Comprehensive characteristics of the pseudoskeptic and the skeptic

[Zeuzzz]

I have noticed that there appears to be two main types of skeptics. One an admirable role, one quite the opposite.

Therefore we have a skeptic, and a pseudoskeptic.

Points courtesy of Proff Truzi,

Characteristics of a pseudoskeptic.

* The tendency to deny, rather than doubt.
* Double standards in the application of criticism.
* The making of judgments without full inquiry.
* Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate.
* Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments.
* Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.
* Presenting insufficient evidence or proof.
* Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof.
* Making unsubstantiated counter-claims.
* Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence.
* Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it.
* Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims.
* Asserting that claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa (Argument from ignorance).
* They speak down to their audience using 'arguments from authority'.
* They put forward their assumptions as if they were universal truths.
* No references to reputable journal material.
* If the pseudo-skeptic has a monetary interest (such as maintaining a funding stream or a salary) his criticisms often become vituperative.


True Skeptics / Open-Minded Skeptics

* Does not show any of the characteristics of a pseudoskeptic.
* Inquires and asks questions to try to understand things
* Applies open inquiry and investigation of both sides
* Is nonjudgmental, doesn't jump to rash conclusions
* Has honest doubt and questions all beliefs, including their own
* Seeks the truth, considers it the highest aim
* Fairly and objectively weighs evidence on all sides
* Acknowledges valid convincing evidence
* Possesses solid sharp common sense and reason
* Is able to adapt and update their paradigms to new evidence



Just a nice guide to fall back on, the skeptics bible in a way.

Its not amazingly consistant (ie, skeptics should not give people a stereotype and dismiss them due to that, so immediately labelling the pseudoskeptic, so has an early issue)

Are there better lists to check against than this one people know of?

And how correct do you think this one is?

[Uncayimmy]

I have noticed that there appears to be two main types of skeptics. One an admirable role, one quite the opposite.

Therefore we have a skeptic, and a pseudoskeptic.

Points courtesy of Proff Truzi,

Characteristics of a pseudoskeptic.

* The tendency to deny, rather than doubt.
* Double standards in the application of criticism.
* The making of judgments without full inquiry.
* Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate.
* Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments.
* Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.
* Presenting insufficient evidence or proof.
* Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof.
* Making unsubstantiated counter-claims.
* Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence.
* Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it.
* Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims.
* Asserting that claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa (Argument from ignorance).
* They speak down to their audience using 'arguments from authority'.
* They put forward their assumptions as if they were universal truths.
* No references to reputable journal material.
* If the pseudo-skeptic has a monetary interest (such as maintaining a funding stream or a salary) his criticisms often become vituperative.


True Skeptics / Open-Minded Skeptics

* Does not show any of the characteristics of a pseudoskeptic.
* Inquires and asks questions to try to understand things
* Applies open inquiry and investigation of both sides
* Is nonjudgmental, doesn't jump to rash conclusions
* Has honest doubt and questions all beliefs, including their own
* Seeks the truth, considers it the highest aim
* Fairly and objectively weighs evidence on all sides
* Acknowledges valid convincing evidence
* Possesses solid sharp common sense and reason
* Is able to adapt and update their paradigms to new evidence



Just a nice guide to fall back on, the skeptics bible in a way.

Its not amazingly consistant (ie, skeptics should not give people a stereotype and dismiss them due to that, so immediately labelling the pseudoskeptic, so has an early issue)

Are there better lists to check against than this one people know of?

And how correct do you think this one is?

Different values of these...

* Fairly and objectively weighs evidence on all sides
* Acknowledges valid convincing evidence
* Possesses solid sharp common sense and reason

...often end up creating many of the things you list on your pseudoskeptics lists. C'mon, "sharp common sense" is just another name for **** you "know" is right but can't prove. "Valid convincing evidence" is what pseudoskeptics believe after they have dismissed all the unconvincing evidence. As for being "fair" well, "common sense" tells you that <whatever> is stupid.

I bet there are a lot of people who call themselves "true" skeptics that many others would call "pseudo" skeptics. Personally, I think your list for the real skeptic is way too long. I think you can narrow it down to just a few:

* Has honest doubt and questions all beliefs, including their own
* Applies open inquiry and investigation of all angles
* Inquires and asks questions to try to understand things
* Seeks the truth, considers it the highest aim

I think that about sums it up. I changed the order because in my mind that's how it works. It starts with questioning, then moves to investigating all angles (you wrote both sides), asks a lot of questions, all the while seeking truth. This last part connects back to the first part to form a ring, because a skeptic is always going to have a teeny bit of doubt that leaves the door open for re-investigation if warranted.

[athon]

I'd agree with UncaYimmy's assessment, and throw in for skeptics 'views conclusions as gradients of confidence', rather than dichotomies of true and false. I understand that's more or less what doubt refers to, but to me, seeing it as a degree of confidence in a conclusion allows you to break it down further.

Athon

[Uncayimmy]

I like that - Gradients of Confidence. Along those lines I would add that a skeptic should be able to express their degree of confidence about something and explain what they have learned that moves the needle in either direction. Likewise, they should be able to point out what new information could move the needle in either direction.

[rjh01]

This list is in several places on the Internet.

[MRC_Hans]

And basically, making such lists is just yet another attempt to pass the ball.

Believers in anything: It does not matter one bit what 'kind of skeptic' you are facing. ALL that matters is that your arguments hold. So I suggest you concentrate on that.

Hans

[arthwollipot]

I believe that it's possible to "make judgements without full enquiry" if the subject one is judging is one that has been thoroughly "enquired" previously. For example, I do not think it's necessary to enquire fully about Uri Geller's spoonbending in order to make the judgement that it's a magic trick.

[Dave Rogers]

The term 'pseudoskeptic' is, in this or any other context, virtually worthless. My tentative conclusion on the common usage of this term, based on experience and subject to revision in the light of further evidence, is that it's a strawman definition used by the belief-driven to try to invalidate the views of any skeptic who disagrees with them, and that the very use of the term in itself is a strong indicator that the person using the term has a set of beliefs that they are not themselves prepared to question, and dislikes the fact that others do not hold that set of beliefs as self-evident. It's particularly telling that, from these lists, only a 'pseudoskeptic' ever criticises people whose points of view are not evidence-based, or indeed ever reaches a conclusion at all; in effect, this list is an attempt to redefine skepticism so as to exclude its conclusions. As such, it's simply a ploy by woo merchants to discredit their opposition.

Dave

[Ikarus]

The term 'pseudoskeptic' is, in this or any other context, virtually worthless. My tentative conclusion on the common usage of this term, based on experience and subject to revision in the light of further evidence, is that it's a strawman definition used by the belief-driven to try to invalidate the views of any skeptic who disagrees with them, and that the very use of the term in itself is a strong indicator that the person using the term has a set of beliefs that they are not themselves prepared to question, and dislikes the fact that others do not hold that set of beliefs as self-evident. It's particularly telling that, from these lists, only a 'pseudoskeptic' ever criticises people whose points of view are not evidence-based, or indeed ever reaches a conclusion at all; in effect, this list is an attempt to redefine skepticism so as to exclude its conclusions. As such, it's simply a ploy by woo merchants to discredit their opposition.

Dave

Well analyzed and put.

[manofthesea]

Well if it is decided that the list is somewhat biased and inaccurate let me try one. Skeptics approach a topic from a mostly scientific viewpoint. They'll analyze a subject and apply reason and science. Occam's razor is rightly respected by skeptics.
Pseudoskeptics, a valid term, approach a topic mostly from an ex-believer type of viewpoint. They'll come to the realization that the woo they've been promoting and sometimes even creating is just that. They then apply that type of reasoning to a topic and even other topics as well. But still lacking any real scientific reasoning. That is when they develop the 'attitudes' specifically mentioned in the list, now debunked.

[Dancing David]

Excuse me Zeuzzz but when I consider the persistent posting of the same garbage over time, your inability to defend your claims, you are pandering.

[fls]

I've only encountered the term 'pseudoskeptic' here. And then only from people who seem upset that their beliefs suffer when exposed to a critical examination, or who seem confused when their naive attempts at a skeptical review of a topic doesn't garner support. Now it may be that I am simply ignorant of its more general usage, but is this really a valid term? It looks more like its use is confined to name-calling.

Linda

[Darat]

I've only encountered the term 'pseudoskeptic' here. And then only from people who seem upset that their beliefs suffer when exposed to a critical examination, or who seem confused when their naive attempts at a skeptical review of a topic doesn't garner support. Now it may be that I am simply ignorant of its more general usage, but is this really a valid term? It looks more like its use is confined to name-calling.

Linda

It is.

[Lothian]

It is.Pseudoconcurer.

[Uncayimmy]

I've only encountered the term 'pseudoskeptic' here. And then only from people who seem upset that their beliefs suffer when exposed to a critical examination, or who seem confused when their naive attempts at a skeptical review of a topic doesn't garner support. Now it may be that I am simply ignorant of its more general usage, but is this really a valid term? It looks more like its use is confined to name-calling.

Linda

If you've only seen it here, then that means you didn't bother to take the 30 seconds to type it into Google. Rendering opinions without even doing a modicum of research...sure wish we had a term for that.

As for whether it's a "valid" term or not, what does name-calling have to do with it? It's valid if it conveys meaning. If people use use it for name calling, that doesn't make it any less valid than any other word.

[Darat]

If you've only seen it here, then that means you didn't bother to take the 30 seconds to type it into Google. Rendering opinions without even doing a modicum of research...sure wish we had a term for that.

As for whether it's a "valid" term or not, what does name-calling have to do with it? It's valid if it conveys meaning. If people use use it for name calling, that doesn't make it any less valid than any other word.


Because words have meanings and often the meaning of a word can be pejorative.

[fls]

Let's deconstruct this criticism.

If you've only seen it here,

I stated that I'd only encountered it here. You took that to mean that I'd only seen it here. Fair enough. "Encounter" can refer to several different types of interactions. In this case, I'm referring to someone's choice to use the term to convey useful meaning in an interaction with me.

then that means you didn't bother to take the 30 seconds to type it into Google.

Interesting choice of criterion for having "seen" a word. I'm not sure that's a particularly useful approach. I also can type "antidisestablishmentarianism" into Google and receive 90,200 hits, but I can't say that I have "encountered" that word either (except for its novelty as the longest word of some sort). I'm also not sure that multiple examples of the use 'pseudoskeptic' gets here goes any further towards answering my original question.

Rendering opinions

Rendering opinions? What opinion am I rendering? I asked whether this is a valid term, that is, does it convey meaning? I know that the word exists and people intend to convey 'something' with its use. But how does any of that constitute an "opinion"?

without even doing a modicum of research...sure wish we had a term for that.

Google U is the only game in town? I hope you're just trying to be an ass with that remark, 'cuz it would be kind of scary otherwise.

As for whether it's a "valid" term or not, what does name-calling have to do with it?

If the meaning it conveys is pejorative rather than a reflection of the roots of the word.

It's valid if it conveys meaning. If people use use it for name calling, that doesn't make it any less valid than any other word.

I am wondering if the list of characteristics in the OP reflects its real use. When my son says, "that show is so gay," it's of no use to tell me that the characteristics of 'gay' are 'cheery, bright and pleasant' or 'homosexual'.

Linda

[Ivor the Engineer]

Because words have meanings and often the meaning of a word can be pejorative.

I can only think of a couple of people I know outside this forum who might take offence at being called a pseudoskeptic.:)

'Pseudoskeptic' seems to me to be another term for 'No True Scotsman'.

[Uncayimmy]

Because words have meanings and often the meaning of a word can be pejorative.

Oh, I see. Words have meanings? Never thought of that before. The meaning of a word can be pejorative? News to me. Thanks for clearing that up.

[blutoski]

The term 'pseudoskeptic' is, in this or any other context, virtually worthless. My tentative conclusion on the common usage of this term, based on experience and subject to revision in the light of further evidence, is that it's a strawman definition used by the belief-driven to try to invalidate the views of any skeptic who disagrees with them, and that the very use of the term in itself is a strong indicator that the person using the term has a set of beliefs that they are not themselves prepared to question, and dislikes the fact that others do not hold that set of beliefs as self-evident. It's particularly telling that, from these lists, only a 'pseudoskeptic' ever criticises people whose points of view are not evidence-based, or indeed ever reaches a conclusion at all; in effect, this list is an attempt to redefine skepticism so as to exclude its conclusions. As such, it's simply a ploy by woo merchants to discredit their opposition.

Dave

I disagree, based on my experience in skepticism.

I often meet card-carrying skeptics who believe that skepticism is iconoclasm. By 'skeptic' they mean 'person who rejects popular beliefs and beliefs endorsed by experts.'

These are pseudoskeptics.

[blutoski]

I've only encountered the term 'pseudoskeptic' here. And then only from people who seem upset that their beliefs suffer when exposed to a critical examination, or who seem confused when their naive attempts at a skeptical review of a topic doesn't garner support. Now it may be that I am simply ignorant of its more general usage, but is this really a valid term? It looks more like its use is confined to name-calling.

Linda

I think there is a legitemate use of 'pseudoskeptic' and I do use it myself when working with others within organized skepticism. It is certainly a common term in the 'trade'. Perhaps it fell into disuse and another generation is rediscovering it.

Yes: it can be used perjoratively and incorrectly as part of namethrowing. But so can 'pseudoscience' or other words.

[Uncayimmy]

Let's deconstruct this criticism.

Picking apart a post phrase by phrase often seems like critical thinking, but typically it's not.

I stated that I'd only encountered it here. You took that to mean that I'd only seen it here. Fair enough. "Encounter" can refer to several different types of interactions. In this case, I'm referring to someone's choice to use the term to convey useful meaning in an interaction with me.

Unless you are using software to read the posts to you, then the only way you to "encounter" it is to "see" it.

Interesting choice of criterion for having "seen" a word. I'm not sure that's a particularly useful approach. I also can type "antidisestablishmentarianism" into Google and receive 90,200 hits, but I can't say that I have "encountered" that word either (except for its novelty as the longest word of some sort). I'm also not sure that multiple examples of the use 'pseudoskeptic' gets here goes any further towards answering my original question.
Your question was, "Now it may be that I am simply ignorant of its more general usage, but is this really a valid term?" I pointed out that you didn't even bother to see if you are ignorant of its general usage. A quick search shows that it is used quite a bit outside of this forum and in many different contexts.


Rendering opinions? What opinion am I rendering? I asked whether this is a valid term, that is, does it convey meaning? I know that the word exists and people intend to convey 'something' with its use. But how does any of that constitute an "opinion"?

Your stated opinion was, "It looks more like its use is confined to name-calling."

Google U is the only game in town? I hope you're just trying to be an ass with that remark, 'cuz it would be kind of scary otherwise.

Does pointing out one free source of information which is readily available even remotely imply that there are no other sources, especially when that source does nothing more than point to sources of information? I hope you're just trying to be a bitch with that remark.

If the meaning it conveys is pejorative rather than a reflection of the roots of the word.
You didn't answer the question. "Valid" words can be pejorative. You suggested that I might be an ass. Is ass not a valid word simply because it's pejorative? How about bitchy? Stuck-up? Arrogant? Are these not valid words simply because they are pejorative?

I am wondering if the list of characteristics in the OP reflects its real use. When my son says, "that show is so gay," it's of no use to tell me that the characteristics of 'gay' are 'cheery, bright and pleasant' or 'homosexual'.

In case you seriously don't know, gay in the context you describe is simply a generic insult. It's like saying something is stupid. It really doesn't relate to this discussion.

[mike3]

Different values of these...

* Fairly and objectively weighs evidence on all sides
* Acknowledges valid convincing evidence
* Possesses solid sharp common sense and reason

...often end up creating many of the things you list on your pseudoskeptics lists. C'mon, "sharp common sense" is just another name for **** you "know" is right but can't prove. "Valid convincing evidence" is what pseudoskeptics believe after they have dismissed all the unconvincing evidence. As for being "fair" well, "common sense" tells you that <whatever> is stupid.


But not all of them. For example, I don't see how using valid reasoning principles implies it is necessary to conduct "ad hominem" attacks.

[fls]

I think there is a legitemate use of 'pseudoskeptic' and I do use it myself when working with others within organized skepticism. It is certainly a common term in the 'trade'. Perhaps it fell into disuse and another generation is rediscovering it.

Yes: it can be used perjoratively and incorrectly as part of namethrowing. But so can 'pseudoscience' or other words.

Thank you.

So the use within the 'trade' has little to do with the use referred to in the OP and is similar to what we tend to call denialism or contrarianism here?

Linda

[George152]

'pseudoskeptic' is a phrase much used by the gullible when they find their belief systems compromised with fact and evidence

[mike3]

Picking apart a post phrase by phrase often seems like critical thinking, but typically it's not.


So where can one find out how to do "real" critical thinking?

Does pointing out one free source of information which is readily available even remotely imply that there are no other sources, especially when that source does nothing more than point to sources of information? I hope you're just trying to be a bitch with that remark.

So how would Google be used properly, then?

[Uncayimmy]

So where can one find out how to do "real" critical thinking?
Type that question into Google and see what comes up.

So how would Google be used properly, then?
Gee, I dunno. Let me think really hard on this one...I got it! In this case somebody wondered how a word is used by people. So, search for web pages using that word and look at how people are using that word. Seems like a pretty good start to me.

[Darat]

Oh, I see. Words have meanings? Never thought of that before. The meaning of a word can be pejorative? News to me. Thanks for clearing that up.


Glad to help you clear up your confusion.

[Fnord]

...
Characteristics of a pseudoskeptic.

* The tendency to deny, rather than doubt.
* Double standards in the application of criticism.
* The making of judgments without full inquiry.
* Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate.
* Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments.
* Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.
* Presenting insufficient evidence or proof.
* Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof.
* Making unsubstantiated counter-claims.
* Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence.
* Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it.
* Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims.
* Asserting that claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa (Argument from ignorance).
* They speak down to their audience using 'arguments from authority'.
* They put forward their assumptions as if they were universal truths.
* No references to reputable journal material.
* If the pseudo-skeptic has a monetary interest (such as maintaining a funding stream or a salary) his criticisms often become vituperative.
...
.
Seems to correlate with:
.

"Cynicism is a self-imposed blindness. Cynicism masquerades as wisdom, but it is the farthest thing from it. Because cynics don’t learn anything. Because cynicism is a self-imposed blindness, a rejection of the world because we are afraid it will hurt us or disappoint us. Cynics always say no. But saying 'yes' begins things. Saying 'yes' is how things grow. Saying 'yes' leads to knowledge."

.
Just how far removed is a "Cynic" from a "Pseudo-Skeptic" anyway?

[Uncayimmy]

But not all of them. For example, I don't see how using valid reasoning principles implies it is necessary to conduct "ad hominem" attacks.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

I will offer that many people misuse the term "ad hominem" on this forum. It means "an argument which links the validity of a premise to an irrelevant characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise." All too often I see people crying "ad hom" when in fact there was no attempt to link the validity of the argument to the personal attack.

You can argue that someone is wrong and also call them a jackass. It's not an "ad hom" to say, "Oh, this guy is a jackass. He repeats the same tired argument that has been resoundingly debunked here (#), here (#), and here (#). This is the same argument, and I'm not going to waste any more time debunking it." By contrast an "ad hom" would be, "This jackass was wrong about XYZ and got his ass whipped in debates, so I wouldn't trust his opinions on this <unrelated> issue."

[GeeMack]

You can argue that someone is wrong and also call them a jackass. It's not an "ad hom" to say, "Oh, this guy is a jackass. He repeats the same tired argument that has been resoundingly debunked here (#), here (#), and here (#). This is the same argument, and I'm not going to waste any more time debunking it." By contrast an "ad hom" would be, "This jackass was wrong about XYZ and got his ass whipped in debates, so I wouldn't trust his opinions on this <unrelated> issue."


In other words, he's not wrong because he's a jackass. He's wrong, too.

[blutoski]

Thank you.

So the use within the 'trade' has little to do with the use referred to in the OP and is similar to what we tend to call denialism or contrarianism here?

Linda

I think Zeuzzz' checklists in the OP look basically OK. He cites Truzzi, who was a CSICOP founder and originally coined the phrase.

Yes: Truzzi and CSICOP parted ways, but Truzzi's concerns were mostly valid. Personally, I believe that his departure led to changes in CSICOP that meant its later investigations were more rigorous.

Here is the relevant part of Truzzi's entry at [Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcello_Truzzi#Pseudoskepticism)].

Examples of pseudoskeptics who come to mind would be people like Stephen Milloy. [Bill Maher (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/07/bill_maher_gets_the_richard_dawkins_awar.php)] also could be nominated.

[blutoski]

In other words, he's not wrong because he's a jackass. He's wrong, too.

You bet. I use this all the time:

He's not wrong because he's a prick.

He's wrong and he's a prick.

[Darat]

You bet. I use this all the time:

He's not wrong because he's a prick.

He's wrong and he's a prick.

That's only one of the forms of ad hominem, it comes in at least three delicious flavors, and of course an ad hominem argument is not necessarily a fallacious argument.

[fls]

Picking apart a post phrase by phrase often seems like critical thinking, but typically it's not.

Necessary but not sufficient? (Maybe even the 'necessary' is arguable.)

Unless you are using software to read the posts to you, then the only way you to "encounter" it is to "see" it.

Your question was, "Now it may be that I am simply ignorant of its more general usage, but is this really a valid term?" I pointed out that you didn't even bother to see if you are ignorant of its general usage. A quick search shows that it is used quite a bit outside of this forum and in many different contexts.

Wow. Okay, here's the thing. When I mean "general usage", I mean stuff like discussions with professionals (face-to-face, involving specialized devices like 'voice-box', 'ears', 'auditory nerve'), conversations with friends and neighbours, participation in online forums, e-mail groups, the reading of material published in peer-reviewed literature, magazines, etc. I actually did do a Google search first, which came up with Prof. Truzzi's article (which I had already seen) and then most of the rest of the links on the first page were the same kind of thing that I observed here - believers in UFO's or the paranormal or magick making reference to skeptics as 'pseudoskeptics'. It simply never occurred to me that anyone would consider the passive perusal of unfiltered web content a reasonable reflection of the real world use, so it never occurred to me to consider that I was no longer ignorant of the general usage because I did a Google search. Like I said previously, it scares me a little that you think otherwise.

Your stated opinion was, "It looks more like its use is confined to name-calling."

I meant that as more of an observation. I've not seen any skeptic use this term here. I've only seen people who tend to get a bit trampled by criticism use it as a pejorative. I wouldn't assume that my experience is typical or generalizable. That's why I asked for more input.

Does pointing out one free source of information which is readily available even remotely imply that there are no other sources, especially when that source does nothing more than point to sources of information? I hope you're just trying to be a bitch with that remark.

No, I was serious.

You didn't answer the question. "Valid" words can be pejorative. You suggested that I might be an ass. Is ass not a valid word simply because it's pejorative? How about bitchy? Stuck-up? Arrogant? Are these not valid words simply because they are pejorative?

I don't disagree with that. I was thinking that it would make sense to include it as one of the main characteristics, rather than worrying about how to distinguish it from the process of skepticism.

In case you seriously don't know, gay in the context you describe is simply a generic insult. It's like saying something is stupid. It really doesn't relate to this discussion.

Not generic - to say something is 'gay' means something different from calling someone a 'faggot', for example (when used as a pejorative). But it directly relates to my point. Typing "define:gay" into Google fails to tell me how the word is generally used in that context.

Linda

[fls]

I think Zeuzzz' checklists in the OP look basically OK. He cites Truzzi, who was a CSICOP founder and originally coined the phrase.

Yes: Truzzi and CSICOP parted ways, but Truzzi's concerns were mostly valid. Personally, I believe that his departure led to changes in CSICOP that meant its later investigations were more rigorous.

Okay, that's helpful. I have to admit that when I first read Truzzi's article quite a while ago, I was a bit puzzled as to the point of using the descriptor. I got the sense that it was directed at some group or some individuals, but I didn't have the necessary background knowledge to figure out who or what that would be. It does seem to have been co-opted, though.

Examples of pseudoskeptics who come to mind would be people like Stephen Milloy. [Bill Maher (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/07/bill_maher_gets_the_richard_dawkins_awar.php)] also could be nominated.

To be honest, I wouldn't be able to place Bill Maher into one category or the other on the basis of that checklist. But I would easily be able to on the basis of what you said earlier - "'person who rejects popular beliefs and beliefs endorsed by experts".

Linda

[blutoski]

'pseudoskeptic' is a phrase much used by the gullible when they find their belief systems compromised with fact and evidence

It works both ways, though.

Aside from the abovementioned misunderstanding of ad hominem, skepticism has a really terrible streak of misunderstanding argument from authority.

As a consequence, everybody who questions authority thinks he's a skeptic. This may be true (questioning authority is not unskeptical) but where the pseudoskeptics split off is that they are unwilling or unable to accept authorities as any more correct than laypersons.

This is the iconoclasm aspect of pseudoskepticism.

At the end of the day, skepticism should be a shared process, but we sometimes accidentally include people who share conclusions. Even if they came to those conclusions through an unskeptical process.

I was having a debate about AGW with a colleague in another forum. He forwarded me an article about the email leaks and how this exposes the weakness of peer review. He appears to be able to maintain the following statements:


AGW cannot be accepted as probably true, because the experts are limited to findings that have gone through the terribly unreliable and corrupt insider process that is peer review
conventional medicine distinguishes itself from quackery in that it concentrates its decisions on findings reported in peer-reviewed journals that have credibility in the community of relevant experts


My opinion is that he's pretty flexible with the process - is this a skeptic or a pseudoskeptic?

[Uncayimmy]

In other words, he's not wrong because he's a jackass. He's wrong, too.

Yep. Or he could be a jackass because he continues to be wrong in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.

[GreenLines]

A shaman named Terry Fisk posits that there's three types:
Believer
Skeptic
Debunker

[athon]

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

I will offer that many people misuse the term "ad hominem" on this forum. It means "an argument which links the validity of a premise to an irrelevant characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise." All too often I see people crying "ad hom" when in fact there was no attempt to link the validity of the argument to the personal attack.

You can argue that someone is wrong and also call them a jackass. It's not an "ad hom" to say, "Oh, this guy is a jackass. He repeats the same tired argument that has been resoundingly debunked here (http://#), here (http://#), and here (http://#). This is the same argument, and I'm not going to waste any more time debunking it." By contrast an "ad hom" would be, "This jackass was wrong about XYZ and got his ass whipped in debates, so I wouldn't trust his opinions on this <unrelated> issue."

I sometimes think we need a site that explains how illogical fallacies can be improperly invoked. There are so many examples of 'ad hom' and 'appeal to authority' being called out without really understanding what the term means.

Maybe they're pseudoskeptics? :D

Athon

[blutoski]

Okay, that's helpful. I have to admit that when I first read Truzzi's article quite a while ago, I was a bit puzzled as to the point of using the descriptor. I got the sense that it was directed at some group or some individuals, but I didn't have the necessary background knowledge to figure out who or what that would be.

Truzzi almost certainly had specific people in mind.

CSICOP really cleaned up its act, but there was a period where it was a bit of an echo chamber and sloppy research was not only conducted, but subsequently defended and rationalized. Some of it was comeraderie, but there was also a growing atmosphere of skepticism=debunking. Rather than skepticism=truthseeking.

There is a class of pseudoskeptic that I refer to as a 'skepdebunker'. The prevailing characteristic is that they tend to play devil's advocate for real. My personal opinion is that this subtype may have a PD. OCPD and NPD come to mind.




It does seem to have been co-opted, though.

Absolutely.

It's certainly more commonly used by crackpots to denigrate ordinary skeptics in a poisoning-the-well sort of way.

However, I fear that the main reason it's fallen into disuse among skeptics is that skepticism does not appear to have a very healthy self-criticism. I have thought about why this may be the case.





To be honest, I wouldn't be able to place Bill Maher into one category or the other on the basis of that checklist. But I would easily be able to on the basis of what you said earlier - "'person who rejects popular beliefs and beliefs endorsed by experts".

Well, that's an iconoclast, and they're ubiquitous, skepticism notwithstanding.

[blutoski]

Yep. Or he could be a jackass because he continues to be wrong in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.

Or because of the consequences of his incorrect beliefs. Many quacks fall into this category.

[Uncayimmy]

You bet. I use this all the time:

He's not wrong because he's a prick.

He's wrong and he's a prick.

That's only one of the forms of ad hominem, it comes in at least three delicious flavors, and of course an ad hominem argument is not necessarily a fallacious argument.

That's not an ad hominem argument because it's missing one important element: an argument. Let's change it up a bit:

He's not wrong because I like looking at college girls flashing their boobs during Spring Break.

He's wrong and I like looking at college girls flashing their boobs during Spring Break.

Would you call that an ad mamma argument? Look, people don't always get along. Sometimes it just feels good to let loose with a personal attack. More often than not these comments are completely separate from the argument at hand. If you want to mistakenly label that an "ad hom" go right ahead. The language has been abused worse. It doesn't change the truth of what Blutoski and I are saying.

[blutoski]

I sometimes think we need a site that explains how illogical fallacies can be improperly invoked. There are so many examples of 'ad hom' and 'appeal to authority' being called out without really understanding what the term means.

Maybe they're pseudoskeptics? :D

Athon

I actually am developing a series of skeptical mythconceptions- myths that circulate within the skeptical community.

Sorry if this is a repeat, but the first instalment is [Skeptical MythConceptions – part 1 – Authority (http://blog.bcskeptics.info/?p=7)]

To follow:

You Can’t Prove a Negative
Teaching Science and Critical Thinking Will Make People More Skeptical
Skeptics Are More Intelligent Than Woos
Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence


Possibly others.

[Darat]

I sometimes think we need a site that explains how illogical fallacies can be improperly invoked. There are so many examples of 'ad hom' and 'appeal to authority' being called out without really understanding what the term means.

Maybe they're pseudoskeptics? :D

Athon

http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/Logic_and_Logical_Fallacies(index)

[Darat]

That's not an ad hominem argument because it's missing one important element: an argument. Let's change it up a bit:

He's not wrong because I like looking at college girls flashing their boobs during Spring Break.

He's wrong and I like looking at college girls flashing their boobs during Spring Break.

Would you call that an ad mamma argument? Look, people don't always get along. Sometimes it just feels good to let loose with a personal attack. More often than not these comments are completely separate from the argument at hand. If you want to mistakenly label that an "ad hom" go right ahead. The language has been abused worse. It doesn't change the truth of what Blutoski and I are saying.

Is that a comment to me? If so I have no idea what you think you are arguing against - I haven't disagreed with Blutoski about ad hominems.

[blutoski]

Maybe they're pseudoskeptics?

I hope most are protoskeptics.

In the sense that many are genuinely trying to be truthseekers, and can improve as they learn over time.

I think the main problem is that this short list of fallacies is the low hanging fruit of critical thinking. Skeptics do surprisingly poorly at critical thinking courses. I suspect this is because they have a preconceived impression from an informal learning process (like online forums).

I have a set of practice fallacies: [fallacy practice problems (http://www.bcskeptics.info/resources/criticalthinking/practice.html)]

Even seasoned skeptics struggle with some of these.

Darat: I think what Athon and I are saying is that skeptics seem to be able to locate 'lists' of fallacies quite easily, but could possibly benefit from more self-testing to see if their understanding is actually correct.

[Uncayimmy]

Wow. Okay, here's the thing. When I mean "general usage", I mean stuff like discussions with professionals (face-to-face, involving specialized devices like 'voice-box', 'ears', 'auditory nerve'), conversations with friends and neighbours, participation in online forums, e-mail groups, the reading of material published in peer-reviewed literature, magazines, etc. I actually did do a Google search first, which came up with Prof. Truzzi's article (which I had already seen) and then most of the rest of the links on the first page were the same kind of thing that I observed here - believers in UFO's or the paranormal or magick making reference to skeptics as 'pseudoskeptics'. It simply never occurred to me that anyone would consider the passive perusal of unfiltered web content a reasonable reflection of the real world use, so it never occurred to me to consider that I was no longer ignorant of the general usage because I did a Google search. Like I said previously, it scares me a little that you think otherwise.

Listen to yourself. You think "discussions with professionals" would fall under general usage but discussions by believers in the paranormal would not? I guess your definition of "general usage" seems to be based upon the people you "encounter" in this world.

As for the "value" of the research, Google's ranking system is based in large part upon incoming links to the site. The more popular a site is ("votes" in the form of incoming links), the higher the ranking. It's by no means a "unfiltered" information. If you had bothered to look at the results, you would see that the second link was from a skeptic blog who brought up the word for discussion at a local skeptics meeting.

If you looked a but further on the first page of results, you would have seen another blog from a skeptical blogger and scientist. He's not a UFO guy pointing at "real" skeptics but a scientist pointing to people who "pretend" to be skeptical.

But you only saw what you wanted to see. I wish there was a name for that kind of bias where you confirm your belief by seeing just what you want to see and disregard the rest.

I meant that as more of an observation. I've not seen any skeptic use this term here. I've only seen people who tend to get a bit trampled by criticism use it as a pejorative. I wouldn't assume that my experience is typical or generalizable. That's why I asked for more input.
You haven't seen anybody you consider to be a skeptic use that term here is what you're saying. Considering the reaction by "skeptics" in the Suicide by Homeopathy, it's not surprising that you don't see it that often. Skeptics are rarely skeptical about their shared beliefs.

Still, though, I don't get why you asked for more input from the same limited resource, if that's what you were really doing. "Attention like-minded thinkers who hang out reading the same stuff I do: Do you disagree with my notion that those other-thinkers are the bad guys who insult us good guys with the word pseudoskeptic?"

No, I was serious.
Well, I find that sad. I'm not surprised though, because this is what happens when people pick apart a post phrase by phrase.

I don't disagree with that. I was thinking that it would make sense to include it as one of the main characteristics, rather than worrying about how to distinguish it from the process of skepticism.
I don't see the relevance of it being a pejorative to the meaning of the word.

Not generic - to say something is 'gay' means something different from calling someone a 'faggot', for example (when used as a pejorative). But it directly relates to my point. Typing "define:gay" into Google fails to tell me how the word is generally used in that context.

Uh, yes, "gay" in the context used by your son is used generically to mean stupid. By generic I mean that it can be used in many different situations. A TV show can be gay. So can a game the kid has outgrown. Or square dancing. Or wearing a tie to work.

Had you followed one of the first links, you would have seen the Wiki article, which describes the usage pretty much as I do. You could then catch the links at the bottom of the article to find more references. Maybe you would have seen this one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-389318/BBC-accepts-new-meaning-gay.html and this one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7289390.stm

Which was my point: Do some basic research on your own. Google is a great starting point for the "peer review" you get on a discussion board.

[blutoski]

A shaman named Terry Fisk posits that there's three types:
Believer
Skeptic
Debunker

I think that's refreshingly generous of Fisk, actually.

Many believers are convinced that what we call believers are the true skeptics (often including themselves as type specimens), and that the so-called skeptics are all debunkers or 'believers' in scientism.

It's name-calling, and frustrating.

[Limbo]

I have noticed that there appears to be two main types of skeptics. One an admirable role, one quite the opposite.

Therefore we have a skeptic, and a pseudoskeptic.

Points courtesy of Proff Truzi,

[...]

Just a nice guide to fall back on, the skeptics bible in a way.

Its not amazingly consistant (ie, skeptics should not give people a stereotype and dismiss them due to that, so immediately labelling the pseudoskeptic, so has an early issue)

Are there better lists to check against than this one people know of?

And how correct do you think this one is?


Yeah I've noticed that too. I think your list is pretty much correct. Pseudoskeptics just can't seem to live up to the ideals of skepticism. They fall short, it's just human nature. Of course they are in complete denial of it.

[fls]

Listen to yourself. You think "discussions with professionals" would fall under general usage but discussions by believers in the paranormal would not?

I didn't say any such thing. Why wouldn't discussions by believers in the paranormal fall under "general usage"?

I guess your definition of "general usage" seems to be based upon the people you "encounter" in this world.

I didn't say any such thing. Actually, it looks like I specifically said otherwise. Why would general usage be based only upon what I encounter?

As for the "value" of the research, Google's ranking system is based in large part upon incoming links to the site. The more popular a site is ("votes" in the form of incoming links), the higher the ranking.

I'm aware of that.

It's by no means a [sic] "unfiltered" information.

Filtered in the sense of popularity, unfiltered in the sense of representativeness.

If you had bothered to look at the results, you would see that the second link was from a skeptic blog who brought up the word for discussion at a local skeptics meeting.

I did look at the links. I told you that I looked at the links. Odd that you would then assume that I hadn't looked at the links.

If you looked a but further on the first page of results, you would have seen another blog from a skeptical blogger and scientist. He's not a UFO guy pointing at "real" skeptics but a scientist pointing to people who "pretend" to be skeptical.

But you only saw what you wanted to see. I wish there was a name for that kind of bias where you confirm your belief by seeing just what you want to see and disregard the rest.

I did see that. Why on earth would you assume that I disregarded the links?

You haven't seen anybody you consider to be a skeptic use that term here is what you're saying.

Yes.

Considering the reaction by "skeptics" in the Suicide by Homeopathy, it's not surprising that you don't see it that often.

I didn't read the Suicide by Homeopathy thread. What happened there?

Skeptics are rarely skeptical about their shared beliefs.

If skeptics were skeptical about their shared beliefs they'd call other skeptics 'psueudoskeptics' much more frequently? That sounds like the kind of information I was looking for. Do you have some examples?

Still, though, I don't get why you asked for more input from the same limited resource, if that's what you were really doing.

Because I know that some of the people here whose opinions I respect, like Blutoski and Athon, are involved with presenting skepticism and critical thinking to a more general audience. And in addition, there are others who belong to skeptical organizations. They are more likely to be familiar with if and how this term is used in a context outside of my fairly insular experience.

"Attention like-minded thinkers who hang out reading the same stuff I do: Do you disagree with my notion that those other-thinkers are the bad guys who insult us good guys with the word pseudoskeptic?"

How odd. I specifically state that I am looking for a broader perspective and you take it to mean that I am looking for a narrower perspective.

I don't see the relevance of it being a pejorative to the meaning of the word.

Really?

Uh, yes, "gay" in the context used by your son is used generically to mean stupid. By generic I mean that it can be used in many different situations. A TV show can be gay. So can a game the kid has outgrown. Or square dancing. Or wearing a tie to work.

Had you followed one of the first links, you would have seen the Wiki article, which describes the usage pretty much as I do. You could then catch the links at the bottom of the article to find more references. Maybe you would have seen this one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-389318/BBC-accepts-new-meaning-gay.html and this one: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7289390.stm

Which was my point: Do some basic research on your own. Google is a great starting point for the "peer review" you get on a discussion board.

Trust me. My son is 14. In a house filled with 14 to 16 year-old boys on a regular basis, I don't need to do any extra research in order to understand how they are using the term 'gay'. ;)

Linda

[fls]

However, I fear that the main reason it's fallen into disuse among skeptics is that skepticism does not appear to have a very healthy self-criticism. I have thought about why this may be the case.

All interesting stuff. This last bit fits with my own observations. I found a comment (completely unrelated to this discussion :)) to be interesting, and I wonder if it's relevant. Taking into consideration the almost inescapable effects of cognitive dissonance, the comment from here (http://www.psandman.com/articles/berreth.htm) that when asked to describe his commitment, the response was "I said I didn’t have any...[b]ut I’d probably get committed, I added, since that’s how cognitive dissonance works," may give some clues.

Well, that's an iconoclast, and they're ubiquitous, skepticism notwithstanding.

Well, the description of pseudoskepticism seems mostly to be about the uneven application of the tools of skepticism. And realistically, the application is usually driven first by belief, so the distinction seems to be more about pre-existing beliefs (like a rejection of authority), than about the application of the tools to all subjects. I'll get it figured out eventually.

