Topic: Pseudoskepticism
Pseudoskepticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskeptic
Pseudoskeptics and Disinformants in Conspiracy Forums
I have become convinced that an army of paid-disinformants is operating on some forums to stifle all research, derail threads, and often make the good work of forum members look stupid to the reader who only lightly browses a subject. These disinformants are often cloaked as skeptics but do not behave like real skeptics......but rather like pseudoskeptics. A Sociology Professor at the E. Mich. University has come up with a theory on these types of people.
While a Professor of Sociology at Eastern Michigan University in 1987, Truzzi gave the following description of pseudoskeptics:While a Professor of Sociology at Eastern Michigan University in 1987, Truzzi gave the following description of pseudoskeptics:
In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.[3]
Sound familiar? This part is particularly interesting:
Truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:
The tendency to deny, rather than doubt
Double standards in the application of criticism
The making of judgments without full inquiry
Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate
Use of ridicule or ad hominem (sic) attacks in lieu of arguments
Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.'Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it
Does any of this sound familiar to anyone? I have been in may conspiracy type forums over the years, and have seen this effect many times in each one. I have personally been ran out of two forums for standing up to these types of people, while no one else would. I could name a few of these, even in here, but I will not. Let the reader decide this for him/herself.