Debunking the debunkers

[Piggy]

I was talking about the real debate.

What debate is that?

Maybe you're referring here to the "controversy" in the popular press, analogous to the "controversy" over evolution/ID?

As far as I know, there's no scientific debate, because there are no valid studies showing any evidence of psi, and no theories whatsoever to explain it. (The latter is not surprising, given the former.)

 

[TjW]

The debate seems pretty clear to me. There's no evidence for psi, and there's a valid naturalistic model of reality that disallows it. No clouds there.


What's a pseudoskeptic? That term was used by another poster, but I don't know what it's supposed to mean.

As near as I can tell from its use I've seen in context, it's a Humpty-Dumpty word.

 

[blutoski]

What's a pseudoskeptic? That term was used by another poster, but I don't know what it's supposed to mean.

It was coined by Marcello Truzzi, who was a co-founder of CSICOP.

I've defined it for you in the past, so I'm not sure if you forgot or what. This might help: Pseudoskeptic.

In my opinion, it's related to the Naturalistic Fallacy.

 

[blutoski]

I get it now. The "organized skeptical movement" is just a big straw man you've constructed. The same seems to be true of your "pseudo-skeptics". I suspect that you are upset that most of your posts are picked apart with logic so you've decided to define those who disagree with your assertions about god as being members of some homogeneous "movement" defined by irrational beliefs.

Interesting

Steven

Again, Steven, the "organized skeptical movement" is absolutely established. I don't know why you think it's imaginary. One of them is paying for this forum.

Again, I'd include:

• CSI (nee CSICOP) and its local affiliates
• Skeptics Society
• JREF
• Australian Skeptics
• UK Skeptics

There are other organizations that are affiliated, such as the NSF, the Royal Society, and grassroots organizations responding to Creationism/ID.

There is a little bit of wishful thinking if we honestly think that these organizations aren't working very hard to have their preferred situation realized, and it includes recognition of authorities (such as the FDA or JAMA, instead of "a brochure at the drugstore") and changing what people are taught in schools (skeptics argue against equal time or teach the controversy strategies).

 

[blutoski]

Psuedoskeptics are generally people who don't understand what skepticism is. Sometimes they are people only pretending to be skeptics. Some may even truly believe they are skeptics.

Such as these guys...



Because these guys purport to separate "real" spooks from "false" spooks, they call themselves skeptics.

No, I'm pretty sure the poster was using the term as it was coined by Truzzi to refer to those who are reflexive debunkers.

It's true that every crank considers himself a skeptic, but there are people who, for example, don't believe in ghosts, but can't explain why. That would be a pseudoskeptic. There was no thought going into the decision.

I had a difficult discussion on another thread where I expressed doubt about a common Skeptical axiom (that teaching critical thinking will make people more skeptical), and the opponent simply asserted that she didn't need evidence to support her claim - I needed evidence to show that it was false. The conclusion was familiar to skeptics, but her process for getting there was distinctly woo. Classic pseudoskepticism.

 

[Piggy]

It was coined by Marcello Truzzi, who was a co-founder of CSICOP.

I've defined it for you in the past, so I'm not sure if you forgot or what. This might help: Pseudoskeptic.

In my opinion, it's related to the Naturalistic Fallacy.

Yes, I had (have) forgotten. Thanks.

 

[Buckaroo]

It was coined by Marcello Truzzi, who was a co-founder of CSICOP.

I've defined it for you in the past, so I'm not sure if you forgot or what. This might help: Pseudoskeptic.

In my opinion, it's related to the Naturalistic Fallacy.

I'm a little leery of the whole idea of the "psuedoskeptic," as it's laid out in this Wiki. It seems to me that when one has encountered a woo claim and shown it to be false again, and again, and again, and again, that it is then reasonable to take the positive stance and state with virtual certainty that any further woo claims along the same lines are bullspit. At this point, it's reasonable to reflexively dismiss further claims. Otherwise, if he wishes to maintain his intellectual integrity, the skeptic is placed in the unworkable position of having to wastefully explore every claim on the vanishingly small probability that it is correct. If we accept this definition, then in practice the ultimate destination for all skeptics is psuedoskepticism.

I ain't buyin' it.

 

[Piggy]

Again, Steven, the "organized skeptical movement" is absolutely established.

Yeah, I've always wondered about the apparent knee-jerk reaction, from some quarters, against any suggestion that there is any sort of organized skepticism around. Personally, I'd like to see more of it.

skeptics argue against equal time or teach the controversy strategies

Well, only if by "controversy" you mean ignorant popular controversy. For example, there is no scientific controversy about the validity of ID v. the Modern Synthesis. In that case, "teaching the controversy" in science class would mean stopping the teaching of science while the teaching of something else -- media studies, current events, religion, sociology, psychology -- was done instead.