Linda

[John Jones]

I have noticed that there appears to be two main types of skeptics. One an admirable role, one quite the opposite.

Therefore we have a skeptic, and a pseudoskeptic.

...



I've heard it a million times. It's an attempt to define skepticism in such a way that only people who agree with you are truley open minded.


See #'s 12 and 40 in the Woo-Woo Credo linked below.

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/woowoocredo.htm

[Uncayimmy]

I didn't say any such thing. Why wouldn't discussions by believers in the paranormal fall under "general usage"?



I didn't say any such thing. Actually, it looks like I specifically said otherwise. Why would general usage be based only upon what I encounter?



I'm aware of that.



Filtered in the sense of popularity, unfiltered in the sense of representativeness.



I did look at the links. I told you that I looked at the links. Odd that you would then assume that I hadn't looked at the links.



I did see that. Why on earth would you assume that I disregarded the links?



Yes.



I didn't read the Suicide by Homeopathy thread. What happened there?



If skeptics were skeptical about their shared beliefs they'd call other skeptics 'psueudoskeptics' much more frequently? That sounds like the kind of information I was looking for. Do you have some examples?



Because I know that some of the people here whose opinions I respect, like Blutoski and Athon, are involved with presenting skepticism and critical thinking to a more general audience. And in addition, there are others who belong to skeptical organizations. They are more likely to be familiar with if and how this term is used in a context outside of my fairly insular experience.



How odd. I specifically state that I am looking for a broader perspective and you take it to mean that I am looking for a narrower perspective.



Really?



Trust me. My son is 14. In a house filled with 14 to 16 year-old boys on a regular basis, I don't need to do any extra research in order to understand how they are using the term 'gay'. ;)

Linda

Well, Linda, this is what you get when you pick apart a post phrase by phrase. A bunch of disjointed ******** that's of little value or interest even to the participants. My original points still stand. If you've only "encountered" it here, then you would do well to do something to see how the word is used in other circles. Too bad you didn't do that worth a ****. As for the word being "valid" or not, its pejorative usage irrelevant. I have no desire to discuss either of those two points any further with a pseudoskeptic like yourself. ;)

[fls]

My original points still stand. If you've only "encountered" it here, then you would do well to do something to see how the word is used in other circles.

I agree.

Too bad you didn't do that worth a ****.

How could you possibly know? None of my attempts to see how the word is used in other circles would show up here regardless.

As for the word being "valid" or not, its pejorative usage irrelevant. I have no desire to discuss either of those two points any further with a pseudoskeptic like yourself. ;)

How strong is your commitment to the term when your efforts seem directed toward confirming, rather than disabusing, my original impression?

Linda

[Ivor the Engineer]

How sticky is the label psuedosceptic?

Does it endure from argument to argument irrespective of the subject? I.e. Is it possible to be a psuedosceptic in one argument and a sceptic in the next, or once labelled is a person doomed always to be considered a psuedosceptic by his or her sceptic peers?

A person you know makes badly formed arguments. Is he a psuedosceptic or a person who sometimes/often makes badly formed arguments?

The logically fallacy I see in labelling someone a psuedosceptic is replacing 'for some' with 'for all'.

Can't we just call people proper pejorative names when they are getting on our tits? I suggest 'nitwit', 'pillock' and 'thick'.;)

Or is psuedosceptic an insult which can get around this forum's rule 12?

[fls]

Okay. Since there seems to be support for the idea that 'pseudoskeptic' doesn't simply mean 'someone who disagrees with me and self-labels as a skeptic', it would help me to look at some applications. For example, since Randi clearly fulfills the characteristics listed under pseudoskeptic in the OP, does someone have examples of established skeptical organizations applying this to Randi? Was that who Prof. Truzzi's article was originally directed at?

Linda

[Zeuzzz]

Okay. Since there seems to be support for the idea that 'pseudoskeptic' doesn't simply mean 'someone who disagrees with me and self-labels as a skeptic', it would help me to look at some applications. For example, since Randi clearly fulfills the characteristics listed under pseudoskeptic in the OP, does someone have examples of established skeptical organizations applying this to Randi? Was that who Prof. Truzzi's article was originally directed at?

Linda


Umm I think Ians Tresmans website sums it up pretty well:

http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Pseudoskepticism#_note-1
Pseudoskepticism

Marcello Truzzi founded the Zetetic Scholar journal, in which he popularised the term pseudoskepticism in the mid 1980s

The terms pseudoskepticism (sometimes pseudo-skepticism) and pathological skepticism are used to denote the phenomena when certain forms of skepticism deviate from objectivity. The term has been in limited use in philosophy for more than a century, but has only recently been the object of more systematic attempts at defining the concept. The most well known analysis of the term has been conducted by Marcello Truzzi, who in 1987 stated that:

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

[...........]

Characteristics of pseudoskeptics

The first extensive analysis of the term pseudoskepticism was conducted by Marcello Truzzi, Professor of Sociology at Eastern Michigan University, who in 1987 claimed that pseudoskeptics show the following characteristics:

* The tendency to deny, rather than doubt,[2]
* Double standards in the application of criticism, [3]
* The making of judgements without full inquiry,[4]
* Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate,[5]
* Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks,[6]
* Presenting insufficient evidence or proof, [7]
* Pejorative labelling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.' [8]
* Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof, [9]
* Making unsubstantiated counter-claims,[10]
* Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence,[11]
* Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it,[12]
* Tendency to dismiss all evidence, [13]

[Dancing David]

I think Zeuzzz' checklists in the OP look basically OK. He cites Truzzi, who was a CSICOP founder and originally coined the phrase.

.

However i have seen Zeuzz present his parts of the list to make attacks and whine quite frequently.

"The tendency to deny, rather than doubt.","Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate": either because he ignores the conversation prior to the point he inserts or because he ignores responses to his posts.

"Double standards in the application of criticism.", when valid critiques are given to theories say the fallacies of Arp's use of statistics in the galaxy/QSO correlation were compared by him to the 'dark energy double cluster', he complained that Arp's statitics were dismissed but then statistics were used to demonstrate a possible dark matter halo.

"The making of judgments without full inquiry": "I am agnostic to nuclear fusion in stars", he did present a coherent theory in alternative, when the flaws were pointed out in the theory, he complained that we did not investigate the possibility.

"Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it.": when it is suggested that certain uncontrolled studies regarding MDA and alcoholism do not effectivly show a possible use of MDA to treat alcoholism, he then complains that people are dismissing his ideas. When in fact his ideas are not demonstrated.

"Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof.":, Zeuzz will oftebn say that counter arguments are unproven, when in fact the data, evidence and train of thought are given to him. He just ignores them.

"Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence." for two years and longer Zeuzz presented his alternative theories of cosmology solely on this nasis, he still presents his irrational support of substance abuse by these means.

In fact this is a terrible irony because Zeuzz uses thse pseudosceptic behaviors in most of his posts.

[Dancing David]

Umm I think Ians Tresmans website sums it up pretty well:

http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Pseudoskepticism#_note-1

Ah yes, Ian Tresman, he unlike YOU Zeuzz was willing to discuss his ideas, he admitted the limits and drawbacks of EU/PC, he did not engage in post and run, ignoring responses and whining. He even altered one of his pages after discussions here.

[Dancing David]

Yeah I've noticed that too. I think your list is pretty much correct. Pseudoskeptics just can't seem to live up to the ideals of skepticism. They fall short, it's just human nature. Of course they are in complete denial of it.

Unlike some people who can't present any evidence and then put you on IGNORE for asking for it.

[Zeuzzz]

In fact this is a terrible irony because Zeuzz uses thse pseudosceptic behaviors in most of his posts.


Yeah terrible irony.

So your saying the list in the op is bunk then?

What are you saying?

Thats why its not a perfecft list as nearly eveyone at some point does something that could be contsrued as being a pseudoskeptic thing. I could show loads of examples from posts. Loooooooooooooooooooooooads.

[fls]

Umm I think Ians Tresmans website sums it up pretty well:

http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Pseudoskepticism#_note-1

I couldn't find any mention of Randi, or any other specific examples on that page, and I'm not familiar with Ian Tresman. Are you saying that he is someone who'd generally serve as an example of a skeptic who has pointed out that Randi is a pseudoskeptic? Or do you have some other specific examples of skeptics and pseudoskeptics which can help to illustrate the distinction (which hopefully includes examples where the term has been applied by those skeptics)?

Linda

[Dancing David]

Yeah terrible irony.

So your saying the list in the op is bunk then?

What are you saying?

Thats why its not a perfecft list as nearly eveyone at some point does something that could be contsrued as being a pseudoskeptic thing. I could show loads of examples from posts. Loooooooooooooooooooooooads.

I can show you where you engage in every one of those behaviors and use them to promote a false sense of argument when the fact is you do not have evidence or data to back your arguments.

The list is fine, it is your behavior which I take exception to. You hide behind the list, you pretend that people have mistreated you when they have not.

You claim there are double standards when there are not, you claim you are dismissed out of hand when you are not. You post and run, then when people critique the actual material you post,which is often dated, you don't respond. Then later you post and run with the same material again.

Your recent post of an article in the Michael Mozina Dark Matter thread is rather typical, every point in that article has been critiqued in the thread and does not match the data and the evidence. yet you act as though it something new that should be considered. When in fact either you did not read the article or did not read any of the thread. So it seems silly taht you present material that has already shown to be not matching to teh data and then act as though it has not been discussed, when it has.

I agree some sceptics are not applying scepticism to their own beliefs. I just feel that you use them to hide behind and not address the fallacies of many of the issues you present to the forum.

[jakesteele]

Skeptic: one who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons. the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism to investigate, weigh and asses that is characteristic of skeptics

pseudo-skeptic – one who holds an a priori belief that it does not exist, therefore, it is just a matter of finding a way to explain it away.
Debunkers cloak denialism in the language of skepticism and critical thinking start with a conclusion and look for evidence to support what they already believe.

[idoubtit]

pseudo-skeptic – one who holds an a priori belief that it does not exist, therefore, it is just a matter of finding a way to explain it away.
Debunkers cloak denialism in the language of skepticism and critical thinking start with a conclusion and look for evidence to support what they already believe.

I question that definition somewhat. A pseudoskeptic is very much someone who is against the majority/authority view. I think that is a defining characteristic. People who adopt what "we" skeptics would see as false skepticism count on that idea of being seen as a "maverick" or "someone who thinks they can't be fooled by what everyone else is told". They need a sense of feeling important or privileged. Or, are you considering a broader group of people who don't come out and announce they are "skeptical"?

Your definition seems more like a pseudoinquirer - one who has a conclusion first and finds or distorts evidence to support it (positive or negative doesn't matter). It's sham reasoning. Although, that does imply that one is actively seeking information. Most of these conspiracy folks aren't doing that - they are passive.

[blutoski]

Okay. Since there seems to be support for the idea that 'pseudoskeptic' doesn't simply mean 'someone who disagrees with me and self-labels as a skeptic', it would help me to look at some applications. For example, since Randi clearly fulfills the characteristics listed under pseudoskeptic in the OP, does someone have examples of established skeptical organizations applying this to Randi?

I would say that the best use of the term would refer to somebody who shows these tendencies most of the time in most subjects and recently.

It's subjective.

I think that since every skeptic has a blind spot, individual topics of crackpottery in individuals who otherwise show good skepticism can describe a skeptic.

Eventually, the person is showing nonskeptical approaches almost universally, and has crossed a threshold to pseudoskepticism.



Was that who Prof. Truzzi's article was originally directed at?

I don't think we'll ever get a list of people from Truzzi, but I doubt James Randi was a target. It was more about the alleged CSICOP mismanagement of specific investigations like the Mars Effect.

Many of those accused of pseudoskepticism have probably matured and become good skeptics over time.

[Darat]

Skeptic: one who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons. the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism to investigate, weigh and asses that is characteristic of skeptics



I disagree with the "one who is yet undecided as to what is true" using scepticism as a tool does not mean you can't come to a conclusion (indeed that sounds more like the original philosophical scepticism). What it does do is give you a means to re-examine that conclusion if new evidence etc. comes to light.

[technoextreme]

As a consequence, everybody who questions authority thinks he's a skeptic. This may be true (questioning authority is not unskeptical) but where the pseudoskeptics split off is that they are unwilling or unable to accept authorities as any more correct than laypersons.

I agree with you the argument from authority is always stupid unless said argument from authority is uanimous. Its really hard to gauge though. Take acupuncture for example. A lazy search of the material will pretty much show one thing but if you dig down deeper you will actually find studies saying that a lot of those studies are flawed. And go read the dam homeopathy thread if you want your evidence.
I didn't read the Suicide by Homeopathy thread. What happened there?

I called ******** on acupuncture. UncaYimmy called ******** on me. I was lazy. Eventually, I realized that I lucked out and called ******** on a subject whose studies are so flawed that there have been studies discussing how flawed the studies are.

[jakesteele]

I disagree with the "one who is yet undecided as to what is true" using scepticism as a tool does not mean you can't come to a conclusion (indeed that sounds more like the original philosophical scepticism). What it does do is give you a means to re-examine that conclusion if new evidence etc. comes to light.

The definition of Skeptic comes pretty much intact from a dictionary. Also, it does not say "...can't come to a conclusion...", it says "as yet undecided", as in "we are as of yet undecided about String Theory." In other words, the jury is still out until all the evidence is in.

[Dave Rogers]

Debunkers cloak denialism in the language of skepticism and critical thinking start with a conclusion and look for evidence to support what they already believe.

Wrong, in my experience. Debunkers start by applying the process of skepticism, evaluate the evidence, and reach a provisional conclusion. They then examine, critically, the evidence that appears to disagree with that conclusion, and analyse it for fallacies. Having done so, they publicise those fallacies. Debunking is simply an extension of the process of skepticism to the more thorough analysis of counter-arguments. Again, it's something the belief-driven dislike intensely, and hence seek to invalidate, by dishonest means if necessary.

The signature of belief-based reasoning is failure to re-evaluate a conclusion in the light of new evidence. The signature of debunking is evaluation of the evidence. These are not the same thing.

Dave

[Aepervius]

I disagree, based on my experience in skepticism.

I often meet card-carrying skeptics who believe that skepticism is iconoclasm. By 'skeptic' they mean 'person who rejects popular beliefs and beliefs endorsed by experts.'

These are pseudoskeptics.

Although I do agree with you, I have much much more encountered the term being used as a pejorative or attack by woo toward a skeptic, rather than a really quantifiable pseudo-skepticism.

I see a few pseudo-skeptic, as for example in the political forum which clearly and cheerfully attack one side of a party without really having proper information, and only reflect their bias.

But in the context of science, I see a huge number of woo using it definitively ONLY as a pejorative name calling toward their critics.

[CYiNCE]

This thread made the front page of 9/11 blogger

http://www.911blogger.com/node/22573

(Richard Gage didn't link the actual thread though)

[Dave Rogers]

And I see that Gage makes no attempt to question the validity of the list, but simply accepts it as entirely correct on the basis of an appeal to the authority of its originator. Classic.

Dave

[CYiNCE]

And I see that Gage makes no attempt to question the validity of the list, but simply accepts it as entirely correct on the basis of an appeal to the authority of its originator. Classic.

Dave

I know, completely ignoring the debate surrounding the lost in the thread. The best part however is:

16. No references to reputable journal material.
17. If the pseudo-skeptic has a monetary interest (such as maintaining a funding stream or a salary) his criticisms often become vituperative.

Not to derail the thread but these are two of the most damning aspects of the truth movement. The irony of this being discussed in 9/11 blogger is delicious.

[rjh01]

Most of the comments their do not address the OP at all. The ones that do, do not disagree with it.

[blutoski]

Although I do agree with you, I have much much more encountered the term being used as a pejorative or attack by woo toward a skeptic, rather than a really quantifiable pseudo-skepticism.

I see a few pseudo-skeptic, as for example in the political forum which clearly and cheerfully attack one side of a party without really having proper information, and only reflect their bias.

But in the context of science, I see a huge number of woo using it definitively ONLY as a pejorative name calling toward their critics.

Yes, but I stick to my claim that abuse of a term by crackpots does not mean it has no good meaning that skeptics can continue to use properly.

My thought is that some skeptics are often so relieved to find somebody out there who shares their opinion on - say, psi or UFOs or bigfoot &c - that we're willing to overlook some pretty terrible reasoning in other topics. We don't use the term 'pseudoskeptic' much to describe these people. Again, a good example is Bill Maher. Calls himself a germ theory 'skeptic', but this doesn't prevent him from getting the Richard Dawkins Award.

[Zeuzzz]

I can show you where you engage in every one of those behaviors and use them to promote a false sense of argument when the fact is you do not have evidence or data to back your arguments.

The list is fine, it is your behavior which I take exception to. You hide behind the list, you pretend that people have mistreated you when they have not.

You claim there are double standards when there are not, you claim you are dismissed out of hand when you are not. You post and run, then when people critique the actual material you post,which is often dated, you don't respond. Then later you post and run with the same material again.

Your recent post of an article in the Michael Mozina Dark Matter thread is rather typical, every point in that article has been critiqued in the thread and does not match the data and the evidence. yet you act as though it something new that should be considered. When in fact either you did not read the article or did not read any of the thread. So it seems silly taht you present material that has already shown to be not matching to teh data and then act as though it has not been discussed, when it has.

I agree some sceptics are not applying scepticism to their own beliefs. I just feel that you use them to hide behind and not address the fallacies of many of the issues you present to the forum.


Yawn, well someones determined for a fight, way to set the tone.

I like you david I dont know why your ripping into me.

If you want me to clarify positions I left in the air then ask in the relevant threads or PM, I really cant see why my opinions matter so much to you.


Back on topic, I have not much more to say than the above post which I totally agree with.

[blutoski]

I don't think we'll ever get a list of people from Truzzi, but I doubt James Randi was a target. It was more about the alleged CSICOP mismanagement of specific investigations like the Mars Effect.

Many of those accused of pseudoskepticism have probably matured and become good skeptics over time.

I found this: [Mars Effect Drives Skeptics to Irrationality (http://www.discord.org/~lippard/kammann.html)]

Note that this describes events almost three decades ago.

The postscript is by James Lippard, who is the most reliable and accurate reservoir of institutional memory for CSICOP that I'm aware of. He also recommended this article: [Chronology of Events Involving "The Baker Affair" (http://www.discord.org/~lippard/Bakerchronology.html)].

[fls]

I found this: [Mars Effect Drives Skeptics to Irrationality (http://www.discord.org/~lippard/kammann.html)]

Note that this describes events almost three decades ago.

The postscript is by James Lippard, who is the most reliable and accurate reservoir of institutional memory for CSICOP that I'm aware of. He also recommended this article: [Chronology of Events Involving "The Baker Affair" (http://www.discord.org/~lippard/Bakerchronology.html)].

Well, that was a fun half hour. :)

The question this raises (for me) is what expectations do we have when it comes to skeptics behaving badly? Does skepticism imply, in addition standards with respect to rationality, a set of ethical standards? When it was discovered that Randi plagarized the work of one of the forum participants, the prevailling attitude seemed to be that we expect our leaders to be human and to occasionally behave badly. If critical thinking is meant to help us face our cognitive biases head-on, but occasional lapses are forgiveable, who are we to name-call and disparage others who demonstrate similar lapses, with terms like "woo" or "pseudoskeptic"? How exactly do you distinguish between a skeptic with occasional lapses in critical thinking and a pseudoskeptic who is similarly demonstrating occasional lapses in critical thinking? Can we really claim that there is a qualitative difference between a skeptic and a pseudoskeptic, rather than a vaguely characterized quantitative difference?

I ask these questions with the admission that 'skeptics behaving badly' disappoints and disturbs me. I clearly expect something better, with respect to ethical behaviour, from those who purportedly embrace rationality. But I'm wondering whether this is justified.

Linda

[EHocking]

...
I ask these questions with the admission that 'skeptics behaving badly' disappoints and disturbs me. I clearly expect something better, with respect to ethical behaviour, from those who purportedly embrace rationality. But I'm wondering whether this is justified.

LindaPeople are people.
I'd expect ethical behaviour from people who claim (insert god of choice)'s love is the be all and end all in their life - but it is not necessarily the case.

[blutoski]

Well, that was a fun half hour. :)

The question this raises (for me) is what expectations do we have when it comes to skeptics behaving badly? Does skepticism imply, in addition standards with respect to rationality, a set of ethical standards? When it was discovered that Randi plagarized the work of one of the forum participants, the prevailling attitude seemed to be that we expect our leaders to be human and to occasionally behave badly. If critical thinking is meant to help us face our cognitive biases head-on, but occasional lapses are forgiveable, who are we to name-call and disparage others who demonstrate similar lapses, with terms like "woo" or "pseudoskeptic"? How exactly do you distinguish between a skeptic with occasional lapses in critical thinking and a pseudoskeptic who is similarly demonstrating occasional lapses in critical thinking? Can we really claim that there is a qualitative difference between a skeptic and a pseudoskeptic, rather than a vaguely characterized quantitative difference?

I ask these questions with the admission that 'skeptics behaving badly' disappoints and disturbs me. I clearly expect something better, with respect to ethical behaviour, from those who purportedly embrace rationality. But I'm wondering whether this is justified.

Linda

I think the key is to foster the following:

reasonable expectations
uniform expectations


What I mean by the first point is that pseudoskeptics aren't skeptics who've made just one mistake that has ruined their perfect skeptic record. Pseudoskeptics are overwhelmingly engaged in cargo cult skepticism - mimicking an appearance of the process without embracing the point of the exercise. If they end up agreeing with skeptics on point A or B, it's coincidental rather than convergent.

Also that a movement that allegedly endorses a philosophy called 'humanism' could try to be a little more understanding when people make the inevitable human errors in judgement. Especially if motives weren't malevolent. Especially if they're mentally ill.


What I mean by the second point is that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. When our opponents make an error, what would we respect them for? Would we respect them if they circled the wagons and denied any wrongdoing, or would we like to see an appropriate mea culpa? The answer to this type of question informs us of what we should do in a similar situation.

[fls]

I think the key is to foster the following:

reasonable expectations
uniform expectations


What I mean by the first point is that pseudoskeptics aren't skeptics who've made just one mistake that has ruined their perfect skeptic record. Pseudoskeptics are overwhelmingly engaged in cargo cult skepticism - mimicking an appearance of the process without embracing the point of the exercise. If they end up agreeing with skeptics on point A or B, it's coincidental rather than convergent.

Really? Randi tells everyone to weigh the evidence for themselves. Penn and Teller likewise. Isn't that what Bill Maher has done? After all Penn and Teller used this process to deny the effects of second-hand smoke, and Randi used it to promote an anti-AGW video. And I'm not talking about one mistake, I'm talking about many. At what point does many mistakes still mean "skeptic" and at what point does it veer over to "pseudoskeptic"?

Also that a movement that allegedly endorses a philosophy called 'humanism' could try to be a little more understanding when people make the inevitable human errors in judgement. Especially if motives weren't malevolent. Especially if they're mentally ill.

What I mean by the second point is that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. When our opponents make an error, what would we respect them for? Would we respect them if they circled the wagons and denied any wrongdoing, or would we like to see an appropriate mea culpa? The answer to this type of question informs us of what we should do in a similar situation.

I agree. And I think that forms the bulk of the criticisms I have against purported skeptics and what formed the bulk of the criticisms in the links above - not that mistakes were made, but in the response to those mistakes (and I don't think I made that clear). If Randi had simply come clean about his plagarism and sincerely apologized, it would have been a non-issue. It was because he didn't and because many others* excused him for not doing so that I was disappointed.

Linda

*likely a biased estimate of amount :)

[fls]

I'm starting to think that the real difference between the skeptic and the pseudoskeptic is about whose opinions they trust.

Linda

[EHocking]

I'm starting to think that the real difference between the skeptic and the pseudoskeptic is about whose opinions they trust.

LindaIt 's not so much the opinion that you trust, but the critical analysis used to arrive at that opinion that is to be "trusted", and that, only after careful consideration of the subject at hand.

It is not completely true that the opinions or articles of high profile "Skeptics" such as Dawkins, Randi, P&T etc go uncriticised by others of a sceptical bent. Although I hardly bother with the blog these days, there had aways been lively analysis of each Swift article, for instance.

[fls]

It 's not so much the opinion that you trust, but the critical analysis used to arrive at that opinion that is to be "trusted", and that, only after careful consideration of the subject at hand.

And how is it determined that your critical analysis is skeptical or pseudoskeptical?

It is not completely true that the opinions or articles of high profile "Skeptics" such as Dawkins, Randi, P&T etc go uncriticised by others of a sceptical bent. Although I hardly bother with the blog these days, there had aways been lively analysis of each Swift article, for instance.

I agree. I think we tend to be an ornery group - looking for ways to disagree (generally a good thing). :)

Linda

[EHocking]

And how is it determined that your critical analysis is skeptical or pseudoskeptical?The subject was not my critical analysis, but the critical analysis undertaken by the high profile sceptic that is being considering.

There are sufficient definitions of critical thinking to analyse such opinions in a methodical manner, or at least define parameters under which someone may wish to analyse the arguments put forward by a high profile sceptic.

[fls]

The subject was not my critical analysis, but the critical analysis undertaken by the high profile sceptic that is being considering.

There are sufficient definitions of critical thinking to analyse such opinions in a methodical manner, or at least define parameters under which someone may wish to analyse the arguments put forward by a high profile sceptic.

Okay. Admittedly, I'm not a high profile skeptic, but both myself and Penn & Teller claim to have analyzed the data on secondhand smoke. I am of the opinion that secondhand smoke causes some morbidity and mortality, they are of the opinion that it does not (or at least, that was the conclusion at the end of their ******** episode). How do you tell which of us is the pseudoskeptic?

Linda

[Sunsneezer]

I am of the opinion that secondhand smoke causes some morbidity and mortality, they are of the opinion that it does not (or at least, that was the conclusion at the end of their ******** episode). How do you tell which of us is the pseudoskeptic?

A skeptic isn't always right. Maybe you both are real skeptics. Although I watched some of their episodes and it felt to me as not a good example of skepticism and critical thinking (no specific example, sorry), but maybe it's just their brand of in-your-face disrespect that put me off.

[fls]

A skeptic isn't always right. Maybe you both are real skeptics. Although I watched some of their episodes and it felt to me as not a good example of skepticism and critical thinking (no specific example, sorry), but maybe it's just their brand of in-your-face disrespect that put me off.

Well, I suspect that the reason we can't really agree on what makes a pseudoskeptic is because we can't really agree on what makes a skeptic. While I think that there are valid definitions and uses for these terms, and that these are essentially what Blutoski is referring to, I also think that in everyday usage, which includes most of the activity on this forum, the terms are more about indicating in-group and out-group membership - i.e. they are more about 'us' and 'them'. I may identify myself with Penn & Teller and distance myself from Bill Maher, but it's not because Penn & Teller are "non-judgemental and don't jump to rash conclusions", while Maher makes "no references to reputable journal material". I'm still struggling to identify just what it is that we hold in common yet distinguishes us from others - kinda like the old canard about pornography..."I know it when I see it."

Linda

[Beth]

CSICOP really cleaned up its act, but there was a period where it was a bit of an echo chamber and sloppy research was not only conducted, but subsequently defended and rationalized. Some of it was comeraderie, but there was also a growing atmosphere of skepticism=debunking. Rather than skepticism=truthseeking.
Thanks. I stopped subscribing to CSICOP more than two decades ago because that's how I started to perceive their articles. It's nice to know that it wasn't just me that felt that way.

I actually am developing a series of skeptical mythconceptions- myths that circulate within the skeptical community.

Sorry if this is a repeat, but the first instalment is [Skeptical MythConceptions – part 1 – Authority (http://blog.bcskeptics.info/?p=7)]

To follow:

You Can’t Prove a Negative
Teaching Science and Critical Thinking Will Make People More Skeptical
Skeptics Are More Intelligent Than Woos
Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence


Possibly others.

I'm glad to hear that. I think you are one of the most rational of posters and enjoy your posts about skeptism very much.

I think what Athon and I are saying is that skeptics seem to be able to locate 'lists' of fallacies quite easily, but could possibly benefit from more self-testing to see if their understanding is actually correct.

I agree.

How exactly do you distinguish between a skeptic with occasional lapses in critical thinking and a pseudoskeptic who is similarly demonstrating occasional lapses in critical thinking? Can we really claim that there is a qualitative difference between a skeptic and a pseudoskeptic, rather than a vaguely characterized quantitative difference? I don't think so. One of my best friends, a very strong atheist, claims that he has never met a christian. Oh, such, he's met lots of people who claim to be christian, but nobody that he feels consistently follows the teachings of Jesus well enough to rate the title.

Seems to me that you can tell the difference between a skeptic and pseudoskeptic the same way you can tell a true christian from a hypocrite? The same way you tell when a tadpole has become a frog. Different people will, if forced to draw a line, put it in different places. There's a lot of gray area, but that doesn't mean that you can't tell that some people are farther to one side than the other, but it's definitely a vaguely characterized quantitative difference.

I'm starting to think that the real difference between the skeptic and the pseudoskeptic is about whose opinions they trust.

Linda

I think that's a good point. I agree that it seems like skeptics trust in scientists more than non-skeptics seem to. Vaccine 'skeptics' don't trust the science. Homopaths don't trust the science from 'big pharma'.

I agree. I think we tend to be an ornery group - looking for ways to disagree (generally a good thing). :)

Linda

That's why I post here :p

I also think that in everyday usage, which includes most of the activity on this forum, the terms are more about indicating in-group and out-group membership - i.e. they are more about 'us' and 'them'.
Another good point. I think you're right.

I may identify myself with Penn & Teller and distance myself from Bill Maher, but it's not because Penn & Teller are "non-judgemental and don't jump to rash conclusions", while Maher makes "no references to reputable journal material". I'm still struggling to identify just what it is that we hold in common yet distinguishes us from others - kinda like the old canard about pornography..."I know it when I see it."
Linda

Good luck. I'd be interested to hear what you come up with. Personally, I would prefer to identify with Bill Maher and distance myself from Penn and Teller. For me, it's because I find Penn and Teller so abrasive and mean to other people.

[EHocking]

Okay. Admittedly, I'm not a high profile skeptic, but both myself and Penn & Teller claim to have analyzed the data on secondhand smoke. I am of the opinion that secondhand smoke causes some morbidity and mortality, they are of the opinion that it does not (or at least, that was the conclusion at the end of their ******** episode). How do you tell which of us is the pseudoskeptic?

LindaAs I said previously, consideration of the methodology and critical analysis used by the "sceptic" that they used to arrive at their opinion on a subject.

There are sufficient definitions of critical thinking to analyse their opinions and arguments in a methodical manner, or at least define parameters under which someone may wish to analyse the arguments put forward by a high profile sceptic.

[Darat]

Okay. Admittedly, I'm not a high profile skeptic, but both myself and Penn & Teller claim to have analyzed the data on secondhand smoke. I am of the opinion that secondhand smoke causes some morbidity and mortality, they are of the opinion that it does not (or at least, that was the conclusion at the end of their ******** episode). How do you tell which of us is the pseudoskeptic?

Linda

The method used would be the determining factor wouldn't it? (Assuming that one of you just hadn't made a mistake) I can't see how the conclusion reached has anything to do with making the distinction.

[fls]

As I said previously, consideration of the methodology and critical analysis used by the "sceptic" that they used to arrive at their opinion on a subject.

There are sufficient definitions of critical thinking to analyse their opinions and arguments in a methodical manner, or at least define parameters under which someone may wish to analyse the arguments put forward by a high profile sceptic.

The method used would be the determining factor wouldn't it? (Assuming that one of you just hadn't made a mistake) I can't see how the conclusion reached has anything to do with making the distinction.

I get this. I am asking for a demonstration of its practical use. Given that Bill Maher has been presented as an example of a pseudo-skeptic and Penn & Teller haven't, how do you make this distinction? How did you go about analyzing their arguments and evaluating their methods, while ignoring the conclusions they have reached? I need some help, here.

If you don't consider these individuals good examples, pick different examples of pseudo-skeptics and skeptics for the purposes of this demonstration.

Linda

[EHocking]

I get this. I am asking for a demonstration of its practical use. Given that Bill Maher has been presented as an example of a pseudo-skeptic and Penn & Teller haven't, how do you make this distinction? How did you go about analyzing their arguments and evaluating their methods, while ignoring the conclusions they have reached? I need some help, here.So do I, having only seen P&T's magic show in Vegas and only fleeting skits by Maher and have no experience as to his reputation as a sceptic.

Are there any specific articles or shows or subject of theirs that you consider to be typical for them?If you don't consider these individuals good examples, pick different examples of pseudo-skeptics and skeptics for the purposes of this demonstration.

LindaI guess the 2nd hand smoke issue would be a simple one.
Are there transcripts of the 2 positions readily available?

ETA: I was going to suggest a comparison of the SCEPCOP (http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Contents.htm) approach with the CSICOP (http://www.csicop.org/) approach to sceptical enquiry, except that it'd be too simple. The former, while declaiming the latter as the pseudo-sceptics, are actually evangelical woos declaring to use sceptical enquiry to debunk, but utterly failing due to their lack of rational argument.

[fls]

So do I, having only seen P&T's magic show in Vegas and only fleeting skits by Maher and have no experience as to his reputation as a sceptic.

Are there any specific articles or shows or subject of theirs that you consider to be typical for them?I guess the 2nd hand smoke issue would be a simple one.
Are there transcripts of the 2 positions readily available?

I didn't want to put you through the trouble of researching something you were unfamiliar with, so it's okay with me to just stick with the examples below.

ETA: I was going to suggest a comparison of the SCEPCOP (http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Contents.htm) approach with the CSICOP (http://www.csicop.org/) approach to sceptical enquiry, except that it'd be too simple. The former, while declaiming the latter as the pseudo-sceptics, are actually evangelical woos declaring to use sceptical enquiry to debunk, but utterly failing due to their lack of rational argument.

Okay. The screed you linked to was also about skepticism vs. pseudoskepticism, so I thought I'd look at one of the articles where I am familiar with the subject matter.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Presentation_Skepticism_Psi.htm

He provides examples of skeptics rejecting or preventing the acquisition of good information - The Mars affair previously referenced, and MDC which is set up so that even if the ability is present, the claimant is unlikely to pass (which is true, as is being discussed in the Connie Sonne thread). He refers to scientific research which happens to say what he claims it says (I am familiar with the ganzfeld research), he makes reference to logical fallacies used against the claim of psi (Blutoski has similarly made reference to some of these fallacies), and he forms a conclusion based on the available information and research which is supported by what he presents. In what way is that a poor use of critical thinking skills?

Linda

[Sunsneezer]

In what way is that a poor use of critical thinking skills?

There is a jump to conclusions in there, especially about the likeliness of ghosts existing. But it's a speech outline, so some points might be missing.
Also he lists fraud, delusion, mistake and misperception as the only alternative explanations for ghosts and telepathy. How about "various unexplained phenomenon we don't have the tools to measure and understand yet"?
That we have an overwhelming quantity of accounts of people experiencing things we culturally interpret as ghosts is not a proof that ghosts as described by said culture are the source of those experiences. The amount of anecdotes can only serve as a proof that people do experience things outside what we would perceive as normal. Ufos are not necessarily aliens, apparitions are not necessarily ghosts.
This argument also seems to assume all skeptics are against researching the unknown and that the Jref 1 million$ challenge is not done in good faith.

[blutoski]

Really? Randi tells everyone to weigh the evidence for themselves. Penn and Teller likewise. Isn't that what Bill Maher has done? After all Penn and Teller used this process to deny the effects of second-hand smoke, and Randi used it to promote an anti-AGW video.

The basic disagreement is a common misunderstanding of the role of argument from authority. I think they even understand it, but have cognitive dissonance and slip up when the opportunity for iconoclasm emerges.

Randi sends a mixed message about the role of authorities. Sometimes he argues for an argument from authority and sometimes he doesn't.

I'll give you two examples I came across recently while doing research for a Vancouver SkeptiCamp 2010 presentation.


Randi has been pretty consistent in his belief that PhDs in natural sciences or psychology are terrible paranormal investigators. Easily fooled by elementary magic tricks. The message: authorities are useless. So he advises the involvement of magicians. And not just any magician: "Magicians' magicians." (aren't magicians' magicians authorities within the magical community?)
He relayed a tragic tale [(Swift Commentary "The Problem of Authority" March 5 2000) (http://www.randi.org/jr/03-05-2000.html)] about the tragedy that occured when boat builders capitulated to the authority of their king. The message: authorities are useless. Now, what would have worked is if they all just listened to the nautical engineers. (aren't nautical engineers authorities in the boat-building community?)


My impression is that Randi is aware that the problem isn't 'authority' so much as 'the wrong authority' but the soundbite has led to confusion.

I think it appeals to people who are not only iconoclastic by nature, but perhaps also rigid in their thinking: "authorities are either entirely dependable or useless - pick one". Part of my abovementioned PD theory for the origin of much pseudoskepticism.





And I'm not talking about one mistake, I'm talking about many. At what point does many mistakes still mean "skeptic" and at what point does it veer over to "pseudoskeptic"?

It's a judgement about where a person lies on a continuum. There are is a list of criteria. A person can have one or two minor properties of pseudoskepticism and still be a great skeptic. Or a person can go to town on one important factor and be a type specimen for pseudoskepticism.





I agree. And I think that forms the bulk of the criticisms I have against purported skeptics and what formed the bulk of the criticisms in the links above - not that mistakes were made, but in the response to those mistakes (and I don't think I made that clear). If Randi had simply come clean about his plagarism and sincerely apologized, it would have been a non-issue. It was because he didn't and because many others* excused him for not doing so that I was disappointed.

Linda

*likely a biased estimate of amount :)

It only takes one bad move to shatter a skeptical reputation built up from years of great work. Worse: rank-and-file skeptics who do great work can end up as collateral damage due to a high-profile skeptic's error.

[blutoski]

I'm starting to think that the real difference between the skeptic and the pseudoskeptic is about whose opinions they trust.

Linda

I think that's close to accurate. With the understanding that two skeptics can differ about who to trust, but both be skeptics. At some point, however, a line is crossed into pseudoskepticism. The OP criteria are reasonably good clues.


Also probably a good way to describe the difference between skeptic and believer. Believers go further and have a very different epistemology that includes trusting opinions that originate outside of naturalism. eg: revealed knowledge, supernatural in origin.

[schrodingasdawg]

Characteristics of a pseudoskeptic.
...
* Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.
...

Should the word "pseudoskeptic" be on that list? And if use of such "pejorative" labels makes one a pseudoskeptic, I'd unhesitatingly accept the label. The phrases "pseudoscience" and "pathological science" have meanings that I think can be well applied to certain endeavors, e.g. over-unity perpetual motion devices. Or the "electric universe" crap that sometimes pops up on the web. ;)

[Limbo]

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. Maybe people prone to psedoskepticism feel like they've been fooled once - and never again! Maybe they feel burned. Burned by woo and/or religion.

The Pathology of Organized Skepticism (http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_16_1_leiter.pdf)

[...]

A person who has been duped frequently in everyday life might learn by bitter experience to be cautious and wary. The reaction of those who have joined PhACT is however more dysfunctional. They have been wounded at a deeper level, to the extent that what was purported to be a valid philosophy of life, and in which they were heavily involved, turns out to be empty and useless, even damaging, in their eyes. Thus, they gravitate to what appears to them to be the ultimate non-faith-based philosophy, Science. Unfortunately, while they loudly proclaim their righteousness, based on their professed adherence to “hard science”, they do so with the one thing no true scientist can afford to possess, a closed mind.

Instead of becoming scientifically minded, they become adherents of scientism, the belief system in which science and only science has all the answers to everything. This regrettable condition acts to preclude their unbiased consideration of phenomena on the cutting edge of science, which is not how a true scientist should behave. In fact, many “Skeptics” will not even read significantly into the literature on the subjects about which they are most skeptical. I have direct experience with this specific behavior on the part of a number of PhACT members.

Initially, I attributed that behavior to just plain laziness, but lately I’ve begun to suspect that those individuals may actually have a phobia about reading material that is contrary to their own views. It seems entirely possible that they fear “contamination” from that exposure will eventually lead to (Gasp!) acceptance of the opposition’s position. Such scientifically inclined, but psychologically scarred people tend to join Skeptics’ organizations much as one might join any other support group, say, Alcoholics Anonymous. There they find comfort, consolation, and support amongst their own kind.

[...]

Hmm. When James Randi was a young man, did he believe in woo? Didn't he briefly work as a psychic or astrologer or something?

[EHocking]

I didn't want to put you through the trouble of researching something you were unfamiliar with, so it's okay with me to just stick with the examples below

Okay. The screed you linked to was also about skepticism vs. pseudoskepticism, so I thought I'd look at one of the articles where I am familiar with the subject matter..OK.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Presentation_Skepticism_Psi.htm

He provides examples of skeptics rejecting or preventing the acquisition of good information - The Mars affair previously referenced,I have to disagree. He gives only one side of the issue and links only to Rawlins' account. Proper "fair" sceptical analysis should include both sides of a story such as Jim Lippard does at http://www.discord.org/~lippard/mars-effect-chron.rtf.

and MDC which is set up so that even if the ability is present, the claimant is unlikely to passAgain, I disagree. He presents no evidence, only the accussation, "Critics claim that his challenge is a publicity stunt that no one can win, citing claims that applicants for the challenge go unanswered". Yet no cites in his article.
(which is true, as is being discussed in the Connie Sonne thread).A conclusion (one that I don't share) but I think both of us have participated on that thread, so no need to rehash here.He refers to scientific research which happens to say what he claims it says (I am familiar with the ganzfeld research),But selectively "skeptics" as an appeal to authority, "Skeptic Ray Hyman investigated and could find no lack of controls."

An honest researcher would quote Hyman's actual critique rather than cherry-picking one point and misquoting it.
he makes reference to logical fallacies used against the claim of psi (Blutoski has similarly made reference to some of these fallacies),He doesn't actually state any logical fallacies, but he does make a number of unsupported accusations and ad hominem attacks, vis;


Common underhanded tactics of organized skeptics
Some articles that describe these type of tactics/tricks in detail:
Common arguments of organized skeptic
and he forms a conclusion based on the available information and research which is supported by what he presents.I disagree. He does not present the available information, he only presents particular pieces of information that support his point of view. This is dishonest and not a sceptical approach to any subject.In what way is that a poor use of critical thinking skills?Let's review his conclusion,
"For most paranormal phenomenon, the jury is still out, since the evidence is scanty and ambiguous. However, the evidence for both telepathy and ghosts is very strong when you combine the strong scientific evidence(1) and overwhelmingly common anecdotal evidence(2). Therefore, they are very likely to be real or at least there is something to it other than fraud, delusion, mistake or misperception.(3)
1. He has not presented strong scientific evidence for telepathy, and as far as I can see from the article, no scientific evidence for telepathy. He therefore has not formed a conclusion based on available information or research and what he did present was incomplete and only one side of the issue discussed.

2. Few sceptically minded researchers would present anecdotes as evidence.

3. This conclusion is not supported because of the omission or errors in points 1 and 2.

To reiterate his own definition of sceptic and pseudo-sceptic;

Open-minded skeptics
- Typical traits: honest doubt, inquiry and investigation of both sides, considers evidence on all sides and seeing their good/bad points, asking exploratory questions, acceptance of evidence, good common sense, nonjudgmental

His article demonstrates few if any of these traits.

B. Closed-minded skeptics (also known as pseudoskeptics, debunkers, hard core materialists, scoffers, atheists)
- Typical traits: Automatic dismissal of all paranormal claims, predisposed to discredit all testimonials of a paranormal nature, denial of any and all evidence, scoffing, giving off an air of superior rationality, judgmental about things they know nothing about, quick to draw conclusions without evidence, using philosophical semantics to win arguments and invalidate paranormal or spiritual experiences

In his article, WinstonWu demonstrates practically every one of these traits that he accuses "debunkers, hard core materialists, scoffers, atheists" of doing.

ETA: Winston is not a pseudo-sceptic in my opinion, but an evangelical anti-sceptic.
My choosing him as an example of a pseudo-sceptic was faulty.

[tsig]

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. Maybe people prone to psedoskepticism feel like they've been fooled once - and never again! Maybe they feel burned. Burned by woo and/or religion.

The Pathology of Organized Skepticism (http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_16_1_leiter.pdf)

[...]

A person who has been duped frequently in everyday life might learn by bitter experience to be cautious and wary. The reaction of those who have joined PhACT is however more dysfunctional. They have been wounded at a deeper level, to the extent that what was purported to be a valid philosophy of life, and in which they were heavily involved, turns out to be empty and useless, even damaging, in their eyes. Thus, they gravitate to what appears to them to be the ultimate non-faith-based philosophy, Science. Unfortunately, while they loudly proclaim their righteousness, based on their professed adherence to “hard science”, they do so with the one thing no true scientist can afford to possess, a closed mind.

Instead of becoming scientifically minded, they become adherents of scientism, the belief system in which science and only science has all the answers to everything. This regrettable condition acts to preclude their unbiased consideration of phenomena on the cutting edge of science, which is not how a true scientist should behave. In fact, many “Skeptics” will not even read significantly into the literature on the subjects about which they are most skeptical. I have direct experience with this specific behavior on the part of a number of PhACT members.

Initially, I attributed that behavior to just plain laziness, but lately I’ve begun to suspect that those individuals may actually have a phobia about reading material that is contrary to their own views. It seems entirely possible that they fear “contamination” from that exposure will eventually lead to (Gasp!) acceptance of the opposition’s position. Such scientifically inclined, but psychologically scarred people tend to join Skeptics’ organizations much as one might join any other support group, say, Alcoholics Anonymous. There they find comfort, consolation, and support amongst their own kind.

[...]

Hmm. When James Randi was a young man, did he believe in woo? Didn't he briefly work as a psychic or astrologer or something?

I get it, those that don't agree with you are credulous, lazy and scared.

And Randi was a believer once and young.

[readme.txt]

I somewhat agree and disagree with the OP. I didn't read everything that was said before me, but here's my thought :

I don't think it is a good thing to generalize who's "pseudo" and who's "real". In my honest opinion, it all depends on the subject and its context. Someone can fully be described with the "skeptic" list for a specific subject, and they can totally be described as "pseudo" for another subject.

There MIGHT me some people who can ENTIRELY (and almost absolutely) fit into one of those 2 lists, but in general, I think it depends on a lot of factors, most importantly on the subject discussed.

Also, I don't think it should be considered as "bad" name calling. It's only a way to categorize 2 different things he observed, which is neither good nor bad.

[fls]

There is a jump to conclusions in there, especially about the likeliness of ghosts existing.

This sounds suspiciously like you are basing your evaluation on whether or not you agree with his conclusions.

That we have an overwhelming quantity of accounts of people experiencing things we culturally interpret as ghosts is not a proof that ghosts as described by said culture are the source of those experiences. The amount of anecdotes can only serve as a proof that people do experience things outside what we would perceive as normal. Ufos are not necessarily aliens, apparitions are not necessarily ghosts.

I agree that many people do a poor job of understanding what sorts of conclusions can be drawn from stories or from personal experiences. As far as I can tell, skeptics do this as well (I will provide an example in my post to EHocking).

This argument also seems to assume all skeptics are against researching the unknown and that the Jref 1 million$ challenge is not done in good faith.

Well, it is pretty clear that the JREF MDC is not about researching the unknown, yet many purported skeptics bring it up when someone makes a claim they think should be investigated. And there are several aspects of the MDC which do not seem to be done in good faith (most recent discussion here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=167267&page=2)). So there is evidence in support of that assumption.

Linda

[fls]

The basic disagreement is a common misunderstanding of the role of argument from authority. I think they even understand it, but have cognitive dissonance and slip up when the opportunity for iconoclasm emerges.

Randi sends a mixed message about the role of authorities. Sometimes he argues for an argument from authority and sometimes he doesn't.

I'll give you two examples I came across recently while doing research for a Vancouver SkeptiCamp 2010 presentation.


Randi has been pretty consistent in his belief that PhDs in natural sciences or psychology are terrible paranormal investigators. Easily fooled by elementary magic tricks. The message: authorities are useless. So he advises the involvement of magicians. And not just any magician: "Magicians' magicians." (aren't magicians' magicians authorities within the magical community?)
He relayed a tragic tale [(Swift Commentary "The Problem of Authority" March 5 2000) (http://www.randi.org/jr/03-05-2000.html)] about the tragedy that occured when boat builders capitulated to the authority of their king. The message: authorities are useless. Now, what would have worked is if they all just listened to the nautical engineers. (aren't nautical engineers authorities in the boat-building community?)


My impression is that Randi is aware that the problem isn't 'authority' so much as 'the wrong authority' but the soundbite has led to confusion.

I think it appeals to people who are not only iconoclastic by nature, but perhaps also rigid in their thinking: "authorities are either entirely dependable or useless - pick one". Part of my abovementioned PD theory for the origin of much pseudoskepticism.

I think the greatest value skeptics can offer is to emphasize this distinction, rather than treating it as almost a throwaway issue. Figuring out the best way to collect valuable opinions and useful information - i.e. choosing your authority - seems to me to be one of the most important aspects of skepticism. Instead what gets emphasized is evaluation by the individual - one of the people least likely to have a valuable opinion or useful information. By focussing on "this is who you should not trust", we forget that that is insufficient to lead you to skepticism.

It's a judgement about where a person lies on a continuum. There are is a list of criteria. A person can have one or two minor properties of pseudoskepticism and still be a great skeptic. Or a person can go to town on one important factor and be a type specimen for pseudoskepticism.

Yeah, it seems to be an 'I know it when I see it' type of judgement.

It only takes one bad move to shatter a skeptical reputation built up from years of great work. Worse: rank-and-file skeptics who do great work can end up as collateral damage due to a high-profile skeptic's error.

Now that's an interesting (and potentially useful) distinction - the community's response to the discovery of an egregious error. Is it sufficient to shatter a reputation or not?

Linda

[fls]

I have to disagree. He gives only one side of the issue and links only to Rawlins' account. Proper "fair" sceptical analysis should include both sides of a story such as Jim Lippard does at http://www.discord.org/~lippard/mars-effect-chron.rtf.

Again, I disagree. He presents no evidence, only the accussation, "Critics claim that his challenge is a publicity stunt that no one can win, citing claims that applicants for the challenge go unanswered".

Yet no cites in his article.

A conclusion (one that I don't share) but I think both of us have participated on that thread, so no need to rehash here.

But selectively "skeptics" as an appeal to authority, "Skeptic Ray Hyman investigated and could find no lack of controls."

An honest researcher would quote Hyman's actual critique rather than cherry-picking one point and misquoting it.

He doesn't actually state any logical fallacies, but he does make a number of unsupported accusations and ad hominem attacks, vis;


Common underhanded tactics of organized skeptics
Some articles that describe these type of tactics/tricks in detail:
Common arguments of organized skeptic
I disagree.

He does not present the available information, he only presents particular pieces of information that support his point of view. This is dishonest and not a sceptical approach to any subject.

Okay. So you've made a list of behaviours more consistent with pseudoskepticism than skepticism. As a control, I took one of the weekly SWIFT articles by Randi, as these are also informal and aimed at the same sort of audience. I didn't read through any beforehand, so this isn't cherry-picked in any way. I simply did a search on "ganzfeld" and only one SWIFT article came up, so I used it to see if I could find any examples of these behaviours.

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/169-swift-february-29-2008.html

The first story about about a German psychic competition TV show gives only one side of the story instead of both sides of the story.

The story about the treatment of HIV in South Africa with ineffective substances includes accusations from individuals without cites.

The story about Homeopathic Tragedies is a classic example of using anecdotes as evidence.

His defense of the MDC under The Grubbies Attack contains misleading information:

1. He states that some of the big fish psychics have applied for the challenge, specifically Browne, yet she has not. She only agreed to apply and then did not follow through. As he stated in the Jan. 4 2008 SWIFT, none of the big names have applied.
2. Loyd doesn't state that Randi claimed "that ending the Challenge after 10 years supports any statement that psi does not exist or someone would have won the challenge", yet Randi reacts as Loyd attributed that remark to him.
4. The claim that no other field of science takes effect size into account is simply dead wrong.
5. Randi claims that the "only applicants who were ever rejected were those who – from the very first – made ridiculous claims that could not in any way be accepted, claims that showed that they were delusional or joking", which is also wrong, the most recent example being Pavel.
6. Randi is not always able to negotiate reasonable terms, even when it is possible to do so. The table I provided of applicants' claimed success rates provides additional examples of this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5635730#post5635730).
7. The car analogy misleads because it is not similar, in any way, to the kinds of claims that are made.
10. Randi mentions only professionals which did not proceed to a test and he fails to mention a preliminary test which did involve a professional parapsychologist - Dr. Suitbert Ertel. He later makes disparaging reference to "Suitbert Ertel" without any indication as to his title or qualifications.

He makes one appeal to authority, but I admit that the circumstances are odd (I don't think he is implying that she should be trusted on that account):

"Christopher, we must give due credit and accreditation here. This woman is a regional-Emmy-award-winning investigative journalist and documentary producer-writer-director-editor. She has a Masters Degree in Communications, has won a Station Peabody Award, and was Director of Special Projects at Channel 7, Denver, Colorado. She would appear to have credentials as a communicator. Unfortunately, she has also opted to accept the cattle-mutilation nonsense and the “crop circles” mythology, though these matters have been fully explained, several times over…"

This may be an example of what Blutoski made reference to earlier from Randi - a disparagement of authority.

He makes another appeal to authority by quoting Oliver Wendell Holmes.

His unsupported accusations and ad-hominen attacks are too numerous to list.

There are several examples of presenting only particular pieces of information which support his viewpoint, instead of all the information. One example is "digitalis, aspirin, quinine, belladonna, and a myriad of other very medicinally-useful substances, were initially discovered by trial-and-error and by listening to “native healers.” " This ignores that most of the information gathered by listening to native healers has been wrong, and that these medicines were only sorted out as useful through the use of scientific methods. For example, an account of the use of foxglove includes recommendations for its use in consumption (TB), asthma, and as a diuretic. It would be ineffective for those recommendations. And an examination of the cases at that link (I'm an MD) in the light of knowledge about the action of digitalis, shows that in many cases, the improvement attributed to foxglove was likely wrong.

http://books.google.com/books?id=tORsAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=Medical+Classics:+An+Account+of+the+Foxglove+an d+Some+of+its+Medicinal+Uses+by+William+Withering&source=bl&ots=lZ72z8PR4F&sig=PiXGGNCXJGb670LMTKP8VXUcsRs&hl=en&ei=Hj-BS-ONHp6ltgevzpWZBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Let's review his conclusion,

1. He has not presented strong scientific evidence for telepathy, and as far as I can see from the article, no scientific evidence for telepathy. He therefore has not formed a conclusion based on available information or research and what he did present was incomplete and only one side of the issue discussed.

He at least made reference to books and articles written by scientists. That's more than what Randi did in the SWIFT article.

2. Few sceptically minded researchers would present anecdotes as evidence.

And yet Randi offered up anecdotes about failed homeopathic treatments as evidence that homeopathy is quackery.

I would find it hard to distinguish between Winston Wu and Randi on the basis of the listed actions, yet they are not usually considered part of the same in-group.

Linda

[Uncayimmy]

Great post, Linda.

[EHocking]

Okay. So you've made a list of behaviours more consistent with pseudoskepticism than skepticism.Which was the point of this particular discussion, i.e. How did I go about analyzing their arguments and evaluating their methods, while ignoring the conclusions they have reached?
As a control, I took one of the weekly SWIFT articles by Randi, as these are also informal and aimed at the same sort of audience.I have to disagree on the audience aimed at. WinstonWu's audience is not the "sceptical community", "As CSICOP was formed to "police the claims of psi", SCEPCOP now in turn acts to "police the cynicism of pseudoskeptics". JREF being named as a prime pseudoskeptic site.
The Swift blog is quite informal, whereas the SCEPCOP is presented to the reader as a "treatise". I don't think they are comparable at all.
I didn't read through any beforehand, so this isn't cherry-picked in any way. I simply did a search on "ganzfeld" and only one SWIFT article came up, so I used it to see if I could find any examples of these behaviours.

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/169-swift-february-29-2008.htmlI don't think that I would apply the same strict conditions to a daily blog (opinion piece) as I would to the SCEPCOP article that describes itself as a "Treatise Debunking Pseudoskeptical Arguments (http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Introduction.htm)". While I would read both with a degree of sceptical "fence sitting", the types of arguments being put forward are not equal nor are the "authority" of the articles. The Swift blog is not a treatise.
The first story about about a German psychic competition TV show gives only one side of the story instead of both sides of the story.It is an opinion piece so I'm not hugely concerned about that disparity. I concede your point, but am not convinced that it is entirely
The story about the treatment of HIV in South Africa with ineffective substances includes accusations from individuals without cites.This is pushing things a bit - the piece is merely a "Letters to the Editor" type of article. There are at least links to the news story being discussed as well as past articles for the reader to consider.
The story about Homeopathic Tragedies is a classic example of using anecdotes as evidence.Again, this is a "Letter to the Editor". Randi merely uses it as a point to respond on the subject. Note that part of that response is a correct of the assumptions in the letter, i.e. "There was possibly a mixup here between homeopathy and the legitimate process of invoking immunization by attenuated bacterial matter…" None of Randi's points use the anecdote for evidence anything except for a jumping off point to raise the question of lack of FDA regulation of homeopathy.
His defense of the MDCNow to be fair, in the preceding article, "Accept the Good Part", Randi not only disagrees with the contributor, but also provides a cite (the site's URL) to clarify the point. Overlooking this article is not giving the entire blog a fair shake if positives are ignored and only negatives are discussed...under The Grubbies Attack contains misleading information:

1. He states that some of the big fish psychics have applied for the challenge,Randi does not say "some of the big fish" at all. In response to the claim that "none of the big fish" have applied he states, "Wrong. Though forced into it on international TV, Browne accepted..". You have misquoted Randi in this case.specifically Browne, yet she has not. She only agreed to apply and then did not follow through. As he stated in the Jan. 4 2008 SWIFT, none of the big names have applied.That's some pretty fine hair-splitting to say his statement is misleading. He states that she accepted the challenge but did not follow through.
2. Loyd doesn't state that Randi claimed "that ending the Challenge after 10 years supports any statement that psi does not exist or someone would have won the challenge", yet Randi reacts as Loyd attributed that remark to him.I read it as Loyd implying that was JREF's attitude when asked about finishing up the MDC. Note that Randi makes it clear that JREF neither made the statement nor suggested anything of the like. Randi is pointing out what he considers to be a strawman argument from Loyd. On my reading of it, I agree with Randi.
4. The claim that no other field of science takes effect size into account is simply dead wrong.Again, we're nitpicking, but that is not what Randi says, he actually says, "...unless Auerbach is appealing to the “special exemption” angle in which it is claimed that psychics must be given huge advantages because their talents are so undependable, erratic, and inconsistent – one of the ludicrous appeals made by this “science,” and one not enjoyed by any other science".
I guess there are theoretical scientific enquiries that pursue erratic or inconsistent observations, what sciences in the context of Randi talking about the "pass" criteria for the MDC would be applicable? (genuinely interested, I can't think of one off the top of my head). 5. Randi claims that the "only applicants who were ever rejected were those who – from the very first – made ridiculous claims that could not in any way be accepted, claims that showed that they were delusional or joking", which is also wrong, the most recent example being Pavel.If you read Pavel's thread, you will find that I agree that his treatment at the end of negotiations was poor and feel that his application should not have been terminated in the manner in which it was. I certainly agree that the part of that paragraph you quote is indeed misleading. I have a spreadsheet where I have attempted to quantify the applications to the MDC published in the Forum, and that cursory description of applications is not accurate.
6. Randi is not always able to negotiate reasonable terms, even when it is possible to do so. The table I provided of applicants' claimed success rates provides additional examples of this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5635730#post5635730).Not applicable. Randi's the subject in this point was Ganzfeld tests in particular.
For a more complete list, see my post here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4921935&highlight=statistics#post4921935). Don't have the spreadsheet at hand and can't find my original post, but I did attempt a similar thing, I'll chase it up if you're interested.
7. The car analogy misleads because it is not similar, in any way, to the kinds of claims that are made.A poor analogy perhaps, but if you quote the context of the statement, it works IMO, "a pole-vaulter should be able to pole-vault, a cook should be able to cook, and a psychic should be able to do what he/she claims, to better than 1/100 odds. I claim that I’m a car driver.". He has, I admit, resorted to ridiculing his opponent's argument, but I don't find that the analogy is misleading.

In a fair analysis, you should have also included point 8.
"8. Auerbach: “Failure in either test means no cash prize, and a fail beside their name. In many respects it would be like telling a professional golfer to shoot 63 around Augusta National, then come back and shoot 59, to prove that he can play golf.”
Randi's point is that a certain rate of success needs to be demonstrable for an MDC test to take place, "..my understanding of the game is that the player should be able to achieve a certain rate of success,...find us a psychic who can actually perform ". The fullnes of Randi's response is quite sarcastic, though.

I take it you have no arguments with point no.9?
10. Randi mentions only professionals which did not proceed to a test and he fails to mention a preliminary test which did involve a professional parapsychologist - Dr. Suitbert Ertel. He later makes disparaging reference to "Suitbert Ertel" without any indication as to his title or qualifications.I have no argument with this.

He makes one appeal to authority, but I admit that the circumstances are odd (I don't think he is implying that she should be trusted on that account):I didn't read that as an appeal to authority at all, into the statement, I thought he was correcting this opening statement by the correspondent, "It seems Ms. Moulton Howe has a new book out, which, as we all know, qualifies her as an expert on whatever topic about which she stands and delivers."

This may be an example of what Blutoski made reference to earlier from Randi - a disparagement of authority.I agree, that setting out Moulton Howe's achievements so fully appears to be done only to serve as emphasis on the ridiculing of her belief in "nonsense" and mythology. Frankly, I find her articles at Earthwatch to be biased and intellectually dishonest as she certainly ignores counter-arguments and evidence when "researching". Unfortunately, the thread on a "crop circle made in 90 mins" seems to have disappeared off the Forum archives. It'd save me rehashing the points here so I could back up my opinion of her.
He makes another appeal to authority by quoting Oliver Wendell Holmes.I could argue that, but in context, it'd be a close run thing!:)
His unsupported accusations and ad-hominen attacks are too numerous to list.I agree.
But it is an opinion piece after all, and most opinion pieces are written to garner reaction of some sort. This is trap that believers and sceptics alike fall in to.
There are several examples of presenting only particular pieces of information which support his viewpoint, instead of all the information. One example is "digitalis, aspirin, quinine, belladonna, and a myriad of other very medicinally-useful substances, were initially discovered by trial-and-error and by listening to “native healers.” " This ignores that most of the information gathered by listening to native healers has been wrong,...I don't think that criticism is entirely fair. All he was doing was pointing out to the correspondent that his genaralism "...I despair when I think of the popularity of "traditional healers" anywhere in the world" is not entirely fair. All he points out is that "...I have to caution you, as I’ve done to many others: don’t condemn all natural product...". http://books.google.com/books?id=tORsAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=Medical+Classics:+An+Account+of+the+Foxglove+an d+Some+of+its+Medicinal+Uses+by+William+Withering&source=bl&ots=lZ72z8PR4F&sig=PiXGGNCXJGb670LMTKP8VXUcsRs&hl=en&ei=Hj-BS-ONHp6ltgevzpWZBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

He at least made reference to books and articles written by scientists. That's more than what Randi did in the SWIFT article.
Randi's point was not a treatise on natural medicines, it was merely cautioning someone not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
And yet Randi offered up anecdotes about failed homeopathic treatments as evidence that homeopathy is quackery.I don't see any anecdotes offered up by Randi in that edition of Swift.
I don't know if commenting on "Letters to the Editor" in a blog is actually Randi offering up anecdotes, but if that's what you are saying, I can see the point being made.I would find it hard to distinguish between Winston Wu and Randi on the basis of the listed actions, yet they are not usually considered part of the same in-group.The examples discussed aren't exactly comparable, one being a blog and the other a self-proclaimed "treatise", in the same way I would apply levels of "sticklerness" when say reading a newspaper or reading a scientific paper. The former may only require a "grain of salt" approach (being an opinion piece for the most part), whereas the latter would require more strict application of critical analysis.

But basing an opinion of any subject should not be reliant on merely reading one article by an author, critic or commentator and coming to a conclusion regarding their intellectual honesty, it requires, as any proper sceptical assessment should, background research into the subject and to the author's other articles - i.e. their track record counts as well.

WinstonWu has been spouting believer rubbish since usenet days - his track record is a good example of biased and intellectually dishonest argument.

Randi, while also lapsing into a number of poor argumentative styles and personal opinion has a body of work that (IMO) holds up better to sceptical analysis of his arguments than WinstonWu.

Let's revisit.

fls. How do you tell which [of us] is the pseudoskeptic? And how is it determined that your critical analysis is skeptical or pseudoskeptical?

EHocking. consideration of the methodology and critical analysis used by the "sceptic" ...to arrive at their opinion on a subject.

I know you will probably take me to task on the validity of a commentator's track record, but a single analysis of a single article is not how I would build an opinion of a commentator.

The previous responses have only been an attempt at giving examples of an approach taken to fairly critiquing any article.

[fls]

Which was the point of this particular discussion, i.e. How did I go about analyzing their arguments and evaluating their methods, while ignoring the conclusions they have reached?

Yes.

I have to disagree on the audience aimed at. WinstonWu's audience is not the "sceptical community", "As CSICOP was formed to "police the claims of psi", SCEPCOP now in turn acts to "police the cynicism of pseudoskeptics". JREF being named as a prime pseudoskeptic site.

The audience for both starts with 'those who might consider themselves 'skeptics''. Obviously we wouldn't call someone who is uninterested in skepticism a 'pseudoskeptic', so this all starts with a group who generally is interested in considering themselves skeptical or rational in some way. Within this group is substantial variation in what people think it means to be a skeptic and consequently variation in what people think it means to be a pseudoskeptic. Wu is arguing for his own particular brand. And while I agree that in the end it is a different group of people who read CSICOP vs. those who read Wu, they are both trying to draw from the same pool.

The Swift blog is quite informal, whereas the SCEPCOP is presented to the reader as a "treatise". I don't think they are comparable at all.
I don't think that I would apply the same strict conditions to a daily blog (opinion piece) as I would to the SCEPCOP article that describes itself as a "Treatise Debunking Pseudoskeptical Arguments (http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Introduction.htm)". While I would read both with a degree of sceptical "fence sitting", the types of arguments being put forward are not equal nor are the "authority" of the articles. The Swift blog is not a treatise.
It is an opinion piece so I'm not hugely concerned about that disparity. I concede your point, but am not convinced that it is entirely

The article I linked to for examination was not a 'treatise', it was simply one article among many. Randi's SWIFT pieces are not a daily blog (although there is now a SWIFT bog as well), but an ongoing series of weekly newsletters (I think this would be an apt term). But I would also like to point out that Randi is a regular contributor to Skeptic magazine and those articles are mainly repackaged SWIFT pieces. So Randi's analysis is not materially different even in a setting which is at least as formal as Wu's website. This makes the comparison reasonable.

This is pushing things a bit - the piece is merely a "Letters to the Editor" type of article. There are at least links to the news story being discussed as well as past articles for the reader to consider.

The past article simply makes reference to accusations from different readers without cites.

Again, this is a "Letter to the Editor". Randi merely uses it as a point to respond on the subject. Note that part of that response is a correct of the assumptions in the letter, i.e. "There was possibly a mixup here between homeopathy and the legitimate process of invoking immunization by attenuated bacterial matter…" None of Randi's points use the anecdote for evidence anything except for a jumping off point to raise the question of lack of FDA regulation of homeopathy.

Randi offers up these anecdotes without any sort of criticism. And the lack of criticism is meaningful, because when other contributors say something he doesn't agree with, he makes a point of criticizing them.

Now to be fair, in the preceding article, "Accept the Good Part", Randi not only disagrees with the contributor, but also provides a cite (the site's URL) to clarify the point. Overlooking this article is not giving the entire blog a fair shake if positives are ignored and only negatives are discussed.

I agree that I didn't make that clear. I wasn't attempting to determine whether or not every action of Randi's could be criticized. I was simply trying to see if we could find examples of all of the same kinds of problems that you identified in Wu's article. I wasn't trying to say that all of Randi's article was a problem, only that there was at least one example of all of the same kinds of problems.

Randi does not say "some of the big fish" at all. In response to the claim that "none of the big fish" have applied he states, "Wrong. Though forced into it on international TV, Browne accepted..". You have misquoted Randi in this case.

Excuse me? You only turned that into a misquote by deliberately removing part of my sentence. I said the same thing that Randi claimed - that he was referring to Sylvia Browne. I would also remind you that the negation of 'none' is 'some, therefore the negation of "none of the big fish" is "some of the big fish". This isn't even remotely a misquote.

That's some pretty fine hair-splitting to say his statement is misleading. He states that she accepted the challenge but did not follow through.

It's not hair-splitting on my part. This is the quote that Randi stated was "Wrong.":

"Furthermore, none of the 'big fish' - medium John Edward, spoon-bender Uri Geller, psychic Sylvia Browne - have applied (although Sylvia Browne did accept James Randi's direct challenge on Larry King Live, without going any further)."

If there is any hair-splitting here, then it is all on Randi's part.

I read it as Loyd implying that was JREF's attitude when asked about finishing up the MDC. Note that Randi makes it clear that JREF neither made the statement nor suggested anything of the like. Randi is pointing out what he considers to be a strawman argument from Loyd. On my reading of it, I agree with Randi.

It's not surprising that you did, because Randi implied that that was what it was. However, if you look at the original article, it looks more obviously a response to a question put to Loyd by the interviewer.

Again, we're nitpicking, but that is not what Randi says, he actually says, "...unless Auerbach is appealing to the “special exemption” angle in which it is claimed that psychics must be given huge advantages because their talents are so undependable, erratic, and inconsistent – one of the ludicrous appeals made by this “science,” and one not enjoyed by any other science".
I guess there are theoretical scientific enquiries that pursue erratic or inconsistent observations, what sciences in the context of Randi talking about the "pass" criteria for the MDC would be applicable? (genuinely interested, I can't think of one off the top of my head).

Medicine.

If you read Pavel's thread, you will find that I agree that his treatment at the end of negotiations was poor and feel that his application should not have been terminated in the manner in which it was. I certainly agree that the part of that paragraph you quote is indeed misleading. I have a spreadsheet where I have attempted to quantify the applications to the MDC published in the Forum, and that cursory description of applications is not accurate.

Okay.

Not applicable. Randi's the subject in this point was Ganzfeld tests in particular.

I think it is applicable. While Randi was speaking to the ganzfeld tests, the implication is that reasonable terms would be negotiated because that's the way he rolls (okay, maybe not with that exact wording :)).

For a more complete list, see my post here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4921935&highlight=statistics#post4921935). Don't have the spreadsheet at hand and can't find my original post, but I did attempt a similar thing, I'll chase it up if you're interested.

It is useful to collect these sorts statistics. I am interested. I noticed that you only had two spots filled in with the reason for withdrawal. When I was going through the applications for my own little table, I noticed that many of the applicants seem to have simply stopped responding. I'd like to have more information on what happened, but maybe that is generally unobtainable.

A poor analogy perhaps, but if you quote the context of the statement, it works IMO, "a pole-vaulter should be able to pole-vault, a cook should be able to cook, and a psychic should be able to do what he/she claims, to better than 1/100 odds. I claim that I’m a car driver.". He has, I admit, resorted to ridiculing his opponent's argument, but I don't find that the analogy is misleading.

I'm just thinking that if you try to run with it, it's hard to come up with a test that illustrates just what we're getting at. Auerbach's point (Auerbach: “Failure in either test means no cash prize, and a fail beside their name. In many respects it would be like telling a professional golfer to shoot 63 around Augusta National, then come back and shoot 59, to prove that he can play golf.”) is a good example. He uses a golf analogy whereby a claim is deliberately made much more difficult than it needs to be by focussing on what it is that the typical claimant says when they arrive. But realistically, if someone claimed to play golf, protocol negotiations would tend to simplify it to asking for a series of shots on the driving range that exceed a particular distance (or something like that). Similarly, the car claim wouldn't involve driving to work.

In a fair analysis, you should have also included point 8.

Well, I didn't really think there was anything obviously wrong with the criticism.

I take it you have no arguments with point no.9?

Right. The one's I skipped over were arguably reasonable. I agree that I didn't make this clear.

I didn't read that as an appeal to authority at all, into the statement, I thought he was correcting this opening statement by the correspondent, "It seems Ms. Moulton Howe has a new book out, which, as we all know, qualifies her as an expert on whatever topic about which she stands and delivers."

I think you're right. As I said, it seemed a bit odd to me, so I think that explains it.

But it is an opinion piece after all, and most opinion pieces are written to garner reaction of some sort. This is trap that believers and sceptics alike fall in to.

I agree. And I wouldn't hold it against him on that account. Generating an emotional reaction may be a reasonable component of education.

I don't think that criticism is entirely fair. All he was doing was pointing out to the correspondent that his genaralism "...I despair when I think of the popularity of "traditional healers" anywhere in the world" is not entirely fair. All he points out is that "...I have to caution you, as I’ve done to many others: don’t condemn all natural product...".
Randi's point was not a treatise on natural medicines, it was merely cautioning someone not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I don't see any anecdotes offered up by Randi in that edition of Swift.
I don't know if commenting on "Letters to the Editor" in a blog is actually Randi offering up anecdotes, but if that's what you are saying, I can see the point being made.

I agree that some of the examples work better than others.

The examples discussed aren't exactly comparable, one being a blog and the other a self-proclaimed "treatise", in the same way I would apply levels of "sticklerness" when say reading a newspaper or reading a scientific paper. The former may only require a "grain of salt" approach (being an opinion piece for the most part), whereas the latter would require more strict application of critical analysis.

But basing an opinion of any subject should not be reliant on merely reading one article by an author, critic or commentator and coming to a conclusion regarding their intellectual honesty, it requires, as any proper sceptical assessment should, background research into the subject and to the author's other articles - i.e. their track record counts as well.

WinstonWu has been spouting believer rubbish since usenet days - his track record is a good example of biased and intellectually dishonest argument.

Randi, while also lapsing into a number of poor argumentative styles and personal opinion has a body of work that (IMO) holds up better to sceptical analysis of his arguments than WinstonWu.

Let's revisit.

fls. How do you tell which [of us] is the pseudoskeptic? And how is it determined that your critical analysis is skeptical or pseudoskeptical?

EHocking. consideration of the methodology and critical analysis used by the "sceptic" ...to arrive at their opinion on a subject.

I know you will probably take me to task on the validity of a commentator's track record, but a single analysis of a single article is not how I would build an opinion of a commentator.

The previous responses have only been an attempt at giving examples of an approach taken to fairly critiquing any article.

I agree in theory. But it still seems to me that the conclusions reached and the authorities referred to/depended upon play a big part in evaluating that track record. And to be honest, I haven't really seen any written material from Randi that substantially differs from his SWIFT articles. However, the videos I have seen of his presentations generally seem much more reasonable.

Linda

[blutoski]

Yeah, it seems to be an 'I know it when I see it' type of judgement.

Yep.

(And don't get me started on how to identify "skep-porn".)

[fls]

Yep.

(And don't get me started on how to identify "skep-porn".)

Weird. My husband calls the JREF forum "Linda's porn".

Linda

[Ivor the Engineer]

Weird. My husband calls the JREF forum "Linda's porn".

Linda

Sounds like a little town in Holland.

[EHocking]

The audience for both starts with 'those who might consider themselves 'skeptics''. Obviously we wouldn't call someone who is uninterested in skepticism a 'pseudoskeptic', so this all starts with a group who generally is interested in considering themselves skeptical or rational in some way. Within this group is substantial variation in what people think it means to be a skeptic and consequently variation in what people think it means to be a pseudoskeptic. Wu is arguing for his own particular brand.I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this. The Scepcop "movement" as more akin to the ID movement than the sceptic movement. I guess I will have to just throw up my hands and admit I'm biased. I don't consider the likes of John Benneth, Marcello Truzzi and Victor Zammit to be intellectually honest in their proclamation that they are the true sceptics. I'd be very surprised if you considered them to be so.And while I agree that in the end it is a different group of people who read CSICOP vs. those who read Wu, they are both trying to draw from the same pool.More like opposing armies facing each other across the paranormal battlefield. The Scepcop mission statement is, "Welcome to SCEPCOP - The Scientific Committee to Evaluate Pseudo-Skeptical Criticism of the Paranormal".
The article I linked to for examination was not a 'treatise', it was simply one article among many.It was WinstonWu's "Presentation Speech" presenting his treatise (http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Introduction.htm) and self-proclaimed "widely acclaimed article in paranormal/New Age circles, and the first of its kind. Efficiently and logically debunks pretty much all the prejudiced arguments of organized skepticism against the paranormal by CSICOP, James Randi, Michael Shermer, etc. ". Randi's SWIFT pieces are not a daily blog (although there is now a SWIFT bog as well), but an ongoing series of weekly newsletters (I think this would be an apt term).You're quite right, on further consideration I was incorrect and was indeed remembering the current blog style of JREF's presentation of Swift. But I would also like to point out that Randi is a regular contributor to Skeptic magazine and those articles are mainly repackaged SWIFT pieces. So Randi's analysis is not materially different even in a setting which is at least as formal as Wu's website. This makes the comparison reasonable.No further argument from me on that.
The past article simply makes reference to accusations from different readers without cites.Not entirely true. Sources for the commentary (such as a news article) are linked. But I agree, many of the Swift articles are Randi's opinion pieces.

The WinstonWu article IS a self-declared treatise, though and different type of opinion piece, "This treatise rebuts and critiques the most common arguments made by pseudoskeptics (those who claim to be skeptics but in fact are cynics, debunkers, scoffers) regarding paranormal and psychic phenomena, showing the flaws and fallacies in their thinking, philosophy and methodology. (http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Introduction.htm) (http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Introduction.htm)"Randi offers up these anecdotes without any sort of criticism. And the lack of criticism is meaningful, because when other contributors say something he doesn't agree with, he makes a point of criticizing them.I can't disagree wholly with that (I can niggle some points, but essentially you are correct).I agree that I didn't make that clear. I wasn't attempting to determine whether or not every action of Randi's could be criticized. I was simply trying to see if we could find examples of all of the same kinds of problems that you identified in Wu's article. I wasn't trying to say that all of Randi's article was a problem, only that there was at least one example of all of the same kinds of problems.And I agree with you. A number of Randi's Swift articles are merely opinion pieces or commentary on "interesting articles".
Excuse me? You only turned that into a misquote by deliberately removing part of my sentence.I assure you that I did not deliberately remove any of your sentence in order to change it's meaning. I quoted the statement that Randi was responding to in the article, "1. “…none of the “big fish” – medium John Edward, spoon-bender Uri Geller, psychic Sylvia Browne – have applied [for the JREF prize]”. I said the same thing that Randi claimed - that he was referring to Sylvia Browne.OK, well I guess this particular point boils down to a lack of communication between our posts, as your statement was, "He states that some of the big fish psychics have applied for the challenge, specifically Browne, yet she has not. ", and my counterpoint was to quoting Randi's response in the article to the statement, "1. “…none of the “big fish” – medium John Edward, spoon-bender Uri Geller, psychic Sylvia Browne – have applied [for the JREF prize]” I would also remind you that the negation of 'none' is 'some, therefore the negation of "none of the big fish" is "some of the big fish". This isn't even remotely a misquote. Our different take on the statement is the only argument her. I take "none" as "not one", negation of "none of the big fish" would be "one" not "some" of the big fish". I read Randi's response as, "Wrong. At least one of the big fish applied". Which is only "untrue" because Browne reneged on her on air promise (! oops, bias showing there !)It's not hair-splitting on my part. This is the quote that Randi stated was "Wrong.":

"Furthermore, none of the 'big fish' - medium John Edward, spoon-bender Uri Geller, psychic Sylvia Browne - have applied (although Sylvia Browne did accept James Randi's direct challenge on Larry King Live, without going any further)."

