Pseudoskepticism

From WikiSynergy

Jump to: navigation, search
Skepticism project
“
Evidence in science is always a matter of degree … Both critics and proponents need to learn to think of adjudication in science as more like that found in the law courts, imperfect and with varying degrees of proof and evidence.[1] —Marcello Truzzi
”

Pseudoskepticism (or pseudo-skepticism) is defined as thinking that claims to be Skeptical but is actually faith-based disbelief. Because real skepticism is a justifiable position, pseudoskepticism may also be defined as making pseudoscientific arguments in pursuit of a skeptical agenda. The term was popularized by CSICOP founder Marcello Truzzi in 1987 when he said in the Zetetic Scholar that pseudoskeptics take "the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves 'skeptics'".[2] [3] While the term does have a highly technical definition, it is often used merely as an insult without supporting evidence. The pseudoscientific ways of thinking described here are often used by both sides of various debates.

Pseudoskepticism is a general term which encompasses two types of faith-based disbelief: making positive claims that something is wrong or unreal without evidence (positive disbelief), and rejecting sufficient evidence.

Contents

Type 1 pseudoskepticism: positive claims

Definition: A "positive" claim is a claim about reality, and can be about what is not real.

The following quote from Skepticwiki is an example of type 1 pseudoskepticism:

A: Pigs can fly.
B: No they can't.
A: Oh yes? Prove it. Show me that no pig anywhere in the world right now is flying, and that none of them ever have or ever will.
B: No, the burden of proof is on you. Show me one flying pig.
In this instance, B is correct. This example shows a pragmatic reason for the rule; B would have to do an impossible amount of work to prove his case even if B is right; whereas A has a much lighter task --- if A is right.[4]


In this instance, B is a pseudoskeptic, because he his making a claim "pigs can't fly" without proof. Here is what B would have said if B were a Scientific skeptic:

A: Pigs can fly.
B: I do not know of any evidence of that.
A: Well, I heard about it
B: Well, when there is good documentation for it, I'll believe it.

In this instance, B is a Scientific skeptic, not a pseudoskeptic, because he is not making unsupported claims. Note that he still maintains his disbelief; but he does so without violating the proper scientific reasoning process.

In the Skepticwiki example, B committed the basic mistake of thinking that absence of evidence equals evidence of absence.

Pseudoskepticism of this type consists of making positive claims about what is true or real. This usually takes the form of replacing the scientifically justified claim that there is no evidence (or not enough), with a claim that the subject is not true, or not real. This is unnecessary, because science is not obliged to accept any claim without sufficient evidence, and a scientific skeptic should be content to point to the flaws in the evidence. Claims made by any party must be supported by empirical evidence, not assumption.

Type 2 pseudoskepticism: rejecting sufficient evidence

The label "pseudoskeptic" is often used for those who reject what is seen as good evidence. It is often difficult to define exactly when skepticism shades over into pseudoskepticism. Certainly, anyone who doubts that airplanes fly is a pseudoskeptic, because there is enough evidence that airplanes do fly. It is when debates are less obvious (for example the debate over UFOs or the debate over global warming during the 1990s) that it is difficult to tell when a skeptic is merely rejecting good evidence, versus being scientifically skeptical. The following quote from skeptical psychologist Richard Wiseman illustrates this type of skepticism. Wiseman told the Daily Mail that

I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do.
If I said that there is a red car outside my house, you would probably believe me.
But if I said that a UFO had just landed, you'd probably want a lot more evidence.
Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that will revolutionise the world, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions. Right now we don't have that evidence.

Wiseman is being a genuine skeptic in that he is not making the positive claim that remote viewing is bogus. Rather, he is making the claim that there is not enough evidence of remote viewing. Any claim that he is a pseudoskeptic would have to hinge on whether he is rejecting sufficient evidence of remote viewing. Wiseman's quote constitutes a nearly direct argument that he is being a genuine skeptic in this regard.

The debate over what claims are "outlandish" and what constitutes "enough" evidence is not something which has been formalized within science. It is normal scientific practice to posit alternate hypotheses (explanations) for observed phenomenon, and to adopt the theory that best explains and predicts the observed results. Scientific evidence is often indicative rather than overwhelming, and many theories are based not on any single piece of evidence, but on accumulated weight of evidence. Because of this, there is no definite threshold where genuine skepticism becomes type 2 pseudoskepticism.

Other considerations

  • Use of the word pseudoskeptic is itself a positive claim. Because of this, anyone who uses the word should have good evidence that the rules of science have been broken.
  • A pseudoskeptic is a pseudoskeptic because he is acting or thinking in a pseudoscientific way. Pseudoscience is any belief, thought process or practice that claims to be scientific but violates proper scientific thinking or protocol. Thus, pseudoskeptics are pseudoscientists.[5][6][7]
  • It is certainly true that replication of results by scientists other than the original discoverer is generally necessary to validate a claim (and certainly necessary where the claim is unusual). The peer-review process, when it is unbiased by prejudice against the subject matter, is a necessary step in vetting which results are interesting enough to try to replicate. Where an experiment has produced interesting results, other scientists will —ideally— try to reproduce it. If their results match, the evidence should be accepted. If not, the original result is agreed to be an anomaly. Demanding that this process be followed is not pseudoskepticism.[8]
  • Protoscientists sometimes apply the label pseudoskeptic to anyone who is not prepared to either investigate their test results or accept their conclusions. This is a misunderstanding of scientific method. It is pseudoskepticism to actually state, for example, that spiritual healing does not work and therefore there must be a flaw in any study which says it does. Taking a position on the validity of the study requires accepting a burden of proof. But simply choosing to ignore the test is not pseudoskepticism, however frustrating it can be to those who are more interested in the debate.

Forms of pseudoskepticism

Pseudoskeptics exhibit one or more of the following characteristics:

1

Denial, rather than doubt[9]

2

Double standards in the application of criticism.[10]

3

Lack of scholarship, where judgments are made without full inquiry.[11]

4

The tendency to discredit and debunk, rather than investigate.[12] For example, improperly using rhetorical tricks such as derision or scientific proverbs[13] such as Occam's razor or the phrase "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

5

Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments.[14]

6

Pejorative labeling of proponents as "promoters," "pseudoscientists" "woo-woo's" "kooks" (etc.) or practitioners of "pathological science."[15]

7

Presenting insufficient evidence or proof for claims.[16]

8

The assumption that criticism requires no burden of proof.[17]

9

Making unsubstantiated counter-claims.[18]

10

Making counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence.[19]

11

Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissal.[20][21]

12

The tendency to dismiss all evidence: "There is no evidence for..."[22]

13

Unwillingness to consider evidence in probabilistic terms. For example a pseudoskeptic may be unwilling to consider the entire field of related evidence, and may instead focus on particular areas of evidence which in themselves are inconclusive.[23][24]

14

Advocating a narrow view of what constitutes scientific evidence, in such a way as to rule out undesirable evidence which in other circumstances would be accepted (See Standards of evidence#Capable of being studied in controlled settings).

Common errors and signs of pseudoskepticism

Occam's razor

Using Occam's razor to mean "the most conventional explanation is preferable." Occam's razor is a way of deciding which of two equally explanatory and equally probable hypotheses to choose, but it in no way favors conventional theories over unconventional ones. (See Occam's razor.)

Inexpert opinion

Pseudoskeptical scientists will often use their position as experts in one field of science to debunk areas of knowledge of which they have little understanding. This is an appeal to their own authority as scientists, akin to saying "I know all about dinosaurs because I am a dentist, and dinosaurs had teeth."

See also Expert testimony should come from consensus and Scientific consensus and frontier subject areas.

Denial of prejudice

There is prejudice in the scientific establishment against many aspects of fringe science, folk "wisdom," and the paranormal. This is not a debatable fact, and has been admitted by prominent skeptics.[25] However, the claim is often heard: "if there were any evidence for subject X, scientists would be flocking to investigate."

See also Is parapsychology accepted?

History

Prior to popularization by Marcello Truzzi in 1987, 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:

“
My instinct is in harmony with the pessimism of Buddha and of Schopenhauer. It is a doubt which never leaves me, even in my moments of religious fervor. Nature is indeed for me a Maïa; and I look at her, as it were, with the eyes of an artist. My intelligence remains skeptical. What, then, do I believe in? I do not know. And what is it I hope for? It would be difficult to say. Folly! I believe in goodness, and I hope that good will prevail. Deep within this ironical and disappointed being of mine there is a child hidden — a frank, sad, simple creature, who believes in the ideal, in love, in holiness, and all heavenly superstitions. A whole millennium of idyls sleeps in my heart; I am a pseudo-skeptic, a pseudo-scoffer.[26]
”


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

“
Strauss had been a preacher but had renounced the cloth and set up shop as a critic of Christianity. He had labored with good intentions, no doubt, but the net result of all his smug agnosticism was that his disciplines were as self-satisfied, bigoted, and prejudiced in the garb of agnostics as they had been before Christians. Nietzsche's eye saw this and in the first of his little pamphlets "David Strauss, der Bekenner und der Schriftsteller" ("David Strauss, the Confessor and the Writer"), he bore down on Strauss's bourgeoise pseudo-skepticism most savagely. This was 1873.[27]
”


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

“
[Frederick] Will was no exception. He began as an analytical philosopher, distinguishing different uses of language with the aim of showing that certain traditional philosophical problems need no longer trouble us, once we have understood how to make the relevant linguistic distinctions. The enemies were two: the philosophical skeptic who poses these false problems and the philosopher who thinks that the skeptic needs to be answered. So in "Is there a Problem of Induction?" (Journal of Philosophy, 1942) it is two senses of "know" that are to be distinguished: "All the uneasiness, the pseudo-skepticism and the pseudo-problem of induction, would never appear if it were possible to keep clear that 'know' in the statement that we do not know statements about the future is employed in a very special sense, not at all its ordinary one.[28]
”


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' ... "[29]

Marcello Truzzi

The term pseudoskepticism was popularised and characterised by Truzzi in 1987.[30] Truzzi described pseudoskeptics thus:

“
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.[31]
”


Truzzi also gave the following distinction between what he saw as true skepticism, and pseudoskepticism:

“
...Thus, if a subject in a psi experiment can be shown to have had an opportunity to cheat, many critics seem to assume not merely that he probably did cheat, but that he must have, regardless of what may be the complete absence of evidence that he did so cheat and sometimes even ignoring evidence of the subject's past reputation for honesty. Similarly, improper randomization procedures are sometimes assumed to be the cause of a subject's high psi scores even though all that has been established is the possibility of such an artifact having been the real cause. Of course, the evidential weight of the experiment is greatly reduced when we discover an opening in the design that would allow an artifact to confound the results. Discovering an opportunity for error should make such experiments less evidential and usually unconvincing. It usually disproves the claim that the experiment was "air tight" against error, but it does not disprove the anomaly claim."
”


Thus in Truzzi's example pseudoskepticism lies in making a positive claim about reality. The claim that "the experiment demonstrates psi" is replaced with a counterclaim, that "the experiment has flaws, therefore the subject took the opportunity to cheat." This counterclaim, however, is one which ought to be supported by evidence.

Contemporary usage

In many cases, pseudoskepticism is used merely as an insult, the rhetorical opposite of "woo-woo" or "believer." Thus people often simply dismiss it, instead of asking for the data behind the accusation. Properly used, pseudoskepticism is a substantial claim which if backed up by data requires acknowledgment from the pseudoskeptic, because the dialectic of science requires that mistakes in thinking be acknowledged and corrected.

