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

Reviews of Paul Sandoval's rebuttal to my Treatise

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

Reviews of Paul Sandoval's rebuttal to my Treatise

Postby Scepcop » 28 Jul 2009, 03:06

This review of Paul Sandoval's rebuttal to my treatise makes some good points.

http://thegroundoffaith.net/issues/2008-08/Chasing.html

Winston Wu writes a very detailed article Debunking (30) Common Skeptical Arguments Against Paranormal and Psychic Phenomena http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/winston.html#3

This is a well-known article, deserves detailed study.

Paul Sandoval writes an 84 page response to Winston Wu
http://www.skepticreport.com/skepticism/winstonwu.htm

Prof Richard Cocks comments:
Wu does make some mistakes, but so does his attacker. Neither of them are aware, for instance, that attacks on character are perfectly appropriate when someone is offering testimony rather than arguing. Of course, these attacks must be substantiated and based on evidence. You can't just say - 'they must be a crazy liar.' If you have evidence that someone is dishonest, or insane, then produce it - it is relevant to testimony. I'm not really impressed with either side of the argument. It looks like the skeptic found a logic textbook and is hamfistedly trying to apply it. Wu does make claims while offering no evidence e.g., what the AMA says, but the skeptic's understanding of what constitutes a fallacy is very imperfect and then his claims that a fallacy has been committed are often not supported by his arguments. He asserts a fallacy has been committed, ironically without always providing the evidence for his assertion. It reads like a freshman student trying to use the logic text his professor used in class.
“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

Re: Prof's Review of Paul Sandoval's critique of my Treatise

Postby Scepcop » 17 Aug 2009, 15:02

BTW, here is Eteponge's review of the Paul Sandoval rebuttal to my treatise:

Oh, and by the way, I recently came across a Skeptic's Report Article that claimed to "debunk" your Article in question and called it "pleading a lost cause". I read through it, and it was PA-THE-TIC. I laughed at how weak and poorly presented the critic's "rebuttals" were compared to yours, and he cleverly omitted (but still linked to) your hard anecdotal evidences that were far too strong for him to explain away, and so he ignored them, and wouldn't comment on them. He also often fell into the exact same traps that you were critiquing in your Article, the most often of which was the famed "anecdotal evidence proves nothing" repeated over and over endlessly. I was going to suggest that you answer him, but I realised in reading his weak "rebuttals" indepth that there is really no need to. The close-minded skeptic's side is truely "pleading a lost cause". ;)
“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

Re: Reviews of Paul Sandoval's rebuttal to my Treatise

Postby Scepcop » 17 Aug 2009, 15:25

Yet another commentary on Sandoval's rebuttal:

Also, I read Paul Sandoval's "rebuttal" of your article, and I think Sandoval's response is a superb example on how to use ad logicam fallacy (or fallacist's fallacy http://www.fallacyfiles.org/fallfall.html) to win arguments. He creates a straw man and then tries to spot logical fallacies in your reasoning and arguments, but he doesn't refute them. As you wrote, pseudoskeptics use philosophical semantics to win arguments. They try to impress the readers using pompous language and erudite pseudological terms, instead of using sound reasoning and facts to rebut and refute arguments.
“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

Re: Reviews of Paul Sandoval's rebuttal to my Treatise

Postby NinjaPuppy » 17 Aug 2009, 21:04

Scepcop wrote:This review of Paul Sandoval's rebuttal to my treatise makes some good points.

Paul Sandoval writes an 84 page response to Winston Wu
http://www.skepticreport.com/skepticism/winstonwu.htm


84 pages! :o

I'll see y'all on Thursday :lol: It may take me that long to finish reading Mr. Sandoval's novel.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Reviews of Paul Sandoval's rebuttal to my Treatise

Postby brett » 17 Aug 2009, 22:47

NinjaPuppy wrote:
Scepcop wrote:This review of Paul Sandoval's rebuttal to my treatise makes some good points.

Paul Sandoval writes an 84 page response to Winston Wu
http://www.skepticreport.com/skepticism/winstonwu.htm


84 pages! :o

I'll see y'all on Thursday :lol: It may take me that long to finish reading Mr. Sandoval's novel.


84 PAGES !! :o :o - A STIFF drink to and some headache tablets to hand methinks :lol: - i have not finished reading scepcop"s treatise yet - i like to absorb the points as i go along - not speed read it - so i will have to come back to the rebuttal - in due course

:?
LIFE - just filling the bits between birth, death and taxes
User avatar
brett
 
Posts: 436
Joined: 06 Aug 2009, 22:23
Location: Plymouth UK

Re: Reviews of Paul Sandoval's rebuttal to my Treatise

Postby Scepcop » 17 Aug 2009, 23:27

NinjaPuppy wrote:
Scepcop wrote:This review of Paul Sandoval's rebuttal to my treatise makes some good points.

Paul Sandoval writes an 84 page response to Winston Wu
http://www.skepticreport.com/skepticism/winstonwu.htm


84 pages! :o

I'll see y'all on Thursday :lol: It may take me that long to finish reading Mr. Sandoval's novel.


It's not really 84 pages. Most of the 84 pages are excerpts from my treatise followed by one or two sentence dismissals from Sandoval. In total his comments make up very little of the 84 pages.
“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

Re: Reviews of Paul Sandoval's rebuttal to my Treatise

Postby NinjaPuppy » 18 Aug 2009, 01:33

Scepcop wrote:It's not really 84 pages. Most of the 84 pages are excerpts from my treatise followed by one or two sentence dismissals from Sandoval. In total his comments make up very little of the 84 pages.


Yes, I see that. Not to mention it's a nice large font.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Reviews of Paul Sandoval's rebuttal to my Treatise

Postby NinjaPuppy » 18 Aug 2009, 07:54

OK, I'm toast. I got about 7 pages into that thing and had to smack myself to stay awake. I gave it two honest attempts.

Either he is talking WAY over my head or he is one of the most boring and/or confusing writers I have ever attempted to comprehend. Go ahead skeptics, read it. I DARE YOU! Perhaps someone with more intelligence and stamina can explain it to me. He needed all that text to say what? That Winston's opinion comes from Winston's opinion and observations? Please, someone tell me I am wrong and I'm too stupid to understand this genius. That's something I can understand in 25 words or less.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44


Return to PseudoSkeptic Fallacies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests