General Discussion

el_bryanto

(11,804 posts)

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

Reply to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #15)

Wed Feb 4, 2015, 12:02 PM

Feb 2015

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

75 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Do you suffer from Pseudo-Skepticism? [View all] DetlefK Feb 2015 OP

That's just what "big skepticism" wants you to think. nt el_bryanto Feb 2015 #1

LOL! merrily Feb 2015 #2

lol La Lioness Priyanka Feb 2015 #3

Great point. :D DetlefK Feb 2015 #5

Mercola!!1 HappyMe Feb 2015 #9

HEH! Teutonic Samuel Feb 2015 #67

Of course we should take everything government tells us at face value! merrily Feb 2015 #4

Joking aside, the problem is that we live in a post-authority world. el_bryanto Feb 2015 #6

"Cui bono" and "follow the money" are generally good guidelines. merrily Feb 2015 #10

Than that puts us at the unsatisfying situation the article describes where we el_bryanto Feb 2015 #11

No, that is not what I said. Thinking about something, questioning, merrily Feb 2015 #14

What are these things I can't post on DU? hunter Feb 2015 #23

Please see reply 14. merrily Feb 2015 #24

Okay, wait a minute? Where do you live? Atman Feb 2015 #31

These planes came in off the Pacific Ocean in formation side-by-side, not a usual commercial route. hunter Feb 2015 #45

I'm guessing you've never read Richard Hofstadter. Act_of_Reparation Feb 2015 #15

Is calling it paranoia really all that different from calling it merrily Feb 2015 #18

Nope. That's not the point. Act_of_Reparation Feb 2015 #26

Thanks for clarifying. However, ftr, calling something paranoia does not make it paranoia. merrily Feb 2015 #28

I just happened to look over my shoulder... Act_of_Reparation Feb 2015 #30

Did you write the article? Are you Hofstadter? merrily Feb 2015 #32

I'd stop digging. nt msanthrope Feb 2015 #34

Because you say so? merrily Feb 2015 #36

Because posters who aren't aware that Richard Hofstader has been dead for 45 years really, really, msanthrope Feb 2015 #40

That you missed the point of my question entirely msanthrope, doesn't mean I should stop. merrily Feb 2015 #41

Heck---I can't stop this trainwreck if you really want to continue. nt msanthrope Feb 2015 #44

No worries, msanthrope. Thanks anyway for interjecting, though. merrily Feb 2015 #58

I should certainly hope not. Act_of_Reparation Feb 2015 #37

All the more reason your degree has nothing to do with Hofstader's article. merrily Feb 2015 #39

I would argue my degree qualifies me to call bullshit on your bullshit. Act_of_Reparation Feb 2015 #50

What bullshit would that be? My whole point from go on this was that Hofstader was not a merrily Feb 2015 #51

You aren't listening. Act_of_Reparation Feb 2015 #54

I never said he was diagnosing someone. I said that calling something paranoia does not make merrily Feb 2015 #57

You're equivocating. Act_of_Reparation Feb 2015 #59

I did not define paranoia at all, beyond noting it's pejorative. merrily Feb 2015 #63

I don't know how else you would put it. Act_of_Reparation Feb 2015 #64

My reply 6 simply disagreed with your assertion that I had defined "paranoia" differently than merrily Feb 2015 #66

I am not the only one who is at a loss for what you are trying to say. Act_of_Reparation Feb 2015 #74

See Replies 4, 46 and 68. The point seemed very clear to me. However, again, merrily Feb 2015 #75

I believe I have read it (but a while back) - I'm not sure what your point is. nt el_bryanto Feb 2015 #22

Hofstadter argued paranoia is a fixture of American political thought. Act_of_Reparation Feb 2015 #25

Ah - yes i would agree that it's substrata el_bryanto Feb 2015 #38

The Cronkite era was also an aberration in that most of the big on air names had come merrily Feb 2015 #69

that's the problem that's driving me crazy as a scientist and an educator.... mike_c Feb 2015 #60

It may depend upon what is being questioned and why. And who funded the study and why. merrily Feb 2015 #62

there was broad consensus in the medical and scientific community regarding tobacco... mike_c Feb 2015 #71

In the 1940's and 50s, studies were cited to show the evidence of a link was inconclusive at best. merrily Feb 2015 #72

This article alludes to some of what I posted and also to some of what you posted. merrily Feb 2015 #73

But are the choices actually binary, or is that suggestion in itself a sort of a call to abandon Bluenorthwest Feb 2015 #8

Of course, I didn't suggest rejecting everything you hear. merrily Feb 2015 #12

Straw man. No one said that treestar Feb 2015 #27

Actually, I said it. You can tell because my name is on the post. merrily Feb 2015 #29

This was a thoroughly enjoyable sub thread The empressof all Feb 2015 #61

This is an important article randr Feb 2015 #7

One thing not mentioned is Fox News. world wide wally Feb 2015 #13

Your point destroys his whatchamacallit Feb 2015 #20

Skeptics want to believe what is true. Act_of_Reparation Feb 2015 #16

Being skeptical is not about deciding what others believe. Skeptics question, merrily Feb 2015 #19

I don't think that's what I said. Act_of_Reparation Feb 2015 #43

I think most or all of us question with the goal of perceiving the universe as realistically as merrily Feb 2015 #46

I like to think that "turning the burden of proof upside down" is a right wing phenomenon. pampango Feb 2015 #17

The burden of proof, totally right side up, in our court system, merrily Feb 2015 #21

People who take the default position that they're always being lied to... Ykcutnek Feb 2015 #33

wouldn't happen Man from Pickens Feb 2015 #47

If they devalue anything, it's media and government officials, which combination merrily Feb 2015 #70

Mark Twain and I often laugh about this, especially when we're sipping elixir Brother Buzz Feb 2015 #35

Define "suffer." Iggo Feb 2015 #42

Factual correction Man from Pickens Feb 2015 #48

What to be skeptical about depends on which political party you're in daredtowork Feb 2015 #49

Your Pseudo-Skeptic sounds like an ordinary cynic to me rock Feb 2015 #52

While that kind of topic certainly falls under the umbrella of "Pseudo-Skepticism" kentauros Feb 2015 #53

Do you believe it is possible to prove a negative, or ask for people to do so? uppityperson Feb 2015 #55

Our Doubt is based on the obvious capture of our government by financial interests RunInCircles Feb 2015 #56

Yes, sadly, It is indeed a problem. AverageJoe90 Feb 2015 #65

A few threads from around DU this pm caught my eye: merrily Feb 2015 #68