posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 04:33 AM
a reply to: DeadSeraph
I would urge ALL ATS members to read the article in full, and see if you can point out how many times you have seen these tactics used here.
But not only that, how many times have you used them? Are you or were you aware of the term "pseudo skepticism" and if so, are you aware that you
might be one, or frequently use the tactics of one?
I have done so, and wrote a paper, at length (five pages), in response to it. I posted a thread with a few anecdotes from my paper here:
To sum up, yes, I use the tactics of one quite a bit. I don't identify myself as one, nor do I particularly see anything wrong with it. Regardless of
the starting position of a "pseudo-skeptic", if the holes pointed out are genuine "holes" in the theory, I don't see anything beneficial coming
from distinguishing someone trying to help you correct your theory and someone trying to disprove it.
I would be interested in hearing how you distinguish between a couple of points:
1. Separating yourself from those who you would call pseudo-skeptics (using "emotional language" to vilify the point of view of those who call your
ideas into question in particular, such as calling them pseudo-skeptics)
2. How you respond to genuine holes pointed out in your ideas, separately in each type of case (the first case between someone who is "genuinely"
skeptical, and another case in which someone who is trying to debunk your idea, not espousing any ideas of their own and justifying any discrepancies
between how you would treat the two cases)
I'm not trying to sound offensive, if it comes off that way by asking those questions. I'm simply wondering why a criticism is different if it is
from someone who is trying to debunk your ideas or if it is from whatever definition you use to define a "normal" skeptic, in the case that the
criticism is exactly identical from both sources and has exactly the same truth value.
Anyone else who sees any merit to the use of the term, feel free to also explain if you feel like you can explain it adequately.