This is what pathological skeptics believe

[rppa]

Ian's straw men are becoming so huge I think we may have to start renaming them:

Is that Bruce Dern? Why is he worshiping a giant scarecrow, and is he going to climb that ladder and go inside?

 

[Odin]

If you have never seen one before, you would not see a ship...


You would see a large floating wooden object.

You have never seen this text before so it is invisible.

 

[drkitten]

As much as we may hate it, "skeptic" is a word that encompasses anyone who "doubts accepted beliefs."

Ayn Rand was very much a skeptic, and in my personal opinion she created a wrongheaded cult of "ideas" that is itself a ripe target for skepticism, completely disregarding the rules of logic and pawning her fraudulent pseudo-economic theories on the world.

Or how about Matt Taibbi, resident moron at the New York Press (a weekly newspaper in NYC), whose skepticism of Christianity and middle-American mores manifests itself as rants about how we should kill all midwesterners and tasteless jokes about the death of religious leaders.

Well, I do congratulate you on being the first to actually be able to name names. On the other hand, you also admit that you're stretching the definition beyond the meaning contextualized in this discussion and also perhaps beyond the meaning defined in the "pathological skepticism" article Ian referenced.

I'm not familiar with Taibbi's work, and have only a passing knowledge of Rand's, but I don't think you can consider her to be an example of the "pathological skepticism." Just running through some of the points quickly....

1. Belief that theories determine phenomena, rather than the reverse.

I believe that Rand had a great respect for phenomena and considered herself to be a critic of exactly the people who put theories ahead of economic observation.

2. Erecting barriers against new ideas by constantly altering the
requirements for acceptance. (A practice called "moving the
goalposts.")

I don't recall any evidence of this in her writings, but I could be wrong.

3. Belief that fundamental concepts in science rarely change, coupled with a "herd following" behavior where the individual changes his/her opinions when colleagues all do, all the while remaining blind to the fact that any opinions had ever changed.

This is specifically not how science is described in her work; she's very clear about the role of the individual and of individual evidence in the development of science.

4. Belief that science is guided by consensus beliefs and majority rule, rather than by evidence. Indulging in behavior which reinforces the negative effects of consensus beliefs while minimizing the impact of any evidence which contradicts those beliefs.

Again, this is specifically contradicted in her writings -- witness, for example, the respect paid to the genuine scientists for their demonstrably functional inventions.


Et cetera, et cetera. Essentially, I think that you're trying to stretch the word "skeptic" past the construction that the author of "pathological skepticism" places on it. I think that we might legitimately describe Rand as a "skeptic" (although I have issues even with that), but that she does not fit the stereotypical template of the "pathological" or "closed-minded" skeptics that Ian and his ilk like to fantasize about.

 

[Ashles]

Is that Bruce Dern? Why is he worshiping a giant scarecrow, and is he going to climb that ladder and go inside?

It is Christopher Lee, about to burn... the Wicker Man!

It just reminded me of Ian madly insulting and attributing exciting and ludicrous opinions to his growing army of strawmen.

'Strawman' is no longer adequate to describe the mad imaginary monster Ian constantly criticises - let us henceforth name this non-existent theoretical uber-psycho-hypersceptic - The Wicker Man!

 

[drkitten]

I’m still not sure what pathological skepticism really is. Closed minded—prejudicial thinking? Automatically nay-saying without investigation? I don’t even call that skepticism. In fact I’m not skeptical about things I strongly believe I wonder if the term “pathological skepticism” might not be something of an oxymoron.

I’ve certainly been accused of being a pathological skeptic—many times. In each case it was in response to some honest (albeit blunt) criticism of a web page. I’ve found that people leaning to the ‘woo’ side tend to be very thin-skinned when questioned and some of them become very defensive in a way that I can only describe as pathological.

I think you've got something there.

I think part of the issue is that we (humans in general, that is) automatically believe that other people think like us. So the "evidence" that is sufficient to convince me should be sufficient to convince you, if you genuinely looked at it, right? Which, in turn, means that if you aren't convinced, then either you're too dumb to understand (pace Ian), or haven't genuinely investigated (pace Beaty's page). [Because, naturally, there's no possibility that I might be the misguided or dumb one.]

The fallacy in the above page should be obvious, but I think the psychological underpinnings are real and very powerful.

I think that "pathological skepticism" (or more accurately accusations of pathological skepticism) is a defense mechanism to avoid having to deal with legitimate criticism. If you are the broken one (or can be projected upon to be the broken one), then I needn't take your criticisms seriously. Which is another fallacy -- the biggest fool in the world can say the sun is shining, but that doesn't make it dark out.

Having said that, I would also believe that pathological skepticism exists, for the same psychological underpinnings that make Ian convinced that he's correct despite all evidence to the contrary might make a so-called "pathological skeptic" convinced that he's right and seize upon any excuse to avoid investigating in detail and obtaining evidence to change his mind. I say that I would believe that it exists, but I don't -- for the simple reason that I've never seen anyone behave in the way that is described. (Similarly, there's nothing biologically wrong with green swans, and I would believe that swans with green feathers existed if someone could actually show me one.)

 

[cedric_owl]

Et cetera, et cetera. Essentially, I think that you're trying to stretch the word "skeptic" past the construction that the author of "pathological skepticism" places on it. I think that we might legitimately describe Rand as a "skeptic" (although I have issues even with that), but that she does not fit the stereotypical template of the "pathological" or "closed-minded" skeptics that Ian and his ilk like to fantasize about.

It all depends on your personal definition, which is going to change, unfortunately, from person to person. Keep in mind that if there is indeed a "pathological skepticism," drkitten, this phrase would have to encompass firm believers as well as firm non-believers. Because the psychological state that was described in the article, that of refusing to hear evidence contrary to your own position, is equally applicable to Scientologists and faith healers.

Do me a favor and read the four "symtoms" you just quoted, except replace "science" with "religion." You have an almost perfect description of religious fundamentalism.

 

[Interesting Ian]

... and of course Edison was infallible and never made the same errors as those quoted by Ian, like:

It is apparent to me that the possibilities of the aeroplane, which two or three years ago were thought to hold the solution to the [flying machine] problem, have been exhausted, and that we must turn elsewhere.
Thomas Edison (1895)

I have always consistently opposed high-tension and alternating systems of electric lighting...not only on account of danger, but because of their general unreliability and unsuitability for any general system of distribution.
Thomas Edison (The Dangers of Electric Lighting, North American Review, November, 1889)

so.... what was the point of those quotes again?

What's Eddison being wrong on occasions have to do with anything? It actually reinforces my point. Proclamations by skeptics that something cannot be true, or cannot exist, are shown to be in error time after time after time.

Hans
Ye olde non-sequiteur: Scientist are sometimes wrong, so paranormal claims must be right.

Another lie made by skeptics time after time after time. I went on about this 2 years ago on here, and even found a website by someone who likewise complained about this strawman the sKeptics attack.

No-one is saying that because skeptics are sometimes wrong, that all . .or indeed any paranormal phenomena exists. I simply state that skeptics proclamations that some alleged phenomenon cannot possible exist should be taken with a huge sack of salt given their track record.

On top of this I have encountered no good reasons why paranormal phenomena cannot exist, and moreover the evidence remains. If parapsychological research largely gives positive results, and this research is tighter than in any other area of science, then what on earth is irrational with concluding that the evidence is fairly strongly suggestive that PSI exists??

No skeptic has ever addressed these points. They simply claim there is no evidence -- a claim which is simply flat out wrong.

 

[Dr Adequate]

So, let's find out what "pathological skeptics" think, shall we?

Pathological skeptics versus UFO abductions : Many members of the mainstream scientific community react with extreme hostility when presented with certain claims. This can be seen in their emotional responses to current controversies such as UFO abductions, Cold Fusion, cryptozoology, psi, and numerous others.

Pathological skeptics versus cold fusion from working : If you are looking for the people to blame for the demise of cold fusion, in the U.S. you can point the finger at the pathological skeptics and the DOE. In Japan, you can blame the project managers and scientists at places like the NHE lab and IMRA Japan. The NHE did more than 50 experiments in a row with no success, and IMRA did 32 experiments without success. They have ignored the literature. They have ignored improved techniques and alternatives. They make the same mistakes year after year... These scientists seem to think they will be funded forever even if they produce no results, in a miniature version of the hot fusion program. Some even say this is how science is supposed to work, as if progress doesn't matter!

Pathological skeptics versus this guy's delusions : With statistics telling us that 50% of us are going to get cancer at some time (and it'll be 100% in a few years) ... that's over 150 million Americans, and never mind the other 5.75 billion people on our planet... Okay, here's the news flash. cancer (and any other disease) can be easily cured, and with no drugs, radiation or surgery. You don't even need a doctor! The medical establishment has been doing its best to keep this a secret. As an investigative journalist, when the enormity and ruthlessness of the conspiracy dawned on me, it was almost beyond my belief. But how can I get people to believe something so montrous? ... This essay is not for pathological skeptics. It erases the line between the physical and the metaphysical --- showing that there never was a real line. It explains how and why dowsing works. And why prayer can be so powerful. It also explains how we can start controlling the weather.

Pathological skeptics versus "what is about to happen" : We are ready for a new adventure; we look forward to meeting old friends on the frontiers of science, at a nexus where fundamental errors of physics and chemistry --- and, many believe, even within biology --- have now become glaringly apparent. We know what is about to happen: Astonishing results in excess heat will be revealed by scientific teams from around the world. In fact, the enemies of this startling new scientific knowledge have a name for the alleged sickness: "pathological science." It transpires that these name-calling Scientific Establishment bigots (there is no better term for them) are the ones who have the real malady --- pathological scepticism.

Pathological sceptics versus people who dowse with their kidneys... or something.But if the heart is trained to perceive the way in which the problem is moving, that is, the forming of the sequencing of the gestalt in the problem, by continually asking," is this the right process in the problem?" -- then the heart, which has been through many processes of reversal, in its ontogeny, (remember? -- It's a specialist in reversal), can flow when the logical nerve thinking reverses. The heart goes, okay, I can do that. I can reverse my thinking. Reversal of thinking is the gift of the heart and it's also the wound of the heart. So in all of the reversals needed to think through some emotional problem, if we don't give the heart consciously formed pictures that reverse lawfully, then the heart will say, okay, it's reversed, whatever. Big deal, my thinking has reversed. Give me my pendulum. I'll get an answer and I won't have to go on the internet to get it. It'll be in the way my blood is reacting with my nerve, and I'll make a code out of the movements of my blood and nerves interacting and I'll go out and use my pendulum on my ouija board and start getting some answers. But there is a problem with this. The forming of a code for dowsing your ouija board does not happen in your heart. The tendency to form codes is in your head. So a dowser or a sensitive says I'll let my blood and my kidney and my whole organism react to something imperceptible, and I'll watch my reactions of my organism, and I'll develop a code of the way in which my organism reacts to this particular stimulus, and then I don't have to worry about thinking with my head because I have now formed a code which places my thinking into a piece of wood or into a crystal ball or into an ouija board... To the pathological skeptic nothing is okay. Everything is suspect. This type of behavior is just a rampant melancholia. So chronic skepticism is not what we're after. But healthy skepticism means that the head understands that it can never come to a complete answer. In order for an answer to arise, the heart understands that the process of asking a question has to be worked with consciously and rhythmically.

Pathological skeptics versus The Harmonic : The Harmonic is really for the skeptics of the world - the people who don't believe what they're told and always have to check it, and the people who keep asking another question. Yes, there is a type of pathological skepticism that causes people to reject the Harmonic. That fear of trying it is an immune dysfunction. Ultimately it causes death in the person possessing it - and I'm not talking about spiritual death here, I'm talking about physical death from disease that goes uncured due to the immune dysfunction.

www.henryhbauer.homestead.com/lnm-scientificevidence.pdf]Pathological skeptics versus the Loch Ness Monster[/url] : It is suggested that the natural habitat of Nessies is at significant depths, in sea fjords as well as in "monster" lochs... In considering this objective evidence, then, the burden of proof comes to rest on the disbelievers... their responses have been inadequate, and example of "pathological skepticsism."

They're a lot like pseudoskeptics, aren't they?

 

[Dr Adequate]

I simply state that skeptics proclamations that some alleged phenomenon cannot possible exist...

Perhaps you could quote one of these "proclamations".

Or perhaps, as usual, you're drivelling out a stupid lie as a substitute for engaging in real debate.

If parapsychological research largely gives positive results, and this research is tighter than in any other area of science...

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

No skeptic has ever addressed these points.

Another obvious, fatuous lie.

They simply claim there is no evidence -- a claim which is simply flat out wrong.

Another witless lie. I do not claim that there is no evidence. What I say to people like you is ---

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!

And you never do. Instead of showing me this Sooper Top Sekrit evidence which you claim exists, you drivel on with this stupid tedious trash about "pathological skepticism". This does make me suspect that there's no evidence, because, surely if there was some, you'd post that, rather than posting halfwitted lies and nonsense.

 

[Bronze Dog]

Dr. A covered it well, right there, Ian. You're sitting here conjuring up your Wickermen (Really big straw men), instead of doing the simplest of things to test our resolve for genuine skepticism: If you would show us evidence, THEN we would have something to talk about. Instead, you just repeat and repeat your imaginary points.

 

[cedric_owl]

Wickerman's an awesome movie by the way. Solid 70's horror flick.

"No-one is saying that because skeptics are sometimes wrong, that all . .or indeed any paranormal phenomena exists. I simply state that skeptics proclamations that some alleged phenomenon cannot possible exist should be taken with a huge sack of salt given their track record."

Ian, anyone who says something cannot POSSIBLY exist isn't being skeptical, they're being dismissive. Could you please provide some actual examples, rather than making generalizations?

 

[The Odd Emperor]

No-one is saying that because skeptics are sometimes wrong, that all . .or indeed any paranormal phenomena exists. I simply state that skeptics proclamations that some alleged phenomenon cannot possible exist should be taken with a huge sack of salt given their track record.


No skeptic has ever addressed these points. They simply claim there is no evidence -- a claim which is simply flat out wrong.

If someone claimed that there is no evidence of paranormal phenomena, skeptic or no I would flatly say that (IMO) they are wrong. There is plenty of evidence—just little *compelling* evidence of specific claims. So in a sense I’m agreeing with you on that point, however I don’t think making blanket proclamations without some overwhelming evidence is a good idea.

IE, “Mr. B is a charlatan and cannot possibly speak to the dead” is what I would call an incorrect statement.
A more correct statement might go like;
“It is unlikely that Mr. B can speak to the dead since no one has conclusively demonstrated speaking to the dean in a controlled situation and his hit to miss ratio is approximately the same as anyone using cold reading techniques.”

In both statements I’m essentially saying Mr. B is full of male bovine scat but the second is an attempt to qualify the reasoning behind my statement. The first is an absolute statement and absolutes are almost never completely correct.

 

[Bronze Dog]

If someone claimed that there is no evidence of paranormal phenomena, skeptic or no I would flatly say that (IMO) they are wrong. There is plenty of evidence—just little *compelling* evidence of specific claims. So in a sense I’m agreeing with you on that point, however I don’t think making blanket proclamations without some overwhelming evidence is a good idea.

IE, “Mr. B is a charlatan and cannot possibly speak to the dead” is what I would call an incorrect statement.
A more correct statement might go like;
“It is unlikely that Mr. B can speak to the dead since no one has conclusively demonstrated speaking to the dean in a controlled situation and his hit to miss ratio is approximately the same as anyone using cold reading techniques.”

In both statements I’m essentially saying Mr. B is full of male bovine scat but the second is an attempt to qualify the reasoning behind my statement. The first is an absolute statement and absolutes are almost never completely correct.

And that's how we think, Ian. And all you have to do is provide evidence for your assertions, and THEN we can talk about it's credibility, and possibly even *gasp* change our minds about it. But I doubt you'd give us the evidence even if you had it: You seem so attached to your imaginary Wickermen that you won't test your hypothesis, for if you managed to convince a skeptic, your worldview would collapse.

Again, all you have to do is SHOW US THE EVIDENCE and you might wind up provoking some intellectual stimulation, and you might just live up to that adjective in your name.

 

[The Odd Emperor]

I think you've got something there.

I think part of the issue is that we (humans in general, that is) automatically believe that other people think like us. So the "evidence" that is sufficient to convince me should be sufficient to convince you, if you genuinely looked at it, right? Which, in turn, means that if you aren't convinced, then either you're too dumb to understand (pace Ian), or haven't genuinely investigated (pace Beaty's page). [Because, naturally, there's no possibility that I might be the misguided or dumb one.]

Bingo!

The fallacy in the above page should be obvious, but I think the psychological underpinnings are real and very powerful.

I think only a psychologist could say for sure. It seems to my (admittedly layman’s eyes) that it borders on an instinctive reaction, that the underpinnings are rooted in some old survival mechanism—they seem that deep to me.

I think that "pathological skepticism" (or more accurately accusations of pathological skepticism) is a defense mechanism to avoid having to deal with legitimate criticism. If you are the broken one (or can be projected upon to be the broken one), then I needn't take your criticisms seriously. Which is another fallacy -- the biggest fool in the world can say the sun is shining, but that doesn't make it dark out.

