The Mentality of Skeptics

[OntarioSquatch]

One of the things that's always fascinated me about people who call themselves "skeptics" is their reaction to the unknown. During my time here I've noticed that ambiguity can make these people very uneasy. The ability to tolerate ambiguity varies from person to person and apparently some people just aren't able to handle it. This is weird because being able to tolerate cognitive dissonance is essential for proper skepticism.

In direct contrast to "skeptics", proponents of woo are usually highly tolerant of ambiguity. In fact, many of them actually seem to enjoy it as it makes the world a more interesting place for them. For many of them, not knowing for sure if their beliefs are correct or not is actually large part of their fun. This makes for some really interesting dynamics the two.

There's a great blog post written by a crime writer on this very subject
http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2015/11/skepticism-on-the-couch.html

A Skeptic encountering evidence of the paranormal is like the stereotypical woman in a movie farce who discovers a spider in her hair. Does she pause to calmly assess the situation? No, she starts batting wildly at her head, screaming, "Get it off me!" In this state of mind, even the most intelligent and knowledgeable person will be hard pressed to think logically. Panic makes anyone stupid.

But what happens when the first, hastily contrived explanation fails? Then another explanation must be cobbled together immediately and affirmed with the same absolutism. If that one fails, another will be seized on, and another, and another — none of which will satisfactorily address the evidence (at least in the stronger cases), but all of which will serve to protect the mind from the agonies of doubt and ambiguity, which are simply intolerable.

This is also why Skeptics are "debunkers" at heart; their impulse is not to engage with the evidence but to dismiss it as quickly as possible.

This accounts for the tendency of Skeptics to come up with a quick-and-dirty explanation of any troubling phenomenon. Because cognitive dissonance is so painful for Skeptics, they often do not even read the cases closely — or if they do read them, they don't absorb or retain what they're reading. It's a defense mechanism. Rather than engage with the material, which would make them deeply uncomfortable, they skim it, find the first detail they can "debunk," and declare the case closed. They can safely forget it. Dissonance has been resolved, and order is restored.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yeah ambiguity sure is tough to deal with.

Just making stuff up to fill in the gaps is much better.

 

[arthwollipot]

The fact that this view of skeptics is both completely false and extremely common shows the magnitude of the PR problem that skeptics have.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

Not every skeptic has this mentality, but in my experience a lot of them do.

 

[Resume]

Michael Prescott:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Michael_Prescott

Prescott has written that ectoplasm is genuine though if he had done some real research into experiments carried out by scientists during séances he would see that ectoplasm is universally discredited even amongst other parapsychologists since all investigations into the substance turned out to be butter, muslin, plastic dolls and the result of fraud. He also claims the mediumship of Eusapia Palladino is genuine, however Palladino was exposed as using trickery . . .

Ectoplasm is as genuine as bigfoot.

 

[Beerina]

There is a difference between asking for evidence and assuming something is false sans evidence.

That's really only valid for the usual paranormal stuff (which has actually been examined a lot) and much less valid in other contexts.

Unfortunately sometimes skeptics get confused on that and treat every subject as if it were a paranormal claim.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

Yeah ambiguity sure is tough to deal with.

Just making stuff up to fill in the gaps is much better.

This actually works "both ways". For instance, some "skeptics" make up false, but reasonable sounding explanations to explain away the unknown and some proponents would rather use one unknown to explain another.

 

[marplots]

If the role of the skeptic is to challenge claims, then one natural way to do this is to make a stronger counter-claim. It's also a way to set the meter on just how burdensome the burden of proof is going to be: a well-accepted counter-claim will take more evidence to overcome than a weak counter-claim.

The claim creates the skeptic.

 

[JoeMorgue]

This actually works "both ways". For instance, some "skeptics" make up false, but reasonable sounding explanations to explain away the unknown and some proponents would rather use one unknown to explain another.

*Shrugs* Sure whatever. That's why proponents of mystical, pseudoscience, supernatural, and other non-scientific claims have never once been right.

 

[bruto]

If you are inclined to equate ambiguity and the unknown with evidence of the paranormal, you have a problem from the very start.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

If the role of the skeptic is to challenge claims, then one natural way to do this is to make a stronger counter-claim. It's also a way to set the meter on just how burdensome the burden of proof is going to be: a well-accepted counter-claim will take more evidence to overcome than a weak counter-claim.

The claim creates the skeptic.

I've always thought it was questioning and a lack of belief that creates a "skeptic". Countering a positive claim with a negative claim just seems unnecessary and anti-skeptical in my opinion.

 

[marplots]

I've always thought it was questioning and a lack of belief that creates a "skeptic". Countering a positive claim with a negative claim just seems unnecessary and anti-skeptical in my opinion.

It seems to flow from this recipe:
"I don't believe your claim."
"Why not?"
[alternate worldview presented here]

 

[Loss Leader]

In direct contrast to "skeptics", proponents of woo are usually highly tolerant of ambiguity. In fact, many of them actually seem to enjoy it as it makes the world a more interesting place for them. For many of them, not knowing for sure if their beliefs are correct or not is actually large part of their fun.

The fact that careful examination of evidence is not enjoyable or fun is not the fault of skeptics. Hard work is rarely "fun" though often far more rewarding.

 

[HarryHenderson]

You're treating "skepticism" as if it's a way of life or something. It's not that complicated. It's an intellectual (as opposed to emotional) reaction to the "reality" of claims of fantastical-ness without any evidence.

It's no secret you claim there is a Bigfoot. Okay, my eyes are open, SHOW ME Bigfoot! But you can't (or won't). Why should we believe there's a Bigfoot when you, a believer, can't point us in any proper direction to see one? Where again are we being the unreasonable ones?

Blind faith should be just a band, but it's not and your version of it is totally immune to any "skepticism" we might interject anyway. That is, I'm still not sure what your beef actually is. That there is no Bigfoot?

 

[OntarioSquatch]

It seems to flow from this recipe:
"I don't believe your claim."
"Why not?"
[alternate worldview presented here]

I think it's important to remember that skepticism is just a method used to get to the truth. It's not a position. By presenting an alternate view, you're now revealing that you have your own position. It's not ideal when dealing with proponents of certain subjects because now you're giving them a chance to question you when it's supposed to be just you questioning them.

 

[marplots]

I think it's important to remember that skepticism is just a method used to get to the truth. It's not a position. By presenting an alternate view, you're now revealing that you have your own position. It's not ideal when dealing with proponents of certain subjects because now you're giving them a chance to question you when it's supposed to be just you questioning them.

True enough, but I take skepticism to be more than just asking the questions, but also evaluating the answers. Besides, identifying as a skeptic already implies a certain worldview, doesn't it?

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Skeptics are closed mind and/or big meanie heads, therefore my (insert pet Woo here) is true."

Oldest song in the playbook.

Rules lawyer the argument all you want, there's still no magic monkey man.

 

[Belz...]

One of the things that's always fascinated me about people who call themselves "skeptics" is their reaction to the unknown.

Yeah, "do you have any evidence" is such a weird reaction.

 

[Slowvehicle]

One of the things that's always fascinated me about people who call themselves "skeptics" is their reaction to the unknown. During my time here I've noticed that ambiguity can make these people very uneasy. The ability to tolerate ambiguity varies from person to person and apparently some people just aren't able to handle it. This is weird because being able to tolerate cognitive dissonance is essential for proper skepticism.

In direct contrast to "skeptics", proponents of woo are usually highly tolerant of ambiguity. In fact, many of them actually seem to enjoy it as it makes the world a more interesting place for them. For many of them, not knowing for sure if their beliefs are correct or not is actually large part of their fun. This makes for some really interesting dynamics the two.

There's a great blog post written by a crime writer on this very subject
http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2015/11/skepticism-on-the-couch.html

Praps you should stand your person of straw over there under that windmill, with the others...

 

[Slowvehicle]

This actually works "both ways". For instance, some "skeptics" make up false, but reasonable sounding explanations to explain away the unknown and some proponents would rather use one unknown to explain another.

I don't suppose you have examples of this...do you?