If there is any hair-splitting here, then it is all on Randi's part.I should have read on - my response is above...It's not surprising that you did, because Randi implied that that was what it was. However, if you look at the original article, it looks more obviously a response to a question put to Loyd by the interviewer.I read the original article before I posted my response. I still read it as I stated.Medicine.

Okay.

I think it is applicable. While Randi was speaking to the ganzfeld tests, the implication is that reasonable terms would be negotiated because that's the way he rolls (okay, maybe not with that exact wording :)).Having attempted to summarise 162 of the posted applications, I think that in the majority of cases, the JREF does negotiate the Challenge protocols in a fair manner. The problem is, when they do not, they do not in rather grand style!
It is useful to collect these sorts statistics. I am interested.I had only noted the pass score negotiated, not the initial claimant pass score. It may be an interesting parameter to add. I noticed that you only had two spots filled in with the reason for withdrawal. When I was going through the applications for my own little table, I noticed that many of the applicants seem to have simply stopped responding. I'd like to have more information on what happened, but maybe that is generally unobtainable.After a quick scan. Of the 16 accepted, I've noted 7 as "No further contact", 3 withdrawn by the applicant, 2 stalling when Kramer left, 1 deemed not paranormal, 1 previously tested, 1 marked "Protocol Negotiation" - implying a protocol discussion broke down and 1 marked "Testers Time" (dunno?!)I'm just thinking that if you try to run with it, it's hard to come up with a test that illustrates just what we're getting at. Auerbach's point (Auerbach: “Failure in either test means no cash prize, and a fail beside their name. In many respects it would be like telling a professional golfer to shoot 63 around Augusta National, then come back and shoot 59, to prove that he can play golf.”) is a good example. [quote]But misses the point. The point of the MDC is much the same as "making the cut" for the PGA. There's no point of taking on a golfer if he claims to be able to shoot Augusa in 63 if his best scorecard is no better than 80. Thus Randi's "duffer" statement.[quote]He uses a golf analogy whereby a claim is deliberately made much more difficult than it needs to be by focussing on what it is that the typical claimant says when they arrive.[quote]A constant discussion on that Forum, but the point is that the MDC can only test what the applicant claims, so there is no choice but to focus on what the claimant says.[quote] But realistically, if someone claimed to play golf, protocol negotiations would tend to simplify it to asking for a series of shots on the driving range that exceed a particular distance (or something like that).[quote]I disagree. If the claim is being able to shoot Augusta in 63 is not the useful to merely test a golfer's driving ability. [quote]Well, I didn't really think there was anything obviously wrong with the criticism.

Right. The one's I skipped over were arguably reasonable. I agree that I didn't make this clear.
Well, one of the criteria we were testing was whether pseudo-sceptics ommitted certain details - I was just holding you to that. :D
I think you're right. As I said, it seemed a bit odd to me, so I think that explains it.

I agree. And I wouldn't hold it against him on that account. Generating an emotional reaction may be a reasonable component of education.

I agree that some of the examples work better than others.

I agree in theory. But it still seems to me that the conclusions reached and the authorities referred to/depended upon play a big part in evaluating that track record. And to be honest, I haven't really seen any written material from Randi that substantially differs from his SWIFT articles. However, the videos I have seen of his presentations generally seem much more reasonable.As do his books. The media gives the author greater ability to cite and to fully expand an idea.

Phew...!

[fls]

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this. The Scepcop "movement" as more akin to the ID movement than the sceptic movement. I guess I will have to just throw up my hands and admit I'm biased. I don't consider the likes of John Benneth, Marcello Truzzi and Victor Zammit to be intellectually honest in their proclamation that they are the true sceptics. I'd be very surprised if you considered them to be so.

More like opposing armies facing each other across the paranormal battlefield. The Scepcop mission statement is, "Welcome to SCEPCOP - The Scientific Committee to Evaluate Pseudo-Skeptical Criticism of the Paranormal".

I think we agree. Regardless of whether or not ID is science, it wants to be taken as such. Regardless of whether or not the above people are skeptics, they want to be taken as such.

It was WinstonWu's "Presentation Speech" presenting his treatise (http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Introduction.htm) and self-proclaimed "widely acclaimed article in paranormal/New Age circles, and the first of its kind.[FONT=Arial] Efficiently and logically debunks pretty much all the prejudiced arguments of organized skepticism against the paranormal by CSICOP, James Randi, Michael Shermer, etc. ".

I really considered this a minor point. Unless you are trying to claim that anything short of a 'treatise' is allowed to be sloppy when it comes to critical thinking, I can't really see that it matters exactly what any particular article is called.

I assure you that I did not deliberately remove any of your sentence in order to change it's meaning. I quoted the statement that Randi was responding to in the article, "1. “…none of the “big fish” – medium John Edward, spoon-bender Uri Geller, psychic Sylvia Browne – have applied [for the JREF prize]”. OK, well I guess this particular point boils down to a lack of communication between our posts, as your statement was, "He states that some of the big fish psychics have applied for the challenge, specifically Browne, yet she has not. ", and my counterpoint was to quoting Randi's response in the article to the statement, "1. “…none of the “big fish” – medium John Edward, spoon-bender Uri Geller, psychic Sylvia Browne – have applied [for the JREF prize]” Our different take on the statement is the only argument her. I take "none" as "not one", negation of "none of the big fish" would be "one" not "some" of the big fish". I read Randi's response as, "Wrong. At least one of the big fish applied". Which is only "untrue" because Browne reneged on her on air promise (! oops, bias showing there !)

Right, which is just what the author of the article said - "(although Sylvia Browne did accept James Randi's direct challenge on Larry King Live, without going any further)". So for Randi to then call this emphatically "Wrong." isn't justifiable.

Having attempted to summarise 162 of the posted applications, I think that in the majority of cases, the JREF does negotiate the Challenge protocols in a fair manner. The problem is, when they do not, they do not in rather grand style!

I used to think that, but I'm not so sure any more. The tendency to set the threshold at the claimed success rate is arguably unfair, and there have now been several cases where the threshold was set higher than the claimed success rate. I also don't think the tactic of forcing the acceptance of an unacceptable protocol in order to place the blame on the claimant, is fair.

I had only noted the pass score negotiated, not the initial claimant pass score. It may be an interesting parameter to add.

It would also be interesting to look at the pass score initially claimedAfter a quick scan. Of the 16 accepted, I've noted 7 as "No further contact", 3 withdrawn by the applicant, 2 stalling when Kramer left, 1 deemed not paranormal, 1 previously tested, 1 marked "Protocol Negotiation" - implying a protocol discussion broke down and 1 marked "Testers Time" (dunno?!)

I wonder if the JREF keeps stats on these. They should. I should find out what they have.

I'm just thinking that if you try to run with it, it's hard to come up with a test that illustrates just what we're getting at. Auerbach's point (Auerbach: “Failure in either test means no cash prize, and a fail beside their name. In many respects it would be like telling a professional golfer to shoot 63 around Augusta National, then come back and shoot 59, to prove that he can play golf.”) is a good example.

But misses the point. The point of the MDC is much the same as "making the cut" for the PGA. There's no point of taking on a golfer if he claims to be able to shoot Augusa in 63 if his best scorecard is no better than 80. Thus Randi's "duffer" statement.

I meant it as an example of Randi's "a pole-vaulter should be able to pole-vault..." list. The claimant is asked to do what they are normally able to do, rather than performing at a level which is very unusual for them. Certainly, someone who can shoot 59 at Augusta National would count as someone who "can play golf", but so would someone who can shoot 80.

He uses a golf analogy whereby a claim is deliberately made much more difficult than it needs to be by focussing on what it is that the typical claimant says when they arrive.]A constant discussion on that Forum, but the point is that the MDC can only test what the applicant claims, so there is no choice but to focus on what the claimant says.

I'm just saying that claimants rarely show up with a coherent, well thought out claim. The point of the analogy seemed to be that it is reasonable to ask someone to do something that is ordinary to them, so the difficult task is for us to discover just what it is that the claimant finds ordinary, but we find extraordinary, in order to form a testable claim. It's hard for the car analogy to get that across, because we all find driving a car ordinary. And the golf analogy similarly doesn't work because the implication is that the claimant would consider shooting a 59 at Augusta National an extraordinary feat on their part.

But realistically, if someone claimed to play golf, protocol negotiations would tend to simplify it to asking for a series of shots on the driving range that exceed a particular distance (or something like that).I disagree. If the claim is being able to shoot Augusta in 63 is not the useful to merely test a golfer's driving ability.

See, that's why the analogy doesn't work. You need to change it into something you consider extraordinary. But if the other criterion was satisfied - i.e. the golfer found shooting 63 ordinary - JREF's million would be chump change for them. :) The hidden assumption is that the golfer would find shooting 63 difficult, but what we are really going for is something that the golfer finds easy.

As do his books. The media gives the author greater ability to cite and to fully expand an idea.

I've only read one of his books - Flim, Flam - and even then I quit halfway through. I have the same problem with Gardner's skepticism books (although I love his math puzzles books). It's been a while since I've looked at any of them, but I think it was that I never quite got why pointing out that an individual was ridiculous or that a story seemed nonsensical was sufficient to dismiss an idea. I kept expecting it to be explained and after a while I realized that it wasn't going to be.

Linda

[Limbo]

If JREF was a ship, I would begin to suspect you have the makings of a mutineer, Linda.

[Darat]

If JREF was a ship, I would begin to suspect you have the makings of a mutineer, Linda.

What a funny thing to say - fls puts forward her claims and supports them with evidence and strong argumentation, precisely what the JREF promotes (even if "it", like all of us doesn't always live up to its goals).

[EHocking]

I think we agree. Regardless of whether or not ID is science, it wants to be taken as such. Regardless of whether or not the above people are skeptics, they want to be taken as such.Yep - we're agreed.I really considered this a minor point. Unless you are trying to claim that anything short of a 'treatise' is allowed to be sloppy when it comes to critical thinking, I can't really see that it matters exactly what any particular article is called. Indeed a minor point.
To be honest, I stopped reading Swift articles over a year ago. The blog format irks me and the brevity of the articles just don't grab my interest as it had when it was in a "magazine" format.

Looks like your example, therefore, was a good one.Right, which is just what the author of the article said - "(although Sylvia Browne did accept James Randi's direct challenge on Larry King Live, without going any further)". So for Randi to then call this emphatically "Wrong." isn't justifiable.I didn't read it as that, but it's an reading interpretation thing, and we disagree on the nuance it seems (even if only slightly).
I used to think that, but I'm not so sure any more. The tendency to set the threshold at the claimed success rate is arguably unfair,And has been argued incessantly! I've joined in on those threads.

It can be a bit of a Catch22 though, setting the success rate at the claimed success rate tests what the applicant is boasting, yet if JREF changes it, they're accused of not testing what the applicant claims.

Best leave that discussion over on the MDC discussion Forum.
and there have now been several cases where the threshold was set higher than the claimed success rate.Their certainly have, I can't off the top of my head (pavel? edge?) think of many that weren't justified, if the claimant's initial success rate was deemed to be as expected by random chance.
Again, a discussion over at MDC (and I've got posts all over that part of the Forum too, including attempts at explaining/suggesting protocols for applicants)I also don't think the tactic of forcing the acceptance of an unacceptable protocol in order to place the blame on the claimant, is fair.Not sure what you mean by "blame". Basically if they can't do what they claim to do, it is (should) be only one persons fault - theirs.
The Connie Sonne test was performed sloppily and the termination of Pavel's application was unprofessional IMO, if they are ones your thinking of. I wonder if the JREF keeps stats on these. They should. I should find out what they have.I'd be interested how they approach it. Because of the diverse claims, I found it difficult to get a solid "taxonomy" to quantify the applications.I meant it as an example of Randi's "a pole-vaulter should be able to pole-vault..." list. The claimant is asked to do what they are normally able to do, rather than performing at a level which is very unusual for them. Certainly, someone who can shoot 59 at Augusta National would count as someone who "can play golf", but so would someone who can shoot 80.Geez, don't say that around a golfer!! :D

But yes I agree, but you don't seem to, quoting above, "The tendency to set the threshold at the claimed success rate is arguably unfair...":p

Kidding aside (and you make the point below) sometimes JREF have to make the call on a success rate, either because the applicant is clueless, or the initial claim is not significantly different to random chance. Obviously such claims as levitation are self-evident.
I'm just saying that claimants rarely show up with a coherent, well thought out claim. The point of the analogy seemed to be that it is reasonable to ask someone to do something that is ordinary to them, so the difficult task is for us to discover just what it is that the claimant finds ordinary, but we find extraordinary, in order to form a testable claim. I'm with you so far.It's hard for the car analogy to get that across, because we all find driving a car ordinary. And the golf analogy similarly doesn't work because the implication is that the claimant would consider shooting a 59 at Augusta National an extraordinary feat on their part.Such is the nature of analogies!See, that's why the analogy doesn't work. You need to change it into something you consider extraordinary. But if the other criterion was satisfied - i.e. the golfer found shooting 63 ordinary - JREF's million would be chump change for them. :) The hidden assumption is that the golfer would find shooting 63 difficult, but what we are really going for is something that the golfer finds easy. My fumble fingers typing that didn't help, but the gist of my intent was that if the golfer found shooting 63 ordinary and the par for Augustus was 63 - it is not an extraordinary claim.
(Note, I am not a golfer (googles) ayup, Augusta is a par 72 course).
Thus JREF are obliged to a success score that is considered extraordinary, but within the limits the claimant thinks they can achieve.
I've only read one of his books - Flim, Flam - and even then I quit halfway through. I have the same problem with Gardner's skepticism books (although I love his math puzzles books). It's been a while since I've looked at any of them, but I think it was that I never quite got why pointing out that an individual was ridiculous or that a story seemed nonsensical was sufficient to dismiss an idea.Agreed, and we're back OT!
On the other hand, my "sceptical epiphany" came when I was in my early teens reading Von Daniken. The subjects in Chariots of the Gods were intriguing and wonderous - but even as a 12 year old I caught on that his ideas were ridiculous and his conclusions nonsensical.
I kept expecting it to be explained and after a while I realized that it wasn't going to be.Ayup.
As we started out on this thread, if you're going to do a demolition job on someone's ideas, play the ball and not the man and back up your arguments with verifiable evidence.

[fls]

If JREF was a ship, I would begin to suspect you have the makings of a mutineer, Linda.

That's the beauty of it, though. I can say this stuff, and as long as I am trying to support my argument with evidence and reason, even if they don't agree with me, others are willing to listen and engage in discussion. And sometimes we even manage to change each others' opinions on small and large points. Plus, for the same reasons, I'm not worried that if Randi happens to look at what I am saying that his reaction will be to treat me as a mutineer. Rather, at the very least he'd treat critical comments as the necessary outcome of encouraging people to question and doubt - he'd take it as a good sign.

But I'm not trying to mutiny against Randi, claiming that he is unfit to be a leader of skeptics. I'm trying to claim that since Randi is fit to be considered a leader of sketpics, that even though we may think that we distinguish skepticism and pseudoskepticism on the basis of those characteristics presented in the OP, we don't. Because otherwise we'd identify Randi as a pseudoskeptic. Even though it has been denied, I still think that a big part of how we distinguish between skeptics and pseudoskeptics is on the basis of how we go about choosing those authorities we refer to/depend upon. And subsequently, which conclusions we accept.

ETA: And just to make it clear, I'm not referring to Randi as a general authority, but rather referring to looking at what sort of authorities Randi uses.

Linda

[fls]

Not sure what you mean by "blame". Basically if they can't do what they claim to do, it is (should) be only one persons fault - theirs.

That's what I mean. It's the claimant's fault that normal variation may work against them. It's the claimant's fault that their empirical observations of what they can achieve don't match our guesses about what they can achieve (e.g. The Man's guess that identifying a card using psi would be like looking at a card; http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5636358#post5636358).

Geez, don't say that around a golfer!! :D

Dude, I live in Golf Heaven. I know what I can say around a golfer and shooting a round of 80 at Augusta National would definitely qualify you as someone who "can play golf" (considering what it would take just to get on to that golf course).

But yes I agree, but you don't seem to, quoting above, "The tendency to set the threshold at the claimed success rate is arguably unfair...":p

Kidding aside (and you make the point below) sometimes JREF have to make the call on a success rate, either because the applicant is clueless, or the initial claim is not significantly different to random chance. Obviously such claims as levitation are self-evident.

I'm just trying to emphasize that 'average' is not the same as 'ordinarily'.

My fumble fingers typing that didn't help, but the gist of my intent was that if the golfer found shooting 63 ordinary and the par for Augustus was 63 - it is not an extraordinary claim.

Exactly.

(Note, I am not a golfer (googles) ayup, Augusta is a par 72 course).
Thus JREF are obliged to a success score that is considered extraordinary, but within the limits the claimant thinks they can achieve.

Yes. I just don't think that within this analogy we can find something that we intuitively recognize as extraordinary that we wouldn't also expect a claimant to find extraordinary, unless we're simply comparing what the top-ranked golfers can achieve with what the average hobby player achieves.

As we started out on this thread, if you're going to do a demolition job on someone's ideas, play the ball and not the man and back up your arguments with verifiable evidence.

Are you familiar with Dean Radin?

Linda

[EHocking]

That's what I mean. It's the claimant's fault that normal variation may work against them. It's the claimant's fault that their empirical observations of what they can achieve don't match our guesses about what they can achieve (e.g. The Man's guess that identifying a card using psi would be like looking at a card; http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5636358#post5636358).OK. Yes.

The fact that most people ARE ignorant of the laws of chance (me being one - I'm often surprised when I look up odds when participating on protocol threads) is, well, life... It's the mainstay of the gambling business that the general public are ignorant and it's hardly JREF's fault that many of the applicants are deluding themselves because they don't realise that their "talent" just isn't extraordinary.
Dude, I live in Golf Heaven.My idea of Hell (if I believed in either, of course)
<snip general agreement>
Are you familiar with Dean Radin?Not recently.

I was interested in this a few years ago and have been to presentations and met the likes of Susan Blackmore, Ray Hyman and Chris Pope. Since then I've only taken a cursory interest in parapsychology subjects. I'm probably missing something, I agree, but I've not seen anything that has grabbed me by my lapels and yelled, "HOW'S THAT?".

[Limbo]

That's the beauty of it, though. I can say this stuff, and as long as I am trying to support my argument with evidence and reason, even if they don't agree with me, others are willing to listen and engage in discussion. And sometimes we even manage to change each others' opinions on small and large points. Plus, for the same reasons, I'm not worried that if Randi happens to look at what I am saying that his reaction will be to treat me as a mutineer. Rather, at the very least he'd treat critical comments as the necessary outcome of encouraging people to question and doubt - he'd take it as a good sign.

But I'm not trying to mutiny against Randi, claiming that he is unfit to be a leader of skeptics. I'm trying to claim that since Randi is fit to be considered a leader of sketpics, that even though we may think that we distinguish skepticism and pseudoskepticism on the basis of those characteristics presented in the OP, we don't. Because otherwise we'd identify Randi as a pseudoskeptic. Even though it has been denied, I still think that a big part of how we distinguish between skeptics and pseudoskeptics is on the basis of how we go about choosing those authorities we refer to/depend upon. And subsequently, which conclusions we accept.

ETA: And just to make it clear, I'm not referring to Randi as a general authority, but rather referring to looking at what sort of authorities Randi uses.

Linda


Then again, I might not.

