Delirium wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I agree that that article is dreadful. To begin with it is sprinkled throughout with with words like "supposed" or "alleged" which if repeated tend to bias the commentary, and certainly detract from the flow of the text. Expressions like "ESP's critics, a group that includes most mainstream scientists," is a gratuitous reference to the authority of scientists. I think that it would be closer to the truth to say that most scientists have never paid any serious attention to ESP, so that the basis which that majority criticizes ESP is its own lack of knowledge. That to me is not very reassuring. Many articles would be much better if the science lobby started to show some restraint. A single well-written paragraph can more than adequately represent the views of the detractors. Trying to debunk concepts that have never been proven, with equally questionable data only makes for an article full of sniping. The average reader does not choose to read the article to watch the sniping.
I agree with that approach. Most people do not take ESP seriously, and so it's not necessary to beat them over the head every other sentence with "but, ESP is actually a bunch of cranks!!!". I imagine if I were looking for an article on ESP, I would want to know what people who believe it is true think about it, and why, and so on. Of course it should also be mentioned that the vast majority of scientists think it's nonsense, and that the few purported scientific studies to demonstrate it have been roundly criticized.
Mostly I think tone is a big issue. When I read an article and it sounds to me like whoever wrote it is trying to push a point of view, it irritates me, even if I agree with the point of view. Think, "does this sound like it's written by someone with strong feelings on the subject?", and if so, why, and how can we change that?
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. Instead it serves to establish that we are talking about the same thing. It can be followed by two sections: "Claims by supporters of ..." and "Criticisms by opponents of ..." Each side can have relatively free reign to express itself in its own section. Additional sections may be relatively uncontroversial such as the history of the subject, or they may be disputable details of the subject. Opponents need to have confidence in what they said in their criticism. If the subject is as wrong headed as they say it is than *anything* that derives from it can simply be dismissed as Garbage In Garbage Out.without any need to expand or expound.
One well known contributor with a reputation for a confrontational style 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. Each of these topics needs to be approached on its own merits or lack thereof.
Ec