[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Science/Tech See other Science/Tech Articles Title: Defining PseudoSkeptics vs. True Skeptics: Behaviors and Tactics Defining PseudoSkeptics vs. True Skeptics: Behaviors and Tactics According to Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, a skeptic is: "One who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons." Pyrrho, the founder of "Skepticism", intended for it to be about open inquiry and suspension of judgment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptic “In classical philosophy, skepticism refers to the teachings and the traits of the 'Skeptikoi', a school of philosophers of whom it was said that they 'asserted nothing but only opined.' (Liddell and Scott) In this sense, philosophical skepticism, or Pyrrhonism, is the philosophical position that one should suspend judgment in investigations.[1]” But rather than inquiring, or asking questions to try to understand something, they seek to debunk, discredit and ridicule anything that doesn't fit into their belief system. And rather than suspending judgment, they make accusations of fraud and delusion of all paranormal claimants. They are PROSECUTORS, not investigators. Hence, we call them pseudoskeptics (a term coined by the late Marcello Truzzi) for their actions and behaviors are the complete antithesis of what skepticism truly means. According to WikiSynergy: Pseudoskepticism (or pseudoskepticism) is defined as thinking that claims to be Skeptical but is actually faith-based disbelief. Because real skepticism is a justifiable position, pseudoskepticism may also be defined as making pseudoscientific arguments in pursuit of a skeptical agenda. Pseudoskepticism is a general term which encompasses two types of faith-based disbelief: making positive claims that something is wrong or unreal without evidence (positive disbelief), and rejecting sufficient evidence. A "true skeptic" objectively inquires and seeks evidence, challenging all sides including their own beliefs (see here). But these pseudoskeptics do anything but. As someone observed to me: "The original definition of skeptic was a person who questions ALL beliefs, facts, and points-of-view. A healthy perspective in my opinion. Today's common definition of skeptic is someone who questions any belief that strays outside of the status quo, yet leaving the status quo itself completely unquestioned. Kind of a juvenile and intellectually lazy practice in my opinion." Even Wikipedia indirectly admits that modern skepticism is really about rejecting new information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptic “The word skepticism can characterize a position on a single claim, but in scholastic circles more frequently describes a lasting mind-set and an approach to accepting or rejecting new information.” And this insightful YouTuber eloquently hit the bull's eye with this comment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vks49Bfn544 "What skeptics fail to understand is that skepticism involves being skeptical of your own position, it does not mean just being skeptical of that which you do not believe in, otherwise we are all skeptics and that renders their use of the term "skeptic" meaningless. A true skeptic casts skepticism on their own position as well. Since the Randi crowd do not employ skepticism in this respect then they are fairly termed pseudo skeptics and demean the term skepticism." So, pseudoskeptics have hijacked the term "skeptic" to refer to the one who suppresses, rather than the one who "doubts or questions" which it is supposed to refer to. As such, a "skeptic" now refers to the ridiculer, debunker and discreditor of the "questioner" (who is the true skeptic) rather than to the questioner himself. In other words, the new "skeptic" is someone who debunks a "skeptic" by wearing the hat of the person they are out to debunk, in effect impersonating them! It's a highly deceptive form of role reversal that is very sneaky and devious, no doubt. And furthermore, it seems way too calculated and militant to be due to some accidental misunderstanding, ignorance or closed mindedness. Hijacking a word to mean its opposite seems more like part of some sort of agenda, perhaps a deliberate disinformation campaign or cultural mind control. If that sounds terrible, well, we are here to expose that thank goodness. In truth and by their actions, these pseudoskeptics are defenders of the status quo and materialism. They are fanatics and dogmatists who have no regard for facts, evidence or truth, but have an a priori faith-based belief that paranormal phenomena is impossible and therefore set out to debunk it, not investigate it. And they will distort, dismiss and obfuscate to get their way. Thus, they generally have no objectivity toward evidence, but bigotry and emotional fanaticism. If you’re wondering if this is true, then ask yourself this: Why do those who attack, ridicule and deny all paranormal claims also usually deny all conspiracies and facts in support of them, while dogmatically accepting all propaganda by the media and