"Debunking Skeptics" site

[Burning Beard]

Oh dear, I just stumbled across this "anti-pseudo-skeptic" site

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/

From their front page:

SCEPCOP is the 1st Coalition of Paranormal Researchers, Investigators, Writers and Intellectuals united to counter and expose the PseudoSkepticism movement for their fallacies, religious fanaticism, unscientific behavior, misinformation, denial, suppression, bigotry and ridicule toward all data, experience or science that challenges orthodoxy or does not fit into a materialistic reductionist paradigm. We do not support every quack claim out there, but advocate true skepticism, proper application of the Scientific Method, objectivity and unbiased open inquiry toward all paranormal and unconventional data, experience and science. We are the world's first counter-pseudoskeptic movement providing resources, articles, books, videos and an online community.

We support the true application of the Scientific Method, which involves the updating of one's hypothesis to the fit the data, rather than rejecting any and all data that doesn't fit into an "a priori" hypothesis, which the PseudoSkeptics do, which is totally unscientific and the antithesis of the Scientific Method.

Looks more pro-paranormal than anything - especially considering the woo-ey looking stuff they link to and sell.

 

[Nonpareil]

Oh... oh wow... just... wow...

And this site sells itself as a refuge for true skeptics? Jeez... just look at Scepcop's posts.

 

[Burning Beard]

Oh... oh wow... just... wow...

And this site sells itself as a refuge for true skeptics? Jeez... just look at Scepcop's posts.

Aaaand links to "Atlantis Rising" magazine... just a glance at the magazine cover and it looks like another Nexus clone.

Also a committee member named "Indigo Child"!!!

 

[Nonpareil]

Hoo boy. So who volunteers for the 101st JREF Airborne - the "Debunker Debunkers"? This is a dangerous mission, so it's going to be nothing but volunteers here, people. You need a special kind of crazy for this.

 

[Nonpareil]

Oi... this just gets worse and worse.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=633

 

[RichardR]

This is Winston Wu's site. His silly arguments have been debunked before. Also discussed before on JREF.

 

[fuelair]

Oi... this just gets worse and worse.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=633

OTOH Nostradamus seems to be having Scepcop for lunch. Unless my command of the English language has dropped a lot in the last hour or two!!

 

[fromdownunder]

They do mention Quantum Physics on their Homepage. Doesn't that make it scientific? I mean (shouting) THEY MENTION QUANTUM PHYSICS!!!

Norm

 

[plumjam]

From the website:

And in fact, despite their worship of science, they do not even follow the Scientific Method, because they do not update their hypotheses to fit the data, but instead reject data that doesn't fit into their hypothesis, which is a direct violation of the Scientific Method of course. There are plenty of examples of this

The above is indeed the central contradiction and irony of JREF and its forum.

Pseudoskepticism is driven primarily by belief in the materialistic worldview. It tries to hijack the prestige of science to defend that worldview, but is forced into being positively anti-scientific when any scientific findings come up which contradict the worldview.

Thus evidence against a particular belief (materialism) doesn't count as evidence. And then they parade around ridiculing people for believing things and being unscientific.

It's an amusing spectacle.

 

[m_huber]

While there may be valid evidence that "materialism," or a naturalistic viewpoint of the universe, is invalid, I have never seen it. When I have seen "evidence," it has always been explained more completely by naturalistic means.

For instance, I once had a near-death experience. I was doing Judo and a 230 lb guy landed on my chest. I couldn't breath, and I passed out. I am unsure how long I was unconscious. During that time, everything got dark, and I saw a tunnel of light. I then heard a voice say, "Not yet," and I woke up. Later, I learned about similar experiences that were had by airplane pilots in centrifuges. My particular injury was not really life-threatening (I regained consciousness without any medical treatment, even though a paramedic was about to start doing CPR). It is fully reasonable that what I experienced was the effect of either my brain shutting down or starting back up after blood loss; in other words, a hallucination.

Further, if it were shown that we have a window into another dimension, and we have that window through our natural bodies, it would be shown that this other plane of reality is really just an extension of our natural world, and therefore not paranormal.

 

[Hokulele]

Pseudoskepticism is driven primarily by belief in the materialistic worldview. It tries to hijack the prestige of science to defend that worldview, but is forced into being positively anti-scientific when any scientific findings come up which contradict the worldview.

Care to provide any?

 

[fromdownunder]

Actually, this site is probably not as bad as it seems from the links already provided. (so to a degree I withdraw my earler post on this thread - which an honest person always does) From the Forums, I found the link listed below, where our own beloved The Professor and his "major sponsor" Jim Callaghan are turned into toast in a 29 page thread, with effectively towards the end absolutely no support for TP.

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=154&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

And unlike The Magic Cafe, it appears that they do not vanish threads - they leave them alive for anybody who cares to, to judge the quality of the material, and to post dissenting opinions. This reminds me of some place, oh, that would be here.

Norm

 

[D'rok]

From the website:


The above is indeed the central contradiction and irony of JREF and its forum.

Pseudoskepticism is driven primarily by belief in the materialistic worldview. It tries to hijack the prestige of science to defend that worldview, but is forced into being positively anti-scientific when any scientific findings come up which contradict the worldview.

Thus evidence against a particular belief (materialism) doesn't count as evidence. And then they parade around ridiculing people for believing things and being unscientific.

It's an amusing spectacle.

