Pseudoskepticism: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:45, 30 August 2006 editBackin72 (talk \| contribs)5,347 edits fix Truzzi biographical redundancy per Hob Gelding edits and rm the "skeptic" a/o "zetetic" labels← Previous edit		Revision as of 05:09, 31 August 2006 edit undoValjean (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers95,275 edits he was definitely a skeptic, not just a critic of skepticism-gone-wryNext edit →
Line 1:		Line 1:
	] journal Vol 12/13 founded by ] in which he coined the term ] in the mid 1980s ]]		] journal Vol 12/13 founded by ] in which he coined the term ] in the mid 1980s ]]
	'''Pathological skepticism''' (or '''Pseudoskepticism''') refers to the excessive use of ] to the detriment of that person and/or their relationships, or as an organized skepiticism.<ref>L. David Leiter, "" (PDF), in ''Journal of Scientific Exploration'', Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 125–128, 2002. "... it is important to clarify a basic difference, the difference between ordinary (individual) skepticism and organized skepticism. This paper does not take issue with ordinary skepticism, which is seen as a useful and important human trait ... However, organized skepticism appears to be something very different: it might be called, in the words of Ed Storms, ''pathological'' skepticism; or in the words of Marcello Truzzi, ''pseudo''skepticism."</ref> The late ], ] at ]), wrote in 1987		'''Pathological skepticism''' (or '''Pseudoskepticism''') refers to the excessive use of ] to the detriment of that person and/or their relationships, or as an organized skepiticism.<ref>L. David Leiter, "" (PDF), in ''Journal of Scientific Exploration'', Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 125–128, 2002. "... it is important to clarify a basic difference, the difference between ordinary (individual) skepticism and organized skepticism. This paper does not take issue with ordinary skepticism, which is seen as a useful and important human trait ... However, organized skepticism appears to be something very different: it might be called, in the words of Ed Storms, ''pathological'' skepticism; or in the words of Marcello Truzzi, ''pseudo''skepticism."</ref> The late skeptic ], ] at ]), wrote in 1987
	:''Since "skepticism" properly refers to doubt rather than denial -- nonbelief rather than belief -- critics who take the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves "skeptics" are actually pseudo-skeptics''<ref>"Marcello Truzzi, " ''Zetetic Scholar'' (1987) No. 12/13, 3-4.</ref>		:''Since "skepticism" properly refers to doubt rather than denial -- nonbelief rather than belief -- critics who take the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves "skeptics" are actually pseudo-skeptics''<ref>"Marcello Truzzi, " ''Zetetic Scholar'' (1987) No. 12/13, 3-4.</ref>

Revision as of 05:09, 31 August 2006

Zetetic Scholar journal Vol 12/13 founded by Marcello Truzzi in which he coined the term Pseudoskepticism in the mid 1980s

Pathological skepticism (or Pseudoskepticism) refers to the excessive use of skepticism to the detriment of that person and/or their relationships, or as an organized skepiticism. The late skeptic Marcello Truzzi, [[Professor of Sociology at Eastern Michigan University), wrote in 1987

Since "skepticism" properly refers to doubt rather than denial -- nonbelief rather than belief -- critics who take the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves "skeptics" are actually pseudo-skeptics

Pathological skepticism is not a recognized disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

Characteristics of Pseudoskepticism

Truzzi, identified the following characteristics of Pseudoskepticism:

The tendency to deny, rather than doubt,
Double standards in the application of criticism,
The making of judgements without full inquiry,
Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate,
Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks,
Presenting insufficient evidence or proof,
Pejorative labelling of proponents as "promoters", "pseudoscientists" or practitioners of "pathological science."
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,
Tendency to dismiss all evidence,

Writing for the Journal of Scientific Exploration, L. David Leiter claimed that organized skepticism tends to be automatically pathological:

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. This regrettable condition acts to preclude their unbiased consideration of phenomena on the cutting edge of science, which is not how a true scientist should behave. In fact, many “Skeptics” will not even read significantly into the literature on the subjects about which they are most skeptical.

History

The terms Pseudoskepticism was coined by Truzzi in 1987, in response to the skeptic groups who applied the label of "pseudoscientists" to fields which Truzzi thought might be better described as protoscience.

The term Pathological skepticism was coined by Dr Ed Storms at the Third International Conference on the Cold Fusion (ICCF3), held in Nagoya, Japan in October 1992,.

Notes and references

L. David Leiter, "The Pathology of Organized Skepticism" (PDF), in Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 125–128, 2002. "... it is important to clarify a basic difference, the difference between ordinary (individual) skepticism and organized skepticism. This paper does not take issue with ordinary skepticism, which is seen as a useful and important human trait ... However, organized skepticism appears to be something very different: it might be called, in the words of Ed Storms, pathological skepticism; or in the words of Marcello Truzzi, pseudoskepticism."
"Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism" Zetetic Scholar (1987) No. 12/13, 3-4.
"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"
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 levelled against much conventional medicine"
Truzzi, ibid, "those I term scoffers often make judgements without full inquiry"
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"
Truzzi, ibid, "scoffers sometimes manage to discredit anomaly claims (e.g., through ridicule or ad hominem attacks) "
Truzzi, ibid, "scoffers sometimes manage to discredit anomaly claims .. without presenting any solid disproof
Truzzi, ibid, "A characteristic of many scoffers is their pejorative characterization of proponents as "promoters" and sometimes even the most protoscientific anomaly claimants are labelled as "pseudoscientists" or practitioners of "pathological science." "
Marcello Truzzi, "On Pseudo-Skepticism]", Zetetic Scholar, #12-13, 1987. "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"
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."
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"
Truzzi, ibid, "Showing evidence is unconvincing is not grounds for completely dismissing it."
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."
L. David Leiter, "The Pathology of Organized Skepticism" (PDF), in Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 125–128, 2002.
Truzzi, ibid, "A characteristic of many scoffers is their pejorative characterization of proponents as "promoters" and sometimes even the most protoscientific anomaly claimants are labelled as "pseudoscientists" or practitioners of "pathological science." "
Scott R. Chubb, "Introduction to the Special Series of Papers in Accountability in Research Dealing With Cold Fusion" (PDF, 2000) Accountability in Research, 2000. 8

Misplaced Pages