SF Weekly: "Who's Crazier - Birthers or Truthers?"

Orphia Nay

Penguilicious Spodmaster
Tagger
Joined
May 2, 2005
Messages
52,629
Location
Australia
"So who's crazier, birthers or truthers? The analysis of this question requires some subtlety. The birther position -- that Obama's birth certificate is invalid for any number of reasons -- is fairly banal when compared to the insane grand narrative of truthers, whose conspiracy theory takes detours through the realms of physics and international politics. However, the birther position, supported as it is by a simple refusal to recognize that a birth certificate is, in fact, a birth certificate (see above, again) is more patently idiotic.

"Our final verdict: Truthers are crazier. Birthers are dumber. In the name of the Illuminati, let's hope these people don't mingle among each other and reproduce."


http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2009/09/versus_whos_crazier_--_birther.php

:D
 
lovely ^_^ birthers are dumber...truthers are crazier...they should be equally be derided
 
It does sort of cheer me how quickly the epithet 'Birthers' has stuck. There was a time not very long ago when it felt like something that was only used among skeptics as a humorous nod to the similarities in reasoning between the two conspiracy groups. It's pretty funny that it's become the commonly-accepted term.
 
It does sort of cheer me how quickly the epithet 'Birthers' has stuck. There was a time not very long ago when it felt like something that was only used among skeptics as a humorous nod to the similarities in reasoning between the two conspiracy groups. It's pretty funny that it's become the commonly-accepted term.

Personally, I think pseudo-skeptics are the craziest and dumbest of the lot, not to mention suffering from a near terminal case of "Illusionary Superiority". They do incalculable damage to science by cloaking their cognitive biases under the guise of science. While giving the impression that they are objective, impartial and logical, they are nothing more than a priori armchair quarter backs.

PseudoSkeptics perceive themselves as the defenders of science and reason against a raising tide of irrationality. They consider themselves to be the champions not only of science, but also of the uninformed public who are naïve and unenlightened. It gives them a sense of superiority and a sense of purpose in the lives.

They think they are part of a special, elite group that perceives reality exactly as it is. They suffer from “Immaculate Perception”, the only ones who see reality exactly as it is unhindered by any cognitive biases. So therefore, to disagree with them is to disagree with reality itself. This gives them a feeling of being elevated and better than others.

Warriors for Truth, Justice and the Scientific Way - They believe that they are warriors against the darkness of ignorance and superstitious thought. They are fighting a desperate war of Light vs Darkness. They are the vanguard of an emerging Age of Enlightenment.
 
Pseudo Skeptics? Can you give examples of what they would do or say?

A true skeptic goes by evidence and should change his mind on things when there is sufficient evidence to support a conclusion.

Anything else is not being a skeptic. By anything else I mean people who draw a conclusion first and say "it must be this", such as "a UFO can only be an alien spacecraft and nothing else (UFO Hunters) and proceeds from there. There is also the flip side of the coin too, people who call themselves skeptics but operate on the premise that "it is completely impossible for it to be an alien space craft under any circumstances".
 
Pseudo Skeptics? Can you give examples of what they would do or say?
I can. I googled on the term and made a list.

---

Pseudoskeptics don't believe in UFOs when they are "short of any kind of proof" : I propose that true skepticism is called for today: neither the gullible acceptance of true belief nor the closed-minded rejection of the scoffer masquerading as the skeptic. One should be skeptical of both the believers and the scoffers. The negative claims of pseudo-skeptics who offer facile explanations must themselves be subject to criticism... There is another aspect to the UFO phenomenon that involves politics and secrecy rather than observational evidence. I do not currently have a ticket to any SCI program, but over the years I have gotten to know individuals who for one reason or another would be aware of the existence of relevant black programs... The above is, of course, short of any kind of proof, but all in all I have now gotten to the point in my exposure to the subject at which I think it somewhat more likely than not that something not merely delusional, but real and important may be going on with regard to the UFO phenomenon.

Pseudoskeptics don't believe that "confusing memories" prove that you've visited another universe : Join us in a brave foray into the unknown and uncharted realms of parallel universes. Prepare yourself for a trek, not to outer or inner, but to adjacent space.

Will we find Eden? Lands of Magic? Our heart's desire? Or will we find worlds just like our own? Some of us may have already visited other universes - the evidence may be confusing memories - improbable places or people we have seen. Can we observe these parallel universes? Have we observed them? Can we travel between them? What kind of device would we need? What energy barriers would we encounter and have to overcome? Is there a shortcut between the worlds? Does quantum consciousness hold a key?

ASIDE TO PSEUDOSKEPTICS: Please don't bother. We are talking subjective experience here and trying to derive clues to what is happening. These things occurred - they happened to us - no amount of skepticism or psychobabble on your part will convince us otherwise.

Pseudoskeptics don't believe that the "Face On Mars" is evidence of a lost Martian civilization, but that NASA is hushing it up : If the "Face" and/or other features test positively for artificiality, this discovery promises to be the most explosive we have ever encountered. The Cydonian Imperative advocates completely open disclosure of any findings that would tend to bear out the Artificiality Hypothesis. I am troubled by NASA's demonstrated refusals to comply with scientific method and acknowledge the work of independent researchers.

The Cydonia inquiry is not trivial, pseudoscientific, or dismissable. On the contrary, the enigmas on the Martian surface (and perhaps elsewhere in the Solar System) challenge our conceptions of planetary and genetic selfhood. We cannot afford to miss this potentially transformative opportunity...

It is interesting that this image, withheld from public inspection, depicts the Face in its entirety. Such accuracy tends to suggest that acquiring high-resolution images of the Face is not only easier than NASA/MSSS would have the public believe, but that NASA has an abiding interest in studying the Cydonia region. The reasons for the space agency's near-silence on the Cydonia issue, in light of the image above, are far from trivial...

Skeptics groups rail against "pseudoscience." But perhaps the time has come for independent thinkers, armed with real knowledge as opposed to false preconceptions, to begin questioning the agenda behind pseudoskepticism.

Pseudoskeptics don't believe that John Edward can talk to the dead : One of the most famous psychic mediums in this country is John Edward who performs readings before a live audience on television. His impressive abilities suggests that he may actually be communicating with the dead. pseudo-skeptics claim that John Edward is a master of reading body language to elicit information. But, Edward often does phone readings and sometimes readings where he cannot even see the subject... pseudo-skeptics claim that questionnaires and bugging devices help producers learn about deceased family members... Concerning bugging devices, the show's producer replied, "Of course there's microphones, but are they being fed anywhere, no. And John doesn't see any of this."

Pseudoskeptics don't believe that crop circles... or "at least some of them" were created by "Non-Human Intelligence" : If Nickell and Fischer had examined that question, they would have found that their four arguments for hoaxing are perfectly compatible with the hypothesis that crop formations, or at least some of them, are created on purpose by a non-human intelligence (NHI), such as extraterrestrials or spiritual beings... Proper skepticism must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Unfortunately, much of what comes out of the "skeptical" community these days is not proper skepticism, but all-out, fundamentalist disbelief. Such skepticism can be called pseudo-skepticism, pathological skepticism or bogus skepticism.

Pseudoskeptics don't believe that Uri Geller has magical powers over cutlery : Some historians believe Jesus Christ was born on December 20th. Perhaps the first unusual event of Uri's life was that he was born on the same day, although some time later, in 1946 to be exact. Coincidence? Maybe, but a portent perhaps of the shape ( or shape-shifting ) of things to come.

Uri says that he first became aware of his mindpower at the age of four. He was eating, when the fork he was using bent and snapped. His mother, a member of the Freud family, was not surprised at his ability and nurtured his childhood accordingly. It was this acceptance, rather than denial, which enabled his self belief. A belief, Uri says, is inherent in all children, it is social conditioning which creates the denial...

When I spoke with Uri, he told me that he still meets with scientists and accepts the positive motive behind scientific discovery, it seems it is the adversarial 'pseudo skeptics' which Uri has washed his hands with...

