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

New! Characteristics of Pseudo-Skeptics vs True Skeptics

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

Re: New! Characteristics of Pseudo-Skeptics vs True Skeptics

Postby ciscop » 08 Sep 2009, 07:46

all right quantum, fair enought
i back off and im sorry
i just didnt appretiate being taken out of context :evil:

i want to discuss the data
:)
im here to learn stuff

just one question if i may
so you think NAS, harvard and mit are hiding their findings regarding psi?
or is it because they are ¨bias¨ then they will never find anything?


aaand.. for the record
i dont think believers are wackos
just some, like highflyer that was on a mental institution according to his own admission
:-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: New! Characteristics of Pseudo-Skeptics vs True Skeptics

Postby quantumparanormal » 08 Sep 2009, 09:10

ciscop wrote:just one question if i may
so you think NAS, harvard and mit are hiding their findings regarding psi?
or is it because they are ¨bias¨ then they will never find anything?


Since this is related, somewhat, to data, I'll respond. Those are two questions, but that's quite alright.

No, I don't believe he (i.e., Alcock) is "'hiding' their findings regarding psi." Rather, he left out a lot of psi related research from his analysis, a very biased thing to do. Radin, in contrast, has included almost all of the experiments done over the years, whether they resulted in negative or positive outcomes, then he performed a statistical analysis amongst all of them to determine if psi still had positive support--it did (i.e., even though there were some negative results, there were more positive ones than negative ones, leaving a positive effect). The bulk of the NAS paper ProfWag posted via a link, and which constitutes the basis for our debate regarding the NAS, covers the research of only the following individuals: Helmit Schmidt, Robert Jahn (with the aid of Roger Nelson and Brenda Dune), Russel Targ, Harold Puthoff, John Bisaha, Marilyn Schlitz, J. Susman, P. Karnes, Philip Swaroff, and Julie Ballou. There have been many more psi researchers than that. Additionally, he reviewed only two forms of psi phenomena: psychokinesis and remote viewing. That's it! He didn't bother to include the huge body of telepathy experiments, for example, conducted over the years, most yielding very positive results. It's no wonder to me why he left a lot of this data out of his review: it would most certainly have revealed psi has empirical, scientific support to the objective, unbiased reviewer. Hence, he excluded it, but that's just my opinion as to why he left it out. I have no "proof" that's why he did it. Regardless of why he left out a huge body of psi evidence from his review, nonetheless, he did--that's a fact. Hell, at one point the author even says, "...I am content simply to say that Schmidt has accumulated some pretty impressive evidence that something other than chance is influencing the subject's scores," but he [Alcock] doesn't believe it's psi. Read the paper for yourself: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=778&page=601 It's rather long, but worth the read. The author/reviewer did the very thing he accuses parapsychological researchers of doing: selective reporting (aka the file-drawer problem; i.e., he left out negative information, information that's negative to the NAS, him [i.e., positive psi results]). More on selective reporting here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias

Considering the fact that 1) the author (i.e., Alcock) of this NAS-published paper excludes a lot of psi research and 2) he's only reviewed/analyzed the research of a handful of investigators, he has some nerve claiming that "This examination of REG and remote viewing studies leads me to the inescapable conclusion that none of this research has served to demonstrate the reality of psi phenomena."
Last edited by quantumparanormal on 08 Sep 2009, 11:00, edited 1 time in total.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: New! Characteristics of Pseudo-Skeptics vs True Skeptics

Postby ciscop » 08 Sep 2009, 10:59

interesting!
great post
quite informative

dont forget that john alcock is a member of csicop
therefor what you will call a pseudo skeptic

you do know your stuff
:shock:
thanks for sharing
Last edited by ciscop on 08 Sep 2009, 11:22, edited 1 time in total.
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: New! Characteristics of Pseudo-Skeptics vs True Skeptics

Postby quantumparanormal » 08 Sep 2009, 11:21

ciscop wrote:dont forget that john alcock is a member of csicop
therefor what you will call a pseudo skeptic


Actually, I do not consider Alcock a pseudo-skeptic. He, unlike so many others, takes the time to critically analyze the evidence and lays out his arguments in detail. I respect him for that. If you read his paper in detail, however, you'll notice how he reaches very far to find flaws in the research, even sometimes making very little logical sense in the process, but at least he puts in a very good effort. As I mentioned before, in some cases, Alcock admits an effect other than chance is obvious, but he won't admit it's because of psi. At least he continues to argue why he believes this, in detail. As a matter of fact, Radin dedicates many pages of his book, Entangled Minds, addressing Alcock's issues with psi research (in a section called "Debunking Skeptical Myths").
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: New! Characteristics of Pseudo-Skeptics vs True Skeptics

Postby ProfWag » 08 Sep 2009, 18:45

quantumparanormal wrote: You guys post links to "prestigious" organizations (organizations, by the way, who don't want to believe psi doesn't exists either, which is a biased source) and conclude because they say psi doesn't exist, it must not. You don't use critical thinking and logical deduction to come to your conclusions. You simply believe psi doesn't exist outright, and that's convenient for you. Don't bother being analytical. Just believe it. That's fine with me

You can put Radin in the same category but opposite. He wants to believe psi exists which is also a biased source.
I'll be waiting for your full counter-debate to the NAS study and if you continue, I will read it with great interest. And over the course of the next couple weeks, I'll be reading Radin's book and I'll critically analyze it for myself and post those results. I do have a life outside the scepcop forum though.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: New! Characteristics of Pseudo-Skeptics vs True Skeptics

Postby quantumparanormal » 09 Sep 2009, 00:15

ProfWag wrote:
quantumparanormal wrote: You guys post links to "prestigious" organizations (organizations, by the way, who don't want to believe psi doesn't exists either, which is a biased source) and conclude because they say psi doesn't exist, it must not. You don't use critical thinking and logical deduction to come to your conclusions. You simply believe psi doesn't exist outright, and that's convenient for you. Don't bother being analytical. Just believe it. That's fine with me

You can put Radin in the same category but opposite. He wants to believe psi exists which is also a biased source.
I'll be waiting for your full counter-debate to the NAS study and if you continue, I will read it with great interest. And over the course of the next couple weeks, I'll be reading Radin's book and I'll critically analyze it for myself and post those results. I do have a life outside the scepcop forum though.


By the way, the debate is not by the NAS. The NAS is the publisher. The parapsychological section and debate is by James Alcock (a member of CSICOP [which, BTW, is not a member of the AAAS]).
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: New! Characteristics of Pseudo-Skeptics vs True Skeptics

Postby ProfWag » 09 Sep 2009, 00:26

quantumparanormal wrote:
ProfWag wrote:
quantumparanormal wrote: You guys post links to "prestigious" organizations (organizations, by the way, who don't want to believe psi doesn't exists either, which is a biased source) and conclude because they say psi doesn't exist, it must not. You don't use critical thinking and logical deduction to come to your conclusions. You simply believe psi doesn't exist outright, and that's convenient for you. Don't bother being analytical. Just believe it. That's fine with me

You can put Radin in the same category but opposite. He wants to believe psi exists which is also a biased source.
I'll be waiting for your full counter-debate to the NAS study and if you continue, I will read it with great interest. And over the course of the next couple weeks, I'll be reading Radin's book and I'll critically analyze it for myself and post those results. I do have a life outside the scepcop forum though.


By the way, the debate is not by the NAS. The NAS is the publisher. The parapsychological section and debate is by James Alcock (a member of CSICOP [which, BTW, is not a member of the AAAS]).

Okay, I won't disagree with that much although you say "publisher" like they are Simon and Schuster. If NAS as a committee didn't agree with the findings, it would not have been published by NAS.
Oh, and by the way, I'm sure you are familiar with the rebuttals of that paper that have already been published. Utt's has done a pretty good job...
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: New! Characteristics of Pseudo-Skeptics vs True Skeptics

Postby quantumparanormal » 09 Sep 2009, 00:31

ProfWag wrote:If NAS as a committee didn't agree with the findings, it would not have been published by NAS.


I would expect the NAS to agree with the paper, just as I would expect them to agree with an anti-Creationist/anti-Intelligent Design paper. It's just a given. Bias is not evidence. Data is evidence.
Mike G.
Quantum Paranormal
Image
quantumparanormal
 
Posts: 276
Joined: 24 Aug 2009, 05:09
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA

Re: New! Characteristics of Pseudo-Skeptics vs True Skeptics

Postby jakesteele » 28 Oct 2009, 04:04

jakesteele wrote:I am in the process of compiling my own list of CSIOPtic tactics and psychological traits. On the JREF forum I found a gold mine of information. It is aimed at us, but what made me LOL is how most, if not all, of their 'rules' apply to them. It's like they are projecting their 'shadow self' on to another group instead of having to deal with that part of themselves.

The first link is the main thread and then the next ones are posts withing the thread. See if you notice the same kind of psuedoism I do. :D



Rules of Woo
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=143506


The operative laws of psuedo-science
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=73251

The woo woo credo
http://www.insolitology.com/tests/credo.htm

Skeptico - The woo handbook
http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2007 ... dbook.html


Below are some psychological traits of debunkers that I've noticed when going back and forth with them. The first batch is pretty much my own and then followed by Wiki's list. This list is by no means complete, please feel free to add to.


MY TRAITS OF PSEUDO

They believe that all UFO photographs are fake, especially the real ones.

Whatever is claimed is nothing but ... something else.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence

Skeptism is the beginning of rational thinking
Psuedo skeptism if the end of rational thinking

Debunker’s Burden – Similar to the term “White Man’s Burden”, debunkers have an obligation to bring the truth to the masses, of having to cut through all the superstitious, cognitively biased misperceptions of the teeming masses in order to show us “The Way”. This view proposed that Debunkers have an obligation to present to, and encourage, the process of “critical thinking” to people who are unaware of and/or engage in “non-critical thinking” practices so they can take their place in the world by fully adopting The Way of the Skeptic. That the Critical Thinkers have a moral duty and obligation to help "Non-critical thinkers" "enlighten" themselves whether they want the help or not.

Warriors for Truth, Justice and the Debunker’s Way - PseudoSkeptics perceive themselves as the defenders of science and reason against a raising tide of the irrationality. They are the champions not only of science, but also for the uninformed public who are naïve and unenlightened. It gives them a sense of superiority and a sense of purpose in the lives.

Elitism - They are part of special, elite group who are the only ones truly in the know. They’re on a mission from Darwin. They perceive themselves as a people of elevated intelligence, keener insight, of someone who has transcended the shackles of naïve, superstitious thinking which allows them to perceive reality as it actually is unhindered by superstitious thinking and unfettered by cognitive biases like the rest of humanity.

I’m Special Effect - The belief/feeling that they are they are special or elite for being one of the few who were able to find their way through the darkness and into the ‘Light’. This gives them a feeling of being elevated and better than others.

Messianic Complex - they are the “Chosen Ones” called to duty stand their ground against the tide of irrationalism that threatens to engulf our civilization and undo all the gains that have been wrought in the name of Science. They exude an insufferable smugness and an arrogant self righteousness.
that they are the enlightened ones, that they are charged with the burden of defending sense against nonsense,

Patron Saint effect – (sometimes known as the Emmisary of Light syndrome) The belief that they know what is best for everyone else even if we don’t. Similar in nature to a parent to a child dynamic without the condescendtion.

Hero of the World - They are the champions not only of science, but also of the uninformed public who are naïve and unenlightened. They bring the cold eye of reason, to bear on primitive superstition and nonsense. They wear their skeptical persuasion as a badge of honor, as self-proclaimed protectors of the rational and the scientific.

Illusory superiority – perception of self as a person of elevated intelligence, keener insight, of someone who has transcended the shackles of naïve, superstitious thinking which allows them to perceive reality as it actually is unhindered by superstitious thinking and unfettered by cognitive biases like the rest of humanity. As in the case of most fundamentalists mindsets, this is to the point of outright grandiosity to the point of outright hubris. Similar to the “I’m special’ and different effect”.

Hubris - In its modern usage, hubris denotes overconfident pride and arrogance; it is often associated with a lack of humility, not always with the lack of knowledge.


MISC. PSEUDO

Bigotry – completely intolerant to other people’s views that differ from their own.

Intolerance - – their minds are already made up so there is no need to do their own independent investigation. There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation.
-- Herbert Spencer

Black-and-white all or nothing thinking – you either are or you’re not, it’s either totally false or completely true. And, of course, their side is ALWAYS the completely true one.

Hard line fundamentalism – characterized by dogmatic extremism, aka, True Believers. This creates a mindset of absolute, intellectual certitude. In other words, just like fundamentalists of all stripe and color, there is absolutely no doubt in their minds that they are right and anybody who disagrees is wrong.


1. Belief that theories determine phenomena, rather than the reverse.
"The phenomenon you have observed is impossible, crazy stuff. We know of no KNOWN mechanism which could explain your results; therefore, you have been debunked. This is a specious argument in that they fail to take into account that the scientific method is only as all-knowing and far seeing as its current limitations will allow it to be.

Belief that it is only necessary to present a case for their counter-claims based upon plausibility rather than empirical evidence.

A blindness to phenomena which do not fit the current belief system

Sleight of mind – this is undoubtedly the single greatest feat of ledgerdamane that the likes of James Randi, Michael Shermer, Phil Plait, Joe Nickel, etc. are able to foist onto their loyal followers. This comes into play especially when Randi “allegedly” debunks a faith healer type by simply doing a magic trick that appears, on the surface, to be the same thing when in fact, there was no real debunking that occurred.

A cult of personality – They are the same as any other member of a cult. They Hero worship Randi, the GodFather of debunking, by giving praise and adulation and deference. And like most cults, the loyal followers help to make the Guru rich by buying their product.

behavior which reinforces the negative effects of consensus beliefs while minimizing the impact of any evidence which contradicts those beliefs. – Jenny affair


WIKI TRAITS OF PSEUDO

Selective perception — the tendency for expectations to affect perception.

Anchoring — the tendency to rely too heavily, or "anchor," on a past reference or on one trait or piece of information when making decisions.

Authority bias — the tendency to unquestionably accept the opinion of someone who is seen as an authority (Randi, Joe Nickell, etc.)

Availability cascade — a self-reinforcing process in which a collective belief gains more and more plausibility through its increasing repetition in public discourse (or "repeat something long enough and it will become true").

Illusory correlation — beliefs that inaccurately suppose a relationship between a certain type of action and an effect. Example; Because Jenny McCarthy advocates ‘green vaccines’ and not giving so many at once to a child, therefore she is directly responsible for any deaths/illnesses happening to a non-vaccinated person.

Overconfidence effect — excessive confidence in one's own answers to questions. For example, for certain types of question, answers that people rate as "99% certain" turn out to be wrong 40% of the time.

Selection bias — a distortion of evidence or data that arises from the way that the data are collected.

Herd instinct — Common tendency to adopt the opinions and follow the behaviors of the majority to feel safer and to avoid conflict. [taying with the herd to many people also has an advantage that they would not run the risk of exposing their ignorance. If one departs from the herd, then one will be asked, one will be charged to explain why one has departed from the herd. One has to be able to offer the detailed justifications, and one's understanding of the subject will be criticized. If one stays with the herd, then mostly there is no such charge.]

Self-fulfilling prophecy — the tendency to engage in behaviors that elicit results which will (consciously or not) confirm our beliefs.

System justification — The tendency to defend and bolster the status quo. Existing social, economic, and political arrangements tend to be preferred, and alternatives disparaged sometimes even at the expense of individual and collective self-interest.

Fundamental attribution error is the tendency for people to over-emphasize personality-based explanations for behaviors observed in others while while being in essence, blind to the same in themselves

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions; this is related to the concept of cognitive dissonance.
Debunkers think all UFO photos are fake,
especially the real ones.
jakesteele
 
Posts: 88
Joined: 29 May 2009, 11:47

Re: New! Characteristics of Pseudo-Skeptics vs True Skeptics

Postby jakesteele » 28 Oct 2009, 23:22

Here's some of my stuff and Wiki's stuff on the same topics in general.

Omnicient Absolute – Their Perspective and opinions are All knowing and All Seeing and beyond reproach. Anybody that’s “right thinking” will see that as self-evident. Any differing opinion is therefore totally wrong (see Black and White/All-or-Nothing thinking)

The Law of the Avoided Question: Answer the question you would have liked to have been asked rather than the one that was asked. Who cares what the original question was, answer a question that you have prepared an answer for regardless (any question will do, as long as it is related to the subject… and sometimes not even then

Law of Ocaam’s Sledge Hammer – while the simplest solution is not usually the best, it is always the best…no matter what

Law of the “Official Story” (aka. Safe refuge in a harbor) – The Official Story is always right. I’ts true because it’s true/if it’s true it can’t be false. If the OS says it was a weather balloon, then it was; proof positive, case closed. No question, no doubt, total acceptance. This is similar to an Appeal to Authority, but in their case they say it isn’t, because if it’s true, then it can’t be an Appeal to Authority because the OS is impeccable and beyond reproach.

Law of Implausible Plausibility – 1.) Trying to make something fit where it doesn’t fit. Every explanation MUST be a plausible and mundane one, even when it doesn’t fit.
2.) It is better to be mundane and wrong than to be complex and right.
(See Ocamm’s Beard – the simplest solution isn’t always the right one)

Law of Immaculate Percepttion – they are the only ones who see reality exactly as it is unhindered by any cognitive biases. So therefore, to disagree with them is to disagree with reality itself.

Law of Mutual Validation – is achieved by JREFing each other off…sorry, I had to say it. (smiley face goes here)

The Law of Cardinal Perspective: Only the asserting party possesses enough of the right kind of mental capability to fully understand every aspect of the assertion

The Law of Popular Support: Any assertion believed by a majority need not be proven. For instance, since “Everybody Knows” that a UFOs aren’t real, so why bother to investigate? Pseudoskeptics love the concept of "open-mindedness" and will take you into their inner circle without question if you subscribe to the party line. They have no tolerance for Agnostic Skeptics.

The Law of Blind Faith: A state of mind wherein people's need to believe in something outweighs their need to know the truth.

Law of Insistent Impartiallity - will always preface and/or qualify before and during that they "only want to find the truth" This is a way of showing how open minded they are and what seekers of the truth they are. They will always insist that they are open minded, objective, logical, impartial.

Law of The Safe Harbor - Always oppose the conspiracy angle over the Official Story angle because it’s safer, easier and more emotionally comforting if you let someone else do the thinking for you. Example, Roswell was a balloon, etc.

Law of Predetermined Intolerance – Anybody who disagrees with them is wrong even before they made an assertion and therefore, anything they say will not be tolerated.

Law of Repetitive Verbalization - Use the words "plausible and mundane" as often as possible

Law of Diminishing Investment – If, in a Pseudo’s mine, they think they have proven a particular incident wrong, then by extension, anything of a similar nature is also wrong by de facto, therefore, less and less investment of investigative resources need be expended.

The Black Bart Law – vilification of all members of “them" however that is defined, contrasted with the near-deification of anyone that is “us”, however that is defined.

Law of Contemptio Prepositus Inquiro - (contempt prior to investigation) Also known as the Law of Investigative Absence”. (Similar to Law of Predetermined Intolerance). Their minds are already made up so there is no need to do their own independent investigation.

Law of Evidentary Absence - Nothing exists except what has already been proven scientifically" or "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Law of Perpetual Simplicity – a bastardized version of Ocaam’s Razor, which, while not stated outright, is implied throughout, that the simplest explanation is the ONLY explanation. The mindset of ALL explanations must be mundane at all costs, no matter what the cost.

The Law of Hidden Analogies: Any two (or more) events or ideas that are related by at least one similarity – no matter how superficial the similarity – are analogous to each other. A good example of this is Jenny Mcarthy and her stance for ‘green vaccines’. Any rise in vaccination preventable diseases is automatically attributed to her and others who take a similar stance.

Law of Specific Credentials - Expertise in one field automatically grants expertise in another unrelated field. For example, anything Randi’s debunk is righteous even though he is a stage magician.

The Law of Image Aversion: Any assertion is to be disbelieved if the asserting party (or the assertion itself) is associated with an unpopular image, regardless of the validity of the data or the veracity of the witness making the assertion. For example, an expert military, commercial pilot must be disbelieved if they are asserting a UFO encounter. Why? Because it is a self evident truth that UFOs don’t exist because no physical evidence in the form of pieces of the craft have been found, therefore, it doesn’t matter who is making the claim, they are wrong, period.

Law of Eurudition - Memorize as many fallacies and cognitive biases from Wiki as you can and as much techno/talk and science speak to make them selves seem learned and authoritative

Law of Predetermined Dismissal - Simply characterizing the study of unorthodox phenomena as "bogus" allows the Pseudo to state emphatically that there is nothing there to study without even looking at the data.

Law of the amateur astronomer - the assertion that amateur astronomers, are "trained observers" and therefore, their word trumps that of police officers, pilots, air controllers, or virtually anybody else reporting a sighting, as totally unqualified to verify anything they see.

Law of Omissions - failing to acknowledge that many science fiction works or myths have indeed become fact and are a result of intuitive leaps and profound insights coupled with the process of logical steps

Law of Repetative Abuse - If all else fails, use the phrase woo, CTer/Truther, etc. over and over again. If you insult you opponent often enough, hopefully s/he will be so offended that he will simply go away and leave you alone.
Law of the Persecuted Scientist - Will always respond to the example of how Galileo was persecuted for dissenting views of the current “paradigm” and will say things like, “Galileo wasn’t persecuted, the Pope was his advocate and encouraged him.”

Law of Open Mindedness - Always claim that the other guy is deluded, misinformed, crazy, etc. and that you're as free-thinking and open minded as a newborn baby.

Law of Ad Hominem non-Reciprocity - Call your opponent a kook, nut, idiot, stupid, deluded, etc. If he responds in kind to your name calling, immediately pull the ad hominem fallacy card and accuse him of fallacious logic.

Law of Bet Hedging - Hedging their bet: while adamantly denying the existence of UFOs, in the next breath they will say that they wouldn’t be surprised if there wasn’t some kind of life in the universe because of its immenseness. You will often hear them say things like, “Hey, I just want to know the truth, whatever the truth is I want to know, I’m the first guy to want to know the truth



MY TRAITS OF PSEUDO

I am a debunker, therefore, I’m always right. I’m always right because I’m a debunker.

They believe that all UFO photographs are fake, especially the real ones.

Whatever is claimed is nothing but ... something else.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence

Skeptism is the beginning of rational thinking
Psuedo skeptism if the end of rational thinking

Debunker’s Burden – Similar to the term “White Man’s Burden”, debunkers have an obligation to bring the truth to the masses, of having to cut through all the superstitious, cognitively biased misperceptions of the teeming masses in order to show us “The Way”. This view proposed that Debunkers have an obligation to present to, and encourage, the process of “critical thinking” to people who are unaware of and/or engage in “non-critical thinking” practices so they can take their place in the world by fully adopting The Way of the Skeptic. That the Critical Thinkers have a moral duty and obligation to help "Non-critical thinkers" "enlighten" themselves whether they want the help or not.

Warriors for Truth, Justice and the Debunker’s Way - PseudoSkeptics perceive themselves as the defenders of science and reason against a raising tide of the irrationality. They are the champions not only of science, but also for the uninformed public who are naïve and unenlightened. It gives them a sense of superiority and a sense of purpose in the lives.

ELETISM - They are part of special, elite group who are the only ones truly in the know. They’re on a mission from Darwin. They perceive themselves as a people of elevated intelligence, keener insight, of someone who has transcended the shackles of naïve, superstitious thinking which allows them to perceive reality as it actually is unhindered by superstitious thinking and unfettered by cognitive biases like the rest of humanity.

I’m Special Effect - The belief/feeling that they are they are special or elite for being one of the few who were able to find their way through the darkness and into the ‘Light’. This gives them a feeling of being elevated and better than others.

Messianic Complex - they are the “Chosen Ones” called to duty stand their ground against the tide of irrationalism that threatens to engulf our civilization and undo all the gains that have been wrought in the name of Science. They exude an insufferable smugness and an arrogant self righteousness. That they are the enlightened ones, that they are charged with the burden of defending sense against nonsense,

Patron Saint effect – (sometimes known as the Emmisary of Light syndrome) The belief that they know what is best for everyone else even if we don’t. Similar in nature to a parent to a child dynamic without the condescendtion.

