Pathological Skepticsm.

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

I am reading an entry in the Wikipedia (awesome site) about Pathological skeptiscm. I went there after going to the "Skeptics dictionary" and could not believe such a book exist's. Science is getting (and probably has been) torn into so many different camps. Here's a quote from Max Placnk;

Then those innovation's don't seem quite so amazing anymore eh? This reminds me of when I went to (hell) badastronomy.com and started engaging the angry PATHOLOGICAL skeptics there to admit to remain true to science they would have to remain agnostic in their belief's toward the existance and visitation of E.T.I. Almost everyone one of them rejected that idea. They all put (as though they would know) limit's on the ability of intelligent life to get to Earth.

Making grand claims about the abilities of E.T.I. given that we know nothing about them, is the ultimate form of pseudoscience.

Yet - I was banned for trying to convince (Can you convince a pathological skeptic?) that a pathological skeptic could exist. HE LITTERALLY DENIED THAT SUCH A PERSON COULD EXIST!

Needless to say, that debate was useless. I hope those people get help, and likewise they wish I could get help, the only difference is I mean it. They generally think we are pathetic and a stain on science.

Oh how I love pathological skeptics!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I rather think the term 'pathological skeptic' was invented by woowoos, and is therefore, spurious. It's woowoo propaganda. So yes, woowoos are more harmful.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think pathological skeptics exist. They are skeptical that we went to the moon; that the Holocaust occurred; that government can be trusted; that medicines are more important than natural remedies; that nuclear power is beneficial; etc.

These are people who call themselves skeptical, but fail to actually use critical thinking and reason. They doubt without knowing why or bothering to work out the science in a given situation.

But the 'pathological skeptic' term that the 'woo-woos' like to toss around is much like 'pseudo-skeptic:' it doesn't apply when they use it. They simply like the pejorative nature of the term. It's just a way to get even with the actual skeptics of their wild claims who keep asking the impossible of them: evidence.

 

Well that was pathological bullshit. Hey, who made up the term woo-woo? Could that have been a pathological skeptic's PROPAGANDA? Hypocrite?

See, Phlogistician - it is your pathological skeptiscm which actually makes you want to turn the very phrase (of pathological skeptiscm) around into something to attack "woo-woo's" Since you reject the very idea of pathological skeptiscm I will assume that you feel it applies to you and take it personally.

Which I have seen before, but only help reveals that you are a skeptic first (desperate to win the war on the wierd) and a scientist (or follow the principles of science) second in your attempt to win this war.

You have only proven my point.

 

Both sides have a pathological mindset which does not allow them to moderate.

The woo-woo as they are called would be the people who listen to Coast To Coast AM and believe almost everything on there, without actually studying it.

Pseudoscience is used by a woo-woo, but the problem is, many pathological skeptics use pseudoscience to win debates against these woo-woo's. I could use a more true definition of such a person, besides woo-woo. The term woo-woo actually implies nothing, but an insult.

 

Yes, now that's a good point. Because who are typically thought of as woo-woo's can be pathological skeptical when it comes to accepting certain things. Such as 9-11.. It illustrates that pathological skeptiscm is not merely confined to those who read the "skeptics dictionary", but to everyone who stand vehemently skeptical of something, regardless of (and before they look at) the evidence.

Yep.

You are using very broad judgements to describe how "all woo-woo's" use the term pseudo-skeptic. The term pseudo-skeptic is the same as pathological skeptic. Wikipedia merged the term. Also, the term woo-woo was actually created because of the perjorative nature of the term. Other than that it has no meaning that I know of.

It's often the way skeptics deal with woo-woo's. Anything to prove them "Wrong" even though they can't prove a negative. In the world of the pathological skeptic - you can.

Skinwalker there's no doubt you have had bad experiences with woo-woo's and I have had bad experiences with pathological skeptiscm. So I do think our experiences will poisen our understanding of the different kinds of bad-science.

However I do feel that the new skeptiscm we see that was made to counteract woo-woo's does nothing but offer the same kind of pseudoscience they first sought to fight.

 

look i understand your fear about your so-called woo woos. i also very distrust, fo example, revealed religions...what we got? a person who claims to be in contact with an invisible entity who then is suppsed to have transmitted laws and info about reality thru te middle --usually man. thi si how patriarchal rligious belief came to be isn't it?

also in modern age we have New Age, again includng individuals who supposedly 'channl' inoformation from invisible enties, and much of what is transmitted seems really dogy, and dangerous, and HAS been VERY dangerous indeed. AS HAS te effects of materialistic science!

so where do we go from there? we dont just dismiss ALL unexplainable phenomena because of this danger....for as i am arguing, the tota; adherence to materialistic ideology is itself having a truly terrible effect on community and Nature

Why do you think i keep bringin about mythologyminto the mix? preecisley because it is a record of humns exploration of consciusness. you cannot apporach what we're talkin about witout exploring tis field

this is because materalistic science has GROWn out of noth 'magical' syatems like Alchemy, etc and patriarchal refveald religions. so we need to be constantly aware of the roots of what we are exploring about

 

The main point is that according to pathological skeptics who attack woo-woo's, this term "pathological skeptiscm" do not exist.

However if they were adherring to true science - they would know that such a person very well does and can exist. Their pathological mindset, unfortunately disallows them to see this. Making them partake in the very pseudoscience they supposedly hate. :bugeye:

Scientist's not caught up in this woo-woo versus skeptic's war can see this and don't understand either side. :m:

 

Yeah, the ironic thing is tat they--the materialistic scientists (mscientists)--believe in te measure of reality, including behaviour as evidence, yet their own shit they dont seem to know. and they think we do same. ie., refuse to meaure....!...yet we ARE cause we is lookin at the situation.

i also have sentlinks to these threads where an explanation of pseudoskeptic or your term etc is explained adequately, yet they fial to dig it..........as u say, othe scientists not workin in those limits know it, but i suppose then they are said to be woo woos...?

 

Get spewing that bile! Please explain why my post was 'pathological', and support your argument!

I don't know, it is just the accepted term for someone who believes pseudoscientific theories are fact without any evidence. Does it matter who invented the term?

Well, I agree with Skinwalker, and the term 'pathological skepticism' seems
more apt when levelled at woowoos, in the areas he stated. So, maybe!

Pathologcial Skeptics being Woowoos, would make the term hypocritical, yes. Well done. Is that a bullet hole in your foot?

So now I'm a 'pathological skeptic'? That's just a label you try and use to demean people who disagree with you, when you know you can't prove your arguments, and are too scared to admit your theories are unsupported. I learned science, and I have no pathological traits, so trying to label me is just another baseless assertion, and that's all you guys can do.

No, what it is, is that you woowoos see the term woowoo as derogatory, and want a similar phrase to throw back. Even when it's pointed out to you that 'pathological skepticism' fits the woowoo mindset more than that of a scientist or true skeptic, you still refuse to admit it.

Now, that is really a stretch. If I denied I was a pink giraffe (which I am not) would you assume I was? Rather pathetic attempt to hang a label on me, and it demonstrates how desperate you are.

That's how science works! Scientists must be skeptical first, so they don't bias or affect the results of their work. If they work towards a foregone conclusion, guess what happens? False positives are attained, and flaws ignored.

What was your point? That 'pathological skeptics' are scientists, or that I am one?

 

Yes that wikipedia one did describe you as well duendy.

Sure there may be pathological skeptics and pseudoskeptics but the name seems to be thrown around alot to people who are just being skeptical.


From wikipedia "The term is susceptible to misuse as an expression of opprobrium, and is sometimes used against anyone skeptical of the user's favorite idea."

 

let me explain it agin. it is someone who is a fundamental materialist. whose default poistion is 'if yer cant measure it it aint real'
as i've said in anothertread? in a way i value you insistence of measureing. for we know only too well when dodgy beliefs are accepted they bring all kinds of evils. true. BUT so does materilistic assumption too! like Nature is dead etc.............
we therefoore need to be very carfeul then how we examine all about all this. for example, does one equate a familiy who claim to have had n abduction experince wit some New Ager who claims to channel an entitiy who claims there is a 'White Brotherhood'...etc?.............your insistenceof objectivity actually suppresses your fullness of being , and tis dogma affects all others' potentiial for such experience

 

Someone PLEASE! Tell me why I am here right now! Tell me why any matter or energy existed for the "Big Bang" to occur in the first place! Can you do this?

I am not sorry to say, but you lack this knowledge. So sorry.

 

*#$%$#%*

 

Apparently, KNOWLEDGE STOPS wherever certain HUMANS say it does. How do humans dictate the origin of ALL MATTER?

 

'OK OK! (running out of the shower all drippin).......
first, you pre-sume there WAS A 'big bang'. actually this 'fact' is being questioned by some SCIENTISTS......so. ISbig bang a myth?? can we be sure it's not?
as for your question of whay are you/we here, and how come matter energy exists at ALL.
this is why it is interesting to consider that it is NOT JUST matter-energy, but matter-energy AND consciousness. that if we understandmatter-energy is conscious/sentient, then we realize it is naturally CREATIVE....eternally so

 

skeptical media whores can easily be diagnosed to be pathological. for instance, skinwalker's santa thread [deleted]

to what depths of depravity must one must sink to in order to debunk sweet little innocent children's dreams?
how awful is it that a harmless little tradition must come under fire from this fanatic?
i mean, presenting it in a amusing manner should really fool no one as to what is really going on

and what about phlog and his believers and woo woos and crackpots and what not?
that little pseudoskeptic will troll the most innocuous discussions with the above mentioned bait

these people are not scientists, just little punks in college
they are self appointed guardians of a really perverted view of science and have the gall to lecture real scientists....the kind that wins nobels and shit...... on how and what to think.

ja
pathetic and pathological

 

Here are some quick-ref definitions:

Woo-woo: someone who draws attention to wild claims of the paranormal or metaphysical in the way a train whistle draws attention to a train approaching a crossing. "Woo-woo" is the sound of the whistle, but in the case of the pseudoscience claimant, the train hasn't even left the station.

Skepticism refers to the thoughtful and reflective inquiry, particularly with regard to wild claims and speculations. Skeptic comes from the Greek "skeptikos," which translates to "thoughtful." The latin scepticus means "thoughtful" or "reflective." Skepticism, therefore, is not about being close minded, it's about being open minded.

Also, "thinking out of the box" is fine. It's called brainstorming. In such modes, everything is a valid thought. But at the end of the day, when the thoughts are collected, only the ones that are testable can be kept. The rest must, necessarily, be discarded. This is the nature of the hypothesis.

Pathological: the quality of being diseased or dysfunctional

So, therefore, "pathological skeptic" would imply one who is dysfunctional with skepticism; unable to be thoughtful or reflective.

It would appear that this applies quite well to the type of skeptic I mentioned above, which are actually "woo-woos," blowing their train whistles in the "look at me" fashion with wild claims that NASA never went to the moon etc. Colorful language and profanity are the hallmark of the woo-woo as well. UFOTheatre came in here back in 2003 and he was a classic case. He had at least two sockpuppets, trying to sell CDs of faked UFO movies, and by the end of the threads he was using all sorts of profanity and direct ad hom remarks.

Not to mention, the woo-woo typically feels a personal injustice when his pet-"theory" is criticized and equates it to direct ad hominem attack, justifying his juvenile attacks of profanity and insults in return. The typical response is the one learned by every elementary school child: "he started it."

 

*Of course, not everyone who thinks that science doesn’t tell all would think it’s reasonable to believe, as Gibson does, that one can program crystals with thought energy. But Gibson says there is ample evidence—both scientific and subjective—that crystals can help in healing and transformation. “You can say it’s woo-woo,” she says with a laugh. “But it works. I go with what works.” (Carol M. Ostrom, Seattle Times, June 20 1986)

*Woo-woo (or sometimes, simply woo) is used within parts of the skeptical community in referring to

1. extraordinary beliefs for which it is felt there is insufficient extraordinary evidence, and
2. people who hold those beliefs.

Sometimes used as an adjective ("My brother has a lot of woo-woo beliefs"), other times as a noun ("That message board is full of woo-woos"), it is almost always used as a term of derision.

Origin

The origin of the term is unclear.

One theory is that it comes from the "woo-ooo" sound made by a Theramin, the electronic instrument often used in old horror films to emphasize that something strange or mysterious was happening (such as the appearance of a ghost or alien). Another theory is that the term woo-woo comes from the theme song of Rod Serlings's The Twilight Zone.

Controversy

Since the term is almost always used derisively, it is not surprising that some people find it unnecessarily offensive, particularly when applied to them or their own beliefs.

Although more neutral terms such as "believer" are less emotionally-charged, the brevity and (to some) humor of the term "woo-woo" has earned it a popularity, particularly within online skeptical communities such as the JREF Forum. This usage may be criticized as an ad hominem argument, or as tending to dismiss a person or topic on strangeness alone, rather than addressing the issue.