4 posters
UK-Skeptics
by Guest Fri 06 May 2011, 15:07
Kitkat
Guest- Guest
No, it's still there.Kit-Kat wrote:Except it's closed now.
Added: yes, the forum is closed but the website is still active and doing its intended job.
Kitkat
John wrote:No, it's still there.
I know that really ... I was just trying to be witty.
Kitkat
John wrote:the forum is closed but the website is still active and doing its intended job.
I like this bit in the Newsletter for May 2010, in the write-up re the UK-Skeptics Conference in Muncaster.
http://www.ukskeptics.com/newsletters/2010-1.pdfSome might have questioned the wisdom of
mixing ‘skeptics’ and’ believers’ in an enclosed place, but
we had no problems- even the lady visitors from the
Spiritlove web forum found things to like about Skeptics
(and vice versa).
Are there going to be any more Newsletters?
Guest- Guest
No, and there's unlikely to be any more new content as I don't think publishing stuff under the banner 'skeptics' is a useful way of communicating effectively.Kit-Kat wrote:Are there going to be any more Newsletters?
I do have a few half written or planned articles that I may write up at some point and add them but it's not a priority. I have one on the psychology of psychic readings which I think would be informative and probably well positioned on a skeptics' website so I might do that one.
Kitkat
John wrote:I have one on the psychology of psychic readings which I think would be informative and probably well positioned on a skeptics' website so I might do that one.
Oh aye. That sounds interesting.
From where did you garner the material for your article?
Guest- Guest
Well, I tend to read primary academic research as my source of information as well as other scholarly work and I have enough information to write a pretty informative article.
This has been in the pipeline for a long time now. I just can't get motivated to write anything.
In fact, I remember talking to you at the conference about my ideas for structuring how we think about alternative medicine, placebo effects, etc. That stuff has been 'in the pipeline' since about 2006. I haven't been overly motivated by 'skepticism' since then.
This has been in the pipeline for a long time now. I just can't get motivated to write anything.
In fact, I remember talking to you at the conference about my ideas for structuring how we think about alternative medicine, placebo effects, etc. That stuff has been 'in the pipeline' since about 2006. I haven't been overly motivated by 'skepticism' since then.
Kitkat
John wrote:That stuff has been 'in the pipeline' since about 2006. I haven't been overly motivated by 'skepticism' since then.
So when was UK-Skeptics (the forum) actually formed then? I joined there in 2007 - when 'motivation' for skepticism was pretty noticeably active there.
Guest- Guest
The forum opened early in 2006.
2006 was the peak year for website activity but the forum peaked in 2009.
The main problem with a site like that one is that it could only ever operate successfully with a very narrow remit. That's because almost everyone, including those who call themselves skeptics, don't actually understand what skepticism is at all.
e.g. if you want to set up a website to oppose paranormal or alt. med. claims then using the label 'skeptics' will probably work OK as it fits in with most people's idea of skepticism (non-belief, opposition, denial) but if your idea of skepticism is true to its original meaning (inquiry, pursuit of knowledge) then you're wasting your time - particularly if you want to communicate a message.
UK-Skeptics could have a future if its remit is narrowed to just dealing with the paranormal and alt. med., but if people have different goals such as being educational or promoting science/critical thinking/etc., then a different approach is needed.
The label 'skeptics' is a huge hindrance to any form of effective communication (other than preaching to other skeptics - which is all they tend to do).
2006 was the peak year for website activity but the forum peaked in 2009.
The main problem with a site like that one is that it could only ever operate successfully with a very narrow remit. That's because almost everyone, including those who call themselves skeptics, don't actually understand what skepticism is at all.
e.g. if you want to set up a website to oppose paranormal or alt. med. claims then using the label 'skeptics' will probably work OK as it fits in with most people's idea of skepticism (non-belief, opposition, denial) but if your idea of skepticism is true to its original meaning (inquiry, pursuit of knowledge) then you're wasting your time - particularly if you want to communicate a message.
UK-Skeptics could have a future if its remit is narrowed to just dealing with the paranormal and alt. med., but if people have different goals such as being educational or promoting science/critical thinking/etc., then a different approach is needed.
The label 'skeptics' is a huge hindrance to any form of effective communication (other than preaching to other skeptics - which is all they tend to do).
Feather- Location : Scotland
You were thinking about starting a new project, John. How's that going, or have you changed your mind about it?
Guest- Guest
I'm actually working on something else at the moment. It's going to be a light-hearted community website but the main thing is that I'm working on a bespoke website design for it. That website code will be reusable so if I ever do go ahead with the CT stuff I'll have a properly designed and optimised website for it (as opposed to crappy blogs etc.)*
I have a really, really good idea for how to promote critical thinking that incorporates the ideas I was postulating (a businesslike approach: defined purpose and goals, targeting an audience, etc.) and the good thing is that no one else is doing it.
My former colleagues rejected the idea. The only problem I had with that is that they didn't actually know what the idea was before they rejected it.
The main drawback with doing this sort of altruistic stuff is that you get no thanks for it, you make nothing from it and it takes a great deal of time and effort to do. That's why it really does need to be effective.
Skepticism, as it's currently practised**, is almost completely ineffective as it's almost exclusively about attracting people in (i.e. those who are already likely to be sceptical) than engaging with others. Even when they do try 'outreach' they're turning to blogs, podcasts etc. The problem being that these new Web2.0 technologies are highly effective in helping people to filter out what they're not interested in. So not only is the type of message they are trying to get over done in the wrong way (mostly) to begin with, the method of delivery is very poor also.
This is why anyone wishing to communicate ideas needs to do something different. A new approach might not work either but I say that trying something new is a better option than continuing with something that's already known to fail to deliver.
* I have research papers that have looked into the communication of science and what 75% people do when they're looking for information on something these days is to log onto the internet and use a search engine. So the best place you can have your content is on a website that is well ranked by the search engines therefore delivering your content to those who are actively searching for it. Search engines don't rate blogs highly at all (as they're largely full of crap) so you're not reaching your target audience with a blog.
Blogs, podcasts, facebook, twitter, and such like are useful for capturing a like-minded audience. They're not the tools of delivering information to a non-captive audience - they're the tools for preaching to the converted.
** Practised as it's something that's being done?
I have a really, really good idea for how to promote critical thinking that incorporates the ideas I was postulating (a businesslike approach: defined purpose and goals, targeting an audience, etc.) and the good thing is that no one else is doing it.
My former colleagues rejected the idea. The only problem I had with that is that they didn't actually know what the idea was before they rejected it.
The main drawback with doing this sort of altruistic stuff is that you get no thanks for it, you make nothing from it and it takes a great deal of time and effort to do. That's why it really does need to be effective.
Skepticism, as it's currently practised**, is almost completely ineffective as it's almost exclusively about attracting people in (i.e. those who are already likely to be sceptical) than engaging with others. Even when they do try 'outreach' they're turning to blogs, podcasts etc. The problem being that these new Web2.0 technologies are highly effective in helping people to filter out what they're not interested in. So not only is the type of message they are trying to get over done in the wrong way (mostly) to begin with, the method of delivery is very poor also.
This is why anyone wishing to communicate ideas needs to do something different. A new approach might not work either but I say that trying something new is a better option than continuing with something that's already known to fail to deliver.
* I have research papers that have looked into the communication of science and what 75% people do when they're looking for information on something these days is to log onto the internet and use a search engine. So the best place you can have your content is on a website that is well ranked by the search engines therefore delivering your content to those who are actively searching for it. Search engines don't rate blogs highly at all (as they're largely full of crap) so you're not reaching your target audience with a blog.
Blogs, podcasts, facebook, twitter, and such like are useful for capturing a like-minded audience. They're not the tools of delivering information to a non-captive audience - they're the tools for preaching to the converted.
** Practised as it's something that's being done?
Guest- Guest
Oops, a bit of a rant there...
The answer is that I haven't done anything about the CT project but I haven't rejected it either. I guess it will just have to wait for a time when I have the time and inclination to make the effort to do it as I personally get nothing in return.
