Misplaced Pages

Pseudoskepticism: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:18, 15 March 2006 editSam Spade (talk | contribs)33,916 edits fmt← Previous edit Revision as of 10:49, 15 March 2006 edit undoJim62sch (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers23,810 edits Reverting to NPOV version; Sam, you want to call this vandalism? The irony is too funny for words, after you trashed the entire article for your own POV (and then dragged it to the Human article).Next edit →
Line 8: Line 8:
expression of opprobrium, and is sometimes used against anyone skeptical of a person's favorite idea. expression of opprobrium, and is sometimes used against anyone skeptical of a person's favorite idea.


⚫ ==History and usage==
==Usage==


⚫ The terms ''Pathological skepticism'' and ''Pseudoskepticism'' were coined by ] (] ] at ]) in the early 1990s in response to the ] who applied the label of "]" to fields which Truzzi thought might be better described as ].
Pseudoskeptics unduly criticise and villify the proponents of various present-day theories.

The term only makes sense if one uses a special meaning of "skeptic". "Skeptic" can simply mean "someone who doesn't believe this". Applied to that case, using the term "pseudoskeptic" would be as fallacious as calling something "pseudoscience", which does not claim to be science. Independent of that, pointing out the opponent's mistakes without labeling him is more constructive in a discussion.

Some people called '''pseudoskeptics''' by their opponents hold that it is better to dismiss a correct hypothesis than to accept an incorrect one, and therefore prefer dismissal as a default opinion. This slows down the process of accepting claims that turn out to be factually true, but also prevents the acceptance of uncounted numbers of claims which will turn out to be false. This mindset is claimed to cause difficulty harmonizing observation with established beliefs.

Pseudoskeptics unduly criticise and villify the proponents of various present-day theories. Pseudoskeptics usually focus on an opponent's mistakes, sometimes labeling proponents of a protoscientific theory as "'']s''" in a discussion, and denying any possibility of a ].


The difference between pseudoskepticism and skepticism appear in the conduct of an individual's actions. Among the indications of pseudoskeptical actions are: The difference between pseudoskepticism and skepticism appear in the conduct of an individual's actions. Among the indications of pseudoskeptical actions are:


⚫ # Resorting to various logical fallacies (usually in an attack against those disputing a theory).
# a ], hostile and intolerant stance.
⚫ # Resorting to various ] (usually in an ] attack against those promoting a ]).
# The assumption of facts (such as stating that theories determine phenomena). # The assumption of facts (such as stating that theories determine phenomena).
# The obfuscation of facts. # The obfuscation of facts.
# The use of attractive or neutral euphemisms to disguise unpleasant facts concerning their own positions. # The use of attractive or neutral euphemisms to disguise unpleasant facts concerning their own positions.
# Insisting that fundamental framework and theory of science hardly change. # Insisting that fundamental framework and theory of science hardly change.
# Unwavering belief that science is a consensus and runs on majority rule, rather than being a method used to achieve a diverse array of often conflicting theories. # Unwavering belief that science is a consensus and runs on majority rule.
# Maintaining a stance of hostility and intolerance.
# Instituting hurdles against new theories by "''moving the goalposts''". # Instituting hurdles against new theories by "''moving the goalposts''".
# Ignoring ''intellectual suppression'' of unorthodox theories. # Ignoring ''intellectual suppression'' of unorthodox theories.
# Judging a theory or phenomena without investigation and insisting on ignoring the details thereafter. # Judging a theory or phenomena without investigation and insisting on ignoring the details thereafter.

⚫ Pseudoskeptics do not see occaisional error as a
⚫ flaw in their skepticism. In the historical cases where pseudoskeptics were in opposition, the evidence gained eventual acceptance (often when the technology and associated experimental advances were made so that the ] of the theory is possible). ] made the following remark on how revolutionary theories gain acceptance:

⚫ :''An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarised with the idea from the beginning''.

⚫ ==History==

⚫ The terms ''Pathological skepticism'' and ''Pseudoskepticism'' were coined by ] (] ] at ]) in the early 1990s in response to the ] who applied the label of "]" to fields which Truzzi thought might be better described as ].


Pseudoskeptics have been blamed for cases where a scientific theory met a great deal of criticism before eventually being accepted. Commonly cited are ]'s heliocentric theory; the myth that ]' contemporaries thought the Earth was flat; ]'s theory of ], and skepticism towards ] falling down to ]. ] commented: "I would more easily believe that two Yankee professors would lie, than that stones would fall from heaven." Pseudoskeptics have been blamed for cases where a scientific theory met a great deal of criticism before eventually being accepted. Commonly cited are ]'s heliocentric theory; the myth that ]' contemporaries thought the Earth was flat; ]'s theory of ], and skepticism towards ] falling down to ]. ] commented: "I would more easily believe that two Yankee professors would lie, than that stones would fall from heaven."
Line 41: Line 38:


On occasion, not immediately accepting a new claim can be problematic. ]'s innovations in ] in the ] were ridiculed by a skeptical ] establishment; however, Semmelweis did not help his case with his refusal to publish his own data on the matter until years later. Many thousands of women continued to die unnecessarily in childbirth until cross contamination was indisputably confirmed by others. However, the prompt accepting of a new claim can be equally problematic; the fact that ] and similar radioactive medicines had little critical analysis led to the death of ] and probably other less notables. On occasion, not immediately accepting a new claim can be problematic. ]'s innovations in ] in the ] were ridiculed by a skeptical ] establishment; however, Semmelweis did not help his case with his refusal to publish his own data on the matter until years later. Many thousands of women continued to die unnecessarily in childbirth until cross contamination was indisputably confirmed by others. However, the prompt accepting of a new claim can be equally problematic; the fact that ] and similar radioactive medicines had little critical analysis led to the death of ] and probably other less notables.

⚫ Pseudoskeptics do not see an occasional error as a
⚫ flaw in their skepticism. In the historical cases where pseudoskeptics were in opposition, the evidence gained eventual acceptance (often when the technology and associated experimental advances were made so that the ] of the theory is possible). ] made the following remark on how revolutionary theories gain acceptance:

⚫ :''An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarised with the idea from the beginning''.


Marcello Truzzi has stated that some self-described "''skeptics''" are misrepresenting their opinions: "Since 'skepticism' properly refers to doubt rather than denial — nonbelief rather than ] — critics who take the negative rather than an ] position but still call themselves 'skeptics' are actually ''pseudo-skeptics'' and have, I believed, gained a false advantage by usurping that label." Marcello Truzzi has stated that some self-described "''skeptics''" are misrepresenting their opinions: "Since 'skepticism' properly refers to doubt rather than denial — nonbelief rather than ] — critics who take the negative rather than an ] position but still call themselves 'skeptics' are actually ''pseudo-skeptics'' and have, I believed, gained a false advantage by usurping that label."
Line 54: Line 56:
*], by ], is an analysis of the history of science through various ]s. Its publication was a landmark event in the sociology of knowledge, and popularized the terms ] and ]. *], by ], is an analysis of the history of science through various ]s. Its publication was a landmark event in the sociology of knowledge, and popularized the terms ] and ].
*] (CSICOP) is an organization which professes to encourage open minded, critical investigation of ] and protoscientific claims from an empirical ]. Its '']'' have led some to label it as pseudoskeptical. *] (CSICOP) is an organization which professes to encourage open minded, critical investigation of ] and protoscientific claims from an empirical ]. Its '']'' have led some to label it as pseudoskeptical.

==See also==
*] *]
*] *]
Line 60: Line 64:
*] *]


===External links and resources=== ==External links and resources==
* Truzzi, Marcello, "''''". Anomalist. (Commentary) * Truzzi, Marcello, "''''". Anomalist. (Commentary)
* Truzzi, Marcello, "''''". Oxymoron, 1998 * Truzzi, Marcello, "''''". Oxymoron, 1998

Revision as of 10:49, 15 March 2006

Pathological skepticism (or Pseudoskepticism) is a class of pseudoscience masquerading as proper skepticism. A pseudoskeptic is an individual who claims to support "reason" and the "scientific worldview", but frequently uses logical fallacies, attempts to silence opponents, and employs various invalid strategies of persuasion. The term is susceptible to misuse as an expression of opprobrium, and is sometimes used against anyone skeptical of a person's favorite idea.

History and usage

The terms Pathological skepticism and Pseudoskepticism were coined by Marcello Truzzi (sociology professor at Eastern Michigan University) in the early 1990s in response to the skeptic groups who applied the label of "Pathological Science" to fields which Truzzi thought might be better described as protoscience.

The term only makes sense if one uses a special meaning of "skeptic". "Skeptic" can simply mean "someone who doesn't believe this". Applied to that case, using the term "pseudoskeptic" would be as fallacious as calling something "pseudoscience", which does not claim to be science. Independent of that, pointing out the opponent's mistakes without labeling him is more constructive in a discussion.

Some people called pseudoskeptics by their opponents hold that it is better to dismiss a correct hypothesis than to accept an incorrect one, and therefore prefer dismissal as a default opinion. This slows down the process of accepting claims that turn out to be factually true, but also prevents the acceptance of uncounted numbers of claims which will turn out to be false. This mindset is claimed to cause difficulty harmonizing observation with established beliefs.

Pseudoskeptics unduly criticise and villify the proponents of various present-day theories. Pseudoskeptics usually focus on an opponent's mistakes, sometimes labeling proponents of a protoscientific theory as "mad scientists" in a discussion, and denying any possibility of a conspiracy theory.

The difference between pseudoskepticism and skepticism appear in the conduct of an individual's actions. Among the indications of pseudoskeptical actions are:

  1. Resorting to various logical fallacies (usually in an attack against those disputing a theory).
  2. The assumption of facts (such as stating that theories determine phenomena).
  3. The obfuscation of facts.
  4. The use of attractive or neutral euphemisms to disguise unpleasant facts concerning their own positions.
  5. Insisting that fundamental framework and theory of science hardly change.
  6. Unwavering belief that science is a consensus and runs on majority rule.
  7. Maintaining a stance of hostility and intolerance.
  8. Instituting hurdles against new theories by "moving the goalposts".
  9. Ignoring intellectual suppression of unorthodox theories.
  10. Judging a theory or phenomena without investigation and insisting on ignoring the details thereafter.

Pseudoskeptics have been blamed for cases where a scientific theory met a great deal of criticism before eventually being accepted. Commonly cited are Galileo's heliocentric theory; the myth that Christopher Columbus' contemporaries thought the Earth was flat; Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift, and skepticism towards rocks falling down to Earth. Thomas Jefferson commented: "I would more easily believe that two Yankee professors would lie, than that stones would fall from heaven."

While continental drift was opposed by young-earth creationists who believed in a young earth in which there would not be enough time for continental drift to occur, the significant opposition came from the scientific establishment on the grounds that Wegener's proposed mechanism to explain continental drift clearly could not work, and that no alternative seemed to be at hand. However, this was debatably not pathological; arguably, the standards for acceptance of a patently impossible theory should be quite high.

Another example of this is the oft-cited case of meteorites; while some have argued that they were not accepted because the evidence for them was not good, opposition continued long after a number of reliable reports and even after Ernst Chladni showed that meteorites were geologically distinct from terrestrial rocks; what was apparently lacking was not evidence but a theoretical basis which made the evidence seem worthy of acceptance. These observation were not in agreement with the prevailing scientific thought. When the reasons why rocks falling from the sky was later proven not only logical but predictable, the question resolved itself.

On occasion, not immediately accepting a new claim can be problematic. Ignaz Semmelweis's innovations in hygiene in the 1840s were ridiculed by a skeptical medical establishment; however, Semmelweis did not help his case with his refusal to publish his own data on the matter until years later. Many thousands of women continued to die unnecessarily in childbirth until cross contamination was indisputably confirmed by others. However, the prompt accepting of a new claim can be equally problematic; the fact that Radithor and similar radioactive medicines had little critical analysis led to the death of Eben Byers and probably other less notables.

Pseudoskeptics do not see an occasional error as a flaw in their skepticism. In the historical cases where pseudoskeptics were in opposition, the evidence gained eventual acceptance (often when the technology and associated experimental advances were made so that the falsifiability of the theory is possible). Max Planck made the following remark on how revolutionary theories gain acceptance:

An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarised with the idea from the beginning.

Marcello Truzzi has stated that some self-described "skeptics" are misrepresenting their opinions: "Since 'skepticism' properly refers to doubt rather than denial — nonbelief rather than belief — critics who take the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves 'skeptics' are actually pseudo-skeptics and have, I believed, gained a false advantage by usurping that label."

See also

See also

External links and resources

Category:
Pseudoskepticism: Difference between revisions Add topic