[fls]

Then again, I might not.

Of course not. Because you identify 'skeptics' and 'pseudoskeptics' on the basis of 'has reached the same conclusions as me' and 'hasn't reached the same conclusions as me'. Once you have identified who is us and who is them based on those characteristics, then you take your set of rationalizations and pick out which ones you are going to apply to an analysis of the methods/means by which that conclusion was reached. You pretend that it was through the analysis of the methods/means that you concluded someone was a skeptic or pseudoskeptic, but it really is a post hoc rationalization. I'm not singling you out, though. My contention is that we all do this to some extent. Except me.

Linda

[fls]

I was interested in this a few years ago and have been to presentations and met the likes of Susan Blackmore, Ray Hyman and Chris Pope. Since then I've only taken a cursory interest in parapsychology subjects. I'm probably missing something, I agree, but I've not seen anything that has grabbed me by my lapels and yelled, "HOW'S THAT?".

I'm just wondering if you were familiar enough with him to make a call on whether or not he would serve as an example of a pseudoskeptic.

Linda

[Ivor the Engineer]

Of course not. Because you identify 'skeptics' and 'pseudoskeptics' on the basis of 'has reached the same conclusions as me' and 'hasn't reached the same conclusions as me'. Once you have identified who is us and who is them based on those characteristics, then you take your set of rationalizations and pick out which ones you are going to apply to an analysis of the methods/means by which that conclusion was reached. You pretend that it was through the analysis of the methods/means that you concluded someone was a skeptic or pseudoskeptic, but it really is a post hoc rationalization. I'm not singling you out, though. My contention is that we all do this to some extent. Except me.

Linda

Yep. We're often cognitive misers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_miser) and use heuristics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic) unless particularly motivated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_tactician) to think. Except you.

Heuristics developed through extensive experience can often produce near-optimal solutions to highly complex problems.

[EHocking]

I'm just wondering if you were familiar enough with him to make a call on whether or not he would serve as an example of a pseudoskeptic.

LindaWellll..... He does use quantum a lot on his blog and in his thesis "Entangled Minds". That's a dead giveaway, isn't it? :D.

But Radin doesn't fit "pseudosceptic" in my opinion, since I interpret the word as an epithet coined by Truzzi, lashing out at his detractors with ad hom arguments and strawmen character assassinations. That's why I described WinstonWu as an anti-sceptic.

That's why I compared this tactic to that used by the Intelligent Design campaign. It is a disingenuous misappropriation of the scientific approach to discussion, just as Truzzi's acolytes misrepresent themselves as "true" sceptics.

[blutoski]

Wellll..... He does use quantum a lot on his blog and in his thesis "Entangled Minds". That's a dead giveaway, isn't it? :D.

But Radin doesn't fit "pseudosceptic" in my opinion, since I interpret the word as an epithet coined by Truzzi, lashing out at his detractors with ad hom arguments and strawmen character assassinations.

I do find the terminology useful, though. Pseudoskeptic is to skeptic as cargo cult science is to science.

The main reason I wouldn't put Radin there is that I'm not under the impression that he considers himself a skeptic anyway.





That's why I described WinstonWu as an anti-sceptic.

I classify Wu the same way.

The reason is that he doesn't come across as very interested in investigations of the paranormal so much as inquiry and critique of skepticism. To his credit, I suspect that he believes that critique of skeptics somehow leads to vindication of believers.

Alas: digging up dirt or rehashing old internal politics in organized skepticism does not shed light on psi's plausibility. It is an obsession with poisoning the well, and Wu just comes across as distracted and invested.




That's why I compared this tactic to that used by the Intelligent Design campaign. It is a disingenuous misappropriation of the scientific approach to discussion, just as Truzzi's acolytes misrepresent themselves as "true" sceptics.

I don't consider it useful in external discussion, but internally, skeptics would benefit from identifying what I refer to as 'an element'. If for no reason than to understand that they share errors with our target audience (the general public - not to be confused with [General Public (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Public)]) and that they're a built-in soft testbed for [rhetoric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric)].

[fls]

But Radin doesn't fit "pseudosceptic" in my opinion, since I interpret the word as an epithet coined by Truzzi, lashing out at his detractors with ad hom arguments and strawmen character assassinations. That's why I described WinstonWu as an anti-sceptic.

That's why I compared this tactic to that used by the Intelligent Design campaign. It is a disingenuous misappropriation of the scientific approach to discussion, just as Truzzi's acolytes misrepresent themselves as "true" sceptics.

Yikes. I totally missed that you were on my side on this.

Linda

[fls]

I do find the terminology useful, though. Pseudoskeptic is to skeptic as cargo cult science is to science.

The main reason I wouldn't put Radin there is that I'm not under the impression that he considers himself a skeptic anyway.

I'm not sure either. I did find this blog entry (http://deanradin.blogspot.com/search?q=pseudo) by him, which is similar to what I've seen from other parapsychologists or proponents of parapsychology.

"Ah, the righteous arrogance of youth. I remember what it was like to feel intellectually superior to my college professors, many of whom seemed to be dullards who understood nothing. I grew out of that phase when I started to apply genuine skepticism, not just to others' beliefs, but to my own...

Atheists, especially young ones in the midst of existential crisis, do not yet appreciate that their strong stance against religious faith is just faith of another color (i.e., scientism). They are also unable to distinguish between beliefs based on empirically testable ideas vs. beliefs based on faith. And like most true believers in scientism, they become very concerned that one might conduct experiments where the underlying mechanisms are not yet understood. I wish I could say that most students grow out of an over-reliance on the certainty of prevailing theories, but as I mentioned in my previous post, unfortunately many don't."

I'm not so sure that they are willing to apply the labels of "pseudoskeptic" and "skeptic", but I do think that they wish to be seen as the rational ones in comparison. Maybe anti-skeptic is a better term for that.

Linda

[Darat]

I've been reading this thread with interest and I've not been convinced that the word has any utility beyond that of being a pejorative that is usually used as an insult towards those that have a different opinion. I really can't see any meaningful use for the word, by that I mean one that actually helps advance a discussion or helps people understand something.

People either apply a sceptical methodology and therefore can be labelled "skeptic" (albeit I think that's an almost useless label in itself) or they don't and therefore they can't be described as a sceptic.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I've been reading this thread with interest and I've not been convinced that the word has any utility beyond that of being a pejorative that is usually used as an insult towards those that have a different opinion. I really can't see any meaningful use for the word, by that I mean one that actually helps advance a discussion or helps people understand something.

People either apply a sceptical methodology and therefore can be labelled "skeptic" (albeit I think that's an almost useless label in itself) or they don't and therefore they can't be described as a sceptic.

I agree.

I doubt anyone could survive for long without reasoning as sceptics claim to do at least some of the time. Similarly, I doubt people who claim to be sceptics use analytical reasoning most of the time, but instead rely on heuristics to reach many of their conclusions.

[readme.txt]

People either apply a sceptical methodology and therefore can be labelled "skeptic" (albeit I think that's an almost useless label in itself) or they don't and therefore they can't be described as a sceptic.

Very good point

[blutoski]

People either apply a sceptical methodology and therefore can be labelled "skeptic" (albeit I think that's an almost useless label in itself) or they don't and therefore they can't be described as a sceptic.

I think that's the discrepancy in our views. By your definition, either everybody's a skeptic or nobody. I believe it's a false dichotomy.

That's why the thread has included examples of people who are regarded as skeptics (eg: Randi, Penn & Teller, Shermer) who have perhaps applied what you call 'skeptical methodology' (I'm not sure there is such a thing, but that's another discussion) yet sometimes have not.

Assuming your criteria above: does one act of skepticism make a person a skeptic, despite other unskeptical actions (in which case I think everybody could qualify as a skeptic)? Or alternatively, does one act of nonskepticism mean the person is not a skeptic (in which case, I think there could be no skeptics at all)?

[EHocking]

Yikes. I totally missed that you were on my side on this.

Linda<shrugs>

It got a bit messy in there, but it wasn't about sides in the long run.
It's always useful to question and assess your/my own critical skills and demonstrate, even if just to your/myself, that personal bias hasn't come to be a major influence on your/my analysis process.

To quote one of your earlier posts,
I think we tend to be an ornery group - looking for ways to disagree (generally a good thing). :)Perhaps we be not pseudosceptcs?

[EHocking]

I do find the terminology useful, though. Pseudoskeptic is to skeptic as cargo cult science is to science.And to be truthful, there are a number of posters on this forum that do exhibit the "qualities" in the OP's definition of pseudosceptic. While it was initially invented as a pejorative, I can understand how it came to be invented.The main reason I wouldn't put Radin there is that I'm not under the impression that he considers himself a skeptic anyway.Proponent of the existence of the paranormal certainly, but a strict sceptic, no.I classify Wu the same way.

The reason is that he doesn't come across as very interested in investigations of the paranormal so much as inquiry and critique of skepticism. To his credit, I suspect that he believes that critique of skeptics somehow leads to vindication of believers.Hmmm, he is above repeating old slanders in order to "critique" sceptics. From past experience way back to usenet days, I would not credit WinstonWu with such a high minded motive.Alas: digging up dirt or rehashing old internal politics in organized skepticism does not shed light on psi's plausibility. It is an obsession with poisoning the well, and Wu just comes across as distracted and invested.You are much more polite that I would be in my assessment...I don't consider it useful in external discussion, but internally, skeptics would benefit from identifying what I refer to as 'an element'. If for no reason than to understand that they share errors with our target audience (the general public - not to be confused with [General Public (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Public)]) and that they're a built-in soft testbed for [rhetoric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric)].Yes, a number of posters at this forum demonstrate a number of the accusations raised in the OP. I'd bet that I've committed some of these lapses in posts here myself.

[blutoski]

I'd bet that I've committed some of these lapses in posts here myself.

As have I. And thank. the random. quanta. that the Internet hasn't immortalized my amateurish BBS and usenet postings that predate it. I look back at old emails from mailing list archives and say out loud: "Ugh. What... what was I thinking?"

I feel I have become a better skeptic over the years, and I guess that's part of my thought on the topic: skepticism is probably just an ideal, so people are more or less skeptical on a continuum. Randi's made a few unskeptical - and very human - errors... but he's still got more skeptic sauce in his (hollow rubber) finger than I've got in my whole body and probably ever will.

I believe personal growth like this can be fostered. And I believe skeptical progress in individuals should be recognized and rewarded. I tried very hard to do this in BCSkeptics over the years.

[Darat]

I think that's the discrepancy in our views. By your definition, either everybody's a skeptic or nobody. I believe it's a false dichotomy.

That's why the thread has included examples of people who are regarded as skeptics (eg: Randi, Penn & Teller, Shermer) who have perhaps applied what you call 'skeptical methodology' (I'm not sure there is such a thing, but that's another discussion) yet sometimes have not.

Assuming your criteria above: does one act of skepticism make a person a skeptic, despite other unskeptical actions (in which case I think everybody could qualify as a skeptic)? Or alternatively, does one act of nonskepticism mean the person is not a skeptic (in which case, I think there could be no skeptics at all)?

Sorry I wasn't as clear as I should have been.

If someone applies the methodology of scepticism to something then they are "being a sceptic", if on another topic they don't apply the methodology then they are not being a sceptic; so someone may be "a sceptic" about one thing but not another. (It's part of why I consider the label "sceptic" itself to be pretty useless.)

[Akhenaten]

People either apply a sceptical methodology and therefore can be labelled "skeptic" (albeit I think that's an almost useless label in itself) or they don't and therefore they can't be described as a sceptic.





Very good point





And the subtle use of spelling drives it home.


;)

[blutoski]

Sorry I wasn't as clear as I should have been.

If someone applies the methodology of scepticism to something then they are "being a sceptic", if on another topic they don't apply the methodology then they are not being a sceptic; so someone may be "a sceptic" about one thing but not another. (It's part of why I consider the label "sceptic" itself to be pretty useless.)

That makes sense.

[Uncayimmy]

Sorry I wasn't as clear as I should have been.
Feel free to add that to your signature :D

If someone applies the methodology of scepticism to something then they are "being a sceptic", if on another topic they don't apply the methodology then they are not being a sceptic; so someone may be "a sceptic" about one thing but not another. (It's part of why I consider the label "sceptic" itself to be pretty useless.)

What you call being a skeptic some of us call being skeptical. Few of us are skeptical all the time. Few of us are religious all the time. Few of us are nice, mean, stubborn, or arrogant all the time. Interestingly, though, most of the terms that come to mind for this comparison don't have nouns we can use as labels. I'm arrogant, but I'm not an arrogant (*******, jerk, dick, bastard, sure). And even though people call me arrogant, I doubt many of them mean that I am arrogant all the time in every capacity including dealing with my wife, children, mother, clients, and so forth.

I really don't have much of an issue with calling someone a skeptic since to me it means describing them as skeptical for a significant portion of the time. If there were a noun for arrogant, nobody would take that label away from me simply because I'm not that way with some people.

[Lusikka]

The question skepticism vs. pseudoskepticism has been handled here interestingly and not without merit. But in my opinion the discussion has remained too much on theoretical level, giving too much space to mere opinions, and without possibilities to checking details.

On more practical level it is easy to notice that there is a continuum beginning from skepticism and ending in pseudoskepticism. Skepticism is based on practical facts, and pure pseudoskepticism is only debunking, based on cherry-picking, coloring the facts and even on outright lies. It is also easy to notice that debunkers are in clear majority here on this forum.

[rjh01]

I've been reading this thread with interest and I've not been convinced that the word has any utility beyond that of being a pejorative that is usually used as an insult towards those that have a different opinion. I really can't see any meaningful use for the word, by that I mean one that actually helps advance a discussion or helps people understand something.

People either apply a sceptical methodology and therefore can be labelled "skeptic" (albeit I think that's an almost useless label in itself) or they don't and therefore they can't be described as a sceptic.

Sorry I wasn't as clear as I should have been.

If someone applies the methodology of scepticism to something then they are "being a sceptic", if on another topic they don't apply the methodology then they are not being a sceptic; so someone may be "a sceptic" about one thing but not another. (It's part of why I consider the label "sceptic" itself to be pretty useless.)

Does this mean you are thinking about adding words to the auto-censor? Or am I being premature?

[Lusikka]

Even pseudoskeptics are doing good work in debunking New Age, but the same is not true concerning parapsychology. There are often major discrepancies between what the pseudoskeptics say and what parapsychological researchers say. The critical question is, who is nearer the truth. For example, reporting the "Project Alpha":

Randi: We learned that the lab had considered some 300 applicants who contacted them in response to notices in the media.
http://www.banachek.org/nonflash/index.htm (see Project Alpha)

Thalbourne: About a dozen persons, both locally and from around the country, contacted Dr. Phillips with claims to have exerted macro-PK.
http://www.aiprinc.org/para-c05_Thalbourne_1995.pdf

Comparing the Randi article with what Marcello Truzzi has written about Alpha shows clearly what is the difference between a pseudoskeptic and a skeptic.
http://www.tricksterbook.com/truzzi/ZS-Issues-PDFs/ZeteticScholarNos12-13.pdf

[fls]

On more practical level it is easy to notice that there is a continuum beginning from skepticism and ending in pseudoskepticism. Skepticism is based on practical facts, and pure pseudoskepticism is only debunking, based on cherry-picking, coloring the facts and even on outright lies. It is also easy to notice that debunkers are in clear majority here on this forum.

I dunno. It still looks like there is much variation in what people mean when they say that someone is a skeptic or "I am a skeptic". Which then makes "pseudoskeptic" take on various characteristics (in order to serve as a distinction). And that doesn't even take into account whether someone is inclined to use the term (pseudoskeptic) in the first place.

Debunking can only be pseudoskepticism if skeptics aren't debunkers. But many people seem to consider debunking part of skepticism. Certainly many of the articles in Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer involve examining whether claims hold up to scrutiny and discovering alternative means by which effects could take place.

Linda

[fls]

Even pseudoskeptics are doing good work in debunking New Age, but the same is not true concerning parapsychology. There are often major discrepancies between what the pseudoskeptics say and what parapsychological researchers say. The critical question is, who is nearer the truth. For example, reporting the "Project Alpha":

Randi:
http://www.banachek.org/nonflash/index.htm (see Project Alpha)

Thalbourne:
http://www.aiprinc.org/para-c05_Thalbourne_1995.pdf

Comparing the Randi article with what Marcello Truzzi has written about Alpha shows clearly what is the difference between a pseudoskeptic and a skeptic.
http://www.tricksterbook.com/truzzi/ZS-Issues-PDFs/ZeteticScholarNos12-13.pdf

The two authors have quite a different style (Randi and Truzzi). The accounts are quite similar otherwise. The only thing I can really see clearly is that two friends seem to have pissed each other off. I have to admit that I am getting tired of philosophical musings. The parts I most enjoy from Randi are when he is within his area of expertise, such as his explanations as to how effects can be achieved and analyses of how tricksters control their experimenters/audience.

Linda

[Dave Rogers]

Debunking can only be pseudoskepticism if skeptics aren't debunkers. But many people seem to consider debunking part of skepticism. Certainly many of the articles in Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer involve examining whether claims hold up to scrutiny and discovering alternative means by which effects could take place.

I don't see how debunking is anything but a vital part of skepticism. We evaluate evidence, provisionally accept hypotheses that accord with the evidence, and provisionally reject hypotheses that conflict with it. The second half of that, pretty much by definition, is debunking. If you're not rejecting hypotheses that don't fit the evidence, you're not thinking skeptically.

Dave

[blutoski]

I don't see how debunking is anything but a vital part of skepticism. We evaluate evidence, provisionally accept hypotheses that accord with the evidence, and provisionally reject hypotheses that conflict with it. The second half of that, pretty much by definition, is debunking. If you're not rejecting hypotheses that don't fit the evidence, you're not thinking skeptically.

Debunking per se is part of skepticism, but I think we can identify a pseudoskeptic if they are debunking absolutely everything without discretion, to the point of [solipsism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism)]. ie: if they even debunk stuff that isn't bunk.


ETA: or if there is an interested pattern to the debunking. ie: they focus on debunking claims made members of one political party, whether or not this is consistent with previous stated beliefs

[Lusikka]

The two authors have quite a different style (Randi and Truzzi). The accounts are quite similar otherwise. The only thing I can really see clearly is that two friends seem to have pissed each other off.

I can see much more. You can rely on Truzzi but not on Randi. Randi first lied and blankly denied the existence of the "Project Alpha". He promised not to exaggerate and promised to handle the public revealing of Alpha responsibly, which he did not do.

Pseudoskepticism is advertising itself as scientific and truthful, remember the bombastic names "Science: Good, Bad and Bogus" and "The Truth About Uri Geller". In real life pseudoskeptics practically never criticize each other, which logically means they must be perfect and never be wrong. But as a result major cases of wrong information are doing merry go round in the literature. Pseudoskeptics believe blindly on each other and are very bad in checking and verifying the facts.

The parts I most enjoy from Randi are when he is within his area of expertise, such as his explanations as to how effects can be achieved and analyses of how tricksters control their experimenters/audience.

I enjoy that too.

[fls]

I can see much more. You can rely on Truzzi but not on Randi. Randi first lied and blankly denied the existence of the "Project Alpha". He promised not to exaggerate and promised to handle the public revealing of Alpha responsibly, which he did not do.

There are small differences in the various accounts whose importance is exaggerated depending upon who is giving the account and which perspective they wish to convey. I have no particular reason to think that Truzzi's account can be relied upon. For example, his account requires that you believe that the professionals at Discover failed to do their job to an extent that isn't plausible. And that you believe that he has accurately conveyed private events that are at odds with public events.

Pseudoskepticism is advertising itself as scientific and truthful, remember the bombastic names "Science: Good, Bad and Bogus" and "The Truth About Uri Geller". In real life pseudoskeptics practically never criticize each other, which logically means they must be perfect and never be wrong. But as a result major cases of wrong information are doing merry go round in the literature. Pseudoskeptics believe blindly on each other and are very bad in checking and verifying the facts.

I agree. That's a particularly useful bit of advice - check the references.

Linda