The answer is that I haven't done anything about the CT project but I haven't rejected it either. I guess it will just have to wait for a time when I have the time and inclination to make the effort to do it as I personally get nothing in return.
Kitkat
John wrote:** Practised as it's something that's being done?
......... 
Feather- Location : Scotland
Sorry, John, I don't know much about blogs, websites etc. I don't even know what much of the jargon about/on computers means but I accept what you are saying. You obviously know a lot. I wouldn't know where to start. I hope it all goes well for you.
As kk indicated, your spelling is perfect.
As kk indicated, your spelling is perfect.
Guest- Guest
Thank you very much!Feather wrote:I hope it all goes well for you.
I'm designing and programming a new database-driven website system that I can use. Initially it will be used for the community project I have on the go but it will also be able to be used on more serious projects too.
It's all coming together beautifully and I'm extremely pleased with it.
As for communicating information. Well, while I was studying psychology I also looked into things like the psychology of persuasion, making effective arguments and that sort of thing and what I discovered, by examining the research and evidence, is that the way skeptics (and no doubt many other groups) go about things is often ineffective or even counter-productive.
For groups that aim to be 'educational', the psychology literature is not a very encouraging read. Most approaches don't work; and if anything, only make things worse! It's a waste of time.
If you see arguments about this subject (what to do about irrational thinking) the experienced skeptics and educators tend to say that the only thing that can be done is to increase people's awareness of and use of critical thinking. It's the old adage of teaching people how to think rather than what to think.
Of course you have to be realistic with this. I have an idea for a project that I think would work but I know it isn't going to change the world - it's just something that might make a small contribution in addition to other people's work in the same area. A small group with no funding or income is never going to have much clout, but if its efforts are channelled into the right areas in the right way, then it could still make a difference.
Feather- Location : Scotland
How long is it likely to take to complete it?
Guest- Guest
I've been busy working on the site this week and I expect it will be ready for testing in a few days.
I'm writing the code for the integration of the website with the database now and it's a phase where you do a lot of work but nothing much seems to change. Then you put the last bits of code in place and the whole thing springs to life!
I'd like to have it operational by next week.
I'm writing the code for the integration of the website with the database now and it's a phase where you do a lot of work but nothing much seems to change. Then you put the last bits of code in place and the whole thing springs to life!
I'd like to have it operational by next week.
Kitkat
It all sounds terribly complicated and technically testing. 
but exciting though. I'm sure it'll all be worth it. Are we all invited to the site-warming party? :twisted:
but exciting though. I'm sure it'll all be worth it. Are we all invited to the site-warming party? :twisted:
Guest- Guest
Web programming is basically just problem solving - that's why I love it!
I might send you the URL for it but it won't be what you're possibly expecting.
I might send you the URL for it but it won't be what you're possibly expecting.
Feather- Location : Scotland
That's just made it more intriguing.
Kitkat
John wrote:I might send you the URL for it but it won't be what you're possibly expecting.
How do you know what I might be expecting?
You just might, eh?
What does that mean exactly? You mean if we're on good behaviour or something?
Guest- Guest
Well I wasn't sure whether you'd be interested, particularly as I'll be implementing a system of forum apartheid against believers in superstitions such as mediumship. 
It's not going to be a skeptics' site. It's going to be a light-hearted community place (with a forum) that will largely be fun based (satire etc.) but I guess some of it will be a bit more hard-hitting (at least when I get writing it will be!
).
Now my next project (based on this web application what I wrote) will be the CT one. Then I can get truly anal and immensely analytical and boring. 8)
It's not going to be a skeptics' site. It's going to be a light-hearted community place (with a forum) that will largely be fun based (satire etc.) but I guess some of it will be a bit more hard-hitting (at least when I get writing it will be!
).Now my next project (based on this web application what I wrote) will be the CT one. Then I can get truly anal and immensely analytical and boring. 8)
Feather- Location : Scotland
That former one sounds like a revenge attack on believers for The Hideaway on SL but you wouldn't be so petty, would you, John?? Nah.
Kitkat
John wrote:Well I wasn't sure whether you'd be interested, particularly as I'll be implementing a system of forum apartheid against believers in superstitions such as mediumship.
Don't start me off.
Guest- Guest
I'm really enjoying watching how the SL inmates are trying to preserve their belief system by denying the facts.
Cognitive dissonance in action.
Feather- Location : Scotland
I believe you. You would enjoy that. I don't take much part in those discussions any more but sometimes I can't stop myself.
Guest- Guest
I did offer up a very reasonable definition of mental mediumship and I did post a thread outlining the scope of superstition but it seems that everyone missed them (or is ignoring them more like).
However, it's of no importance.
You're right though Feather. I really do enjoy watching people's arguments and reasoning. I'm interested in the psychology of thinking (decision making, problem solving, etc.) in itself but also in superstitious thinking (it being an instance of how thinking goes wrong).
One area I would love to expand on is what's generically known as 'discourse analysis'. This is largely about how language is used (usually by examining text/transcripts) as a dynamic way of creating meaning, establishing personal positions etc.
It's all about examining how words, phrases and repertoires are used. It's more qualitative than quantitative but I think it's an excellent tool (or set of tools) for examining the interactions between people and how they make meaning. And yes, it's an ideal tool for examining psychic readings and such like to see where the actual meaning was created and how.
I did a project/dissertation using discourse analysis last year (got an 'A', naturellement
) and thoroughly enjoyed it (in retrospect!)
Added: I meant to add that studying discourse analysis at a deeper level would be a great way to improve my English.
However, it's of no importance.
You're right though Feather. I really do enjoy watching people's arguments and reasoning. I'm interested in the psychology of thinking (decision making, problem solving, etc.) in itself but also in superstitious thinking (it being an instance of how thinking goes wrong).
One area I would love to expand on is what's generically known as 'discourse analysis'. This is largely about how language is used (usually by examining text/transcripts) as a dynamic way of creating meaning, establishing personal positions etc.
It's all about examining how words, phrases and repertoires are used. It's more qualitative than quantitative but I think it's an excellent tool (or set of tools) for examining the interactions between people and how they make meaning. And yes, it's an ideal tool for examining psychic readings and such like to see where the actual meaning was created and how.
I did a project/dissertation using discourse analysis last year (got an 'A', naturellement
) and thoroughly enjoyed it (in retrospect!)Added: I meant to add that studying discourse analysis at a deeper level would be a great way to improve my English.
Kitkat
John wrote:One area I would love to expand on is what's generically known as 'discourse analysis'. This is largely about how language is used (usually by examining text/transcripts) as a dynamic way of creating meaning, establishing personal positions etc.
It's all about examining how words, phrases and repertoires are used. It's more qualitative than quantitative but I think it's an excellent tool (or set of tools) for examining the interactions between people and how they make meaning. And yes, it's an ideal tool for examining psychic readings and such like to see where the actual meaning was created and how.
That's the sort of thing that I am really interested too.
Feather- Location : Scotland
I'd never heard of Discourse Analysis. Would you post an example of it working?
Guest- Guest
Oh, it's a huge topic and very hard to illustrate with small examples. You can do it in several ways: from doing a 'thematic analysis' where you analyse a discussion and look for recurrent themes to analysing individual sentences where each word is analysed.
A textbook example (Edwards, 1999) is the response The Sunnewspaper rag made in response to Earl Spencer's laying the blame of Diana's death with the tabloids and the paparazzi they paid. Their editorial included:
"In the depths of his grief, Diana’s brother is entitled to be bitter about her death."
The idea of an analysis on this sentence is to ascertain what The Sun were trying to achieve using the particular words chosen.
Obviously, they are being blamed for contributing to Diana's death but don't want to admit that they were. One way of deflecting such criticism is to put the cause of the opponent's criticism down to emotional factors (an internal attribution) rather than to situational factors (an external attribution).
They achieve this by the use of two words in particular: grief and bitter.
By beginning the sentence with, "In the depths of his grief..." they've set the scene by indicating that it is the grief of Diana's death that motivated Earl Spencer to blame the media; and the ending, "Diana’s brother is entitled to be bitter about her death" also implies an internal, emotional process occurring.
They could just have easily used a word like "angry" to describe his criticism but "angry" implies a situational factor. i.e. He's angry at something for causing Diana's death rather than being bitter about it.
This tactic of deflecting arguments and criticism from opponents is very common. The MO is to suggest that opponents hold the views/criticisms/values/etc. that they do because of some internal psychological conflict. That way, you don't have to acknowledge their position or deal with it.
Coincidentally, or was it synchronicity?
, I was reading Paranormalia earlier (because it's an excellent source of fallacious reasoning) and I came across this response to Hawking's recent statements about God etc.: Fairy stories
Look at the comments section below and look out for those 'deflections' where Hawking's arguments are ignored in favour of attributing a malign psychological state to him via 'remote psychoanalysis'.
The examples on Paranormalia are quite obvious but the power of discourse analysis is that much more subtle versions of the same thing can be picked up by analysing the choice of words. It's not that people sit down and deliberately choose one word over another but when they're defending a position (or whatever) then the selection of words will convey what they really mean. "Diana’s brother is entitled to be bitter about her death" and "Diana’s brother is entitled to be angry about her death" have very different meanings (in this context).
I do have some papers on discourse analysis if anyone wants a copy. (Do we have a hidden area on here where I could upload a document or two?)
A textbook example (Edwards, 1999) is the response The Sun
"In the depths of his grief, Diana’s brother is entitled to be bitter about her death."
The idea of an analysis on this sentence is to ascertain what The Sun were trying to achieve using the particular words chosen.
Obviously, they are being blamed for contributing to Diana's death but don't want to admit that they were. One way of deflecting such criticism is to put the cause of the opponent's criticism down to emotional factors (an internal attribution) rather than to situational factors (an external attribution).
They achieve this by the use of two words in particular: grief and bitter.
By beginning the sentence with, "In the depths of his grief..." they've set the scene by indicating that it is the grief of Diana's death that motivated Earl Spencer to blame the media; and the ending, "Diana’s brother is entitled to be bitter about her death" also implies an internal, emotional process occurring.
They could just have easily used a word like "angry" to describe his criticism but "angry" implies a situational factor. i.e. He's angry at something for causing Diana's death rather than being bitter about it.
This tactic of deflecting arguments and criticism from opponents is very common. The MO is to suggest that opponents hold the views/criticisms/values/etc. that they do because of some internal psychological conflict. That way, you don't have to acknowledge their position or deal with it.
Coincidentally, or was it synchronicity?
, I was reading Paranormalia earlier (because it's an excellent source of fallacious reasoning) and I came across this response to Hawking's recent statements about God etc.: Fairy storiesLook at the comments section below and look out for those 'deflections' where Hawking's arguments are ignored in favour of attributing a malign psychological state to him via 'remote psychoanalysis'.
The examples on Paranormalia are quite obvious but the power of discourse analysis is that much more subtle versions of the same thing can be picked up by analysing the choice of words. It's not that people sit down and deliberately choose one word over another but when they're defending a position (or whatever) then the selection of words will convey what they really mean. "Diana’s brother is entitled to be bitter about her death" and "Diana’s brother is entitled to be angry about her death" have very different meanings (in this context).
I do have some papers on discourse analysis if anyone wants a copy. (Do we have a hidden area on here where I could upload a document or two?)
Kitkat
Certainly is an interesting subject.
Not as yet (apart from the Test Forum - but stuff automatically gets deleted from there after 7 days).
We can create a forum that will be visible and accessible only to members who are logged in.
I will get on to it later today (no time just now). I would be interested in seeing those papers on discourse analysis.
John wrote:I do have some papers on discourse analysis if anyone wants a copy. (Do we have a hidden area on here where I could upload a document or two?)
Not as yet (apart from the Test Forum - but stuff automatically gets deleted from there after 7 days).
We can create a forum that will be visible and accessible only to members who are logged in.
I will get on to it later today (no time just now). I would be interested in seeing those papers on discourse analysis.
Kitkat
John wrote:(Do we have a hidden area on here where I could upload a document or two?)
Try the Cat Flap - now available.
