Shermer!

[peristaltor]

Skeptic magazine editor Michael Shermer (The guy from the Baloney Detection Kit video) lays down the skeptical, scientific approach in this Scientific American article:

The principle of positive evidence applies to all claims. Skeptics are from Missouri, the Show-Me state. Show me a Sasquatch body. Show me the archaeological artifacts from

Comments

[richie73]

Sounds all good, except Shermer and his ilk are what's been termed pseudo-skeptics. They claim that they're non-believers who due to a lack of positive evidence simply haven't been convinced of the reality of unorthodox claims, but in reality, they are fanatical disbelievers - people who believe in the non-existence of certain phenomena and whose mind will not be swayed by any amount of empirical evidence to the contrary. Conversely, the same people are usually characterized by blind belief in scientific orthodoxy and wouldn't dream of questioning what's published in mainstream papers.

A few years ago I wrote a rather lengthy article exposing the methods and hypocrisy of the professional pseudoskeptics. You may find some of my arguments interesting.

http://www.suppressedscience.net/skepticism.html

[pope_guilty]

They claim that they're non-believers who due to a lack of positive evidence simply haven't been convinced of the reality of unorthodox claims, but in reality, they are fanatical disbelievers - people who believe in the non-existence of certain phenomena and whose mind will not be swayed by any amount of empirical evidence to the contrary.

Hahahaha, yeah, like all that empirical evidence for God, homeopathy, and creationism!

[richie73]

You provide the perfect example for the kind of lazy thinking that's so characteristic of pseudo-skepticism. Different issues and claims are lumped together and collectively dismissed because some of them are clearly unsupportable. This is called "debunkery by association

[peristaltor]

The point is that there is empirical evidence. To claim that there is none is not being "skeptical", it's being uninformed and ignorant.

I remain a critic of homeopathy, simply because the study abstract you cited ended with this wonderful little ditty:

We are however unable to explain our findings and are reporting them to encourage others to investigate this phenomenon.

Did the researchers find something? Yes. Do they know what they found? Nope. They have discovered not "empirical evidence," but as they openly admit an anomaly they cannot explain. As you assert, these researchers may well have discovered the opening clues into what may in the future become important science; we don't know what will happen. What they lack today is a theory that ties the anomaly to the world around them.

Homeopathy, however, is trotted about as a theory, fully fleshed with proponents and practitioners spouting the same dogmatic reasoning Benevenist pioneered, one based on poorly-defined "essences" and probably driven by a mistrust in

[ambrose_rinaldo]

I'm from Missouri (currently live in NY) and as stubborn as all of us Missourians are - that's even pushing it a bit. I do have to agree though being a skeptic myself (I think it's something in the water in MO) that I hate exposes and tabloid-like articles in general. If all these people knew about whatever beforehand, why didn't they say something to begin with?

Thanks for the links.