establishment? Have you ever seen a paranormal debunker like James Randi, Michael Shermer or CSICOP’s Skeptical Inquirer challenge anything official held by the status quo at all, period? If not, what does that tell you? Think about it. And that’s what a “skeptic” is today in the media and pop culture. Obviously this means that their skepticism is highly selective and subjective, not distributed equally in all directions, hence an extreme bias exists in them rather than any form of objectivity. Skepticism should be a tool and method of inquiry to help one learn things and find truth, not be used as a cover to defend one's own rigid narrow views. Dean Radin, who spent many years studying parapsychology and skeptical views, concluded the same in his acclaimed book Entangled Minds: (pages 10-11) "Some skeptics pushed doubt to extremes and insisted that positive evidence was always due to mistakes or intentional fraud. As I saw it, within this dialectic one side was struggling to understand the depths of inner space by probing Nature with clever questions. The other was trying to maintain the status quo through passionate, and sometimes vicious, denial. The former were willing to take risks to advance knowledge, the latter were naysayers interested mainly in defending dogma." Chris Carter, author of Parapsychology and the Skeptics, accurately described the pseudoskeptics' true motivations in this interview: http://www.skeptiko.com/blog/?p=8 "You have to remember that the argument is not really about the evidence. The argument is about their assumptions and their preconceptions. Their preconceptions are, with these sort of phenomena, that they don’t make any sense and challenge their world view. So, they’re going to do anything they possibly can to dismiss evidence that challenges their preconceptions." The late great author Robert Anton Wilson observed the same regarding pseudoskeptics, calling them “fundamentalist materialists” and “irrational rationalists” in this interview: http://www.nii.net/~obie/1988_interview.htm “DAB: One of your recent books is The New Inquisition: Irrational Rationalism and the Citadel of Science. Maybe you could tell us a little bit about this book. RAW: I coined the term irrational rationalism because those people claim to be rationalists, but they're governed by such a heavy body of taboos. They're so fearful, and so hostile, and so narrow, and frightened, and uptight and dogmatic. I thought it was a fascinating paradox: irrational rationalists. Later on I found out I didn't invent that. Somebody else who wrote an article on CSICOP, that's the group they all belong to: Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. Somebody else who wrote about them also used the term irrational rationalism. It's a hard term to resist when you think about those people. I wrote this book because I got tired satirizing fundamentalist Christianity, I had done enough of that in my other books. I decided to satirize fundamentalist materialism for a change, because the two are equally comical. All fundamentalism is comical, unless you believe in it, in which case you'd become a fanatic yourself, and want everybody else to share your fundamentalism. But if you're not a fundamentalist yourself, fundamentalists are the funniest people on the planet. The materialist fundamentalists are funnier than the Christian fundamentalists, because they think they're rational! DAB: They call themselves skeptical. RAW: Yes, but they're not skeptical! They're never skeptical about anything except the things they have a prejudice against. None of them ever says anything skeptical about the AMA, or about anything in establishment science or any entrenched dogma. They're only skeptical about new ideas that frighten them. They're actually dogmatically committed to what they were taught when they were in college, which was about 1948-53, somewhere in that period. If you go back and study what was being taught in college in those days as the latest scientific theories, you find out that's what these people still believe. They haven't had a new idea in 30 years, that's all that happened to them. They just rigidified, they crystallized around 1960.” As Wilson stated, these pseudoskeptics are fundamentalists on the opposite extreme end of Christian fundamentalism in terms of their black and white thinking. Here is an example that demonstrates this. A popular book among skeptics is Carl Sagan’s It is interesting to note that while Carl Sagan is a great teacher of astronomy and science, he has inadequate knowledge and experience with paranormal phenomena. This is demonstrated by the fact that in his book The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark Sagan devotes a big chapter to debunking the Alien Abduction phenomenon, yet not once does he even personally investigate or interview any abductees at all, like an honest open-minded investigator or truth seeker would. On the other hand, researchers like Harvard Professor John Mack (author of ) and Budd Hopkins (author of Missing Time) have done extensive interviews and investigations with