SCEPCOP Forum

Re: Bunk Science; debunking the debunkers!!

2009-06-02T08:37:10+08:00

Hi Jake,
Excellent. You're the kind of quality person with ideas I was hoping to attract with this site!

Writing a book would be a good idea. But to make it good requires lots of time, research, stats, editing, revision, etc. The good thing about it is that there are hardly any books at all written about pseudo-skeptics. I only know of Parapsychology and the Skeptics by Chris Carter, and Dean Radin talks about them in his books too. So there would be very little competition for such a book, while a market does exist for it.

Look how the skeptics reacted when I announced this site on one of their blogs. They reacted like a pack of howling dogs.

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2008 ... a63d60970c\

BTW, I have trouble registering at JREF. Can you mention this site on their forums there, just to let them know that it exists?

I'm all open to ideas. If you have any articles, you can send them to me and I will host them here, if they are good. Or you can start your own site or blog and I'll link it there.

The psychology of pseudo-skeptics is a good one. After all, actions speak louder than words and if what you describe about their psychology is backed up by their behavior, then you've nailed them.

Have you seen this video about their psychology, by a man named Steve? It is very good and describes them well. He talks about them being miserable, which is true for Randi and Dawkins. They definitely do not behave like happy men at all, not even among their supporters.

Regards,
Winston

Statistics: Posted by Scepcop — 02 Jun 2009, 08:37

Re: Bunk Science; debunking the debunkers!!

2009-06-01T11:53:23+08:00

Hey, Vinstona:

Thanks for the welcome aboard post, I really appreciate a safe haven after being pounded on and rat packed over at JREF. Also, I would add to the list the Straight Dope site; same old same old.

Anyway, I do have some ideas about how to handle the dreaded CSIOPtics (PC way to say 'debunker'). I have been complying ideas and data and was thinking about writing a book about this. The area I think is most powerful to use on them is good old psychology. I am complying a list of what I call "psych-fallacies" that deal specifically with their mindsets. Things like selective perception, cognitive closure, contempt prior to investigation, type of reality map, black-and-white, all-or-nothing thinking, illusory superiority, diminish, minimize or deny, etc.

What I've just listed go directly to their emotional make up. They hate that shit with a passion because that is their Achilles Heel. They don't know how to respond to it because they spend no time studying it because their patron saint, Randi, considers it bunk. Every time I do battle I keep asking them why there is no psychology forum but, of course, they won't even answer so I just keep spamming the same question over and over and have almost been kicked off for doing it. But it does emphatically drive my point home.

So, anyhoo, I want you to know that I will help you expand this wonderful site in any way I can. I am semi-retired and have a lot of time on my hands. If you need an area researched, or articles written I would be happy to oblige. Feel free to contact me any time and we can chat.

Jake Steele

Statistics: Posted by jakesteele — 01 Jun 2009, 11:53

Re: Bunk Science; debunking the debunkers!!

2009-05-31T05:50:04+08:00

Hi Jake Steele,
Welcome to the forum! Glad you found it. Where did you find out about this site from? It just got started and so it's small for the moment. But I think it's an innovative concept and name.

The website skepticalinvestigations.org has already done a good job exposing the pseudo-skeptics. Maybe we should try to combine forces with them. They would be a good co-site with this one.

I gave up on posting on the JREF or Skeptics Guide to the Universe forums long ago. Occasionally I'll post there for laughs, but that's it. All they do is ridicule you. They are definitely not truth seekers who examine evidence impartially. They exist solely to debunk what they don't like. And when you post on their forum, a ton of them start making dumb remarks that don't mean anything, just to sneer you. It's kind of sick. Occasionally, they'll try to address your argument, unless they can't debunk it, in which case they will dismiss it, ridicule it, or raise the bar.

Do you have any blogs or websites to share?

Feel free if you have any ideas about where to take this site.

For now, I am trying to grow this little forum at least.

Best Regards,
Vinstonas

Statistics: Posted by Scepcop — 31 May 2009, 05:50

Bunk Science; debunking the debunkers!!

2009-05-30T09:18:08+08:00

Hi, everyone, I'm Jake Steele and I am so happy to finally find a website like this. I got frustrated and kept looking and looking until finally, I thought that I would have to start one myself.

I consider myself to be a true skeptic in the way the word 'skeptic' it is intended to be used. I always strive to be as objective and impartial as I can possibly can, no matter what the issue is. I take a stance of saying, "The only thing I know for sure is that I don't know anything for sure." I try to weigh and assess all the info provided to seek the truth, if it can be found. Usually, it is somewhere in the middle, but not always.

I go to JREF and Straight Dope sites and have gotten into some vicious arguments that basically devolve in to name calling and insults. Now, of course, I am the one doing all the ad hominem attacks, and, of course, they aren't doing it. I ask them why and they say that it's the truth so, therefore, it is not an ad hominem. It seems that no matter what you say they will pull the fallacy card faster than Jesse Jackson can pull the race card. I also get 'rat packed' so that I end up trying to reply to 4 to 5 and even sometimes up to 10.

I look forward to joining you in this grand endeavor and I hope it gets bigger and bigger.

Jake Steele

Statistics: Posted by jakesteele — 30 May 2009, 09:18