View Single Post
Old 30th November 2007, 03:27 PM   #70
CFLarsen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 42,367
Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
Why are you assuming Piscivore is talking about falsehoods?
I'm talking about the example you gave where you said you would be telling a lie:

Originally Posted by Hokulele View Post
Yay! Context! OK, now I can definitely state that I agree with Piscivore. I can see myself telling a lie about Sylvia Browne in the following context.

Let us say that I am discussing psychics with a person who is mildly convinced that psychics are real, and Sylvia is not a fraud. If I simply start listing facts from the SSB site, it is almost guaranteed that this person will call me a close-minded skeptic and that is the end of the conversation. If I state something along the lines of, "Well, maybe Sylvia isn't as bad as Miss Cleo, do you think Miss Cleo is a fraud?" I stand a chance of furthering the conversation, although personally, I can't think of anyone worse than Sylvia.
Where is the lie in that?

Originally Posted by Piscivore View Post
If I thought it was necessary, yes.
You are not to be trusted, or confided in, then. Nobody can tell you anything, because you will lie if it suits your purpose. You will also lie even if people don't tell you things.

Originally Posted by Piscivore View Post
I'm sorry, I do not see where I've "admitted" that they "can't". They may not know it is an exaggeration, but they are not therefore prevented from every learning that it is.

That's where testing claims and looking for evidence comes in. Sometimes it is effective to turn someone's fallatious arguments back upon them in order to help them see why it is a fallacy in the first place, rather than just telling them that it is.
Sometimes, sure. But if we have to check each and every statement from you, it is futile to listen to anything you say.

Originally Posted by Piscivore View Post
By "reveal[ing] a hidden agenda or unstated premise". People tend to give up far more when they are tricked than they would ever volunteer.
Maybe. But that doesn't give you the right to con them.

Originally Posted by Piscivore View Post
Then you probably shouldn't do it.
Huh? I don't lie to either woos or skeptics. I don't make up or perpetuate myths to fool people.

Originally Posted by Piscivore View Post
Yes you did. Twice. I'm not sure why, because I wan't speaking of myself, but of people- people who call themselves skeptics- who do not see skepticism as a method, but as a war to be won. And I gave you evidence these people exist.
I asked you because I wanted to hear if you were interested in finding out what is true/real/factual/whatever. You clearly aren't.

Originally Posted by Piscivore View Post
That's up to them, I suppose.
Not merely up to them. You also have a responsibility yourself for what you do and say.

Originally Posted by Piscivore View Post
What indeed. You almost sound here like you think "skeptic" and "woo" are a meaningful dichotomy. There are degrees of credibility in every human being, and degrees of honesty.
Of course there are. But lying does not help promoting truth.

Originally Posted by Piscivore View Post
And all this makes skeptics completely honest, or immune to gullibility?
Of course not. But we should strive for honesty, and not tell lies. Especially when we are passing on knowledge to others.

Originally Posted by Piscivore View Post
If I'm "teaching" them anything, it is that skepticism needs to be universally applied and is never a waste of time. What I am specifially not teaching them is that skepticism is a font of unimpeacheable honesty and reliable authority. In fact, I hope I am demonstrating the opposite.
Strawman: Nobody has claimed skepticism is a font of unimpeacheable honesty and reliable authority. But teaching is not throwing out statement after statement and leave it to your audience to figure out what is true and what is not.

Originally Posted by Piscivore View Post
Exactly. And what is the remedy for that uncertainty? I'll give you a hint, it isn't "ask your friendly neghborhood skeptic for the TRUTH(tm)""
You are confusing skepticism with uncertainty. Skepticism is about removing - or at least reducing - uncertainty. Skepticism isn't about increasing uncertainty.

You certainly don't get people to think, if you play a silly game of "Guess the real meaning of what I say! No, that's not it. No, that's not it either. Here's a clue. Oh, I could be lying. No, I meant it sarcastically. I was lying, just to test you. Now I'm really telling the truth. Oops, I wasn't. Go check to see if I'm right. Oh, I was wrong? I was just teasing."

That's not being skeptical. That's not teaching. That's just being an untrustworthy obnoxious twerp.

Originally Posted by Piscivore View Post
I'm not the one who said "Aren't people wasting enough time doing that with the woos?"

My reply was sarcastic, Claus.
That's the problem: We don't know what you mean, until you tell us. And, of course, you could also be lying right now when you say your reply was sarcastic.

How do we know when you do what? We don't - which makes everything you say irrelevant and a waste of time.

Originally Posted by Piscivore View Post
Are you saying if you don't understand it, it has to be incorrect?
Of course not. It's not a question of being correct or not.
CFLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top