Opinions Wanted... Online Course
Posted 23 November 2003 - 10:37 AM
I do hope I'm not stepping over the lines by looking like I'm "promoting" anything (granted, it is a "freebie" and is not meant to detract from this message board), but opinions are welcome on our latest document/course online...
There is a link to a PDF document there that's about 90 pages of legit text (100 total pages) and is the re-write and conversion of our old course set up in 2001.
I would very much appreciate any input or feedback you'd care to offer (above and beyond "online technical issues" with the PDF... I tried my best...)
Thanks in advance for any feedback and thank you for allowing me to ask for your assistance here. I find the posters here intelligent, thoughtful, and with many good insights into the realm of paranormal studies.
Posted 23 November 2003 - 11:57 AM
Regarding the 'which of the following terms fits groups such as CSICOP best?' question on the exam - what other groups does this allude to (besides CSICOP) and what is the meaning of 'sceptdebunker'? It's a term I haven't come across before.
Posted 23 November 2003 - 12:15 PM
Dangerous question that... In the course, I specifically speak on which groups and types I'm eluding to as well as the term "sceptdebunker" and it's origins.
Basically, the "word" was coined by Stanton Friedman who noted, as did many, that CSICOP and some folks have become 'data-deniers' and 'debunkers-by-proclamation' rather than 'doubters' or 'questioners'.
He uses the term "skeptidebunkers" which I "Canadian-ized" and shortened a tad to "sceptdebunkers".
When it comes to scepticism, I have always been more impressed and appreciated original co-founder of CSICOP, the late Marcello Truzzi who left the organization and his partner Paul Kurtz after the group became "deniers" rather than "doubters". After all, it was Truzzi, no Sagan, that said "Extraordinary claims recquire extraordinary evidence" although, he'd wished he'd never said it... at least, like that. In Truzzi's eyes, ALL claims require evidence... Extraordinary or not.
Although "debunking" is a necessary part of research in some ways, when I hear "sceptdebunker", I do think of those armchair critics of the paranormal who's work is pretty much based on pontificating disbelief rather than studying, experimenting, and researching reports to give and accurate "answer" rather than speculation on the negative.
I will always have far more respect for that rare breed of sceptic, the doubter, than for that all too common persona, the denier. How scepticism came to mean being a "non-believer" is beyond me other than, to paraphrase Truzzi again, it was usurped to gain an unfair advantage for the "deniers" by making them seem more truly open minded.
Posted 24 November 2003 - 07:41 AM
I consider myself skeptic, in that I believe many experiences, accounts, reports and investigations are beyond the natural, scientifically-known explanations. I try not to follow any one set "theory" given by investigators. I find that the tools "may" work, but the thinking behind the tools is probably not the best. I look for solid grounds to base using certain tools. I also realize any of my experiments that I would devise field work probably hold no water what-so-ever.
I am looking for answers, whether it means that human spirits exist outside of the physical body, or it's simply "science" mucking up the human mind's perception. Either way, a concrete answer is what I am looking for.
Posted 24 November 2003 - 11:24 AM
Posted 27 November 2003 - 10:38 AM
- Who is the document aimed at?
- What is it's intended purpose?
Also, if you are going to 'move on' from this board, how would you like to receive my feedback? Email? Posting to another board? Some other way?
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users