Robert wrote:
Ec wrote:
There are probably ways in which this whole class
of
articles can be approached more civilly. A short opening
paragraph can define the subject. There is no need to
say that anything is "alleged" there unless you are
disputing the definition itself. A definition is not
a falsifiable statements.
This is incorrect. Sometimes a definition *is* a
falsifiable statement. For example, someone could write
"ESP is the method by which a human can do such-and-such."
The very definition presumes that ESP exists, which itself
is controversial. No one has ever shown that any such
phenomenon exists. The same is true for telepathy,
telekinesis, pyrokinesis, and dozens of other alleged
phenomenon.
Definitions are tautologies; they are always true, even the reidiculous
ones or the ones contrary to the way that the term is defined by
others. Of course if I choos to define something in an unusual manner
it will make conversation very difficult. A definition makes no
prsumption whatsoever about the existence of the object defined.
One is obligated by our NPOV policy to say something
like
"ESP is alleged to be the method by which..." because no
one can even show that ESP (or any of these other
phenomenon.)
We can of course say that "Believers in ESP believe that
ESP has been proven to exist."
The obligation is to follow NPOV policy, not your perverted
misinterpretation of the policy. One could as easily say "Some
scientists believe that ESP has not been proven to exist", or "Some
scientists allege that ESP does not exist."
One well known
contributor with a reputation for a
confrontational style
Ec, stop with the ad homenin remarks. It is unprofessional
to belittle my argument by attacking my reputation. It is
also unprofessional to refuse to use my name. No one
mistreats you in this fashion; do not do this to others.
Not using the name was a matter of politeness. I apologize for being so
polite.
By avoiding the use of the name I was not making an ad hominem
statement; I was merely adding emphasis to the illogicality of the
statement in question. Now that you acknowledge your reputation, there
is not much that I can say to soften the blow.
Ec then claims:
sought to confound ESP with alien abduction, by
suggesting that an abductee might claim that the aliens
would use ESP to communicate with him. One thing to
remember is that it is quite normal for people to
believe in one but not the other. In that case a
believer in one would find it insulting to be associated
with a belief in the other.
Ex, you are making a strawhorse argument. You are trying
to deligitimize my basic argument by focusing on one
example sentence that doesn't even exist in any article!
I was not the one to introduce the concept of alien abduction. For my
part I might go so far as to allege that there is no such thing as alien
abduction. I must nevertheless accept that the subject may be more
important to you. Since I do not believe in alien abduction it seemed
clear that they were introduced as strawaliens for the sole purpose of
making another practice (i.e. ESP) appear less credible.than it really
is. That being said, I guess that a "strawhorse" argument is one that
that seeks to give the strawmen a ride away from the scene.
In any case, many studies have proven that believers in
UFO
abductions also generally believe in ESP. This is not an
"insult". Perhaps it makes you uncomfortable to ackowledge
the relationship between these beliefs, but the
relationship is firmly established, even if you find it
embarassing.
Sometimes it's difficult to distinguish between an insult and
ignorance. Now that you are introducing UFOs into the discussion it's
hard to know where they will take you. The ad hominem concepts of my
discomfort or embarassment have no relevance to the existence of ESP,
aliens or UFOs. It is simply illogical to generalize by saying that
because some people hold two specified beliefs, therefore all people
holding one of those beliefs must believe in the other.
Ec