How "skepticism" been hijacked to mean its opposite

[Ellie]

If that had been all you had written I would indeed have had no problem with it. I would point out that you do not need to visit these groups to investigate whether this is can be the case or not. Would you not be interested in finding that out? As for the JREF thing, well if you read and understand my original post it would be clear that this is not something that someone else can just tell them not to do. (To clear it up, I was not susceptible to this as I had joined out of scientific interest rather than anything else. My friends who had joined for other trauma related issues were). It is a psychological tendency, and one which is co-exploited within groups.

And the false dichotomy thing is a cop-out i'm afraid ;P

[Arouet]

[Ellie]

Well yes. We appear to be agreeing. Hadn't you noticed?

Seriously though, I very rarely see people questioning (or the demonising of) sceptics in actual fact. So it's interesting that it does happen and i've somehow missed it. I had to search hard to even find this site, and one of the reasons I did was to see if anyone else had noticed this phenomenon. Offering a suggestion which you thought might help was a nice thought, so genuinely thank you for that. I'm afraid it's something that people have to sort out for themselves though - it's not that these groups have some sort of evil master which is controlling the members like puppets (apologies if it is somehow possible to get that from what I said). Like I said, it's a co-dependancy thing and it's up to an individual person to decide when they want out (like alcoholism etc), and that takes the courage of self-awareness, something which unfortunately appears to diminish in members over time.

[Arouet]

[ProfWag]

[Ellie]

I'm diggin' you guys too

As far as i'm aware, scepticism involves making your own mind up about things, but doing it honestly and with integrity and hard work/research. If someone shows you something which genuinely affects the dataset you have used to assess the validity of something, then you must amalgamate that new data with what you have already, and if you are logical, your findings (opinions) will alter appropriately. Dead simple. If you do not have enough data on a subject then you must remain open to possibility until such a time that you have researched it to the satisfaction of your personal (and sometimes professional) integrity. Even then, always be prepared to accept new data.

Some of the ways in which I have seen some people claiming to be 'Skeptical' but failing miserably follow:
1. Not exercising personal or professional honesty (not treating all data fairly on it's own merits).
2. Not wanting to do hard work/research.
3. Expressing a strong opinion about something which they have not themselves sufficiently researched, and which cannot be altered through discussion, whilst not accepting any other opinion as valid.

I don't like the idea of fixing people into groups and calling them 'believers', 'skeptics', 'pseudoskeptics' etc. But yeah, either your reasoning stands up or it doesn't. An inability to change if it doesn't is a worry.

[Arouet]

[Arouet]

[Ellie]

Yup

However, there is a tendency amongst some to rely on the work of others as long as it confirms their preconceived ideas. The trouble is that this 'scientific consensus' that gets talked about is not enough - well for me at any rate. As a scientist I am only too aware of how drastically different data can be produced for various reasons. If the majority of scientists believe something that does not mean they are right. What is published more often is not automatically right by virtue of that. I would always like to see if there are any alternatives or holes before starting to assess something. And if possible, check the PRIMARY data rather than other's interpretations of it. Essentially, your last sentence was what I was saying really. I do not always consider what the majority of papers say to be sufficient data.

[ProfWag]

[Ellie]

Nice one pass us a wee dram then? Mines a Laphroig

[ProfWag]

[really?]

[really?]

[Ellie]

Yes indeed Thanks

EDIT: Oh and the debunkingskeptics link was the first thing I found and how I ended up here. However, I don't really believe in 'debunking' people as such. The problems i've found are not a matter of using logical argument or evidence to show someone the error in their reasoning, because that was never the most important factor for them anyway. (Speaking of the 'Skeptics' I have had close experience with here). It's also not about being right, or making someone else back down. It's about looking at the traumatic experiences and various coping mechanisms that cause people to act in this way, and if possible helping people to confront that and deal with it, both for their sake, and for the sake of science (some fairly high profile 'scientists' have this limiting problem). If someone uses this as a coping mechanism, putting that in danger in any way, by questioning it, or presenting them with a dichotomy, will result in them feeling threatened and they will merely entrench further.

But yeah, good site