The Mentality of Skeptics

Slowvehicle said:
I don't suppose you have examples of this...do you?
Click to expand...

"Like this one time, I like totally and for realz saw a bigfoot, but the big mean skeptics didn't just believe me without evidence and starting talking about stuff like 'evidence' and 'burden of proof' and it made me feel really bad."
 
Why do you dislike a world without Bigfoot? Why would you dismiss such a world so easily?
 
Slowvehicle said:
I don't suppose you have examples of this...do you?
Click to expand...

A Bigfoot proponent posts an audio of an alleged Bigfoot. The "skeptic" gets anxious and says its a common forest animal, but it turns out to be just a person pretending to be a Sasquatch.

JoeBentley said:
"Skeptics are closed mind and/or big meanie heads, therefore my (insert pet Woo here) is true."

Oldest song in the playbook.

Rules lawyer the argument all you want, there's still no magic monkey man.
Click to expand...

Just because the mentality of most skeptics is flawed, doesn't mean the woo believers are correct, but anyway, I think you totally missed the point of this thread.
 
Last edited:
OntarioSquatch said:
A Bigfoot proponent posts an audio of an alleged Bigfoot. The "skeptic" gets anxious and says its a common forest animal, but it turns out to be just a person pretending to be a Sasquatch.
Click to expand...

Either way still wasn't a Bigfoot.

Just because the mentality of most skeptics is flawed, doesn't mean the woo believers are correct, but anyway, I think you totally missed the point of this thread.
Click to expand...

I know the point of the thread. It's the same point as all your threads. "Here's yet another special pleading for my magical alien monkey man."
 
Like I already said, you're totally missing the point. This thread isn't even about Bigfoot.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
A Bigfoot proponent posts an audio of an alleged Bigfoot. The "skeptic" gets anxious and says its a common forest animal, but it turns out to be just a person pretending to be a Sasquatch.
Click to expand...
What is the screen name and forum of the person who made that mistake?
 
OntarioSquatch said:
This thread isn't even about Bigfoot.
Click to expand...
Yes it is because it seems your primary passion is about alien-created genetic-hybrid Bigfoot that was brought, and continues to be brought, to this planet. It also happens to be about about fairies, mermaids, alien abductions, Chupacabras, crop circles, Yeti, telekinesis, etc., etc., etc.
 
The main takeaway here is that tolerating uncertainty and cognitive dissonance is essential for true skepticism.
 
William Parcher said:
Yes it is because it seems your primary passion is about alien-created genetic-hybrid Bigfoot that was brought, and continues to be brought, to this planet. It also happens to be about about fairies, mermaids, alien abductions, Chupacabras, crop circles, Yeti, telekinesis, etc., etc., etc.
Click to expand...

So any thread I make will automatically be considered to be about my favorite subject? Interesting.
 
Response to post #31: But it's meaningless without specific examples like I gave. Once you put in specifics you get the idea that there is a complaint about skeptics because they quickly dismiss mermaids and won't converse at length about them because a world with mermaids gives them anxiety.
 
Last edited:
OntarioSquatch said:
One of the things that's always fascinated me about people who call themselves "skeptics" is their reaction to the unknown. During my time here I've noticed that ambiguity can make these people very uneasy. The ability to tolerate ambiguity varies from person to person and apparently some people just aren't able to handle it. This is weird because being able to tolerate cognitive dissonance is essential for proper skepticism.

In direct contrast to "skeptics", proponents of woo are usually highly tolerant of ambiguity. In fact, many of them actually seem to enjoy it as it makes the world a more interesting place for them. For many of them, not knowing for sure if their beliefs are correct or not is actually large part of their fun. This makes for some really interesting dynamics the two.

There's a great blog post written by a crime writer on this very subject
http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2015/11/skepticism-on-the-couch.html
Click to expand...

I see the piece quoted in the OP as an exercise in well-poisoning: if the "skeptics" (intentional scare quotes) can be painted as irrational, I don't have to accept or listen to arguments/claims/rebuttals put forward by them. They're not (just) meanies - their thought processes can't be trusted!

This makes for a wonderful self-fulfilling prophecy and a really cool subverting of the definition of a skeptic:

Say something... get challenged by a skeptic... "ha, but you're not a true skeptic because you challenged my assertion!"
Skeptic: "But you haven't provided evidence of your claim"
"Got you again - you're not really being a skeptic etc etc etc."
 
Last edited:
William Parcher said:
Response to post #31: But it's meaningless without specific examples like I gave. Once you put in specifics you get the idea that there is a complaint about skeptics because they quickly dismiss mermaids and won't converse at length about them because a world with mermaids gives them anxiety.
Click to expand...

That's actually what motivated me to start this thread. There's people here who think they're being skeptical by jumping to conclusions, but in truth they're being complete opposite.

William Parcher said:
No. You could start a pizza recipe thread and it wouldn't be about Bigfoot.

Look, you already made a thread which is nearly identical to this one and you called it "The True Nature of Bigfoot Skepticism". This thread is the same without the word "Bigfoot" in the OP.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=290507
Click to expand...

It's very similar to thread this, but it doesn't have anything to do with the existence of Bigfoot. It's about the flaws in what many people here call skepticism.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
The main takeaway here is that tolerating uncertainty and cognitive dissonance is essential for true skepticism.
Click to expand...
Really? You're only off by like 180 degrees. We're not the ones claiming three broken tree branches in a row are Bigfoot 'flophouses'. We don't have conflicting views about whether (or how) Bigfoot exists. Nor do we deny the acquired knowledge of the past that helps determine the present. And we have absolutely no use or need for the concept of 'special pleading'. Yet Bigfoot itself is one huge special pleading.

I still think you're mad because you really do know there is no Bigfoot and you blame us. :eye-poppi
 
OntarioSquatch said:
A Bigfoot proponent posts an audio of an alleged Bigfoot. The "skeptic" gets anxious and says its a common forest animal, but it turns out to be just a person pretending to be a Sasquatch.
Click to expand...

Considering how many of those audios and videos we see, I'd say a person pretending to be a sasquatch is a common forest animal.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
That's actually what motivated me to start this thread. There's people here who think they're being skeptical by jumping to conclusions, but in truth they're being complete opposite.
Click to expand...

If your complaint is that they don't even attempt to evaluate the evidence based on a preexisting bias, I agree. But it's the nature of discussions that an assertion in one direction attracts the opposite point of view.

Can you describe the interaction you might expect if skeptics here acted more like skeptics should?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom