|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
![]() |
#1 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,211
|
Comprehensive characteristics of the pseudoskeptic and the skeptic
I have noticed that there appears to be two main types of skeptics. One an admirable role, one quite the opposite.
Therefore we have a skeptic, and a pseudoskeptic. Points courtesy of Proff Truzi, Characteristics of a pseudoskeptic. * The tendency to deny, rather than doubt. * Double standards in the application of criticism. * The making of judgments without full inquiry. * Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate. * Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments. * Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science. * Presenting insufficient evidence or proof. * Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof. * Making unsubstantiated counter-claims. * Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence. * Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it. * Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims. * Asserting that claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa (Argument from ignorance). * They speak down to their audience using 'arguments from authority'. * They put forward their assumptions as if they were universal truths. * No references to reputable journal material. * If the pseudo-skeptic has a monetary interest (such as maintaining a funding stream or a salary) his criticisms often become vituperative. True Skeptics / Open-Minded Skeptics * Does not show any of the characteristics of a pseudoskeptic. * Inquires and asks questions to try to understand things * Applies open inquiry and investigation of both sides * Is nonjudgmental, doesn't jump to rash conclusions * Has honest doubt and questions all beliefs, including their own * Seeks the truth, considers it the highest aim * Fairly and objectively weighs evidence on all sides * Acknowledges valid convincing evidence * Possesses solid sharp common sense and reason * Is able to adapt and update their paradigms to new evidence Just a nice guide to fall back on, the skeptics bible in a way. Its not amazingly consistant (ie, skeptics should not give people a stereotype and dismiss them due to that, so immediately labelling the pseudoskeptic, so has an early issue) Are there better lists to check against than this one people know of? And how correct do you think this one is? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 7,345
|
Different values of these...
* Fairly and objectively weighs evidence on all sides * Acknowledges valid convincing evidence * Possesses solid sharp common sense and reason ...often end up creating many of the things you list on your pseudoskeptics lists. C'mon, "sharp common sense" is just another name for **** you "know" is right but can't prove. "Valid convincing evidence" is what pseudoskeptics believe after they have dismissed all the unconvincing evidence. As for being "fair" well, "common sense" tells you that <whatever> is stupid. I bet there are a lot of people who call themselves "true" skeptics that many others would call "pseudo" skeptics. Personally, I think your list for the real skeptic is way too long. I think you can narrow it down to just a few: * Has honest doubt and questions all beliefs, including their own * Applies open inquiry and investigation of all angles * Inquires and asks questions to try to understand things * Seeks the truth, considers it the highest aim I think that about sums it up. I changed the order because in my mind that's how it works. It starts with questioning, then moves to investigating all angles (you wrote both sides), asks a lot of questions, all the while seeking truth. This last part connects back to the first part to form a ring, because a skeptic is always going to have a teeny bit of doubt that leaves the door open for re-investigation if warranted. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 9,269
|
I'd agree with UncaYimmy's assessment, and throw in for skeptics 'views conclusions as gradients of confidence', rather than dichotomies of true and false. I understand that's more or less what doubt refers to, but to me, seeing it as a degree of confidence in a conclusion allows you to break it down further.
Athon |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 7,345
|
I like that - Gradients of Confidence. Along those lines I would add that a skeptic should be able to express their degree of confidence about something and explain what they have learned that moves the needle in either direction. Likewise, they should be able to point out what new information could move the needle in either direction.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 27,283
|
This list is in several places on the Internet.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,032
|
And basically, making such lists is just yet another attempt to pass the ball.
Believers in anything: It does not matter one bit what 'kind of skeptic' you are facing. ALL that matters is that your arguments hold. So I suggest you concentrate on that. Hans |
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 76,395
|
I believe that it's possible to "make judgements without full enquiry" if the subject one is judging is one that has been thoroughly "enquired" previously. For example, I do not think it's necessary to enquire fully about Uri Geller's spoonbending in order to make the judgement that it's a magic trick.
|
__________________
Слава Україні Героям слава |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 33,297
|
The term 'pseudoskeptic' is, in this or any other context, virtually worthless. My tentative conclusion on the common usage of this term, based on experience and subject to revision in the light of further evidence, is that it's a strawman definition used by the belief-driven to try to invalidate the views of any skeptic who disagrees with them, and that the very use of the term in itself is a strong indicator that the person using the term has a set of beliefs that they are not themselves prepared to question, and dislikes the fact that others do not hold that set of beliefs as self-evident. It's particularly telling that, from these lists, only a 'pseudoskeptic' ever criticises people whose points of view are not evidence-based, or indeed ever reaches a conclusion at all; in effect, this list is an attempt to redefine skepticism so as to exclude its conclusions. As such, it's simply a ploy by woo merchants to discredit their opposition.
Dave |
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 319
|
|
__________________
Complacency never changed anything. Women and minorities didn't get the right to vote by being nice and quiet and trying not to "rile" anyone. Slavery didn't end because the silence about it was so deafening. - Slingblade |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
2wu4u
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,668
|
Well if it is decided that the list is somewhat biased and inaccurate let me try one. Skeptics approach a topic from a mostly scientific viewpoint. They'll analyze a subject and apply reason and science. Occam's razor is rightly respected by skeptics.
Pseudoskeptics, a valid term, approach a topic mostly from an ex-believer type of viewpoint. They'll come to the realization that the woo they've been promoting and sometimes even creating is just that. They then apply that type of reasoning to a topic and even other topics as well. But still lacking any real scientific reasoning. That is when they develop the 'attitudes' specifically mentioned in the list, now debunked. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: central Illinois
Posts: 39,700
|
Excuse me Zeuzzz but when I consider the persistent posting of the same garbage over time, your inability to defend your claims, you are pandering.
|
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
|
I've only encountered the term 'pseudoskeptic' here. And then only from people who seem upset that their beliefs suffer when exposed to a critical examination, or who seem confused when their naive attempts at a skeptical review of a topic doesn't garner support. Now it may be that I am simply ignorant of its more general usage, but is this really a valid term? It looks more like its use is confined to name-calling.
Linda |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
Lackey
Administrator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 101,818
|
|
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
should be banned
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Earth, specifically the crusty bit on the outside
Posts: 17,422
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 7,345
|
If you've only seen it here, then that means you didn't bother to take the 30 seconds to type it into Google. Rendering opinions without even doing a modicum of research...sure wish we had a term for that.
As for whether it's a "valid" term or not, what does name-calling have to do with it? It's valid if it conveys meaning. If people use use it for name calling, that doesn't make it any less valid than any other word. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
Lackey
Administrator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 101,818
|
|
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
|
Let's deconstruct this criticism.
I stated that I'd only encountered it here. You took that to mean that I'd only seen it here. Fair enough. "Encounter" can refer to several different types of interactions. In this case, I'm referring to someone's choice to use the term to convey useful meaning in an interaction with me.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Linda |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,583
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 7,345
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,454
|
|
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#21 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,454
|
I think there is a legitemate use of 'pseudoskeptic' and I do use it myself when working with others within organized skepticism. It is certainly a common term in the 'trade'. Perhaps it fell into disuse and another generation is rediscovering it.
Yes: it can be used perjoratively and incorrectly as part of namethrowing. But so can 'pseudoscience' or other words. |
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#22 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 7,345
|
Picking apart a post phrase by phrase often seems like critical thinking, but typically it's not.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#23 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,466
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#24 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#25 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,012
|
'pseudoskeptic' is a phrase much used by the gullible when they find their belief systems compromised with fact and evidence
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#26 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,466
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#27 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 7,345
|
Type that question into Google and see what comes up.
Quote:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#28 |
Lackey
Administrator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 101,818
|
|
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#29 |
Metasyntactic Variable
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,623
|
|
__________________
Belief is the subjective acceptance of a (valid or invalid) concept, opinion, or theory; Faith is the unreasoned belief in improvable things; and Knowledge is the reasoned belief in provable things. Belief itself proves nothing.
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#30 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 7,345
|
I have no idea what you're trying to say.
I will offer that many people misuse the term "ad hominem" on this forum. It means "an argument which links the validity of a premise to an irrelevant characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise." All too often I see people crying "ad hom" when in fact there was no attempt to link the validity of the argument to the personal attack. You can argue that someone is wrong and also call them a jackass. It's not an "ad hom" to say, "Oh, this guy is a jackass. He repeats the same tired argument that has been resoundingly debunked here, here, and here. This is the same argument, and I'm not going to waste any more time debunking it." By contrast an "ad hom" would be, "This jackass was wrong about XYZ and got his ass whipped in debates, so I wouldn't trust his opinions on this <unrelated> issue." |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#31 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#32 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,454
|
I think Zeuzzz' checklists in the OP look basically OK. He cites Truzzi, who was a CSICOP founder and originally coined the phrase.
Yes: Truzzi and CSICOP parted ways, but Truzzi's concerns were mostly valid. Personally, I believe that his departure led to changes in CSICOP that meant its later investigations were more rigorous. Here is the relevant part of Truzzi's entry at [Wikipedia]. Examples of pseudoskeptics who come to mind would be people like Stephen Milloy. [Bill Maher] also could be nominated. |
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#33 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,454
|
|
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett Last edited by blutoski; 9th February 2010 at 01:41 PM. Reason: ETA: Just a phrase I use. I'm not talking about anybody on this thread. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#34 |
Lackey
Administrator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 101,818
|
|
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#35 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
|
Necessary but not sufficient? (Maybe even the 'necessary' is arguable.)
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Linda |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#36 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,226
|
Okay, that's helpful. I have to admit that when I first read Truzzi's article quite a while ago, I was a bit puzzled as to the point of using the descriptor. I got the sense that it was directed at some group or some individuals, but I didn't have the necessary background knowledge to figure out who or what that would be. It does seem to have been co-opted, though.
Quote:
Linda |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#37 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,454
|
It works both ways, though.
Aside from the abovementioned misunderstanding of ad hominem, skepticism has a really terrible streak of misunderstanding argument from authority. As a consequence, everybody who questions authority thinks he's a skeptic. This may be true (questioning authority is not unskeptical) but where the pseudoskeptics split off is that they are unwilling or unable to accept authorities as any more correct than laypersons. This is the iconoclasm aspect of pseudoskepticism. At the end of the day, skepticism should be a shared process, but we sometimes accidentally include people who share conclusions. Even if they came to those conclusions through an unskeptical process. I was having a debate about AGW with a colleague in another forum. He forwarded me an article about the email leaks and how this exposes the weakness of peer review. He appears to be able to maintain the following statements:
My opinion is that he's pretty flexible with the process - is this a skeptic or a pseudoskeptic? |
__________________
"Sometimes it's better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness." - Terry Pratchett |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#38 |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 7,345
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#39 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 369
|
A shaman named Terry Fisk posits that there's three types:
Believer Skeptic Debunker |
__________________
Smikes, ja. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#40 |
Guest
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 9,269
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
|
|