My new video: Why Pseudoskeptics are NOT Real Skeptics

[Scepcop]

My video rant explaining why James Randi, Michael Shermer and CSICOPers are not real skeptics.

[NinjaPuppy]

So how come you didn't put the url to the Forum in text on your video???

[Scepcop]

[Scepcop]

ProfWag, Nostradamus, or anyone else who has a JREF forum account:

Can you do me a favor and post the links to my new video above in the JREF forum? I can't seem to register an account there. They never approve me for some reason.

Here is the exact URL's for you to copy and paste:

Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0aPN3R3vPw

Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_P7G4kcWQBM

Also, post a link to this site if you can.

Thanks,
Winston

[NinjaPuppy]

[Scepcop]

It was just a case where I forgot to add something, so I added it at the end. I should have said goodbye one more time or edited out the first goodbye. lol

[NinjaPuppy]

And this is how we all learn. The more videos you do, the more refined you will get.

[rachelschmink]

I like the relatively calm and listenable tone that you use. But content-wise, it could be improved in a few ways that occurred to me. I only had time / patience for the first half of the first video; it became repetitive.

* As a persuasion piece, it's not strong because you don't give any examples of your claims.
* You make extremely broad and sweeping claims ("zero...", "all...") which are per se difficult to substantiate or defend. Conversely, they're easy to refute; i.e., one need only find one example where this isn't the case to prove you wrong. And really, your statement pretty much can't be true on its face: You don't say exactly who you're talking about, and you don't say exactly what it means to not question "the establishment". You don't say what "the establishment" is. So, for the unconvinced, this isn't very compelling.
* You say that the reason these people aren't true skeptics is because they're not skeptical about certain ideas. Whether or not that's true, I'm not inclined to believe you. Because: their skepticism aimed at other areas ought to still then have merit, but however, you don't address any positive aspects of work they've done.

[ProfWag]

[Indigo Child]

[ProfWag]

[really?]

[Indigo Child]

[Indigo Child]

To illustrate the above point with a example. If you go to a live academic
scientific forum say on neurobiology, but you have not studied neurbiology
yourself to the level of the others, will they accomodate you or will they tell you to get lost?
The same will open if you went to a forum on sociology. If you have not studied sociology
to the level of the other members there, they will tell you to get lost.

Some high school kid who has no education of science beyond high school and a magician
whose claim to fame is doing tricks for children, feel they can go and challenge professional
paranormal scientists and researchers. It's laughable. They have no background in these areas, are certainly
not qualified to the same level, so they end up looking like asses to the professionals. Any other
scientific forum would tell them to get lost.

[Indigo Child]