L. David Leiter, of the Society for Scientific Exploration, uses the terms 'pseudo-skepticism' and 'pathological skepticism' to refer to the "organized skepticism" he found in the "Philadelphia Association for Critical Thinking" (PhACT). Leither said PhACT members had suffered an "unfortunate experience with a faith-based philosophy" and they reacted by joining organized skeptical group. "Instead 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 of these members are unwilling to spend the time to "read significantly into the literature on the subjects about which they are most skeptical". He says many members of skeptical organizations are "scientifically inclined, but psychologically scarred," and are similar to those who "join any other support group, say, Alcoholics Anonymous."[32]

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".[33] Psychiatrist Dr. Richard P. Kluft, MD has noted that:[34]

“
".. today genuine skepticism of the benign sort that looks evenly in all directions and encourages the 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."
”


Susan Blackmore, a parapsychologist who became more skeptical and eventually became a CSICOP fellow in 1991, described pseudoskepticism in 1994:

“
"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..."[35]
”


Skeptics also use the term "pseudoskepticism." Robert Todd Carroll, commenting on the labels "dogmatic" and "pathological" that the "Association for Skeptical Investigation"[36] puts on critics of paranormal investigations,[37] said that Skeptical Investigations "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."[38]

See also

sTARBABY by Dennis Rawlins, cofounder of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal

  • Skeptic's pages - Quotes and links to articles about skepticism and pseudoskepticism.

Other links

These links have not been vetted for content or even relevance[39]

References

  1. ↑ On Pseudo-Skepticism, the Zetetic Scholar, #12-13, 1987
  2. ↑ "Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism" Zetetic Scholar (1987) No. 12/13, 3-4.
  3. ↑ LD Leiter (2002). "The Pathology of Organized Skepticism". Journal of Scientific Exploration (scientificexploration.org). http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/16.1_leiter.pdf. 
  4. ↑ Skepticwiki, Burden of Proof
  5. ↑ Pseudoskeptics are pseudoscientists to the extent that they claim to think scientifically, speak for science in general, or act in a scientific manner. Remember that a person does not require a degree in order to be a scientist- or a pseudoscientist.
  6. ↑ Merriam Webster says pseudoscience is "a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific"
  7. ↑ According to Rationalwiki, a skeptical website, "Pseudoscience is any belief system or methodology which tries to gain legitimacy by wearing the trappings of science, but fails to abide by the rigorous methodology and standards of evidence that demarcate true science." This is important here, as it shows that the definition of pseudoscience is widely agreed to be rather broad, and the definitions are quite standardized.
  8. ↑ Several followup studies may be necessary where the study involves marginal (small) effects.
  9. ↑ "Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism" Zetetic Scholar (1987) No. 12/13, 3-4. "Though many in this category who dismiss and ridicule anomaly claims call themselves 'skeptics,' they often are really 'pseudo-skeptics' because they deny rather than doubt anomaly claims"
  10. ↑ Truzzi, ibid, ".. they seem less inclined to take the same critical stance towards orthodox theories. For example, they may attack alternative methods in medicine (e.g., for a lack of double-blind studies) while ignoring that similar criticisms can be leveled against much conventional medicine"
  11. ↑ Truzzi, ibid, "those I term scoffers often make judgments without full inquiry"
  12. ↑ Hyman, Ray, 1980. "Pathological Science: Towards a Proper Diagnosis and Remedy", Zetetic Scholar, No. 6, 31-43. Truzzi wrote: ".. they may be more interested in discrediting an anomaly claim than in dispassionately investigating it"
  13. ↑ Proverb: "A condensed but memorable saying embodying some important fact of experience that is taken as true by many people"
  14. ↑ Truzzi, ibid, "scoffers sometimes manage to discredit anomaly claims (e.g., through ridicule or ad hominem attacks)"
  15. ↑ Truzzi, ibid, "A characteristic of many scoffers is their pejorative characterization of proponents as "promoters" and sometimes even the most protoscientific anomaly claimants are labeled as 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.' "
  16. ↑ Truzzi, ibid, "scoffers sometimes manage to discredit anomaly claims .. without presenting any solid disproof
  17. ↑ Truzzi, ibid, "Critics who assert negative claims, but who mistakenly call themselves 'skeptics,' often act as though they have no burden of proof placed on them at all, though such a stance would be appropriate only for the agnostic or true skeptic"
  18. ↑ Truzzi, ibid, ".. 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."
  19. ↑ Truzzi, ibid, ".. many critics seem to feel it is only necessary to present a case for their counter-claims based upon plausibility rather than empirical evidence"
  20. ↑ Truzzi, ibid, "Showing evidence is unconvincing is not grounds for completely dismissing it."
  21. ↑ Carl Sagan said "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
  22. ↑ Truzzi, ibid, "Some proponents of anomaly claims, like some critics, seen unwilling to consider evidence in probabilistic terms, clinging to any slim loose end as though the critic must disprove all evidence ever put forward for a particular claim."
  23. ↑ Truzzi, ibid, "Some proponents of anomaly claims, like some critics, seen unwilling to consider evidence in probabilistic terms, clinging to any slim loose end as though the critic must disprove all evidence ever put forward for a particular claim. Both critics and proponents need to learn to think of adjudication in science as more like that found in the law courts, imperfect and with varying degrees of proof and evidence."
  24. ↑ David Hume said "A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence"
  25. ↑ See Pathological Science: Towards a Proper Diagnosis and Remedy by Ray Hyman
  26. ↑ Charles Dudley Warner, Editor, Library Of The World's Best Literature Ancient And Modern, Vol. II, 1896. Online at Project Gutenberg (eg. here)
  27. ↑ H. L. (Henry Louis) Mencken, The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche (1908) publ. T.F. Unwin. Reprinted in Friedrich Nietzsche, Originally published: Boston : Luce and Co., 1913. p.30.
  28. ↑ Alasdair MacIntyre "Foreword" to the book Pragmatism and Realism by Frederick L. Will (1997) quoting his earlier paper "Is There a Problem of Induction?" Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 39, No. 19 (September 10, 1942), pp. 505-513
  29. ↑ John E. Sitter, "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
  30. ↑ 30.0 30.1 Truzzi, Marcello (1987). "On Pseudo-Skepticism". Zetetic Scholar (12/13): 3-4. http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/pseudo.html. Retrieved on 2008-10-10. 
  31. ↑ "Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism" Zetetic Scholar (1987) No. 12/13, 3-4.
  32. ↑ Leiter, L. David (2002). "The Pathology of Organized Skepticism". Journal of Scientific Exploration (Society for Scientific Exploration). http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_16_1_leiter.pdf. 
  33. ↑ Michael Stoeber, Hugo Anthony Meynell, Critical Reflections on the Paranormal, SUNY Press, 1996, ISBN 0791430634, 9780791430637 page 16
  34. ↑ Kluft, Richard P., "Editorial: Building upon our foundations" (June 1994) in Dissociation, Vol. 7, No. 2, p. 079-080, publ. Ridgeview Institute and the International Society for the Study of Dissociation
  35. ↑ JE Kennedy, "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.
  36. ↑ Association for Skeptical Investigation website
  37. ↑ Skepdic article on positive pseudo-skeptics
  38. ↑ Robert Todd Carroll "Internet Bunk: Skeptical Investigations." Skeptic's Dictionary
  39. ↑ They are here because when they were on the talk page Google displayed that page as the primary page.

Part of this page was originally from Wikipedia, but no longer exists there. See the history of the page for further information concerning how that page was vitiated and then redirected to a small paragraph in another article.

Retrieved from "http://www.wikisynergy.com/wiki/Pseudoskepticism"
Personal tools