13 Jan 2011, 09:13
13 Jan 2011, 10:47
13 Jan 2011, 22:21
Social phenomenon ? The Zetetic perhaps assuage their need for denial within us all.
For most of them it looks like a teenage attitude that sticks itself a label: "I am zetetic."
I personally had that attitude when I was younger, like when one starts to learn to use one's brain, and understands that people who look friendly are not necessarily so, one believes that one understands everything in life. With a little science... but not too much, it is like butter: the less you have, the more you spread it.
... and when one begins to deny our religious education, one becomes "the ultimate atheist"
Dean Radin points out in the beginning of his book The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena, that new scientific discoveries tend to go through stages. He writes: (page 1)
“In science, the acceptance of new ideas follows a predictable, four-stage sequence. In Stage 1, skeptic confidently proclaim that the idea is impossible because it violates the Laws of Science. This stage can last for years or for centuries, depending on how much the idea challenges conventional wisdom. In Stage 2, skeptics reluctantly concede that the idea is possible but that it is not very interesting and the claimed effects are extremely weak. Stage 3 begins when the mainstream realizes not only that the idea is important but that its effects are much stronger and more pervasive than previously imagined. Stage 4 is achieved when the same critics who previously disavowed any interest in the idea being to proclaim that they thought of it first. Eventually, no one remembers that the idea was once considered a dangerous heresy.
The idea discussed in this book is in the midst of the most important and the most difficult of the four transitions - from Stage 1 into Stage 2.“
2)PseudoSkeptics are totally ignorant of the sociological/philosophical problems of science: For example, they like to use terms like "pseudoscience" or "pathological science", but don't explain the conceptual and theoric problems of these terms and the fact that past theories called "pathological" are now recognized as good scientific theories:
Also, they ignore that scientific establisment tend to be conservative and, many times, hostile to unorthodox theories. For example, there is experimental evidence of confirmatory bias in peer-review system used in scientific journals:
And the methods used to suppress the scientific dissidents are never discussed in pseudoskeptical magazines:
And the existence of monopolies and scientific research cartels (and their influence in scientific enterprise) are systematically ignored:
The pseudoskeptic's solid and consistent ignorance of these sociological/burocratic problems of science makes him very credulous and uncritical of accepted scientific practise. They have a very naive idea of science.
3)PseudoSkeptics are uncritically accept almost all "official" stories: As an example, pseudoskeptic Michael Shermer uncritically accepted and defended the official story of 9/11, in spite of massive evidence of the inconsistences and valid criticism of the official story:
4)Religious agenda: as you have shown in your article, most pseudoskeptics are atheists and scientific materialist. (...)
5)"Scientific witch-hunting" and fascistic behaviour. When the pseudoskeptic has the opportunity, he uses "witch hunting" practiques, intimidation, censorship, etc. to fight "enemies". As an example, look at pseudoskeptics actions against Wilhelm Reich:
6)Debunkers are supporters of obsolete and refuted philosophies (e.g. positivism): most pseudoskeptics are dogmatic supporters of positivism: the philosophy that states that the only authentic knowledge is scientific knowledge, and that such knowledge can only come from positive affirmation of theories through strict scientific method:
13 Jan 2011, 23:29
14 Jan 2011, 02:36
14 Jan 2011, 10:18