Poll

What is your opinion on how often we should have interviews with true believers?

Never - I don't want to listen to true believers
3 (1.2%)
Rare - Only in special circumstances
25 (9.8%)
Occasional - a few times a year with interesting people
147 (57.9%)
More frequently - Bring them on, it's good to hear and debate the other side
79 (31.1%)

Total Members Voted: 242

Voting closed: March 01, 2007, 08:19:59 AM

Author Topic: SGU Poll 2  (Read 22027 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline heliocentricra

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3772
SGU Poll 2
« Reply #15 on: March 03, 2007, 09:17:24 PM »
I voted for "occasional," but after reading what people have said in this thread, I wish I'd voted for "more frequently."

Offline skidoo

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5881
SGU Poll 2
« Reply #16 on: March 03, 2007, 11:06:10 PM »
Joe Rogan and Phil Plait, round three! :D

Offline Henning

  • Official Forum Artist
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5335
  • Mad "Liker"
    • Anomalina
SGU Poll 2
« Reply #17 on: March 04, 2007, 01:34:49 AM »
Only a LITTLE bit more frequently. 8-10 a year.
But when they do come on, its not so interesting to hear them ramble on about what they believe (unless its totally novel) ... hold them to task more about HOW they believe.
A versed IDer would be great.
-hen
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. --Voltaire
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. -- Hitchens.

Offline heliocentricra

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3772
SGU Poll 2
« Reply #18 on: March 04, 2007, 10:15:54 AM »
Quote from: "skidoo"
Joe Rogan and Phil Plait, round three! :D
YES!

Offline skidoo

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5881
SGU Poll 2
« Reply #19 on: March 04, 2007, 10:31:37 AM »
Quote from: "heliocentricra"
Quote from: "skidoo"
Joe Rogan and Phil Plait, round three! :D
YES!

What I'd *really* like to see is Joe versus Dr. Novella, with somebody actually moderating (as opposed to Penn's, er, "hands-off" approach). I'd pay to see that! :D Or hear it anyway....

Offline Mike

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2367
    • SGUFans.net
SGU Poll 2
« Reply #20 on: March 05, 2007, 08:05:00 AM »
Quote from: "skidoo"
Quote from: "heliocentricra"
Quote from: "skidoo"
Joe Rogan and Phil Plait, round three! :D
YES!

What I'd *really* like to see is Joe versus Dr. Novella, with somebody actually moderating (as opposed to Penn's, er, "hands-off" approach). I'd pay to see that! :D Or hear it anyway....


Joe would probably get two words in and Steve would just point out the logical fallacy that he's using.  

Joe: "And what about the...."
Steve: "Argument from ignorance"

Joe: "Ok but you know..."
Steve: "Argument from authority"

Joe: "Dammit... ok.. but you know that since the.."
Steve: "Post -hoc ergo propter hoc"

Joe: "Alright, but I just don't get.."
Steve: "Argument from personal incredulity"
"We're just so damn exciting." - Dr. Steven Novella, MD

Offline Zam

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 449
SGU Poll 2
« Reply #21 on: March 05, 2007, 09:03:45 AM »
I would say about 3-5 times a year is enough.

Offline Gilnei

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1059
  • Resident Brazilian Skeptic
SGU Poll 2
« Reply #22 on: March 05, 2007, 11:07:49 AM »
Quote from: "Mike"
Quote from: "skidoo"
Quote from: "heliocentricra"
Quote from: "skidoo"
Joe Rogan and Phil Plait, round three! :D
YES!

What I'd *really* like to see is Joe versus Dr. Novella, with somebody actually moderating (as opposed to Penn's, er, "hands-off" approach). I'd pay to see that! :D Or hear it anyway....


Joe would probably get two words in and Steve would just point out the logical fallacy that he's using.  

Joe: "And what about the...."
Steve: "Argument from ignorance"

Joe: "Ok but you know..."
Steve: "Argument from authority"

Joe: "Dammit... ok.. but you know that since the.."
Steve: "Post -hoc ergo propter hoc"

Joe: "Alright, but I just don't get.."
Steve: "Argument from personal incredulity"


BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!  

It's funny because it's true. :lol:
Scientists are the leading cause of cancer in lab rats.

Offline JGalt87

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 31
SGU Poll 2
« Reply #23 on: March 07, 2007, 09:03:26 PM »
You know, I honestly can't stand listening to most of the true believers. It's rather depressing, especially those who are simply ignorant about even the fact there is controversy surrounding the issue they're speaking on.  On the other hand, it gets funny as hell to listen to the anger seep into their voice as Steve points out logical fallacies.

