John Kelly (Page 2)

Key components of Receptive Skepticism come from systems theory.  Practitioners of skeptical inquiry must know systems theory, so they don’t neglect scientific evidence on how to interact with our society.   And they can not justifiably evaluate the actions of others, while neglecting systems theory. When Receptive Skepticism promotes using systems theory, it is promoting: [1]. “the foundation of couple and family psychology research and practice. Systems theory provides a set of principles and concepts that inform our understanding of human behavior…” The above link is a resource to help both demonstrate the centrality of systems theory in the behavioral sciences, and to demonstrate that any social system isRead More →

After a terrifying and traumatic incident, Penny Lane Handley, was submitted to a heavy level of false accusations regarding the post that have now been laid to rest: -One false accusation was that Penny was not a victim of a fire.  -Another false accusation was that Penny had shoes, claiming they were provided before the incident in question.  This claim was heavily insisted upon and leveled in multiple related threads. We now can clearly identify these accusations as false, due to both the video interview, and from the information inside of the two posts written by both the main individual from the hotel, and theRead More →

It is ultimately, because it is ineffective for advancing reason and science to be one.  False balance is something that happens in places with bad methodology.  Receptive Skepticism is an open-mindedness movement, with good methodology, focused on evaluating ideas, while maintaining positive relationships with society, and positive relationships with opponents.  But open-mindedness calls for picking sides too, because we have to be open to where the evidence is strongest, and weakest.  At a certain point, not acknowledging that a side has much better support and higher probability, is a closed-minded act of denial.  Even staying neutral then, can be closed-minded. So we take stances onRead More →

I am a skeptic by nature, and someone who loves the truth enough to abandon error.  I left behind some of my most treasured beliefs, against my wishes, because of that conviction.  And I am a person whose ambitions arise from finding needs and not being satisfied with the loss coming from people missing out from a need.  My career choice reflects that also.  Because Scientific Skepticism has a valuable resource for evaluating information that the larger community needs, I see it worth working to see social change that would integrate this resource, and make it normal. This is an understatement of course.  People areRead More →