Originally posted by WWu777
Why James Randi, Michael Shermer and other Pseudoskeptics are NOT real skeptics!
But does that make them wrong? It seems SCECOP is more interested in labeling people to dismiss them.
Originally posted by WWu777
It makes a lot of interesting and valid points against those skeptic organizations.
Blatant and dishonest self-promotion?
The video does not make a single valid point. It is opinion that is not backed up by any facts, polluted with logical fallacy after logical
They have absolutely zero skepticism towards any of the views of the establishment or of the status quo...
A Straw Man argument that is easily proven wrong. For example, Randi challenged the National Cancer Institute's (part of the National Institutes of
Health -- part of the "establishment") endorsement of acupuncture
He also challenged several governments, including police officers in the US, endorsement of
dowsing rod bomb detectors
. And one
need only to listen to the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe podcast to hear a frequent challenging of authority viewpoints.
Most of the video is just a repetition of this Straw Man/appeal-to-spite argument ad nauseum
Even if the above Straw Man/appeal-to-spite argument had any validity, does that make Randi and company automatically wrong?
They are establishment defenders and authority worshipers. They hold anything from the establishment to be blameless, they are always defending that
side...even if there is no evidence for it, even if it is baseless, even if the facts contradict what the establishment says, they still defend
Not only is this not true at all (as evidenced by the links above) but the author provides zero evidence of this himself. He is simply repeating the
same logical fallacies that permeate both videos.
How can you be a critical thinker when you take on faith anything the establishment says with no skepticism
Skeptics do not do this; he cannot cite one example. Skepticism is not predicated on faith in the establishment but on an examination of the
Take the Iraq War for example...do you see Michael Shermer or James Randi or the CSICOP people, do you see them criticizing this or expressing
This is both a false analogy and an appeal-to-emotion. He is making an argument about political opinion; the skeptics he criticizes concern
themselves with scientific fact. Perhaps the author does not understand what the acronym CSICOP means.
They do not care about a million people dying, because the establishment is blameless, without fault. What kind of person is like that
Here he continues his appeal-to-emotion and engages in a rather disgusting ad hominem, one he repeats several times. The author provides zero
evidence of these skeptics defending the Iraq War or justifying any deaths.
Right after 9/11, the EPA lied and said the air was safe to breath...do you see James Randi condemning that...?
Though similar wording to the above claim about the Iraq War, this is actually a Straw Man argument. The skeptics in question made no statements
one-way-or-the-other; but instead of asking them their opinion about the matter, he assumes it to be tacit defense of the establishment.
Another example, the pharmaceutical industry. A lot of people die every year from pharmaceutical drugs...
It is unclear what he is talking about here. Is he talking about drugs that are wrongly prescribed? Side-effects of drugs that are not properly
tested? Interactions between drugs?
That all of the above happens is not debated. Every skeptic acknowledges such things happen. However, mainstream medicine escapes skeptic anger
because it is science-based. It improves and corrects as we learn new information. That is not to say mistakes (or outright manipulation) does not
occur; no human system is perfect. Alternative medicines do not have that self-correcting system, they are based on faith not science.
Skeptics will criticize the pharmaceutical industry and medical establishment when necessary. One need only read
Science Based Medicine
They don't follow the scientific-method...because when the data contradicts their hypothesis...they deny the data or lie about it or just filter it
out...they change the data to fit their hypothesis
Another charge he presents no evidence for, just his opinion.
[edit on 12-7-2010 by DoomsdayRex]