The Mentality of Skeptics

[Meadmaker]

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

QFT

 

[Belz...]

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.

So their skepticism was well-founded.

 

[Belz...]

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.

We _are_ open to the idea. Present evidence, and we'll accept it.

That's the part many don't get: being open-minded isn't accepting a claim, it's accepting the evidence.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yep.

Bob: Jeez Ted you're so closed minded!
Ted: What do you mean?
Bob: Well because you didn't immediately accept my evidence-less, counter-logical assertion at face value!

 

[Resume]

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 . . .

Yeah, why would you want to invoke the dogma of reason into a perfectly unreasonable ghost story?

 

[H'ethetheth]

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

Uncerainty, yes. Cognitive dissonance, precisely not.
Cognitive dissonance is holding logically contradictory beliefs, which is pretty much antithetical to skepticism.
The skeptical thing to do would be to not hold any belief in that situation, and trying to find out which of the contradictory beliefs is unjustified.

 

[Resume]

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

As in show me some evidence besides the same tired campfire stories. If for almost 50 years (plus another 15,000) the bigfoot evidence hasn't risen above those, a monkey suit, and some stomper tracks, it doesn't appear it will get any better. If you can't do better, why bother engaging?

 

[caveman1917]

I see the piece quoted in the OP as an exercise in well-poisoning: if the "skeptics" (intentional scare quotes) can be painted as irrational, I don't have to accept or listen to arguments/claims/rebuttals put forward by them. They're not (just) meanies - their thought processes can't be trusted!

What makes you think skeptics aren't irrational?

Do you think someone's thought processes can be trusted just because they (individually or as a group) self-identify under the "skeptics" token?

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Or, as Isaac said:

http://www.wordsonimages.com/pics/54251-o.jpg

 

[caveman1917]

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:

The blank seems the appropriate response to me.

 

[Dave Rogers]

What makes you think skeptics aren't irrational?

Do you think someone's thought processes can be trusted just because they (individually or as a group) self-identify under the "skeptics" token?

Two things:

(1) The whole point of rational skepticism is that it's a process designed to correct for personal irrationality.

(2) Try flipping that second sentence on its head. KE's suggestion was that the hidden claim in the OP was that someone's thought processes can't be trusted because they self-identify as skeptics. A proper skeptical response would be that, however someone self-identifies, their claims should be assessed on the merit of the evidence presented.

Dave

 

[bruto]

If you say so.

Of course it's not about obvious things like Bigfoot, but about things that are really a bit hazy, like what color space ship he landed in.

 

[John Nowak]

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.

No links, so you're probably making this up.

 

[John Nowak]

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

You are in no position to teach anyone about skepticism.

 

[Giordano]

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:

I like this post!

In my view, if I person says, "Hey, I thought I saw my wife downtown yesterday when I was driving through." A proper skeptic says- "It is certainly possible. Tell me more about the circumstances. Why might she be downtown?"

If a person says, "Hey, I thought I saw a unicorn downtown yesterday when I was driving through" the proper skeptical response is not, "It is certainly possible. Tell me more about the circumstances. Why might a unicorn be downtown?" Wives exist and might well be spotted downtown. Unicorns have never been demonstrated to exist, let alone to work downtown. The proper skeptical response is not a mind equally open to everything. If someone proposes a sighting of a highly implausible being that has never been proven to exist over hundreds of years of people looking, then a proper skeptic will be more, um, skeptical and ask for more evidence than they might for a well-known day to day event. As has been stated before, being a skeptic doesn't mean that one considers that the likelihood of everything is to be treated equally. In fact the skeptics here have been willing to read and consider your "evidence" for an alien-created genetically engineered bigfoot. This is not the kind of proposal most people would consider from the very beginning with the same openness as a post that bears ate your lunch. Andf they shouldn't.

 

[Resume]

In fact the skeptics here have been willing to read and consider your "evidence" for an alien-created genetically engineered bigfoot. This is not the kind of proposal most people would consider from the very beginning with the same openness as a post that bears ate your lunch. Andf they shouldn't.

Yesterday, Yogi and Boo-Boo stole my lunch right out of my pic-i-nick basket. When I went to complain to Ranger Smith, I was informed that he'd been abducted by an alien-modified bigfoot with the mange.

 

[tsig]

OS, where do you go for months at a time?

Someone has to do the tree knocking and hooting.

 

[caveman1917]

(2) Try flipping that second sentence on its head. KE's suggestion was that the hidden claim in the OP was that someone's thought processes can't be trusted because they self-identify as skeptics. A proper skeptical response would be that, however someone self-identifies, their claims should be assessed on the merit of the evidence presented.

Which was my point in asking, the argument made wasn't "claims should be assessed on the merit of the evidence presented." Leading to...

(1) The whole point of rational skepticism is that it's a process designed to correct for personal irrationality.

Do you actually have evidence that people identifying as skeptics are rational? (ie your answer should've consisted of evidence - see quote above)

 

[Dave Rogers]

Do you actually have evidence that people identifying as skeptics are rational?

I never made any such claim. Go back and read my post again.

Dave

 

[caveman1917]

I never made any such claim. Go back and read my post again.

Then your statement was irrelevant to the question it was a response to.