Having said that, I had to vote "bring em' on".  It's good to hear on the show what you're likely to be faced with in life.  I for one would like to have an answer to all the crazy claims.
"If devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality, then there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking."
- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Offline Winick88

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1253
SGU Poll 2
« Reply #24 on: March 10, 2007, 10:28:13 AM »
I have enjoyed every True Believer interview.

I think the panel avoids hardcore criticism after the interviews for fear of appearing unfair. The panel should give the pertinent criticisms and then allow a recorded rebuttal with time limit. It doesn't even have to cut into the show-- it could be posted on the notes page. It also might help if the debates were more formally moderated.
The human understanding is like a false mirror, which, receiving rays irregularly, distorts and discolors the nature of things by mingling its own nature with it. ~Francis Bacon

Offline Kwisatz Haderach

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11170
SGU Poll 2
« Reply #25 on: March 11, 2007, 06:55:11 PM »
Quote from: "skidoo"
Quote from: "heliocentricra"
Quote from: "skidoo"
Joe Rogan and Phil Plait, round three! :D
YES!

What I'd *really* like to see is Joe versus Dr. Novella, with somebody actually moderating (as opposed to Penn's, er, "hands-off" approach). I'd pay to see that! :D Or hear it anyway....


Why not Joe vs. Phil, with Dr. Novella moderating?  That way Phil will get a fair chance to make his points, and Dr. Novella will be able to point out Joe's logical fallacies from above the fray.

Offline wallet55

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 304
  • 3 feet under the Salmon River
in a way, this is part of the paradox of skeptical activity
« Reply #26 on: March 11, 2007, 07:03:23 PM »
this poll and the most recent (march 10) podcast epitomize one of the fundamental problems with skepticism: when are you giving a kook too much attention?

I was truly depressed to hear Dr. Novella talk about actually looking at photos and doing analysis on the European UFO farmer's evidence. It depresses me to think of someone as intelligent (and doubtlessly very busy, being a neurologist and a father) as Dr. Novella wasting his time on such nonsense.

I know someone has to do it, but I think my cat could fill in in these cases. And that is the problem. Most of these groups are so ridiculous that listening to them is painful, and not really helpful to the debate, since they have almost by definition rejected reason.  I listen to the podcast because I enjoy interesting scientific  discussion. The researcher in ESP was close enough to the edge to be interesting, and to my surprise the bigfoot fellow was not painful to listen to, but when that psychic detective said that she saw dead people, i actually missed an exit trying to find the ffwd button. if they ever get sylvia brown on, i will not be listening, no matter how tempting it might be to hear rebecca tear into her full tilt.
Humankind cannot stand very much reality.   T. S. Eliot

Offline Paul Ganssle

  • Objective Hitler
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3615
SGU Poll 2
« Reply #27 on: March 11, 2007, 07:49:18 PM »
I have to disagree with you here, wallet55.  The whole thing about scientific skepticism is that the average rank-and-file scientist won't take the time to tell people why we don't believe them.  There's always the question of "how far do we go?", and I think that the answer should generally be "As far as you are willing without lending credence to your opponents."  We aren't lending credence to them by being thorough in our debunking, and we can probably minimize that even more by making it more obvious that our goal is to, essentially, try and make science's rejections of these ideas more clear to non-scientists, not to defend science against these things (which science does not need).
quot;if you looat the world and think there is a God nothin make sense but if you see it fro a naturalistivc perspectiove all the shti goin on is exactly what youd expect-"  -The Always Eloquent Richard Dawkins

Offline Ole Eivind

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3671
SGU Poll 2
« Reply #28 on: March 11, 2007, 07:54:41 PM »
What Paul said, and I'll also mention the fact that it's great fun!

Offline wallet55

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 304
  • 3 feet under the Salmon River
how low do you go?
« Reply #29 on: March 12, 2007, 04:18:54 PM »
Quote from: "Paul Ganssle"
The whole thing about scientific skepticism is that the average rank-and-file scientist won't take the time to tell people why we don't believe them. .


your point is quite good and valid, i just have to say that debunking the childish thing on a string might have been something for him to farm out to someone else. As I said, the image of Dr. Novella late at night drawing axis points through a series of jpegs made me very depressed. Maybe it is good practice, or he does not sleep much, or he was stuck in an airport, but very clearly there were probably other things to do.

I think this is very similar to the mods made in the randi challenge. Go after the ones that are believed by the largest number of semi intelligent people. Leave the nuts to underlings.

Perhaps a resource could be started on the boards where NESS and others take cases like this and do the work...
Humankind cannot stand very much reality.   T. S. Eliot

 

personate-rain