Herkennig van en verweer tegen een pseudo-skeptic.

quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptic
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."

But rather than inquiring, or asking questions to try to understand something, they seek to debunk, discredit and ridicule anything that doesn't fit into their belief system. And rather than suspending judgment, they make accusations of fraud and delusion of all paranormal claimants. Hence, we call them pseudoskeptics (a term coined by the late Marcello Truzzi) for their actions and behaviors are the complete antithesis of what skepticism truly means.


According to WikiSynergy:

Pseudoskepticism (or pseudoskepticism) is defined as thinking that claims to be Skeptical but is actually faith-based disbelief. Because real skepticism is a justifiable position, pseudoskepticism may also be defined as making pseudoscientific arguments in pursuit of a skeptical agenda.

Pseudoskepticism is a general term which encompasses two types of faith-based disbelief: making positive claims that something is wrong or unreal without evidence (positive disbelief), and rejecting sufficient evidence.


A "true skeptic" objectively inquires and seeks evidence, challenging all sides including their own beliefs (see here). But these pseudoskeptics do anything but. As someone observed to me:

"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."

quote:

Argument # 1: “It is irrational to believe in anything that hasn't been proven.”

This is the main philosophy behind most skeptical arguments. As Dr. Melvin Morse, Seattle pediatrician and author specializing in child Near Death Experiences (www.melvinmorse.com) said:

“The notion that 'It is rational to only believe what's been proven' somehow got twisted into ‘It is irrational to believe in anything that hasn't been proven’.” (Interview from video: Conversations with God)

By "proven" skeptics mean proven according to the scientific method, which they consider to be the only reliable method. There are several problems with this argument:

1) First of all, just because something hasn't been proven and established in mainstream science doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't true. If it did, then nothing would exist until proven or discovered. Bacteria and germs would never have caused illnesses until they were proven and discovered, smoking would not cause cancer until it was proven, the planet Pluto would not have existed until it was discovered, etc. Anyone knows that this simply is not so. For instance, when Acupuncture was first introduced in the West, skeptics and certain scientists claimed that it had no basis and only worked due to the placebo effect because they couldn’t understand how it worked. This reflected the typical false thinking of skeptics that anything they don’t understand must be due to superstition or chance. However, practitioners and believers knew otherwise and were later validated by extensive studies have been done to show that it indeed does work for treating various ailments and getting results which placebos can’t account for. An extensive listing of these research studies can be found on the Med lab website. In fact, the AMA (American Medical Association) has already declared that Acupuncture works and is an effective treatment, proving the skeptics wrong. The point is that Acupuncture worked before it was proven to work, not after. Skeptics assume that everything that exists must be able to be analyzed in a lab. That’s just not how reality works.Kijk hier voor de andere 3 argumenten tegen die uitspraak

quote:

Argument # 2: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

This is one of the core mantras of hard nosed skeptics, and is usually presented like this:

“If my friend told me that on the way here he was delayed because his car got a flat tire, then I would believe it because it is an ordinary claim. However, if he claimed that on his way here he was temporarily abducted by aliens in a UFO, then I would not believe his claim because it is extraordinary in nature. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

Now it would help if the skeptics who proclaim this argument specify what they would accept as extraordinary evidence. Otherwise, arbitrarily stating this argument gives one an out no matter what evidence is shown, and a way to move the goal posts endlessly. While it is reasonable to expect a higher standard of evidence for more extraordinary claims, there are nevertheless 7 problems with it to keep in mind.

1) First of all, this argument gives skeptics a shady and underhanded way to move the goal posts any way they like. By not defining the standards for “extraordinary”, they are free to move the goalposts up further anytime their standards have been met on pure semantics, which they have often done.

Definitions of what are “extraordinary claims” vary based on prior beliefs and experiences. Not everyone agrees on whether a claim is extraordinary or ordinary. Suppose we were fishes for example, and lived underwater our whole lives without ever seeing or hearing about land. The claim of land existing above water would be an extraordinary claim to us, though not to the creatures living on the land above. Now obviously just because the claim of land is extraordinary to us as fishes does not mean that the land doesn’t exist. The point is that extraordinary claims are not extraordinary to everyone. What is extraordinary to some is ordinary and natural to others depending on their experience and level of consciousness. For example, the internal body energy of chi gong (or quigong) is a mystical force to Westerners but has been a natural everyday part of life for thousands of years in China. There, chi is used, felt, and observed by its practitioners much the same as the effects of gravity are felt and observed by us. Likewise, having Astral Projections and Out of Body Experiences are extraordinary to those who have never experienced them, but for those who have them regularly, they are an ordinary part of life. In the same way, our cars, radios and cell phones are extraordinary to tribal natives in remote parts of Africa, but ordinary to us.

The best solution, in my opinion, is for everybody to put their cards on the table by honestly specifying their prior beliefs. This sets the standards for what is to be expected and leads to a better mutual understanding of each other. Klik hier voor de rest van het artikel INCLUSIEF een paar voorbeelden van wetenschappelijk bedreven onderzoek in het paranormale met positieve resultaten

quote:

Section I: General arguments against the paranormal

Argument # 1: It is irrational to believe anything that hasn’t been proven.
Argument # 2: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
- Extraordinary evidence for 4 phenomena
Argument # 3: The Occam’s Razor rule.
Argument # 4: The Invisible Pink Unicorn / Santa Claus gambit.
Argument # 5: The “anecdotal evidence is invalid” argument.
- Factors measuring degree of reliability in anecdotal evidence
- The Ebay feedback challenge where a skeptic failed and was caught lying red-handed
Argument # 6: The memory malleability argument to dismiss anecdotal evidence.
Argument # 7: Automatic dismissal of paranormal claims as due to Mistake, Lying or Hallucination.
Argument # 8: There is no evidence for any paranormal or psychic phenomena.
Argument # 9: Science is the only reliable method.
Argument # 10: Paranormal phenomena aren’t possible because they contradict known laws of science.
Argument # 11: Unexplainable does not mean inexplicable.
Argument # 12: Skeptics don’t have beliefs. They base their views and judgments on the degree of evidence.
Argument # 13: A common myth is that Skepticism is cynicism. It is not. Skepticism is a method of inquiry.
Argument # 14: Believers in the paranormal are thinking in primitive, irrational and childish ways.
Argument # 15: Skeptics are defending science and reason from a rising tide of irrationality.

Section II: Arguments against specific paranormal phenomena

Argument # 16: Psychics and mediums use cold reading tricks and lucky guesses, not psychic powers.
Argument # 17: Experiments that show positive results for psi must be replicable to count as evidence.
Argument # 18: No psychic phenomena has been demonstrated under controlled conditions.
Argument # 19: Alternative medicine and practices only work due to the placebo effect.
Argument # 20: Miracles are impossible and defy everything we know about science.
Argument # 21: The Skeptical explanation for answered prayers.
- My own theory on how and why prayer works
Argument # 22: The Skeptical explanation for precognitive dreams.
Argument # 23: The Dying Brain Hypothesis for Near Death Experiences.
Argument # 24: There is no such thing as a soul or spirit. Consciousness is purely neurological and nothing else.
Argument # 25: Spiritual experiences only exist in your mind, not in external reality.
Argument # 26: New Age philosophies are just childish fantasies for dealing with a cold uncaring world.
Argument # 27: There is no evidence to support the existence of UFO’s or Aliens.
Argument # 28: Since Evolution and natural selection are sufficient to explain the origins of life, there is no need for God to fit into the equation.
Argument # 29: Atheists don’t hold the belief that God doesn’t exist. An Atheist is one who is without a belief in God, or lacks a belief in him. Therefore the burden of proof for God is on the theist, not the atheist.
Argument # 30: The James Randi Million Dollar Challenge argument.

Conclusion
Reader Responses
Latest Developments and Research
Links, Blogs and Books on PseudoSkepticism and Paranormal Research
Appendix A: My Presentation Outline – Skepticism vs. Psi

quote:

In the original version of this treatise back in 2001, I decided not to address this argument because I didn’t like to create whole arguments against specific individuals. However, at this point the infamous James Randi and his supporters have made it practically unavoidable. He is so deeply publicly involved in debunking parapsychology in the media, that to ignore him would be tantamount to ignoring Darth Vader in Star Wars. Paranormal debunkers now commonly use Randi’s psychic challenge to argue that there are no genuine paranormal or psychic abilities, else they would apply for the challenge and win. Therefore, in this new edition of this treatise, I’ve had to add a section on it as it is one of the most often mentioned arguments by organized skeptics.

There are many obvious problems with this argument of course, since one magician with an axe to grind and hosting a publicity stunt does not debunk all the paranormal experiences in the world. They still happen everyday to people all over the world. Randi’s critics claim is mostly a publicity stunt for his career due to the fact that 1) Randi is extremely selective in who he tests, preferring to only test famous names to boost his own career, and that 2) there are many applicants who received no response after applying. Plus, based on numerous testimonials from challenge applicants and para-researchers, there is much circumstantial evidence that Randi is not that honest, for he has used plenty of deceptive and dishonest tactics in the past. There are many reports and analyses of him that indicate this and damage his credibility. I’ve provided a list of them below so you can research them yourself.

The Myth of the Randi Challenge by the Daily Grail, points out a list of events that show how Randi keeps the challenge unwon by raising the bar to impossible and unreasonable standards, and using other dishonest sleight-of-hand tactics.

Randi Backs out of Challenge with Homeopath George Vitalhoukas, renegging on a long term agreement. I guess when someone’s about to win, he gets scared and finds excuses not to go through with it.

A Skeptical Look at James Randi – by Michael Prescott, a meticulous researcher and talented writer and thinker who attempted to get at the root of past controversies between Randi and numerous big psi researchers. What he found did not look good for Randi’s credibility.

The Randi Challenge – A thorough analysis by Michael Prescott

Randi caught lying on several assertions by animal telepathy researcher Rupert Sheldrake

Dr. Victor Zammit, a lawyer who presents the case for the afterlife, has written a critique expose about the Randi Challenge at: http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/reward.html

My long time friend and Michael Goodspeed recently also wrote a great article detailing the hypocrisy of Randi and his challenge, which you can read at: http://www.rense.com/general50/james.htm.

Etc etc etc

quote:

Op zaterdag 17 oktober 2009 00:00 schreef Iblis het volgende:
Hun openingspagina begint met een citaat van Schopenhauer dat geen citaat van Schopenhauer is. Oké, muggenziften, maar eh, dat doet altijd al weinig goeds verwachten m.b.t. research-standaarden.

quote:

Op zaterdag 17 oktober 2009 00:53 schreef R0N1N het volgende:

Men doet redelijk z'n best het te verbergen, maar zo links en rechts druipt de 'vooringenomenheid' er toch vanaf

quote:

Op zaterdag 17 oktober 2009 01:00 schreef R0N1N het volgende:

[..]


[..]

Het vet gedrukte deel is een 'eigenschap' die ik in beide 'kampen' terug zie. Zowel de "Believers" als de "non-believers (pseudo-sceptici)". In het vervolg stuk gaat het 'relaas' dan ook volledig mank (imo, want éénzijdig gericht tegen non-believers).

quote:

Op zaterdag 17 oktober 2009 01:20 schreef R0N1N het volgende:
Ook die lijsten met argumenten ... pfff
[..]

FAIL = Argument faalt (en dus ben ik het daar eens met de schrijver dat het een fout argument is.
Het meerendeel (TRUE) is echter wat mij betreft dus wel degelijk een 'geldig' argument.

quote:

Stated as: “When there are two competing explanations for an event, the simpler one is more likely.”

This argument is a principle that skeptics often misuse to try to force alternate explanations to paranormal ones, even if those explanations involve false accusations or do not fit the facts. Originally, it began as a principle in physics having to do with parsimony, but somehow got twisted into a mantra for invalidating paranormal claims. It was popularized by scientist Carl Sagan in his novel turned movie “Contact”, where Jodie Foster quotes it while during a conversation with a theist to defend her belief that God doesn’t exist. (Ironically, at the end of the movie it is used against her in a public interrogation by a National Security Agent.) However, an analysis on the facts and assumptions of this argument reveals some obvious problems.

1) First of all, Occam’s Razor, termed by 14th Century logician and friar William of Occam, refers to a concept that states that "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." It was not intended to be used to evaluate claims of the paranormal as skeptics today use it for. As Phil Gibbs points out in “Physics FAQ”: (http://www.weburbia.com/physics/)

“To begin with we used Occam's razor to separate theories which would predict the same result for all experiments. Now we are trying to choose between theories which make different predictions. This is not what Occam intended……..

The principle of simplicity works as a heuristic rule-of-thumb but some people quote it as if it is an axiom of physics. It is not. It can work well in philosophy or particle physics, but less often so in cosmology or psychology, where things usually turn out to be more complicated than you ever expected. Perhaps a quote from Shakespeare would be more appropriate than Occam's razor: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

The law of parsimony is no substitute for insight, logic and the scientific method. It should never be relied upon to make or defend a conclusion. As arbiters of correctness only logical consistency and empirical evidence are absolute.” Meer

quote:

Op zaterdag 17 oktober 2009 01:41 schreef R0N1N het volgende:

[..]

Ja, eensch.
Maar nogmaals, daarmee is het argument an sich nog niet ongeldig & dus GEEN pseudo-sceptisch argument.

quote:

Op zaterdag 17 oktober 2009 01:56 schreef R0N1N het volgende:

[..]

True.

Zeker op forums is de gemiddelde discussie dan ook niet hoogdravend omdat die doorgaans worden gevoerd door mensen die bepaald geen expert zijn op de besproken gebieden, maar wel een uitgesproken mening menen te mogen fulmineren, helaas

quote:

Op zaterdag 17 oktober 2009 02:16 schreef R0N1N het volgende:

[..]

Wie is "Jullie"
Dat hele 'wij' vs 'zij' is al fout om mee te beginnen. Iedereen zou een (echte) scepticus moeten zijn.