New! Characteristics of Pseudo-Skeptics vs True Skeptics

[Scepcop]

Another new entry I added to the home page. This one you will want to save and spread around!

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/characteristics.php

Characteristics and Behaviors of Pseudo-Skeptics

Regardless of how they define themselves, a pseudo-skeptic is a pseudo-skeptic if their actions and behaviors fit the characteristics of one. Here are some lists of criteria that define what makes a pseudo-skeptic.

In my treatise introduction, I list these primary differences between the true skeptic vs. the pseudo-skeptic:

True skeptics / open-minded skeptics

* has honest doubt and questions all beliefs, including their own
* seeks the truth, considers it the highest aim
* seeks open inquiry and investigation of both sides
* is nonjudgmental, doesn't jump to rash conclusions
* weighs evidence on all sides
* asks exploratory questions about new things to try to understand them
* acknowledges valid convincing evidence
* possesses solid sharp common sense
* is able to adapt and update their paradigms to new evidence


Pseudo-skeptics / closed-minded skeptics

* automatically dismisses and denies all claims that contradict materialism and orthodoxy
* is not interested in truth, evidence or facts, only in defending orthodoxy and the status quo
* ignores anything that doesn't fit their a priori beliefs and assumptions
* scoffs and ridicules their targets instead of providing solid arguments and giving honest consideration
* has a know-it-all-attitude, never asks questions about things they don't understand, never admits that they don't know something
* insists that everything unknown and unexplained must have a conventional materialistic explanation
* is judgmental and quick to draw conclusions about things they know little or nothing about
* uses semantics and word games with their own rules of logic to try to win arguments
* is unable to adapt and update their paradigms to new evidence


Wikipedia's original entry on pathological skepticism listed these defining behaviors of pseudo-skeptics (before it was botched and changed to an inferior entry):

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.


On my forum, Steve observed these five consistent patterns observable in pseudo-skeptics:

As a skilled observer you will also note that Pseudo-skeptics:

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 argument content


In short, these pseudo-skeptics are materialist fundamentalists and fanatics driven by dogmatic beliefs and views that are unquestionable, which they seek to proselytize to the world, such as:

* The paranormal is impossible and ALWAYS disproven
* Everything unexplained or unknown MUST have a natural materialistic explanation
* If someone makes a paranormal claim, they MUST be wrong
* ONLY natural reductionist explanations are acceptable
* If mainstream science doesn't understand or accept something, then it MUST be false or doesn't exist


Etc. etc.

[jakesteele]

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.



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

[Scepcop]

Excellent, if you have an official list, send it to me or post it here, and I will link it from the home page!

Thanks,
WInston

[Franc28]

I don't know about "true skeptics" (I think the concept of skepticism is pretty silly either way), but I agree on your list of "pseudoskeptical" (i.e. people who call themselves skeptics) traits and indications. That is in general what I have observed as well.

Another thing is, they have little sense of humour (this might be exclusive to JREF people though, not sure). If you poke fun at their ideology, they get mad pretty quickly.

[jakesteele]

I live in Seattle, Wa, and we have an interesting fellow here who has an outstanding web site dealing with everything under the sun pertaining to fringe science in particular, but also paranormal in general.

His name is Bill Beaty and this is the link to the main page: http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird.html

This is a link to the "Skeptic's Section". http://amasci.com/weird/wclose.html

I heartily encourage to check this site out. Bill has gone to great lengths researching all of the material and it is a wealth of information for your average agnostic skeptic that is into fringe science and paranormal stuff.

Enjoy.

[Don]

I think one of the things you need to mention is the PS dependence upon the straw man argument.

For those unfamiliar with this in depth, I'll try to explain.

Suppose an event or experience that is out of the norm. Call it A.
The PS in good faith or with deception produces something that looks like A. Call is SM.
The PS debunks SM.
The PS then falsely equates A with SM.
Since SM is false, A must also be false.

If you think about it, this is like saying that all oranges are sour because you can prove that another fruit, a lemon, is round and grows on trees just like an orange is sour. Therefore, oranges must be sour.

Now, a more practical example.
Woman A wave her hand over a spoon. The spoon bends (what a useless talent that is).
A PS waves his hand over a spoon and it bends.
The PS reveals that what he did was a trick.
Therefore, the PS claims that what A did was also a trick.
However, they missed the step of proving that what PS did was identical to what A did.
PS' action was a straw man. They debunked the straw man and thus "debunked" A. Only they didn't at all.

Actual example.
For three years I served as the editor-in-chief of FATE magazine.
Shortly after I took the post we ran an article on an amazing case of Spontaneous Human Combustion.
We listed possible explanations for all the evidence, but drew no conclusions.
Shortly after the issue was published, I received a letter from two well-known and very public "skeptics."
They wrote that they had debunked this case in an earlier issue and wanted to know why we didn't include their debunking.
I read the issue where they had their debunking.
Did they investigate the case? No.
Did they see any of the evidence? No.
Did they interview anyone about the case? No.
So how did they come up with their debunking?
They talked to each other on the phone about it!
I printed their letter and my response to it in the next issue.
They're both still big names in the debunker community, but they never wrote for FATE again.
Their debunking consisted of setting up a straw man--their made up version--and debunking it, then equating the straw man to what actually to place and saying that since they debunked the straw man, they has also debunked the real case.

No. No. And no.

[ciscop]

i found it quite funny
thanks


and i find it funny
because believers.. sorry i mean.. ¨true skeptics¨
always go and do the jump based on nothing but faith
using words like ¨irrefutable¨ and thus creating a DOGMA
THEY STOP ASKING QUESTIONS when they say ¨is irrefutable!¨

seems to me
like true skeptics just want to believe
so they dismiss evidence and stay with their beliefs

personally
i just think believers
are a little bit naive of how the world works
and is ok to ask questions
but is better if you ask questions WITH KNOWLEDGE about the subject
(to know how uri geller does his tricks is better if you know magic and mentalism)

ignore this
i guess on this forum
i am a PS full of BS

[quantumparanormal]

[quantumparanormal]

[ProfWag]

[quantumparanormal]

[ProfWag]

[quantumparanormal]

[ProfWag]

Then, of course, there is this study: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?recor ... 8&page=601
I've posted it before, but I don't think you were on the board at that time. It's the study by the National Academy of Sciences that essentially says that in years of research, there is nothing that has been shown to suggest that there is any need for further research into the paranormal.

[quantumparanormal]