The Pseudo-Skeptic Mind Part I

If you have not read this.....PLEASE do!!

I enjoyed the article and the author makes many valid points, though I almost quit reading at the deffinition of a skeptic. It smacks of an agenda, which is a shame because the article is as a whole very informative.



Its the word "habitually" that made me roll my eyes. The wording gives it a neurotic tone. That may apply to his (the author) deffinition of pseudo-skeptics, but not skeptics in general. Cambridge defines it best:
"a person who doubts the truth or value of an idea or belief:"

Excellent article!!!!!

Maxx, the definition I used in the article was verbatim from The American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition paperback which is the dictionary I keep on my desk at home. The other definitions also came from there. I am also a practicing skeptic and the word "habitually" doesn't bother me at all since I consider a habit of honest, balanced skeptical inquiry to be a good thing.

I would disagree somewhat with Cambridge's definition, as merely doubting an idea or belief doesn't constitute true skepticism in my own opinion. I feel that a good skeptic will expend the energy to get to the bottom of the issue in a fair and balanced manner and discover the truth for himself, and from that comes advancement of knowledge. Just sitting there and doubting, with no good purpose for it, is the domain of the pseudo-skeptic. But the definition you pointed out would have done fine for the purposes of the article.

Thanks for the compliments.--------Steve

Edited to add: Actually the definition I used was not really any different from the Cambridge one. Were I to come up with my own definition of skeptic, I would probably include some wording to do with pursuit of the actual truth of whatever it was the skeptic doubted. I would make the doubting definition by itself a part of the definition of the word "cynic", since that is often how that word is used.

I figured it came from a dictionary I couldn't find online. I searched 5 or 6 of them looking for that word "habitually". I think you're right and I might just be a little over sensitive to labels..this board makes one gunshy sometimes. For whatever reason that word brings connotations of neurosis, as in someone that is habitually skeptic cannot help themselves and will take a skeptical stance no matter the evidence or idea presented. It just brings visions of an individual nay saying everything just out habit.



Exactly. Well put.

Also both sides of the fence can learn a lot from this article. Substitute the word "science" with "Bigfoot pioneers". Swap out "pseudo-skeptic" for "Bigfoot enthusiest", and well you got something that hits close to home for some here.

Thanks for the great thread. It seems to me that a Pseudo-Skeptic is part Cynic and part Curmudgeon. I look forward to the day when they are forced into retirement.

Although its unrelated to the BF phenomenon, I love that he used global warming to make his point. It is a perfect example of the double standard that exists in the mainstream scientific community.


I just think its very pompous for them to assume they are the gatekeepers . That they are the sole masters of everything that happens in the world, the universe etc... :noway:

Now there's a subject we could discuss 'til the cows come home. I am interested in reading the promised blog entry.

Nicely written article. As an aside, I recently participated in a chemistry class in which we were required to read a number of identical thermometers, on the same rack, within inches of each other and under idencial conditions. Many of them contained the same visually observable readings, while a significant number - about 25% indicated variances of more than one degree Celsius. This was interesting in that it supports Steve's suggestion that the 1.8 degree variance in temperature over the last 300 years may very well be incorrect.

Dan

Great article Steve, very well written.

One thing I have wondered is whether the Pseudo-Skeptic is a plant. Individuals that are directed to debunk for the primary purpose of devaluing the veracity of a story?

Who and why would be the logical next questions?

"The driving force behind pseudo-skepticism is not legitimate scientific inquiry, but a strong innate desire on the part of practicing pseudo-skeptics to achieve personal emotional gratification by trying to pass themselves off as intellectually superior to those around them."

Bingo!

Does anyone else here find pleasure in such a thread being written on the BFF?

That's a great article. But I'll be honest, you can write all you want about these 'pseudo-skeptics', and point to all the written text, online message-board evidence, or blurry, bad-hair photographs, but until someone hauls in a body, I'm not buying it. I don't think they exist.

Very nice article.
I would call myself a skeptic, but what passes for it today just seems to be smarmy putdowns. I used to enjoy reading "The Skeptical Inquirer." They always seemed to have someone creditable writing an article, now it seems jeering and closed minds is the norm. When they had a review of Long's book that was glowing, I basically gave up on it.
The BF field kind of reminds me of the continental drift theory proposed by Alfred Wegener back in early last century (I think). He was basically laughed and jeered at by his peers, and died before his theories were generally accepted. Makes me think of Grover Krantz.