• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Agree or disagree?

Skeeve said:
From their Forum:

The Site Admin Scepcop is psychic.



Apparently a real skeptic replies.



Here's the money shot from Scepcop.



Thought they were were the real skeptics and the rest of us are just psuedo-skeptics?

Thanks for the link Gawdzilla, that site is worth tons of laughs.

eta: There is a Sticky Thread titled Skeptics allowed, but no ridiculing or scoffing, and the first post from Scepcop is:
Click to expand...

What i love is the " pretty much proven" bit. Isn't that like saying someone is pretty much dead?

Either something is proven or it isn't, it can be on its way to being proven, but i would classify that as " workable but not useful." not, what they are describing.
 
Seems to me like they only like the "I was a skeptic but now I believe" kind of "skeptic". Not surprising, since it's been a favourite trope since we first had written texts, and even Paul of bible fame essentially feels a need to frame his sales pitch that way.

In their world, if you're a skeptic, you're supposed to put up a token resistance then go "OMG, REAL PSYCHIC STUFF!!!!" If you don't, you're a bad skeptic.

I.e., they don't want real skepticism, they just want an extra helping of flattery.

Big ****** surprise there. No, really, what else is new? ;)
 
sadhatter said:
What i love is the " pretty much proven" bit. Isn't that like saying someone is pretty much dead?

Either something is proven or it isn't, it can be on its way to being proven, but i would classify that as " workable but not useful." not, what they are describing.
Click to expand...

It means "good enough for me, no further testing needed." There's a lot of that there. "Pseudoskeptics are never satisfied with the evidence presented..." etc., meaning "take my word for it, damnit!"
 
Gawdzilla said:
That last one has me a little confused. ;)
Click to expand...

Yes, it ought to read "Although all conventional explanations for a phenomenon are not ruled out, insist true skeptics should accept paranormal ones". Apart from that it looks fine, except that some people seem to be a little confused about which one they are.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Yes, it ought to read "Although all conventional explanations for a phenomenon are not ruled out, insist true skeptics should accept paranormal ones". Apart from that it looks fine, except that some people seem to be a little confused about which one they are.
Click to expand...

I think it really depends on which personality has control of the keyboard at any point in time.
 
oh man, I just lost some valuable brain cells by visiting that site. I love this:

Source

"The probability of life on planets is 100%. This is not a mathematical possibility, but an empirical fact."

a couple of lines(could be white ones) down from that statement:

"It is possible that Earth is the only planet that has life, but it is also possible that that Earth is not the only planet that has life."

So how is it 100% exactly? Maybe I misread the whole idea.
 
Steve001 said:
If anyone cares for a trip down WWu777 lane here's a link. Might be good for folks not familiar with Winston Wu
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/search.php?searchid=814505
Click to expand...

To say Winston has 'creative' versions of events surrounding the JREF is being much too kind.

Winston's site is more slander factory than anything else.

Trouble with any lists written by the woo side of things trying to pinpoint 'psuedo-skeptics' is that they are so broadly interpeted that almost any comment you make can be construed as being a PS mindset.

"I believe in X!"
"I have doubts about X, the test they ran showed nothing and the folks promoting profit from it, plus the last time they promised us great evidence it turned out to be fraud/bad test/etc."
"You won't change your mind!! PSEUDO-SKEPTIC!!!"
 
mactonite said:
oh man, I just lost some valuable brain cells by visiting that site. I love this:

Source

"The probability of life on planets is 100%. This is not a mathematical possibility, but an empirical fact."

a couple of lines(could be white ones) down from that statement:

"It is possible that Earth is the only planet that has life, but it is also possible that that Earth is not the only planet that has life."

So how is it 100% exactly? Maybe I misread the whole idea.
Click to expand...

The idea itself isn't wrong. All he's saying is that we have observed life on one planet, so there's a fair chance there could be life on others, as well. I agree with that idea.

The problem is, this is supposed to "rebute" the "pseudoskeptic" argument that we don't know whether there is life on other planets. The author attempts a clumsy shifting of goalposts, claiming that the fact that life on other planets is possible invalidates the argument that it isn't certain.
 
I hang out there a bit. I actually started a thread dissecting that list, got pretty far down over a few posts have haven't completed it. Maybe I'll get back to it. No acknowledgment from scepcop though...

The site doesn't have a heck of a lot of traffic, outside of a handful of regs. Some of the more active proponents seem to have left the site around the time I joined a few months ago. Scepcop doesn't really understand what skepticism means. Which means he doesn't really know what a pseudo-skeptic is either. But its fun to hang out there. Also on Skeptiko.
 
Arouet said:
Scepcop doesn't really understand what skepticism means. Which means he doesn't really know what a pseudo-skeptic is either.
Click to expand...
No he doesn't, but to his credit he doesn't ban people who challenge his opinions. Has he banned anyone yet for polite disagreement?

I've lurked there, but it's pretty slow.
 
eerok said:
No he doesn't, but to his credit he doesn't ban people who challenge his opinions. Has he banned anyone yet for polite disagreement?
Click to expand...

No he hasn't. And given that I (and others) have been pretty critical of him and the way he debates and works through problems, that's to his credit.
 
Please, it's too much. My sides hurt.

From the next section, pot meet kettle...

In the SCEPCOP forum, Steve Trueblue observed these five consistent patterns in pseudoskeptics:

"As a skilled observer you will also note that Pseudoskeptics:

1. Seldom, in fact almost never, ask questions, reflecting Zero Curiosity thus learning difficulties
2. Practice a very high level of self deception and mistakenly believe they can lie to adults as they did in childhood
3. Display markedly deficient reading and comprehension skills
4. Display inability to connect thoughts sequentially and plan an argument- often defeating their own case
5. Depend on bluster and bullying and name calling to make up for lack of argument content"
Click to expand...

And the next is CT bs.
 
PseudoSkeptics / Closed-Minded Skeptics

* * Uses semantics and word games with their own rules of logic to try to win arguments
Click to expand...

That should be "use semantics and ..."

I win.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom