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

Why Randi, Shermer and the CSICOPers are not Real Skeptics

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

Why Randi, Shermer and the CSICOPers are not Real Skeptics

Postby Scepcop » 27 Feb 2010, 12:36

James Randi, Michael Shermer and the CSICOPers are highly selective with their skepticism. Not only do they not question their own beliefs, but they never challenge or apply skepticism to the status quo. Instead, they have a fanatical allegiance to it, evidenced by their behavior. A true skeptic examines all sides, including his own. But pseudoskeptics only point their skepticism at what they don't believe in, which everyone else does too. So what makes them different than anyone else then? Only one thing: The SIDE they're on. In this case, they are on the side of authority, orthodoxy and materialism. That is why their skepticism and critical examination is ONLY directed at anything and anyone that challenges the status quo, but NEVER at the status quo itself. In essence, that makes them "establishment defenders" (or establishment whores), not real skeptics.

That is why you will never see James Randi, Michael Shermer or the CSICOP crowd apply any skepticism, criticism or condemnation toward orthodoxy or establishment. They hold that side to be blameless and infallible, not overtly, but by their selective skepticism. And they take on faith anything that the establishment says as true, without the need for evidence or critical inquiry. You can see this in ALL their publications, writings, interviews and speeches. Thus they are the farthest thing from objectivity, logic, freethinking, unbiased mindsets, or true skepticism, for they hold the programmed mentality that "authority = truth".

Now, is that the mark of a freethinker, truth seeker, or true skeptic? I don't think so.

This is why not only are they against all validity of the paranormal, but also against all claims of conspiracy as well, which are not even paranormal in nature. In their view, anyone that challenges the system or the agenda of the elite, is automatically discredited, regardless of whether their claims are true, credible or backed by evidence. And this includes former high ranking government officials as well.

For those of you who have followed the work of Randi, Shermer or CSICOP, ask yourself this: Have you ever seen them criticize anything of the establishment, including crimes, murders, lies, conspiracies, evil plots, etc?

I'll bet not.

Consider the following documented facts and let me ask you:

Do they ever speak out against the senseless killings in the Iraq War for power and profit?

Nope.

Do they ever admit that the US Navy was wrong to fake the Gulf of Tonkin Incident in 1964 (which has now been exposed) which resulted in the deaths of 60,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese, making the war and their deaths a FRAUD?

Nope.

Are they outraged with the fact that the CIA has been involved in drug trafficking for many years, which even some in the mainstream media have reported? Or the CIA assassinations of foreign leaders who refused to abide by US policy?

Nope.

Are they outraged that the EPA lied after 9/11 that the air was safe to breathe, which caused thousands of First Responders to develop cancer from the toxic air and slowly die?

Nope.

Are they outraged that upper levels of government have concocted secret plots to sacrifice innocent lives to stage terrorist activities and blame it on others to start wars, such as Operation Northwoods and Operation Dirty Trick? (Google them for more info)

Nope.

Do they speak out against the thousands of people that die from pharmaceutical drugs every year?

Nope.

But will they go ballistic if ONE person allegedly dies from alternative treatment such as homeopathy?

You betcha!

So, what does it say about them then if they have no problem with lies and evil plots that result in the death of millions, yet have a big problem with the death of a few if alternative medicine is involved?

It tells you that they are one sided with an axe to grind, rather than fair, honest or objective. They are fanatical defenders of establishment and orthodoxy, holding that side to be blameless. As such they are totally blind to the faults of authority, or deliberately ignore them at least. Their critical thinking and skepticism can ONLY be directed at anything AGAINST the establishment, and NEVER at anything FROM the establishment.

Tell that to the pseudoskeptics. And when they deny it, challenge them to produce a publication from a media skeptic or skeptic organization that openly condemns or criticizes the above crimes of the establishment (elite or shadow government, whatever you want to call it). When they come up empty handed, then you've got them. From that point, it does not matter if they continue in their denial, for the facts speak for themselves.

Now, is that true skepticism to you? Is that objectivity, logic and science? Is that the mark of a freethinker independent of authority or bias? Or is that fanaticism from a programmed mind who has given up his intellect to become an intellectual slave of authority?

You tell me.

A REAL skeptic is able to apply skepticism to ALL SIDES, including their own. They do not hold one side to be blameless and the other to be always wrong, like the Randis, Shermers and CSICOPers do. Fanatics are always one-sided, independent free thinkers aren't.

The ability to independently assess all sides, including your own, is the mark of a true freethinking at a higher level of consciousness. These folks clearly do not fit the bill.

You gotta remember that "actions speak louder than words". Anyone can claim to be a skeptic or critical freethinker. But if their ACTIONS do not show the hallmark of one, then they aren't. And by their actions, the Randis, Shermers and CSICOPers aren't.
“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: Why Randi, Shermer and the CSICOPers are not Real Skeptics

Postby Craig Browning » 27 Feb 2010, 20:19

I fear that on several levels, you're preaching to the choir
User avatar
Craig Browning
 
Posts: 1526
Joined: 13 Feb 2010, 05:20
Location: Northampton, MA

Re: Why Randi, Shermer and the CSICOPers are not Real Skeptics

Postby tiger » 28 Feb 2010, 05:16

Scepcop wrote:Why Randi, Shermer and the CSICOPers are not Real Skeptics


Do they ever speak out against the senseless killings in the Iraq War for power and profit?

Nope.
<snip>


Do they ever speak out in support of the Iraq war for power and profit? Unless you can say yes and give examples then your case falls flat. Let me give you one example.
Link (most important) http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swi ... ndent.html
It discusses a bomb detecting device that the Iraq government bought that the article says is useless at detecting bombs. A strong article criticizing the Iraq government. Written by James Randi. There are several articles on the same subject in the same blog.
tiger
 
Posts: 51
Joined: 07 Jun 2009, 13:55

Re: Why Randi, Shermer and the CSICOPers are not Real Skeptics

Postby Nostradamus » 28 Feb 2010, 06:22

Only one thing: The SIDE they're on.

This is the same nonsense rant that has been delivered many times and done without any evidence. It's a nonsense claim given by whatever idiot realizes that their stupidity has been exposed. It is a rant, nothing more, nothing less.

Your claims are rather pointless. Less take this asinine claim:
Do they speak out against the thousands of people that die from pharmaceutical drugs every year?


Do you have any evidence that Randi, Shermer, and others claim that pharmaceutical drugs are safe? Of course drugs are dangerous. The list of known side effects is an important piece of knowledge that are compiled and disseminated.

The other idiotic claims are political in nature. These guys tend to avoid political discussions and focus on science.

So this loser that wrote this rant decides they want people to act in a particular manner. Well buck up loser. You are a loser and in no position to command what others do. Buck up!
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Why Randi, Shermer and the CSICOPers are not Real Skeptics

Postby ProfWag » 01 Mar 2010, 22:11

ND hit it on the head when he pointed out that this rant to start the thread is all about political issues and not science issues. People, in general, don't have to time to study and look at everything so they tend to stick with what's most interesting to them at the time (not to you). This thread is a rather pointless, emotional based, evidence lacking, waste of time. And, just because they haven't posted their opinion on pharma, etc. do you really know what their opinions are of those things?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Why Randi, Shermer and the CSICOPers are not Real Skeptics

Postby Kevin Kane » 03 Mar 2010, 16:01

Whoa, whoa, whoa!

CALLING FOR MODERATION.

Nostradamus is calling the author an idiot and a loser. This constitutes "name calling", a bannable offense.

And the most offensive part of the post is that he clearly knows who the author is .. addressing them as "YOU"...

Nostradumbas wrote: Do you have any evidence ...

Your claims are rather pointless. Less take this asinine claim:


but when insulting the author, he uses the words:

Nostradimwit wrote:So this loser that wrote this rant ..


This is disingenuous.


I'm calling for the banning of Nostradamus.

AND

I'm calling for the deletion of his offending post.


Insulting members is bad enough, but insulting the owner and moderator of the board is criminally stupid. Nostradumbas should be banned.

Since I was recently banned for the exact same offense, although I did it in self-defense, and Nostradumas did it to offend, I MUST INSIST Nostradumas be banned. If the moderator disagrees, I'd like to hear the reasoning behind it, but to me, this is a clear cut case of insult and name calling.

Mark it zero!
User avatar
Kevin Kane
 
Posts: 377
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 01:18

Re: Why Randi, Shermer and the CSICOPers are not Real Skeptics

Postby ProfWag » 03 Mar 2010, 22:35

Kevin Kane wrote:Whoa, whoa, whoa!

CALLING FOR MODERATION.

Nostradamus is calling the author an idiot and a loser. This constitutes "name calling", a bannable offense.

And the most offensive part of the post is that he clearly knows who the author is .. addressing them as "YOU"...

Nostradumbas wrote: Do you have any evidence ...

Your claims are rather pointless. Less take this asinine claim:


but when insulting the author, he uses the words:

Nostradimwit wrote:So this loser that wrote this rant ..


This is disingenuous.


I'm calling for the banning of Nostradamus.

AND

I'm calling for the deletion of his offending post.


Insulting members is bad enough, but insulting the owner and moderator of the board is criminally stupid. Nostradumbas should be banned.

Since I was recently banned for the exact same offense, although I did it in self-defense, and Nostradumas did it to offend, I MUST INSIST Nostradumas be banned. If the moderator disagrees, I'd like to hear the reasoning behind it, but to me, this is a clear cut case of insult and name calling.

Mark it zero!

One of the reasons I like this forum is that many of the posts just make me laugh.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Why Randi, Shermer and the CSICOPers are not Real Skeptics

Postby ciscop » 03 Mar 2010, 22:37

your posts make me laught!!
: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: Why Randi, Shermer and the CSICOPers are not Real Skeptics

Postby Kubla Khan » 05 Mar 2010, 05:11

Kevin Kane wrote:Nostradamus is calling the author an idiot and a loser. This constitutes "name calling", a bannable offense.

<snip>

Insulting members is bad enough, but insulting the owner and moderator of the board is criminally stupid. Nostradumbas should be banned.


The irony is staggering.
Weave a circle 'round him thrice,
And close your eyes with holy dread,
For he on honey-dew hath fed,
And drunk the milk of Paradise.
- Samuel Coleridge, "Kubla Khan"
User avatar
Kubla Khan
 
Posts: 14
Joined: 05 Mar 2010, 04:59
Location: The Pleasure Dome

Re: Why Randi, Shermer and the CSICOPers are not Real Skeptics

Postby ProfWag » 05 Mar 2010, 05:13

Kubla Khan wrote:
Kevin Kane wrote:Nostradamus is calling the author an idiot and a loser. This constitutes "name calling", a bannable offense.

<snip>

Insulting members is bad enough, but insulting the owner and moderator of the board is criminally stupid. Nostradumbas should be banned.


The irony is staggering.

Isn't it though.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Why Randi, Shermer and the CSICOPers are not Real Skeptics

Postby NinjaPuppy » 05 Mar 2010, 05:43

Oh gee. I must have missed all this hoopla.
Obviously so did Eteponge and SCEPCOP. Imagine that!

First of all gentlemen, allow me to give you some background between SCEPCOP and Nostradamus. Those two have been at it long before I was appointed a Moderator. They both dish it out and they both take it very well. Some of the most interesting topics have spawned from those two going at it. Besides, I agree with SCEPCOP on his OP and ND made some valid points as well that I would enjoy seeing rebutted and that can't happen if one of them is banned. SCEPCOP is a big boy and takes care of himself very well. He doesn't need me to step in at times like this.

I also had nothing personally to add as I don't get involved with Randi, Shermer and the rest of them. It's not my cup of tea so I don't pay much attention to such topics, especially when I know that SCEPCOP has it covered. In the future, if you see something that you believe needs Moderation, I suggest that you use the "REPORT A POST" button. It keeps things in perspective for those who might want to rebutt without having to scroll around through the complaints.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Why Randi, Shermer and the CSICOPers are not Real Skeptics

Postby Nostradamus » 05 Mar 2010, 07:08

Did Scepcop write this? I took this to be a typical cut and paste from an unknown source which happens here often. That is the reason I referred to the author as I did.

As far as 4 letter word Kevin is concerned I see that he has been saying bad things again by vandalizing my name. Shame, shame, shame on him. If he wants a ban so bad then I suggest that:

1. I apologize to Scepcop for being the original author of the post if that is the case
2. Both I and Kevin get 1 week bans for our language
a. My ban for tearing into what I had erroneous (this unclear on this point) believed to an anonymous author
b. Kevin's ban for singling out a known author
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Why Randi, Shermer and the CSICOPers are not Real Skeptics

Postby Kevin Kane » 05 Mar 2010, 08:49

If SCEPCOP is cool with the name-calling by ND, it's his call. I'm just pointing out a pattern of double standards which I am subjected to which don't appear to apply to skeptics who washed in off the street from some godless forum who refused to put up with them, I suspect. Just saying.
User avatar
Kevin Kane
 
Posts: 377
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 01:18

Re: Why Randi, Shermer and the CSICOPers are not Real Skeptics

Postby Kubla Khan » 05 Mar 2010, 09:13

Kevin Kane wrote:If SCEPCOP is cool with the name-calling by ND, it's his call. I'm just pointing out a pattern of double standards which I am subjected to which don't appear to apply to skeptics who washed in off the street from some godless forum who refused to put up with them, I suspect. Just saying.


Actually, I'm in good standing on my other forums, thank you very much. And for one who takes so much offense at name-calling and insults, you certainly aren't opposed to casting aspersions yourself.
Glass houses, man, glass houses...
Weave a circle 'round him thrice,
And close your eyes with holy dread,
For he on honey-dew hath fed,
And drunk the milk of Paradise.
- Samuel Coleridge, "Kubla Khan"
User avatar
Kubla Khan
 
Posts: 14
Joined: 05 Mar 2010, 04:59
Location: The Pleasure Dome

Re: Why Randi, Shermer and the CSICOPers are not Real Skeptics

Postby NinjaPuppy » 05 Mar 2010, 09:34

ND - I had assumed the exact same thing... that this was a compilation of articles and information put together by SCEPCOP.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Next

Return to PseudoSkeptic Fallacies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron