So-called skeptics.

I get what the OP is trying to say. Nobody is advocating for skeptics to stop being skeptical. However, there are those who call themselves a skeptic, when all they are really doing is saying, "Nope, no way, not true, you're so stupid if you believe that".

There is healthy skepticism, and there is being a close-minded naysayer who pretends to have the intellectual high ground. The latter tends to not have done their research, and doesn't know a thing about the subject they are denigrating.

An intelligent skeptic says, "I tend not to believe that because I have seen no credible evidence which leads me to believe that this is so." A D-bag troll says, "That has got to be the dumbest thing I've ever read. You must be retarded. Whatever you say, you tin-foil hatted nut job. "

Big difference!! That's why the title of this thread is "so-called skeptics".

reply to post by FissionSurplus

I get what the OP is trying to say. Nobody is advocating for skeptics to stop being skeptical. However, there are those who call themselves a skeptic, when all they are really doing is saying, "Nope, no way, not true, you're so stupid if you believe that".

That's what the OP is doing but just the opposite way around.

reply to post by Trustfund


What I got out of the OP's post is that everybody needs to keep an open mind. It is human nature to take a side due to our binary thinking (black / white, yes / no), but sometimes being a fence-straddler is a good thing, until more information is obtained.

Due to the abusive nature of some of the so-called skeptics postings on ATS, is is natural that this would be in the Rant section.

People who wish to put out an idea that is pretty far out there should be fully armed and ready for the skeptics, otherwise, don't bother. If you bring a nuke to a knife fight, the naysayers will have no firm standing and will fade away. Go in ready to rumble, or don't go in at all.

It goes both ways.

Originally posted by Hefficide

As I sit here smoking my cigarette, I have to say I am a bit skeptical of your premise.

~Heff

Spoken by one caught in the throes of an addiction.
Or at the least, one that denies facts or data on the matter, whether UFO, ciggies or whatever, belief one holds dear without a shred of proof to back that one single solitary belief that will hurt the ego if squarely faced.

Originally posted by Snsoc
I have one word for skeptics.

Cigarettes

That's your argument? Seriously? Let's put this logic to work! Because you found what you think is a conspiracy of tobacco companies to withhold information that cigarettes are bad for you, therefore chemtrails are real, Queen Elizabeth is a reptilian, and Niburu is about to wipe us out. That's a rather novel use of inductive logic.

And it's silly.

reply to post by Snsoc


If there were no so called skeptics we would still be believing many of the hoaxes that have been used in an attempt to prove many subjects you listed.

I think it just bothers you that people disagree with the subjects you are passionate about.

I would question how successful a board such as ATS would be if there were no skeptics. The entire forum would be people posting whatever they wanted to such as grainy UFO photos and everyone else agreeing with them.

Sure skepticism may be annoying when you really believe something, but if nothing else it weeds out the hoaxes.

And there are plenty of topics to be outright skeptical about, chemtrails and hollow Earth spring to mind straight off.

Well, I didn't want to just post something and then run away without answering my critics, but I'm not sure what I can add. Almost all of you make very valid points.

We do need skeptics. They keep us sharp and safer from fanaticism. If you're a genuinely open-minded questioner of all things, bless you. But this rant was about people who call themselves skeptic, but never question certain things. If they hear about "9/11 was an inside job," they never stop and think, "Hmmm....was it?" They just react negatively. It's those people I wish I could get to be more open-minded....

for their own good.

Look, I don't care if my views are unorthodox and you throw cold water on them. My ego and world view aren't that fragile. The marginal stuff I believe in is freakin' important, in my opinion, because it affects everybody. Maybe you should ask if maybe you do have a soul. It might matter some day. Maybe you should ask if the government is putting something in your water. It might matter some day.

I did the original post because some guy with a comedy web site took a pot shot at Morgellon's. Just dismissed it as a hoax out of hand. Now, while there are certainly crazy people out there, and liars, and people with psychosomatic illnesses and Munchhausen's and who knows what else, there are tens of thousands of people reporting these symptoms. Some of them are taking photos, and they show synthetic fibers coming out of people's skin.

Now, I don't know if it's real or not, but the official word from the medical community is that these people are imagining this. And that pisses me off. They're able to photograph their imaginations, I guess. And then some douche like the comedy web site guy comes along and mocks these people who are clearly suffering.

And before you bomb me with numerous websites about what a bunch of b.s. Morgellon's is-you're missing the point. The point is that none of the people reading that comedy web site will ever stop and ask themselves if it is true or not. They'll stay close-minded. And the "skeptic" is the high-priest of their close-mindedness. That's infuriating.

Stars to those who got it. For the rest of you, I hope this makes it clearer.

I agree with you overall sentiments OP.

From my experience at post secondary school it was apparent that there was a certain scientific elitist clique that condescendingly looked down on any topic that they dislike or disprove of. My one teacher showed of a video of James Randi and his million dollar challenge. As the following quote touches upon briefly, and the rest of the article get more in depth upon; his challenge is ridiculous.

In the ganzfeld telepathy test the meta-analytic hit rate with unselected subjects is 32% where chance expectation is 25%. If that 32% hit rate is the "real" telepathy effect, then for us to have a 99% chance of getting a significant effect at p < 0.005, we would need to run 989 trials. One ganzfeld session lasts about 1.5 hours, or about 1,483 total hours. Previous experiments show that it is not advisable to run more than one session per day. So we have to potentially recruit 989 x 2 people to participate, an experimenter who will spend 4+ years running these people day in and day out, and at the end we'll end up with p < 0.005. Randi will say those results aren't good enough, because you could get such a result by chance 5 in 1,000 times. Thus, he will require odds against chance of at least a million to 1 to pay out $1 million, and then the amount of time and money it would take to get a significant result would be far in excess of $1 million.

The rest of the article, which i highly recommend people checking out, here---->dailygrail.com...

I find so called 'skeptics' to be in much the same category as fanatical fundamentalist religious people. They attack everything they don't understand with rigid prejudice and bias if it doesn't fit into their narrowly acceptable limits of reality. I believe the basis of this reactionary negative attitude is fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of life, fear of themselves, what have you.

Skepticism is a healthy thing to have, but of course as you point out, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I think when we try to be objective about something, that one variable we always need to consider honestly is our own preconceived beliefs, prejudices or preferences regarding the thing we are focused upon, and acknowledge them.

As many people i make a distinction between a 'debunker' who has religious like zeal and fervor attacking their favorite topic with disdain and ridicule, and the true skeptic, who can readily admit he may not know everything about a given subject, even if he happens to disagree with it in on some level.

As for all this talk of 'proof' about aliens, proof about this proof about that... I personally do not feel the need to prove anything to anyone. Sometimes people are just not ready to entertain certain possibilities, and i'm ok with that. They can come out of the woodwork to be armchair critics if that gives them some sense of authority or whatever, but that really ain't changing much in the grand scheme of things. Check my signature for the summary of my thoughts regarding both skepticism and belief.

Peace. ~

Originally posted by okamitengu
as far as i can see, alot of sceptics are just trolling.

they look for threads they can derail with their superior knowledge of where you are wrong.

if you believe something, and you investigate it to the point where you are confident, who gives a flying rats patootie what anyone else says.

most sceptics are just in that camp because it makes them feel safe and secure in their world

Yezzzzz, I agree.

The name callers, grammar natzis, or belittlers usually have no facts to back up their rejections either, kinda annoying.

A TRUE skeptic is a great person full of knowledge and facts and I find them rather helpful and enlightening.

Trolls be trollin! lol....

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by Snsoc
I have one word for skeptics:

Cigarettes.

Cigarettes.

Therefore, Aliens!

Just about sums up the believer movement in one syllogism.

Wow, I finished your post. It took two goes at it but I made it through. I feel less intelligent for it, though.

edit on 15-11-2012 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)

Your gross mischaracterisation of the OP's example of a broad conspiracy as a syllogism is thought-free and supercilious. Also wrong.

I'm reminded of a phenomenon that used to plague Isaac Asimov. He would often be presented with some gap in scientific knowledge with the presenter demanding "explain that!" The implication being that the failure to immediately close that gap to the full satisfaction of the questioner would mean a complete repudiation of all things scientific. And by extension, of course, the total validation of the questioner's explanation, e.g. god did it.

Explaining 95% of UFO sightings offers no conclusions regarding Bigfoot beyond an ad hominem assumption regarding the questioners of these subjects.

I'm a skeptic. I'm skeptical of the official story of 9-11, the safety of vaccines, any number of things. I'm also an atheist. I mention the atheism here only because it irks me when it's referred to as a "religion". You, humphreysjim, are acting like a true believer.

You're making me look bad.

What you are describing is pseudo-skepticism. Just as scientists rightly describe scientific jargon used in non-scientific ways as pseudo-science, a person calling themselves a skeptic but making assertions of fact without proof if practicing pseudo-skepticism. They are not being skeptical. Skepticism is in fact a quite open minded position in my opinion. It is not closed to possibilities, but open to them until ruled out, and refrains from embracing them until proved.

I share your frustration with those claiming to be skeptics, but asserting that a thing is not true or cannot be true without proof to that effect.

Peace.

reply to post by mellisamouse


It's 'nazis'. In response to the OP- I totally agree with your sentiments,
i've been thinking that for a while now, these people drive me crazy
Sceptic South Africa

Refuse to believe anything no matter how much verifiable documentation they are shown.

Originally posted by Vitruvius

Originally posted by humphreysjim

Originally posted by Snsoc
I have one word for skeptics:

Cigarettes.

Cigarettes.

Therefore, Aliens!

Just about sums up the believer movement in one syllogism.

Wow, I finished your post. It took two goes at it but I made it through. I feel less intelligent for it, though.

edit on 15-11-2012 by humphreysjim because: (no reason given)

Your gross mischaracterisation of the OP's example of a broad conspiracy as a syllogism is thought-free and supercilious. Also wrong.

I'm reminded of a phenomenon that used to plague Isaac Asimov. He would often be presented with some gap in scientific knowledge with the presenter demanding "explain that!" The implication being that the failure to immediately close that gap to the full satisfaction of the questioner would mean a complete repudiation of all things scientific. And by extension, of course, the total validation of the questioner's explanation, e.g. god did it.

Explaining 95% of UFO sightings offers no conclusions regarding Bigfoot beyond an ad hominem assumption regarding the questioners of these subjects.

I'm a skeptic. I'm skeptical of the official story of 9-11, the safety of vaccines, any number of things. I'm also an atheist. I mention the atheism here only because it irks me when it's referred to as a "religion". You, humphreysjim, are acting like a true believer.

You're making me look bad.

You're not a skeptic, you're a pseudo-skeptic trying to hijack the use of the word.

I am not making you look bad because we are not remotely in the same camp. You do just fine making yourself look bad without anyone else's help.

reply to post by humphreysjim

You're not a skeptic, you're a pseudo-skeptic trying to hijack the use of the word. I am not making you look bad because we are not remotely in the same camp. You do just fine making yourself look bad without anyone else's help.

You seem more like a nay-sayer, which really does not make you a sceptic.

Blind belief is blind belief, regardless of what that belief is, and how you distort it. This includes blind belief in science, to the point where you are against anything that science can not explain (yet).

reply to post by Snsoc


This is my first post. I am a former GLPer, and I must say: I LOVE THIS SITE!!!!!!! Having gotten that out, I must agree with you. Another thing that gets me is people that DOWNPLAY everything. Common examples would be: WEATHER BALLOON, LENS FLARE, MOVE ALONG FOLKS, NOTHING TO SEE HERE, NOTHING WILL HAPPEN, etc....They then offer nothing to back up THEIR claims.....

Something else that irks me is when people invoke Occams' Razor to prove their point.

They mistake the "simplest" explanation for the explanation that best fits their assumptions of how the world is. The ancients built megalithic structures, lifting stones that weighed hundreds of tons. The simplest explanation must be that they used simple tools and just worked really hard at it! No, the simplest explanation is that they had technology that made it easy.

Occam's razor is supposed to help point people toward the truth, but it's mostly used to reinforce existing assumptions.

Originally posted by AlanT1
reply to post by Snsoc

 

This is my first post. I am a former GLPer, and I must say: I LOVE THIS SITE!!!!!!! Having gotten that out, I must agree with you. Another thing that gets me is people that DOWNPLAY everything. Common examples would be: WEATHER BALLOON, LENS FLARE, MOVE ALONG FOLKS, NOTHING TO SEE HERE, NOTHING WILL HAPPEN, etc....They then offer nothing to back up THEIR claims.....

Yeah, I was on GLP for a while-got banned. Welcome!