Pseudoskepticism and YOU.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

I think skepticism has become a bit of a trend.
Aped because it's popular in some circles but not quite understood.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

Well said. I must say, I was rather disappointed to see the fate of your thread today. I feel like you were trying to point out some very real issues that are somewhat related to this topic. While I suppose you were ultimately proven right beyond any measure of doubt, I fear the lesson was probably lost on most of the threads participants.

Great thread. I really see this with Mars Anomalies and UFO threads the most. I see it a lot when the subject of interstellar travel comes up too. Often it is clothed with the p-skeptic's own world view and limitations...meaning if they can't do it or conceive it then of course it cannot be true.

originally posted by: DeadSeraph

originally posted by: Antigod
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Pathologically skeptical?

You mean "requiring some level of basic scientific proof before believing."

Or a claim at least not violating common sense.

People post the msot bizarre claims here, then insist all the scientific work that contradicts it is faked as a cover up. That's a mental health issue.

Skepticism is a healthy starting point for all knowledge.

It would seem you need to acquaint yourself with the definition of pseudoskepticism and how it differs from healthy skepticism. I thought I had outlined it well enough in my OP, but maybe not.

You did. But, the pseudoskeptics only want to debunk you. That is their reason for living. The last thing the p-skeptics here want is truth or an open mind and they will denigrate you incessantly if you bring up anything they disagree with.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

So true.

I lot of fake skeptics that seem to want to smear more than test the validity of a conspiracy plot.

One thing I've noticed is that a lot of people who call themselves "skeptics" are generally just topically skeptical.
Some things they accept without question.
Or at least, without questioning much.

For example those who accept whatever the scientific community says as unquestionable almost akin to holy writ.
Or should I say, their often flawed perception of what the scientific community says.
Then there are times when certain individuals use their membership in said community to forward their personal views.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

I would urge ALL ATS members to read the article in full, and see if you can point out how many times you have seen these tactics used here. But not only that, how many times have you used them? Are you or were you aware of the term "pseudo skepticism" and if so, are you aware that you might be one, or frequently use the tactics of one?

I have done so, and wrote a paper, at length (five pages), in response to it. I posted a thread with a few anecdotes from my paper here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

To sum up, yes, I use the tactics of one quite a bit. I don't identify myself as one, nor do I particularly see anything wrong with it. Regardless of the starting position of a "pseudo-skeptic", if the holes pointed out are genuine "holes" in the theory, I don't see anything beneficial coming from distinguishing someone trying to help you correct your theory and someone trying to disprove it.

I would be interested in hearing how you distinguish between a couple of points:
1. Separating yourself from those who you would call pseudo-skeptics (using "emotional language" to vilify the point of view of those who call your ideas into question in particular, such as calling them pseudo-skeptics)
2. How you respond to genuine holes pointed out in your ideas, separately in each type of case (the first case between someone who is "genuinely" skeptical, and another case in which someone who is trying to debunk your idea, not espousing any ideas of their own and justifying any discrepancies between how you would treat the two cases)

I'm not trying to sound offensive, if it comes off that way by asking those questions. I'm simply wondering why a criticism is different if it is from someone who is trying to debunk your ideas or if it is from whatever definition you use to define a "normal" skeptic, in the case that the criticism is exactly identical from both sources and has exactly the same truth value.

Anyone else who sees any merit to the use of the term, feel free to also explain if you feel like you can explain it adequately.

originally posted by: Indigent
I agree with you, but why you put a picture of a guy taking a dump in your post

Actually makes perfect sense to me. Some of my best thinking is done either taking a dump or while in the shower!! Seems to be that when the body is busy the mind shall be free. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's experienced that either.