abductees for their book, which led them to the conclusion that there was more to the phenomenon than just the “all in the brain” or sleep paralysis. In fact, Mack has personally investigated 76 abductee cases during the course of four years. But how many did Sagan investigate? Zero. Therefore, one ought to give those researchers more credence than skeptics like Sagan who just dismiss the subject off-hand without any deep investigation for truth. Of course, all pseudoskeptics will claim to be true skeptics, just like all high pressured salesmen claim to not be high pressure, all liars and con artists claim to be sincere, and all politicians claim to be honest. But as you know, ACTIONS speak louder than words, so the proof of what they are is in their ACTIONS, not words. If a salesman for example, told you "I am not a high pressure salesman" but then proceeds to pressure you to buy his product/service, hounding you without end and not taking no for an answer, then what do you believe, his words or his actions? Likewise, when a self described skeptic tells you that he is a true skeptic who is open to evidence, yet he displays all the characteristics, traits and behaviors of a pseudoskeptic, then do you listen to his words or his actions? The answer is obvious. Thus, regardless of what they claim about themselves, if they exhibit the follow traits and characteristics, then they fall into the category of “pseudoskeptics”. 1) Ignoring facts and evidence that don’t fit into their preconceived world view, rather than updating their beliefs to conform to the facts, which is more logical. (e.g. “It can’t be, therefore it isn’t!”) This is known as the process of rationalization through cognitive dissonance. 2) Trying to force materialistic explanations, even if they’re false, to account for a paranormal event regardless of whether they fit the data. For example, using “cold reading” to explain the amazing accuracy of a psychic reading when no known cold reading technique could account for the facts and circumstances. (see Argument # 16) 3) Moving the goal posts or raising the bar whenever their criteria for evidence is met. For example, a skeptic wants evidence for psi in the form of controlled experiments rather than anecdotal evidence. When this evidence is presented, he will then raise the bar and demand that the experiments be repeatable by other researchers. When this is done, then he will either attack the researchers integrity and character, attack their methods, or demand a report of every detail and minute of the experiment or else he will contend that some unmentioned lack of controls must have been the culprit to explain the positive psi results, etc. He will always find some excuse due to his already made-up mindset. Patrick Huyghe has written an article about this at Extraordinary Claim? Move the Goal Posts! 4) Using double standards in what they will accept as evidence. They will not accept anecdotal evidence for the paranormal because they consider it to be unreliable, but not surprisingly they will accept anecdotal evidence when it supports their position. Also, when psi experiments shows positive results well above, they will not accept it as evidence against psi. But when a psi experiment only shows chance results, they will accept that as evidence against psi. 5) Attacking the character of witnesses and undermining their credibility their evidence or testimonies can’t be explained away. As we all know, when politicians can’t win on the issues, they resort to character assassinations. 6) Dismissing all evidence for the paranormal by classifying it either as anecdotal, untestable, unreplicable, or uncontrolled. Skeptics who wish to close their minds to any evidence, even after asking for it ironically, tend to do so by classifying it into one of the categories above. If the evidence is anecdotal, they will say that anecdotal evidence is worthless scientifically and untestable. If the evidence is in the form of scientific experiments, they will then say that it is unreplicable or uncontrolled. Here are a list of traits that define the true skeptic vs. the pseudoskeptic. True Skeptics / Open-Minded Skeptics PseudoSkeptics / Closed-Minded Skeptics Wikipedia's original entry on pathological skepticism (before pseudoskeptical forces there took it down) listed these defining behaviors of pseudoskeptics: "The difference between pseudoskepticism and skepticism appear in the conduct of an individual's actions. Among the indications of pseudoskeptical actions are: In the SCEPCOP Forum, Steve Trueblue observed these five consistent patterns in pseudoskeptics: "As a skilled observer you will also note that PseudoSkeptics: In short, these pseudoskeptics are materialist fundamentalists driven by fanatical beliefs and views which they seek to proselytize to the world. Regardless of facts or evidence, they ALWAYS start and end with the following dogmatic positions: They begin with those precepts and always come back to them, regardless of the facts or evidence in any investigation or debate, EVERYTIME. That's one consistent thing you will notice