 

[blutoski]

It's a bit unfair to label somebody "pseudo" simply because they make errors. You wouldn't call someone a "pseudomusician" just because they don't play every piece of music perfectly.

Somebody with no respect for the truth who refuses to accept criticism or correct their errors might qualify, but in that case they probably wouldn't be calling themselves a "skeptic" in the first place.

Everybody calls themselves a skeptic.

However, this is closer to the definition with which I'm familiar. A pseudoskeptic might - for example - be somebody who debunks a haunted house with 'natural explanations' that are so outrageous and obviously grasping at straws, and maybe even impossible. To the point where they should just sit down and shut up, because they're making things worse.

An example from above is when I was on a haunting investigation, and a fellow tried to explain a door popping open as 'caused by a draft'. No way. I examined the door, and no 'draft' could budge that. But he wouldn't drop it. That's crappy investigation, and at the end of the day, I have to recognize that what I see in this guy is naturalism as a religion, and he's just manufacturing apologetics to avoid uncertainty.

We've all seen it.

 

[Piggy]

I'm a little leery of the whole idea of the "psuedoskeptic," as it's laid out in this Wiki. It seems to me that when one has encountered a woo claim and shown it to be false again, and again, and again, and again, that it is then reasonable to take the positive stance and state with virtual certainty that any further woo claims along the same lines are bullspit. At this point, it's reasonable to reflexively dismiss further claims. Otherwise, if he wishes to maintain his intellectual integrity, the skeptic is placed in the unworkable position of having to wastefully explore every claim on the vanishingly small probability that it is correct. If we accept this definition, then in practice the ultimate destination for all skeptics is psuedoskepticism.

I ain't buyin' it.

Yeah, it's hard to tell from that short article.

If this small quote is taken at face value...

Since "skepticism" properly refers to doubt rather than denial -- nonbelief rather than belief -- critics who take the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves "skeptics" are actually pseudo-skeptics.​

... then the designation is bogus. Because in that case, the term would only be a fallacy used as a weapon to force skeptics into know-nothing-ism.

Not all negative statements are mere "denial". For instance, the earth ain't flat. My mother is not a 500 year old man. I do not live in China.

The statements "The earth is flat", "My mother is a 500 year old man", and "I live in China" are not assertions that I merely doubt. They are falsehoods.

It is indeed possible for a skeptic to recognize a falsehood as a falsehood.

 

[Piggy]

An example from above is when I was on a haunting investigation, and a fellow tried to explain a door popping open as 'caused by a draft'. No way. I examined the door, and no 'draft' could budge that. But he wouldn't drop it. That's crappy investigation, and at the end of the day, I have to recognize that what I see in this guy is naturalism as a religion, and he's just manufacturing apologetics to avoid uncertainty.

Well, if the guy was insisting on the truth of the draft hypothesis in particular, then I think you may have a point. (Can't say, since I didn't see the door.)

But if you chose to propose a supernatural explanation for the door opening, without any specific evidence for your hypothesis, then this makes you a pseudo-what?

 

[blutoski]

Yeah, I've always wondered about the apparent knee-jerk reaction, from some quarters, against any suggestion that there is any sort of organized skepticism around. Personally, I'd like to see more of it.

Totally agreed.

But I'm baffled that somebody could claim there's no 'organized' skepticism while on a forum established, run, and paid for by a legally incorporated skeptical organization with a million dollars in cash and a PR agency on retainer.

Well, only if by "controversy" you mean ignorant popular controversy. For example, there is no scientific controversy about the validity of ID v. the Modern Synthesis. In that case, "teaching the controversy" in science class would mean stopping the teaching of science while the teaching of something else -- media studies, current events, religion, sociology, psychology -- was done instead.

In any case, my point is that yes, these organizations advocate teaching the evolutionary view because it's a scientific view. This is known, because a decision was made that there were authorities on this subject in the National Academy of Sciences, and this is the set of authorities that skeptics respect on this particular subject. We are advocating that some knowledge be dismissed from the public education system, on account of the authorities we respect recommend doing so.

Practically none of the skeptics on this forum or in the general sphere of skepticism have actually done, say, field research on evolutionary topics. None of us have scraped away matrix from fossils, or conducted radiometric dating on strata. We defer to authorities whom we trust. That's part of skepticism.

Non-skeptics, on the other hand, emphasize the primacy of the expertise of the individual: clinical trials show the drug doesn't work? What do they know? Try it yourself and you be the judge! Does God exist? If you feel the holy spirit inside you, then that's enough evidence for anybody!

I sincerely think this is a major distinction. Science is a group operation that requires a great deal of cooperation, division of labour, and trust. Recognition of authorities deserving of trust is a key skeptical property.

 

[Piggy]

Btw, naturalism is supported by every bit of valid evidence that exists. When it's come head-to-head with alternate theories, it's won every time. No exceptions.

So it is not a religion.

It should be our default position until and unless there is some valid evidence to challange it, not because of any sort of faith or "belief", but because of its track record. Right now, it's the only game in town.

 

[Piggy]

In any case, my point is that yes, these organizations advocate teaching the evolutionary view because it's a scientific view. This is known, because a decision was made that there were authorities on this subject in the National Academy of Sciences, and this is the set of authorities that skeptics respect on this particular subject. We are advocating that some knowledge be dismissed from the public education system, on account of the authorities we respect recommend doing so.

That is false.

There's no other way to describe it.

The hegemony of evolutionary theory has zip to do with authority.

The modern synthesis is the dominant (in fact, only) theory because it has been validated at every turn, and it has no competitors.

 

[blutoski]

Well, if the guy was insisting on the truth of the draft hypothesis in particular, then I think you may have a point. (Can't say, since I didn't see the door.)

Yes, he was adamant. Like I said, we've all met people like this.

But if you chose to propose a supernatural explanation for the door opening, without any specific evidence for your hypothesis, then this makes you a pseudo-what?

My original answer was "I don't know."

There is nobody holding a gun to our heads demanding an explanation. Sometimes there isn't enough information to form an hypothesis. It's best to be honest, rather than invent something out of whole cloth that makes skeptics look typecast as desperate debunkers.

 

[Piggy]

Practically none of the skeptics on this forum or in the general sphere of skepticism have actually done, say, field research on evolutionary topics. None of us have scraped away matrix from fossils, or conducted radiometric dating on strata. We defer to authorities whom we trust. That's part of skepticism.

Non-skeptics, on the other hand, emphasize the primacy of the expertise of the individual: clinical trials show the drug doesn't work? What do they know? Try it yourself and you be the judge! Does God exist? If you feel the holy spirit inside you, then that's enough evidence for anybody!

I sincerely think this is a major distinction. Science is a group operation that requires a great deal of cooperation, division of labour, and trust. Recognition of authorities deserving of trust is a key skeptical property.

This is a wrong-headed view of the process. It attempts to equate science with faith in authority.

You ignore the rigorous peer-review process, as well as the ability of educated laymen to read about experiments and field research in great detail.

 

[blutoski]

That is false.

There's no other way to describe it.

The hegemony of evolutionary theory has zip to do with authority.

The modern synthesis is the dominant (in fact, only) theory because it has been validated at every turn, and it has no competitors.

Meh. We'll have to disagree. I think you're missing my point: how do you know there are no competitors? Did you read it in a book? Didn't you have to trust the author, or regard him as an authority of some sort?

Personally, I consider Gould to be an authority on geology. I'd weigh his opinion heavier than that of, say, my sister. Woulnd't you?

 

[Piggy]

Sometimes there isn't enough information to form an hypothesis. It's best to be honest, rather than invent something out of whole cloth that makes skeptics look typecast as desperate debunkers.

It is best to be honest about the fact that naturalistic theory has all the evidence on its side, and competing theories should have to pony up before being taken seriously. To become agnostic on the basis of a door popping open... that's just silly.

 

[Piggy]

Personally, I consider Gould to be an authority on geology. I'd weigh his opinion heavier than that of, say, my sister. Woulnd't you?

I dunno. Who's your sister?

I'm reading Gould right now, and I'll weight what he has to say against what others have to say, and I'll check out reports on their research.

 

[blutoski]

This is a wrong-headed view of the process. It attempts to equate science with faith in authority.

Not 'faith in' authority. recognition of authority. There's a difference.

You ignore the rigorous peer-review process, as well as the ability of educated laymen to read about experiments and field research in great detail.

Again: which peer-revieweres and laymen? Surely, you haven't personally repeated every experiment you've accepted? You must have said: "JAMA has a good reputation for peer review, so I will weigh these findings higher than if it was published in Betty&Veronica Double Digest."

And while some laypeople are appropriate authorities, I would say they have often earned it through their past performance, and that I weigh their opinions higher than other laypeople because I respect them now as an authority on this subject.