KRAZY KATS

Welcome to Krazy Kats - a friendly informal online community discussing life issues that we care about. Open 24/7 for chat & chill. Come and join us!

3 posters

    Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core"

    Kitkat
    Kitkat

    Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core" Empty Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core"

    Post by Kitkat Tue 23 Sep 2014, 01:11

    Interesting article by prominent skeptic, Michael Shermer, published in Scientific American, Volume 311, Issue 4

    (Dr. Michael Shermer is the Founding Publisher of Skeptic magazine, the Executive Director of the Skeptics Society, a monthly columnist for Scientific American, the host of the The Skeptics Society’s Distinguished Science Lecture Series, and Adjunct Professor at Claremont Graduate University and Chapman University.)

    Anomalous Events That Can Shake One’s Skepticism to the Core

    'I just witnessed an event so mysterious that it shook my skepticism'
    Sep 16, 2014 |By Michael Shermer

    Often I am asked if I have ever encountered something that I could not explain. What my interlocutors have in mind are not bewildering enigmas such as consciousness or U.S. foreign policy but anomalous and mystifying events that suggest the existence of the paranormal or supernatural. My answer is: yes, now I have.

    The event took place on June 25, 2014. On that day I married Jennifer Graf, from Köln, Germany. She had been raised by her mom; her grandfather, Walter, was the closest father figure she had growing up, but he died when she was 16. In shipping her belongings to my home before the wedding, most of the boxes were damaged and several precious heirlooms lost, including her grandfather's binoculars. His 1978 Philips 070 transistor radio arrived safely, so I set out to bring it back to life after decades of muteness. I put in new batteries and opened it up to see if there were any loose connections to solder. I even tried “percussive maintenance,” said to work on such devices—smacking it sharply against a hard surface. Silence. We gave up and put it at the back of a desk drawer in our bedroom.

    Three months later, after affixing the necessary signatures to our marriage license at the Beverly Hills courthouse, we returned home, and in the presence of my family said our vows and exchanged rings. Being 9,000 kilometers from family, friends and home, Jennifer was feeling amiss and lonely. She wished her grandfather were there to give her away. She whispered that she wanted to say something to me alone, so we excused ourselves to the back of the house where we could hear music playing in the bedroom. We don't have a music system there, so we searched for laptops and iPhones and even opened the back door to check if the neighbors were playing music. We followed the sound to the printer on the desk, wondering—absurdly—if this combined printer/scanner/fax machine also included a radio. Nope.

    At that moment Jennifer shot me a look I haven't seen since the supernatural thriller The Exorcist startled audiences. “That can't be what I think it is, can it?” she said. She opened the desk drawer and pulled out her grandfather's transistor radio, out of which a romantic love song wafted. We sat in stunned silence for minutes. “My grandfather is here with us,” Jennifer said, tearfully. “I'm not alone.”

    Shortly thereafter we returned to our guests with the radio playing as I recounted the backstory. My daughter, Devin, who came out of her bedroom just before the ceremony began, added, “I heard the music coming from your room just as you were about to start.” The odd thing is that we were there getting ready just minutes before that time, sans music.

    Later that night we fell asleep to the sound of classical music emanating from Walter's radio. Fittingly, it stopped working the next day and has remained silent ever since.

    What does this mean? Had it happened to someone else I might suggest a chance electrical anomaly and the law of large numbers as an explanation—with billions of people having billions of experiences every day, there's bound to be a handful of extremely unlikely events that stand out in their timing and meaning. In any case, such anecdotes do not constitute scientific evidence that the dead survive or that they can communicate with us via electronic equipment.

    Jennifer is as skeptical as I am when it comes to paranormal and supernatural phenomena. Yet the eerie conjunction of these deeply evocative events gave her the distinct feeling that her grandfather was there and that the music was his gift of approval. I have to admit, it rocked me back on my heels and shook my skepticism to its core as well. I savored the experience more than the explanation.

    The emotional interpretations of such anomalous events grant them significance regardless of their causal account. And if we are to take seriously the scientific credo to keep an open mind and remain agnostic when the evidence is indecisive or the riddle unsolved, we should not shut the doors of perception when they may be opened to us to marvel in the mysterious.

    One of the comments to that article (comment #10) reads:
    I am a skeptic, and a subscriber to Skeptic Magazine. Other than minor frustration with some political biases on Shermer's part that sometimes have crept into his writing in the past, I have been a huge fan for 20 years. This article really intrigued me. I am surprised and impressed that Shermer wrote it, perhaps knowing that some fellow skeptics and his fans may be annoyed. I would have been annoyed 10+ years ago, and am a little embarassed to report that I also had a remarkable and unexplained thing happen to me and three witnesses about ten years ago in Santa Barbara. If someone else had shared with me a story similar to what happened to me, I would NEVER believe it, even today. Not ever. So....... I just don't know what to say, other than our world is full of mystery, and skepticism is an appropriate response to our world, as long as we are humble and honest about all that we do not understand.
    Umberto Cocopop
    Umberto Cocopop

    Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core" Empty Re: Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core"

    Post by Umberto Cocopop Tue 23 Sep 2014, 13:35

    It's a typical example of how an unusual or unlikely event can be given meaning by interpretation and wishful thinking.

    The only thing that really grabbed my attention was this bit:

    And if we are to take seriously the scientific credo to keep an open mind and remain agnostic when the evidence is indecisive or the riddle unsolved, we should not shut the doors of perception when they may be opened to us to marvel in the mysterious.

    That's an incredibly dumb sentence from someone who I thought was very smart.
    Kitkat
    Kitkat

    Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core" Empty Re: Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core"

    Post by Kitkat Tue 23 Sep 2014, 19:42

    Umberto Cocopop wrote:It's a typical example of how an unusual or unlikely event can be given meaning by interpretation and wishful thinking.

    The only thing that really grabbed my attention was this bit:

    And if we are to take seriously the scientific credo to keep an open mind and remain agnostic when the evidence is indecisive or the riddle unsolved, we should not shut the doors of perception when they may be opened to us to marvel in the mysterious.

    That's an incredibly dumb sentence from someone who I thought was very smart.

    See, I think that's the most meaningful part of it.  It's spoken from the point of view of someone who has experienced something for themselves ... someone who's not at all unfamiliar with hearing such accounts from others and, being the sensible guy that we know he is, has at first looked thoughtfully and critically at the logical options that might explain what occurred - and found them wanting.  
    Yes, as he said "such anecdotes do not constitute scientific evidence that the dead survive or that they can communicate with us via electronic equipment", and yes, he still remains skeptical, but evidently, as far as he is concerned, "the evidence is indecisive or the riddle unsolved," he hasn't [yet] found a satisfactory logical, scientific explanation - it's gone way past "coincidence" and so the mind [his mind] remains open and it's a mystery that (for the moment at least) remains unresolved.  The possibilities of it being a paranormal experience can't be ruled out altogether.

    It would be grand now if he/they were to experience something else similar to what happened that day.

    Anyway, I'm enjoying the various skeptics' reactions to it all. pirat
    Umberto Cocopop
    Umberto Cocopop

    Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core" Empty Re: Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core"

    Post by Umberto Cocopop Wed 24 Sep 2014, 10:05

    Kitkat wrote:It's spoken from the point of view of someone who has experienced something for themselves

    Exactly! He should know better.

    As someone who's written about 'patternicity' and 'agenticity' being explanations for why people have a tendency to see patterns and/or create meaning that aren't really there he must know that the rather fanciful conclusion they came to, no matter how powerful it may have been, was of this type.

    He should also be fully aware that perception is not a guide to reality.

    ... someone who's not at all unfamiliar with hearing such accounts from others and, being the sensible guy that we know he is, has at first looked thoughtfully and critically at the logical options that might explain what occurred - and found them wanting.


    It looks to me like all they did was jump to a conclusion and ended up being 'shaken' by it because of its emotional impact. There's no indication that he's had the radio checked, for example - and if it was left switched on and with new batteries in it, it's quite possible that it could start up at any time. The only unusual coincidence was the timing.

    KitKat wrote:Anyway, I'm enjoying the various skeptics' reactions to it all. pirat

    I haven't seen any. I suspect that they'll focus on the likelihood of the radio coming on at random but I wonder whether some will now start attacking Shermer for not toeing the line and saying the right thing?

    I suspect so as the sentence I quoted is more like something Sheldrake or Radin would come out with.
    Kitkat
    Kitkat

    Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core" Empty Re: Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core"

    Post by Kitkat Thu 25 Sep 2014, 11:57

    Umberto Cocopop wrote:
    Kitkat wrote:It's spoken from the point of view of someone who has experienced something for themselves

    Exactly! He should know better.

    As someone who's written about 'patternicity' and 'agenticity' being explanations for why people have a tendency to see patterns and/or create meaning that aren't really there he must know that the rather fanciful conclusion they came to, no matter how powerful it may have been, was of this type.