Having said that, I would also believe that pathological skepticism exists, for the same psychological underpinnings that make Ian convinced that he's correct despite all evidence to the contrary might make a so-called "pathological skeptic" convinced that he's right and seize upon any excuse to avoid investigating in detail and obtaining evidence to change his mind. I say that I would believe that it exists, but I don't -- for the simple reason that I've never seen anyone behave in the way that is described. (Similarly, there's nothing biologically wrong with green swans, and I would believe that swans with green feathers existed if someone could actually show me one.)

Well the one and only issue I have with that is, I’ve never seen a pathological skeptic and if I did, I’d probably call him or her a clod and not a skeptic at all.

 

[drkitten]

Do me a favor and read the four "symtoms" you just quoted, except replace "science" with "religion." You have an almost perfect description of religious fundamentalism.

You still don't understand. Yes, if you replace "science" with "religion," you have a good description of religious fundamentalism. If you replace "science" with "the Boston Red Sox," you have a good description of sports fanaticism and of one of my co-workers, and if you replace "science" with "chocolate chip cookies," you have a good description of a former roommate of mine.

However, the central point remains that the description, as originally written and as a description of "science fanaticism," if you will, does not actually describe anyone. It is a unicorn, a dragon, a fairy at the bottom of the garden, but not a flesh and blood human whom anyone can name, point to, or meet in person. It is a chimera conjured from the fever dreams of Ian and his sock puppets.

I can name-and-shame religious fundamentalists, identifiable people who can be confirmed to hold a well-defined and described set of beliefs. ("Dr." Kent Hovind, or the Rev. Fred Phelps, to name two.) Read their own writings and you will find them making statements about how, for example, Genesis must trump scientific truth.

No one has yet been able to give me an identifiable name of a "science fanatic" or a "pathological skeptic" (as defined in the page above). Ian, despite his barely coherent ravings about "sKeptics" and their omnipresence, is unable to produce the writings of a single person who fits that description -- or at least has never done so, despite repeated requests.

It's all very well to argue in the abstract about the length of horn a unicorn could have. But I have never seen any evidence that a unicorn -- or a "pathological skeptic" exists.

 

[Open Mind]

“It is unlikely that Mr. B can speak to the dead since no one has conclusively demonstrated speaking to the dean in a controlled situation and his hit to miss ratio is approximately the same as anyone using cold reading techniques.”

But how do we know cold reading works just as well ?

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE

That is a common skeptic theory, it actually requires proof.

 

[Hawk one]

But how do we know cold reading works just as well ?

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE

That is a common skeptic theory, it actually requires proof.

Sylvia Browne does cold readings, and she does incredibly well. Each cold reading she gives earns her 750$. You are free to search up on the net for how much she costs, which makes this a verifiable statement.

And if you want to learn how well cold reading works, just fire up the ol' Google, and you'll hit plenty of web pages explaining the phenomena Several of these pages will tell you why it's so damn successful.

Now, perhaps you should stop trying to emulate Dr. Adequate's methods until you actually have a point?

Edited to fix link and to add: Besides, cold reading has been proven to exist. Actual mediumship has not so far. Perhaps you would stop your feeble - in fact, downright pathetic - attempt to shift the burden of proof and actually show us some evidence for what? Or are you content just imitating the insane ramblings of Interesting Ian when you're not trying to use Dr. Adequate's question against him?

 

[Bronze Dog]

I'm currently at work, so I won't be able to dig up a flood of cold reading references today. I'll try that over the weekend, if the thread isn't already flooded with cold reading evidence by then.

 

[PixyMisa]

Hang on a sec . .just hang on a sec. Was it not the case that the protocol was changed. OK, that might also mean tighter experimental controls, but the diminishing of the effect might be due to the former rather than the latter.

In cases where the only change to the protocol was the tightening of experimental controls, the proportion of positive results always diminished.

If the results are due to sloppy experimental design then be so good as to provide us with all the relevant details. What was the artefact(s) responsible for the positive results?

In some experiments, the subjects were clearly able to cheat.

More often, in the early experiments, the outcomes were graded subjectively, at the whim of the experimenters. When they moved to a more objective grading, positive results vanished.

Cheating and self-delusion, two universal problems with paranormal research.

 

[PixyMisa]

If parapsychological research largely gives positive results, and this research is tighter than in any other area of science, then what on earth is irrational with concluding that the evidence is fairly strongly suggestive that PSI exists??

Because in every case that parapsychological research has given positive results, the experiments have been shown to be flawed.

And in every case where those flaws have been fixed and the experiments repeated, the positive results have disappeared.

Every single time.