Is it only me, or are there other people who find that a certaint percentage of Skeptics are pseudo-Skeptics?
Very often when they do a rubutal or a critique of what they call
" crappot theories" or "Pseudo science" they often use techniques which isn't better than intellectual fascism.

They very often attack people who don't follow their view and accuse them of relying on very poor scientific evidence, or of not being a true scientist.
Yet they do the same thing!

This post is probably going to create some heated debate,
but I really needed to get this off of my chest.

P.S. If there are any spelling mistakes than please forgive
me, as haven't writed in English for ages.

It is an inevitable opposition. The Skeptics do their job and may help to bring those theories/facts forward which actually do have some real substance.
When they go personal and/or rude, vulgar etc. (see forum rules), - it is time to ban them. Report the post to the moderator and wait for the outcome.
The other thing that some of the 'non-skeptics' don't do much better either. So who actually provokes whom is sometimes pretty hard to see.

I think those deserve to stay in the discussion who can withstand opposing arguments without goin' nuts when someone does not have the same opinion they do.

I not only mean, people on these forums but certaint skeptics
in general. For example the sceptic's dictionary. I sometimes
think I am reading Bernard Gui's inquisitor's manual on how to pursue heretics than instead a real scientific OPEN-MINDED website which is free from Dogmatism.

How do you define, "pseudo-skeptic?" More accurately, how do you qualify one since the definition is clear: a "fake skeptic?"

Is a fake skeptic one that pretends to be skeptical but is really a believer in disguise? If so, a believer in what, specifically? And is belief the problem for skepticism or is it belief without the wisdom of evidence?

I think your point is a good one and there are those that profess to be skeptical who demonstrate they can be as dogmatic and fanatical as those they consider "woo-woo's (http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/dictionary/woo_woo/)," and I freely admit to being guilty of this from time to time. But perhaps this sort of behavior is simply out of frustration. Discussions with those that believe in the fantastical; the mystical; the supernatural; the paranormal; etc. become quite circular. The believer makes a claim, the skeptic challenges it with a demand for evidence, the believer claims the evidence "is all around you; is common sense; is not apparent to the non-believer; etc."

But when the dust is settled, the result is the same. We are left with a claim for the fantastic without a shred of testable or reproducible evidence. Even if the challenges to the claims of the fantastic are kept to an intellectual level and emotional appeal avoided, the response from the believer crowd is often, you can't truly be skeptical without an "open mind." Skeptics get accused of "refusing to think out of the box."

Fair criticisms in some cases. But there are so many more in which "out of the box" thought processes are worthless because they violate rules of scientific method or the hypothetico-deductive process (a part of the sci-method). And one can only be so open-minded before reality has to be considered. If the hypothesis isn't testable or the results reproducible, its not a valid hypothesis. You can call it speculation, fantasy, wishful thinking, etc., but you cannot call it an hypothesis. You certainly cannot call it a valid explanation. And very often, the "woo-woo" will call it a fact.

I realize the term "woo-woo" is perceived as a pejorative, but a label is necessary to differentiate. Mystery-monger and Significance-junkie is often appropriate, but difficult to type. "Believer" is too subjective. I believe in many things, but few that aren't supported by some sort of evidence or at least potentially falsifiable (I believe your mother was/is a female -an a priori assumption, but one that can be tested).

I think the real root of the complaint with skeptics is that they are frustrating to the "woo-woo" (again, apologies to those that are offended by the term... I'm willing to accept another label if one should be suggested that is equally discriptive). Beyond the term "woo-woo," much of what the skeptic says with regard to their beliefs is considered to be ad hominem in nature. I frequently use the word cult when discussing religions past & present, even with regard to Christianity. This offends them. I'm simply being accurate. Likewise, there are many attitudes and conventions that skeptics use that offend those that believe in the existence of aliens who abduct hapless Earthlings in the middle of the night; those that think others speak to the dead; those that believe a man can bend a spoon with his mind; etc.

All of these notions are challenged and, indeed, the claimants and, by extension, their proponents are challenged as well. These extraordinary claims are sometimes ridiculed and spoken of with derision, and nearly always challenged to be demonstrated with evidence.

Personally, I deride these claims because I think they're intellectually unhealthy. Instead of thinking critically, people are being encouraged to accept the words of others on blind faith. Very often, there's monetary exchange involved and someone gets conned out of a few (or many) dollars, be it through tithing, book sales, seminars, etc There is a flourishing industry that thrives on the wierd; the paranormal; the mystical; etc.

Finally, a person who claims to have some supernatural gift (ESP, telekinesis, remote viewing etc.) but is not able to produce evidence of this claim is, simply put, a liar. And its this assertion that some skeptics will imply without being direct, but I say it quite blountly. Some may believe they have some special abilty -truly believe it- but a lie it is, whether it be to the world, themselves, or both. Unless they can provide the evidence.

Finally, a person who claims to have some supernatural gift (ESP, telekinesis, remote viewing etc.) but is not able to produce evidence of this claim is, simply put, a liar. And its this assertion that some skeptics will imply without being direct, but I say it quite blountly. Some may believe they have some special abilty -truly believe it- but a lie it is, whether it be to the world, themselves, or both. Unless they can provide the evidence.

And here in "lies" the problem.

Experiences are not necessarilly repeatable or predictable, often experiences can be a once off only, that leaves the experiencer confused and bewildered.
In the process of seeking answers to their questions about that once off experience they are called a liar.
To consider a person to be lying with out evidence is also uneccessarilly provocative.

I am not saying that to consider a persons testimony as unprovable is incorrect however to go to the extreme and claim a person is lying is.
I think most persons claiming extraordinary experiences certainly need to be grounded sometimes in what is considered as provability, as often they forget that others can not share their enthuisiasm for that experience, to entertain it requires some form of sharable evidence. But to claim that the person is lying suggest a deliberate fraud and is insulting to most persons especially when they feel they have had a "real" experience.
I have had many so called psy experiences and ask whether you would consider me to be a liar for saying so?

How do you define, "pseudo-skeptic?" More accurately, how do you qualify one since the definition is clear: a "fake skeptic?"

Is a fake skeptic one that pretends to be skeptical but is really a believer in disguise? If so, a believer in what, specifically? And is belief the problem for skepticism or is it belief without the wisdom of evidence?

I see a true skeptic as one who is completly neutral, free of
belief, may it be Atheistic, religious,or spiritual. He takes
a look at both sides of the argument, how strange they might seem.

As for pseudo-skepticism, for me,it is a form of religious dogmatism. People who adhere to it think that they are always right. And anyone even suggesting the contrary is
mercylessly attacked verbally. And if proof is presented before them of someting that is contrary to their belief,
it simply must be a flawed one.

Forgeting that, what they see as convational scientist are not free of mistakes either.

I see a true skeptic as one who is completly neutral, free of
belief, may it be Atheistic, religious,or spiritual. He takes
a look at both sides of the argument, how strange they might seem.

As for pseudo-skepticism, for me,it is a form of religious dogmatism. People who adhere to it think that they are always right. And anyone even suggesting the contrary is
mercylessly attacked verbally. And if proof is presented before them of someting that is contrary to their belief,
it simply must be a flawed one.

Forgeting that, what they see as convational scientist are not free of mistakes either.

I would agree with most of that, especially the final sentence. As a professional scientist, I've made many mistakes and have seen others do likewise.

There are many things, however, that are outright frauds right on the surface. Things that violate very basic scientific principles. So-called "breakthrough discoveries" like perpetual motion, over-unity (free) energy and others. They deserve to be ridiculed.

What would you say to someone who claimed to have seen water freely flowing uphill without some sort of assistance? And other equally impossible things? What about people who make absurd claims and when asked for evidence try to shove that responsibility on the one questioning them?

Would you be so kind as to show us some examples, two or three perhaps, of what you are talking about? And please don't bother with religion because that's entirely a matter of opinion. Those things cannot be proven one way or the other.

Is it only me, or are there other people who find that a certaint percentage of Skeptics are pseudo-Skeptics?
Very often when they do a rubutal or a critique of what they call
" crappot theories" or "Pseudo science" they often use techniques which isn't better than intellectual fascism.

They very often attack people who don't follow their view and accuse them of relying on very poor scientific evidence, or of not being a true scientist.
Yet they do the same thing!

This post is probably going to create some heated debate,
but I really needed to get this off of my chest.

P.S. If there are any spelling mistakes than please forgive
me, as haven't writed in English for ages.
Hi Mani, and Welcome.....i really agree with you....frst of, check this out:
'warning psychics' http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/warningtopsychics.htm
it was reading this tother day i was inspired o not even call te so-called 'skeptics' here pseudoskeptics, but rather MATERIALISTS. for they are fundamentalists for materialism. they CLAIM to be open for what you say, but poo poo any attempts to seriously question reality. thata strong indicator.

now, dont get me wrong. i a not saying thatALL phenonema tey dont agree wit is true. i personally have also seen charlatans exposed. one does have to be careful not to be gullible. many people will happiliy part you from your money wit claims they're psychic or whatever, BUT terer are also genuine people who hve had very amazing experiences, and many are left feeling very vulnerable. So te attitude of te materialists to label such people as liars, fanatasists, woo woos, mentally ill, really fukin annoys me. it is condesending, patronizing, and completely unintelligent, AND UNscientific!

So tere are othe ways to expose te materilaists--to tey wont see tis. for example, for all ther smug poistion, they are not even aware--many of tem, of te struggle IN science to understand what consciusness IS. see 'the Hard Problem' (David Chalmers) and commensurae with tat problem is the 'mind/body problem and/or 'brain/mind problem'--ie., HOW can they label people who have had experiences which--as in abduction cases seems to somhow include consciousness and 'solid' matter/energy in a comingling way--liars, mad etc...when tey temSELVES dont know teir own consciousness? a bit like a blindman trying to ride a bike

also hugely ironically, the materilaistis for all teir worship of materialist science mostly ar not aware of te mental illness myth. ie., how materialistic science has created the utter scm of labeling people wit biological dsieases they yterm mental illness when tere is absolutely NO PROOF/EVIDENCE for teir so-called diagnoses!!!

so do you see? they are--the materilists--really at a loss. tey dont even know temselves OR thewir science yet pontificate to the rest of us. it is like a Ship of Fools.