Kitkat
Guest wrote:One area I would love to expand on is what's generically known as 'discourse analysis'. This is largely about how language is used (usually by examining text/transcripts) as a dynamic way of creating meaning, establishing personal positions etc.
It's all about examining how words, phrases and repertoires are used. It's more qualitative than quantitative but I think it's an excellent tool (or set of tools) for examining the interactions between people and how they make meaning.
Feather wrote:I'd never heard of Discourse Analysis. Would you post an example of it working?
A perfect example of discourse analysis to be found in this thread on Spiritlove:
http://spiritlove.freeforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2467
Feather- Location : Scotland
Thanks, kitkat. I understand it to mean the study of the language used in debate/discussion in order to win points, so to speak. The use of techniques such as emotive words etc to press home a point of view in subtle ways etc. Is that right or am I way off? 
Kitkat
Feather wrote:Thanks, kitkat. I understand it to mean the study of the language used in debate/discussion in order to win points, so to speak. The use of techniques such as emotive words etc to press home a point of view in subtle ways etc. Is that right or am I way off?
Well, in my understanding, that is only part of it ... goes a bit deeper than that.
Can you spot the actual *working* examples (there is more than one) in that linked SL thread?
Feather- Location : Scotland
I would try but I'm tired now and my bed is calling me. I did read it a minute ago but I need to read UC's definition of it again first. I merely skimmed over it before. 
Kitkat
LOL - Evidence of Life after Death!!
There's a ghost haunting the old UK-Skeptics forum ....
The sceptre of John Jackson has been sighted wandering its deserted grounds ....
This scary sceptre is said to haunt the old premises round about Christmas Time ...
Graham Dare (self-proclaimed UK's top medium, lol) has been brought in to investigate the strange goings-on ....
Dowsing and automatic writing abound?
http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/showthread.php/983-Graham-Dare-psychic-medium-Predicts-Madeleine-McCann-will-be-found?p=94436#post94436
Researchers are reported to be extremely interested and rushing to the scene of this latest phenomenon.
http://skeps.freeforums.org/post992.html#p992
There's a ghost haunting the old UK-Skeptics forum ....
The sceptre of John Jackson has been sighted wandering its deserted grounds ....
This scary sceptre is said to haunt the old premises round about Christmas Time ...
Graham Dare (self-proclaimed UK's top medium, lol) has been brought in to investigate the strange goings-on ....
Dowsing and automatic writing abound?
http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/showthread.php/983-Graham-Dare-psychic-medium-Predicts-Madeleine-McCann-will-be-found?p=94436#post94436
Researchers are reported to be extremely interested and rushing to the scene of this latest phenomenon.
http://skeps.freeforums.org/post992.html#p992
Umberto Cocopop
I see Croydon Bob's still in the preoperational stage of cognitive development! 
So, what could be going on on UKS then?
Well, on hearing the news of the UK's #1 medium, I just thought it would be nice to finish the story off.
It's nothing more than that.
It's just that the UKS website and forum still gets several thousand visits per day. i.e. it's a skeptics' website that actually gets read.
So, what could be going on on UKS then?
Well, on hearing the news of the UK's #1 medium, I just thought it would be nice to finish the story off.
It's nothing more than that.
It's just that the UKS website and forum still gets several thousand visits per day. i.e. it's a skeptics' website that actually gets read.
Aussiepom- Location : Cambridgeshire
Job/hobbies : Retired
This sounds interesting.......
Kitkat
KitKat wrote:John wrote:I might send you the URL for it but it won't be what you're possibly expecting.
How do you know what I might be expecting?
You just might, eh?
Hee-hee ha-ha ho-ho ...
I found it! If Mohammed can't be bothered to come down the mountain .... climb it yourself - and stick a flag on it! I did 
(but I'm not telling 
) Oh and ... it's exactly as I expected.
Umberto Cocopop
Well it's not as was originally intended!KitKat wrote:Oh and ... it's exactly as I expected.
There were several of us going to run it as mainly a daft/fun site but by the time I got it finished, most had drifted away. So it's now basically a test site. But it's still fun.
by 
61-BLUES
