The term pseudoskepticism (or pseudo-skepticism) denotes thinking that appears to be skeptical but is not. The term is most commonly encountered in the form popularised by Marcello Truzzi, through his Journal of Scientific Exploration, where he defined pseudoskeptics as those who take "the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves 'skeptics'"[1] [2].

While a Professor of Sociology at Eastern Michigan University in 1987, Truzzi gave the following description of pseudoskeptics:While a Professor of Sociology at Eastern Michigan University in 1987, Truzzi gave the following description of pseudoskeptics:

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.[3]

Truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:
Truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:

The tendency to deny, rather than doubt [4]
Double standards in the application of criticism [5]
The making of judgments without full inquiry [6]
Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate [7]
Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments[8]
Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.'[9]

Presenting insufficient evidence or proof [10]
Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof [11]
Making unsubstantiated counter-claims [12]
Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence [13]
Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it [14]

A good indicator of a cover-up is the extent and vehemence of attacks on all who question the "official" story. There are now on the internet persons, possibly organized cults, perhaps even auto responding, mock-bot engines, that denigrate individuals who disagree with the popular wisdom. The sameness of the responses, the childlike, new-age phrasing, the pedanticism, the personal aspersions, all indicate a primitive sort of artificial intelligence. Hackers recently uncloaked the president of a major Hollywood record company, or more likely his overworked and underpaid minions, posting over 7000 messages to various newsgroups on a variety of subjects.