Pseudo-scepticism versus real scepticism.

[Alex Tsander]

Has anyone else noticed that there is such a thing as a pseudo-sceptic? Someone who claims to be a sceptic yet is really quite credulous. Some of them are just dumb but others use their pretense at scepticism as a form of disingenousness to conceal the truly credulous nature of those things of which they are trying to convince us. Like a magicians mis-direction.

This recently arose in relation to a person who has been feted for her progress from belief in psi to a "sceptical" position. This earns her a lot of credit which she has then used to sell other beliefs which are every bit as uncertain as ESP. Seeing her lauded for her "scepticism" inspires in me a definite sense of injury: she isn't entitled to that distinction!

Is this a new phenomenon? What distinguishes the pseudo-sceptic from a genuine one? Has anyone other than me slipped into a tendency to think of the title "sceptic" as an honour which in sonme sense has to be earned?

[Married2aWooster]

Is that anything like a skeptic?
(sorry, I know we butcher the language over here)
+1

[JoeEllison]

There are some people who have equated "skepticism" with "rejecting an accepted viewpoint"... which means that idiots who think that the earth is flat will sometimes claim that they are "skeptics", because they reject what most people accept as real.

[Unalienable]

Stage #1: A claim is made.

Stage #2: Evidence is presented in an attempt to support this claim.

Stage #3: Some people are highly impressed with the evidence, and believe the claim. Let's call them "the believers". Other people find flaws in the evidence and conclude that the claim is not supported by the evidence. Let's call them "the skeptics".

Stage #4: The skeptics and the believers get embroiled in a huge debate. In the course of the debate both sides try to dig up hitherto undiscovered evidence to support their positions. Both sides try to find flaws in the evidence presented by the other side.

Stage #5: Usually at this point, the believers resort to the old plea, "Prove that I'm wrong!" The skeptics tell the believers: "Look buddy, this is your claim. If you want us to believe it then it's up to you to provide evidence for it, the onus is not on me to find proof that your claim is untrue."

By this definition, people who believe that the Apollo missions landed humans on the moon are "believers" and the moonwalk conspiracy theorists are "skeptics." People who believe that 9-11 was masterminded by Osama Bin Laden are "believers" and people who deny that premise are "skeptics".

Going further back in history, people who proposed that the world is filled with invisible tiny organisms that cause disease and decomposition were "believers" and those who denied the existence of invisible organisms (germs) were "skeptics".

I present these examples not to disparage the practice of skepticism, far from it--I just want to point out that the line between "the believer" and "the skeptic" can be mighty blurry at times. It's also important to note that being a skeptic, per se, does not indicate that you are smart--and certainly does not make you right.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Unalienable listed two of the four I usually cite, the others being Holocaust deniers and the "skeptical Arab street". Creationists are a whole 'nother monster because they aren't skeptical of evolution as much as so wedded to their beliefs they reject it out of hand. I'd also place Moon landing hoax believers in their own subset since they generally seem to be cranks rather than people with an agenda/coloring worldview like Holocaust deniers and "skeptical" Arabs who are tainted by anti-Semitism.

[ExMinister]

I think a lot of us have a working definition of the true skeptic as being someone who completely rules out any possibility of a "supernatural" explanation for anything.

I think the pseudo skeptics are mostly people who call themselves skeptics because they think of themselves as critical thinkers who are not gullible enough to just accept anything without at least some convincing evidence, but who also hold beliefs that fall into the realm of the supernatural. I know a lot of people in this category, including a guy who is a lifelong skeptic of the supernatural, very intellectual, and has a good grasp of science, but is now convinced that medium John Edward is the real thing. I probably still fall into this category myself, although I have spent the past year or so, since leaving Sylvia Browne's organization, trying to scrutinize ALL of my former beliefs in the light of skepticism. BTW this forum has been a great help to me that way. It seems ANY topic that anyone brings up that I might have once accepted unquestioningly, I can now find on this forum somewhere and discover that there are in fact usually a lot of very "natural" explanations for it.

There also seems to be a third category, confusing the issue even more, and that is the fake skeptics. Case in point is Sylvia Browne, who describes herself as an "open-minded skeptic." Meaning, I now realize, that she gets to be publically skeptical of other religious/New Age teachers/beliefs opposing hers and skeptical of skeptics. The fact that she refers to herself as a "skeptic" lends her an air of credibility with her fans.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

skepticism:

1 : an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object
2 a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics
3 : doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation)

Granted that the dictionary gives usage and not meaning, but these definitions suggest that a skeptic is a person who is doubtful toward some claims, accepting of others, but always ready to change his opinion.

Some people claim that I am not a skeptic because I do not hold a position of uncertainty on all things. But that seems to be a somewhat impractical stance. It means that I should be uncertain that the sun will rise tomorrow and uncertain that the Earth is hollow and houses little pink unicorns. Sorry, but I'm really quite certain about the first thing and laughably incredulous about the second. Probabilities do come into play, after all.

What would make me a pseudo-skeptic is if I said that reincarnation is impossible a priori, or that telepathy is assured because the mind is a separate existent from the brain. The question then arises: Because I believe that there is no credible evidence for reincarnation, I choose not to believe it. Does that make me a pseudo-skeptic? I don't think so, as long as I am open to new evidence that might be more convincing.

~~ Paul

[Alex Tsander]

I see some people have addressed this in terms of what constitutes "scepticism" whereas I was thinking in terms of what constitutes " a sceptic". More of a social rather than a philosophical or semantic issue. The examples raised are a good test of our thinking about what constitutes scepticism, or a sceptical position, rather than what legitimates the claim "I am a sceptic". More to the point, what someone does by asserting themselves as sceptical by nature. I am thinking of people who in effect say "You know I am a sceptic, therefore if I do believe in something, it must be valid, because, being a sceptic, you can assume I have tested its validity, therefore you need not bother."

[skeptical]

I like Shermer's definition: "Skepticism is a process, not a position". To me its quite simple, a skeptical approach is just letting the evidence dictate beliefs (used in a broad sense) instead of vice versa, and apportioning the strength of ones convictions on the strength of the evidence.

If the evidence is very strong, it is reasonable to have a high level of confidence in your acceptance. If the evidence is very poor, it is reasonable to think there is probably nothing to the claim. Both of these ends of the spectrum and everything in between must be subject to revision based on new evidence.

I also like Sagan's approach: maintain a sense of wonder and open mindedness, subject to scrupulous requirements for good evidence.

Psuedo-skeptics pretend they are looking for good evidence, when in fact what they want is evidence taken to an unreasonably high level, while requiring very little good evidence for whatever pet theory they are defending. (homeopaths are a very good example of this)

[blutoski]

Marcello Truzzi actually coined the word pseudoskeptic decades ago, but he was using it to label extreme skeptics who go overboard debunking the paranormal. People for whom it's impossible to say "I don't know what caused that experience." I call them 'skepdebunkers'. An example is those who think every UFO must be swamp gas, because it psychologically ties up any loose ends of uncertainty.

Aside from Truzzi's complaint about over-enthusiastic materialists, there are two other categories worth paying attention to:

* Iconoclasts - whatever the majority believes, they reject it automatically. So, most people think that God exists, that's reason enough to doubt it. Most people think that Global warming exists, that's reason enough to doubt it. Most people think that science smoking causes cancer, so that's reason enough to doubt it. Whatever's popular, they work overtime to 'debunk' it. Penn Gillette would be an example.

* The third type are what I do call pseudoskeptics, and it's the same bunch you're talking about: the ones who seem to sincerely believe that they're skeptics, but they're really just pursuing an agenda, such as defending a supernatural belief, or a political investment. Creationists fall into this category. Global Warming deniers.

Edited to add:
* There's another obscure type: the mentally unstable with no clear agenda. We get applications from these skeptics all the time. [sample link (http://ca.geocities.com/pauljub/)] | [sample link (http://skeptics.meetup.com/128/messages/boards/view/viewthread?thread=3514768)]

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

An example is those who think every UFO must be swamp gas, because it psychologically ties up any loose ends of uncertainty.
As opposed to the people who think those same UFOs must be alien craft, because it psychologically ties up any loose ends of uncertainty.

~~ Paul

[blutoski]

As opposed to the people who think those same UFOs must be alien craft, because it psychologically ties up any loose ends of uncertainty.

~~ Paul

Yes, they have the same problem: pathological resistance to threats to their worldview.

ETA:

I just want to clarify that example. The example was somebody who insists he has explained a UFO sighting as swamp gas, even though that particular explanation is not credible given the circumstances. Sometimes there is no rational explanation available, given the information, and a skeptic just has to leave it as unsolved for now.

[jimtron]

I think everyone believes that they are not too gullible--that they are capable of discriminating between what's real and what's bogus, but of course we're all susceptible to being fooled, tricked, making bad judgements, etc. Everyone's skeptical of something--if not psychics and religion, then it might be big pharma or politicians. So I think we all consider ourselves at least a little skeptical, but of course some are better at critical thinking than others.

When someone makes a woo claim, they often mention that they're skeptical, as if that fact makes their claim all the more believable. So you'll hear, "I know a lot of these psychics are fake, but X is the real deal." You'll never hear someone say, "I'm sure Homeopathy really works; of course, I don't really understand the scientific method, and don't apply skepticism unless we're talking about pharmaceutical companies, and I really want to believe regardless of the facts..."

[blutoski]

When someone makes a woo claim, they often mention that they're skeptical, as if that fact makes their claim all the more believable. So you'll hear, "I know a lot of these psychics are fake, but X is the real deal."

I'm reminded of an ad I saw a few months ago for an homeopathic remedy. The ad consisted of a series of anecdotes, one of which said, "I was very skeptical when I bought product X, but it turned out to work really well." My thought was: if he was actually skeptical, he wouldn't have bought it in the first place. He bought the product because he thought it would probably work.

[Alex Tsander]

Marcello Truzzi. Thanks for the lead Blutoski.

As for UFO's and swamp gas, as a kid I used to find a lot of unexplained aerial lights were dismissed as "car headlights". It used to aggravate me that the "sceptics" who deployed this stock "explanation" didnt seem to ask themselves what kind of car travels accross the sky ( apart the ones in the Rig Veda, which would be literally a classical answer ). Only in adulthood and after many car journeys did I realise that the headlights of terrestrial vehicles can cause reflections in other wind-screens ( being angled ) to appear as though airborne. I then felt a bit stupid. Not tremendously, because, like swamp gas, the headlight line was after all an unthinking and automatic response used in any case of unexplained sightings, whether it fitted or not.

As for feeling stupid afterwards, it wasn't half as bad as how utterly idiotic I felt about ten years after supporting the UK miners strikes, when I realised that Mrs Thatcher had been standing up for my freedoms all along. Totally stupid was the reflection that I had been sucked in by and drifted along with that whole young leftist zeitgeist without heeding the insightful warnings of such people as a VietNamese friend who was adamanyt that arthur Scargill was "just like the communists in my country". How the hell did I manage not to spot a raving demagogue when I saw one?

Hence my natural tendency to be what Blutoski calls an "iconoclast" has grown over the years. However, I question the choice of term. Strictly speaking an "iconoclast" is someone who wishes to dismantle false idols. regardless of whether or not the majority worship them and not necessarily attacking something because they do. In that regard I also think myself an iconoclast, and consider iconoclasm a vitally important tool for countering such demagogues as Arthur Scargill, or, today, George Galloway. A figure worshipped by the British "intelligentsia" ( aka pink-sheep ). As an iconoclast I am proud to have...in my opinion...totally demolished the fanciful claims of M.H.Erickson in one of my books. I also, to choose an inconsequential example from entertainment, feel it to be incumbent upon me to point out at every opportunity ( such as this ) what a load of crap Alfred Hitchcock's movies are. Whilst, on the other hand, I greatly respect Madonna, in spite of her popularity and the credullous crap she espouses on the "spiritual" and "environmental" fronts. I can tolerate something being popular if it has intrinsic merit. Another example being the work of Andy Warhol, immensely popular yet understood by very few people who are able to grasp his latent significance.

This may sound adrift, but it illustrates the difficulty of ever actually knowing...for certain...why one takes a position and how much prejudice or irrationality is involved. There is always the spectre of the Emperors Robes. Who has ever criticised Eminem? Y I saw him in an interview and he was clearly a complete twat. I also want to "buck the trend" and come out with the assertion that he is, indeed, a complete twat. Yet when I hear his songs I find, reluctantly, in spite of his being an "icon" for the "clasting" of and immensely popular, I must concede that he has produced something originbal and provocative.

[plumjam]

As for feeling stupid afterwards, it wasn't half as bad as how utterly idiotic I felt about ten years after supporting the UK miners strikes, when I realised that Mrs Thatcher had been standing up for my freedoms all along. Totally stupid was the reflection that I had been sucked in by and drifted along with that whole young leftist zeitgeist without heeding the insightful warnings of such people as a VietNamese friend who was adamanyt that arthur Scargill was "just like the communists in my country". How the hell did I manage not to spot a raving demagogue when I saw one?

Hence my natural tendency to be what Blutoski calls an "iconoclast" has grown over the years. However, I question the choice of term. Strictly speaking an "iconoclast" is someone who wishes to dismantle false idols. regardless of whether or not the majority worship them and not necessarily attacking something because they do. In that regard I also think myself an iconoclast, and consider iconoclasm a vitally important tool for countering such demagogues as Arthur Scargill, or, today, George Galloway. A figure worshipped by the British "intelligentsia" ( aka pink-sheep ). As an iconoclast I am proud to have...in my opinion...totally demolished the fanciful claims of M.H.Erickson in one of my books. I also, to choose an inconsequential example from entertainment, feel it to be incumbent upon me to point out at every opportunity ( such as this ) what a load of crap Alfred Hitchcock's movies are. Whilst, on the other hand, I greatly respect Madonna, in spite of her popularity and the credullous crap she espouses on the "spiritual" and "environmental" fronts. I can tolerate something being popular if it has intrinsic merit. Another example being the work of Andy Warhol, immensely popular yet understood by very few people who are able to grasp his latent significance.

This may sound adrift, but it illustrates the difficulty of ever actually knowing...for certain...why one takes a position and how much prejudice or irrationality is involved. There is always the spectre of the Emperors Robes. Who has ever criticised Eminem? Y I saw him in an interview and he was clearly a complete twat. I also want to "buck the trend" and come out with the assertion that he is, indeed, a complete twat. Yet when I hear his songs I find, reluctantly, in spite of his being an "icon" for the "clasting" of and immensely popular, I must concede that he has produced something originbal and provocative.

Wow. A fan of Madonna, Warhol and Thatcher. Yet Hitchcock was crap and Galloway a 'demagogue'.
Takes all sorts, I suppose.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I just want to clarify that example. The example was somebody who insists he has explained a UFO sighting as swamp gas, even though that particular explanation is not credible given the circumstances. Sometimes there is no rational explanation available, given the information, and a skeptic just has to leave it as unsolved for now.
Agreed. Same goes for consciousness.

~~ Paul

[Alex Tsander]

"Yet Hitchcock was crap and Galloway a 'demagogue'.
Takes all sorts, I suppose."

I was expecting something like that.

so what about Hitchcock. Take "Vertigo". To start with, vertigo is not a fear of heights but a condition of the inner ear. Not such a big deal were it not the very title of the movie. The real problem is the entire conception of the plot. a man has an affair with a woman. Less than a year later he has another affair with the same woman, who has merely died her hair and changed her name, and he doesn't know it is the same woman! DOH! What kind of idiot would imagine such a thing possible? Then there is Hitchcock's appalling visual "sensibility". He doesn't notice, and presumably you have not either, that in the famous scene of a man being chased by an airplane in North By North West, his suit changes colour three times! Doh! Such a great director. A director so full of originality that he even made the same movie twice! Doh! His plots are variously unbelieveablem cheesy, and boring. Over-complex and dependent entirely upon happen-chance. Then we have the sickening ly warped mind-set expressed in his sick-pic Marnie.

As for George Galloway, am I to take it you like him? A man whose concept of "debate" is to bellow a sack-load of insults at someone at the top of his voice and to literally gnash his teeth ( I'm not making that up, BBC Newsnight last week gave us a live close up of him gnashing his teeth like a rabid dog ), he is a foul, loud-mouthed Glaswegian brawler who takes the side of any enemy of our society that will pay him a few barrels of oil. A man who was bought by the Palestinians in exchange for an arranged marriage with a woman who has since lest him protesting publicly that she thinks it ironic that he called his nut-job party "Respect" when he "shows no respect for me " ( being a serial philanderer ). A man who, to boot, has now even been ejected from the nut-job partyy he created by the very nut-jobs he created it for on accou nt of his, yes, dictatorial and demagogue style. A man who stands up in Trafalger square at a rally to support Hizbollah and states ( and I quote ) "I glorify terrorism, I endorse terrorism and I seek to encourage terrorism".

Thats a few pouints in evidence for my loathing of George galloway. Can you cite any evidence to the effect that he has done any good for anybody?

As for Margaret Thatcher, boy, you had better have lived in Britain, as an adult in the Nineteen Seventies ( before ), Eighties ( during ) and Nineties ( after ) her period of office before you think you have any right to express an opinion on it.

[baron]

As for George Galloway, am I to take it you like him?

How can you not have respect for such a dignified figure as Mr Galloway?

http://www.pjcomix.com/images/galloway1.jpg

[Alex Tsander]

Nice one Baron...however, it does make Gall-away at least seem "human". Which in a pejorative sense, he isnt.

Apologies to anyone turned off by my response to plumpuddings school-churl sarcasm of actually providing justification for my opinions, never a good thing when responding to trolls and leading way off topic. However, I think he may have been questioning my choice of the word "demagogue" rather than my dissaproval of Galloway.

To clarify, by "demagogue" I mean a person who, like Mussolini or Hitler, opportunistically exploits political circumstances to create or usurp a party of which he is the central focus. This criterion George Galloway definitely meets: Have you never wondered what or who "Respect" is supposed to champion respect for? Implicitly it is its Fuhrer, Galloway himself. Additionally, Galloways actual behaviour when, so to speak, on the podium, is uncannily reminiscent of both Mussolini and Hitler. You do not have to actually own a country ( yet ) in order to qualify as a "demagogue". Although you do need followers, which Galloway clearly has, however few.

[Unalienable]

I see some people have addressed this in terms of what constitutes "scepticism" whereas I was thinking in terms of what constitutes " a sceptic". More of a social rather than a philosophical or semantic issue.

OK, here's a question to address that distinction. Suppose you turn on the television and you see some item on the news.

Do you

1. Automatically fall into a state of belief, based on the presumption that the media is generally accurate and has no motive to lie to you?

2. Automatically fall into a state of disbelief, as the evidence on a television is so easily manipulated that you require more proof to believe what is being reported?

3. Do you leave the issue as an "unsolved case" where you've only heard one side of the story but you're open to new evidence as it presents itself?

Myself, I lean towards #3, sometimes even #2, but I think a lot of people who call themselves "skeptics" would lean towards #1 for 99% of all news items. (The other 1% being bleeding Virgin Mary statues and UFO sightings.)

[plumjam]

"Yet Hitchcock was crap and Galloway a 'demagogue'.
Takes all sorts, I suppose."

I was expecting something like that.

so what about Hitchcock. Take "Vertigo". To start with, vertigo is not a fear of heights but a condition of the inner ear. Not such a big deal were it not the very title of the movie. The real problem is the entire conception of the plot. a man has an affair with a woman. Less than a year later he has another affair with the same woman, who has merely died her hair and changed her name, and he doesn't know it is the same woman! DOH! What kind of idiot would imagine such a thing possible? Then there is Hitchcock's appalling visual "sensibility". He doesn't notice, and presumably you have not either, that in the famous scene of a man being chased by an airplane in North By North West, his suit changes colour three times! Doh! Such a great director. A director so full of originality that he even made the same movie twice! Doh! His plots are variously unbelieveablem cheesy, and boring. Over-complex and dependent entirely upon happen-chance. Then we have the sickening ly warped mind-set expressed in his sick-pic Marnie.

As for George Galloway, am I to take it you like him? A man whose concept of "debate" is to bellow a sack-load of insults at someone at the top of his voice and to literally gnash his teeth ( I'm not making that up, BBC Newsnight last week gave us a live close up of him gnashing his teeth like a rabid dog ), he is a foul, loud-mouthed Glaswegian brawler who takes the side of any enemy of our society that will pay him a few barrels of oil. A man who was bought by the Palestinians in exchange for an arranged marriage with a woman who has since lest him protesting publicly that she thinks it ironic that he called his nut-job party "Respect" when he "shows no respect for me " ( being a serial philanderer ). A man who, to boot, has now even been ejected from the nut-job partyy he created by the very nut-jobs he created it for on accou nt of his, yes, dictatorial and demagogue style. A man who stands up in Trafalger square at a rally to support Hizbollah and states ( and I quote ) "I glorify terrorism, I endorse terrorism and I seek to encourage terrorism".

Thats a few pouints in evidence for my loathing of George galloway. Can you cite any evidence to the effect that he has done any good for anybody?

As for Margaret Thatcher, boy, you had better have lived in Britain, as an adult in the Nineteen Seventies ( before ), Eighties ( during ) and Nineties ( after ) her period of office before you think you have any right to express an opinion on it.

Wow Alex. I hope you'll stick around. There's nothing like an ill-informed ranter for providing amusement. The atmosphere here can get a bit humour-free. So thanks for being you. :D

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Wow Alex. I hope you'll stick around. There's nothing like an ill-informed ranter for providing amusement. The atmosphere here can get a bit humour-free. So thanks for being you. :D
The irony, it burns!

[robinson]

OK, here's a question to address that distinction. Suppose you turn on the television and you see some item on the news.

Do you

1. Automatically fall into a state of belief, based on the presumption that the media is generally accurate and has no motive to lie to you?

2. Automatically fall into a state of disbelief, as the evidence on a television is so easily manipulated that you require more proof to believe what is being reported?

3. Do you leave the issue as an "unsolved case" where you've only heard one side of the story but you're open to new evidence as it presents itself?

Myself, I lean towards #3, sometimes even #2, but I think a lot of people who call themselves "skeptics" would lean towards #1 for 99% of all news items. (The other 1% being bleeding Virgin Mary statues and UFO sightings.)

What a fine example. Most people watch the Tube, (the original tube, not those pesky youtubes and godtubes and porntubes and such), and indeed we are presented daily with some new discovery, some amazing story, some interesting tale.

What does a true skeptic do when faced with a story that sounds like it might not be 100% true?

I can only speak for myself. Based on long experience, and especially having worked in the industry, in many areas, I can tell you what I do.

Do I 1. Automatically fall into a state of belief, based on the presumption that the media is generally accurate and has no motive to lie to you?

This is far too black and white. It is rare that an outright lie is told, (except for FOX News, but that is politics you know), it is more that the source is fraudulent, or more to the point, the story has a slant, a spin to it. How you describe something is very important in how it is perceived. There is also the matter of leaving out stuff, which is the best way of deceiving the gullible. Half truths go over well.

Do I 2. Automatically fall into a state of disbelief, as the evidence on a television is so easily manipulated that you require more proof to believe what is being reported?

Again, for me, it isn't that simple. It isn't a matter of "did this happen", but how, why,and who made it happen. What is the complete story? What is the back story? What Corporation owns the News Agency? What advertisers are involved? What politics? Who stands to gain from this story?

3. Do you leave the issue as an "unsolved case" where you've only heard one side of the story but you're open to new evidence as it presents itself?


At some point we are going to have to use real examples. A few days ago I saw a News piece on a plug in hybrid SUV that was reported to get 150mpg, outperform the stock SUV, was made with off the shelf parts, and had passed scientific testing to prove this.

More on this here
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3331731#post3331731

I checked the Internet, looked at both the official website, News sites, car sites, the auto show it was shown at, and watched more video of the SUV. Did a little technical checking, and decided it was believable.

Since I am interested in these things, I found it worth checking into.

I don't know, but I imagine a pseudoskeptic would brush it off as a scam, explain it away as impossible, do anything but check for themselves. That isn't skepticism to me. That is dumb.

Thinking you know everything is the opposite of being skeptical. In my view. Obviously many things we are going to just ignore, based on our experience.

But to brush off anything and everything that counters your belief system isn't skepticism. That is religion.

[Silly Green Monkey]

so what about Hitchcock. Take "Vertigo". To start with, vertigo is not a fear of heights but a condition of the inner ear. Not such a big deal were it not the very title of the movie. The real problem is the entire conception of the plot. a man has an affair with a woman. Less than a year later he has another affair with the same woman, who has merely died her hair and changed her name, and he doesn't know it is the same woman! DOH! What kind of idiot would imagine such a thing possible?

Didn't you notice that the reason he pursued this woman was *because* he'd recognized her, despite her change in hair? Why did you think he was forcing her to take the appearance of the woman who'd died?

[fls]

OK, here's a question to address that distinction. Suppose you turn on the television and you see some item on the news.

Do you

1. Automatically fall into a state of belief, based on the presumption that the media is generally accurate and has no motive to lie to you?

2. Automatically fall into a state of disbelief, as the evidence on a television is so easily manipulated that you require more proof to believe what is being reported?

3. Do you leave the issue as an "unsolved case" where you've only heard one side of the story but you're open to new evidence as it presents itself?

Myself, I lean towards #3, sometimes even #2, but I think a lot of people who call themselves "skeptics" would lean towards #1 for 99% of all news items. (The other 1% being bleeding Virgin Mary statues and UFO sightings.)

I really don't think those are the distinctions. Realistically, we all tend to do all three, depending upon whether or not it fits with our preconceived notions. We are all skeptical of those things which do not fit our preconceived notions. What distinguishes skepticism is the willingness to give serious consideration to information that contradicts your preconceived notions. Or to take it even further, to actively seek out information that would contradict them.

Linda

[Piscivore]

I think a lot of us have a working definition of the true skeptic as being someone who completely rules out any possibility of a "supernatural" explanation for anything.

That's not a skeptic to me, although I know a few people who seem to think that is correct.

[robinson]

I tend to see it that way. Nothing supernatural exist.

[Piscivore]

I tend to see it that way. Nothing supernatural exist.

Well, do you think that because there is no evidence thusfar for anything supernatural you tend not to use that as a initial hypothesis, or do you just "completely rule out any possibility of a "supernatural" explanation for anything"?

I see the first position as reasonable, the second fundamentalist.

[Alex Tsander]

Arkan , thanks, you are succinctly to the point. Its a funny sort of person who quotes anothers entire post and then sets out to logically refute it in one line by simply declaring it to be wrong! The funny sort of person ( "hermaphrodite" might be the correct term to judge by the picture in their profile ) who has made 1,781 posts in less than six months, being an average of 11.4 posts per day, no doubt all equally deeply argued one-liners as those in this thread. Thereat be, I think, a true "troll". ( Figures no doubt imminently to increase ).

[Alex Tsander]

Referring to the TV News paradigm, we have at least two layers of possible doubt to contend with. First, is the news report, eg that of the 150mpg SUV ( or whatever it was ) true, in that that reflects the manufacturers claim, and secondly, is the claim true? I have noticed that many news items report something that is factually true but for adding an extra zero ( for example ) to the magnitude of something ( ie, 15 mpg becomes 150 mpg ). There may be a third layer: the claims may be a true reflection of the data, but is the data correct?

Taking the three types of response proposed ( roughly speaking, believe it all, believe nothing or something in between ) there is an additional consideration, applying to each of these: is the default position influenced in any individual case by ones personal views or prejudices. IE, if ones default position is "believe it all" does one vary that according to whether that presented for belief is consistent with ones prejudices. In the case of the "in between" default, this might mean varying ones inclination as to whether to accept each item according to whether or not it conforms to ones world view. The example that comes to mind is that supporters of Greenpeace vocally endorse "scientific consensus" on climate change but reject it on GM agriculture or nuclear power.

Regarding "supernatural" I think it might be useful to distinguish between this and "paranormal". By definition, surely, super-natural is something that is outside the laws of nature, ie, the world apprehended by science, and therefore cannot ever be "true" in a "scientific" sense ( although possibly "true" in terms of another discourse, such as religion ). Yet it can never be asserted that the "para-normal" is never true, because many things at one time considered such are now thought to be "normal". For example, that apes other than Humans use tools.

By the way, regarding your point, SG Monkey:

"Didn't you notice that the reason he pursued this woman was *because* he'd recognized her, despite her change in hair? Why did you think he was forcing her to take the appearance of the woman who'd died?"

I think actually that proves my point. He looks for a woman who resembles the lover he thinks died. Finds one who he thinks is ANOTHER woman, getting her to dress to resemble the "dead" one. Then only later realises that it is actually the SAME woman. Where any intimacy between a man and a woman is concerned I think you must concede that it is inconceiveable that he would not realise ( in the depicted circumstances ) that it was the same woman. Hitchcock expects us to believe that a man could, how can I put it delicately, shag the same bird without realising it was indeed the woman for whom he pynes!

I thought this was a forum on scepticism, my movie posts are at IMDB. I am still bracing myself for Plum Persons next edifying rejoinder from the back of the class.

[Piscivore]

Arkan , thanks, you are succinctly to the point. Its a funny sort of person who quotes anothers entire post and then sets out to logically refute it in one line by simply declaring it to be wrong!
You've yet to meet Larsen, obviously.

The funny sort of person ( "hermaphrodite" might be the correct term to judge by the picture in their profile )
Well, I'm not sure the avatar is our Mr. Plum, but the person thus depicted is dressed as The Scarecrow of Oz, in otherwords, a "straw man". I thought it was amusing.

who has made 1,781 posts in less than six months, being an average of 11.4 posts per day, no doubt all equally deeply argued one-liners as those in this thread.
I'm not sure my own posting efforts would fare well under scrutiny with these criteria in mind. Nonetheless, these sorts of things do not seem themselves a valid judge of a poster's contributions.

Thereat be, I think, a true "troll".
Aw, Plum's okay. A woo and a half sometimes, but I've seen much worse.

As far as Hitchcock, and Vertigo: I suppose it would come down to how convinced he was the girl was dead the first time. I don't even remember the surname of the first girl I had sex with, I certainly couldn't pick her out of a lineup now.

A lot of your other issues with Hitchcock seem a bit pedantic to me. Meh. You don't have to be perfect to be great.

[plumjam]

Arkan , thanks, you are succinctly to the point. Its a funny sort of person who quotes anothers entire post and then sets out to logically refute it in one line by simply declaring it to be wrong! The funny sort of person ( "hermaphrodite" might be the correct term to judge by the picture in their profile ) who has made 1,781 posts in less than six months, being an average of 11.4 posts per day, no doubt all equally deeply argued one-liners as those in this thread. Thereat be, I think, a true "troll". ( Figures no doubt imminently to increase ).

I didn't consider it worth the effort to bring well researched, cogent, objections to your long list of points. This was because you are so far out on, for example, Galloway, that it wouldn't really deserve the time and effort. You'll find out before long on this forum that when you get things wrong people will soon point it out.
Like this.

Galloway has not been ejected from the Respect Party. In fact, a week on saturday he is scheduled to be doing a fundraiser for them.
http://www.georgegalloway.com/

He will still be standing as a parliamentary candidate for the Respect Party in the next general election, in the constituency of Poplar and Limehouse.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2007/08/10/towerhamlets_galloway_poplar_feature.shtml

He was ejected from the Labour Party, and later was ejected and temporarily suspended from the House of Commons.
Perhaps you are getting some/all of the above confused in your memory.

As to him allegedly saying "I glorify terrorism..etc.." at Trafalgar Square.. this is the only reference I could find:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22I+glorify+terrorism%22+george+galloway&btnG=Search
Yes, on the whole of Google there is only one reference to George Galloway, and "I glorify terrorism". And the reference is you, here in the JREF forum.

He did say, in a speech at Trafalgar Square that to vote for Tony Blair would be to glorify terrorism. From 9 mins onwards.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=UFj2lx5LL3g

So, again, it seems you have things confused in your recollection. And in a way that completely traduces what is actually the case.

Barrels of oil?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/jan/25/Iraqandthemedia.thedailytelegraph

It's a more minor point, but I find the fact that you would take the testimony of a disgruntled ex-wife as sound evidence as to a man's character pretty revealing. And if you're relying on her as a good judge of character how did she get into the position of marrying someone (IYO) as bad as that in the first place?

Now can you understand why I find you so amusing?
As someone else pointed out you were even wrong about the film Vertigo.

There's no point in you trying to write long impressive-sounding posts when you have such a confused grasp of what is, after all, the subject matter of your own choice.

[Alex Tsander]

"Well, I'm not sure the avatar is our Mr. Plum, but the person thus depicted is dressed as The Scarecrow of Oz, in otherwords, a "straw man". I thought it was amusing."

Thats not the photo I referred to, it was the one of the bearded lady-boy on the "profile" page.

[Alex Tsander]

...I havent bothered to read what he,she,it posted next. And I won't be bothering to read anything else with the hermaphrodites by-line. My idea of a "troll" is someone who isnt really interested in the actual topic of a forum but just shouts things from the side-lines. Commonly by taking snipes at someone picked according to their particular bigotry or prejudices. In this instance, nothing whatever about scepticism. Moreover one-liners which he , she, it pops off at a rate of more than 11 a day for every day of his/her/its membership. Matbe it.she, he has something against me, thats the peril of posting under ones actual name. But at least it proves I have the testicles to do so.

Its like a bunch of people in a room are trying to discuss a topic and trying to ignore a little tosser who is clowning around for attention.

[plumjam]

...I havent bothered to read what he,she,it posted next. And I won't be bothering to read anything else with the hermaphrodites by-line. My idea of a "troll" is someone who isnt really interested in the actual topic of a forum but just shouts things from the side-lines. Commonly by taking snipes at someone picked according to their particular bigotry or prejudices. In this instance, nothing whatever about scepticism. Moreover one-liners which he , she, it pops off at a rate of more than 11 a day for every day of his/her/its membership. Matbe it.she, he has something against me, thats the peril of posting under ones actual name. But at least it proves I have the testicles to do so.

Its like a bunch of people in a room are trying to discuss a topic and trying to ignore a little tosser who is clowning around for attention.

Well, I don't believe you didn't read it. I believe you read it, and are now doing the 'sticking fingers in your ears and shouting I can't hear you' thing they do in playgrounds the world over; because you realise you haven't a leg to stand on.
So now I can add dishonesty to inaccuracy, on your report card.
I have nothing against you personally, and I haven't heard your name before. I just felt that seeing someone spouting a load of opinions, many of which are based on falsehood.. , that the end result might be better all round if someone were to prick the bubble of pompous self-opinionation.
As to the OP. Yes, I agree. There are loads of pseudo-skeptics, who are as ideological as are religious fundamentalists. There are quite a few here, but gladly not the majority, in my opinion.

[Alex Tsander]

"Picovore: A lot of your other issues with Hitchcock seem a bit pedantic to me. Meh. You don't have to be perfect to be great."

I wasn't seeking to discuss Hitchcock, per se, but merely using him as an example of someone who enjoys "Emperors Robes" status, "sacred cow" status, who is not open to question. I think the response of one individual has amply illustrated that point. That merely having the balls to question the recived wisdom that Hitchcock is "great" draws ridicule. I would moderate my initial statement that Hitchcock is "crap" but i do think his films are at best mediocre. Even the "masterpiece" ( Psycho ) was, firstly, cribbed from someone else, secondly, consisted of two plots having no relation to each other stuck together to no conjoint purpose...other than to fill out the time. This may sound far fetched. But there is the case of Lyndsay andersons "If": great significance was critically attached to Anderson deciding to switch to black-and-white part wa\y through. But Anderson later confessed that it was because they ran out of colour film!

If you cannoty be sceptical of "artistic" merit, what the hell can you be sceptical of?

[Alex Tsander]

Another example is that "great" and most ground-breaking book and film, "Invasion of the body snatchers". As a matter of fact, the scenario was stolen from Robert Heinleins best-selling novel "The Puppet-Masters". It's not EXACTLY the same, but essentially so. uncannily so. Presumably it was cheaper to hire a hack to write a plagiarism and make a movie of it than to buy the rights of the original. Whilst Body Snatchers has been shot three times, Puppet masters did not get filmed until Ninety something. This hardly seems fair.

[Alex Tsander]

Perhaps here we find an illustration of a defining characteristic of a pseudo-sceptic.:

"Artistic" merit is not something that can ultimately bec considered in "objective" terms. One cannot ever say that this or that artist, director, whatever, is great or not AS A FACT. Facts are susceptible to dis-proof, which "artistic" merit is not. You can say an artist ( in the broad sense, including Hitchcock, Madonna, Marcel Marceau ) is successful,or not, popular, or not, etc. But none of such considerations has ever been considered a criterion of "artistic" merit. Indeed, George Bernard Shaw was of the opinion that if anything is truly popular, that can be taken as evidence that it is WITHOUT merit. One would search hard to find a "high-monded" person willing to declare that the Bay City Rollers were "great" artists, in spite of their immense success and popularity.

Whether or not an artist is considered "great" is therefore, ultimately, always going to be a matter of opinion. Subject to matters of fashion, taste, politics, the zeitgeist. Even technical inadequacies in the use of a medium ( such as Hitchcocks terrible lack of continuity in North By Northwest ) does not necessarily disqualify them from "greatness", as illustrated by the nineteen-eighties movement headed by Julian Schnabel dubbed "Bad Painting" of which technical crudeness was an essential aspect.

Given that this is so, one would struggle to make a case that one is not entitled to question, or be sceptical of, the "greatness" of a particular artist. It cannot be said that expressing a sceptical opinion of an artists status, as a sacred cow, can ever be as a matter of fact "wrong" in the sense that stating that water does not contain hydrogen certainly can be declared "wrong". These are two entirely different realms of discourse.

Under such circumstances, a person who insists that it is a matter of "fact" that an artist ( director, musician, etc ) IS "great", rather than merely the fact that they are "considered great" is a person who is the very opposite of sceptical. They are the people who compliment the emperor on his marvellous robes! For such a person to then offer their opinion as being that of a sceptic makes them a "pseudo-sceptic".

[robinson]

As a matter of fact, the scenario was stolen from Robert Heinleins best-selling novel "The Puppet-Masters". It's not EXACTLY the same, but essentially so. uncannily so. Presumably it was cheaper to hire a hack to write a plagiarism and make a movie of it than to buy the rights of the original.

The Body Snatchers was a 1955 science fiction novel by Jack Finney. While similar to Heinleins The Puppet Masters, if you read both stories, you can tell the story is certainly not the same.

Presumably you didn't do a bit of research before making stuff up.

[robinson]

Given that this is so, one would struggle to make a case that one is not entitled to question, or be sceptical of, the "greatness" of a particular artist. It cannot be said that expressing a sceptical opinion of an artists status, as a sacred cow, can ever be as a matter of fact "wrong" in the sense that stating that water does not contain hydrogen certainly can be declared "wrong". These are two entirely different realms of discourse.

Indeed.

[Alex Tsander]

Which restores the initial point upon which I started this thread. The person I referred to there in that initial comment ( naming no names ) is exactly such a person. Although it is not over artistic issues that she expresses credulous opinions but pseudo-scientific ones.

[Alex Tsander]

Robinson--_ I did say that it was not the same, didnt I! Puppet Masters was publioshed first.

[Alex Tsander]

Perhaps here we find an illustration of a defining characteristic of a pseudo-sceptic.:

"Artistic" merit is not something that can ultimately bec considered in "objective" terms. One cannot ever say that this or that artist, director, whatever, is great or not AS A FACT. Facts are susceptible to dis-proof, which "artistic" merit is not. You can say an artist ( in the broad sense, including Hitchcock, Madonna, Marcel Marceau ) is successful,or not, popular, or not, etc. But none of such considerations has ever been considered a criterion of "artistic" merit. Indeed, George Bernard Shaw was of the opinion that if anything is truly popular, that can be taken as evidence that it is WITHOUT merit. One would search hard to find a "high-monded" person willing to declare that the Bay City Rollers were "great" artists, in spite of their immense success and popularity.

Whether or not an artist is considered "great" is therefore, ultimately, always going to be a matter of opinion. Subject to matters of fashion, taste, politics, the zeitgeist. Even technical inadequacies in the use of a medium ( such as Hitchcocks terrible lack of continuity in North By Northwest ) does not necessarily disqualify them from "greatness", as illustrated by the nineteen-eighties movement headed by Julian Schnabel dubbed "Bad Painting" of which technical crudeness was an essential aspect.

Given that this is so, one would struggle to make a case that one is not entitled to question, or be sceptical of, the "greatness" of a particular artist. It cannot be said that expressing a sceptical opinion of an artists status, as a sacred cow, can ever be as a matter of fact "wrong" in the sense that stating that water does not contain hydrogen certainly can be declared "wrong". These are two entirely different realms of discourse.

Under such circumstances, a person who insists that it is a matter of "fact" that an artist ( director, musician, etc ) IS "great", rather than merely the fact that they are "considered great" is a person who is the very opposite of sceptical. They are the people who compliment the emperor on his marvellous robes! For such a person to then offer their opinion as being that of a sceptic makes them a "pseudo-sceptic".

[Alex Tsander]

Its now 3.30 AM in UK, so I am going to bed.

[robinson]

Has anyone other than me slipped into a tendency to think of the title "sceptic" as an honour which in some sense has to be earned?

Until you asked, I never thought about it. I just mentally judge people by there words. Somebody who refuses to look at evidence, to do any research, to question and investigate, yet constantly attempts to convince me by repeating something over and over, I tend to dismiss. Either lazy or dumb.

I tend to agree with Sagan, in that everybody is a skeptic, in some arena of life.

Carl Sagan, The Burden Of Skepticism, The Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 12, Fall 87

[Cuddles]

Under such circumstances, a person who insists that it is a matter of "fact" that an artist ( director, musician, etc ) IS "great", rather than merely the fact that they are "considered great" is a person who is the very opposite of sceptical. They are the people who compliment the emperor on his marvellous robes! For such a person to then offer their opinion as being that of a sceptic makes them a "pseudo-sceptic".

To be honest, I really can't see what point you are trying to make. Skepticism has nothing to do with opinions on films. As you say, that is purely a matter of opinion, and therefore has nothing to do with skepticism, pseudo or otherwise. Skepticism deals with facts and evidence. Film preferences don't. Responding to "X is a great artist" with "Ha! You're just a pseudo-skeptic" is just about the most bizzare argument I've ever seen.

[plumjam]

Responding to "X is a great artist" with "Ha! You're just a pseudo-skeptic" is just about the most bizzare argument I've ever seen.

Indeed so.

[cj.23]

I think a lot of us have a working definition of the true skeptic as being someone who completely rules out any possibility of a "supernatural" explanation for anything.

Er, that is a priori scepticism, and I attack it whenever i encounter it as a form of dogma. I think I'm a pyrrhonist - though I did draw provisional conclusions, so I describe myself as a process sceptic, to make clear my scepticism is a methodological framework for arriving at truth, not a conclusion.

No one is a complete sceptic - even solipsists believe in their own consciousness, and in day to day life scepticism would render one utterly dysfunctional if employed absolutely. "If I get out of bed, will I fall to through the floor to my death? - No, it has never happened before. - How do I know that? I remember? How do I know my memories are reliable? How do I know my memories are mine? How do I know I am here to ask the questions?"


So scepticism is to me a working hypothesis employed only on claims i see reason to dispute. :) There is no True Sceptic, and he is wearing a kilt and eating porridge.

cj x

[Ersby]

I just checked that scene in North By North West - I couldn't see Cary Grant's suit change colour once.

[Piscivore]

To be honest, I really can't see what point you are trying to make.

Glad I'm not the only one.