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.

Re: Pseudoskepticism

I have always possessed strong resistance to modern psychology.  When I became interested in the esoteric and finally discovered something I could stay devoted to for a length of time, namely Theosophy.  My main reason was for psychological maturity.  I wanted to get through all the crap that I am.  Believe me, I was full of it.  I'm not sure I should include the word 'was' in that last sentence.  I still do not completely condemn materialistic modern psychology, and I remember a little comic strip in some psychology magazine.

It shows in the first frame, a man driving on a winding mountain road, approaching a sharp curve.  In the next frame, he is entering the curve and car being driven by a lady going the opposite direction, is in the frame.  She is holding up her arm with the thumb pointing behind her, and she shouts out to him, "Pig!".  Well, he shouts back at her, "Bitch!" and then proceeds to run into a pig that is in his lane as he comes out of the curve.  Moral of the story.

People are not always trying to do something to you. 

Look what they did to Giordano Bruno, Gallileo.  Copernicus only allowed certain of his views be presented upon his death-bed.  Kepler took off with it and became famous based on the work of Copernicus.  Now we have plasma science and electromagnetics being pushed toward the displacement of gravity as a major role player for how we explain interactions between celestial bodies.  There is heavy resistance to this theory. 

When I was young, I did not fit in anywhere.  I couldn't get a job easy, didn't keep it long when I did find one.  It was hell.  I wanted to go on a very dark path because of it.  There was only one thing that kept me from it.  I had some friends and when I did things that would be initial steps along a path of darkness, I could see myself when I looked into the eyes of my friends and didn't like what I saw.  I'm still a pain to everyone I know but I maintain an air of harmlessness about me, and I sort of get tolerated.  The subject matter I talk about is either over their heads or they decide I am interested in too many strange things.  I'm not broke on Monday following a payday.  I'm not making 200 grand and yet feel like money is tight because of debt.  So who is the strange one?

I pick on Zenden sometimes because she is working on the subject of ascension, and I feel we are going to simply find ourselves existing on a higher, more ethereal plane of existence one step up from this current globe we're on.  I don't think she is bothered by me in the least.  Sometimes I see posts concerning free energy and this frightens me.  Look at the trouble we cause ourselves now!  Just think how far some guy under the thrall of a passionate hatred or vendetta could go with a free energy source available to him.  Or forget that guy.  What about the ones who quickly realize now that they have everything they want, the only necessity left to concern oneself with are acquiring servants. 

I think I just blathered on without really addressing your message adequately.  Personally I don't care about the people who you are addressing.  Simply by doing exactly what you described, they express their obvious limits and I have to look below myself to see them.

Good judgement comes from experience; experience comes from bad judgement.
----------------------------------------------------------
You have to believe in the impossible in order to become.

3

Re: Pseudoskepticism

I all I know is I can't stand skeptics. I disagree with Antaeus that people aren't always trying to do something to you.

Re: Pseudoskepticism

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Common Logical Fallacies & Tactics used on Message Boards
http://forum.noblerealms.org/viewtopic.php?id=3270

38 Ways to Win an Argument
http://www.searchlores.org/schopeng.htm

Art of Debunkery
http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/sce … rasin.html
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Once the tactics are known and seen in action it becomes easier to see if someone is acting on valid skepticism or pseudoskepticism.  I have seen more than my fair share of pseudoskeptics.  The one thing I always think is, I hope they are getting paid because it'd be pretty sad to kill others' enthusiasm just for the sake of an ego boost.

5

Re: Pseudoskepticism

Yes. Lets point the skeptics out and not just skirt the issue.

6 (edited by Millenium 2008-01-22 11:28:46)

Re: Pseudoskepticism

http://articles.mercola.com

The 13 Mysteries of Science That Make No Sense to Conventional Thinkers 
This interesting article from New Scientist features an extensive listing of the 13 mysteries of science that -- in the mind of the author -- make no sense, ranging from cold fusion to suspected life on Mars and the benefits of homeopathy, in spite of the fact they exist.

That's what happens when people try to explain the world through a narrow prism as conventional modern medicine often does in diagnosing conditions treatable only with dangerous and frequently useless drugs and procedures.

What follows are more brief descriptions of the topics covered in this fascinating New Scientist piece.

Tetraneutrons
An always-uniform horizon
The changing constants of physics and science
Dark energy
The placebo effect

http://space.newscientist.com/article.n … 524911.600