about them. And they will resort to playing games, ridicule, denial, even deliberate distortion, fabrication and connecting false dots to maintain these core positions. That's why they are not really capable of serious honest discussion. Instead, they play games and cheat at them in order to win. I've seen them do it time and time again. It doesn't matter how much proof or evidence you have. All of that is irrelevant to them. They seek only to validate their beliefs, not change their beliefs in accord with the facts or data. They will never admit that they've lost, even though technically they have. When cornered by facts and reason, they resort to denial or ad hominem attacks. Or they even will spin your own arguments against you, without basis. It's like winning a chess game against an opponent, and even though the rules say they are checkmated, they still refuse to admit defeat. That's not fair, honest, or decent behavior. For more on pseudoskeptical tactics, see Zen and the Art of Debunkery and Stupid Skeptic Tricks. The late Marcello Truzzi, former member of CSICOP and critic of pseudoskepticism, wrote an article about pseudoskeptics which you can read about here. One of the tell-tale signs of pseudoskeptical mentality is in the words they use when describing believers. If they describe them as: “delusional, irrational, gullible, charlatans, superstitious, wishful-thinking, primitive and child-like thinking”, etc. then it’s a strong indication of their a priori mentality. PseudoSkeptics like CSICOP members and JREF members are definitely not open minded truth seekers, but rather their words and behavior are that of automatic dismissing and denying that which doesn’t fit into their paradigm. They are cynics who have closed their mind to anything that doesn't fit into their world view, dismissing all else as misperception, delusion, or fraud. But don’t take my word for it, for if you read their own writing and hear what they say, it’s obvious from their own words and behavior, and from their tunnel-view of reality, as well as their righteous indignation of what’s real and what’s “quackery” (a word they love to use). They do not seek to understand, but to attack and discredit. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, the term “pseudo” means “False or counterfeit; fake.” These debunkers exhibit a false mask of skepticism. In actuality, they are cynics, debunkers, and deniers. They deny and dismiss all evidence that doesn’t fit their views, whether scientific or anecdotal, no matter how credible or plentiful, and look for excuses to justify it. They are not about seeking the truth or open-minded investigations at all, only in discrediting what doesn’t fit into their belief system. Unfortunately, pseudoskeptic groups have not heeded the warnings and advice of one of their own heros, the late Carl Sagan: "...The chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement is its polarization: Us vs. Them -- the sense that we have a monopoly on the truth; that those other people who believe in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that if you're sensible, you'll listen to us; and if not, to hell with you. This is nonconstructive. It does not get our message across. It condemns us to permanent minority status." - Carl Sagan "People are not stupid. They believe things for reasons. The last way for skeptics to get the attention of bright, curious, intelligent people is to belittle or condescend or to show arrogance toward their beliefs." - Carl Sagan "The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science." - Carl Sagan These illogical ways of thinking are strange coming from people who pride themselves on their logic and rationality! Of course, flawed thinking such as the above can come from both believers and skeptics. That is why it is good to point them out to keep both sides in check. Afterlife researcher Dr. Victor Zammit, describes how these debunkers reject what doesn’t fit into their world view through the process of rationalization through cognitive dissonance: http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/fundingskeptics.html “Let's borrow a page from traditional psychology. When a skeptic receives information - say, scientific proof for the afterlife -- which is fundamentally inconsistent with his or her entrenched cherished beliefs, the skeptic tries to rationalize his/her beliefs to reduce and to offset the intense biological, emotional and mental anxiety. The intense anxiety is created by the information that the afterlife exists. The skeptic's mind tries to resist and reject this new information (even if the information is the absolute truth) - hence the cognitive (the mind) 'dissonance' - between the new information - (i.e., the positive evidence for the afterlife) and the skeptic's own personal beliefs that the afterlife cannot exist. Closed-minded skepticism is extremely difficult to shift because his/her skepticism is 'electrically wired' into the skeptic's neurological, psychological, intellectual and emotional belief system. Thus with absolute certainty, this skeptic inexorably loses all sense of empirical equanimity.“ Dr. Zammit also hit it on the head about how pseudoskeptics overgeneralize and distort information: http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/fundingskeptics.html “Skeptics can be seen to overgeneralize saying for instance that because some mediums are fraudulent therefore all mediums are fraudulent. Further, skeptics distort information saying that because it may be possible to reproduce certain phenomena by fraud - even at odds of one billion to one - that they have proven that fraud took place. In this sense, the skeptics find it impossible to transcend their 'metaprogram' (their overriding world view of reality) of materialistic beliefs.” As to why pseudoskeptics believe what they do, this author, who spent time undercover in a skeptical organization, might be able to shed some light on that: http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_16_1_leiter.pdf "A person who has been duped frequently in everyday life might learn by bitter experience to be cautious and wary. The reaction of those who have joined PhACT is however more dysfunctional. They have been wounded at a deeper level, to the extent that what was purported to be a valid philosophy of life, and in which they were heavily involved, turns out to be empty and useless, even damaging, in their eyes. Thus, they gravitate to what appears to them to be the ultimate non-faith-based philosophy, Science. Unfortunately, while they loudly proclaim their righteousness, based on their professed adherence to “hard science”, they do so with the one thing no true scientist can afford to possess, a closed mind. Instead of becoming scientifically minded, they become adherents of scientism, the belief system in which science and only science has all the answers to everything. This regrettable condition acts to preclude their unbiased consideration of phenomena on the cutting edge of science, which is not how a true scientist should behave. In fact, many “Skeptics” will not even read significantly into the literature on the subjects about which they are most skeptical. I have direct experience with this specific behavior on the part of a number of PhACT members. Initially, I attributed that behavior to just plain laziness, but lately I’ve begun to suspect that those individuals may actually have a phobia about reading material that is contrary to their own views. It seems entirely possible that they fear “contamination” from that exposure will eventually lead to (Gasp!) acceptance of the opposition’s position. Such scientifically inclined, but psychologically scarred people tend to join Skeptics’ organizations much as one might join any other support group, say, Alcoholics Anonymous. There they find comfort, consolation, and support amongst their own kind. Anyone who has spent much time engaging members of Skeptics’ organizations knows about their strong inclination toward ridicule and ad hominem criticism of those with differing viewpoints. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that many members of PhACT have been rather offended by my position as someone who is skeptical of Skeptics. As the old adage states, “They can dish it out, but they can’t take it.” In school, you are taught that "critical thinking" means to refute and ridicule anything that opposes the establishment or status quo, but never the status quo itself. A true skeptic can rise above that and apply skepticism and critical thought toward established orthodoxy, but a pseudo-skeptic cannot. Instead, the pseudo-skeptic follows the school system's form of "critical thinking", applying it only to those who oppose orthodoxy in defense of the status quo. In that sense, they are in reality "establishment defenders" rather than true skeptics. That is why they NEVER challenge, criticize or scrutinize their government or any part of the establishment, including the pharmaceutical companies, CIA or FBI, even if logic, facts, evidence or moral cause dictates that they should. To these establishment defenders, authority = truth, and as such is always blameless in their eyes. That is their religion, so hence, all their skills, talents and knowledge is used to serve their true God - orthodoxy establishment. In their view, establishment authority can do no wrong, even if they murder, traffick drugs, steal, lie, stage terrorist attacks, start wars by funding both sides, etc. What this means is that these pseudo-skeptics or establishment defenders, which are commonly featured in the mainstream media, do not serve truth as their master. As such, they cannot always do what's right, but in fact, are willing to lie and deceive to serve their establishment masters (there are so many documented cases of this). Thus they are not "free" in any sense of the word, nor honest, which is sad. This is why not only are they closed minded against anything to do with paranormal phenomena, but are vehemently opposed to all claims of government conspiracies as well, no matter how well supported, for it offends their "true master" (which is not truth). Examples of famous pseudo-skeptics and establishment defenders: (Check them all out and you will see that their actions fit the above description) Now, let me clarify something. It is NOT my position to argue that all paranormal claims are true. In fact, I happen to be skeptical of many claims myself. Instead, I am for open minded inquiry and honestly weighing the evidence. Very few people are willing to cast their skepticism on all sides, including their own beliefs. Most people, including the pseudoskeptics, seek to validate what they already believe, and reject the data that would cause them to change their beliefs. We at SCEPCOP try to avoid this by applying true skepticism to all sides, including our own, and basing our conclusions on the data itself rather than on our subjective emotional beliefs. With that, let’s begin the debunking of their common arguments now. Please enjoy this book and keep an open mind. Note: “I shall not commit the fashionable stupidity of regarding everything I cannot explain as a fraud.” - Carl Gustav Jung “It is entirely possible that behind the perception of our senses, worlds are hidden of which we are unaware.” – Albert Einstein “The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new lands but seeing with new eyes.” - Marcel Proust, French novelist Poster Comment: One of my pet peeves is false and dishonest reasoning and arguments. I have long been an opponent of what the author defines here as "pseudo-skeptic" or as I refer to them "Septics". Appropriating the mantle of science they then proceed to pervert it making claimed conclusions without evidence, ridiculing others for not sharing their faith based belief system, etc., .... In other words they are not skeptics, but advocates for their own point of view which they label science and all views not their own, regardless of evidence, are ridiculed and attacked. We've all seen this in one form or another, but it is particularly prevalent among advocates for the Official Fairy Tale of 911. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Original_Intent, abraxas, christine, James Deffenbach, gengis gandhi, IndieTX, Horse, randge, bluegrass, octavia, farmfriend, Artisan, Tatarewicz, christine, TwentyTwelve, HOUNDDAWG, AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt, Tatarewicz, Southern Style, FormerLurker, Lo (#0)
Thanks for providing this much needed distinction! Skepticism employed on ONE's SELF as a required tool to keep the mind from falling for its own generated delusions; an absolute requirement for approaching truth, whether that truth is dressed in scientific or sacred gowns. OR Professional word-thugs brow-beating anyone straying from the doctrinal perfection of the corporate fiefdom, delighting in wielding disinformation and misinformation like a medieval mace or flail while religiously ignoring their OWN hypocrisy, provided with the encouragement to act (which all cowards require) in the form of undeserved high pay and perquisites as well as a (promised) lifetime membership in the club of clubbers? In the game of spin-the-cattle, the illusions constantly cast and deliberately mixed with the real in order to render contrast and clarity into molten shades of gray, those PRETENTIOUS POSEURS who act like their critical thinking power is "flame-on" are actually nothing more than the intellectual duds and dullards of our cult flacking for the church of corporate Science. The cattle go back to chewing their toxic cud content in the comforting illusion that someone in the establishment is using their thinking power, watching the munching cattle's back, even as the cattle continue to shuffle around their downed fellow cattle in a mindlessly reactive nervousness... Thank you. Pithily stated. I particularly liked the PRETENTIOUS POSUERS which is a good description for those whose primary mode of enlightenment is to attack. They attack without reason, without cause, and invevitably (such as the Skeptical Inquirer crowd) when truth is absent in their arguments they lie to force their distorted views upon others. Of course basic academic and intellectual honesty demand that someone investigating a subject look at the actual evidence. Not what some advocate says in their distorted view of the evidence, but what is the actual evidence? What do the source materials actually state? Basic intellectual honesty demands that but the Pseudo-Skeptics and their related kin ignore those basic precepts and instead will take unverified secondary and tertiary sources to ride their hobby horse and try to convince others that their distortions are truths. The Truth is, "The exact time, place, form, and event." Nothing more and nothing less. Any deviation from that is an alteration of the truth and therefore a lie. The old saw being, "A half truth is a whole lie." It has always been interesting to me that some individuals seem to have almost a psychotic drive to pervert and twist things to suit their own distorted worldview. It is sad that it is so, but it is the reality in our mad, mad, mad world. |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
[Register]
|
||