The Mentality of Skeptics

[Ladewig]

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.

We have a science and medicine sub-forum. I think that is a perfect and appropriate place to discuss psychology. Why do you think it is not sufficient? And if you want to particularly discuss skeptic psychology, why not use the general skepticism sub-forum?


ETA even if we had a psychology sub-forum, what makes you think we would use it to examine ourselves? Wouldn't a better sub-forum be "What we do well and what we do poorly"?

MORE ETA why not start a thread in Forum Community or Forum Management Feedback asking if there is a desire for such a sub-forum?
I am kind of curious to so how many replies will assert that psychology isn't even a science.

 

[Dancing David]

The point is that "skeptics" often easily buy into something that's official without questioning it.

And your evidence of that is what exactly?

I have seen the opposite, where people ask for the data either way, so what is your source and sample?

 

[Kid Eager]

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

Agree - contrived storm in a teacup.

If there's demand for a psych forum, there's no reason why it shouldn't be created.

I see no sinister connotations from the current absence of one, any more than the absence of a stamp collecting forum implies a rejection of stamp collecting.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

You must very very insulated in the sub fora you visit, psychology has been a frequent topic in SMT for the whole time I have posted here.

One on the front page in fact, one loosely about psychology as well, three on page 2

 

[Giordano]

Apparently it will be difficult to argue against the premise of the OP because anything we might state about ourselves is just self-delusion. Given that, I wonder if the arguments in favor of Bigfoot come from a subconscious need for a loving Father figure that was absent when the poster was first entering puberty? Oh, don't deny it- it's true even if you think it isn't, no matter any evidence you might cite, and the very fact that you can't bring yourself to acknowledge this is true is itself proof of the depth of your emotional need.

As to a psych subforum- fine by me (oddly I probably would argue that it doesn't belong in Science, but I think there are a lot of psychologists who view it as a Science). I just presume that the standard MA that one cannot attach another member as an individual applies, so "Giordano is clearly suffering from paranoia delusions" will not be acceptable. Although the very fact that I could imagine such a post may mean that I am paranoid.

 

[eerok]

Hey, what about that psychology forum?

To what end? This whole place is a psychology forum.

 

[Dave Rogers]

To what end? This whole place is a psychology forum.

Then again, isn't everything?

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Apparently it will be difficult to argue against the premise of the OP because anything we might state about ourselves is just self-delusion.

Am I allowed to say "un-falsifiable hypothesis" here, or is that just another sign of anxiety?

Dave

 

[bruto]

I can see one advantage to a psychology forum. Every post that includes a reference to "pseudo skeptics" could automatically be sent there. As a special bonus for those who might occasionally stray into the psychology forum, threads that include reference to "pseudo skeptics" could be noted with an asterisk denoting that they can be safely ignored.

 

[Metullus]

<

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

As near as I can tell the reasoning goes like this:

1. All skeptics are poopy heads, and,
2. There is no Psychology sub-forum, therefore,
3. All skeptics are poopy heads.

 

[Giordano]

Am I allowed to say "un-falsifiable hypothesis" here, or is that just another sign of anxiety?

Dave

Chill out, man!

 

[BadBoy]

Do you doubt I have a Green Garage Goblin?

I'm gonna shout "Pants on Fire". Unless you have a grainy fuzzy image f it you can post. Then I'll believe you. When we gonna start the Green thingy Club, or did you already do that.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

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™

The Law of Intentionally Ignoring the Obvious is something that people like OS abide by every single day, lol. Welcome to that list.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

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

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

People who generally go around peddling bollocks are a law unto themselves.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

I can see one advantage to a psychology forum. Every post that includes a reference to "pseudo skeptics" could automatically be sent there. As a special bonus for those who might occasionally stray into the psychology forum, threads that include reference to "pseudo skeptics" could be noted with an asterisk denoting that they can be safely ignored.

 

[eerok]

Then again, isn't everything?

Sure, but dealing with woo is almost entirely a psychological problem.

 

[tsig]

I'm gonna shout "Pants on Fire". Unless you have a grainy fuzzy image f it you can post. Then I'll believe you. When we gonna start the Green thingy Club, or did you already do that.

I do have a footprint although some say it's an oil stain and I hear strange knocks coming from the garage but I'm sure the pseudo skeptics will poo poo all my hard evidence (the fact that you can't see him proves his invisibility) because of insecurity.

 

[JoeMorgue]

We have a science and medicine sub-forum. I think that is a perfect and appropriate place to discuss psychology. Why do you think it is not sufficient? And if you want to particularly discuss skeptic psychology, why not use the general skepticism sub-forum?

ETA even if we had a psychology sub-forum, what makes you think we would use it to examine ourselves? Wouldn't a better sub-forum be "What we do well and what we do poorly"?

MORE ETA why not start a thread in Forum Community or Forum Management Feedback asking if there is a desire for such a sub-forum?

I am kind of curious to so how many replies will assert that psychology isn't even a science.

I'm beginning to think we are experiencing a parallel to when a big push for a "Law and Order" subforum first took root. The idea of a subforum for legal discussions was a completely reasonable one but what we got, and what I largely think was wanted by many, was a place for the "Miscarriage of Justice" fandom to rail about how unfair and corrupt the legal system and to discuss the case that shall remain nameless.

Translation, I don't think what is being asked for is really a "psychology sub-forum." As noted psychological discussion are already common here.

What is being asked for is a place to launch thinly veiled attacks on people that disagree with you via armchair diagnosing of them, as in this thread.

This is another tactic of the Woo Slingers/Blaargers. We've seen this dance countless times and it's laughable how transparent it is.

Woo Slinger/Poe/Troll has pet topic. Makes bunch of threads about pet topic. Gets argued into a corner multiple times. Makes a ostensibly "vague" thread about how skeptics/science/his opponents have some inherent flaw in their method/mentality while pretending it has nothing to do with their pet topic.

 

[Resume]

Woo Slinger/Poe/Troll has pet topic. Makes bunch of threads about pet topic. Gets argued into a corner multiple times. Makes a ostensibly "vague" thread about how skeptics/science/his opponents have some inherent flaw in their method/mentality while pretending it has nothing to do with their pet topic.

It's a rather obvious gambit; taking these complaints about the alleged flaws out of their contextual threads allows them to pretty much paint any sort of picture they like.

Lack of context equals lack of content.

 

[Ladewig]

I'm beginning to think we are experiencing a parallel to when a big push for a "Law and Order" subforum first took root. The idea of a subforum for legal discussions was a completely reasonable one but what we got, and what I largely think was wanted by many, was a place for the "Miscarriage of Justice" fandom to rail about how unfair and corrupt the legal system and to discuss the case that shall remain nameless.

Translation, I don't think what is being asked for is really a "psychology sub-forum." As noted psychological discussion are already common here.

What is being asked for is a place to launch thinly veiled attacks on people that disagree with you via armchair diagnosing of them, as in this thread.

This is another tactic of the Woo Slingers/Blaargers. We've seen this dance countless times and it's laughable how transparent it is.

Woo Slinger/Poe/Troll has pet topic. Makes bunch of threads about pet topic. Gets argued into a corner multiple times. Makes a ostensibly "vague" thread about how skeptics/science/his opponents have some inherent flaw in their method/mentality while pretending it has nothing to do with their pet topic.

Quite probably.

I am going back and forth on forum designed to evaluate both the correctness and the effectiveness of specific debunkings. I can see cases of us handling a debunking in either a caviler, rude, or fallacy-prone manner and while I think having a place to discuss such issues might be helpful, I can also see your point that useful threads might be outnumbered by whiney, bitter, or butthurt threads. And no one can doubt that it would be troll heaven.