Misplaced Pages

Pseudoskepticism: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:25, 30 December 2005 edit72.139.119.165 (talk) Revert, mistake made← Previous edit Revision as of 20:26, 30 December 2005 edit undo72.139.119.165 (talk) Remove incorrectly placed labelNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{| width=85% align=center cellspacing=3 style="border: 1px solid #C0C090; background-color: #F8EABA; margin-bottom: 3px;"
|-
|align="center"|
'''This is a ] topic''', which may be ].<br>
|}



'''Pathological skepticism''' (or '''Pseudoskepticism''') is a class of '''Pathological skepticism''' (or '''Pseudoskepticism''') is a class of

Revision as of 20:26, 30 December 2005

Pathological skepticism (or Pseudoskepticism) is a class of pseudoscience masquerading as proper skepticism. A pseudoskeptic is an individual who claims to support "reason" and the "scientific worldview", but frequently uses logical fallacies, attempts to silence opponents, and employs various invalid strategies of persuasion. The term is susceptible to misuse as an expression of opprobrium, and is sometimes used against anyone skeptical of the user's favorite idea.

History and usage

The terms Pathological skepticism and Pseudoskepticism were coined, by Marcello Truzzi (sociology professor at Eastern Michigan University), in the early 1990s in response to the skeptic groups who apply the label of "Pathological Science" to fields which Truzzi thought might be better described as protoscience.

The term does only make sense if one uses a special meaning of "skeptic". "Skeptic" can simply mean "someone who doesn't believe this". Applied to that case, using the term "pseudoskeptic" would be as fallacious as calling something "pseudoscience", which does not claim to be science. Independent of that, pointing out the opponent's mistakes without labeling him is more constructive in a discussion.

Some people called pseudoskeptics by their opponents hold that it is better to dismiss a correct hypothesis than to accept an incorrect one, and therefore prefer dismissal as a default opinion. This slows down the process of accepting claims that turn out to be factually true, and it also prevents the acceptance of uncounted numbers of claims which will turn out to be false. This mindset is claimed to cause difficulty harmonizing observation with established beliefs.

Pseudoskeptics unduly criticise, and villify the proponents, of various present-day theories. Pseudoskeptics usually focus on an opponent's mistakes, sometimes labeling proponents of a protoscientific theory as "mad scientists" in a discussion, and denying any possibility of a conspiracy theory.

The difference between pseudoskepticism and skepticism appear in the conduct of an individual's actions. Among the indications of pseudoskeptical actions are:

  1. Resorting to various logical fallacies (usually in an attack against those disputing a theory).
  2. The assumption of facts (such as, stating theories determine phenomena).
  3. The obfuscation of facts.
  4. The use of attractive or neutral euphemisms to disguise unpleasant facts concerning their own positions.
  5. Insisting that fundamental framework and theory of science hardly change.
  6. Unwavering belief that science is a consensus and run on majority rule.
  7. Maintaining a stance of hostility and intolerance.
  8. Instituting hurdles against new theories by "moving the goalposts".
  9. Ignoring intellectual suppression of unorthodox theories.
  10. Judging a theory or phenomena without investigation and insisting on ignoring the details thereafter.

Pseudoskeptics have been blamed for cases where a scientific theory met a great deal of criticism before eventually being accepted. Commonly cited are Galileo's heliocentric theory; the myth that Christopher Columbus' contemporaries thought the Earth was flat; Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift, and pseudoskepticism towards rocks falling down to Earth. Thomas Jefferson himself commented: "I would more easily believe that two Yankee professors would lie, than that stones would fall from heaven."

While continental drift was opposed by young-earth creationists who believe in a young earth in which there would not be enough time for continental drift to occur, the significant opposition came from the scientific establishment on the grounds that Wegener's proposed mechanism to explain continental drift clearly could not work, and that no alternative seemed to be at hand. However, this was debatably not pathological; arguably, the standards for acceptance of a patently impossible theory should be quite high.

Another example of this is the oft-cited case of meteorites; while some have argued that they were not accepted because the evidence for them was not good, opposition continued long after a number of reliable reports and even after Ernst Chladni showed that meteorites were geologically distinct from terrestrial rocks; what was apparently lacking was not evidence but a theoretical basis which made the evidence seem worthy of acceptance. These observation were not in agreement with the prevailing scientific thought. When the reasons why rocks falling from the sky was, later, proven not only logical but predictable, the question resolved itself.

On occasion, not immediately accepting a new claim can be problematic. Ignaz Semmelweis's innovations in hygiene in the 1840s were ridiculed by a skeptical medical establishment; however, Semmelweis did not help his case with his refusal to publish his own data on the matter until years later. Many thousands of women continued to die unnecessarily in childbirth until cross contamination was indisputably confirmed by others. However, the prompt accepting of a new claim can be equally problematic; the fact that Radithor and similar radioactive medicines had little critical analysis led to the death of Eben Byers and probably other less notables.

Nonetheless, pseudoskeptics do not see an occasional error as a flaw in their skepticism. In the historical cases where pseudoskeptics were in opposition, the evidence gains eventual acceptance (often when the technology and associated experimental advances are made so that the falsifiability of the theory is possible). Max Planck made the following remark on how revolutionary theories gain acceptance:

An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarised with the idea from the beginning.

Marcello Truzzi has stated that some self-described "skeptics" are misrepresenting their opinions: "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 and have, I believed, gained a false advantage by usurping that label."

See also

See also

External links and resources

Category: