Praises of SCEPCOP by Reputable Authors and Figures
"Pseudo-skepticism, by promoting views of doubtful validity, can seriously distort the scientific enterprise. It is good that an organisation such as SCEPCOP exists that can bring to light manifest flaws in the pseudo-skeptical position."
I think your SCEPCOP project is excellent! Very much needed...
True skepticism is a courageous thing, requiring openness and honesty on the skeptic's part to question the truth of everything he or she thinks they know…not just questioning the things they don't like…. Pseudo-skepticism is common, true skepticism is rare."
"Dear Winston Wu.
Just thinking this morning - there are so few of us scientifically trained parapsychologists, trying to work on such an important topic, but often forced to waste lots of time and energy dealing with pseudo-skeptics. So what a great service SCEPCOP and any similar sites can be to keep revealing the faulty reasoning, lying, etc., that the Church of Materialism's Inquisition tries to pass off as reasonable scientific criticism. Indeed you might be able to up the level of genuine skepticism - which is always helpful - by establishing a climate where pseudo-skeptical arguments are always going to be subjected to public, logical scrutiny, so they have to get their act together!
"For years, dogmatic skeptics have portrayed themselves as defenders of science and reason, and have bullied journalists into accepting their claims. They have pretended to speak on behalf of the mainstream science. SCEPCOP is doing a great job in helping to expose these pretensions, and in revealing how the claims of militant skeptics are often unscientific and unreasonable, as well as being arrogant and ignorant."
"Winston Wu has done a comprehensive job of applying an antidote to the intellectual poison that mainstream skeptics apply to the world's body of scientific knowledge. If only more people were aware of how sordid the skeptic tactics can be. If you're not aware of this issue, please use Winston's site to expand your own base of knowledge."
Wow! Love the website ! Very smart, creative, attractive, engaging, informative. You get my drift."
"Genuine skepticism is indispensable to the progress of science, but nothing retards scientific progress like the blind, stubborn, repetitive naysaying of the pseudo-skeptics. In the arc of history, the greatest ideas have often come from the margins of the intellectual world, often from renegade thinkers. Pseudo-skepticism typically rejects these developments not through insight, but through prejudice and bigotry. Let us applaud genuine skepticism, and let us be skeptics ourselves; but let us stand firm against pseudo-skepticism and expose it for what it is: a renunciation of creativity, reason, and human progress. SCEPCOP is a valuable step in this direction."
"SCEPCOP provides a much needed balance to the ideological crusade of pseudo-skeptical organizations such as CSICOP (now just CSI). True skepticism involves the suspension of belief, not the refusal of belief. CSI/CSICOP has its roots in the American Humanist Association, with its anti-religious, anti-superstitious agenda. Secular Humanism, in turn, has its roots in the Enlightenment of 18th century Europe, and was the ideological aftermath of the Scientific Revolution – essentially a reaction to the centuries of religious warfare, the Inquisition, and the witch hunts which dismayed and sickened so many thinking people.
However, Western Civilization has outgrown these horrors, and modern science has progressed far beyond the materialism and determinism that were implied by the classical physics of the 17th through 19th centuries. Science has a self-correcting mechanism at its very core – namely, the requirement that scientific theories must be testable – and so there is no need for self-appointed vigilante organizations such as CSI/CSICOP to guard the gates. Congratulations to SCEPCOP for helping to defend a legitimate branch of scientific research from illegitimate criticism."
It is no secret that many scientists are becoming disenchanted with skeptics groups and the skeptical paradigm in general. Skeptics groups have been losing membership, and some institutions now take a dim view of membership in groups like CSICOP, the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal.
This is because of a growing concern that skeptics groups and publications are interfering with the progress of science by attempting to compel the rejection of evidence that does not fit existing models of reality. Institutionalized skepticism is beginning to appear more like a religious practice, far removed from the ideals of scientific objectivity which inspired founders such as Dr. Carl Sagan.
Winston Wu has now written an essay that brilliantly and decisively rebuts the general skeptical arguments against the paranormal. This is among the best essays ever written on this subject, and deserves extensive study. The essay carefully moves through the entire skeptical lexicon of arguments, rebutting each in turn.
As it reveals the fallacy in each argument, it builds a crucial case against the whole skeptical approach to reality, suggesting that it is, essentially, a form of superstition that has the effect of filtering out data if it cannot be explained by accepted scientific theory.
The essay suggests that a clear-eyed view of evidence is essential, and that it is lacking both among believers and skeptics. Essentially, Mr. Wu is asserting that the evidence is undigested by science as a result of its being too uncritically embraced by believers and rejected by skeptics.
Mr. Wu identifies a difference between healthy skepticism and the cynicism of blanket rejection of evidence."
A brilliant essay by researcher Winston Wu, rebutting skeptical arguments against the paranormal, reflects a growing awareness among members of the scientific community that there is something more occurring with the human experience than was once thought.
Columnist and radio personality Whitley Strieber recently noted that Wu's work "deserves extensive study" because it "carefully moves through the entire skeptical lexicon of arguments, rebutting each in turn."
The Wu essay, Strieber writes, expresses "a growing concern that the present skeptical leadership is drifting into the fallacy of rejecting all evidence that is not explained by current scientific models." He said this is "particularly worrisome now that a radical new model of reality appears to be emerging."
This is the stuff the old science fiction writers once dreamed.
Rather than being objective in their analysis of the data surrounding paranormal events, the skeptics seem to have formed "a superstition that has the effect of filtering out data if it cannot be explained by accepted scientific theory," Strieber said.
He suggests that the skeptical paradigm has gone so far as to assume the appearance of a religion, and fails to conform to the ideals of scientific objectivity.
How refreshing it is to find writers like Winston Wu (whose paper is offered on the World Wide Web rather than the controlled print media) receiving this kind of recognition and praise for their work."