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
Excellent thread. Ironically, I was in the process of making a thread very similar to this. The points you’re making are right on the money. I’ve been observing this phenomena since I first came here. The irony of this is that on the science, math, etc. forums of this site there are some very intelligent people that I have learned a lot from. However, when it comes to gen. skept/ct forums rationality, objectivity, critical thinking, rational skepticism, civility, etc. are dead dogs sacrificed at the Altar of the James Randi Cult of Personality.
Here are some definitions that give a thumbnail sketch of the basic misconceptions between a rational skeptic and a debunker:
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 that is characteristic of skeptics
Debunker – 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 and start with a conclusion and look for evidence to support what they already believe.
With that being said, here’s what I see going on with the psychology of a debunker:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closure_(psychology)
Closure or need for closure (NFC) (used interchangeably with need for cognitive closure (NFCC)) are psychological terms that describe an individual's desire for a firm answer to a question and an aversion toward ambiguity. The term "need" denotes a motivated tendency to seek out information.[1]
A person with a high need for closure prefers order and predictability, is decisive and closed-minded, and is uncomfortable with ambiguity.[3] Someone rating low on need for closure will express more ideational fluidity and creative acts.[5] Items on the scale include statements such as "I think that having clear rules and order at work is essential to success," and "I do not like situations that are uncertain." Items such as "Even after I've made up my mind about something, I am always eager to consider a different opinion," and "I like to have friends who are unpredictable" are reverse scored
One very obvious thing I noticed right from the start was an absence of a psychology forum. Yet, debunkers are inclined to pull the cognitive bias faster than a male dog mounts a bitch in heat. A psychology forum should be intrinsic to a skeptic site. First, so debunkers can “know thy self first” before claiming to know others first. Second, self awareness, self knowledge enables one to more effectively suspend judgment and more objectively assess a situation.
Here are some tacit Laws of Debunkers that I have observed over time:
Law of Immaculate Perception™ – they are the only ones who see reality exactly as it is unhindered by any cognitive biases. So therefore, to disagree with them is to disagree with reality itself.
Law of Implausible Plausibility™ Trying to make something fit where it doesn’t fit. Every explanation MUST be a plausible and mundane one, even when it doesn’t fit. “It is better to be mundane and wrong than to be complex and right.”
(See Ocamm’s Beard – the simplest solution isn’t always the best one)
Law of the “Official Story”™ (aka. Safe refuge in a harbor) – The Official Story is always right. I’ts true because it’s true/if it’s true it can’t be false. If the OS says it was a weather balloon, then it was; proof positive, case closed. No question, no doubt, total acceptance. This is similar to an Appeal to Authority, but in their case they say it isn’t, because if it’s true, then it can’t be an Appeal to Authority because the OS is impeccable and beyond reproach.
Here are some snippets from various sources I’ve gathered in my research into the psychology of a debunker. But before that I’m going to head something off at the pass. I will invariably be asked for links. If so, then just consider the following snippets mine of my own doing and the link is me:
Perhaps the most insidious rhetorical trick has been the misappropriation of the label "skeptic" to describe what are actually scoffers . As sociologist Robert K. Merton pointed out, organized skepticism is a fundamental norm in science. However, the term skepticism is properly defined as doubt, not denial. It is a position of agnosticism, of nonbelief rather than disbelief. The true skeptic (a doubter) asserts no claim, so has no burden of proof. However, the scoffer (denier) asserts a negative claim, so the burden of proof science places on any claimant must apply. When scoffers misrepresent their position as a form of "hard-line" skepticism, they really seek escape from their burden to prove a negative position.
skeptics like to portray themselves: an embattled minority standing up for science, the lone redoubt of reason in an irrational world, the vanguard against the old order of ignorance and superstition.
And indeed, a lot of people become skeptics for the best of intentions: to spread the word of reason and critical thinking, to arm the masses rather than shoot them down. In highlighting bunk and deception wherever it occurs, their aim is to protect the vulnerable against the hucksters, charlatans, politicians and priests who exploit them.
you'll quickly find that the majority of visitors are not drawn there by concern for the victims of irrationality, but by contempt. They're there to laugh at idiots. But in the context of skeptic sites, the laughter takes on a bullying and unhealthy tone.
The average skeptic has little time for spreading the word of reason to the educationally or intellectually lacking. His superior reason is what separates him from the chumps around him, and he has no interest in closing the gap. For him, the appeal of the skeptic clique is its exclusivity. It's a refuge from the stupid masses, and a marker of his own special privileges. It's Mensa rebranded.
Now, stand back and watch the fur fly:
Law of “Cry havoc™ (and let slip the dogs of war!) Any post that dares to question the “Official Story” is immediately attacked like an antelope pounced on by a pack of outraged hounds of hell!
