SCEPCOP ~ Debunking pseudo-sceptics.

reply to post by mcrom901


Where you got that quote I have no idea and you haven't explained how it relates to my post about Young. I'm not dismissing you I'm disagreeing with you - there's a difference. You seem a bit defensive sir.

edited for spelling.

[edit on 3-4-2010 by cripmeister]

Check out this new SCEPCOP video:

Why James Randi, Michael Shermer and other Pseudoskeptics are NOT real skeptics!

www.youtube.com...

It makes a lot of interesting and valid points against those skeptic organizations.

Also, check out this article in Atlantis Rising magazine about SCEPCOP. Pages posted below:

www.debunkingskeptics.com...

www.debunkingskeptics.com...

www.debunkingskeptics.com...

www.debunkingskeptics.com...

www.debunkingskeptics.com...

www.debunkingskeptics.com...

Originally posted by karl 12
Interesting reading on the predictable tactics of pseudosceptics:

Debunking the UFO Debunkers

As a ufologist, an autonomous theologian, and social researcher, I am the target of debunkers from the broadest range of debunkers imaginable. My work reveals the cover-up of UFOs and challenges the common concepts of UFOs, it uncovers the contradictions and misconceptions of mainstream Christian doctrines and beliefs, and calls into question many social, academic, scientific, political, and historical improprieties and misinformation and disingenuousness. Early in my research I had several confrontations with James Oberg, a UFO skeptic, whose style of debunking is almost legendary. His tactics led me into a study of debunking to counter his dismissive and completely illogical points, which were almost baffling in their ability to convince others proof of UFOs was a total sham.

www.bibleufo.com...

I've asked and asked over the years for details of this 'encounter', which I have no memory of. I've never gotten an answer. Who's faking what?

reply to post by WWu777


Who are true, real skeptics? Give me some names.

[edit on 11-7-2010 by cripmeister]

Originally posted by cripmeister
Who are true, real skeptics? Give me some names.

Why those who believe UFOs are extraterrestrial craft or other paranormal phenomenon, of course!

The desire to subvert the term "skeptic" shows how powerful it is on a psychological level. It also shows how powerful the skeptical position is; instead of working to prove their beliefs, these "anti-skeptics" are engaging in Bulverism smear-campaign to silence those who do not agree with them, so that they may be dismissed without giving actual thought to their arguments. "No need to listen to that person, he's a "pseudo-skeptic".

Ultimately, the goal of this is not to raise the level of intellectual discourse but to make the fellow-travelers feel better in their beliefs.

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 fallacy.

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 it.

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 evidence.

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 outrage?

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]

Originally posted by cripmeister
reply to post by WWu777

 

Who are true, real skeptics? Give me some names.

[edit on 11-7-2010 by cripmeister]

Winston Wu is. He asks questions and applies skepticism and inquiry to both sides. See here for an example of applying examination and questions to both sides:

www.debunkingskeptics.com...

Other names:

Michael Prescott
Rupert Sheldrake
Chris Carter
Charles Tart
Gary Schwartz

They all believe in open minded inquiry, and they all apply real skepticism, not dismissal.

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by cripmeister
Who are true, real skeptics? Give me some names.

Why those who believe UFOs are extraterrestrial craft or other paranormal phenomenon, of course!

The desire to subvert the term "skeptic" shows how powerful it is on a psychological level. It also shows how powerful the skeptical position is; instead of working to prove their beliefs, these "anti-skeptics" are engaging in Bulverism smear-campaign to silence those who do not agree with them, so that they may be dismissed without giving actual thought to their arguments. "No need to listen to that person, he's a "pseudo-skeptic".

Ultimately, the goal of this is not to raise the level of intellectual discourse but to make the fellow-travelers feel better in their beliefs.

Not true. See the true original definition of skeptic:

Pyrrho, the founder of "Skepticism", intended for it to be about open inquiry and suspension of judgment.

en.wikipedia.org...

In classical philosophy, skepticism refers to the teachings and the traits of the 'Skeptikoi', a school of philosophers of whom it was said that they 'asserted nothing but only opined.' (Liddell and Scott) In this sense, philosophical skepticism, or Pyrrhonism, is the philosophical position that one should suspend judgment in investigations.[1]

And according to Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, a skeptic is:

"One who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons."

Now, what does dismissing all paranormal phenomena and conspiracies have to do with the real meaning of the term above? Do the skeptics today do what the original meaning of the term says? Are they nonjudgmental? HELL NO!

Listen to what these folks say on SCEPCOP (please stop misrepresenting them).

"What skeptics fail to understand is that skepticism involves being skeptical of your own position, it does not mean just being skeptical of that which you do not believe in, otherwise we are all skeptics and that renders their use of the term "skeptic" meaningless. A true skeptic casts skepticism on their own position as well. Since the Randi crowd do not employ skepticism in this respect then they are fairly termed pseudo skeptics and demean the term skepticism."

"The original definition of skeptic was a person who questions ALL beliefs, facts, and points-of-view. A healthy perspective in my opinion. Today's common definition of skeptic is someone who questions any belief that strays outside of the status quo, yet leaving the status quo itself completely unquestioned. Kind of a juvenile and intellectually lazy practice in my opinion."

Those are VALID points, if you can understand them. Can you? Or do I have to repeat them?

Dean Radin, who spent many years studying parapsychology and skeptical views, concluded the same in his acclaimed book Entangled Minds: (pages 10-11)

"Some skeptics pushed doubt to extremes and insisted that positive evidence was always due to mistakes or intentional fraud. As I saw it, within this dialectic one side was struggling to understand the depths of inner space by probing Nature with clever questions. The other was trying to maintain the status quo through passionate, and sometimes vicious, denial. The former were willing to take risks to advance knowledge, the latter were naysayers interested mainly in defending dogma."

[edit on 12-7-2010 by WWu777]

Doomsdayrex,

You are playing games here.

Randi only criticizes the establishment when they use paranormal methods, such as employing psychics or dowsing (which was proven to be above chance on his appearance on the Arthur C Clarke show World of Strange Powers).

The evidence is plain to see. Randi and Shermer and CSICOP do NOT apply skepticism toward the establishment, EVEN when it lies or the facts contradict it.

You said it's all about examining the evidence. So what if the evidence contradicts the establishment? How come they don't call out on it?

Show me just ONE Randi article where he applies skepticism toward the establishment.

The EPA lie is valid. Skeptics never condemn the EPA when I bring it up.

I have confronted them about it and they refuse to condemn wars, lies, false flags (Gulf of Tonkin, etc.).

That proves that I'm right.

The evidence is that the skeptics hold establishment infallible and apply ZERO skepticism toward it.

That is obvious. Why are you contesting it?

They don't apply skepticism or criticism toward the establishment. That's the truth. Why are you denying it and playing games?

Show me one article by Shermer where he criticizes the government for lies or murders?

They believe that authority = truth, that might is right. Their job is to keep the population in line from thinking for themselves.

They also DENY, DENY, DENY, whenever there's any evidence. Anyone can say they are objective. But the skeptics ACTIONS do not support that.

Look here at this list of pseudoskeptic behaviors. If it fits, then it fits.

www.debunkingskeptics.com...

More examples of the skeptics' denial and cognitive dissonance here:

www.debunkingskeptics.com...

[edit on 12-7-2010 by WWu777]

reply to post by WWu777


I have never heard of these people, they must not be very important.

Originally posted by WWu777
The evidence is plain to see. Randi and Shermer and CSICOP do NOT apply skepticism toward the establishment, EVEN when it lies or the facts contradict it.

Provide evidence this. You accuse them of lying, show us where they have lied.

Your rant is nothing but the same long-winded collection of logical fallacies, including appeals-to-spite, general appeals-to-emotion and ad hominems to skeptics or anyone he disagrees with (such as questioning my intelligence for disagreement). Never do you provide anything substantive to support your argument.

Originally posted by WWu777
Show me just ONE Randi article where he applies skepticism toward the establishment.

I did. Confronted with this, you...well, to quote you from your video...

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

In your videos, you said that skeptics were authority-worshipers who never disagree with the establishment; you repeat charge several times. Now that I have shown you that yes, they do disagree with the establishment as necessary, you equivocated...

Originally posted by WWu777
Randi only criticizes the establishment when they use paranormal methods

...and manage to contradict yourself.

Originally posted by WWu777
The EPA lie is valid. Skeptics never condemn the EPA when I bring it up.

When have you ever brought it up to the skeptics in question? Please provide evidence that you have actually done this.

Originally posted by WWu777
I have confronted them about it and they refuse to condemn wars, lies, false flags (Gulf of Tonkin, etc.).

Show me one article by Shermer where he criticizes the government for lies or murders?

You are talking political opinion, not scientific discourse.

And you are already talking about settled matters. It is established fact that the EPA distorted air-quality reports at the World Trade Center. It is established fact the Johnson Administration either misrepresented or lied about what happened at the Gulf of Tonkin incident. What is there to be gained from debating ground already tread when there are other controversies to discuss?

Provide evidence where they have defended the "establishment's" unscientific claims. Not tacit approval or defense as interpreted by you, but actual approval or defense.



[edit on 13-7-2010 by DoomsdayRex]

reply to post by karl 12


I hate to say this Karl, but after watching Wu's logical-fallacy-laden, evidence-less rant on YouTube and subsequent behavior in this thread, I'm surprised and embarrassed for you that you endorse this organization.

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
reply to post by karl 12

 

I hate to say this Karl, but after watching Wu's logical-fallacy-laden, evidence-less rant on YouTube and subsequent behavior in this thread, I'm surprised and embarrassed for you that you endorse this organization.

Don't be embarrassed for me mate -I certainly stand by the comments made in the first post:

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".

I thought the section discussing willful ignorance and how pseudoscience may be more 'dogmatic' than 'pragmatic' also got it spot on (as did the list of distinctions between true open minded scepticism and close minded ignorant cynicism).

Here's a new link for the Kevin Randle video.

I agree. I hate pseudo-skeptics with a passion, lol. They seem to think every non-mainstream opinion is impossible.

While some stuff clearly is crap (homeopathy, for example), I don't see how they could be so quick to dismiss things like alien contact or the possibility 9/11 was to some extent an inside job. It's not like America or any government has never allowed something to happen to civilians for strategic purposes.

With alien contact, the evidence is mostly anecdotal but keep in mind Scott Peterson was given the death penalty on what was largely anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is like pennies, it's not worth much but if you get enough of it, it adds up!