    He should also be fully aware that perception is not a guide to reality.
    ... and he IS fully aware of that - and has said so.  He has also said that that fact doesn't take away from the depth of the experience, taking emotions into account.


    ... someone who's not at all unfamiliar with hearing such accounts from others and, being the sensible guy that we know he is, has at first looked thoughtfully and critically at the logical options that might explain what occurred - and found them wanting.

    Umberto Cocopop wrote:It looks to me like all they did was jump to a conclusion and ended up being 'shaken' by it because of its emotional impact. There's no indication that he's had the radio checked, for example - and if it was left switched on and with new batteries in it, it's quite possible that it could start up at any time. The only unusual coincidence was the timing.

    Well, knowing his "experience" in these matters, I think it goes without saying that he will have arranged to have the radio checked out by a third and possibly fourth party.  Three months has lapsed between the time of the "incident" and his reporting about it in that article.  He did state that the radio has NOT worked again since that one occasion.  


    Umberto Cocopop wrote:
    KitKat wrote:Anyway, I'm enjoying the various skeptics' reactions to it all. pirat

    I haven't seen any. I suspect that they'll focus on the likelihood of the radio coming on at random but I wonder whether some will now start attacking Shermer for not toeing the line and saying the right thing?

    I suspect so as the sentence I quoted is more like something Sheldrake or Radin would come out with.

    Well, you've only got to look at the various comments attached to the article.  For the most part, the "skeptics" who have responded are "embarrassed", "surprised", "angry", "upset" about particularly that last paragraph (about the importance of being open-minded and not "shutting the doors of perception when they may be opened to us to marvel in the mysterious").  
    .... and that's just the reaction of the few who have responded ....
    Seems to me, the majority of the "skeptics" would rather just ignore it and hide it under the carpet.  This would explain the lack of reference in all the usual skeptical haunts.

    Indeed, I approached the "Internet's Most Famous Skeptic" ( nuts ) to suggest that he puts this article forward to his trusty followers - to see what their reaction might be.  His reaction [predictably] was to pooh-pooh it and do the latter ... i.e. best to ignore it and sweep it under the carpet.  What a Face
    Kitkat
    Kitkat

    Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core" Empty Re: Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core"

    Post by Kitkat Thu 25 Sep 2014, 12:08

    Incidentally, there is a report and discussion on the event here:  
    http://skeps.freeforums.org/michael-shermer-on-his-anomalous-event-t1756.html
    Umberto Cocopop
    Umberto Cocopop

    Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core" Empty Re: Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core"

    Post by Umberto Cocopop Thu 25 Sep 2014, 13:31

    Kitkat wrote:Well, knowing his "experience" in these matters, I think it goes without saying that he will have arranged to have the radio checked out by a third and possibly fourth party.

    That cannot be assumed. no-no

    I would say that his story is a good indicator of just how powerful these experiences can be when they happen to you personally. I don't really have a problem with the story myself - I wouldn't even if he had come to the conclusion that it was Walter communicating (as opposed to Uri Geller being in town and making it work, i.e. another equally fanciful, non-evidence-based interpretation).

    But he's completely and utterly wrong to say that science needs to take subjective interpretations of such cases seriously.

    It's like saying that science should take ghosts seriously because someone claims to have seen one. It really is that stupid.
    Umberto Cocopop
    Umberto Cocopop

    Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core" Empty Re: Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core"

    Post by Umberto Cocopop Thu 25 Sep 2014, 13:37

    Kitkat wrote:Seems to me, the majority of the "skeptics" would rather just ignore it and hide it under the carpet.  This would explain the lack of reference in all the usual skeptical haunts.

    Indeed, I approached the "Internet's Most Famous Skeptic" ( nuts ) to suggest that he puts this article forward to his trusty followers - to see what their reaction might be.  His reaction [predictably] was to pooh-pooh it and do the latter ... i.e. best to ignore it and sweep it under the carpet.  What a Face

    Perhaps they ought to treat it as an anomaly. giggle

    Whiskers
    Whiskers

    Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core" Empty Re: Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core"

    Post by Whiskers Sat 27 Sep 2014, 11:02

    They are talking about it on JREF.

    Is Michael Shermer becoming a believer??
    http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=76ee536d906d9e8645aab1a9a91ec637&t=283335

    One poster commented  "The only question will remain what will happen with the Skeptic Magazine? Will it become a woo magazine now? Or will Shermer explain what he is talking about? "

    lololol
    Kitkat
    Kitkat

    Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core" Empty Re: Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core"

    Post by Kitkat Sat 27 Sep 2014, 16:34

    Whiskers wrote:They are talking about it on JREF.