Pseudoskeptics don't believe that they can debunk the Big Bang without actually knowing any physics; nor apparently in alien visitors, ghosts, ESP, Bigfoot... : These ordinarily sound scientific platitudes are used as the ultimate "get out of jail free" cards for pseudo-skeptics who have no answers to inconvenient questions. Let's examine Sagan's assertion that "extrarordinary" claims require "extraordinary" evidence. The problem with this statement is that popular science does not require extraordinary evidence for its extraordinary claims. Big Bang theory may be the most extraordinary claim in the history of popular science. Here we have an idea that can be neatly encapsulated in eight words: "At first, there was nothing...then it exploded." But how can NOTHING explode? Big Bang theory "defies gravity" and violates innumerable laws of physics, it remains a HYPOTHETICAL mathematical model, yet it is promoted as truth by NASA and institutions of higher learning around the world. Why has the mainstream never demanded the same standards of Big Bang theorists that it does of "paranormal" proponents?

Where are the "double-blind tests" validating Big Bang theory? Has Big Bang theory been tested by JREF or other skeptical organizations?

Pseudoskeptics don't believe that mediums can catch terrorists, on the nit-picking basis that this has never actually happened : I am presenting an issue which hitherto has NOT been part of the procedure of crime detection training.

One has to ignore the entrenched negativism of the closed minded skeptics (or as Professor C T Tart calls them 'pseudo-skeptics') They are defeatists and I submit they are a danger to national security for retarding or preventing professional investigation of psychic phenomena.

Law enforcement agencies ought to obtain the services of highly gifted psychics - not the run of the mill commercial ones, but those who can pass empirical tests for repeatable accuracy. There may be at least four or five in each country who ought to be regarded as absolute 'pure gold.' These would be hard to find as the truly gifted ones keep a very low, non-commercial, very private profile...

Two gifted psychic mediums would be required - one of them a trance-medium. Usually, the mediums bring others with them to give them psychic energy support. One of the mediums will be in a position to communicate with the terrorist's 'attachment.' This will be done while the other trance-medium goes into trance and allows the terrorist's 'attachment' to use the voice box of the second medium.

Pseudoskeptics don't believe everything they hear, plus everything they make up : Fortunately, not every one is pseudo skeptic. We have also many true skeptics... It is said that even Hitler had some psychic powers (I just heard this and do not know the details of it). If true, this does not mean that everything this monster did was right or conversely, his crimes against humanity do not nullify his psychic ability... We know that thoughts are vibrations. These vibrations are what make the electroencephalograph machine (lie detector) work. Vibrations are created by particles. In quantum physics time breaks down and becomes irrelevant. So is it possible that your thoughts work in times that have not yet occurred? If true, this would explain how we dream things that come to pass later, telepathy, premonition, remote viewing and other psychic claims... This proves that healing comes from within and is triggered by our brain. In fact all healing come from our brain. All what drugs do is, trigger the defense mechanism of the body by stimulating the brain to release the endorphins and other chemicals that would heal the body... Belief is a powerful human faculty. If we can tap into this, we can basically heal our selves at will...The pseudo skeptics with materialistic persuasion are not after science or truth. They are promoting a religion based on materialism. There is nothing scientific, nothing logical and nothing rational about their belief. They are believers in a dogma that is contrary to human reason and observable facts... Islam presents itself as a religion. This, of course is not true.

---

You get the picture? It's what gullible people call those who don't share their delusions. I believe that it's intended to be an insult.
 
Last edited:
Just to clarify what I’m talking about I will define the difference between “healthy skeptism” vs. pseudo-skeptism:

Skeptic: one who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons. the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics

A pseudoskeptic is someone who cloaks denialism in the language of skepticism and critical thinking with their minds already made up before looking at the evidence.

They go into a situation with a predetermined agenda to disprove rather than to objectively weigh and asses the available data. It’s just a matter of finding a way to disprove

To a pseudo all UFO photographs are fakes, especially the real ones, if they exist. In other words, all potential evidence is lumped into a generic category of hoax, lie, weather, balloons, flares, innocent mistake, etc.

