The Mentality of Skeptics

[Gord_in_Toronto]

If your complaint is that they don't even attempt to evaluate the evidence based on a preexisting bias, I agree. But it's the nature of discussions that an assertion in one direction attracts the opposite point of view.

Can you describe the interaction you might expect if skeptics here acted more like skeptics should?

Hurruph! Whatever response you get, I won't believe it.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

If your complaint is that they don't even attempt to evaluate the evidence based on a preexisting bias, I agree. But it's the nature of discussions that an assertion in one direction attracts the opposite point of view.

Can you describe the interaction you might expect if skeptics here acted more like skeptics should?

There'd be less dogmatism. If someone comes and claims that they saw a ghost, the people here wouldn't try to immediately explain it away with some random explanation that only sounds reasonable or call him a liar or shame the skeptics who reveal that they're open to his idea.

 

[marplots]

Hurruph! Whatever response you get, I won't believe it.

Bully.

I need to learn how to talk to Millennials, the lost generation.

 

[William Parcher]

There'd be less dogmatism. If someone comes and claims that they saw a ghost, the people here wouldn't try to immediately explain it away with some random explanation that only sounds reasonable or call him a liar or shame the skeptics who reveal that they're open to his idea.

Show an example. Fill in the blank.

OntarioSquatch says: Aliens create Bigfoots by genetic hybridization using humans and they bring them to Earth.

Proper Skeptic says:

 

[marplots]

There'd be less dogmatism. If someone comes and claims that they saw a ghost, the people here wouldn't try to immediately explain it away with some random explanation that only sounds reasonable or call him a liar or shame the skeptics who reveal that they're open to his idea.

Good enough. What would replace it? Or would it just be dead air?

I'm honestly trying to figure out what the conversation would be like.

 

[Axxman300]

There'd be less dogmatism. If someone comes and claims that they saw a ghost, the people here wouldn't try to immediately explain it away with some random explanation that only sounds reasonable or call him a liar or shame the skeptics who reveal that they're open to his idea.

Funny, I identified myself as a former ghost hunter and nobody has given me a hard time about it.

To be fair, I haven't given them a reason to either, you know like posting a thread along the lines of "ZMG!Ghosts R Reelz!".

Plus, I'm happy with a logical explanation, and I don't get bent out of shape when someone has the gall to point out where I've got my facts wrong, or have failed to take other aspects into consideration. That's how you get answers, you do some research, ask questions, and listen - respectfully - to the answers. Being intellectually honest is a big help too.

 

[dmaker]

Show an example. Fill in the blank.

OntarioSquatch says: Aliens create Bigfoots by genetic hybridization using humans and they bring them to Earth.

Proper Skeptic says:

Show me evidence of bigfoot, and we'll go from there.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

The main takeaway here is that tolerating uncertainty and is essential for true skepticism.

Conversely allowing oneself too ingest any manner of woo woo and unyielding gullibility is apparently mandatory for the footers and other assorted "truth" seekers.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Show me evidence of bigfoot, and we'll go from there.

See all you skeptics are the same, Such sticklers..Look i have this bag with some fur I found in the woods, If this isn't Nobel prize winning I give up with you lot.

 

[marplots]

See all you skeptics are the same, Such sticklers..Look i have this bag with some fur I found in the woods, If this isn't Nobel prize winning I give up with you lot.

It's the very lack of strong evidence that is the best evidence.

 

[Pixel42]

There'd be less dogmatism. If someone comes and claims that they saw a ghost, the people here wouldn't try to immediately explain it away with some random explanation that only sounds reasonable or call him a liar or shame the skeptics who reveal that they're open to his idea.

People have cognitive biases, fallible perceptions and malleable memories. The way that these can cause people to think they have seen something that wasn't really there are well known and well understood. Pointing this out is not "explaining away with some random explanation". Only if plausible mundane explanations do not suffice is it necessary to seriously consider more exotic ones.

 

[marplots]

I get the feeling the objection is as much about tone as it is about content.

 

[Aepervius]

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

You are wrong. Skeptic particularly scientist handle the unknown very fine. "we do not know" is a very good and acceptable answer. The problem are the non skeptic which can't handle it and switch from "UFO - unknown object in the sky" to "Alien visiting us" or "small stone landing on a roof"/"strange noise int eh forest" to "bigfoot" and other such occurrence.

Skeptic are pretty much fine with unknown and recognizing them as unknown. The problem are only the non skeptic which pretty much pounce on any unknown and assign them their pet belief.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

A Bigfoot proponent posts an audio of an alleged Bigfoot. The "skeptic" gets anxious and says its a common forest animal, but it turns out to be just a person pretending to be a Sasquatch.



