• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Spoon-feeding and pseudo-skepticism

PirateDaveZOMG

New Blood
P
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
17
These are the most frequently used, dismissive terms I've heard in most recent discussions. They are neither preceded nor followed by any sort of relevant information, and seem to be used as a 'way out' of making a relevant point. I'd like to know if other people have seen their rampant use as of late.

My own thoughts are that 'spoon-feeding' someone is not the same as giving that person relevant sources that have been quoted, or support one's viewpoint. In fact, denying anyone resource to the topic at hand only displays ignorance or laziness. For some reason, however, those that use this phrase constantly don't seem to view it this way, and instead think that they are discrediting someone in a discussion by refusing them source materials, or maybe even that they are 'helping' that person to research the topic at hand themselves. Understandable if that person has displayed a laziness towards the topic at hand, but this has consistently not been the case.

As for 'pseudo-skepticism', the most memorable experience I have comes from the YouTube user 'kimbo99'. You may remember this user, as this was the poster of the 'Afterlife Million-Dollar Challenge' video used in the 'Challenging Challenges' SWIFT at the JREF. After kimbo99's rampant use of 'pseudo-skeptic' as an insult against any who questioned the validity of the challenge presented in the video, I engaged in a public discussion via the comments section challenging his use of the term. After much flip-flopping, he finally decided to 'spoon-feed' me by directing me to a site, through a PRIVATE MESSAGE. The site was SCEPCOP (For those who have never visited this site, debunkingskepticsDOTcom). Needless to say, the hypocrisy was migraine-inducing at best, and after short correspondence through more Private Messages, kimbo99's agenda was finally revealed (won't post the message out of respect of privacy, but the topic of that message was 'gnosticism')

Long-winded post short, it seems that these are just a few things that woo artists and supporters have been using recently in lieu of actual defense, sources, or evidence. Any experiences/thoughts to share?
 
As I like to joke, a psuedo-skeptic is a skeptic who doesn't believe in to woo *you* believe in.

There are legitimate cases of psuedo-skepticism, but the accusation-to-actual-case however, is on the order of 1000-to-1.
 
This is the type of thing I am seeing more and more of. Where it comes from I don't know. But I have seen it in the National Review, I think it is, (conservative magazine) to blogs to sites like SEPOCOP?, whatever.

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

Debunker – one who holds an a priori belief that it does not exist, therefore, it is just a matter of finding a way to explain it away.

PseudoSkeptic - cloaks denialism in the language of skepticism and critical thinking and starts with a conclusion and looks for evidence to support what they already believe.


I am a debunker, therefore, I’m always right. I’m always right because I’m a debunker.

They believe that all UFO photographs are fake, especially the real ones.

Whatever is claimed is nothing but ... something else.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence

Skeptism is the beginning of rational thinking
Psuedo skeptism is the end of rational thinking
 
Sorry, you're wrong.

A skeptic is someone who requires evidence before accepting a claim.

There is no reason to be undecided about many claims. No, UFOs aren't alien spacecraft. No, dowsing doesn't work. No, homeopathy and chiropracty don't do anything. No, ghosts, demons, bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster don't exist. No, Sylvia Brown and John Edwards cannot talk to the dead, nor can anyone else. No, the World Trade Center was not destroyed by beam weapons or "nanothermite". No, you can't see things you can't see, nor detect when someone is staring at you.

The claims have been presented many times. The purported evidence has been examined, and rejected, and with very good reason, i.e. it's utter garbage.

If you want to provide new evidence, that's all well and good. But there is no reason to go over the same old ground again and again, which is why skeptics will give short shrift to stale and arrant nonsense.
 
PixyMisa said:
Sorry, you're wrong.

A skeptic is someone who requires evidence before accepting a claim.

There is no reason to be undecided about many claims. No, UFOs aren't alien spacecraft. No, dowsing doesn't work. No, homeopathy and chiropracty don't do anything. No, ghosts, demons, bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster don't exist. No, Sylvia Brown and John Edwards cannot talk to the dead, nor can anyone else. No, the World Trade Center was not destroyed by beam weapons or "nanothermite". No, you can't see things you can't see, nor detect when someone is staring at you.

The claims have been presented many times. The purported evidence has been examined, and rejected, and with very good reason, i.e. it's utter garbage.

If you want to provide new evidence, that's all well and good. But there is no reason to go over the same old ground again and again, which is why skeptics will give short shrift to stale and arrant nonsense.
Click to expand...

I agree, and I think this is the biggest problem that people like those that run the SCEPCOP (debunkingskepticsDOTcom) is that they still want to believe these claims, and because of that desire to believe, they confuse that with rational thinking, i.e. giving everything its due. Perhaps the confusion stems from the difference being that a claim has been made for a significant amount of time (In terms of Nessie of Bigfoot, hundreds of years, in terms of Ghosts, thousands) and no significant or solid evidence has been presented for these claims.

Is it the irritation that people are dismissive about a claim in the absence of evidence that causes these people to lash out with accusations of irrationality and conspiracy? :confused:
 
I am a debunker, and proud of it. I believe that there is far too much bunk in the world, and it should be up to all of us to get rid of it wherever we can.
 
I have a friend who is a 9-11 truther. I've been wondering for a while if he falls into the psuedoskeptic category as he is skeptic of what actually happened despite the facts.

He's accused me of "choosing to believe" the official story. I don't really see how I can choose to believe anything. I can't force myself to believe something that simply isn't true, my beliefs are a natural result of what I know is true. I've heard what the truthers and debunkers have to say, and one holds water while the other simply doesn't. I have no choice in the matter.

So I guess in his mind, he's a skeptic because he's unwilling to believe the official story, and I'm gullible because I do (I actually never said I believed the official story, I simply said I didn't believe the claims of the 9-11 truthers.).

I have another friend with even more extraordinary claims. Something about George Bush and an earthquake doomsday device or something. No kidding. I'd never even heard of that one.

College grads for you right there.
 
Eric D said:
I have a friend who is a 9-11 truther. I've been wondering for a while if he falls into the psuedoskeptic category as he is skeptic of what actually happened despite the facts.

He's accused me of "choosing to believe" the official story. I don't really see how I can choose to believe anything. I can't force myself to believe something that simply isn't true, my beliefs are a natural result of what I know is true. I've heard what the truthers and debunkers have to say, and one holds water while the other simply doesn't. I have no choice in the matter.

So I guess in his mind, he's a skeptic because he's unwilling to believe the official story, and I'm gullible because I do (I actually never said I believed the official story, I simply said I didn't believe the claims of the 9-11 truthers.).

I have another friend with even more extraordinary claims. Something about George Bush and an earthquake doomsday device or something. No kidding. I'd never even heard of that one.

College grads for you right there.
Click to expand...

9/11 truthers are some of the more interesting people out there. It's odd, because growing up you hear the Roswell conspiracy, you hear the Kennedy conspiracy, but for 9/11, it's such a new thing. Maybe because of the events still being so recent, it's kind of hard to completely group 9/11 truthers in with the rest of wooville, however I do agree that all the 'evidence' presented so far hold little weight, and what weight is there is based off circumstantial assumptions.
 
PixyMisa said:
No, ghosts, demons, bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster don't exist.
Click to expand...

It is very possible for things outside of the realm of our understanding to exist. What we perceive these things as do not exist, but that does not mean the phenomena does not exist
 
PirateDaveZOMG said:
After much flip-flopping, he finally decided to 'spoon-feed' me by directing me to a site, through a PRIVATE MESSAGE. The site was SCEPCOP (For those who have never visited this site, debunkingskepticsDOTcom).
Click to expand...

Oh my. That would be the site started by Winston Wu and Victor Zammit.

'nuff said? :rolleyes:


Needless to say, the hypocrisy was migraine-inducing at best,
Click to expand...

Yep. That sounds like Winston and Victor...
 
Last edited:
Dr H said:
Yep. That sounds like Winston and Victor...
Click to expand...

I hadn't heard of Winston Wu before, and only knew of Victor Zammit from the Afterlife video. So when I first looked at the site, and after contracting some headaches from reading its contents, I did a quick search on Winston Wu, and came up with a site that was completely dedicated to how horrible of a worker he is (created by a former boss?) :boggled:
 
PirateDaveZOMG said:
I hadn't heard of Winston Wu before, and only knew of Victor Zammit from the Afterlife video. So when I first looked at the site, and after contracting some headaches from reading its contents, I did a quick search on Winston Wu, and came up with a site that was completely dedicated to how horrible of a worker he is (created by a former boss?) :boggled:
Click to expand...

I have been on Winston's paranormal mail list for years -- once you get on, it's practically impossible to ever get off. He used to post in the JREF fora a few years back, before eventually getting banned. I'm sure a lot of his rants are available in the archives.

He's not a bad person, but he could be the poster child for woo-woo gullibility.
 
makaya325 said:
It is very possible for things outside of the realm of our understanding to exist. What we perceive these things as do not exist, but that does not mean the phenomena does not exist
Click to expand...

Lolwut?

Makaya, I've noticed a tendency in your posts to cloud the issue with nonsense. Is this deliberate?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom