The Mentality of Skeptics

[bruto]

Have we anxiously dismissed the menehune? I forget.

I hope not. I keep telling my wife that I can't paint the house because I promised them the work.

 

[Resume]

I hope not. I keep telling my wife that I can't paint the house because I promised them the work.

How do they reach the high spots?

Wait, wait . . . they stand on footie's shoulders

 

[Slowvehicle]

This has nothing to with the standards of evidence or whether skepticism is warranted or not; it's about uncertainty being the driving force for many of these so-called skeptics. Like I said before, just because most peoples idea of skepticism is flawed, doesn't mean that the proponents of woo are correct.

You are unsuccessfully making an argument that is often made, in other arenas, about skeptics, to wit: that they are as dogmatic in their belief that 'god' does not exist as are the hagridden in their belief that 'god' does exist.

There is a subtle, but profound, distinction to be made. It has been made, over and over, on other threads (particularly in R & P) but it is worth restating here.

Follow:

I, personally. do not believe-there-is-no-'Squatch. I simply have no reason to believe-there-is-a-'Squatch.

Can you parse the difference?

Where, in your opinion, is the "anxiety" in that?

(Of course, I am not a "Skeptic", nor even a "skeptic", so I may not be the kind of person you are attempting to calumniate...)

 

[RayG]

I use my skepticism like a superpower. It prevents bigfoot from materializing.

RayG

 

[HarryHenderson]

This has nothing to [do] with the standards of evidence or whether skepticism is warranted or not; it's about uncertainty being the driving force for many of these so-called skeptics. Like I said before, just because most peoples idea of skepticism is flawed, doesn't mean that the proponents of woo are correct.

Now you're just weaseling. It has everything to do with "standards of evidence". Curiously, we're so average in our need for 'proper evidence' that we don't require even one iota more of evidence than has been required for the proper establishment of a species for the last 100-200(?) years. Where the **** exactly is the 'no true skeptic' unreasonableness in that? Where exactly is the "uncertainty"? Yet there you are standing all proud and **** with your delusional preference for "evidence" that only points to more fantastical realizations of your childhood hopes and dreams, wholly independent of any biological reality.

Here's some inside information, i.e. clue, cough up a ******* Bigfoot and actually make us be the idiots you're so desperately trying to pretend we are. Or is Bigfoot too special for that?

I use my skepticism like a superpower. It prevents bigfoot from materializing.

RayG

Finally he can blame someone.

 

[marplots]

Why is this thread about bigfoot?

 

[Pixel42]

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

Does this mean a sceptic should remain undecided about every claim? Including that the earth is flat, for example?

A sceptic looks at all the evidence for a claim and critically analyse and weighs it. If there is not enough to make an assessment of the truth of that claim they suspend judgement; if there is enough they make one, albeit a provisional one in that any new evidence will require a reconsideration.

There is more than enough evidence (including absence of expected evidence) to rationally conclude that the earth is not flat, that homeopathy doesn't work, that astrology is nonsense, and that there is no such animal as Bigfoot. Those are therefore my positions on those particular claims until and unless someone produces new objective evidence which would require me to reconsider them.

Why you would imagine anything in this process makes me feel anxious I have no idea. I would be genuinely excited if claims for supernatural or paranormal phenomena could be borne out, and mildly interested if a large animal previously unknown to science was discovered in America (or indeed anywhere else).

 

[marplots]

Does this mean a sceptic should remain undecided about every claim? Including that the earth is flat, for example?

A sceptic looks at all the evidence for a claim and critically analyse and weighs it. If there is not enough to make an assessment of the truth of that claim they suspend judgement; if there is enough they make one, albeit a provisional one in that any new evidence will require a reconsideration.

There is more than enough evidence (including absence of expected evidence) to rationally conclude that the earth is not flat, that homeopathy doesn't work, that astrology is nonsense, and that there is no such animal as Bigfoot. Those are therefore my positions on those particular claims until and unless someone produces new objective evidence which would require me to reconsider them.

I don't dispute the process you outline, but a problem arises when someone brings up one of those "settled" issues on the forum. The skeptic may have already done the work and reached a provisional conclusion, so that when the issue is raised, the exploratory part is skipped over and the conclusion presented. To the non-skeptic, this appears like jumping directly to the "answer" without due consideration. The consideration is invisible, even though it did happen.

Frankly, this is a tough burden. To try and revisit the evidence the umpteenth time you run across some outlandish suggestion. There's not much satisfaction in repeating the same debate you've had many times, knowing where it will end up. I don't know how to overcome it, other than to try and help find better arguments for the claimant, just to keep things interesting.

 

[Pixel42]

That is indeed the problem, marplots. It's why you get so many accusations that sceptics are close minded. The fact that their position is a result of looking at the evidence both for and against the claim (not just the evidence for the claim, which is all the believers have usually looked at) makes such accusations particularly rankle.

 

[Sideroxylon]

One of my favourite books as a kid was a Readers Digest compendium of mysteries. My skeptic journey began when I discovered that a lot of the mysteries were contrived by ignoring or hand waving non paranormal explanations and supporting facts. It's the way most of the trash on History Channel goes. Contrived mysteries and unexplained events into which they can posit the fantastic. Occam and his razor be damned.

 

[asydhouse]

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?

More like having enough knowledge to be able to immediately see that the claim is necessarily bogus, since it would violate the known laws of physics etc.

For instance: homoeopathy. You don't need to waste energy and time considering "evidence" (i.e. anecdotes) when you know that water simply cannot have a memory of the presence of a molecule which was immersed in it long ago and far way. Especially after that water has evaporated from the sugar pill being sold by unscrupulous drug stores as medicine!

If there were any reason to pay attention, as initially say in the case of a potentially unknown animal being present in a wilderness, then fair enough, consider any real evidence. After awhile, and in the face of all knowledge we have of ecosystems and the structure of animal populations etc, anecdotes in the absence of solid evidence become evidence of psychological obsession rather than of a mystery.

The attempt by the OP to claim that skeptics are uncomfortable with ambiguity and/or unresolved mystery is a bit like similar claims that scientists are afraid of disturbing the status quo. In fact, scientists are keen to find discrepancies with the currently accepted order of things, as that is where interesting science can occur. Likewise, for myself at least, it is only my integrity that has led me to move on from previously interesting subjects such as Bigfoot and reincarnation etc, as it has become clear that they just don't fit in the scheme of things that do have evidence and logical constructions of knowledge which account for everything going on in the world. Religions belong in that category too.

If you had to remain undecided about everything, you could never move or live your life. We all every day have to decide on priorities and on what to take on trust, having already previously evaluated the sources and the context of accepted knowledge, experience etc. If someone gets short shrift from a skeptical response, it is more likely evidence of a knowledge base that is more sound than the speculations being dismissed, than it is evidence of a mind uncomfortable with ambiguity.

Claiming that one's critic is crippled by an inability to tolerate ambiguity is jumping to a rather large conclusion, which is ironic in someone complaining about people jumping to conclusions. From what I can see, people making impossible or highly unlikely claims are the ones jumping to conclusions, while critics of those ideas are merely applying the logic and knowledge necessary to rule out absurdities.

Present some solid data, and we will be happy. And try to figure it out. Sherlock Holmes wouldn't be content with just hanging around admiring ambiguous clues, after all. Why should anyone else?

 

[Stuart]

If you're as comfortable with uncertainty as you say you are, then I would say you're the exception rather than the rule. Most Bigfoot-devoted skeptics here aren't as comfortable with being uncertain.




The lack of evidence on its own isn't proof of the mental state of skeptics. It's the anxiety that certain skeptics get from being uncertain that's indicative of their mentality.
Being uncertain because there's a lack of hard evidence is a good thing. Getting anxious because of that uncertainty isn't.

I am anxious about some things - the repercussions of the bombing of targets in Syria / Iraq for example. But being anxious about the possibility of a creature for which there is no evidence - please - we only have a limited time on this planet. I'll spend my time being anxious in better ways.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

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.

OK, I'll play. Please list any quotes from posters you think are sucking up to Randi as their main motivation for being here.

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

Fascinating, and yet off-target. Please quote anyone from the skeptical side expressing these kinds of sentiments. On the other side, I give you Jodie, OntarioSquatch and Jabba.

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.

Please quote anyone here claiming total objectivity and a lack of cognitive bias.

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)

A re-reading of, for example, JayUtah, Oystein or many more posters should impress you with the complexity of what they are saying. I struggle to follow some of it, to be honest. On the converse side, we have bare assertions of conspiracy or the existence of imaginary animals with no corroborating evidence or coherent explanation. So, considering complexity, I find many of the skeptical explanations more complex than the "It's true it is!" assertions of non-skeptics. These explanations follow the evidence, rather than what you assert: again, feel free to quote anyone you think is trying to shoehorn a 'mundane' explanation into an exotic theory. Moreover, is there something wrong with positing a plausible explanation? Would you rather we posited the implausible?

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 we go again with that strawman. I have asked you, Jango, bubba, and I'll now ask OntarioSquatch as well, to quote anyone here who has said anything remotely like that. Perhaps the four of you working together will eventually stumble upon something. Says a lot about your collective research skills, by the way, and also about your process of forming conclusions.

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:

Wow! It's almost uncanny.....

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.

Blah blah blah.....For the umpteenth time: please quote anyone here who is displaying this behaviour, or stop wasting bandwidth.

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!

Or someone will ask you (reasonably) politely to back up what you are saying. Once you do so, I will then form a conclusion about whether I think you're right or not. This is neither flying fur nor unleashed martial canines. This is discussion. This is why we are on this forum. This is perfectly normal human behaviour, so don't paint yourself as a victim because someone disagrees with you. You are not a quivering prey animal at the mercy of a pack of savage predators: grow up.

 

[The Sparrow]

...
That's not the same. If these people secretly knew that Sasquatch are real, then they wouldn't have any uncertainty and if proof of Bigfoot were to be produced, then there wouldn't be any uncertainty. It would be case closed for them.

The point is you are suggesting skeptics have anxiety - are scared of the possibility bigfoot is real, or scared that their secret belief will be proved true.

If I'm mistaken, please explain exactly what skeptics are 'scared of' in regards to bigfoot.

 

[RayG]

Why is this thread about bigfoot?

Because OS made it so when he was finally honest and said:

"...from what I've seen, nearly every forum member who posts in the Bigfoot threads on a regular basis on this forum has this problem..."

Post #83. Plain as day.

RayG

 

[marplots]

Because OS made it so when he was finally honest and said:

"...from what I've seen, nearly every forum member who posts in the Bigfoot threads on a regular basis on this forum has this problem..."

Post #83. Plain as day.

RayG

But that's introduced as an illustration, not a claim about bigfoot. It's a claim about how skeptics react generally. The reality of bigfoot isn't at issue, is it?

 

[mstricky]

Oops

 

[mstricky]

Deleted

 

[Resume]

But that's introduced as an illustration, not a claim about bigfoot. It's a claim about how skeptics react generally. The reality of bigfoot isn't at issue, is it?

It is with him. Specifically a footie modified by aliens. This poster is active nearly exclusively within bigfoot threads from which his complaints about skeptics arise. He seems to think they do not address the bigfoot evidence despite actively participating in threads in which skeptics do just that.

 

[Dancing David]

We hold a position of arrogance. We insist that we are the only bipedal primate on the planet. We are selfish bastards who use our minds and mouths to shut Bigfoot out of the realm of the real.

As they say in my neighboring state, show me!

We are one of five 'great' apes. there are bones of many species.

I don't care if there is another.

Show me the evidence.