Just because the mentality of most skeptics is flawed, doesn't mean the woo believers are correct, but anyway, I think you totally missed the point of this thread.

I love that you always seem to use words like "anxiety" when discussing Bigfoot and the lack of belief from sceptics, in all seriousness, it's very telling.

The mentality of most sceptics is flawed? As opposed to the mentality of a bunch of fully-grown adults who continue to believe that the woods behind their house is riddled with gigantic elusive ape-men who's preferred method of communication seems to be banging loudly on tree's and chucking rocks at things?

A flawed mentality is one in which an adult chooses to see the puppet rather than the strings and the inevitable puppeteer. You choose not to see the strings on "Patty," and that is what I'd call having a flawed mentality.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

There'd be less dogmatism. If someone comes and claims that they saw a ghost, the people here wouldn't try to immediately explain it away with some random explanation that only sounds reasonable or call him a liar or shame the skeptics who reveal that they're open to his idea.

To the best of my knowledge, the only people who've come into these specific threads to talk about Bigfoot or suggest that Bigfoot could be real, all have a credibility-rating of about zero.

I've yet to see any level-headed believer pop in with an interesting story that wasn't quite obviously invented within their noggin'.

CBFRKY and NL have both failed in their attempts to offer anything credible, and thus, they don't exactly receive a warm ovation upon posting yet more none-evidence.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

If your complaint is that they don't even attempt to evaluate the evidence based on a preexisting bias, I agree. But it's the nature of discussions that an assertion in one direction attracts the opposite point of view.

Can you describe the interaction you might expect if skeptics here acted more like skeptics should?

There'd be less dogmatism. If someone comes and claims that they saw a ghost, the people here wouldn't try to immediately explain it away with some random explanation that only sounds reasonable or call him a liar or shame the skeptics who reveal that they're open to his idea.

So OntarioSquatch, what it looks like you want to see here is someone coming and claiming they've seen a ghost. No-one answers for a few weeks, and then we all say "Yup, sounds good to me. Definitely a ghost".
Would that make you any happier, and could you explain what the point of such a forum would be?

 

[Ladewig]

A Bigfoot proponent posts an audio of an alleged Bigfoot. The "skeptic" gets anxious and says its a common forest animal, but it turns out to be just a person pretending to be a Sasquatch.

In broad terms, what percent of skeptics in general display this anxiousness?

What percent of people on this forum display this anxiousness?


.........
Please do not consider my questions a sign of anxiousness or a sign of my not being able to handle uncertainity. I am calmly and rationally asking for your estimate of the size of the problem.

 

[Slowvehicle]

A Bigfoot proponent posts an audio of an alleged Bigfoot. The "skeptic" gets anxious and says its a common forest animal, but it turns out to be just a person pretending to be a Sasquatch.

Ah.

Entirely hypothetical, then.

How is it, I wonder, that you identify a "skeptic"?

Just because the mentality of most skeptics is flawed, doesn't mean the woo believers are correct, but anyway, I think you totally missed the point of this thread.

I don't suppose that you are able (or willing) to support this rather sweeping claim...

Praps you could begin by defining "skeptic". It's getting mickle crowded, under the windmill...

 

[Slowvehicle]

The main takeaway here is that tolerating uncertainty and cognitive dissonance is essential for true skepticism.

"No true 'Skeptic' argument"?

Really?

 

[Dave Rogers]

A Bigfoot proponent posts an audio of an alleged Bigfoot. The "skeptic" gets anxious and says its a common forest animal, but it turns out to be just a person pretending to be a Sasquatch.

How about this counter example:

A Bigfoot proponent posts an audio of an alleged Bigfoot. One skeptic replies, "What makes you think that's a Bigfoot and not just a common forest animal?" Another skeptic posts and says, "This is a well-known audio recording that was debunked years ago in which a person's pretending to be a Bigfoot." The Bigfoot believer then goes round claiming that the first skeptic insisted it was a common forest animal, and bases a claim on this that all skeptics are biased.

A subtly different scenario, perhaps, but one that's rather more in keeping with examples I've actually seen.

The problem with woo believers, often, is that they can't tolerate ambiguity. Ambiguity is "I don't know what that is, so there's no particular reason it has to be a Sasquatch." Intolerance of ambiguity is "I can't think of anything else that could be, so I'm going to assume it must be a Sasquatch."

Dave