tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9115577367947785080.post1004309650426276611..comments2023-11-22T01:26:38.736-07:00Comments on Terrible Truth, Beautiful Lie: On conspiracy theoriesJimmy Bluehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03303271166058408065noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9115577367947785080.post-76325712608411917812009-06-05T09:02:35.053-06:002009-06-05T09:02:35.053-06:00I don't think we do this that much. As least I...I don't think we do this that much. As least I dont read it very often. Usually, we may use the <i>argument</i> that dawkins or PZ has said, but not in a way like "PZ says...". We try very hard to avoid arguments from authority (or any logical fallacy, but everyone is prone to use them), but if someone famous has a good argument, I will certainly use it.<br /><br /> I use the courtiers reply fairly often without linking to PZ.<br /><br />BTW there are very good skeptics journals.Techskeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05557868785422930364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9115577367947785080.post-42547420270463133532009-06-04T17:51:26.754-06:002009-06-04T17:51:26.754-06:00'Which is what Mark was saying...I think'
...'Which is what Mark was saying...I think'<br /><br />Love it.<br />Yes that was kind of what I was saying.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04424154278091210052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9115577367947785080.post-6836548331789608592009-06-04T11:28:22.714-06:002009-06-04T11:28:22.714-06:00This took me back to the time I was a 9/11 truther...This took me back to the time I was a 9/11 truther. And then I wasn't. And then I was. And then I wasn't. Finally, I realized that switching sides every time someone posted wasn't helping anybody else. That was embarrassing.<br /><br />Anyway, I just had a thought... Mark mentioned big skeptics as like the equivalent of religious right figures, in a sense. This reminded me of the question of whether there should be a 'Limbaugh on the left'. I mean, Keith Olbermann kind of did that, and, well, vaccines happened (technically, he/his writers put sensationalism at the expense of Rupert Murdoch ahead of integrity. Unless he apologized, and I didn't hear about it?). I'm not defending this idea, just throwing it out for discussion, but I wonder if this could be the same kind of thing, where adopting a model that works for one group doesn't work for another.<br /><br />I suppose it's kind of a question of putting all of our eggs in one basket, which is what Mark was saying, I think. I'm not sure what I'd advance as an alternative... Perhaps some kind of skeptical journal? Or, if one exists, it needs better advertising, IME. While my mind wandered horribly in thinking about this (it could be worse...), I think my point is that, while blogging is great for essays (or <a href="http://peptobismol-and-exlax.blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">very short fiction</a>), I'm worried that it could create too much focus on the blogger.<br /><br />I don't know if that made any sense. Sorry for how much I rambled. (Part of it was not wanting to just say "everybody is doing it wrong" without offering alternatives or constructive criticism. I did my best, there.) (Of course, there are problems with my minimal presentation of an idea. I have no clue how what I was talking about would be regulated, and that's pretty important.)MWchasehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08195851187187771113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9115577367947785080.post-84242177309282439452009-06-03T19:51:53.403-06:002009-06-03T19:51:53.403-06:00The problem with being late to the blogosphere is ...<b>The problem with being late to the blogosphere is that almost everywhere I tread someone has been before and no matter what I post it is likely that someone posted something similar already...</b><br /><br />I wouldn't worry about this. Why are you blogging? I do it to just have that little bit more out there, but I mostly do it just for me. It gives me a place to place ym thoughts so that when I do get in a conversation, I can refer back to some things I have already gotten down.<br /><br />Every once in a while I get it right. I measure "getting it right" by hits and how far up I am on a google search. My athiest charities post, my fMRI post and a couple of others appear at the top or near it. So I feel good about that, but for the most part my posts just go into the ether, rarely read.<br /><br />I don't mind that, nor should you. You are creative and a clear thinker. I think you will like the results.Techskeptichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05557868785422930364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9115577367947785080.post-71062206940145397242009-06-03T19:11:02.455-06:002009-06-03T19:11:02.455-06:00I love this post Jimmy.
Very well thought out and,...I love this post Jimmy.<br />Very well thought out and, as I know from personal experience of living in the South, largely true.<br /><br />Where I would promote caution to the whole skeptical community, however, is in putting too much emphasis on well known critical thinkers (Richard Dawkins being the first that springs to mind) who often evoke some of the same style of rhetoric and propaganda that, in particular, the religious right in the USA uses (although obviously from a much different point of view).<br /><br />You have quite skilfully avoided that trap, but I think it is one into which Mr Dawkins falls all to often. Christopher Hitchens is another culprit.<br /><br />While it is great for the skeptical thinker to have such champions, they are all too easy for the opposition to lampoon and, in taking on this role, the lampooned becomes something of a caricature of the skeptical thinker. A caricature that, while admirable, we should not necessarily aspire to for fear of becoming a PCT ourselves.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04424154278091210052noreply@blogger.com