    Is Michael Shermer becoming a believer??
    http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=76ee536d906d9e8645aab1a9a91ec637&t=283335

    One poster there says:
    How does anyone know that this radio wasn't periodically playing music the whole time it was in the drawer for those 3 months after Shermer had tinkered with it? That could have easily been the case, and perhaps it only occurred up to that point when nobody had been in the house to hear it.
    If that is the case, it reduces the apparent mysticality of the event by a significant amount.

    Well, no - it doesn't really reduce the "apparent mysticality of the event".  If that were indeed the case, it would actually increase the "mysticality", purely by the timing of the event and the significant occasion that it was heard.  If it had been noticed on any other day during those 3 months, it would not have had such a profound meaning.  The timely occurrence (and the fact that it has not worked since! - a further 3 months on ...) is what's of most importance here.


    ETA:  I also like love this comment (posted as a reply to Michael Prescott's blog about the event - one of the links mentioned in the JREF thread):
    I had an argument (if one can call it that) on a skeptical forum about Patricia Pearson's book. You can see it at the link. The so called "skeptic" has explained away everything without even reading the book. In fact he "debunked" the whole thing without initially even having an idea of what exactly he was "debunking". He was so ill informed about the book that it was shocking. The funniest part in the link below is that they told me to listen to Michael Shermer to "educate" myself. I think that's called Karma (which of course is "woo").

    Heh heh ... it's also called "irony".  pirat
    Kitkat
    Kitkat

    Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core" Empty Re: Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core"

    Post by Kitkat Sun 28 Sep 2014, 11:43

    Some related links and  discussion following this story:

    Michael Shermer on his "anomalous event".
    http://skeps.freeforums.org/michael-shermer-on-his-anomalous-event-t1756.html

    Is Michael Shermer becoming a believer??
    http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=76ee536d906d9e8645aab1a9a91ec637&t=283335

    ARCH-SKEPTIC Michael Shermer admits to a PARANORMAL EXPERIENCE!
    https://lunaticoutpost.com/showthread.php?tid=469432

    Michael Shermer's skepticism has been "shaken to the core"
    http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/michael-shermers-skepticism-has-been-shaken-to-the-core.1318/

    Michael Shermer Loses His Faith In Skepticism
    http://www.supernaturalworldview.com/2014/09/26/michael-shermer-loses-his-faith-in-skepticism/

    Has Skeptical Michael Shermer Seen the Light?
    http://www.dailygrail.com/Skepticism/2014/9/Has-Skeptic-Michael-Shermer-Seen-the-Light

    Michael Shermer is becoming a believer??
    http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=24425

    To understand the anomalous we need MORE skepticism, not less
    http://www.bernardokastrup.com/2014/09/we-need-more-skepticism.html

    Michael Shermer's Paranormal Experience
    http://triablogue.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/michael-shermers-paranormal-experience.html?showComment=1411800125222
    Umberto Cocopop
    Umberto Cocopop

    Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core" Empty Re: Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core"

    Post by Umberto Cocopop Sat 04 Oct 2014, 17:27

    This story didn't create much in the way of debate did it?

    I guess if you're a "skeptic" (a position-oriented, non-thinking follower like most of them are) something like this is something you don't want to see: one of your authority figures saying the "wrong" thing.

    I must admit, I expected a bit more of a backlash against Shermer (ad Hominem arguments etc.) I guess ignoring the issue is easier.

    Whiskers
    Whiskers

    Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core" Empty Re: Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core"

    Post by Whiskers Sun 26 Oct 2014, 12:50

    Umberto Cocopop wrote:This story didn't create much in the way of debate did it?

    I guess if you're a "skeptic" (a position-oriented, non-thinking follower like most of them are) something like this is something you don't want to see: one of your authority figures saying the "wrong" thing.

    I must admit, I expected a bit more of a backlash against Shermer (ad Hominem arguments etc.) I guess ignoring the issue is easier.


    One of the comments to the article published in Skeptic mag 'Infrequencies' indicates just that.

    Jason Says:
    October 8th, 2014 at 9:12 am

    I question your decision to publicly tell this story. You’ve just created an Achilles’ heel for yourself in any future debates you may engage in, and opened the way for accusations of hypocrisy: if one is going to publicly and professionally demand that other people face their irrational beliefs, and critically examine unusual experiences, then one can’t have a different standard in one’s private life.

    If you really, truly think there is a supernatural agent at work here, I think speaking out is the honest thing to do, and worthy of respect. But if in your heart of hearts you realize there is a natural explanation for your experience, then this sort of uncritical gee-whiz blog post is damaging not just to you professionally, but to other skeptics, who are likely to have the story brandished against them similarly to the way “deathbed conversions” are. The unfortunate difference is that most deathbed conversions are false stories, and this one is legitimately yours.

    However, this is not necessarily typical of the responses there.  
    http://www.michaelshermer.com/2014/10/infrequencies/
    Kitkat
    Kitkat

    Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core" Empty Re: Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core"

    Post by Kitkat Sun 26 Oct 2014, 20:17

    "The unfortunate difference is that most deathbed conversions are false stories, and this one is legitimately yours."

    But Michael Shermer's story has got nothing to do with "deathbed conversions" (incidentally, questionable that "most deathbed conversions are false stories") - and neither is his a 'false story'.  confused  

    Is this what some might refer to as a 'strawman' argument, Umbo?
    Umberto Cocopop
    Umberto Cocopop

    Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core" Empty Re: Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core"

    Post by Umberto Cocopop Tue 28 Oct 2014, 14:23

    Kitkat wrote:Is this what some might refer to as a 'strawman' argument, Umbo?

    A straw man argument is where you mischaracterize your opponent's position in order to make it easier to argue against. This looks more like an analogy showing how this story will be used in a similar manner to other refutations of skeptics' arguments - with the added problem of this one having a genuine, authoritative provenance.

    Of course, and to reiterate my point, this is only a problem for those who define their 'skepticism' by the position they take on issues (which is most of them).

    Kitkat
    Kitkat

    Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core" Empty Re: Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core"

    Post by Kitkat Fri 05 Dec 2014, 08:13

    Michael Shermer tweets:

    Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core" Screen-shot-2014-12-03-at-5-57-26-pm


    Following the huge amount of interest generated in the fall-out from his controversial statement in the Scientific American article: “I have to admit, it rocked me back on my heels and shook my skepticism to its core as well.”, Michael Shermer has had to do a quick re-think in an effort to salvage his credibility and standing within the 'skeptic community'.

    So, he has made the following reply to one of his many critics:
    http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/12/04/shermer-has-a-woo-experience-admits-there-may-be-something-to-it/
       I read your commentary, Jerry, and as usual with your critiques in your blog I agree with all your points about my Scientific American column. To clarify matters please see this further explanation of my interpretation, which is that my experience in no way implies something paranormal or supernatural. As I’ve always said (and repeat here), there’s no such thing as the paranormal or supernatural; there is just the normal, the natural, and mysteries as yet unexplained by natural law and chance/contingency.

       Much has been made of the subtitle of the original column (stating that my skepticism was shaken to the core), a variation of which was used for the Online title of the essay. As is common in all magazine and newspaper articles, essays, and opinion editorials, the editors write the title and subtitle in a way that will make the article seem more compelling to read, and that is the case here. My Scientific American editors give me much freedom in choosing my own titles and subtitles, but when they have done rewrites for previous columns I have always felt they were better than my original, and this one seemed good to me at the time. But now I see that many readers took it in a way I had not intended. My skepticism is in fine shape.

       Hopefully this clarification in Slate will clear up matters. I guess if I had to sum it up even briefer it would be this: Weird things happen. We can’t explain everything. Enjoy the experience. But don’t abandon science or the natural worldview.

       Michael

    The words in the statement remain the same, however - he has not retracted, and basically leaves it up to the individual to decide their meaning, whichever camp they happen to reside in.  Clever man. :thumb:
    Kitkat
    Kitkat

    Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core" Empty Re: Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core"

    Post by Kitkat Sun 01 Feb 2015, 11:04

    This should be interesting.

    http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/upcomming-interview-dr-michael-shermer-the-moral-arc.1733/

    Alex Tsakiris of Skeptiko will be interviewing Michael Shermer.

    "Dr. Michael Shermer will be joining me next week to talk about his new book, The Moral Arc. Any questions?"

    I'm looking forward to it.
    Kitkat
    Kitkat

    Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core" Empty Re: Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core"

    Post by Kitkat Thu 26 Mar 2015, 11:09

    So, the long awaited interview is out.   The majority of the interview is taken up with the controversial debate of words, misunderstandings and misinterpretations of recent times between Michael Shermer and Dr Pim van Lommel.

    Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core" Av-39246_zps206c2124 .......   Move along folks .....

    The ensuing discussion on the Skeptiko forum is just as boring -though I did come across one post there which I tended to agree with.  (I guess it was quite crazy to have expected anything different):

    Post # 40 -
    I'm always amazed that materialists get away with their own version of atrocious metaphysics:

    Shermer: "Evolution designed us to want to survive.." "That's what evolution designed us to do". Oh, I shouldn't use the word 'designed', I'll use the word 'created' instead.

    He merely replaces the word 'God' with the word 'evolution' and takes it as a given that by simply transferring all the powers once attributed to an anthropomorphised deity to a 'process' that somehow it is self-evident that he is off the hook for accounting for any of it.
    Then he quotes Dawkins:
    "Imagine you're a molecule, what would you do to survive?"
    Again, he is embedding an unattributed, metaphysical conscious 'decider' into the molecule...then denying that's what he means.

    "You have to create a survival machine.....": Here we are expected to take his use of the word 'machine' seriously in that sentence, but not the metaphysical "You" who consciously "created" it to fulfill an anticipated end result.

    This is the slight of hand at the heart of the materialist paradigm: Their press kit is always going on about how the only thing that matters to them is concrete fact - and that this is what sets them apart from those other people who resort to self-rationalizing metaphysics that are never definitively articulated or understood. When materialists resort to the same sort of metaphysics to fill in the gaps in their worldview, they just assert that 'that's not what we meant'. When pushed to explain, they inevitably default to "we haven't figured that out yet...but we know we will one day". So much for basing everything on concrete fact. It is a system that has a constant moving of the goalposts built into it so it can never be wrong.

    Then he makes this extraordinary claim for so called "moral emotions" for which there is no objective evidence whatsoever and comes across as nothing but an attempt to use mythological narrative to account for morality in terms of a materialist belief system.

    And yet these are the same people who go on ad nauseam about "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence" for everybody else.

    Why do these people get away with it?


    I read a little further on (the page turns at this stage) and then came to another post where I was in absolute agreement:

       I have to say, I'm listening to the podcast and Shermer is driving me nuts. He just keeps coming back to the same thing: The only way to know the totality of reality now and for all of time is via this method that humans invented 400 years ago that is restricted to measuring material matter called reductionist scientific materialism. Just bypasses the fact that this belief itself is not 'scientifically' verifiable.
       And every time he is confronted with an argument that suggests aspects of reality that may not yield to this method, Shermer's answer is: well, that may or may not be true but I don't care.

       This is the kind of reasoning that get's him celebrated as a leading expert on these subjects? Essentially, we restrict our thinking to the parameters of the framework that appeals to me or I'm taking my ball and going home?



    Turns out that post was made by the same poster as the previous one I quoted here.  So, it seems I am not alone in my summing up view of this interview.  Here is where I leave it.  I have not read any further, nor listened to the podcast, as it seems highly unlikely that there will be anything new to learn from this interview or the consequent discussions it provokes.


    (Not buying his new book either!) judge
    Umberto Cocopop
    Umberto Cocopop

    Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core" Empty Re: Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core"

    Post by Umberto Cocopop Thu 26 Mar 2015, 13:18

    I might have a look or listen to the interview. It is usually the same old things repeated in these debates, I agree.

    I don't quite agree with the two posts you've quoted though KK. Yes, using words such as "designed" or "created" when referring to evolution etc., can be clumsy and confusing, but they're really not used in the same metaphysical way as the poster claims.

    Umberto Cocopop
    Umberto Cocopop

    Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core" Empty Re: Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core"

    Post by Umberto Cocopop Fri 27 Mar 2015, 14:13

    Well, I had it on in the background - but didn't learn much!

    Shermer was on to promote his new book which seems to be about the origin of morality or how morality evolves. Alex Tsakiris spent most of his time blabbing on about his own hobby horses of universal consciousness, and NDEs.

    Kitkat
    Kitkat

    Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core" Empty Re: Michael Shermer's skepticism is "shaken to the core"

    Post by Kitkat Tue 31 Mar 2015, 13:48

    Umberto Cocopop wrote:Shermer was on to promote his new book which seems to be about the origin of morality or how morality evolves.

    The reviews are not exactly raving in support - even amongst his fellow "moralists".

    http://www.amazon.com/The-Moral-Arc-Science-Humanity/dp/0805096914

      Current date/time is Thu 28 Mar 2024, 13:42