Video: Cure for Pseudoskeptics and their misery

[PsiDefender]

[Steve_Trueblue]

As a skilled observer you will also note Pskeps

1 Seldom, in fact almost never, ask questions, reflecting Zero Curiosity thus learning difficulties
2 Practice a very high level of self deception and mistakenly believe they can lie to adults as they did in childhood
3 Display markedly deficient reading and comprehension skills.
4 Display inability to connect thoughts sequentially and plan an argument- often defeating their own case.
5 Depend on bluster and bullying and name calling to make up for lack of agument content

That's enough for today
Steve Trueblue

[Scepcop]

As a skilled observer you will also note Pskeps

1 Seldom, in fact almost never, ask questions, reflecting Zero Curiosity thus learning difficulties
2 Practice a very high level of self deception and mistakenly believe they can lie to adults as they did in childhood
3 Display markedly deficient reading and comprehension skills.
4 Display inability to connect thoughts sequentially and plan an argument- often defeating their own case.
5 Depend on bluster and bullying and name calling to make up for lack of agument content

That's enough for today
Steve Trueblue

Brilliant analysis Steve! Mind if I put those traits on the home page? They nail their characteristics dead on.

I've noticed all that as well. They never ask questions, pretending that they know everything. A real truth seeker will ask questions about things they don't understand, like I did with Indigo Child in my long discussions with him on this board. These pseudo-skeptics simply dismiss, declare it bunk and ridicule it, as though they already know it all, when in reality, no one can know it all.

They also have no conscience when it comes to lying or deception.

And they don't seem to have solid reading or comprehension skills because you are forced to repeat the same things over and over again, which they then act like they ignore.

One reason why they constantly resort to ridicule, is because the facts aren't on their side and they do not have strong arguments, so when you got nothing left, you are forced to resort to ridicule.

Do you want to be on the SCEPCOP committee? Do you have a website, or just the YouTube Channel? I can link it to the home page if you want to be on this committee. We need people like you.

[Scepcop]

BTW, check out Wikipedia's original entry on Pseudoskepticism before the skeptics went in and botched it. I'm glad I saved it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathological_skepticism

The difference between pseudoskepticism and skepticism appear in the conduct of an individual's actions. Among the indications of pseudoskeptical actions are:

1. Resorting to various logical fallacies (usually in an attack against those disputing a theory).
2. The assumption of facts (such as, stating theories determine phenomena).
3. The obfuscation of facts.
4. The use of attractive or neutral euphemisms to disguise unpleasant facts concerning their own positions.
5. Insisting that fundamental framework and theory of science hardly change.
6. Unwavering belief that science is a consensus and run on majority rule.
7. Maintaining a stance of hostility and intolerance.
8. Instituting hurdles against new theories by "moving the goalposts".
9. Ignoring intellectual suppression of unorthodox theories.
10. Judging a theory or phenomena without investigation and insisting on ignoring the details thereafter.

Pseudoskeptics have been blamed for cases where a scientific theory met a great deal of criticism before eventually being accepted. Commonly cited are Galileo's heliocentric theory; the myth that Christopher Columbus' contemporaries thought the Earth was flat; Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift, and pseudoskepticism towards rocks falling down to Earth. Thomas Jefferson himself commented: "I would more easily believe that two Yankee professors would lie, than that stones would fall from heaven."

[Scepcop]

Hi again Steve, I added your brilliant five traits of pseudoskeptics to my introduction page here:

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Introduction.htm

I will also be adding it to the home page intro letter too.

BTW, what do you think of Michael Shermer? He seems a lot more calm and mellow than Randi or Dawkins, not as hateful or angry, yet uses the same fallacies in his arguments and is clearly biased.