SCEPCOP ~ Debunking pseudo-sceptics.

page: 1
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+3 more 
posted on May, 20 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   
I think this is more aimed at cynical armchair debunkers rather than true opened minded sceptics but some of the website makes for interesting reading -particularly the 'Common fallacies' section found below.




Pseudosceptics:

"There are organized group of scoffers masquerading under the term "skeptics" who deny, ridicule and suppress anything progressive that challenges the static views of the establishment. They are debunkers who tend to distort, dismiss and obfuscate any phenomenon that challenges a conventional materialistic view of reality. In truth, they are not true skeptics engaging in open inquiry, but selective debunkers with an agenda to defend the establishment. That's why we call them "pseudo-skeptics". A "true skeptic" engages in open inquiry and doubt toward toward all views and belief systems, including their own and those of the establishment. But these "pseudo-skeptics" never question the views of the establishment, materialistic science or anything presented as "official".




Common Fallacies of Pseudo-Skeptics:

Double Standards, Contradictions and Lies

Denial of Evidence

Dismissing testimonies and experiences as invalid

Cherry picking of evidence

Selective Skepticism

Straw man arguments

Santa Claus gambit

Occam's Razor

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence


Website


Cheers.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]




posted on May, 20 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


WWu777 thanks for the reply -that section does make some mighty fine points about willful ignorance and how pseudoscience may be more 'dogmatic' than 'pragmatic'.

Heres a handy link featuring some of the techniques employed:

How To Debunk Just About Anything

Cheers.
edit on 3-2-2013 by karl 12 because: Spelling



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Thanks for linking to that site. Very interesting. As you can tell from my signature I have a keen interest in this subject. Star & Flag.


[edit on 20-5-2009 by Malcram]



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


Good post Karl, here is a recent great thread by Indigo_Child on the topic of "Pseudoskepticism":Debunking Pseudoskepticism



[edit on 10/26/2009 by jkrog08]



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


Thank you for that site. I think there are problems with both sides of the debate when it comes to picking and choosing what evidence to use.

BTW, Seth Shostak will be on tonight's Colbert Report.



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by kidflash2008
 


Thanks for that bit of information, I will watch it. Although I really don't like Shostak I will still see what the doctor has to say.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Here's some convincing videos to check out that I found in SCEPCOP's video list.

Pam Reynolds' NDE during flat brainline!



A Skeptic forced to turn believer about reincarnation!



[edit on 3-6-2009 by WWu777]

[edit on 3-6-2009 by WWu777]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Check out these new pages on SCEPCOP about Pseudo-Skeptics:

Characteristics and Behaviors of Pseudo-Skeptics vs True Skeptics

www.debunkingskeptics.com...

Overgeneralizations and Distortions

www.debunkingskeptics.com...

Explanations that don't fit all the data

www.debunkingskeptics.com...



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   
I'm fine reading about armchair debunkers, cherry picked evidence, strawman arguments and the ever evasive Occam's Razor. These are all great points to put against those who poo-poo radical concepts such as UFOs and Aliens.

But not whilst there's a thread about Starpeople amassing into a community topping the page here.

You know what I'm sayin'.

-m0r



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by m0r1arty
I'm fine reading about armchair debunkers, cherry picked evidence, strawman arguments and the ever evasive Occam's Razor. These are all great points to put against those who poo-poo radical concepts such as UFOs and Aliens.

But not whilst there's a thread about Starpeople amassing into a community topping the page here.

You know what I'm sayin'.

-m0r


m0r1arty -I know what you're saying


[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


WWu -thats a great post and the first link does makes some very important distinctions between true open minded scepticism and close minded ignorant cynicism:




True skeptics / open-minded skeptics


*Has honest doubt and questions all beliefs, including their own

*Seeks the truth, considers it the highest aim

*Seeks open inquiry and investigation of both sides

*Is nonjudgmental, doesn't jump to rash conclusions

*Weighs evidence on all sides

*Asks exploratory questions about new things to try to understand them

*Acknowledges valid convincing evidence

*Possesses solid sharp common sense

*Is able to adapt and update their paradigms to new evidence








Pseudo-skeptics / closed-minded skeptics
*Automatically dismisses and denies all claims that contradict materialism and orthodoxy

*Is not interested in truth, evidence or facts, only in defending orthodoxy and the status quo

*Ignores anything that doesn't fit their a priori beliefs and assumptions

*Scoffs and ridicules their targets instead of providing solid arguments and giving honest consideration

*Has a know-it-all-attitude, never asks questions about things they don't understand, never admits that they don't know something

*Insists that everything unknown and unexplained must have a conventional materialistic explanation

*Is judgmental and quick to draw conclusions about things they know little or nothing about

*Uses semantics and word games with their own rules of logic to try to win arguments

*Is unable to adapt and update their paradigms to new evidence


Link


Cheers.

[edit on 02/10/08 by karl 12]



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Excellent site (debunkingskeptics). Couldn't have said it better myself.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   
I don't see why there is a big enough deal to "debunk-skeptics" if the subject matter is so strong and all the data points are valid the skeptics are not a problem. There is no need to attack a the messenger, only if you choose not to hear and refute his message, and not the "motive" you assigned him/her to make it easier to dismiss his/her input.




*Is not interested in truth, evidence or facts, only in defending orthodoxy and the status quo


This could be said just the same way when pointed at the "believer" crowd. Just the fact alone that cases like Roswell and Rendlesham are still so big illustrates the point of believers towing a company line, ignoring anything that contradicts their pre-conceived notions

Me, personally I don't care what you call yourself, or how you view others. If the strength or your evidence/argument is strong, then you have nothing to worry about, and us "skeptics" have your back. But when the available evidence/argument requires a leap of faith or ignoring major evidence to the contrary, well then I guess you can post up another one of these threads to take the heat off the actual debate of the facts and evidence.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
I don't see why there is a big enough deal to "debunk-skeptics" if the subject matter is so strong and all the data points are valid the skeptics are not a problem. There is no need to attack a the messenger, only if you choose not to hear and refute his message, and not the "motive" you assigned him/her to make it easier to dismiss his/her input.


I could not agree more. Many of the criteria used by Karl 12's sources could describe UFO believers, or for that matter any human being at any given moment. Many of the criteria posted are so vague as to apply to almost any argument. In fact, one of the criteria "Scoffs and ridicules their targets instead of providing solid arguments and giving honest consideration" could describe the current trend of attacking the skeptics many within the UFO community has engaged in. There seems to be an effort to poison-the-well concerning skeptics, so that any and all skepticism can be dismissed as invalid.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnoreTheFacts
 


Ignore the facts, I can't really see anything wrong with scepticism -it's cynicism that gets me...that and willful ignorance.

I'm sure if it wasn't for sincere, open minded scepticism then we'd still be cowering in caves at thunder and lightning.

I posted this is in another thread and pretty much stand by it:



I certainly think some UFO debunkers have a 'psychological need' to debunk cases - irrespective of any facts that might get in the way.

I've also noticed that many are loathe to address certain incidents -instead preferring to just concentrate on the vague 'easy to explain away ' ones.

I suspect the mindset of the UFO cynic is far more dogmatic then pragamtic - perhaps they've got more in common with 'people who beleive everything is a UFO' than they like to think.


Cheers.
edit on 3-2-2013 by karl 12 because: Spelling



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


Kevin Randle talks about UFO debunkers




posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


You know, your right. And I admit it is so easy to become a UFO cynic, and if one doesn't remain vigilante you can quickly find yourself dismissing things outright without actually using your brain. I know I have been guilty of this time and again. It is so hard to remain positive at times, what with all the "loving space brother" posts and whatnot. After a while one becomes "dead" inside and out comes the cynical attitude that paints things with far too broad of a brush to be useful.

Good point you made there.



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   
SCEPCOP, lol!

So its a Cop for the Skeptics, eh? - well I guess its only fair since 'believers' seem to get 'Busted' all the time.


Regards,



posted on Jun, 3 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12
Ignore the facts -I can't realy see anything wrong with scepticism - its cynicism that gets me...that and willfull ignorance.

I certainly think some UFO debunkers have a 'psychological need' to debunk cases - irrespective of any facts that might get in the way.


Not to repeat what IgnoretheFacts and I have already said, but again this could describe UFO believers and any human being at any given moment.

And there is a danger in labeling people. Labels are often employed in order to dismiss (which I think terms such as "psychological need" intend to do). We dismiss at our own peril; even a cynic or someone with a "psychological need" can provide insights. Cynicism and psychological need do not preclude truth, either.

Do not worry whether or not someone is a cynic, they have a "psychological" need, are a skeptic or believer. What should matter are sincerity and facts, nothing else.





new topics
top topics
 
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join