The Mentality of Skeptics

[Slowvehicle]

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.
Debunkers cloak denialism in the language of skepticism and critical
thinking start with a conclusion and look for evidence to support what they already believe.

I think it's important to distinguish between a real skeptic and a debunker, which is prevalent on this and other skeptical sites

But enough about all that jazz. Let's talk about the elephant in the room that none of 'you' people want acknowledge; a psychology forum. How come there isn't one? Come on, let's talk about that for a while.

Have you suggested this idea to the Moderators? Until you have done that, what is there to talk about?

 

[Sideroxylon]

Yeah skeptics are prone to various errors in critical thought but it doesn't make up for the failure to argue for the existence of Bigfoot. Butt hurt thread.

 

[Resume]

One of the things I often see here in the Bigfoot threads is people posting official lists of animals for certain regions as a way to discredit the idea that there might be something else there. They don't stop to question whether the list really has everything on it; they treat it the same way religious people treat the bible. The reason for why they do this goes back to the point I was trying to make about the majority of "skeptics" not liking uncertainty.

Do you mean like the wildlife studies in the suburban Chicago forest preserves I linked to in the Follies thread?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=292420&page=55

Is there something about replying to my post that makes you anxious?

You're the OP, defend your posts please.

 

[Resume]

Yeah skeptics are prone to various errors in critical thought but it doesn't make up for the failure to argue for the existence of Bigfoot. Butt hurt thread.

If your evidence for a particular thing sucks, focus attention on anything else to avoid discussing your sucky evidence.

Good work if you can get it.

 

[Resume]

But, hey, how 'bout that psychology forum? Want to get one started? I'll help.

If this jazzes you that much, get the ball rolling. Scoot!

 

[Drewbot]

I think we have been examining the psychology of the Bigfoot Bleever/Liar/Gamer heavily here at the IS Forums, especially over the last year or two, since the advent of the BLAARG Theory, it has increased the level of discussion. It has placed the focus more on the disordered, trolling type mentality.

 

[Ladewig]

Personally, I do think it still needs to be questioned. Most of what I see seems to focus on things like 'the load bearing capacity of this beam or that beam, jet fuel burns at such and such tempt, etc.. But from an overview there are other things that nag at me, such as knowing it was going to happen and letting it happen or setting it up beforehand. I know what the average response is going to be, so let's not get into that now. Different thread for a different time.

I agree that such a topic would be a big derail for this thread. I will, however, ask if you have looked for those specific concerns in The 9/11 sub forum.

Also, I would like to acknowledge that you are being civil and presenting your stance in a straight forward manner without snarky aggressiveness.

At this point I am still trying to fully understand your position. Snark and sarcasm are antithetical to that goal.

[psychic surgery]
I don't know if we're talking about the same one or not. I saw this way back in my day, if my memory...what? Oh, yeah...serves me correctly. I saw one on tv way pre-internet. What you are describing may be the same one, and if so, you have a valid point to a degree.

If the point is valid only to a degree, then what elements were missing from this debunking, or to use a less-contentious term, missing from this exposé.

[astrology]
Another one I saw pre-internet was his deal on astrology. In the one I saw he gave the same horoscope to a class room of college students who seems to agree with the same 'scope. Randi has a satisfied expression, almost gloating, but on a foggy day it would be hard to tell the difference. Right after that a student looked up and said, "But you didn't disprove anything." Randi was momentarily taken back and said something to the effect of, "Well, yes, but...

If I recall correctly ( and like you, I am at an age where that is more difficult than it once was), Randi replaced that presentation with a different one. He had the instructor ask a dozen students to supply their names and birth dates. At a later time, he would come in with a dozen different horoscopes that were numbered. He then used a class roster to give the numbered horoscopes to the students. After each student gushed about how accurate it was, he would look at the class list and effusively apologize for passing the horoscopes to the wrong people. He would then give each numbered horoscope to a different student and ask for their responses. After the students agreed that these horoscopes were more accurate than the first, he would explain that the horoscopes were again not passed out correctly.

I suppose, one could reply that all that stuff merely illustrates to a strong degree that people cannot recognize their own horoscope. But I digress, what is the proper way to show or prove that astrology offers no insight into individual personalities and has no predictive value in any way?

Similarly, what is the correct way to expose homeopathy?

