posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 02:37 PM
Rather than the "pseudoskeptics," I think information flow is impeded much more by the "pseudokook." Those would be the folks who rush into the
forums with riduculous enthusiasm about some minor detail they believe somehow proves an extremely doubtful point. They come across so embarrassingly
extreme, ludicrous and borderline insane that those with more moderate viewpoints are forced so shy away from them, and those with opposing viewpoints
can use them as an example of how ridiculous the entire argument is.
Maybe they're people who have a legitimate point to make, but the function they serve is to poison the entire well of legitimate inquiry. If they
are legitimate, they're too stupid to understand that they're doing their side a huge disservice.
The primary tool of these pseudokooks is the overmagnified image. Grainy, over-pixillated images, thick with compression artifacts, are presented
with horribly bad "enhancement" as absolute proof of their wacky claims, although any reasonable person looking at them understands the folly of
trying to interpret a few stray pixels as something profound. But the kooks have no concept of there being too much noise to find any worthwhile
signal. If you don't see the same thing they do, suddenly you're "not willing to see the Truth." Yeah, whatever.
Overall, I think playing a lunatic card (whether legitimate or faked) is much more disruptive and damaging than any form of skepticism. Even a fake
skeptic can point out legitimate flaws in an argument. A real or fake kook just polarizes the topic and sours any potential avenues for discussion.
Give me a pseudoskeptic over a kook any day.