Are all mediums con artists then?

[JPK]

Good afternoon Ian.

I think it's catching on because there's quite a few people been on here asking what the distinction is between these 2 spellings.

Let me get this straight. You think it's catching on because more people are asking you to explain why you choose to make this distinction?
JPK

 

[Interesting Ian]

Good afternoon Ian.

Let me get this straight. You think it's catching on because more people are asking you to explain why you choose to make this distinction?
JPK

Kelly didn't ask that. Kelly asked if there is a difference between the meanings of the 2 words.

This is how words start to get more commonly used. Someone first of all asks for a definition of a word, then they in turn start to use the word.

 

[blutoski]

Sorry to briefly interupt, but is there a difference in meaning between skeptic and sceptic? Thanks.

No. Different spellings of the same thing. I've noticed that the US is more likely to use 'skeptic', and the UK/Canada/Australia &c more likely to use a mix of spellings. No rule that I'm aware of.

There is a thread on scientism, and this is related.

While I agree with Truzzi's essay, and think that skepticism has been contaminated by pseudoskeptics, I disagree that the only type of pseudoskeptic is somebody who adheres to scientism. For example, since science is such an establishment, those who criticize science consider themselves true skepics. Intelligent Design, for example, frames itself as a movement formed by those who refuse to just accept what they've been told and prefer to think independently. ID literature refers to organizations like CSICOP as "so-called skeptics".

 

[CFLarsen]

While I agree with Truzzi's essay, and think that skepticism has been contaminated by pseudoskeptics

And those are...?

 

[John Jackson]

Sorry to briefly interupt, but is there a difference in meaning between skeptic and sceptic? Thanks.

No, none at all.

Sceptic is the UK spelling, Skeptic is the US spelling. The meaning is exactly the same.

 

[CFLarsen]

It's easier to write "skeptic" than "sceptic"....

 

[Mojo]

When Ian is using the word, the "k" is sometimes capitalised, bold, italicised, or some combination of these.

 

[JPK]

Good morning Ian.

Kelly didn't ask that. Kelly asked if there is a difference between the meanings of the 2 words.

This is how words start to get more commonly used. Someone first of all asks for a definition of a word, then they in turn start to use the word.

Thanks for the reply. I think I understand what you are saying. I was under the impresion that it was simply a differant spelling between the English and Americans versions of the word.
My question is, if you are using sKeptic to mean pseudo-sceptic, why not just use pseudo-sceptic. Since you equate the two to mean the same thing, why muddy up the conversation with what appears to be your own private little in-joke by calling people sKeptics?
JPK

 

[Interesting Ian]

Good morning Ian.

Thanks for the reply. I think I understand what you are saying. I was under the impresion that it was simply a differant spelling between the English and Americans versions of the word.

Yes it is. But clearly it is being used in a different sense from its original meaning. Certainly in the USA, but increasingly so in the UK so it seems.

My question is, if you are using sKeptic to mean pseudo-sceptic, why not just use pseudo-sceptic.

Many many reasons. For a kick-off, if I held the same beliefs as you guys I certainly would not wish my beliefs to be labelled pseudo-scepticism!

I understand perfectly people on here wishing to be described as skeptics. The huge problem here is that they are not. Certainly not in the traditional sense of the word anyway. People on here like to be called "skeptics" and thereby be associated with the prestige of the original meaning of this word. But in reality they hold a position diametrically opposed to true scepticism.

"Skeptics" on here (at least the vast majority) are dogmatists. There is an implicit presumption that reality unfolds pretty much according to current western scientific notions of reality. Thus any apparent phenomena at variance with the principles of this worldview are simply presumed to be in error in one way or another.

You only have to witness the attempts to explain away the achievements of the participants in "psychic challenge". The actual question of whether these people exhibited genuine abilities is besides the point. Maybe they didn't -- maybe they did. But to simply presume they didn't and regard any convoluted "normal" explanation as being prima facie more likely, is not to be sceptically -- nay, on the contrary, it is to hold a dogmatic confident view of the world. For you guys there is an implicit presumption that modern western science has the world pretty much worked out and it's a question of simply filling in the details. Any phenomenon is viewed through this interpretational lens. It is therefore very easy to thereby dismiss phenomena which challenges your worldview.

This does not mean to say you guys are wrong in your particular interpretation of reality. It does not even mean that your position is not eminently rational and sensible. Maybe it is -- maybe it isn't. One thing is abundantly clear, however, and that is it ain't scepticism as originally envisaged; quite the opposite.

Now I agree that it's unfortunate there is no word which actually describes you. I think it's very important we have one. But what is not acceptable is you guys hijacking another word to label your position. It is a cheat.

Call yourselves adherents of the modern western Weltanschauung -- or whatever. But do not describe yourselves as sceptics. Because you most emphatically or not. It is a clearly scandalous appropriation of the word. You guys have already done it with the word "rational", "consciousness", "science", and other words too. You are destroying the English Language in a dishonest attempt to disguise your true position.

I don't wish to call you pseudo-sceptics, I do not wish to call you sceptics. You ought not to be labelled pseudo-sceptics because there is not even any aspiration to be sceptical in your thought processes. Dogmatism is the precise opposite meaning of scepticism -- particularly unthinking dogmatism. None of you guys remotely aspire to scepticism. To say this is not necessarily to condemn you. That depends on ones view on the merits of scepticism (in the original sense). But you are not sceptics in this original sense of the word because you guys are already extremely confident about the nature of the the world and the existents it is able to contain. In the eyse of modern skeptics, scepticism, or indeed even pseudo-scepticism, have already been shown to be foolish by the ongoing triumph of the progress of modern western science

 

[Jeff Corey]

You clearly don't know what you are talking about. The definition of "skeptic" is quite clear to people who comprehend English.

 

[blutoski]

And those are...?

Aside from people with an advanced case of scientism, within organized skepticism, I'd say they're best described as "contrarians". Shoot first, and ask skeptical questions later.

Just one example was a kid in our university skeptics club who, in a perfectly ordinary anthropology class, was told that Innuit would hunt by moonlight in winter. "********!", he responded, and came up with a million counterexplanations involving humanities and their and postmodernist ignorance of astronomy. He was wrong, of course, but what embarassed me was his lack of willingness to consider that something didn't fit into his worldview might actually be true.

What Ian's doing is confusing scientism with skepticism. While it's true that many skeptics are too scientistic, it's not true that the movement is overwhelmed by this problem. In fact, the higher you go in these organizations, the more broadminded the participants.

Scientism is certainly dogmatic, but the skeptical movement is well-represented by those who are seeking answers, wherever the journey may take them, and not dominated by these people. There's an appearance problem, because these people are quite rigid, and often have other problems that make them stand out in a crowd. But just because the one loud guy says he's a skeptic and isn't, doesn't mean that enough skeptics agree with him to matter.


It is not a coincidence that skepticism is closely aligned with the scientific method: this is the tradition of skepticism. As it happens, those who adhere to the scientific method share a set of assumptions, and one could consider this a sign of dogmatism.

It isn't.

It is convergence. After independent reflection, I have come to the same conclusion as many others. We were not forced on this road, nor do we fear stepping from it, and we are well aware there are other routes: but we have all found ourselves guided to the same path.

Ian accuses us of being indocrtinated by Westernism. Well, the "Western" tradition, especially in the US and Canada, is just as much bible-thumping, power-prayer, racial segregation, haunted house, ufo, bigfoot sightings as it is scientific. More so, I think. Those who doubt these phenomena are sticking our dicks into a meatgrinder of abuse. It is not 'dogmatic', neither is it 'conformism'.

The difference is whether we're independent thinkers who make an effort to be sure we have good ground for our conclusions (skeptics) versus those who just want to look smarter than everybody else because it's personally gratifying (contrarians), versus those who have no perspective and think that somehow believing the same thing as 98% of the population (eg: that there is life after death) somehow makes them rogue independent thinkers (pseudoskeptics).

 

[Jeff Corey]

What meaning of scientism are you using here? The neutral definition (approaching matters scientifically) and the negative one (trying to use scientific methods to study questions in inappropriate areas) have been discussed on other threads.

 

[blutoski]

What meaning of scientism are you using here? The neutral definition (approaching matters scientifically) and the negative one (trying to use scientific methods to study questions in inappropriate areas) have been discussed on other threads.

I'm using it in the negative sense.

 

[Interesting Ian]

You see this is what happens. What blutoski is doing. Conflating skepticism with scepticism.

You are talking about scepticism in its original sense blutoski. There is absolutely no reason to reject paranormal phenomena according to the true original definition of scepticism. Scepticism does not take a position. To suppose it does is to completely misunderstand what it is.

