Should SCEPCoP Change it's name?

[Eternally Learning]

"Scientific Committee to Evaluate PseudoSkeptical Criticism of the Paranormal"

If you consider yourselves to be true skeptics, then part of that is not pre-judging someone's opinions or ideas based on external and unrelated criteria. How then can your mission be to "Evaluate PseudoSkeptical" criticism alone? In order to consider criticism "pseudoskeptical" you'd need to first evaluate it yes? To not do so, would be to rely on what you consider the status quo of paranormal research and commentary by declaring that you know the value of someone’s opinion before even reading it or being familiar with them.

I don’t really suppose this is some death-blow point I’m making here, but the way your name comes across does not seem to convey the ideals you are purporting to promote. Perhaps you could change it to “Presented,” “Public,” “Presumed,” “Possible,” or something to that effect?

[ProfWag]

"Scientific Committee to Evaluate PseudoSkeptical Criticism of the Paranormal"

If you consider yourselves to be true skeptics, then part of that is not pre-judging someone's opinions or ideas based on external and unrelated criteria. How then can your mission be to "Evaluate PseudoSkeptical" criticism alone? In order to consider criticism "pseudoskeptical" you'd need to first evaluate it yes? To not do so, would be to rely on what you consider the status quo of paranormal research and commentary by declaring that you know the value of someone’s opinion before even reading it or being familiar with them.

I don’t really suppose this is some death-blow point I’m making here, but the way your name comes across does not seem to convey the ideals you are purporting to promote. Perhaps you could change it to “Presented,” “Public,” “Presumed,” “Possible,” or something to that effect?

Many of us on here is the choir you're preaching too. Then there's Scepcop himself. Good luck with that.

[Eternally Learning]

Many of us on here is the choir you're preaching too. Then there's Scepcop himself. Good luck with that.

Well, he's said in multiple places on his site that he values intellectual honesty and critical self-examination so I would hope he'd at least defend his views.

[Arouet]

Scepcop's MO is to start a half-dozen threads with controversial claims. Say how mindblowing they are. Then abandon the thread when critiicism is raised. He stays quiet for a bit,, then starts the cycle over again with another half dozen threads that he will promptly abandon.

[ProfWag]

Many of us on here is the choir you're preaching too. Then there's Scepcop himself. Good luck with that.

Well, he's said in multiple places on his site that he values intellectual honesty and critical self-examination so I would hope he'd at least defend his views.

One of my favorite sayings is "actions speak louder than words." Only thyself can be the judge as to whether or not Scepcop's actions defend his words. I have my opinion and once you get to know me you'll know rather quickly what that opinion is.

[Eternally Learning]

Well, I guess I'm an eternal optimist about people, so I suppose I'll just have to see for myself.

I should note, for scepcop's sake, that when I post topics like this, I'm in no way presupposing I'm correct and making rhetorical, supposedly self-evident, questions. When I ask questions, I mean them as questions. I'm completely open to having my opinion changed.

[Scepcop]

Eternally Learning,
I don't really understand your questions. Have you read through the treatise and the fallacies section? Which parts don't you agree with? Your statements are vague. I'm not sure what your point is.

If you propose changing the SCEPCOP acronym, then what name would you suggest? The way it is is very creative and brilliant. And very well liked.

Arouet,
You got it backwards. I present a ton of info and ideas to consider, esp in videos. You address none of them, do not watch the videos, and just rant senselessly with no point other than empty cynicism.

How about this: Let's have a debate on the radio, you vs. me, or ProfWag vs. me, with a neutral host. Or we can just have a phone conversation debate. Then one of us can record it and post it here. Then we will see that it is YOU who are avoiding all the key points and evidence, and dodging my questions. A simple phone debate over skype will show this. The facts, truth and evidence are not on your side, and no matter how many times I demonstrate that, you are in denial. So I give up. I do not waste my time.

[Arouet]

Arouet,
You got it backwards. I present a ton of info and ideas to consider, esp in videos. You address none of them, do not watch the videos, and just rant senselessly with no point other than empty cynicism.

How about this: Let's have a debate on the radio, you vs. me, or ProfWag vs. me, with a neutral host. Or we can just have a phone conversation debate. Then one of us can record it and post it here. Then we will see that it is YOU who are avoiding all the key points and evidence, and dodging my questions. A simple phone debate over skype will show this. The facts, truth and evidence are not on your side, and no matter how many times I demonstrate that, you are in denial. So I give up. I do not waste my time.

Scepcop, we can debate right here. I've tried I don't know how many times. I don't think you've ever directly answered a question I've put to you. Just declaring my posts rants or cynical isn't sufficient: you must demonstrate it. I try and provide reasons for most comments that I make. I dissected one of your "treatise"s - and you ignored it completely. You want to get into a topic, let's do it. But not something based on an hour long docudrama that is very hard to examine in detail. So go ahead, pick a topic, let's go into it in detail. Just promise not to bail the moment we ask you a tough question and rely on sources that are written.

[ProfWag]

I agree with Arouet. I don't believe a skype debate would help solve anything. Much of a skeptic's stance comes from solid sources and referenced data rather than throwing information out there that cannot be immediately verified. Whenever you post something that gets a critical examination, you run away and avoid the issue until something new comes along that you post and then avoid again, and so on. Reference my recent thread entitled a Challenge to Scepcop. Have you commented on it? No. As far as I'm concerned, if you would give me a reason to debate a subject that you have shown you have done your own research on to verify your credibility, I would seriously consider it. However, until then, your posts are uncredible and I only post replies in a dying hope that others will see the fallacies in your arguments.
You have repeatedly sited stories from people whom you believe are credible because they appear "sincere" or "well-spoken," neither of which even begins to speak of actual credibility from a source but I know you would use that argument which would come across incorrectly to a believer.
Let's debate in writing for all to see and be able to verify the sources.

[Eternally Learning]

Eternally Learning,
I don't really understand your questions. Have you read through the treatise and the fallacies section? Which parts don't you agree with? Your statements are vague. I'm not sure what your point is.

If you propose changing the SCEPCOP acronym, then what name would you suggest? The way it is is very creative and brilliant. And very well liked.

Sorry, didn't think I was being vague. I'll try to clarify. As I understand it, you made this site because you consider yourself to be a skeptic in the true sense of the word, and that those who go about labeling themselves as skeptics, often exhibit behavior contradictory to basic skepticism. As such, many of their attacks on paranormalism (is that a valid term?) tend to be lazy, unskeptical, unsupported by the facts, and repeated ad nauseum. You've labeled such persons "Pseudoskeptics" and this website is meant to be a kind of beacon to paranormalists (again, valid term?) who consider themselves to be true skeptics.

So, while much of the site is spent discussing the paranormal items of the day, you also devote a healthy portion to debunking the debunkers, as it were, and trying to break down specifically, just what exactly it is that makes these people wrong, and how their behavior shows certain common threads which are common and directly opposed to true skepticism.

So, assuming I didn't get any of that wrong, here’s where I object: A core part of your mission is, as stated, to evaluate pseudoskeptical criticism. When the definition of "Evaluate" is "To draw conclusions from examining; to assess," and your definition of "Pseudoskeptical" seems to be "a false skeptic," then I’m left with 2 possibilities for the intent of that part of your name:

1. You mean only to evaluate criticism of the paranormal which is pseudoskeptical in nature.
2. You consider all criticism of the paranormal to be pseudoskeptical in nature.

If 1 is the case, then my original comments stand. How can you selectively evaluate only pseudoskepticism without pre-judging the criticism you choose to evaluate? By necessity, you’d have to ignore all the support for the arguments being used to criticize the paranormal just to select what you want to evaluate. I think it may also be entirely possible, that you're using the word "Evaluate" when you're thinking about "Examine."

If 2 is the case (which I don’t think it is), then I don’t see how you can honestly claim to be a true skeptic. If you don’t understand why I’d feel that way, then I doubt much of anything I say will have much impact on you.

As for name changes, my OP contained some suggestions. Granted, they’re not very sexy, but I couldn’t think of anything better to change the “P” to and still reflect the essence of your mission. Now that I’ve thought about it more, I much prefer changing the “E” to “Examine.” Seems to more accurately reflect what you’re trying to do here.

[ProfWag]

Most excellent points Eternal. I would suggest, if I may, that when Scepcoop ignores your post (and I'm fairly certain he will), that we bump this up from time to time so there are no excuses about him not seeing it.

[Eternally Learning]

Most excellent points Eternal. I would suggest, if I may, that when Scepcoop ignores your post (and I'm fairly certain he will), that we bump this up from time to time so there are no excuses about him not seeing it.

LOL. Since I don't yet have your perspective, I think it'd be jumping the gun for me to start planning like that, but I'll keep it in mind.

[ProfWag]

Most excellent points Eternal. I would suggest, if I may, that when Scepcoop ignores your post (and I'm fairly certain he will), that we bump this up from time to time so there are no excuses about him not seeing it.

LOL. Since I don't yet have your perspective, I think it'd be jumping the gun for me to start planning like that, but I'll keep it in mind.

2 days and counting. Still waiting on a reply from Scepcop...

[ProfWag]

Most excellent points Eternal. I would suggest, if I may, that when Scepcoop ignores your post (and I'm fairly certain he will), that we bump this up from time to time so there are no excuses about him not seeing it.

LOL. Since I don't yet have your perspective, I think it'd be jumping the gun for me to start planning like that, but I'll keep it in mind.

2 days and counting. Still waiting on a reply from Scepcop...

If I may borrow a term from the Scepcop himself, "I rest my case."

[Eternally Learning]

scepcop,

It's been two weeks now. I know you're busy and all, but if you disagree with me, could you just tell me why?