I have had many so called psy experiences and ask whether you would consider me to be a liar for saying so?

If you have yourself convinced that these experiences are some sort of "psi" experiences and not coincidences, etc., then yes. You would be lying to yourself. But that is how magical-thinking works with humanity. We lie to ourselves about a correlation to which we apply a spurious causation.

Even I'm guilty of this from time to time. Not as much now as earlier in my life, but magical-thinking is a natural state of mind for H. sapiens.

I would agree with most of that, especially the final sentence. As a professional scientist, I've made many mistakes and have seen others do likewise.

There are many things, however, that are outright frauds right on the surface. Things that violate very basic scientific principles. So-called "breakthrough discoveries" like perpetual motion, over-unity (free) energy and others. They deserve to be ridiculed.

What would you say to someone who claimed to have seen water freely flowing uphill without some sort of assistance? And other equally impossible things? What about people who make absurd claims and when asked for evidence try to shove that responsibility on the one questioning them?

Would you be so kind as to show us some examples, two or three perhaps, of what you are talking about? And please don't bother with religion because that's entirely a matter of opinion. Those things cannot be proven one way or the other.


First, I totally agree with you that there are frauds and that
they ruin lives. For example, Scientology. Yet they are
always more criticized than other cases which is also pseudo-science. The chemical imbalance theory is one:

http://healthyskepticism.org/library/ref.php?id=3161

Some people are even wondering if we need a brain:

http://www.alternativescience.com/no_brainer.htm

Comming back on my previous post about PSEUDO skeptics
ridiculing people who present something that contradicts them; there are many instances that they criticise tests,
yet having no qualification in that certaint area to do so.

Thats the case with Michael Shermer. In 11/2001 he wrote in "Baloney Detection" :

" The biggest problem with the cold fusion debacle, for instance, was not that Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischman were wrong. It was that they announced their spectacular discovery at a press conference before other laboratories verified it. Worse, when cold fusion was not replicated, they continued to cling to their claim. Outside verification is crucial to good science. "

Forgeting that he is primaly a psychologist with limmited knowledge to speak in that area. True Scientists having
studied cold fusion wrote 2002 in Thermal and Nuclear Aspects of the Pd/D2O System :

"We do not know if Cold Fusion will be the answer to future energy needs, but we do know the existence of Cold Fusion phenomenon through repeated observations by scientists throughout the world. It is time that this phenomenon be investigated so that we can reap whatever benefits accrue from additional scientific understanding. It is time for government funding organizations to invest in this research."

If you think that I missed anything out you said , make a comment,
or a correction, please let me known. ;)

And anyone even suggesting the contrary is mercylessly attacked verbally.

meet me
a woo woo
and i mercilessly attack
as you shall see
very soon

:D

I forgot to mention the source of my information about
Michael Kermer, Cold fusion. It is called some notes on Skepticism. Here is the link: http://www.suppressedscience.net/skepticism.html

If you have yourself convinced that these experiences are some sort of "psi" experiences and not coincidences, etc., then yes. You would be lying to yourself. But that is how magical-thinking works with humanity. We lie to ourselves about a correlation to which we apply a spurious causation.

Even I'm guilty of this from time to time. Not as much now as earlier in my life, but magical-thinking is a natural state of mind for H. sapiens.

What you are guilty of is being a fool.

How can you tell someone that recounts a personal discovery to you that they are wrong? You have no idea what they can do. You never met them except on the internet. You are not omniscient. You would do yourself a favor to open your mind and to be less condescending with people. They will think you are smarter if you stop making foolish declarations like the one above.

Skinwalker uses the term 'magical thinking' quite a bit. this reminds me of its use by sucah dualists as Plato. he also wa against magical thinking, and art in general. reason being-- as told in his Republic--tat artists might create new myths which would confilct wit his 'philsopher-kings' one!.....ie., his fascist agenda. so out went anceint Greek mytyology and art and magical poetry etc

tis is the worshippers of 'LOGOS' worrying about the creeping inevitable tides of CHAOS.....which errrrr BIRTHS Logos (^)

tis is the worshippers of 'LOGOS' worrying about the creeping inevitable tides of CHAOS.....which errrrr BIRTHS Logos (^)

You meaning a play on the line "The sleep of reason breeds monsters" - Francisco de Goya?