 

[John Nowak]

I am struggling in this thread. Can anyone tell me why exactly it might be that skeptics are somehow anxious because of FigBoot? OS has claimed it, but darned if I can figure out why and OS seems reluctant to answer.

I blame Scooby Doo.

In the real world, people are fascinated and attracted to wildlife and various mysteries. They fly around the world hoping to see mountain gorillas, wild dolphins or whales, or (sadly) fantasy monsters.

In Scooby Doo and nowhere in reality, we saw this fact inverted, with people dressing up as the Swamp monster to keep people away instead of attracting tourists.

 

[Giordano]

We have already had this conversation endlessly. But I will state again:

1. I and the other scientists with whom I deal (and I would extend that to most skeptic here) love to find out new stuff- the more unexpected the better! If I hear of something in my field that is truly precedent setting and overturns prior assumption, I will seek out the appropriate paper or report immediately. I have loved to see the discovery of new animals. The more unexpected the better. Now a days those are often animals from the deep sea, but I enjoy reading the first reports of the finding of totally unexpected land animals even though those often date back further. I love new stuff and to be surprised!

2. So there alone is the negation of the entire premise of this thread. I had pre-existing ideas as to how cells transcribed DNA into RNA; then people discovered RNA splicing- totally against the prevailing view and totally unexpected. But it was proven to exist in a remarkably short length of time (a few months) and the entire field accepted it as soon as they saw the data. I could name hundreds of similar things, including the existence of specific animals, that did not fit into the dogma, but were readily acknowledged nad the dogma changed as soon as solid evidence was provided.

3. But in remarkable contrast are ideas (such as the existence of Bigfoot) which neither fit into the dogma nor have any solid evidence (and very, very little even weak evidence) indicating their existence. Over hundreds of years. Not surprisingly, people have remained very justifiably skeptic of these ideas. That doesn't mean that they reject completely the existence of these things; just that they justifiably reject what is presented as evidence for their existence, just as they would reject the same level of "evidence" for the existence of a green dog breed. If asked, I would probably say that there are no things such as green dogs. That doesn't mean that if someone showed me evidence of green dogs I wouldn't change my view.

4. One more time: true skeptics are not people who are equally open to believing anything. They are people who require proof and evidence before believing anything.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Oooo, ouch! Actually, I do 'go out in the field' so to speak. I do experiments with pyramids that show surprising affects in a number of ways.

But, hey, how 'bout that psychology forum? Want to get one started? I'll help.

Wow, I'm impressed, you go out and do experiments with pyramids, no wonder you're so clued-up on all things Sasquatch!

What psychology forum would you be referring to? There's a good one about BLAARG'ing, you might want a nosey over there, fella.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Yeah skeptics are prone to various errors in critical thought but it doesn't make up for the failure to argue for the existence of Bigfoot. Butt hurt thread.

This.

Essentially, OS is butthurt, as per usual, and has subsequently started yet another thread in which to vent his frustrations, lest we forget he already started one of those...but, yeah.

It's like a support-group for the sceptically-impaired. At the end of the day, this thread began because OS finds it harder to believe in the idea of Bigfoot these days, to suggest that this thread is merely about mean old sceptics is not only hilariously incorrect, but it reeks of desperation.

Jake here seems to think that OS is merely a poor victim of the Wild Bunch, when in reality, he's a guy who's been here for years, has never once taken in any information he's been given even when shown to be wrong, and has continually made nonsense statements like those that've been quoted here.

Yeah, I really should quit my well-paid job, tell my girlfriend I'm done with having a social-life, because what I need to do is get out into the field, y'know, just to make sure Sasquatch is definitely non-existent. Obviously that can't be done from the safety of my armchair, lol.

Maybe Jake can take me to do some random experiments on pyramids, to open my mind up a little more to the idea of genetically-enhanced Ape-men that were developed by aliens from another galaxy.

Anyone got the bong?

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

I think we have been examining the psychology of the Bigfoot Bleever/Liar/Gamer heavily here at the IS Forums, especially over the last year or two, since the advent of the BLAARG Theory, it has increased the level of discussion. It has placed the focus more on the disordered, trolling type mentality.

And it's shown itself to be worth its salt, imo. So much BLARRG'ing going on lately.

Now people are being accused of not giving the benefit of the doubt to a guy who is known for spinning yarns and openly believing those that do, without so much as a thought.

Am I supposed to feel ignorant?

lol

Nah, mate.

 

[jakesteele]

Have you suggested this idea to the Moderators? Until you have done that, what is there to talk about?

No, I haven't, I think it's best to discuss it first to see if there is a consensus among you folks. So far no one's wanted to talk about it, don't you think that's odd? And I see you've managed to not talk about a psychology forum while superficially talking about one. This is exactly what I'm talking about.

What is your reluctance to have one? Why is this site reluctant to have one? I get the impression that a PF here is like garlic to a vampire or a club to a baby fur seal or Kryptonite to Superman.

This is one of the main points I was making and no one wants to talk about it why? Is this the deep seated uneasiness I was talking about. Not surface anxiousness like a 16 year old boy asking a girl on a date, but uneasiness way, way, down deep in the psyche.

So what do you personally think about the lack of a psychology on this site. And remember, I bring this up because people on this site are fond of pulling the cognitive bias and the fallacy tickets faster than a speeding bullet.

 

[jakesteele]

Wow, I'm impressed, you go out and do experiments with pyramids, no wonder you're so clued-up on all things Sasquatch!

What psychology forum would you be referring to? There's a good one about BLAARG'ing, you might want a nosey over there, fella.

I do believe that's a fallacy, isn't it? Post hoc ergo proptor hoc...because of this, therefore that, right? I don't follow Sasquatch stuff, what has that got to do with the color of the moon.

Law of Lumping™ - Another common practice of debunkers is to lump all phenomena, popularly deemed paranormal, together as though they are one in the same

Law of Broad Brushstrokes™ - Simply characterizing all unorthodox phenomena as "bogus" allows the debunker to state emphatically that there is nothing there to study.

Hey, what about that psychology forum? What say you? Want to talk about the merits of that issue or is this something that fall under the category of:

Law of intentionally ignoring the obvious™

 

[jakesteele]

Oops, double post. My bad.

 

[Pixel42]

Quoting my own post so jakesteele can ignore it again.

Over the years I have seen many threads on the psychology of belief etc on this forum, in the SM&T subforum and this General Scepticism subforum. I don't think a separate subforum is required for such threads, though I wouldn't object to one.

 

[Slowvehicle]

No, I haven't, I think it's best to discuss it first to see if there is a consensus among you folks. So far no one's wanted to talk about it, don't you think that's odd? And I see you've managed to not talk about a psychology forum while superficially talking about one. This is exactly what I'm talking about.

What is your reluctance to have one? Why is this site reluctant to have one? I get the impression that a PF here is like garlic to a vampire or a club to a baby fur seal or Kryptonite to Superman.

This is one of the main points I was making and no one wants to talk about it why? Is this the deep seated uneasiness I was talking about. Not surface anxiousness like a 16 year old boy asking a girl on a date, but uneasiness way, way, down deep in the psyche.

So what do you personally think about the lack of a psychology on this site. And remember, I bring this up because people on this site are fond of pulling the cognitive bias and the fallacy tickets faster than a speeding bullet.

Please demonstrate, with specific quotations, my..."reluctance to have one...".

We'll start there.

 

[dmaker]

I have no objections to a psychology forum. I don't know how many trained professionals we have here, so that should be a strong caveat before participating, but I don't see a problem, or fear having one.

Why do you think it would be such a catastrophe?

 

[Resume]

I do believe that's a fallacy, isn't it? Post hoc ergo proptor hoc...because of this, therefore that, right? I don't follow Sasquatch stuff, what has that got to do with the color of the moon.

Law of Lumping™ - Another common practice of debunkers is to lump all phenomena, popularly deemed paranormal, together as though they are one in the same

Law of Broad Brushstrokes™ - Simply characterizing all unorthodox phenomena as "bogus" allows the debunker to state emphatically that there is nothing there to study.

Hey, what about that psychology forum? What say you? Want to talk about the merits of that issue or is this something that fall under the category of:

Law of intentionally ignoring the obvious™

None of those things are laws, so you're violating the last one.

Who gives a **** if there be a psychology subforum?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Sorry, but two things don't seem all that obvious to me:

(a) Why on Earth shouldn't there be a psychology forum, in which sceptical analysis is applied to the various sciences and pseudosciences of the mind, and:
(b) Why exactly does the current absence of such a forum support the contention, which this thread is here to propose, that all skeptics are poopy heads?

Maybe someone can explain.

Dave