My experience tells me that the skeptical movement is dominated by people who find it unthinkable that the modern western metaphysic might be completely wrong. This dogmatic position is exemplified by the vast majority of people on here (or at least those who respond to me).

 

[AOK Tiger]

Ian,

I understand that you think most of us sceptics here hold a “dogmatic” viewpoint.

You are so totally wrong I don’t even know where to start.

You mistake our rejection of RIDICULOUS explanations as being dogmatic.

I compare it to rejecting Santa and the Easter Bunny out of hand.

Unfortunately because you give some credence to these wild and ridiculous notions you think we are being UNFAIR to them. You view of these things is tainted by your own weird unfounded non-physical worldview !

So please understand that you are right… when it comes to the Easter Bunny Santa Claus, faries, Psi mediumship etc.. We (or I) am NOT a sceptic !

But when it comes to anything with a even remote sense of reality or possibility I have a completely open mind !

Please cough up those paranormal explanations that make more sense than Santa and you might have a point !

 

[Interesting Ian]

You are so totally wrong I don’t even know where to start.

You mistake our rejection of RIDICULOUS explanations as being dogmatic.

I compare it to rejecting Santa and the Easter Bunny out of hand.

I know. I know. As do most of you guys.

You don't understand the difference. That's the problem.

 

[AOK Tiger]

Well cmon Ian... answer the rest !!!

You just said NOTHING.

What paranormal explanations have more credence then the Easter Bunny ?

 

[blutoski]

You see this is what happens. What blutoski is doing. Conflating skepticism with scepticism.

You are talking about scepticism in its original sense blutoski. There is absolutely no reason to reject paranormal phenomena according to the true original definition of scepticism. Scepticism does not take a position. To suppose it does is to completely misunderstand what it is.

Well, this is just semantics, then. The origins of the term are very obscure, since these philosophers' work is only known through third parties who do not always agree. By 'original definition', do you mean "Academic skepticism" a la Philo? Or more like Cicero's description of the Middle Academy (Arcesilaus' counter-stoicism)? This earlier model of skepticism claimed that certainty is unachieveable, so we must make a reasonable attempt to form an educated opinion by testing. Sounds like modern skepticism, to me.

Phyrro's skepticism was a little different, and sounds a more like what you're suggesting: nothing is certain, so make no committment. The only thing about this is that Phyrro's skepticism does not appear to have had any actual adherents. Phyrro himself, while admitting that he couldn't be certain whether the next bite of food is really food, would still eat.

What confuses me, though, is your contention that a skeptic should not endorse western metaphysic, which makes no sense as a critique, since skepticism can be argued to be the backbone of the western metaphysic, having been born and practiced in the Academy.

My experience tells me that the skeptical movement is dominated by people who find it unthinkable that the modern western metaphysic might be completely wrong. This dogmatic position is exemplified by the vast majority of people on here (or at least those who respond to me).

I believe you, but be mindful that those who direct the modern skeptical movement do not participate in this forum, or at least not much. I'm involved in organized skepticism in the form of being part of a local branch for over a decade, and CSICOP and skeptical mailing lists since the '80s: I have only been a member of this forum for a few weeks, and I share your frustration with the approach of a few members. On other threads, I have espoused the view that assertive atheism has no place in skepticism, for example.

By reading the active literature and corresponding with those who have spent so many years carefully building modern skepticism, it is my view that they are skeptics in at least one classical sense, as well as in the modern sense, as I described above.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Blutoski

Do yourself a favor and research a bit on this Ian character. This has nothing to do with skepticism, but with his inability to argue and present good arguments. He has been shown wrong so many times that now he is pursuing this "thing" trying to demonstrate (to his own ego this is) that skeptics "are wrong".

Its a parade, nothing else.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

"Skeptics" on here (at least the vast majority) are dogmatists. There is an implicit presumption that reality unfolds pretty much according to current western scientific notions of reality. Thus any apparent phenomena at variance with the principles of this worldview are simply presumed to be in error in one way or another.

Ian, what you are desesperately trying to do is simple: If this skeptics are also "dogmatic" they cant see anything outside their worldview. Fact is that, and you KNOW this, every people in here has asked you for years about those things "outside" their worldview. Yes, strange things that can't be real if the worldview this people holds is true.

Fact is that you have been unable to provide even ONE simple "thing" that can't be explained with the current paradigm.

Now. Read carefully. This DOES NOT MEAN that the current paradigm is real or perfect or whatever, it just means that what you believe is wrong. There are no PSI effects. Understand?