You meaning a play on the line "The sleep of reason breeds monsters" - Francisco de Goya?
Goya is one of my favourite artists
i see what you are getting at with your INTERPRETATION of that art piece, but that is what it is--your particular interpretation. it DOESN't mean that Goya was backin up you'll materialists' argument/...hehe

MY interpretation is. that itis NOT reason that is being accused ...either by me or Goya. I AM using reason. i couodn't type, articulate, etc etc unless i aslo was using reason like yourselves. Bt my reason sees vast gaps in your reasoing even though that you imply people such as me CAN@T reason as good as you.......!

so that picture is sayig to me tis. that when you cling to 'rationality'--that just beneath the surface lies all the repressed material waiting to come out in the 'distorted' form of 'monsters'

let me give you an excellent--in my opinion. ......years ago, in the very early 1970s, in London, there had been an underground LSD enterprise going on, organized and rund by people with exceptional expertize...ie., the LSD was very good, and kosher

Then comes the bust. really hillarious tale. we have these cops buting the premises, yes? inside th air becomes full of LSD chemicals as the rough-shod cops get to work......hereit is: many of tem began freaking out...seeing monsters...hhahaa. tis is a true story

so moral: the DEEP will NOT go away. it is the essence of your beiong nd is not belonging to you but is interelated throughout Nature and universe.....IFyou deny it it's still here. if you explain i away ditto.......but beware. it can produce monsters for tose who deny it too strongly, and will create evil for those who project their cut-off'reason' onto the world!!!

duendy, this might be off topic but you seem to have made quite
a lot of posts, are you a old member?

Goya is one of my favourite artists
i see what you are getting at with your INTERPRETATION of that art piece, but that is what it is--your particular interpretation. it DOESN't mean that Goya was backin up you'll materialists' argument/...hehe...

:) ... em, d? Just for the record, not that I believe for one second it'll make the slightest little bit of difference, but actually I was merely just enquiring as to your use of the line "tis is the worshippers of 'LOGOS' worrying about the creeping inevitable tides of CHAOS.....which errrrr BIRTHS Logos (^) " being some sort of play on Goya's The Sleep of Reason...

Haven't actually either made nor posited any interpretation on either, merely asked a simple question. That was actually all. Nothing more than, nothing less.

By your continuous use of the term Materialist I gather you've had some form of epiphany regarding your views of certain aspects of science - although I'm deeply besides myself with joy with your progress, could I ask whether it would be possible at all of finding some way of refraining, or else at the very least curbing, whatever immediate instinct it is that possesses you currently to label everyone who doesn't on the surface immediately appear to share your views under these rhetorical claptrap terms you come up with at all?

It would be awfully nice if you could find some way of compromising possibly, in this regard - after all, the continual thrust of the mainstay of all your arguments does tend to stem from some kind of innate abhorrence of the way society deals with people in terms of prescriptive labelling only there by paying scant regard for the nature of the actual person underneath the label - a view point many, many people herein would both echo and share wholeheartedly were they not prone to find themselves ubiquitously tarred and feathered under these ubiquitous labels you continually insist on placing others under.

Herein but forms one pristine example - you immediately presume a response where in fact non has been given and proceed to thereafter inform the poster of what you interpret their answer to be and their motives for asking the question...

In short, you are acting in no way any better than those labels you presume to be being applied by everyone else - if you read, often times you will find that they are not.

If anyone remains guilty of the crime of pigeon-holing people - it's you.

It was just a simple question d - do you want to try cutting anyone a break anytime soon?

duendy, this might be off topic but you seem to have made quite
a lot of posts, are you a old member?
some are in double figures. you are still foetus stage....hehe

sory mr A when i read things, posts included i try not to just read superficialy but am also trying to see other stuff that maybe even poster isn't aware of. same wit painting you know. it is true that many pinters may not even realize what their owrk is suggesting to others on different levels

now, mr A, dont recall you asking ny of the others here to refrain from uing such ....harldy courteous terms when referring to people who claim to have had 'non-ordiinary' experiences--like errr WHACKOS< LIARS< MENTALLY ILL< WOO WOOS....all rather insulting , no?

now MY response is not of tat blind prejudice at all. i was clear why i have begin calling the so-called self-proclaimed skeptics here materialists. it was fter reading 'warning to psychics' by Victor Zammit. it made perfect sense, and is not meant to be insulting like say WHACKO is ....it is my showing you where you surieites derive from. ie., from your adherence to materialistic science. is this not so for you?......do you wholly believe in materialistic science?? if not, what do you mean?please explain

What you are guilty of is being a fool.

How can you tell someone that recounts a personal discovery to you that they are wrong? You have no idea what they can do. You never met them except on the internet.

I can know much about what they can and cannot do. Mammalian physiology is well understood, and H. sapiens have not demonstrated any of the abilities people claim they have. Moreover, there is no evolutionary example of these abilities in either extant or extinct species that demonstrates that such abilities are an evolutionary advantage or that they have evolutionary origins.

So, I can say quite confidently that when someone claims to have the ability to bend a spoon with his mind, he is lying. Either to himself or others.

Now, should you show me the testable evidence of this ability (or others) that can be confidently reproduced, I would be willing to revise my position.

Comming back on my previous post about PSEUDO skeptics
ridiculing people who present something that contradicts them; there are many instances that they criticise tests,
yet having no qualification in that certaint area to do so.

Thats the case with Michael Shermer. In 11/2001 he wrote in "Baloney Detection" :

" The biggest problem with the cold fusion debacle, for instance, was not that Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischman were wrong. It was that they announced their spectacular discovery at a press conference before other laboratories verified it. Worse, when cold fusion was not replicated, they continued to cling to their claim. Outside verification is crucial to good science. "

Forgeting that he is primaly a psychologist with limmited knowledge to speak in that area.

Why does being educated as a psychologist automatically imply that one is ignorant in other areas? Perhaps you should read Parks' Voodoo Science, in which he levels some very specific criticisms against Cold Fusion. Criticisms which are coming from a physicist.

We hear often these days from cold fusion believers about the great progress that has been made in cold fusion. We will hear it again on April 30, at the APS meeting. This week, WN received a long report from the Naval Research Laboratory. It was dated March 26, 2001, just three days after the anniversary of the 1989 cold fusion press conference in Salt Lake City. The report was about a Pons and Fleischmann kind of experiment: an "open" electrolysis study of excess heat in the electrolysis of heavy water, using a Pd-B alloy cathode. One of the authors is none other than Martin Fleischmann. How appropriate. Twelve years ago at this time, the news was about the unreliability of closed calorimetry experiments. Twelve years later, cold fusion research is still struggling with the same point. Progress?
http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN01/wn042001.html

It would seem that Michael Shermer is uniquely qualified to speak to us about pseudoscience and the power of belief among people. The question of the paranormal and the pseudoscientific is often one of psychology. So, again, you've failed to demonstrate any fake skepticism. Indeed, I've yet to see you qualify in your own words what genuine skepticism is.

Please, properly delineate the two so that a discussion may indeed ensue.

now, mr A, dont recall you asking ny of the others here to refrain from uing such ....harldy courteous terms when referring to people who claim to have had 'non-ordiinary' experiences--like errr WHACKOS< LIARS< MENTALLY ILL< WOO WOOS....all rather insulting , no?

Firstly, nothing to apologise for, but always deeply appreciated when offered nevertheless. Thank you.

Now with regard to the above - I assure you, should anyone ever demonstrate the misfortune of referring to myself, personally, in any of the above terms they'll be ruing the day they ever clapped eyes on me before sundown in no short order and thanking me for putting them straight.

The singular point is, no one ever does.

I do, on the otherhand, routinely face the charge of Materialist, Debunker, Pseudo-Skeptic... whatever the duce that particular piece of rhetorical nonsense is supposed to mean - based largely on the fact I'm capable of writing at length in what may appear, to a person of a non-academic background, to be "scholarly tones".

It's an affectation I adopt purely for my own amusement. Many board members here, actually being from an actual academic background such as myself, recognise it as the send-up it most usually is. Others don't.

The truth of the matter though remains largely far more prosaic - truth be told, the actual reason I write to the general length I do is seriously because I often find I don't actually know what my actual answer is going to be until I've had occasion to formulate it in writing. Until its down "on paper" as it were, I honestly don't know what it is I'm going to say.

I tend to figure things out as I'm writing.

That being the case being, for which you can only accept my word I suppose, as far as being a UFO nut goes, these days I deal with this stuff for a living and have been for more years than I care to divulge and yet even I don't buy into one jot of the sorts of guff UFO Belief seems content to buy into wholesale.

You ask me "do you wholly believe in materialistic science??" as if Science is some form of religious belief - Science is simply method, its the antithesis of all belief. That demonstration remains its one, sole and only fundamental tenant hardly qualifies its adherents as members exclusively of some manner of establishment Cult.

The charge that Science rejects that which it cannot define demonstrates only little to no understanding at all of Quantum Physics, an area of study founded completely on the investigation of nature on a level which fundamentally eludes any possibility of direct quantitative measurement simply by virtue of way nature itself appears to be actually structured - yet despite these grave, utterly "non-materialistic" physical aspects of nature when viewed at its most profoundly fundamental level - the application of this exact form of scientific study has produced the Electronic Age and a far, far greater understanding of the Universe as a cohesive whole than mankind as a species has ever manged to understand throughout the course of our history to this present day.

Science it's self forces us to understand nature in terms intangible to common experience - from the antibiotics you'll take when suffering from a bacterial infection to the production of the "consciousness expanding" LSD an anti-materialist may happily take - the benefits of both and more come from simply applying sound method when trying to discern the truth underlying what on the surface merely only appears to be.

There's no dogma in this. There's no belief. All Science sets out to provide is an understanding of how things work in a manner that can be communicated, understood and applied by others for everyones equal benefit - merely pointing to a mystery and revealing in its very mysteriousness as if that in itself provides some form of answer...

That very much is dogma. That remains wholly what religion remains based upon.

Rather as religion is not God, Belief alone is simply not understanding - it remains simply what it is. Belief.

Since science remains the antithesis of that very exact thing, how exactly is it supposed to address things which can't actually be addressed? The continual demands of science to provide answers for what people choose to believe in is a process not at all unlike walking into a store that only sells Computers and PC peripherals and demanding to be furbished with a pound a ripe English Cheddar and berating the establishment as being in some way wanting for simply not being actually geared up to facilitate the wholly inappropriate demand being required of it.

I believe there was a Monty Python sketch about that ;)

(And surely a scholarly person knows the different between a tenant and a tenet? Not that I ever make mistakes ... :p)

In other words, I mostly agree with Mr Anonymous' explanation. As far as I'm aware science doesn't claim to answer questions about religion. Of course, that doesn't stop some people getting uptight when theories of evolution, etc. are mentioned. Although those are mainly the ones who aren't creative enough to jump at the chance to say that the Creator intended evolution all along :D

Why does being educated as a psychologist automatically imply that one is ignorant in other areas? Perhaps you should read Parks' Voodoo Science, in which he levels some very specific criticisms against Cold Fusion. Criticisms which are coming from a physicist.



It would seem that Michael Shermer is uniquely qualified to speak to us about pseudoscience and the power of belief among people. The question of the paranormal and the pseudoscientific is often one of psychology. So, again, you've failed to demonstrate any fake skepticism. Indeed, I've yet to see you qualify in your own words what genuine skepticism is.

Please, properly delineate the two so that a discussion may indeed ensue.

Sorry, but as a person who is a psychologist and who hasn't
studied chemistry at the the university, this is quite a
poor argument :confused:

As for Dr Robert Park, he is qualified to do such criticisms,
yet it is still a very complex subject as there many tests
which were done in institutions which contradict him,and which mysteriously isn't present in his book.

link: http://www.alternativescience.com/voodo-science.htm

Some think the evidence is still inconclusive but that deserves further research link: http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595109689,00.html

I am interested to known what you think about the chemical imbalance article, for if it is truth then it is
pseudo-science. Why then should we scorn then more cold
fusion then pharmaceutical companies accussed of fraud?

Sorry, but as a person who is a psychologist and who hasn't
studied chemistry at the the university, this is quite a
poor argument :confused:

I'm curious if your own qualifications rival Shermers. I'm also curious why you would assume that he hasn't sufficient coursework in chemistry or even physics. Perhaps you attended the University with him?

At any rate, Dr. Shermer's education includes:

Ph.D. Claremont Graduate School: 1991 History of Science (Dissertation: Heretic-Scientist: Alfred Russel Wallace and the Evolution of Man: A Study on the Nature of Historical Change. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation Information Service)
M.A. California State University, Fullerton: 1978 Experimental Psychology
B.A. Pepperdine University: 1976 Psychology/Biology

I think its safe to assume that he studied chemistry enough to grasp the concept of cold fusion. Moreover, I'd assert that suggesting cold fusion is some mystical process that only those that are specifically educated in it or related disciplines can understand is also a characteristic of pseudoscience.

As for Dr Robert Park, he is qualified to do such criticisms,
yet it is still a very complex subject as there many tests
which were done in institutions which contradict him,and which mysteriously isn't present in his book.

link: http://www.alternativescience.com/voodo-science.htm

I really have little interest in cold fusion and either its proponents or detractors. I have noted, however, that little has changed with regard to the claim: we have yet to have the free energy it promises; and as far as I can tell, there has not been a published work that outlines a reproducible process to achieve cold fusion.

Some think the evidence is still inconclusive but that deserves further research

Sure. As long as my tax dollars aren't being wasted on what appears to be a pseudoscience, people should do what they feel is important.

I am interested to known what you think about the chemical imbalance article, for if it is truth then it is
pseudo-science. Why then should we scorn then more cold
fusion then pharmaceutical companies accussed of fraud?

If I get an opportunity to read it, I'll offer an opinion.

I'm still waiting for a qualification, in your own words, on who are the "fake" skeptics versus those that are the "real" skeptics.

Mr A, you claim that 'science' is the antithesis of all belief"...and ten inquite how can such an antithesis of believe possible seriously examine 'woo woo' claims....admittedly you didn't say woo woo, but i am pointing to what you refer
Your words say one thing. ACTIONS do another.....your argument reminds me of the loyal supporter of communism or captialism, that ie., ifthe ideology was JUST given the chance evrything would be alright.....but i rather look directly AT the ideology, the dogma, the myth, th 'sciencism'.......Skin worries about possible religion happening if claims of the phenomena we are on about started being 'taken seriously'.....and i agreed. BUT i am also saying, tat we ar ALREADY up to our follicles in te sciencism myth. millionsof kids are being drugged on its pills! FACT!.....so it is not some rather heroic enterpreie of anti-belief people going where none has gone before. That is a myth

I've found a possible definition for pseudoskepticism!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskeptic

:) ... em, d?..........soon?

what pedantic claptrap. this is not a goddamn chat room

i mean, cramming a post with gossip, anecdotes, confessions and digressions is absurd. why these garrulous and untidy narratives are more suited for a goddamn novel. droning on interminably like this wastes everyones time

all that was asked was that........duendy should refrain from being a hypocrite
so dump the trivialities and get to the fucking point!
what fucking tedious bullshit