How can "scientific findings" be both scientific and non-materialistic? Scientific enquiry necessarily assumes methodological naturalism; therefore, there is no contradiction in the sceptical point of view. It is, however, absurd to suggest that scientific enquiry can falsify itself.

 

[plumjam]

Care to provide any?

You mean so you can redefine it, using a variety of tired old tactics, as non-evidence in order to protect and preserve your worldview. I quit playing that game a long time back.

How can "scientific findings" be both scientific and non-materialistic? Scientific enquiry necessarily assumes methodological naturalism; therefore, there is no contradiction in the sceptical point of view. It is, however, absurd to suggest that scientific enquiry can falsify itself.

A worldview is a philosophical phenomenon, not a methodological one. So whichever methodological assumptions are made are (or should be) irrelevant to the worldview.
By equating all scientific findings as necessarily supporting the materialist worldview you have decided the whole question from the outset and rendered scientific findings powerless vis-a-vis any influence on philosophical outlook.
That's actually imposing an unnecessary limit on science in order not to upset your philosophical applecart.. borderline anti-scientific even.

It's a circular and closed approach to knowledge, and its perpetuation relies on sustained denial of the validity of any human experience which doesn't fit the circle. Hence debunking, denial and ridicule are the main rituals of this belief system; practiced here by the faithful.

Amen.

 

[Sherlock]

It's seems strangely odd that their site doesn't attempt to fully defend any specific psychics by name. It also appears they don't wish to use any base of historical data on a psychic and their corresponding claims --- but instead simply cite half-formed gas and visionary vapors. And one can almost smell those decaying vapors even through the internet.

 

[D'rok]

A worldview is a philosophical phenomenon, not a methodological one. So whichever methodological assumptions are made are (or should be) irrelevant to the worldview.
By equating all scientific findings as necessarily supporting the materialist worldview you have decided the whole question from the outset and rendered scientific findings powerless vis-a-vis any influence on philosophical outlook.
That's actually imposing an unnecessary limit on science in order not to upset your philosophical applecart.. borderline anti-scientific even.

It's a circular and closed approach to knowledge, and its perpetuation relies on sustained denial of the validity of any human experience which doesn't fit the circle. Hence debunking, denial and ridicule are the main rituals of this belief system; practiced here by the faithful.

Amen.

You didn't answer my question. Once again, how can "scientific findings" be both scientific and non-materialistic? I get that you think that scientific enquiry is not limited to the material. So, explain how this is so instead of just re-asserting your belief that it is so.

 

[PixyMisa]

You mean so you can redefine it, using a variety of tired old tactics, as non-evidence in order to protect and preserve your worldview. I quit playing that game a long time back.

No.

A worldview is a philosophical phenomenon, not a methodological one. So whichever methodological assumptions are made are (or should be) irrelevant to the worldview.

Yes.

By equating all scientific findings as necessarily supporting the materialist worldview you have decided the whole question from the outset and rendered scientific findings powerless vis-a-vis any influence on philosophical outlook.

Not at all. They just do. It's simply a statement of fact.

That's actually imposing an unnecessary limit on science in order not to upset your philosophical applecart.. borderline anti-scientific even.

No limits. Just a statement of fact.

Unless you have evidence to the contrary?

It's a circular and closed approach to knowledge

No.

and its perpetuation relies on sustained denial of the validity of any human experience which doesn't fit the circle.

No.

Hence debunking

No.

denial

No.

and ridicule

No.

are the main rituals

No.

of this belief system

No.

practiced here by the faithful.

No.

Now, do you have any evidence or not?

 

[PixyMisa]

How can "scientific findings" be both scientific and non-materialistic? Scientific enquiry necessarily assumes methodological naturalism; therefore, there is no contradiction in the sceptical point of view. It is, however, absurd to suggest that scientific enquiry can falsify itself.

I don't entirely agree. Science is an attempt to build ever more accurate and ever more general predictive descriptions of the natural world. That necessarily assumes that the natural world is self-consistent.

It might not be. In which case science wouldn't work.

Since science does work, we have no reason to think that this assumption is incorrect. In other words, it's not unfalsifiable, just unfalsified.

Of course, either way plumjam is hopelessly wrong.

 

[Twiler]

Plumjam, what do you mean by non-materialistic?

Are non-materialistic phenomena subject to causality?

Can non-materialistic entities interact with materialistic entities?

 

[Mashuna]

You mean so you can redefine it, using a variety of tired old tactics, as non-evidence in order to protect and preserve your worldview. I quit playing that game a long time back.


A worldview is a philosophical phenomenon, not a methodological one. So whichever methodological assumptions are made are (or should be) irrelevant to the worldview.
By equating all scientific findings as necessarily supporting the materialist worldview you have decided the whole question from the outset and rendered scientific findings powerless vis-a-vis any influence on philosophical outlook.
That's actually imposing an unnecessary limit on science in order not to upset your philosophical applecart.. borderline anti-scientific even.

It's a circular and closed approach to knowledge, and its perpetuation relies on sustained denial of the validity of any human experience which doesn't fit the circle. Hence debunking, denial and ridicule are the main rituals of this belief system; practiced here by the faithful.

Amen.

You'd fit right in at SCEPCOP, Plumjam. You can talk a good game, and can run away when asked to provide any actual evidence. On the few occasions you've actually come up with anything, it's been easily dispatched, forcing you to retreat to this tired old tactic of accusing other people of not being genuinely open to new evidence. Amusingly, the only things you don't accept seem to be the evidence for evolution and man-made climate change.