Pseudoskepticism

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Skepticism and agnosticism)
(That was an internal link)
Line 23: Line 23:
 
==See also==
 
==See also==
 
*[[Burden of proof]]
 
*[[Burden of proof]]
 +
*[[WikiSynergy]], where they enjoy  pretending to be the "real" skeptics, while actively engaging in promoting all forms of woo imaginable - which, somewhat ironically, would mean that the first definition of "pseudoskepticism" could be applied to them.
 
*[[Skepticism]]
 
*[[Skepticism]]
 
*[[SCEPCOP | Scientific Committee Exposing Pseudo-Skeptical Cynicism of the Paranormal]]
 
*[[SCEPCOP | Scientific Committee Exposing Pseudo-Skeptical Cynicism of the Paranormal]]
  
 
==External links==
 
==External links==
*[[WikiSynergy]], where they enjoy  pretending to be the "real" skeptics, while actively engaging in promoting all forms of woo imaginable - which, somewhat ironically, would mean that the first definition of "pseudoskepticism" could be applied to them.
+
 
 
*[http://wikisynergy.com/wiki/Pseudoskepticism An article by "believers" on pseudoskepticism]
 
*[http://wikisynergy.com/wiki/Pseudoskepticism An article by "believers" on pseudoskepticism]
  

Revision as of 22:41, 19 January 2010

Pseudoskepticism is used in two different ways.

Contents

Legitimate use

The description is occasionally used - and in this case correctly - to refer to those who maintain that they are skeptical of things such as the facts about global warming,[1] evolution or AIDS. In this case the word is simply a synonym of denialism, as there is a vast amount of real evidence which is simply willfully ignored by these pseudoskeptics.

It should also be noted that real skeptics are always prepared to change their positions based on the production of real evidence. This is evident in skeptics who rely on the scientific method and is demonstrated in the case of Einstein's Cosmological Constant, which has gone numerous revisions as to whether it applies or not[2] - thus making them immune to the accusation of pseudoskepticism.

Usage by woo promoters

It is perhaps more often used as a loaded term by promoters of woo to dismiss skeptical criticism of their beliefs as unfounded. Some woo-promoters maintain that demanding evidence before belief is an extreme position, and they feel that we should all be agnostic about, well, everything until it has been positively disproved. Given the difficulty of absolutely disproving even the most absurd hypothesis they then go on to maintain that all those who ask for evidence before belief are "pseudoskeptics".

Consequently, these woo-promoters will try to claim the high ground by describing themselves as being "open-mindeded" in comparison to the allegedly closed-minded members of the scientific establishment who demand actual evidence before accepting the woo peddlers' pet beliefs as anything more than bogus at best.

As an example, SCEPCOP maintains that: pseudoskeptics "will never accept a paranormal [explanation] that includes metaphysical dimensions because they believe it's impossible."[3] It would be interesting to see what they think of the scientific method and methodological naturalism. as these don't necessarily "not believe" in paranormal explanations, just that once you've explained something paranormal or metaphysical, it ceases to be paranormal or metaphysical and becomes part of naturalistic reality!

Skepticism and agnosticism

In any case, skepticism and agnosticism are not necessarily exclusive positions. If somebody maintains that there are invisible, undetectable fairies at the bottom of their garden, there is no way to prove that this is not the case - though equally there is no supporting evidence and they essentially non-existent by nature of being "undetectable". There is an infinitesimal possibility that these beings do exist, and accordingly it can be argued that "agnosticism" towards the claim is the appropriate position. However, being agnostic about a belief does not mean that there is a 50/50 possibility of its being correct - it merely means there is a possibility. In this case, the improbability of the assertion coupled with the lack of evidence justifies our being extremely agnostic about the assertion; in fact a position of such extreme agnosticism that it is, for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable from disbelief.

In this particular case we could equally easily call ourselves highly skeptical - there is no practical difference.

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. True pseudoskepticism
  2. Collegiate Times - Einstein’s “Greatest Blunder” Proved Correct
  3. SCEPCOP on pseudoskeptics
Articles on RationalWiki related to pseudo-studies
Pseudoarcheology - Pseudohistory - Pseudolaw - Pseudolinguistics - Pseudomathematics - Pseudoscience - Pseudopsychology - Pseudoscience list - Pseudoscience in advertising - Pseudoskepticism - Pseudovitamin
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support