Comprehensive characteristics of the pseudoskeptic and the skeptic

[Zeuzzz]

I have noticed that there appears to be two main types of skeptics. One an admirable role, one quite the opposite.

Therefore we have a skeptic, and a pseudoskeptic.

Points courtesy of Proff Truzi,

Characteristics of a pseudoskeptic.

* The tendency to deny, rather than doubt.
* Double standards in the application of criticism.
* The making of judgments without full inquiry.
* Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate.
* Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments.
* Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.
* Presenting insufficient evidence or proof.
* Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof.
* Making unsubstantiated counter-claims.
* Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence.
* Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it.
* Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims.
* Asserting that claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa (Argument from ignorance).
* They speak down to their audience using 'arguments from authority'.
* They put forward their assumptions as if they were universal truths.
* No references to reputable journal material.
* If the pseudo-skeptic has a monetary interest (such as maintaining a funding stream or a salary) his criticisms often become vituperative.


True Skeptics / Open-Minded Skeptics

* Does not show any of the characteristics of a pseudoskeptic.
* Inquires and asks questions to try to understand things
* Applies open inquiry and investigation of both sides
* Is nonjudgmental, doesn't jump to rash conclusions
* Has honest doubt and questions all beliefs, including their own
* Seeks the truth, considers it the highest aim
* Fairly and objectively weighs evidence on all sides
* Acknowledges valid convincing evidence
* Possesses solid sharp common sense and reason
* Is able to adapt and update their paradigms to new evidence



Just a nice guide to fall back on, the skeptics bible in a way.

Its not amazingly consistant (ie, skeptics should not give people a stereotype and dismiss them due to that, so immediately labelling the pseudoskeptic, so has an early issue)

Are there better lists to check against than this one people know of?

And how correct do you think this one is?

 

[Uncayimmy]

I have noticed that there appears to be two main types of skeptics. One an admirable role, one quite the opposite.

Therefore we have a skeptic, and a pseudoskeptic.

Points courtesy of Proff Truzi,

Characteristics of a pseudoskeptic.

* The tendency to deny, rather than doubt.
* Double standards in the application of criticism.
* The making of judgments without full inquiry.
* Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate.
* Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments.
* Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.
* Presenting insufficient evidence or proof.
* Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof.
* Making unsubstantiated counter-claims.
* Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence.
* Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it.
* Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims.
* Asserting that claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa (Argument from ignorance).
* They speak down to their audience using 'arguments from authority'.
* They put forward their assumptions as if they were universal truths.
* No references to reputable journal material.
* If the pseudo-skeptic has a monetary interest (such as maintaining a funding stream or a salary) his criticisms often become vituperative.


True Skeptics / Open-Minded Skeptics

* Does not show any of the characteristics of a pseudoskeptic.
* Inquires and asks questions to try to understand things
* Applies open inquiry and investigation of both sides
* Is nonjudgmental, doesn't jump to rash conclusions
* Has honest doubt and questions all beliefs, including their own
* Seeks the truth, considers it the highest aim
* Fairly and objectively weighs evidence on all sides
* Acknowledges valid convincing evidence
* Possesses solid sharp common sense and reason
* Is able to adapt and update their paradigms to new evidence



Just a nice guide to fall back on, the skeptics bible in a way.

Its not amazingly consistant (ie, skeptics should not give people a stereotype and dismiss them due to that, so immediately labelling the pseudoskeptic, so has an early issue)

Are there better lists to check against than this one people know of?

And how correct do you think this one is?

Different values of these...

* Fairly and objectively weighs evidence on all sides
* Acknowledges valid convincing evidence
* Possesses solid sharp common sense and reason

...often end up creating many of the things you list on your pseudoskeptics lists. C'mon, "sharp common sense" is just another name for **** you "know" is right but can't prove. "Valid convincing evidence" is what pseudoskeptics believe after they have dismissed all the unconvincing evidence. As for being "fair" well, "common sense" tells you that <whatever> is stupid.

I bet there are a lot of people who call themselves "true" skeptics that many others would call "pseudo" skeptics. Personally, I think your list for the real skeptic is way too long. I think you can narrow it down to just a few:

* Has honest doubt and questions all beliefs, including their own
* Applies open inquiry and investigation of all angles
* Inquires and asks questions to try to understand things
* Seeks the truth, considers it the highest aim

I think that about sums it up. I changed the order because in my mind that's how it works. It starts with questioning, then moves to investigating all angles (you wrote both sides), asks a lot of questions, all the while seeking truth. This last part connects back to the first part to form a ring, because a skeptic is always going to have a teeny bit of doubt that leaves the door open for re-investigation if warranted.

 

[athon]

I'd agree with UncaYimmy's assessment, and throw in for skeptics 'views conclusions as gradients of confidence', rather than dichotomies of true and false. I understand that's more or less what doubt refers to, but to me, seeing it as a degree of confidence in a conclusion allows you to break it down further.

Athon

 

[Uncayimmy]

I like that - Gradients of Confidence. Along those lines I would add that a skeptic should be able to express their degree of confidence about something and explain what they have learned that moves the needle in either direction. Likewise, they should be able to point out what new information could move the needle in either direction.

 

[rjh01]

This list is in several places on the Internet.

 

[MRC_Hans]

And basically, making such lists is just yet another attempt to pass the ball.

Believers in anything: It does not matter one bit what 'kind of skeptic' you are facing. ALL that matters is that your arguments hold. So I suggest you concentrate on that.

Hans

 

[arthwollipot]

I believe that it's possible to "make judgements without full enquiry" if the subject one is judging is one that has been thoroughly "enquired" previously. For example, I do not think it's necessary to enquire fully about Uri Geller's spoonbending in order to make the judgement that it's a magic trick.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The term 'pseudoskeptic' is, in this or any other context, virtually worthless. My tentative conclusion on the common usage of this term, based on experience and subject to revision in the light of further evidence, is that it's a strawman definition used by the belief-driven to try to invalidate the views of any skeptic who disagrees with them, and that the very use of the term in itself is a strong indicator that the person using the term has a set of beliefs that they are not themselves prepared to question, and dislikes the fact that others do not hold that set of beliefs as self-evident. It's particularly telling that, from these lists, only a 'pseudoskeptic' ever criticises people whose points of view are not evidence-based, or indeed ever reaches a conclusion at all; in effect, this list is an attempt to redefine skepticism so as to exclude its conclusions. As such, it's simply a ploy by woo merchants to discredit their opposition.

Dave

 

[Ikarus]

The term 'pseudoskeptic' is, in this or any other context, virtually worthless. My tentative conclusion on the common usage of this term, based on experience and subject to revision in the light of further evidence, is that it's a strawman definition used by the belief-driven to try to invalidate the views of any skeptic who disagrees with them, and that the very use of the term in itself is a strong indicator that the person using the term has a set of beliefs that they are not themselves prepared to question, and dislikes the fact that others do not hold that set of beliefs as self-evident. It's particularly telling that, from these lists, only a 'pseudoskeptic' ever criticises people whose points of view are not evidence-based, or indeed ever reaches a conclusion at all; in effect, this list is an attempt to redefine skepticism so as to exclude its conclusions. As such, it's simply a ploy by woo merchants to discredit their opposition.

Dave

Well analyzed and put.

 

[manofthesea]

Well if it is decided that the list is somewhat biased and inaccurate let me try one. Skeptics approach a topic from a mostly scientific viewpoint. They'll analyze a subject and apply reason and science. Occam's razor is rightly respected by skeptics.
Pseudoskeptics, a valid term, approach a topic mostly from an ex-believer type of viewpoint. They'll come to the realization that the woo they've been promoting and sometimes even creating is just that. They then apply that type of reasoning to a topic and even other topics as well. But still lacking any real scientific reasoning. That is when they develop the 'attitudes' specifically mentioned in the list, now debunked.

 

[Dancing David]

Excuse me Zeuzzz but when I consider the persistent posting of the same garbage over time, your inability to defend your claims, you are pandering.

 

[fls]

I've only encountered the term 'pseudoskeptic' here. And then only from people who seem upset that their beliefs suffer when exposed to a critical examination, or who seem confused when their naive attempts at a skeptical review of a topic doesn't garner support. Now it may be that I am simply ignorant of its more general usage, but is this really a valid term? It looks more like its use is confined to name-calling.

Linda

 

[Darat]

I've only encountered the term 'pseudoskeptic' here. And then only from people who seem upset that their beliefs suffer when exposed to a critical examination, or who seem confused when their naive attempts at a skeptical review of a topic doesn't garner support. Now it may be that I am simply ignorant of its more general usage, but is this really a valid term? It looks more like its use is confined to name-calling.

