Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Do you suffer from Pseudo-Skepticism? [View all]kentauros
(29,414 posts)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.
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!
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:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Than that puts us at the unsatisfying situation the article describes where we
el_bryanto
Feb 2015
#11
These planes came in off the Pacific Ocean in formation side-by-side, not a usual commercial route.
hunter
Feb 2015
#45
Thanks for clarifying. However, ftr, calling something paranoia does not make it paranoia.
merrily
Feb 2015
#28
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
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
I never said he was diagnosing someone. I said that calling something paranoia does not make
merrily
Feb 2015
#57
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
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
The Cronkite era was also an aberration in that most of the big on air names had come
merrily
Feb 2015
#69
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
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
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
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