Pseudoskepticism

The term pseudoskepticism (or "pseudoscepticism") denotes thinking that appears to be skeptical but is not. The term is most commonly encountered in the form popularised by Marcello Truzzi, where he defined pseudoskeptics as those who take "the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves 'skeptics'". University of Washington electrical research engineer William J. Beaty describes pseudo-skepticism as;:"a variety of pseudoscience: the behavior of highly biased 'sneering scoffers' who try to legitimize their prejudice by donning the mantle of science and proper skepticism. They claim to support reason/logic while in fact filling their arguments with plenty of ad-hominems, straw-man, poisoning-the-well, and numerous other emotion-enflaming fallacies and debating tactics."Steven B. Krivit, "The Rebirth of Cold Fusion: Real Science, Real Hope, Real Energy", ISBN-13: 978-0976054580, Pacific Oaks Press (October 1, 2004) p.143]

Arizona State University instructor Rochus Boerner describes pseudoskeptics as "disbelievers", rather than "nonbelievers", "characterized by an "a priori" belief that a certain idea is wrong", [Krevit, "ibid"., referring to Rochus Boerner, " [http://www.suppressedscience.net/skepticism.html Some notes on Skepticism] "] a view shared by Princeton physicist Gregory N. Derry describing Creation Scientists' skepticism of science as ".. selected pseudoskepticism directed towards any ideas that disagree with their preconceived conclusions. [Gregory N. Derry, "What Science Is and How It Works", ISBN-13: 978-0691095509, Princeton University Press (March 4, 2002) p.171]

Truzzi's characterisation of pseudoskeptics

The term "pseudoskepticism" was popularised and characterised by Truzzi, in response to the skeptic groups who applied the label of "pseudoscientists" to fields which Truzzi preferred to describe as protoscience.

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:

Truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:cite journal | last = Truzzi | first = Marcello | authorlink= Marcello Truzzi | url = http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/pseudo.html | title = On Pseudo-Skepticism | year = 1987 | journal = Zetetic Scholar | issue = 12/13 | pages = 3-4| accessdate = 2008-10-10]

*The tendency to deny, rather than doubt *Double standards in the application of criticism *The making of judgments without full inquiry *Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate *Use of ridicule or "ad hominem" attacks in lieu of arguments *Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.'

*Presenting insufficient evidence or proof *Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof *Making unsubstantiated counter-claims *Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence *Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it

Pseudo-skepticism and scientific method

Truzzi's argument begins with the premise that if a phenomenon has not been proven, this does not imply that it has been disproven. But Truzzi went further, holding that if a phenomenon had not been disproven, this implies that it is plausible, and that anyone who does not consider both options equally, is a pseudoskeptic. Truzzi wrote:

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.

Sometimes, such negative claims by critics are also quite extraordinary—for example, that a UFO was actually a giant plasma, or that someone in a psi experiment was cued via an abnormal ability to hear a high pitch others with normal ears would fail to notice. In such cases the negative claimant also may have to bear a heavier burden of proof than might normally be expected. It is common for fringe theorists and practitioners to apply the label pseudoskeptic to anyone who is prepared neither to investigate a claim nor to accept its conclusion. This is a misunderstanding of the scientific method. Consider, for example, a test that is performed showing apparent evidence for extrasensory perception (ESP). Based on experience of similar 'results', most scientists will suspect a flaw in the test. Scientific practice does not require every scientist to fully vet every experiment performed by every other scientist. Rather, scientific reports are reviewed by a number of peers, and where an experiment has produced interesting results, other scientists will try to reproduce it. If their results match, the evidence is accepted. If not, the original result is agreed to be an anomaly and it does not affect the acceptance of the dominant theory. To state that there must be a flaw in a test without relying on other tests would be pseudoskepticism; taking a position on the validity of the test does require accepting a burden of proof. But simply choosing to ignore the test or declaring it to be an anomalous result due to a contradiction to other tests is not pseudoskepticism, however frustrating it can be to those who welcome the apparent result of a test.

Contemporary usage

A Spring 2006 course at the University of Colorado, "Edges of Science", promised to examine "the evidence for paranormal phenomena, [and] reasons for skepticism", including a section which shows "how a healthy skepticism can see through unsupported assertions, and how pathological skepticism can work against honest scientific inquiry."

