Wikipedia defines the term pseudoskepticism (or pseudo-skepticism) as “denotes thinking that appears to be skeptical but is not. The term is most commonly encountered in the form popularized by Marcello Truzzi, through his Journal of Scientific Exploration, where he defined pseudoskeptics as those who take “the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves ’skeptics’”These pseudoskeptics reveal themselves by not focusing on discussing the facts but by derailing or disheartening the researcher or claimant; often with quick judgments and name-calling without evidence to back up their counterclaims.
After posting my story about finding a 2,800 year old man, I have become barraged by several people who claim to be skeptics. I believe skeptism is good for any topic, for I too am a skeptic. However the attacking of a discussion without merit under the cloak of a skeptic is not real skeptism but rather pseudoskepticism.
From Wikipedia about pseudoskepticism:
“In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new “fact.” Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of “conventional science” as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis –saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact–he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.”The tendency is to deny, rather than doubt:. Double standards in the application of criticism. The making of judgments without full inquiry
. Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate
. Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments
. Pejorative labeling of proponents as ‘promoters’, ‘pseudoscientists’ or practitioners of ‘pathological science.
. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
. Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
. Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it
Keep in mind, the true skeptic is a welcome asset to real research. The pseudoskeptic contributes nothing to research, but instead attempts to stifle the research in progress. Before examining or discussing the topic, the pseudoskeptic decries absurdity with shouts of “where’s the proof” and “show me the evidence”; even if there has been evidence already presented. For these disinformants, there is never enough proof or absolute proof; even though they can never offer any proof to back their counterclaims.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Where’s the Proof (Part 4)
I contend that in our day and age, it is impossible to absolutely, positively prove anything. I believe that Americans did land on the moon; yet there are many skeptics who have claimed there is no absolute, undeniable proof that the moon landing was not faked by our government. There is no absolute, positive proof that OJ murdered his wife or that UFOs exist; yet a majority of the people on this planet believe both are true. If you look around and find your local neighborhood atheist they will tell you either Jesus Christ did not survive his crucifixion or that there is no absolute, undeniable proof that he ever existed. Yet I bet many would argue strongly against either statement. By definition, most atheists believe there is no such thing as God; yet I contend many would argue that point vigorously.There is no absolute, undeniable proof that global warming is actually taking place; and there is no absolute, positive proof that it is not. Further, there is no absolute, undeniable proof that homo sapiens evolved from apes; and there is no absolute, positive proof that human evolution did not take place. Likewise, I believe it is impossible to to prove, without a shadow of doubt that someone is an immortal; and it is equally impossible to prove someone that real immortals do not exist.I also believe it is not my purpose in life to prove, undeniably, that immortals do live among us. This is why I was not going to even bother to tell anyone about the immortal that I found. However, as I continued to research this remarkable man and heard his stories, it became very clear to me that I had to tell the world that I found such a man and present his stories; even if I cannot offer scientific evidence that this man is older than 150 years.I found an interesting quote on the web: “Truth is what opposites have in common”. Hopefully believing man did walk on the moon is not the only truth we have in common.
