RE: FWD [fort] The Debunker: A Pseudo-Skeptic By Any Other Name

From: Emlyn O'regan (oregan.emlyn@healthsolve.com.au)
Date: Tue Jun 10 2003 - 01:35:11 MDT

  • Next message: Anders Sandberg: "Re: FWD [forteana][ExT][Para-Discuss] Re: faster than light?"

    > By Greg Taylor of The Daily Grail

    Check out www.thedailygrail.com - "Incredulous and proud of it!"

    > - The beginnings of a book
    > manuscript, "Debunking for Dummies."

    Or "Ranting By Example" would work equally well.

    (snipped lots of reasonable-ish text descending gradually into ranting)

    I'm picking this up here where the writer really begins to go off the rails.
    Hopefully someone else will have the time/energy for a point-by-point
    debunking.

    > So what drives the pseudo-skeptic to such extraordinary lengths? Why
    > do they attack their 'enemy' with such ferocity, and accusations of
    > nazism and other name-calling?
    >
    > A primary motivation of the debunker would seem to be, quite simply,
    > jealousy. I've grown weary of the number of times I've been told how
    > unfair it is that Graham Hancock has experienced such success. But
    > don't mistake this jealousy as simply being in terms of personal
    > gain. James Alcock writes in Skeptical Inquirer:
    >
    > "rather than honouring science, the public is generally disdainful
    > of both science and scientist, while welcoming to their bosom the
    > purveyors of magic, shamanism, and supernaturalism" (13)
    >

    Jealousy... that's one word for it. I'd say an allergy to bullshit might be
    involved, but hey, who am I?

    > One pertinent point to note from this statement is how pseudo-
    > skeptics always talk in terms of how the general public needs to be
    > told what is best for them (by the pseudo-skeptic of course). And
    > yet they wonder why the public is disdainful. The other point is
    > that the jealousy of the debunker has at its root their deep-seated
    > desire to have their particular worldview validated.

    Bzzzt, no. In a complex society such as our own, no one has the resources or
    ability to research every claim. We rely on each other's efforts to validate
    a small portion of the claims out there, using a common frame of reference -
    rationality. It's not always perfect, for many reasons, but it's important
    that somebody makes the effort to check claims, and when frauds/bs are
    found, it's quite valid to publicize it as widely as possible. I know that I
    personally appreciate this.

    > So what is the underlying reason for the debunkers position? Why do
    > they feel the need to "portray science not as an open-minded process
    > of discovery, but as a holy war against unruly hordes of quackery"
    > (14)? The obvious conclusion is that behind this behaviour lies a
    > large amount of insecurity.

    "obvious": code for "bullshit" in most contexts

    > In particular, anxiety that a carefully
    > constructed world-view, which helps them to make sense of the world
    > and also often bestows upon them a position of power, may be
    > dismantled at any moment. Any attempts by 'pseudo-scientists' to
    > investigate outside this world-view are regarded as a threat, an
    > attempt to pull the comfortable rug out from beneath the debunker's
    > feet. As much as the true skeptic harbours doubts about their
    > stance, the debunker attempts to convince themselves and others,
    > through any means possible, that they are right. How can the
    > debunker, therefore, ever be considered anything more than a pseudo-
    > skeptic.

    The flimsy crap about debunkers wears really thin by now. I think this guy
    is attacking a strawman (or a horde of them)... any pro-science person worth
    their salt knows that paradigms shift in all kinds of disciplines all the
    time. Doubt and science go together. That's the very reason for the
    aggressive critical stance!

    > That's not to say, however, that criticism of alternative theories
    > is incorrect or somehow morally wrong in any way. Ideas and theories
    > should always be questioned, but in a respectful manner, and with
    > the humility to realise that any position may prove to be completely
    > incorrect.

    What is a respectful manner? It'd be sad if "alternative theorists" had
    their feelings hurt I guess. Wannabe scientific theories are guilty until
    proven innocent.

    > We should always question what we believe, and also why
    > we do so. In the end though, it is each person's inalienable right
    > to construct a view of the world which fits the evidence of their
    > experience best, and helps them to understand the world.

    Sure, and let natural selection sort them out...

    > The
    > debunker does not believe in this philosophy however, and feels the
    > need to impose their personal viewpoint upon others.

    Well, not really. A sceptical person may feel a moral (!) duty to point out
    bullshit (even potential bullshit) that preys apon the unwary. What isn't
    said here is that one's worldview is not just a touchy-feely matter of
    choice; it shapes one's life in many ways. A poor choice of religion can rob
    the unwary of their personal possessions and freedom. A bad alternative
    therapy can kill not only the believer, but those in his/her charge. A
    reliance on suspect divination and pseudo-psychological techniques can
    irreparably damage a person's mind. And because everyone can't evaluate all
    the evidence all the time, and some people can't really evaluate much of it
    at all, it is important that those who can do a decent job of it are really
    vocal about problematic and potentially dangerous theories.

    > It is high time
    > that all parties showed more respect for philosophies different to
    > theirs, and made an attempt to understand them.

    All of them???

    > If the pseudo-
    > skeptic does not take my word for it, perhaps they'll listen to
    > James Alcock, who wrote in Skeptical Inquirer (with the emphasis
    > added being mine) "we may differ in our assumptions about the
    > underlying nature of reality, but we are much the same as each
    > other" (15).

    Personally, I'll take the red pill.
    Emlyn

    (ooh, I just noticed this tidbit:
    "As physicist Henry Stapp argues, physicalist science on
    its own is dangerous, because it leaves "no rational basis for
    anything but self-interest the collapse of moral philosophy is
    inevitable"(9)."
    It reminds me of that idea, disturbingly held by real christians that I have
    met, that Atheists can have no morality and must be happy to run around
    killing people and commiting all kinds of debaucherous acts.)



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 10 2003 - 01:47:24 MDT