Do you suffer from Pseudo-Skepticism?

[DetlefK]

The german author Sascha Lobo has an editorial and I think, he found an important spot this week.
(article in german)
http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/web/lobo-kolumne-pseudoskepsis-zweifelt-an-allem-ausser-an-sich-selbst-a-1016636.html

It's about pseudo-skepticism. What's the difference to real skepticism?

Skepticism asks.

Pseudo-skepticism proclaims.
"Don't believe anything! Especially, if the powerful tell it!" "Mainstream-media!"

Conspiracy-theories are the peak of pseudo-skepticism, because they turn the burden of proof upside down.

"I don't have to prove that I'm right. You have to prove that I'm wrong!"

"Of course you won't find incriminating documents about Benghazi! There was a cover-up! The lack of documents is proof of a cover-up and therefore proof of the crime!"

"Of course the US overthrew the government of Yanukovich! That's what they always do! Why wouldn't they do it this time? They had contacts in Ukraine and spent money there for God-knows-what! They even tried to get their guy in charge when everything was over! Why would they try to get their guy in charge if they had nothing to do with the coup? And of course you won't find any hard proof for that! They are too smart for that!"

"What do you think why people badmouth alternative medicine? Because they are shills for Big Pharma!"

Pseudo-skepticism means doubting everything, except yourself. Selective skepticism. You trust one media-outlet completely and distrust another media-outlet completely.



When someone tries to push something on you, you get skeptical. After all, you are an intelligent person! What if everybody else is too stupid, too ignorant or too corrupt to see the truth?
What if vaccinations are actually BAD for you?

[el_bryanto]

1. That's just what "big skepticism" wants you to think. nt

[merrily]

2. LOL!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

3. lol

good one

[DetlefK]

5. Great point. :D

[HappyMe]

9. Mercola!!1

[Teutonic Samuel]

67. HEH!

[merrily]

4. Of course we should take everything government tells us at face value!

Oh, wait. That could not be more foolish. (Just a general statement, having nothing to do with vaccinations, all of which I have received, AFAIK.)

[el_bryanto]

6. Joking aside, the problem is that we live in a post-authority world.

At one point we might have believed political leaders or media figures (like Cronkite or Murrow), but that age is over. How does one determine whether the claims of a scientist or a political figure or an economic analyst are true, assuming one isn't an expert in those fields. Increasingly it goes back to what one already thinks about the issue. I'm not sure how you get around that, because we all know that political and media figures have earned our distrust.

Bryant

[merrily]

10. "Cui bono" and "follow the money" are generally good guidelines.

we all know that political and media figures have earned our distrust.

Yep. I keep posting it's not Mr. Smith Goes to Washington anymore. It's House of Cards. So much money and so much power involved, taking it as an article of faith that we should start by bestowing credibility until people who keep things secret from us tell us otherwise seems laughable to me.

And there are certain things you can't even post at DU, even if you know them to be true, because you know they will trigger Invasion of the Body Snatchers syndrome.



No can defense, Daniel-san.

[el_bryanto]

11. Than that puts us at the unsatisfying situation the article describes where we

just reject what the Government says. I'm not saying that the answer is to trust what the Government says, because that's very hard to do these days. But the problem is that given the complexity of the world, and the complexity of issues we face, who do we trust to let us know what the best answer is.

I'm not sure what you can't post at DU, except that this sit is dedicated to working within the Democratic party. That said everyday people post articles about how the Democratic party is letting us down, so I don't know.

Bryant

[merrily]

14. No, that is not what I said. Thinking about something, questioning,

analyzing, does not equate to rejecting everything out of hand. In fact, it's almost the direct opposite of rejecting everything out of hand.

For example, when it comes to discrediting skepticism, cui bono? Cui bono from labeling every question about government a "conspiracy theory?"


There are many things you are technically allowed to post at DU, going strictly by TOS. However, my post said nothing about getting banned. It said without triggering Invasion of the Body Snatchers syndrome.

[hunter]

23. What are these things I can't post on DU?

The writings I've had hidden or locked have involved fighting words, nudity, and anti-gun rants.

Yes, they were expressions of my own "truth," but I generally knew I was pushing the limits when I posted in that manner, not because I was censoring myself, but because I was using strong, possibly offensive, images and words to make my point.

Some of my opinions are "out there" in conspiracy theory land, and I also have a complicated relationship with the Catholic Church.

Yeah, I know any post about the Church will bring out the Catholic bashing hordes (many of them Protestants-turned-atheists who decided to keep the Catholic bashing aspect of their upbringing as they were discarding the rest of their religious baggage...) but even in that volatile arena I do not self-censor.

Here's a picture of what I suspect was a climate modification experiment:



These planes were flying side-by-side in formation.

OOOOOoooooo...... chemtrails.

But it's not Conspiracy Theory if I speak my own truth rather than buying into and simply repeating all the noise (and often deliberate misinformation) posted on the plethora of CT sites and poorly moderated or unmoderated discussion boards.

[merrily]

24. Please see reply 14.

[Atman]

31. Okay, wait a minute? Where do you live?

Have you ever flown out of New York City? JFK, Leguardia, Newark? The planes to Florida and big tourist routes leave virtually at the same time, practically every half hour, and take the same flight path (because it is most efficient). I can't count the number of times I've taken the flight to Orlando only to see a couple of other planes flying right nearby us. Your view appears to be from out west, and the flights out of San Francisco and LA do the same thing. Go watch the sunrise over Lake Tahoe. It's breathtaking...and at about 5:30 you'll see the skies fill up with planes coming from the west coast. You're view is from the ground, so you can't honestly tell which altitude the flight was at, iow, that they were flying "in formation." The contrails beginning at the same place can totally be accounted for through atmospheric changes.

Your paranoia is a great example of the OP. These flights can't possibly have a reasonable explanation other than government conspiracy. Although I just provided a reasonable explanation which can be verified by checking flight schedules and traffic patterns along popular tourist routes.

Oh, shit...you sucked me back into the chemtrail nonsense. IT'S A CONSPIRACY!

[hunter]

45. These planes came in off the Pacific Ocean in formation side-by-side, not a usual commercial route.

The trails started simultaneously and then stopped simultaneously. These were larger planes, but I didn't have binoculars with me, so I couldn't identify them.

I think it's a pretty good guess the Navy was up to some mischief. They always are.

[Act_of_Reparation]

15. I'm guessing you've never read Richard Hofstadter.

The Paranoid Style in American Politics.

[merrily]

18. Is calling it paranoia really all that different from calling it

pseudo skepticism?

[Act_of_Reparation]

26. Nope. That's not the point.

The point is I don't think people were measurably more trusting of authority in times past. As Hofstadter noted, paranoia has been a fixture of American political discourse for a very long time.

[merrily]

28. Thanks for clarifying. However, ftr, calling something paranoia does not make it paranoia.

Especially when no psychologist or psychiatrist is involved.

A lot of so-called "paranoia" about government on the part of the left is skepticism that resulted after government got caught lying.

[Act_of_Reparation]

30. I just happened to look over my shoulder...

...and found the diploma hanging on my wall reads, "Psychology".

[merrily]

32. Did you write the article? Are you Hofstadter?

[msanthrope]

34. I'd stop digging. nt

[merrily]

36. Because you say so?

[msanthrope]

40. Because posters who aren't aware that Richard Hofstader has been dead for 45 years really, really,

should stop.

[merrily]

41. That you missed the point of my question entirely msanthrope, doesn't mean I should stop.

Fyi: The date of Hofstader's death does not exactly dispose of the issue whether he used the term "paranoia" clinically in his 1963 article. In fact, it has nothing at all to do with it.

[msanthrope]

44. Heck---I can't stop this trainwreck if you really want to continue. nt

[merrily]

58. No worries, msanthrope. Thanks anyway for interjecting, though.

[Act_of_Reparation]

37. I should certainly hope not.

Because Richard Hofstadter died thirteen years before I was born.

[merrily]

39. All the more reason your degree has nothing to do with Hofstader's article.

My point was, Hofstader who was not a psychologist or a psychiatrist, but a historian, decided to call mistrust of government "paranoia."

According to material the link you furnished, Hofstader "borrowed" a clinical term, acknowledging it was pejorative. I would guess he "borrowed" because it was perjorative. He does not pretend to be using the term clinically.

I don't think skepticism or mistrust of government is paranoia simply because Hofstader chose to "borrow" that term from a discipline that was not his own.

[Act_of_Reparation]

50. I would argue my degree qualifies me to call bullshit on your bullshit.

Hofstadter didn't "borrow" anything from anyone. He used the word "paranoia" in its colloquial, common-usage sense to describe irrational or unjustified feelings of persecution.

Furthermore, "paranoia" is not, in and of itself, a clinical term. It is a word which, like "delusion", early psychologists borrowed from common usage to describe a particular pattern of thought which may or may not lead to pathological outcomes. Many people exhibit paranoid thinking; in very few of them are these patterns so pronounced as to be considered an "illness". Moreover, there is no diagnosis for "Paranoia"; there are simply a few illnesses which display paranoid features, among many other requisite symptoms.

You see, not only am I well-versed in the psychological disciplines, I also happen to be neuro-atypical myself. Due to some genetic fluke which, in combination with a high-stress home environment, resulted in the overly-rapid reuptake of serotonin, I suffer with what in psychological terms is called "depression". But, I understand "depression" isn't a word psychologists invented, that it is a word psychologists borrowed from common parlance, that this word has multiple context-dependent meanings. Take note how I don't get bent out of shape when someone watches a "depressing" movie, or when a tropical "depression" strikes the Florida panhandle.

Sorry to rain on your outrage parade.

[merrily]

51. What bullshit would that be? My whole point from go on this was that Hofstader was not a

psychologist or a psychiatrist and his calling something paranoia does not mean it is paranoia.

Do you actually disagree with any of that?

(So far, I am not really sure what it is I have said that you actually disagree with and why.)


As for the term "borrow," that was, as my prior post said, straight out of the material at the link that you provided upthread. Here is the direct quote:

Recurring paranoia in American politics

In developing the subject, the historian Richard J. Hofstadter initially establishes that, in coining the term “paranoid style”, he is borrowing the clinical, psychiatric term “paranoid” to describe a political personality, and acknowledges that the term is pejorative:

So, excuse me for paraphrasing, fairly closely, material from the source you provided?

Sorry to rain on your outrage parade.

I am not outraged at all, but you seem to be. I don't even know what you think I am outraged about or why you think I am outraged?

[Act_of_Reparation]

54. You aren't listening.

He's using the word to describe a trend in public discourse. He's not diagnosing anyone, and is, therefore, not stepping outside his field. Maybe try reading the publication before you throw yourself into a tizzy?

[merrily]

57. I never said he was diagnosing someone. I said that calling something paranoia does not make

it paranoia. I also that he used a pejorative term and I suspected he used it deliberately. Again, what is it that I have actually said about mistrust of government that you disagree with?

Speaking of using pejorative terms, I am not in a "tizzy" at all. Nor am I outraged. I know of nothing in my posts suggests either and it's certainly not my emotional or physical state as I type. Again, I have no clue why you are imputing such things to words you see on a screen.

[Act_of_Reparation]

59. You're equivocating.

The word paranoid has multiple meanings.... A, B, C, and D.

Hofstadter calls American politics paranoid, using definition B.

You're saying just because he calls it paranoid, that does not make it paranoid, using definition A.

Hofstadter was an academic historian, probably one of the most important and influential liberal historians of the past century. As such, "The Paranoid Style" is written fairly academically; he states what he means by "Paranoid Style" in the introduction. "The Paranoid Style" does not mean "clinically paranoid", because he isn't using the word to imply "clinical paranoia". He uses the word in a broad sense to describe a trend in political discourse that is at least superficially similar to the patterns displayed by "clinical paranoia".

I don't understand why you are so hung up on this.

[merrily]

63. I did not define paranoia at all, beyond noting it's pejorative.

"Paranoia," "conspiracy theory," "pseudo skepticism," whatever. They are all pejorative terms. And, the pejorative nature of the terms is the only thing that was really relevant to what I was saying. Well, that and how each of us decides what "true skepticism" is involves subjective determinations that are most likely colored by our respective points of view.

Bye.

[Act_of_Reparation]

64. I don't know how else you would put it.

There are people who believe FEMA is building concentration camps. There are people who believe the United Nations has become a world government. There are people who believe Barack Obama is Muslim, and therefore untrustworthy. There are people who believe the CDC is lying to them about the safety and efficacy of vaccines.

If you take umbrage with how the word "skepticism" is deployed, then fine. I tend to qualify mine as "scientific skepticism", to differentiate myself from those whose questioning is not entirely directed by scientific means. But how else would you describe people who, against all available evidence, maintain that they are victims of some high-reaching federal conspiracy?

Hofstadter didn't use the word "paranoid" to piss on anyone's birthday cake; he used the word because the word fits.

[merrily]

66. My reply 6 simply disagreed with your assertion that I had defined "paranoia" differently than

Hofstadter had, given that I had not defined it at all. Amazing all that you saw in it.

You seem to be having a conversation with someone who is outraged, bullshitting, equivocating, angry, etc. And now, apparently I need to be persuaded that Hofstadter did not use a term just piss on someone's birthday cake?

I've tried to tell you that I have not been participating in any of that, but I have not succeeded. I am not sure what conversation you are having or with whom. Apparently, though, it's much more drama-filled that I am up to today (maybe any day); and all i can do is leave you to it.

[Act_of_Reparation]

74. I am not the only one who is at a loss for what you are trying to say.

"Saying something is paranoia does not make it paranoia because an historian is not a psychologist" lead me to believe that you were either equivocating or neurotypicalsplaining, or a little bit of both. You say you're not. Then I really don't understand what the hell you're driving at.

If you have a reasonable critique of Hoftsadter's work, then spit it out.

Plain English, please. I'm a little slow.

[merrily]

75. See Replies 4, 46 and 68. The point seemed very clear to me. However, again,

I cannot account for all the things you seem to see in my points.

[el_bryanto]

22. I believe I have read it (but a while back) - I'm not sure what your point is. nt

[Act_of_Reparation]

25. Hofstadter argued paranoia is a fixture of American political thought.

Distrust of authority isn't anything recent or new. I'm not saying you're wrong on anything substantive, just adding some historical clarification.

[el_bryanto]

38. Ah - yes i would agree that it's substrata

going back to the founding probably, certainly the ante-bellum south had it, and the know nothings and the like. I think what changes the feature in this century is the opportunity we have to tune out sources we don't want to hear. In a sense that's always been true, I suppose, but it seems easier now.

But then again, one could argue that the Cronkite era was an aberration - the early newspapers were largely connected to political parties and were not unbiased.

Bryant

[merrily]

69. The Cronkite era was also an aberration in that most of the big on air names had come

up from being newspaper reporters, then radio, then TV. That tradition--digging for facts, verifying sources and the like-has been dying out Now, we have "on air personalities" and "commentary." Occasionally, one Republican fool and a Democrat arguing with each other, talking over each other, passes for objectivity on tv, even though both could be totally wrong. That however is also less prevalent than it used to be. (Some things should pass away and that was one of them.)

But you are correct that mistrust of government went back to colonial times. Indeed, it is the reason that the colonies refused to ratify the Constitution unless amendments in the form of the Bill of Rights were promised to follow ASAP (and they did).

[mike_c]

60. that's the problem that's driving me crazy as a scientist and an educator....

I grew up in an America that had enormous trust in its scientists, medical professionals, and engineers. Science revolutionized life in the latter 20th century. Born in 1955, I grew up in that atmosphere and became a scientist because we looked up to science and respected those who advanced it. I wanted to grow up and be a scientist the same way kids wanted to be fire fighters, nurses, astronauts, engineers-- those were all professions that enjoyed great respect and deep public trust.

Now, I'm regularly confronted with accusations that "scientists are shills for corporations" or "greedy scientists can't be trusted," even here on DU and nearly always in the context of some disagreement about which the non-scientists are either entirely ignorant or in possession of just enough information to be dangerously misinformed. Worse, people are likely to embrace pseudoscience and outright lies because they reject scientific authority reflexively, they grasp at any nonsense they can find to "prove" that scientists are colluding to deceive them, or that we're just socially maladapted "boffins" and "eggheads." Not trustworthy, in any event.

[merrily]

62. It may depend upon what is being questioned and why. And who funded the study and why.

Climate change, to name just one, is well settled.

But, for example, I don't know what science said about cigarette smoking and health issues when you were growing up. I do know the science has not always said the same thing about that. And, when the science was a lot more "inconclusive" about the connection between cigarette smoking and health problems, I think tobacco companies did have the scientists in their pockets.

So, it depends.

[mike_c]

71. there was broad consensus in the medical and scientific community regarding tobacco...

...and it's links to diseases, just as there is in the scientific community today regarding global climate change. Tobacco companies used every measure they could to discredit that consensus and to generate DOUBT, which the lay public understands in a completely different way than the scientific community understands it. And yes, in every profession there are some who disagree with the majority consensus, and some who's professional judgement is available to the highest bidder. That has always been true of every profession, but I'd argue that it is least true of science, which is a cult of honesty, if nothing else.

The popular idea that "science sold out to tobacco companies" is a complete and utter myth, just another piece of misinformation masquerading as history.

[merrily]

72. In the 1940's and 50s, studies were cited to show the evidence of a link was inconclusive at best.

Possibly even earlier than that.

"Not a cough in a carload" was one of the actual ads used.

The companies commissioned studies.


That much I know.

I don't know who was actually conducting those studies, in terms of qualifications. I believe "independent laboratory" was the common attribution. I also don't know what was appearing in medical journals at the time. But enough smoke was generated (no pun intended) to keep the FTC (as to false advertising) and FDA at bay.

Does that mean that "science sold out?" That is not what I said. I said:

It may depend upon what is being questioned and why. And who funded the study and why.

I don't mean that tobacco companies had all scientists in their pockets, either. Whoever they hired to do the studies, though? I think that is likely.

[merrily]

73. This article alludes to some of what I posted and also to some of what you posted.

http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/welcome/features/20071114_cardio-tobacco/

Including what I posted about studies commissioned by the tobacco companies and their internally done studies. (They kept secret the results they did not like.)

And now they are doing studies to back up false claims about more modern forms of smoking.


It was not only lay people who were fooled, but also doctors. This article says that, as of 1960, many doctors not only believed smoking was okay but actually smoked themselves, furthering the impression that cigarettes must be safe. (Near the end of the 1800s was when people began to suspect a connection between smoking and lung cancer, so 1960 was quite far into the "linking" process.)

One source of information for the history of ignorance is the polling data amassed by professional opinion research agencies and their tobacco industry counterparts. In 1954, for example, George Gallup sampled a broad swath of the US public to ask: ‘do you think cigarette smoking is one of the causes of lung cancer, or not?’ 41% answered ‘yes’, with the remainder answering either ‘no’ or ‘undecided’.30 Even large numbers of doctors remained unconvinced. In 1960, in a poll organised by the American Cancer Society, only a third of all US doctors agreed that cigarette smoking should be considered ‘a major cause of lung cancer’. This same poll revealed that 43% of all American doctors were still smoking cigarettes on a regular basis, with occasional users accounting for another 5%.31 With half of all doctors smoking, it should come as no surprise that most Americans remained unconvinced of life-threatening harms from the habit.

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/21/2/87.full

So, again, it not a matter of science selling out. However, if I see a newspaper report about a study that supposedly concluded that lots of salt is great for my health and I see that a company in the business of selling salt commissioned the study, I might squint, based on what I know the tobacco companies did.

[Bluenorthwest]

8. But are the choices actually binary, or is that suggestion in itself a sort of a call to abandon

reason? I don't think the choices are 'take it all at face value' or 'reject everything you hear'. I think both choices are pretty foolish.

[merrily]

12. Of course, I didn't suggest rejecting everything you hear.

[treestar]

27. Straw man. No one said that

And you are proving the point. The government is part of the conspiracy

[merrily]

29. Actually, I said it. You can tell because my name is on the post.

[The empressof all]

61. This was a thoroughly enjoyable sub thread

Thanks folks!

[randr]

7. This is an important article

and addresses problems we are facing on the right and the left.

[world wide wally]

13. One thing not mentioned is Fox News.

I don't think most people realize the extent of brainwashing unleashed by this "pseudo news" channel. The drum beat goes on 24/7 with their people constantly proclaiming "Republican good, Obama bad".

Don't kid yourself for one minute and underestimate this brainwashing power wielded by Fox News. Even when they are not pontificating directly, they are coloring how others report news and the content. If you want to ever talk conspiracy, this would be the place to start.
Pseudo skeptics are made, not born.

[whatchamacallit]

20. Your point destroys his

This - "You're delusional if you don't trust media and government" - bullshit is undone by the official lie factory, Fox. Maybe the author should specify which channels of information are auto-trustworthy before encouraging us to bleat like sheep.

[Act_of_Reparation]

16. Skeptics want to believe what is true.

Pseudo-skeptics believe what they want.

[merrily]

19. Being skeptical is not about deciding what others believe. Skeptics question,

rather than taking things at face value.

What is "true" is not always easy to decide when one is talking about anything with a subjective component.

[Act_of_Reparation]

43. I don't think that's what I said.

Skepticism is about questioning, with the ultimate goal of perceiving the universe as realistically as possible. Thus, the skeptic, to quote Matt Dillahunty, wishes to "believe as many true things as possible, and reject as many false things as possible."

My point is skeptics look at the world around them and try to understand it as best we can, regardless of our preferences; while pseudo-skeptics look at the world around them and try to make it fit within their own preconceived notions.

[merrily]

46. I think most or all of us question with the goal of perceiving the universe as realistically as

possible.

My point is skeptics look at the world around them and try to understand it as best we can, regardless of our preferences; while pseudo-skeptics look at the world around them and try to make it fit within their own preconceived notions.

Then, they are not really questioning.

However, when you speak of whether someone is a skeptic or a pseudo skeptic, and when I speak of whether someone is "really" questioning, we are both making value judgments. And I suspect our own respective POV are involved in that value judgment.

It is very easy to dismiss questioning, skepticism and mistrust of government as paranoia, or pseudo skepticism or "not really questioning" or a conspiracy theory.

I am suggesting that we have as much reason to be skeptical of such dismissals as we have to be skeptical of anything else.

[pampango]

17. I like to think that "turning the burden of proof upside down" is a right wing phenomenon.

At other times I'm not so sure.

[merrily]

21. The burden of proof, totally right side up, in our court system,

is that the person trying to make you believe something has the burden of proving that thing.

That is a simplified way of putting it, but it's enough for folk music, as they say.

Prosecutor wants you to believe someone is guilty; prosecutor has the burden of proving guilt.

Defense counsel wants you to believe the accused acted out of insanity or self defense; defense counsel has the burden of proof on either of those.

Bush wants you to believe the smoking gun is about to become a mushroom cloud, Bush had the burden of proof on that point. Failure to make him satisfy his burden was a disastrous mistake on the part of the House and Senate and the media. Maybe worse than a mere mistake.

[Ykcutnek]

33. People who take the default position that they're always being lied to...

devalue society.

[Man from Pickens]

47. wouldn't happen

if we weren't always being lied to

The "feeling you're being lied to" thing didn't spontaneously come into existence on its own... it's the legacy of generations of lies.

[merrily]

70. If they devalue anything, it's media and government officials, which combination

does not equal society. More specifically, they probably devalue those who don't tell us the truth.

[Brother Buzz]

35. Mark Twain and I often laugh about this, especially when we're sipping elixir

Stated to me for a fact. I only tell it as I got it. I am willing to believe it. I can believe anything - Mark Twain

[Iggo]

42. Define "suffer."

[Man from Pickens]

48. Factual correction

"Of course the US overthrew the government of Yanukovich! That's what they always do! Why wouldn't they do it this time? They had contacts in Ukraine and spent money there for God-knows-what! They even tried to get their guy in charge when everything was over! Why would they try to get their guy in charge if they had nothing to do with the coup? And of course you won't find any hard proof for that! They are too smart for that!"

You do know there is no lack of conclusive evidence that we did exactly that, right? Google search for Nuland + Ukraine and inform yourself.

[daredtowork]

49. What to be skeptical about depends on which political party you're in

There is lots of fraud, corruption, and cover ups in the world. Lots of whistle-blowers get badly treated. The problem is turning this either into something that defines your entire worldview (Everything is a conspiracy!) or something that is associated with one particular political party.

In the end the basic problem is people do get try to get away with crap, and we have an adversarial legal system so that creates the tendency to make it hard on the people trying to prove who got away with crap at their expense - and the higher up the bureaucratic/corporate ladder you go, the bigger the pile of crap is. There is no use "theorizing" about it. But there is also no use denying it goes on because that just insults people who died from cancer trying to prove industrial waste was polluting their environment, etc. They were mocked, too...until they were right.

[rock]

52. Your Pseudo-Skeptic sounds like an ordinary cynic to me

If you tell a skeptic it's raining out and your hair is damp, he'll believe you. For the most common of occurrences a skeptic does not take much convincing (if there's nothing riding on it, he isn't obsessive about it). If you tell him you just saw a UFO, he may insist on a fairly good layout of evidence!

[kentauros]

53. While that kind of topic certainly falls under the umbrella of "Pseudo-Skepticism"

so does this kind:

We Are Skeptical about Skeptics

Skeptical About Skeptics is dedicated to countering dogmatic, ill-informed attacks leveled by self-styled skeptics on pioneering scientific research, researchers, and their subjects.

Healthy skepticism is an important part of science, and indeed of common sense. But dogmatic skepticism uses skepticism as a weapon to defend an ideology or belief system, and inhibits the spirit of inquiry.

Most self-proclaimed skeptics are believers in a materialist worldview, and dismiss any evidence for phenomena that do not agree with their assumption that minds are nothing but brain activity confined to the inside of heads.

Members of militant skeptical organizations often think of themselves as defending science and reason against superstition and credulity.

These are worthy aims, but we at Skeptical About Skeptics think that science and reason are best served by considering the evidence for unexplained phenomena scientifically rather than assuming that these phenomena do not exist because they do not fit in with materialist assumptions.

We support science, not scientific fundamentalism.

Just thought that addition was needed. Now the whole picture is complete!

[uppityperson]

55. Do you believe it is possible to prove a negative, or ask for people to do so?

Do you believe in dichotomous thinking? (They always lie or they always tell the truth? Something is always good or always bad?)

[RunInCircles]

56. Our Doubt is based on the obvious capture of our government by financial interests

The articles are everywhere. Regulatory capture. We have a harder time believing the government when it often just spouts what the big businesses want it to say. We know our government has been corrupted because "Campaign Contributions". All of the studies show that average citizens no longer affect policy. Media is no longer a trusted source for unbiased reporting. Even when they are trying to be they simply don't spend enough time and money gaining the expertise to speak with any authority on the issues. Do you wonder why some people no longer believe what the government tells them? Just today on an anti vaxer critique on DU there was an anti vaxer troll spouting nonsense but the time and energy involved in shutting him down and proving he was spouting misinformation was prohibitive for most people to participate. This occurs over and over in every area people go to for their information. It is not always obvious what to trust and when somebody is outright lying.
The sky is blue, the earth is round, vaccines have helped eradicate deadly diseases, There have been spectacular failures in the supply chain that have caused great harm in a few cases.

[AverageJoe90]

65. Yes, sadly, It is indeed a problem.

For one example, just look at how many hardline ontological materialists react to even the possibility of an afterlife, or that of multiple universes.....they go nuts with the name calling and false assumptions, and yet, they unquestioningly accept every single platitude they can find, on there being no afterlife and only one universe, completely ignoring any evidence to the contrary. Same goes for climate change deniers(and doomers, too!) and actual climate science as well.

[merrily]

68. A few threads from around DU this pm caught my eye:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141005981 (Brian Williams admits his reporting was not truthful after troops protest.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141005997 (New allegations of Saudi involvement in 911.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026180168 (Lies allegedly told by Chris Kyle were less dangerous than the lies he believed)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026176778 (Gallup CEO thinks US unemployment figure is a lie)(we KNOW the method of calculation has been changed over the years)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141005228 (Bobby Jindal's official portrait looks nothing like Bobby Jindal)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141005587 (Obama's claim of $1.8 trillion in deficit cuts open to question).


I don't think the sources for any of the above OP articles were World Nutcakes Daily.