Pseudoskepticism and logic

I ran across this today, and for some reason it reminds me of a certain person (or two) here.Pseudoskepticism - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Pseudoskepticism

​

The term pseudoskepticism was popularized and characterized by Marcello Truzzi in response to skeptics who, in his opinion, made negative claims without bearing the burden of proof of those claims.[9]

​

While a Professor of Sociology at Eastern Michigan University in 1987, Truzzi gave the following description of pseudoskeptics in the journal Zetetic Scholar which he founded:

​

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

​

— Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism, Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987

​

The term pseudoskepticism has found occasional use in fringe fields where opposition from those within the scientific mainstream or from scientific skeptics is strong. In 1994, Susan Blackmore, a parapsychologist who became more skeptical and eventually became a CSICOP fellow in 1991, described what she termed the "worst kind of pseudoskepticism":

​

"There are some members of the skeptics’ groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves (heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion . . . I have to say itmost of these people are men. Indeed, I have not met a single woman of this type."[10]

​

Commenting on the labels "dogmatic" and "pathological" that the "Association for Skeptical Investigation"[11] puts on critics of paranormal investigations, Robert Todd Carroll of the Skeptic's Dictionary[12] argues that that association "is a group of pseudo-skeptical paranormal investigators and supporters who do not appreciate criticism of paranormal studies by truly genuine skeptics and critical thinkers. The only skepticism this group promotes is skepticism of critics and [their] criticisms of paranormal studies."[13]

---

The issue of providing evidence for a positive assertion is well known, and what I would like to discuss is the issue of providing evidence for a negative assertion.Taking these three statements:

• The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything.
• But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.
• There are some members of the skeptics’ groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves (heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion . . .

I know of at least one such individual on this board, and there may be a few more, but the point is not to make any personal attack, but rather to provide a discussion of this side of the equation: if you claim a negative position, the burden of proof is on you to show evidence for it.People have no trouble addressing this issue when creationists try to claim that evolution is not a true science etc etc - to provide evidence that disproves evolution, and the same should hold for any philosophical or logical position.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Thread copied here from the Pseudoskepticism and logic thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

As far as I am concerned this is not about dismissing claims out of hand as you assert. Rather it is about considering the possible explanations for the unusual and their relative evidential basis. It isn’t really negative evidence as such (although I have used the term myself previously). Rather it is positive evidence for a mutually exclusive alternative to the "unusal" explanation being proposed.And like any form of standard positive evidence — I have no issue with the fact that the burden of proof (or perhaps likelihood is more realistic with regard to the sort of phenomenon I am guessing you have in mind) is on the claimant of such evidence.But if one possible explanation for an "unusual" pheomenon is deeply objectively evidenced and another is not objectively evidenced at all it seems to be a simple denial of evidence to suggest that the objectively evidenced possibility should not be deemed as a superor and more probably true conclusion. To me this seems undeniable.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi Straggler, I undertook this thread knowing you would be by. I trust you can keep your wild conclusions and false assertions about my positions in check on this thread, and perhaps we can have a discussion of the issue this time.You will also note, I trust, that the opening post specifically refers to the logical position I have posted before: "The true skeptic takes an agnostic position," and it goes on to say that if you do not take the agnostic position, that then the burden falls on you to show why. Curiously, what you have just done is dismiss evidence of other possibilities, and you have used your opinion of the evidence to do it. When you classify a priori all evidence that doesn't comply with your belief as evidence of something else, you are dismissing evidence out of hand. You've done this before.Not surprisingly, I also thought of you when I posted this to Archangel:Skepticism - Wikipedia

quote:

---

False claims of skepticism
Advocates of discredited intellectual positions such as AIDS denial and Holocaust denial will sometimes seek to characterize themselves as "skeptics" despite cherry picking evidence that conforms to a pre-existing belief.[6] According to Richard Wilson, who highlights the phenomenon in his book Don't Get Fooled Again (2008), the characteristic feature of false skepticism is that it "centres not on an impartial search for the truth, but on the defence of a preconceived ideological position".

---

I've said before that what is needed is not just skepticism, not just an open mind to other possibilities, but that an open-minded skeptical approach gives you the best approach, especially when you get into areas where objective evidence may not be possible or there is not sufficient validation to turn evidence that exists into objective information.When you start with the statements like "Mutually Exclusive Evidenced Alternatives" and "To me this seems undeniable" you are betraying your preconceived ideological position and your lack of objectivity or open mindedness to consider other possibilities. The burden of proof is on you to show that this applies in all possible cases before you can dismiss any other explanation.Have fun.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Curiously I think that weighing up the evidence in favour of contrary conclusions is open minded skepticism in action. Indeed. Which is why it is you that is denying objective evidence when you only ever consider the unusual explanation or possibility at the expense of the objectively evidenced but less "interesting" mutually exclusive alternatives. Firstly - I have already told you that I am not dismissing anything.
Secondly - What are we talking about here? What exactly applies in all possible cases of what? Be specific.If you are going to continue your past tactics of ambiguity and vagueness then this disussion will be ill tempered and pointless and may as well end now. Be specific or don't bother replying.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Great! Thanks, guys.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Well that was short lived. There you go making stuff up again that isn't true and pretending that you know more about my position than I do.Curiously there is absolutely no evidence provided to substantiate your position.Good-bye.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Looks that way, unless someone wants to actually discuss the topic.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Not necessarily, if he does not dismiss the evidence of something else. But your quote missed the point entirely (a reading comprehension issue I might add *you* have done before).Straggler points out that an explanation supported by objective evidence (in this case strongly, but I would include "at all") must be considered to be superior to any explanation that lacks objective evidence whatsoever. This is only bias in the sense of an inclination toward the truth. In these cases we have no particular inclination to expect such phenomenon to be objectively real; this does of course assume that you consider reality to be non-subjective. In a situation where objective evidence isn't possible such as the "beauty" of a statue, we conclude that the beauty of the statue is a subjective opinion. We have no indication that beauty is a quality that can be objectively observed, and we have no obligation to consider it a possibility unless someone can reasonably claim it is so. No it isn't. The burden of proof is to show that it provides a better explanation than the competing theories. Expecting objective proof of every circumstance, regardless of even their existence, is a ridiculous expectation.

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

Looks that way, unless someone wants to actually discuss the topic.

---

Do you have a topic? So far, all you've done is vaguely insult somebody, then directly insult the very person you claimed you wouldn't be naming. This was followed by attempts to be so general that no actual statement was made.What is it you want to discuss?Be specific.If it's just that you want people to claim that the statement, "X does not exist," requires actual justification and evidence, then I doubt you'll have many takers because that is pretty much universally accepted and thus there is nothing to debate. Everybody agrees.If it isn't that, then what is it? Just what are you trying to say?Be specific.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Every single time that you assert that atheism equates to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" you are denying the mass of objective evidence that many atheists, myself included, would cite in favour of the possibility that gods may just be human inventions. Curiously I doubt you will cease making this false assertion (no doubt accompanied with a variety of colourful but pointless Venn diagrams) despite this having been pointed out to you. It is too integral to your rationalisation of your world view. I hope so. Yeah laters.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi Rrhain, see Message 1

quote:

---

Taking these three statements:

• The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything.
• But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.
• There are some members of the skeptics’ groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves (heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion . . .

​

People have no trouble addressing this issue when creationists try to claim that evolution is not a true science etc etc - to provide evidence that disproves evolution, and the same should hold for any philosophical or logical position.

---

Curiously, I am surprised to see the appeal to popularity from you, Rrhain. You should also know that claiming that buckets of evidence exists is not the same as showing what that evidence is: that is the kind of argument one gets from creationists.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Phage0070, See Message 1 again please:

quote:

---

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

---

The burden is not escaped or shifted by claiming to have a better explanation, you need to provide the evidence that supports the position.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Certainly, but when compared to an explanation that lacks *any* evidence to support it, *any* evidence in support of the other position fulfills that requirement.I doubt you will find any argument against the concept that theories provide evidence to back them up. I am confused as to what exactly you think is being debated.

Hi again Phage0070 Curiously, the burden to provide evidence for you position is independent of any other position or the relative merits of evidence for it. If you claim a position other than agnostic, you incur the burden. This burden is well established for positive claims, but the point here is that it applies equally to negative claims.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •