud tends to drive me nuts. Especially when they are celebrated by others.
Christopher: it would seem to me that you've either listened to Skeptoid (http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4167) or Dawkins. I mostly agree.
"You can't bring up Chopra without bringing up God, man. The thing is, it's dangerous when people mix God with thinking critically."
I think that you might find it interesting to learn that Chopra does *not* use "god" in the way that the bulk of the Christians on the planet use the word "god". For Chopra, it's an acronym. Ironically, his acronym also lends itself quite well to marketing. (http://theappleeaters.wordpress.com/2010/03/29/thank-god-the-new-at...)
But he's a nice guy, really. He's not duping anyone, nor committing fraud.
Right?
"I don't think it's a good idea to put people off development of critical thinking skills by bringing spiritual leaders into the equation."
I have had quite the opposite experience. Once people are open to having a conversation about critical thinking, it doesn't matter who the example is. People tend to get quite uncomfortable (cognitive dissonance) when you apply these concepts to their idols (i.e. god, chopra), but if they were open to the conversation at the beginning, they don't tend to just shut down the conversation.
In short: people tend to be rational creatures, not just emotionally reactive.
"Well of course. Some do. And just to be clear, I think DC and everyone else have a right to freedom of speech. People should be allowed to say just about any crazy nonsense they like, and other people should be free to pay to hear it, if they like."
I, and all the skeptics involved in Vancouver, agree. We were *not* demanding that Chopra be removed, or that he be prevented from speaking.
Only that those listening also engaged their brain.
"He's a lot less important than the Gulf Oil spill, but that's not the topic of this thread. DC is the current topic."
I think that individually, he is a lot less important that the gulf oil spill.
However, I see his anti-science stance as an intellectual oil spill. These kinds of intellectual and educational corrosions aren't unimportant because they're not physical, and I believe it's a mistake to allow them to babble unchecked.
"Based on his training, I am inclined to think that he knows more than you do about the stuff he talks about."
If you do some research, you'll find that Endocrinology has nothing to do with Quantum Mechanics.
He's babbling outside of his field. It's possible that he's an *excellent* MD. On the topics of god, consciousness, the ability of 'all cells in the universe to instantly communicate', and pretty much everything else he writes on: he's babbling. It's nonsense.
"I stand corrected, he is someone who studied western medical science and practiced it for only 20 years. Then, when he started talking about a mind-body connection, he somehow lost any recollection of it. Are you out of your mind?"
You're ascribing the quality of 'expertise' far too broadly.
When he started talking about a mind-body connection, he ceased to talk about medical science. There is no evidence to support his assertions.
Furthermore, the claims that he makes regarding cells and quantum mechanics are directly contradicted *by* quantum mechanics, and medical science.
He is completely, unequivocally, and unabashedly talking out of his rear end when he speaks on these topics.
Now, you can continue to assume that he's correct.
Or you can contact your local university and ask to speak with some Physics PhDs, and maybe some Neuroscience PhDs. (what, you thought I was going to demand that you take my word for it? ;) )
You feel that Chopra is an expert? That's great: go talk to other experts. Also: you may be interested in defining for yourself what it means to be an "expert".
-
-
Brian, I think you may benefit from a massage.
© 2024 Created by ABMP.
Powered by