Pennsylvania State University Folklorist David J. Hufford ["Reason, Rhetoric, and Religion: Academic Ideology versus Folk Belief", from "New York Folklore", Vol. 11, Nos. 1-4, 1985 40th Anniversary Issue" quoted in part in Clark, Jerome, "Unexplained! 347 Strange Sightings, Incredible Occurrences, and Puzzling Physical Phenomena"; Detroit, Visible Ink Press; 1993, ISBN 0810394367; page 117] uses the term "radical skepticism" to describe the unexamined prejudices and preconceptions which he argues are embraced by many — perhaps most — academic scientists. After reading and analysing the works of many skeptics and debunkers, Hufford argues that one can readily find:

L. David Leiter, a member of the fringe Society for Scientific Exploration, uses the terms 'pseudo-skepticism' and 'pathological skepticism' to refer to "organized skepticism", specifically the "Philadelphia Association for Critical Thinking" (PhACT),cite journal|title=The Pathology of Organized Skepticism |last=Leiter | first = L. David |journal= Journal of Scientific Exploration|date= 2002 |publisher= Society for Scientific Exploration|url= http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/16.1_leiter.pdf] " [i] nstead of becoming scientifically minded, they become adherents of scientism, the belief system in which science and only science has all the answers to everything" and that even many pseudoskeptics are unwilling to spend the time to "read significantly into the literature on the subjects about which they are most skeptical".

Prof. Hugo Meynell from Department of Religious Studies at the University of Calgary, labels as 'pseudo-skepticism' the "extreme position that all significant evidence supporting paranormal phenomena is a result of deception or lies". [Michael Stoeber, Hugo Anthony Meynell, "Critical Reflections on the Paranormal", SUNY Press, 1996, ISBN 0791430634, 9780791430637 [http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=c_A_wfFe-CoC&pg=PA25&dq=Pseudo-skepticism&sig=ACfU3U372C-YJbYhNmNzNYVOmlVA78cnmQ#PPA16,M1 page 16] ] Psychiatrist Dr. Richard Kluft, MD has noted that: [Kluft, Richard P., "Editorial: Building upon our foundations" (June 1994) in [http://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu:8080/dspace/handle/1794/1508 "Dissociation", Vol. 7, No. 2, p. 079-080] , publ. Ridgeview Institute and the International Society for the Study of Dissociation] quote|".. today genuine skepticism of the benign sort that looks evenly in all directions and encouragesthe advancement of knowledge seems vanishingly rare. Instead, we find a prevalence of pseudo-skepticism consisting of harsh and invidious skepticism toward one's opponents' points of view and observations, and egregious self-congratulatory confirmatory bias toward one's own stances and findings misrepresented as the earnest and dispassionate pursuit of clinical, scholarly, and scientific truth."

Parapsychologist Susan Blackmore described the "worst kind of pseudoskepticism": [JE Kennedy, " [http://jeksite.org/psi/jp03.pdf The Capricious, Actively Evasive, Unsustainable Nature of Psi: A Summary and Hypotheses] ", "The Journal of Parapsychology", Volume 67, pp. 53–74, 2003. See Note 1 page 64 quoting Blackmore, S. J. (1994). Women skeptics. In L. Coly & R. White (Eds.), "Women and parapsychology" (pp. 234–236). New York: Parapsychology Foundation.]

Commenting on the labels "dogmatic" and "pathological" that the "Association for Skeptical Investigation"" [http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/New/index.html Association for Skeptical Investigation] " website] puts on critics of paranormal investigations, Robert Todd Carroll of the Skeptic's Dictionary [ [http://skepdic.com/refuge/sheldrake.html Skepdic article on positive pseudo-skeptics] ] 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."Robert Todd Carroll " [http://skepdic.com/refuge/sheldrake.html Internet Bunk: Skeptical Investigations] ." "Skeptic's Dictionary"]

Other usages

Prior to Truzzi, the term "pseudo-skepticism" had occasionally been used in 19th and early 20th century philosophy.

On 31 August 1869, Swiss philosopher Henri-Frédéric Amiel wrote in his diary:

In 1908 Henry Louis Mencken wrote on Friedrich Nietzsche's criticism of philosopher David Strauss that:

Professor of Philosophy at the University of Illinois, Frederick L. Will used the term "pseudo-skepticism" in 1942. Alasdair MacIntyre writes:

Notre Dame Professor of English, John E. Sitter used the term in 1977 in a discussion of Alexander Pope: "Pope's intent, I believe, is to chasten the reader's skepticism — the pseudo-skepticism of the overly confident 'you' ... " [John E. Sitter, " [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0039-3657%28197722%2917%3A3%3C435%3ATAOPET%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F&size=LARGE The Argument of Pope's Epistle to Cobham] " "Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900", Vol. 17, No. 3, Restoration and Eighteenth Century (Summer, 1977), pp. 435-449]

Science writer C. Eugene Emery, Jr. compared the degrees of skepticism of CD-ROM-based encyclopedias of articles on pseudoscientific subjects. He called such articles "pseudoskeptical" if they only suggested or stated that the subject was "controversial, but the author may not have a clue as to why". [C. Eugene Emery, Jr., " [http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_n6_v20/ai_18920372 CD-ROM encyclopedias: how does their coverage of pseudoscience topics rate?] ", "Skeptical Inquirer", Nov-Dec, 1996]

See also

* Anomalistics The study of Anomalous phenomena
* Debunkers
* Denialism
* Scientific skepticism
* Scientism
* Skepticism
* Agnosticism
* Robert Anton Wilson

Notes and references

* Truzzi, Marcello, " [http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/pseudo.html On Pseudo-Skepticism] ". Anomalist. (Commentary)
* Truzzi, Marcello, " [http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/anomalistics/practices.htm On Some Unfair Practices towards Claims of the Paranormal] ". Oxymoron, 1998
* Drasin, Daniel, " [http://members.aol.com/ddrasin/zen.html Zen and the Art of Debunkery] ". aol.com, 1997.
* Milton, Richard, " [http://www.alternativescience.com/skepticism.htm Scientific skepticism] ".
* Mooney, Chris, " [http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/abuses/ Abuses of Skepticism : Doubting is a powerful tool, but it can definitely be taken too far] ". CSICOP, December, 2003.
* Haack, Susan, " [http://www.csicop.org/si/9711/preposterism.html Science, Scientism, and Anti-Science in the Age of Preposterism] ". CSICOP, December 1997.
* Hall, Stephanie A. " [http://www.temple.edu/isllc/newfolk/skeptics.html Folklore and the Rise of Moderation Among Organized Skeptics] " Paper presented at the 1999 Annual Meeting of the American Folkore Society
* Sofka, Michael D., " [http://www.rpi.edu/~sofkam/papers/skeptik.html Myths of Skepticism] ". ISUNY, March, 2002.
* Beaty, William J., " [http://www.bccmeteorites.com/pathsk.html Symptoms of Pathological Sketicism] ". 1996.
* Hyman, Ray, " [http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-07/criticism.html Proper Criticism] ". (csicop.org)
* Martin, Brian, " [http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/12.4_martin.pdf Strategies for dissenting scientists] ". Society for Scientific Exploration. Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 12 No 4. 1998. (PDF)
* Baez, John, " [http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html The crackpot index] : Method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics.".
* Kruger, Justin, and David Dunning " [http://www.phule.net/mirrors/unskilled-and-unaware.html Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments] ". Department of Psychology, Cornell University.
* [http://www.happierabroad.com/Debunking_Skeptical_Arguments.htm Debunking Pseudo-Skeptical Arguments of Paranormal Debunkers ] by Winston Wu
* [http://www.skepticreport.com/skepticism/winstonwu.htm A Logical Analysis of Winston Wu's Anti-Skeptical Article] by Paul Sandoval
* Wilson, Robert Anton, [http://www.nii.net/~obie/1988_interview.htm interview] in which he discusses CSICOP and pseudoskeptism, what he calls "irrational rationalists" and "fundamentalist materialism"
* Sarma, Amardeo, [http://www.gwup.org/themen/texte/skeptikerpuc/phact.pdf#search=%22%22misguided%20stigmatization%22%22 Misguided Stigmatization of "Organized Skepticism"]

External links

* [http://amasci.com/weird/wskept.html Skeptic's pages] - Quotes and links to articles about skepticism and pseudoskepticism.