Bad Skepticism - An Example

[Aaron LeClair]

What? Oh, yeah. That was a movie. Gee, didn't Carl write it? how unscientific. Worm-holes, jeez! What an imagination on THAT guy.

The movie was far different than book. The movie had a co writer who did things quite differently.

 

[idontunderstand]

A friend sent me a trial episode of a podcast called "The Skeptics [sic] Guide to the Universe" by a group of people calling themselves the New England Skeptics Society. I stated on another thread that I only subscribe to one skeptical podcast, and this is a good reason why. A member of the panel made this statement about UFOs and UFO believers:

"Nobody ever sees anything specific. I mean, no UFOs ever with nuts and bolts....it's always a blob of light. They never see windows, never see people in them, never see them on the ground, or up close...they...they take photos of these light blobs up in the sky - faked photos, usually - and call it a UFO."

Now, this is an example of bad skepticism. How many factual errors in this paragraph can one count? Even discarding the host's complete lack of knowledge about UFO reports, he misses the most obvious point: Objects of interest, up in the sky, objects which can't be identified, are - by definition - UFOs.

Skeptics who insist that paranormal believers provide evidence for their claims (I'm among them, obviously) have a concurrent responsibility to understand fully the nature of the claim, and not use ignorance and ridicule as a basis for a reasoned discussion. This is a fairly good example of someone who has no knowledge whatsoever of UFO claims, save from what he has learned from others. He has made up his mind already, and can't be bothered with even the possibility that some evidence for UFOs actually exists. This fellow is not a skeptic - a critical thinker - at all. He is a debunker, and there is a difference.

Bad debunker! Bad, bad, bad!

Hi HS,

I agree with you.I would class that group of people pseudo-skeptics, who use the cover of scepticism as a false name.

 

[Tom Levine]

The movie was far different than book. The movie had a co writer who did things quite differently.

I read the book and saw the movie...In both, there was a giant machine built out of worm-holes that went to the center of the universe, yes?

 

[Ankhes]

Only if he went to Catholic school.


-DBTrek

Heh, I didn't go to a Catholic school! But since I asked so many questions of the "how do we know" type, my parents got lots of calls until I just decided to sit quiet in class!
Oh, and I'm a she! But I guess I should be careful about saying "never" on a board with skeptics! : )

 

[Tom Levine]

Heh, I didn't go to a Catholic school! But since I asked so many questions of the "how do we know" type, my parents got lots of calls until I just decided to sit quiet in class!
Oh, and I'm a she! But I guess I should be careful about saying "never" on a board with skeptics! : )

I was never skeptical of catholic girls

 

[Aaron LeClair]

I read the book and saw the movie...In both, there was a giant machine built out of worm-holes that went to the center of the universe, yes?

Yes. You mentioned the movie and asked if Carl wrote it. I relayed that Carl and someone else did. The differences remark was born out of the imagination remark. Some do indeed blame Carl for being imaginative due to seeing things put in the movie by the co author. That's why I mentioned it.

 

[Tom Levine]

Yes. You mentioned the movie and asked if Carl wrote it. I relayed that Carl and someone else did. The differences remark was born out of the imagination remark. Some do indeed blame Carl for being imaginative due to seeing things put in the movie by the co author. That's why I mentioned it.

Now you're just showing off, Mr. Smarty-Pants!