I believe there was a Monty Python sketch about that ;)

(And surely a scholarly person knows the different between a tenant and a tenet? Not that I ever make mistakes ... :p)

Indeed, there was a Python Sketch of exactly such exactitude, and mmmmmm.... Yup, did rather go through the spell checking there with only the one eye open really, didn't I...? :o

Thanks for the thumbs up by the way. Much of the appreciated.


your argument reminds me of the loyal supporter of communism or captialism, that ie., ifthe ideology was JUST given the chance evrything would be alright.....but i rather look directly AT the ideology, the dogma, the myth, th 'sciencism'.......Skin worries about possible religion happening if claims of the phenomena we are on about started being 'taken seriously'.....and i agreed. BUT i am also saying, tat we ar ALREADY up to our follicles in te sciencism myth. millionsof kids are being drugged on its pills! FACT!.....so it is not some rather heroic enterpreie of anti-belief people going where none has gone before. That is a myth

....Gnnnnnnnn.... for the love of Puppies.....

d, what knowledge reveals and what people elect to practically do with that knowledge aren't the same thing. A scientist can talk till they are blue in the face, other than other scientists frankly no one ever actually listens. It's only when other people wrap their collective heads around certain idea's science may possible propose as being possible and they see either financial/economic/political and/or military value in the notion that anything actually starts to happen - all at the behest of everyone else.

That individual scientists can be swayed to give opinion preferable to certain third party interest, be they of social, political or militarily concern remains one facet only of the fact that we live in a democracy - there's as much good with the deal as there is bad, but at least no one sticks a gun up your nose and blows you're brains out for saying such-and-such-sucks-the-root.

At least not publicly anyway.

These are issues outside of the process of science itself - which remains just that. A process. A method to be applied.

That is all science is.

Quite where the rest of this stuff is y'come out with comes from I have no idea, but then again I and people like me are too deaf, dumb and blind to even know what it is we are thinking in the first place - so why bother asking us our opinion - we're all just sheep, right?

what fucking tedious bullshit

Oh, I absolutely couldn't agree with you more old man. Jolly well done with finally coming to terms with that. Marvelous progress.

Yup, did rather go through the spell checking there with only the one eye open really, didn't I...? :o

so you finally agree that it is better to have both eyes open when posting in sciforums? this is indeed a milestone in your life, frankie. an absolutely and entirely unexpected turn of events. and to imagine they all said you couldnt!

my heartiest congratulations

now we must work on getting all those brain cells to work in a coherent fashion and who knows, you might actually produce a legible sentence or two.

keep up the good work, frankie

bye!

keep up the good work, frankie

Absolutely marvelous stuff there Gustav, whatever it was you said, I'm sure it was probably marvelous. Who's "frankie"?

Absolutely marvelous stuff there Gustav, whatever it was you said, I'm sure it was probably marvelous. Who's "frankie"?

dear me
things have definitely take a turn for the worse
was it not just an hour ago you were being your usual garrulous, pedantic and vindictive self?

Anyway, where does the time go? It's been real.

the blasted time fugue again? and in addition to that, an identity crisis?
how can i help? should i call for the men in white coats? they have cookies y'know. perhaps a diagnosis?

dissociative phenomena (losing time, fugue states, memory losses, changes in personality); is a symptom of ptsd

do you really believe you are mr anonymous, frankie?

whatever it was you said, I'm sure it was probably marvelous.

do not fret so, boy
we will work on that too and eventually get you up to speed
i promise
it might be just a crawl but still an improvement on being at a standstill
wouldnt you say?

do you really believe you are mr anonymous, frankie?

Actually I merely just asked. Who's mr anonymousfrankie?

of course you did, boy

"Of course I did", what?

"Of course I did", what?

look. i understand you are probably experiencing a rather stressfull and traumatic episode of the ptsd psychoses. it is normal to be in a state of confusion. i understand it is quite late over in britain so why not get some rest? do you have some place you can lie down? a bench perhaps?

tomorrow you will wake up feeling chirpy as an old fart and can go back to being your usual garrulous, pedantic and vindictive self right here in sciforums

i promise
now run along boy

Eh? What now?

Mr A......
a) the original intention of the Greek concept for 'Democracy' was to disclude women and slaves.....!

b) we aren't in a demoracy. its even worse than the above

c) 'science' doesn't comeon its own. itis silly to even think se. it is always wit people. and te mainstream science we are subjected to is sciencism. a merger btween science and state used for social control and the maintanance of te status quo, as was the church&state preceeding it

d? I do hope you take this in the right way, but after having read this last I'm begging to think that perhaps I really should think about revising my usual stance on the various ideas pertaining towards "evidence" of extraterrestrial life - I'm truly buggered if I can think of any other way of explaining the existence of you.... ;)

You take care now, and always a pleasure.

A :)

imagine that
all these righteous men of pseudo science resorting to ad hominems
absolutely disgusting and utterly reprehensible
so now, if i were to incorporate the slander from skinwalker and frankie into a phrase, we would see that duendy has been tarred and feathered as a...

