View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

A SCEPCOP article I would like to discuss

Discuss PseudoSkeptics and their Fallacies. Share strategies for debating them.

A SCEPCOP article I would like to discuss

Postby caniswalensis » 05 Jun 2010, 04:04

Hi All

I was reading this article today: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Presen ... sm_Psi.htm

One thing really caught my eye. It is the first section that describes the different types pf skeptics.
A. Open-minded skeptics

- Typical traits: honest doubt, inquiry and investigation of both sides, considers evidence on all sides and seeing their good/bad points, asking exploratory questions, acceptance of evidence, good common sense, nonjudgmental


B. Closed-minded skeptics (also known as pseudoskeptics, debunkers, hard core materialists, scoffers, atheists)

- Typical traits: Automatic dismissal of all paranormal claims, predisposed to discredit all testimonials of a paranormal nature, denial of any and all evidence, scoffing, giving off an air of superior rationality, judgmental about things they know nothing about, quick to draw conclusions without evidence, using philosophical semantics to win arguments and invalidate paranormal or spiritual experiences


In General, I find the listed characteristics to be somewhat subjective in nature. They leave some room for personal interpretation I think.

I was especially surprised though, to see Atheists listed as another name for "close-minded skeptics." I personally do not see this as being appropriate or accurate. While it is clear that many skeptics are atheists, and some of those are undoubtedly close-minded, There are also many Athiests that are not really skeptics. Remember, athieism is simply a disbelief in the existence of a dieity. I personaly do not see a direct connection between that and skepticism of any sort.

I actually know quite a few athiests, and many of them are believers in things like Bigfoot, UFOs, PSI and similar topics. I do not consider them to be skeptical, really.

So, I would be interested in hearing others opinions on these points, and of course I would love to get the author’s thoughts, too. Please keep in mind, I do not mean this as an attack or an insult. I just see this as being good fodder for discussion.

Regards, Canis
"It is proper for you to doubt ... do not go upon report ... do not go upon tradition ... do not go upon hear-say." ~ Buddha
caniswalensis
 
Posts: 208
Joined: 02 Jun 2010, 03:41






Re: A SCEPCOP article I would like to discuss

Postby ProfWag » 05 Jun 2010, 04:48

Personally, I think his entire Treatise is subjective bullsh!t, but hey, that's just me, everyone is entitled to an opinion, and that doesn't mean he is a bad person. :-)
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: A SCEPCOP article I would like to discuss

Postby ciscop » 05 Jun 2010, 11:45

as always
i back up what profwag said

oh.. and i add .. boring...
it is just pure pointless rambling
it is like craig browning on meth-kind-of-rambling
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: A SCEPCOP article I would like to discuss

Postby caniswalensis » 05 Jun 2010, 23:55

Well, I hope someone that would like to actually discuss this article will post.
"It is proper for you to doubt ... do not go upon report ... do not go upon tradition ... do not go upon hear-say." ~ Buddha
caniswalensis
 
Posts: 208
Joined: 02 Jun 2010, 03:41

Re: A SCEPCOP article I would like to discuss

Postby really? » 06 Jun 2010, 07:19

A. Open-minded skeptics

- Typical traits: honest doubt, inquiry and investigation of both sides, considers evidence on all sides and seeing their good/bad points, asking exploratory questions, acceptance of evidence, good common sense, nonjudgmental


B. Closed-minded skeptics (also known as pseudoskeptics, debunkers, hard core materialists, scoffers, atheists)

- Typical traits: Automatic dismissal of all paranormal claims, predisposed to discredit all testimonials of a paranormal nature, denial of any and all evidence, scoffing, giving off an air of superior rationality, judgmental about things they know nothing about, quick to draw conclusions without evidence, using philosophical semantics to win arguments and invalidate paranormal or spiritual experiences


Suppose some of us are not wet behind the ears and have had enough time on this Earth to examine the so called evidence and have found it lacking. Should we still be as opened-minded as someone much younger might be ?
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: A SCEPCOP article I would like to discuss

Postby ProfWag » 06 Jun 2010, 21:09

I wholeheartedly believe that skepticism and atheisism have little to do with each other. Perhaps in their belief in ghosts, but that's about it when it comes to the paranormal. People become atheists because they were either brought up that way or had a falling out with god which really has nothing to do with being able to move objects with their mind or foretell the future.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: A SCEPCOP article I would like to discuss

Postby really? » 06 Jun 2010, 22:09

ProfWag wrote:I wholeheartedly believe that skepticism and atheisism have little to do with each other. Perhaps in their belief in ghosts, but that's about it when it comes to the paranormal. People become atheists because they were either brought up that way or had a falling out with god which really has nothing to do with being able to move objects with their mind or foretell the future.


Some atheists may have a falling out with God. But usually people become atheists for other reasons. In my case I started to realize the Bible just didn't make sense and that there isn't any proof that God exists or any other gods have ever existed.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: A SCEPCOP article I would like to discuss

Postby ProfWag » 07 Jun 2010, 20:42

really? wrote:
ProfWag wrote:I wholeheartedly believe that skepticism and atheisism have little to do with each other. Perhaps in their belief in ghosts, but that's about it when it comes to the paranormal. People become atheists because they were either brought up that way or had a falling out with god which really has nothing to do with being able to move objects with their mind or foretell the future.


Some atheists may have a falling out with God. But usually people become atheists for other reasons. In my case I started to realize the Bible just didn't make sense and that there isn't any proof that God exists or any other gods have ever existed.

Yes, that was a major part of it for me as well, but do you think that believing the Bible doesn't make sense have anything to do with researching paranormal claims and/or believing them? I don't...
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: A SCEPCOP article I would like to discuss

Postby Craig Browning » 07 Jun 2010, 21:33

ciscop wrote:as always
i back up what profwag said

oh.. and i add .. boring...
it is just pure pointless rambling
it is like craig browning on meth-kind-of-rambling


I've always found it interesting how weekend warrior type magic folk decide they want to poke the old bear as you seem hell-bent in doing ciscop; all because you want to believe what your ministers of hate and evangelists of rationalism have told you to buy into and believe vs. actually getting out there and finding out for yourself... such as I have done. No amount of reading books to taking formal classes in psychology, physics, etc. can give you the insights actual hands-on field work can and will. But like most skeptics, you're a ball-less wonder that barks a lot and loves to prod those you think to be "beneath you".

My "Rambling" as you call it, has been quite open and honest and for someone that is genuinely interested in learning and understanding this stuff, I've been told (by noted members of the skeptic's community) that it is quite sound and based on logic. Personally, I'll take kudos from Banachek, Rick Maue and such over your attempts to slam me, any day of the week. I've done lectures with both and have a decent friendship with them and given how determined they both are in "enlightening" the public about fraud and even the lack of spiritual things, we work well together seeing eye to eye on far more than not. Even as hard as I can be on Randi, he and I have communicated several times during my own investigations over the years and as cold and "evil" as he can be at times, he appreciates the position folks like myself hold when it comes to this work. He (we) may not agree on everything, but we do have many common points of concern that we do address and give kudos to one another for. So again, I've one more example as to why fleas like you prove a serious annoyance. But perhaps if you pulled your over-inflated ego out of your hind-side and get the shit out of your ears and hate out of your heart, you might just discover that you still have a hell of a lot to learn about the things you so randomly and abashedly condemn simply because the gurus of of cynicism/atheism, and whatever other isms you wish to add to the list, have told you to think and be this way.

Historically speaking, more skeptics who have stepped into the trenches and gotten their hands a bit dirty doing the footwork of investigation end up like me; a partial believer. They come to know that there is more to it all than all the books, theories and rationalizations attempt to sell us all on. Even Houdini found himself in similar shoes as well as those before and since. It wasn't until Randi started his campaign in the early 70's that the thick black line was drawn and the intimation that any "real" magician (as in the show biz sort) must be a rationalist and thus, atheist. It is impossible to believe in the miraculous once you come to realize how illusion can be created... it is a lie that has been deliberately encouraged within the magic community as well as academia, and for similar reasons -- ego being the biggest; the delusion that logic, physics, science... whatever you wish to call it... has "all" of the answers. The catch being, I and others like me state that science will, over time sustain what the old mystics knew, allowing us to understand it at the analytical level... BUT, they aren't there yet and anyone with the audacity to imply such is a bigger liar than those prone to belief at an all or nothing level.

Admittedly, I will be shocked if you've read this far down in that I went beyond three sentences and you haven't the attention span of a gnat it would seem. Nonetheless I would point out that IF you were to actually step down from your high perch and actually talk WITH people rather than condemning them instantly because they are different than you (and such things make you nervous -- uncomfortable), chances are strong that you as well as they could find common ground from which to build genuine understanding and RESPECT through. I realize this requires a level of maturity few wannabe magician types seem to be able to muster, but I have faith that you might be able to at least fake it until you make it... that is, if you really wanted to be part of the grown-up world that deals with things Metaphysical, Other Worldly, Paranormal ,et al.

As to Scepcop's article... yes, it has some room for refinement but, the gist as to what he's trying to convey is very much on the mark. I've seen this in my own research over the years for a book I am working on in which one section addresses the Cynical and Self-Aggrandizing Intellectuals. The book is entitled LIAR's and deals with a very wide range of vocations, categories and personality types in a way that reveals the Western Culture's dependence on the lie... how 99% of higher education centers on learning how to create deception in a manner that appears to be honest truth; how to manipulate public perception in ways that are technically unethical and immoral but yet, justify what we do via our words based on personal gains as well as quelling personal guilt. But that's a work in progress that I'm uncertain as to when it will get finished up and put out (I've so many project of that sort :| )

I've tried to joke and all manner of playing nice with you and others here. But you have something stuck up your ass about me and as a result you love taking pokes... something I've gotten very tired of in that so many armchair experts of the magic world think it cute to play the game, not realizing how immature it makes them appear (though they are my intellectual superiors?) I've found that the majority of those playing this game are simply jealous that their lives haven't been as event filled as mine and too, they were not privy to the plethora of knowledge I have been given access when it comes to the craft itself. Magician's are funny that way... but the bottom line here, is simply STOP IT! It's not cute, it's not becoming and it certainly doesn't paint you in a good light.

I KNOW my job, the truth about my life and I hide none of it. I've got dozens of friends that chew me out for being so open about it in fact. But it's simply my way of dealing with the hemorrhoids of the world that think it cute to poke the bear... unarmed!
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 05:20
Location: Northampton, MA

Re: A SCEPCOP article I would like to discuss

Postby ciscop » 08 Jun 2010, 00:13

i was just pointing out that you tend to ramble a lot and you know it, people have told you that before,
and that scescop´s manifesto, is just pure pointless rambling
but worse than yours. that´s it, just take a joke, i swear to you i wasnt trying to poke the old bear (as you said).
it was just a comment.

by the way
i dont doubt you are brilliant
you are a creator of magic and you know your stuff (magic related)
when talking about how the world works.. well thats another story
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: A SCEPCOP article I would like to discuss

Postby NinjaPuppy » 08 Jun 2010, 00:31

ciscop wrote:i was just pointing out that you tend to ramble a lot and you know it, people have told you that before,
and that scescop´s manifesto, is just pure pointless rambling
but worse than yours. that´s it, just take a joke, i swear to you i wasnt trying to poke the old bear (as you said).
it was just a comment.

by the way
i dont doubt you are brilliant
you are a creator of magic and you know your stuff (magic related)
when talking about how the world works.. well thats another story

Did you ever stop for a moment and think that perhaps some of us enjoy reading detailed explanations? I happen to enjoy Craig's posts. I may not always have time to read them in depth first shot out of the box but I do go back and read them when I have a bit of time. I don't always comment as by time I get to read them the topic has wandered off in another direction but I have learned quite a bit from Craig.

Ciscop - Allow me to introduce you to something that you can do with your computer. It's called 'scroll'. If you don't like something, scroll, scroll, scroll. No one is making you read anything that you don't want to. Exercise your right to ignore things that you don't like or agree with or feel free to make commentary about a topic as you see fit but please don't think for a minute that you have the right to complain about the length of a post.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: A SCEPCOP article I would like to discuss

Postby ciscop » 08 Jun 2010, 02:11

NinjaPuppy wrote:
ciscop wrote:i was just pointing out that you tend to ramble a lot and you know it, people have told you that before,
and that scescop´s manifesto, is just pure pointless rambling
but worse than yours. that´s it, just take a joke, i swear to you i wasnt trying to poke the old bear (as you said).
it was just a comment.

by the way
i dont doubt you are brilliant
you are a creator of magic and you know your stuff (magic related)
when talking about how the world works.. well thats another story

Did you ever stop for a moment and think that perhaps some of us enjoy reading detailed explanations? I happen to enjoy Craig's posts. I may not always have time to read them in depth first shot out of the box but I do go back and read them when I have a bit of time. I don't always comment as by time I get to read them the topic has wandered off in another direction but I have learned quite a bit from Craig.

Ciscop - Allow me to introduce you to something that you can do with your computer. It's called 'scroll'. If you don't like something, scroll, scroll, scroll. No one is making you read anything that you don't want to. Exercise your right to ignore things that you don't like or agree with or feel free to make commentary about a topic as you see fit but please don't think for a minute that you have the right to complain about the length of a post.


it is not the lenght
it is that he never gets to the point
is like bad teenage poetry
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: A SCEPCOP article I would like to discuss

Postby Craig Browning » 08 Jun 2010, 19:57

Firstly... thank you ciscop for your compliments on the magic side... I'll ignore your opinion about the other simply because my life experiences have taught me in ways far different from your own... that's how such should be seen.

As to "getting to the point"... I honestly don't know what you mean. I think I do fair when it comes to clarifying things for folks, especially when I write (sadly, I don't think so well on my feet these days). I do my best to offer insights on a heavily misrepresented topic (from both sides) in as down to earth manner as I can, my goals always being to trim as much fat from things as possible, offering as "logical" an explanation as I can muster (one that frequently ticks off the believers as much as it does the skeptics :oops: )

Believers hate me because I'm robbing them of their fantasy around spirituality, smashing the rose tinted glasses into the ground and telling them to actually SEE what's in front of them.

Skeptics hate me because my philosophy lends the idea of legitimacy to certain aspects of the psychic/paranormal element. Fortunately, most who know me know that I'm not really that far over the great horizon however... :lol: There is a motive to my madness, as they say.

Now maybe it's because I'm part Libra and born on the Cusps of Virgo & Libra, but I'm a big one for "balance" and finding the point of agreement with most all things in life, I've always been that way. That is why it's so important to me to hold to the points of view I tend to express and in so doing, attempt to express them in as clear a manner as possible... especially when I'm doing talks, workshops or shows... I'd loose them all if I couldn't keep things clear to them there :o

Anywho... ciscop, let's put the hatchets away ;)
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 05:20
Location: Northampton, MA

Re: A SCEPCOP article I would like to discuss

Postby ciscop » 08 Jun 2010, 22:42

Craig Browning wrote:Anywho... ciscop, let's put the hatchets away ;)


yep, lets do that please
:D
For every person who reads this valuable book there are hundreds of naïve souls who would prefer to have their spines tingled by a sensational but worthless potboiler by some hack journalist of the paranormal. You who now read these sentences join a small but wiser minority. Martin Gaardner (Psychology of the Psychic)
User avatar
ciscop
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: 22 Jul 2009, 12:04

Re: A SCEPCOP article I would like to discuss

Postby Scepcop » 10 Jun 2010, 17:43

ProfWag wrote:Personally, I think his entire Treatise is subjective bullsh!t, but hey, that's just me, everyone is entitled to an opinion, and that doesn't mean he is a bad person. :-)


Lesson for you. Ridicule and scoffing does NOT equal debunking, nor does it disprove anything. It is of zero value in serious discussions.

If I was really wrong, you'd give valid logical reasons why I'm wrong. But you don't. You are simply in denial.

I think that Amway and Timeshares are bunk too. But I do not visit sites about them. Therefore, you are an odd one. lol
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Next

Return to PseudoSkeptic Fallacies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests