Anti-skepticism

[lovelyyoungman]

Hi everyone,

I've only relatively recently become interested in skepticism and was wondering if anyone could recommend any anti-skepticism websites. By that I mean sites that are specifically against the critical thinking approach rather than ones that are simply pro-woo.

I couldn't ever bring myself to spend money/time on books like The Dawkins Delusion but I'd be interested to read some opinions opposite to my own. If only to be better prepared when faced with a particularly (ill) informed believer.

[asdfg]

www.debunkingskeptics.com/

Sites like this one are mostly dedicated to ad Hominem attacks and fallacious arguments. They're good to read though if you want to brush up on your logical fallacy spotting!

They can't back up their beliefs with sound evidence so they simply attack everyone and anyone who makes this clear and disagrees with their position on matters.

[lovelyyoungman]

Great, thanks for that. Just had a look and I'm trying to work out who these people are, its odd.

[fluffet]

Hi LYM,

Ive looked at this site in the past and again today with a similar wish to yourself , to read opposing opinions and to better inform or prepare myself for the kinds of debate they offer.
As Jigsaw mentioned and as was my own reason for reading them i wanted to excersise and better my ability to recognise logical fallacy when i saw it and as a relative newcomer to this kind of thing i wanted to read the opposing views and better understand even reinforce what i already knew and build on what i didnt.

The trouble with that site for me is its such a mishmash of treatise and arguements its often hard to figure out what their actual views or points are, they seem to claim to attack what they call psudo skepticism rather than skepticism in general but often confuse or redefine what either is in their view to suit the particular argument or subject they tackle.

For me personally although i can recognise a lot of what they argue or say as fallacy i often wish i had a more knowledgable experienced skeptical thinker on hand to interpret or further explain or perhaps reinforce or correct where necessary what ive thought about things ive read there and elsewhere.

This particular site i agree is odd , some of its main contributors like Zammit and Wu im aware of and have a little background to go on who they are or where they are coming from but some of their more recent contributors like Brian Josephson a nobel prize winner in Physics no less apparently i know less about and to be honest find it a strange pursuit for a man of scientifc background to follow.

Wondered if you'd read Wu's "treatise" yet -
www.debunkingskeptics.com/Contents.htm
Its incredibly long winded and in my opinion its has many points that i just dont agree with based on the arguements he puts forward but id love for someone with the knowledge and experience to strip it down and confirm or correct any thoughts i and perhaps others with less experience might have on it .

I particularly find his arguements about scientific evidence existing for paranormal phenomena confusing in that much of what ive read surrounding the evidence he offers refutes its validity yet he ignores any such existance of this and doesnt attempt to actually offer anything in a way of a rebuttal to opposing research that questions the validity of the "supporting evidence" he mentions .
If he is so sure there is so much pro evidence out there you would think he would at least attempt to show any opposing reviews of that evidence as incorrect instead he ignores them altogether choosing instead to focus on the "positive" research.

Anyway be interesting to see what you think on it all and what more experienced members than myself can offer in the way of help or clarity on a lot of what he talks about .

[lovelyyoungman]

I've read the inroduction to his "Treatise" and its so full of holes that I couldn't really bear to continue with it. I'm some kind of proof that the approach of "normal" skeptics is more valid than the skeptic "debunker", in that I am new to the whole scene and have nothing invested in being a skeptic, I was very prepared to be won over by his arguments. However I still find the rationality and open mindedness on sites like these far healthier than the illogical ramblings on debunkingskeptics.

Its odd, he criticises skeptics for using "semantics" such as "ad hominem attack" (I don't think he knows what semantics means) but then goes on to use logical fallacies as a method of attacking them. He expresses his disdain for various sketical arguments on the basis that they are straw man arguments but then falls victim to the exact fallacy he is criticising others for.

I think the whole concept is what confuses me the most- someone launching an illogical attack on a group of people for being illogical and fundamentalist, but using illogical reasoning in order to do so. While professing to be the fundamentally logical one.

Arggh, its the same feeling I get when watching Adaptation!

[trystan]

The front page of the website just shows how little idea these people have. How about this for a false dichotomy:

However, standing in the way are groups of organized fundamentalists who call themselves "skeptics" but in reality know nothing about the true meaning of the word nor practice it. Pyrrho, the founder of "Skepticism", intended for it to be about open inquiry and suspension of judgment.

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]


And 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."


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.

[asdfg]

And that is their first big mistake! Modern skepticism is scientific skepticism, not pyrrhonism, so they are attacking a version of skepticism that suits their arguments but not the one that modern skeptics practise.

See: Skeptics, skeptics and skeptics.

Modern skeptics do suspend judgement on issues until they have examined the evidence; but if the evidence is good (or lacking when it should be expected), then they do reach conclusions on issues (as long as it's justified by the evidence).

If these believers really were the 'true skeptics' then all they would have to do is provide the unequivocal evidence that supports their conclusions!

Of course they can't do that, because they simply don't have such evidence, and all they can resort to is attacking (their strawman version of) their opponents.