"crackpot from mars"

is civility really too much to ask for?

/saddened

a VILLGE crackpot from mars'..haha fukin hillarious...but no...not Mars, it simply MUST be VENUS........ in FURS dahhhhhling

*imagines a horrible image* No, no! *rubs eyes* Get it out, get it out!

Is it only me, or are there other people who find that a certaint percentage of Skeptics are pseudo-Skeptics?
Very often when they do a rubutal or a critique of what they call
" crappot theories" or "Pseudo science" they often use techniques which isn't better than intellectual fascism.

I think a lot of so-called skeptics could do to be reminded of plate tectonics and meteors.


Wegner had the idea that continents "floated" on the earth's mantle and was greatly criticized for this belief.

People suggested that meteors were rocks falling from the sky, but it took years before the idea was accepted due to the dogma of skepticism.

We might find, some day, that a lot of things held as "impossible" or "improbable" have scientific explanations.

Skepticism is fine, but if the result is supression of ideas and discovery, it goes to far.

I think a lot of so-called skeptics could do to be reminded of plate tectonics and meteors.


Wegner had the idea that continents "floated" on the earth's mantle and was greatly criticized for this belief.

People suggested that meteors were rocks falling from the sky, but it took years before the idea was accepted due to the dogma of skepticism.

We might find, some day, that a lot of things held as "impossible" or "improbable" have scientific explanations.

Skepticism is fine, but if the result is supression of ideas and discovery, it goes to far.

Yes, I agree. But in fact it will seldom lead to suppression for very long. The truth will eventually prevail just as it did the cases you mentioned and many, many others. Meanwhile, a healthy dose skepticism is a good thing - except for people like Duendy and a few others here who have such open minds that they actually have holes in their heads. ;)

Isaac Asimov was well-known for what he called his "built-in doubter." And Carl Sagan is remembered for his famous quote, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." P.T. Barnum once said that a sucker is born every minute and that's far too true. The world is full of people who will believe almost any ridiculous claim, no matter how absurd. In the end it's true, honest skepticism that keeps everything on track. NOT any of the Duendys of the world. They are simply dead weights that try to pull everything back towards the dark ages in terms of real knowledge.

How do you define, "pseudo-skeptic?" More accurately, how do you qualify one since the definition is clear: a "fake skeptic?"

A "pseudoskeptic" pretends to be "skeptical" when what he is doing is DENYING any and all evidence that challenges his belief.

There's also a good article here (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc267.htm), by Marcello Truzzi - CSCOP member & professor of sociology at Eastern Michigan University.

It begins:

Over the years, I have decried the misuse of the term "skeptic" when used to refer to all critics of anomaly claims. Alas, the label has been thus misapplied by both proponents and critics of the paranormal. Sometimes users of the term have distinguished between so-called "soft" versus "hard" skeptics, and I in part revived the term "zetetic" because of the term's misuse. But I now think the problems created go beyond mere terminology and matters need to be set right. Since "skepticism" properly refers to doubt rather than denial--nonbelief rather than belief--critics who take the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves "skeptics" are actually pseudo-skeptics and have, I believed, gained a false advantage by usurping that label.

Click the link above to read the rest.

Yenald Looshi

A "pseudoskeptic" pretends to be "skeptical" when what he is doing is DENYING any and all evidence that challenges his belief.


Gosh, and apparently only skeptics remain capable of this - well, really!

There aught to be a Law!

well, really!


now now

/wags finger

dont be getting yourself all worked into a tizzy
you do remember what happened the last time you threw a hissy fit, ja?
breathe, boy!

very good!

jYes, I agree. But in fact it will seldom lead to suppression for very long. The truth will eventually prevail just as it did the cases you mentioned and many, many others. Meanwhile, a healthy dose skepticism is a good thing - except for people like Duendy and a few others here who have such open minds that they actually have holes in their heads. ;)

Isaac Asimov was well-known for what he called his "built-in doubter." And Carl Sagan is remembered for his famous quote, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." P.T. Barnum once said that a sucker is born every minute and that's far too true. The world is full of people who will believe almost any ridiculous claim, no matter how absurd. In the end it's true, honest skepticism that keeps everything on track. NOT any of the Duendys of the world. They are simply dead weights that try to pull everything back towards the dark ages in terms of real knowledge.
Light...you clown. yer middle name is ad hominem. you talk about 'honest scepticism' and dont CHOKE....? one day....one day....go check the link which explains pseudoskeptic...one of the threads here down below. your shit is there to be seen a,b,c, d etc........now slander off yer troll

Yes, I agree. But in fact it will seldom lead to suppression for very long. The truth will eventually prevail just as it did the cases you mentioned and many, many others.

how long is "very long"
you seem very assured. why?
would you like to see the wait time shortened?
if so, what steps would you recommend to ensure expeditiousness?

"a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." (planck)

the quote seems rather optimistic
he does not acknowledge that there could be institutional biases and fixed traditions that could span multiple generations and take as long to discard