Quote:

Defining the PseudoSkeptic vs. the True Skeptic: Behaviors and Tactics

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."

Pyrrho, the founder of "Skepticism", intended for it to be about open inquiry and suspension of judgment.

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]”

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.  They are PROSECUTORS, not investigators.  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.

---

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Contents.htm

So I ask you: are the skeptics in this forum true skeptics, or merely pseudo-skeptics?  I'm also curious whether OC has seen this website, and has any rebuttals for the arguments presented within. 

tempusvita said:

For argument 8# though, I don't know. 

Why can't the scientifically demonstrate it?  Why can't some one just do some very careful experiments on it and prove whether there is psychic ability or not?

---

DieCommie said:

Reads just like the typical defenses in the conspiracy and mystery forums to me.  Is there any particular one that you think is right on?

---

Well, I thought the counter to argument #30 (The James Randi Million Dollar Psychic Challenge argument) was particularly interesting.  Certainly fails to paint Randi in a favorable light. 

Quote:

According to the article, numerous scientific experiments have demonstrated it.  Of course, the debunker's response to this would be that these experiments were fundamentally flawed and/or fudged their data to produce a more favorable conclusion.

---

OrgoneConclusion said:

Randi rebuttal

I am not going to address point by point as there are almost all ad hominems and have little to do with the challenge. What all the idiots fail to grok is that the parapsychologist designs the test and then falls on his/her own sword.

And I guess Randi had a hand in non-Randi live TV shows wherein psychics failed miserably. And in all scientific tests worldwide. And he controls the other few dozen skeptic challenges.

But lets go to our very own Swami Challenges. There wee some 30 odd challenges based exactly on the claimants alleged super power. Out of 30 Challenges only one was taken by Shroomism. He failed and reneged on the bet. How close-minded is it to offer $10,000 for what another person claims? If I told you I could put a ball within a 5" X 5" square from 30 foot away, I doubt that anyone would challenge me.

Skeptics may appear close-minded because that have already investigated numerous similar claims and understand the psychological mechanism behind the failings: self-delusion, confirmation bias, back-fitting and so on.

Now look on the other side. Parapsychologists claim that no real psychic would demonstrate their powers for money because to do so would, the powers would leave them. Yet they just made this shit up. Then they point to famous psychics or chi masters or... who charge money.

Did you know that I am invisible when no one is looking? True fact.

---