Linda

It is.

 

[Lothian]

It is.

Pseudoconcurer.

 

[Uncayimmy]

I've only encountered the term 'pseudoskeptic' here. And then only from people who seem upset that their beliefs suffer when exposed to a critical examination, or who seem confused when their naive attempts at a skeptical review of a topic doesn't garner support. Now it may be that I am simply ignorant of its more general usage, but is this really a valid term? It looks more like its use is confined to name-calling.

Linda

If you've only seen it here, then that means you didn't bother to take the 30 seconds to type it into Google. Rendering opinions without even doing a modicum of research...sure wish we had a term for that.

As for whether it's a "valid" term or not, what does name-calling have to do with it? It's valid if it conveys meaning. If people use use it for name calling, that doesn't make it any less valid than any other word.

 

[Darat]

If you've only seen it here, then that means you didn't bother to take the 30 seconds to type it into Google. Rendering opinions without even doing a modicum of research...sure wish we had a term for that.

As for whether it's a "valid" term or not, what does name-calling have to do with it? It's valid if it conveys meaning. If people use use it for name calling, that doesn't make it any less valid than any other word.

Because words have meanings and often the meaning of a word can be pejorative.

 

[fls]

Let's deconstruct this criticism.

If you've only seen it here,

I stated that I'd only encountered it here. You took that to mean that I'd only seen it here. Fair enough. "Encounter" can refer to several different types of interactions. In this case, I'm referring to someone's choice to use the term to convey useful meaning in an interaction with me.

then that means you didn't bother to take the 30 seconds to type it into Google.

Interesting choice of criterion for having "seen" a word. I'm not sure that's a particularly useful approach. I also can type "antidisestablishmentarianism" into Google and receive 90,200 hits, but I can't say that I have "encountered" that word either (except for its novelty as the longest word of some sort). I'm also not sure that multiple examples of the use 'pseudoskeptic' gets here goes any further towards answering my original question.

Rendering opinions

Rendering opinions? What opinion am I rendering? I asked whether this is a valid term, that is, does it convey meaning? I know that the word exists and people intend to convey 'something' with its use. But how does any of that constitute an "opinion"?

without even doing a modicum of research...sure wish we had a term for that.

Google U is the only game in town? I hope you're just trying to be an ass with that remark, 'cuz it would be kind of scary otherwise.

As for whether it's a "valid" term or not, what does name-calling have to do with it?

If the meaning it conveys is pejorative rather than a reflection of the roots of the word.

It's valid if it conveys meaning. If people use use it for name calling, that doesn't make it any less valid than any other word.

I am wondering if the list of characteristics in the OP reflects its real use. When my son says, "that show is so gay," it's of no use to tell me that the characteristics of 'gay' are 'cheery, bright and pleasant' or 'homosexual'.

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Because words have meanings and often the meaning of a word can be pejorative.

I can only think of a couple of people I know outside this forum who might take offence at being called a pseudoskeptic.

'Pseudoskeptic' seems to me to be another term for 'No True Scotsman'.

 

[Uncayimmy]

Because words have meanings and often the meaning of a word can be pejorative.

Oh, I see. Words have meanings? Never thought of that before. The meaning of a word can be pejorative? News to me. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[blutoski]

The term 'pseudoskeptic' is, in this or any other context, virtually worthless. My tentative conclusion on the common usage of this term, based on experience and subject to revision in the light of further evidence, is that it's a strawman definition used by the belief-driven to try to invalidate the views of any skeptic who disagrees with them, and that the very use of the term in itself is a strong indicator that the person using the term has a set of beliefs that they are not themselves prepared to question, and dislikes the fact that others do not hold that set of beliefs as self-evident. It's particularly telling that, from these lists, only a 'pseudoskeptic' ever criticises people whose points of view are not evidence-based, or indeed ever reaches a conclusion at all; in effect, this list is an attempt to redefine skepticism so as to exclude its conclusions. As such, it's simply a ploy by woo merchants to discredit their opposition.

Dave

I disagree, based on my experience in skepticism.

I often meet card-carrying skeptics who believe that skepticism is iconoclasm. By 'skeptic' they mean 'person who rejects popular beliefs and beliefs endorsed by experts.'

These are pseudoskeptics.