Whatever it is…is something else.

They employ what I’ll call Ocaam’s Hammer – the simplest explanation is not usually the best, it is always the best.

A Pseudoskeptic is to science and healthy skepticism what a politician is the truth.
 
Just to clarify what I’m talking about I will define the difference between “healthy skeptism” vs. pseudo-skeptism:

Skeptic: one who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons. the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics

A pseudoskeptic is someone who cloaks denialism in the language of skepticism and critical thinking with their minds already made up before looking at the evidence.

They go into a situation with a predetermined agenda to disprove rather than to objectively weigh and asses the available data. It’s just a matter of finding a way to disprove

To a pseudo all UFO photographs are fakes, especially the real ones, if they exist. In other words, all potential evidence is lumped into a generic category of hoax, lie, weather, balloons, flares, innocent mistake, etc.

Whatever it is…is something else.

They employ what I’ll call Ocaam’s Hammer – the simplest explanation is not usually the best, it is always the best.

A Pseudoskeptic is to science and healthy skepticism what a politician is the truth.


Ah so it's a Strawman.
 
Just to clarify what I’m talking about I will define the difference between “healthy skeptism” vs. pseudo-skeptism:

Skeptic: one who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons. the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics

A pseudoskeptic is someone who cloaks denialism in the language of skepticism and critical thinking with their minds already made up before looking at the evidence.

They go into a situation with a predetermined agenda to disprove rather than to objectively weigh and asses the available data. It’s just a matter of finding a way to disprove

To a pseudo all UFO photographs are fakes, especially the real ones, if they exist. In other words, all potential evidence is lumped into a generic category of hoax, lie, weather, balloons, flares, innocent mistake, etc.

Whatever it is…is something else.

They employ what I’ll call Ocaam’s Hammer – the simplest explanation is not usually the best, it is always the best.

A Pseudoskeptic is to science and healthy skepticism what a politician is the truth.

Interesting. Let me take a wild guess here, but you tend to believe conspiracy theories involving the government don't you?
 
I'm going to go with Truthers. This birther thing (And I'm personally disgusted with the derogatory tone it implies) is nothing more than people who can't accept Obama as our president fair and square, just like there are people who still refuse to believe that Bush won the presidency vs Al Gore fair and square. I don't understand why those people who refuse to accept that Gore lost aren't held in the same disregard as the people who refuse to accept Obama birth certificate.
 
Just to clarify what I’m talking about I will define the difference between “healthy skeptism” vs. pseudo-skeptism:

Skeptic: one who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons. the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics

A pseudoskeptic is someone who cloaks denialism in the language of skepticism and critical thinking with their minds already made up before looking at the evidence.
How do you tell the difference between the two without reading their minds?

Let me guess ... you see if they agree with your favorite unsubstantiated belief.

And, as I have demonstrated above, so does everyone else who uses the term.
 
I'm going to go with Truthers. This birther thing (And I'm personally disgusted with the derogatory tone it implies) is nothing more than people who can't accept Obama as our president fair and square, just like there are people who still refuse to believe that Bush won the presidency vs Al Gore fair and square. I don't understand why those people who refuse to accept that Gore lost aren't held in the same disregard as the people who refuse to accept Obama birth certificate.


The difference is, Birtherism is about refusing to accept a single document - that has been verified by every level of authority that has any degree of influence over the validity of said document. And that document is also one for which millions of other Americans have equivalents that have never had their validity questioned.

With the Gore election thing, it's much more complicated, involving several different sorts of voting irregularities in multiple jurisdictions, and involves things that very few Americans have personal experience with.

The people who still fight the Gore/Bush election may be irrational, but they're nowhere near as irrational as Birthers.
 
It is a difficult question but most truthers hold enormously convoluted beliefs about 9/11.

The simplest Truther belief would either be LIHOP - that Bush knew the attack was going to happen but didn't actively try to stop it or the MIHOP view that Osama was working on behalf of the US. Neither are physically impossible but there is no plausible reason why the US government would act that way and there is no evidence to suggest that they did act that way.

The simplest Birther belief is that Obama's parents somehow managed to get him a birth certificate and placed a birth announcement in the paper. I can't see how they could have done that but I imagine it might be physically possible. Again there is no evidence to suggest that they did and no reason to think that they would do that.
 
Completely shameless derail here jakesteele and apropos of nothing, but as a fellow Star Trek fan, I gots to know:

Where does that "In the insane society the sane man must act insane" quote you attribute to Mr. Spock come from? I've seen all of the TOS episodes, all of the movies and read an embarrassingly large number of the books and that quote is ringing no bells.

If I had to guess, I'd say it's a misremembered corruption of Spock's line from the end of the episode "Mirror, Mirror":

"It's far easier for you as civilized men to behave like barbarians, than it was for them as barbarians to behave like civilized men."

Someone somewhere (not necessarily you) mentioned it and like a lot of misinformation on the web it spread. As a purveyor of truth I'm sure you want to be sure of your facts and want no part in the spread of erroneous information, right?

Anyway, just thought I'd mention it, sorry for the derail and Live Long and Prosper!








good lord I need a girlfriend
 
Last edited:
I'm going to go with Truthers. This birther thing (And I'm personally disgusted with the derogatory tone it implies) is nothing more than people who can't accept Obama as our president fair and square, just like there are people who still refuse to believe that Bush won the presidency vs Al Gore fair and square. I don't understand why those people who refuse to accept that Gore lost aren't held in the same disregard as the people who refuse to accept Obama birth certificate.

Balderdash.

Birthers (I like the word a lot) refuse to accept a clearly demonstrated and indisputable fact. That's not sane. A conspicuous number of elected Republicans have signed onto the BS--as have their supreme leaders and intellectuals Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

In contrast, I cannot recall any prominent Democrat questioning the fact that GW Bush was the legal president. Many Democrats were bitter about an election decided by 5 Justices appointed by Republican Presidents, the Florida recount supervised by a highly partisan Secretary of State and a popular vote won by Al Gore. That's perhaps not healthy, but its certainly not insane.
 
Prominent Democrat is the key word there. I'm not talking them, I'm talking average ordinary people people who are extremely partisan.
 
Completely shameless derail here jakesteele and apropos of nothing, but as a fellow Star Trek fan, I gots to know:

Where does that "In the insane society the sane man must act insane" quote you attribute to Mr. Spock come from? I've seen all of the TOS episodes, all of the movies and read an embarrassingly large number of the books and that quote is ringing no bells.

If I had to guess, I'd say it's a misremembered corruption of Spock's line from the end of the episode "Mirror, Mirror":

"It's far easier for you as civilized men to behave like barbarians, than it was for them as barbarians to behave like civilized men."

Someone somewhere (not necessarily you) mentioned it and like a lot of misinformation on the web it spread. As a purveyor of truth I'm sure you want to be sure of your facts and want no part in the spread of erroneous information, right?

Anyway, just thought I'd mention it, sorry for the derail and Live Long and Prosper!








good lord I need a girlfriend

[adding to the derail]The only other place I remember ever hearing that quote, and having it attributed to Spock, is in the movie version of Cyra McFadden's novel The Serial: a Year in the Life of Marin County, which I highly recommend (both the book and the movie.) A kid says it to the main character, who asks, "Who said that?" and the kid says, "Mr. Spock in Star Trek."
 
Prominent Democrat is the key word there. I'm not talking them, I'm talking average ordinary people people who are extremely partisan.
But there was never a prominent left wing movement akin to the likes of the Birther movement during Bushes Presidency attempting to discredit the legitamcy of his tenure..
 
Last edited:
How do you tell the difference between the two without reading their minds?

Let me guess ... you see if they agree with your favorite unsubstantiated belief.

And, as I have demonstrated above, so does everyone else who uses the term.

If you had to read their minds to tell the difference then it would mean they both used the same methodologies for different purposes reasons. The definitions show a distinct difference between the two. Pseudoskepticism is the anti-christ of true skepticism.
 

Back
Top Bottom