Hero of the World - They are the champions not only of science, but also of the uninformed public who are naïve and unenlightened. They bring the cold eye of reason, to bear on primitive superstition and nonsense. They wear their skeptical persuasion as a badge of honor, as self-proclaimed protectors of the rational and the scientific.

Illusory superiority – perception of self as a person of elevated intelligence, keener insight, of someone who has transcended the shackles of naïve, superstitious thinking which allows them to perceive reality as it actually is unhindered by superstitious thinking and unfettered by cognitive biases like the rest of humanity. As in the case of most fundamentalists mindsets, this is to the point of outright grandiosity to the point of outright hubris. Similar to the “I’m special’ and different effect”.

Hubris - In its modern usage, hubris denotes overconfident pride and arrogance; it is often associated with a lack of humility, not always with the lack of knowledge.

Bigotry – completely intolerant to other people’s views that differ from their own.

Intolerance - – their minds are already made up so there is no need to do their own independent investigation. There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance -- that principle is contempt prior to investigation.
-- Herbert Spencer

Black-and-white all or nothing thinking – you either are or you’re not, it’s either totally false or completely true. And, of course, their side is ALWAYS the completely true one.

Hard line fundamentalism – characterized by dogmatic extremism, aka, True Believers. This creates a mindset of absolute, intellectual certitude. In other words, just like fundamentalists of all stripe and color, there is absolutely no doubt in their minds that they are right and anybody who disagrees is wrong.

Sleight of mind – this is undoubtedly the single greatest feat of ledgerdamane that the likes of James Randi, Michael Shermer, Phil Plait, Joe Nickel, etc. are able to foist onto their loyal followers. This comes into play especially when Randi “allegedly” debunks a faith healer type by simply doing a magic trick that appears, on the surface, to be the same thing when in fact, there was no real debunking that occurred.

A cult of personality – They are the same as any other member of a cult. They Hero worship Randi, the GodFather of debunking, by giving praise and adulation and deference. And like most cults, the loyal followers help to make the Guru rich by buying their product.

WIKI TRAITS OF PSEUDO

Selective perception — the tendency for expectations to affect perception.

Anchoring — the tendency to rely too heavily, or "anchor," on a past reference or on one trait or piece of information when making decisions.

Authority bias — the tendency to unquestionably accept the opinion of someone who is seen as an authority (Randi, Joe Nickell, etc.)

Availability cascade — a self-reinforcing process in which a collective belief gains more and more plausibility through its increasing repetition in public discourse (or "repeat something long enough and it will become true").

Illusory correlation — beliefs that inaccurately suppose a relationship between a certain type of action and an effect. Example; Because Jenny McCarthy advocates ‘green vaccines’ and not giving so many at once to a child, therefore she is directly responsible for any deaths/illnesses happening to a non-vaccinated person.

Overconfidence effect — excessive confidence in one's own answers to questions. For example, for certain types of question, answers that people rate as "99% certain" turn out to be wrong 40% of the time.

Selection bias — a distortion of evidence or data that arises from the way that the data are collected.

Herd instinct — Common tendency to adopt the opinions and follow the behaviors of the majority to feel safer and to avoid conflict. [taying with the herd to many people also has an advantage that they would not run the risk of exposing their ignorance. If one departs from the herd, then one will be asked, one will be charged to explain why one has departed from the herd. One has to be able to offer the detailed justifications, and one's understanding of the subject will be criticized. If one stays with the herd, then mostly there is no such charge.]

Self-fulfilling prophecy — the tendency to engage in behaviors that elicit results which will (consciously or not) confirm our beliefs.

System justification — The tendency to defend and bolster the status quo. Existing social, economic, and political arrangements tend to be preferred, and alternatives disparaged sometimes even at the expense of individual and collective self-interest.

Fundamental attribution error is the tendency for people to over-emphasize personality-based explanations for behaviors observed in others while while being in essence, blind to the same in themselves

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions; this is related to the concept of cognitive dissonance.
Debunkers think all UFO photos are fake,
especially the real ones.
jakesteele
 
Posts: 88
Joined: 29 May 2009, 11:47

Previous

Return to PseudoSkeptic Fallacies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest