In 1981, journalist Sidney Harris drew important distinctions between intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals. In this post, I'll illustrate some of Harris' points with naturalist, atheist and pseudo-skeptical examples:
*The intellectual is looking for the right questions to ask; the pseudo is giving what he claims to be the right answers.
Example of a pseudo-intellectual: In his article "What's wrong with the paranormal", naturalist, atheist propagandist and pseudo-skeptic Richard Dawkins wrote: "The paranormal is bunk. Those who try to sell it to us are fakes and charlatans, and some of them have grown rich and fat by taking us for a ride. You wouldn’t fall for a smooth salesman who offered you a car without an engine. So why be fooled by paranormal con-artists? What they are selling you doesn’t work. Send them packing and drive them out of business."
While a pseudo-intellectual like Dawkins claims to have the right answers about the paranormal ("the paranormal is bunk"), other better informed skeptics and naturalists like Richard Wiseman have claimed that "I think that they (ESP claims) meet the usual (scientific) standards for a normal claim".
So if the "paranormal is bunk" like Dawkins claims, it is not due to any technical flaw in the scientific evidence supporting some of the phenomena called "paranormal".
*The intellectual is evidently motivated by a disinterested love of truth; the pseudo is interested in being right, or being thought to be right, whether he is or not.
An example of this are some metaphysical naturalists, who instead of critically examine the implications of their own position in order to test them against the severest tests, try to defend it with fallacies and semantics like claiming that naturalism is simply the claim that "there is not God or inmaterial souls" (which is simply a restatement of atheistic materialism), and not a full worldview (and they defend such fallacy while defending and arguing for naturalist organizations that define naturalism explicitly as a worldview. An obvious example of logical inconsistency and intellectual dishonesty. See my post about it here.).
*The intellectual is willing to admit that what he does not know is far greater than what he knows; the pseudo claims to know as much as can be known about the subject under consideration.
*The intellectual states as good a case for his adversary as can be made out; the pseudo sets up a straw man and beats it to death for the sake of seeming superior.
An example of this form of pseudo-intellectual is seen in naturalist Paul Edwards, who arguing against the transmission/instrument theory of consciousness, posed the following "illustration" of the transmission theory:
Let us now see what the survival theorists would say about Mrs. D.’s behavior. It should be remembered that on this view Mrs.D., after her death, will exist with her mind intact and will only lack the means of communicating with people on earth. This view implies that throughout her affliction with Alzheimer’s Mrs. D.’s mind was intact. She recognized her daughter but had lost her ability to express this recognition. She had no wish to beat up an inoffensive paralyzed old woman. On the contrary, “inside” she was the same considerate person as before the onset of the illness. It is simply that her brain disease prevented her from acting in accordance with her true emotions. I must insist these are the implications of the theory that the mind survives the death of the brain and that the brain is only an instrument for communication. Surely these consequences are absurd
Any person familiar with the literature arguing for the transmission/instrument theory will realize that Edwards is arguing against a straw man, a position which no contemporary survivalist defends.
As I argued in other post, "Edwards' basic formulation of the instrument theory entails that consciousness is causative on the brain, but not the reverse. In other words, in Edwards' formulation of the transmission/instrument theory, the communication runs only in one-way direction:
Consciousness -----------------------> Brain
However, I added: Contemporary survivalists explicitly defend a two-way communication between consciousness and the brain. In other words:
Consciousness ---------------> Brain (e.g. placebo effect)
Brain ------------> Consciousness (e.g. drugs, LSD, brain diseases, etc.)
I cited as an example William James' EXPLICIT admission and reference to causation from the brain to consciousness: "Everyone knows that arrests of brain development occasion imbecility, that blows on the head abolish memory or consciousness, and that brain-stimulants and poisons change the quality of our ideas." (emphasis added)
Note that Edwards is not arguing against the ACTUAL (and best) formulation of the transmission theory as defended by its best proponents, but against an arbitrary and weak formulation of it in order to make it more easily refutable.
Other materialists follow Edwards in arguing against this straw man, because they fully realize that they cannot refute the transmission/instrument theory in its best formulation.
When you see such fallacious attempts of refutation of your position, you'll have an additional reason to think that your position is, after all, not very easy to refute.
*The intellectual is deeply and constantly aware of the limitations of human reason; the pseudo makes a deity of reason and tries to force it into realms it cannot penetrate.
*The intellectual seeks light from whatever source, realizing that ideas are no respecters of persons and turn up in the most unexpected places from the most improbable people; the pseudo accepts ideas, when he does, only from experts and specialists and certified authorities.
See below.
*The intellectual advances an hypothesis that he hopes may be true; the pseudo propounds a dogma that he insists is true.
An example of this is the hypothesis that the brain causes or produces consciousness (i.e. the materialistic hypothesis) and in general the idea that "everything is material or physical" (philosophical materialism and naturalism). Materialistic pseudo-intellectuals defend such position as if it were a dogma.
For example, according to atheist biologist Richard Lewontin: "Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patently absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.... It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door (quoted by J. Budziszewski in "The Second Tablet Project", First Things. June/July 2002. Emphasis in blue added)
See my comment about pseudo-intellectual Lewontin's materialistic faith in this post.
*The intellectual recognizes that opposites are not always contradictory, and may indeed reinforce each other; the pseudo paints a picture in black and white, right or wrong, leaving no room for a contrary viewpoint.
Very often, you can see this "black and white" thinking in atheist websites (e.g. "science vs. religion", "skepticism vs. the paranormal", etc.). Note too Lewontin's reference above to the "real struggle between science and the supernatural" (keep in mind that Lewontin conflates science with naturalism, a clever trick since if you believe in something supernatural like God , the afterlife or souls, then you're, by Lewontin's arbitrary definition, unscientific or anti-scientific).
This misuse and abuse of terms and clever use of sematics is typical of ideologues and propagandists.
*The intellectual knows there are no final answers to human questions; the pseudo makes each tentative and provisional answer sound like a finality.
*The intellectual is courageous in opposing majority opinion, even when it jeopardizes his position; the pseudo slavishly follows "the most reliable authorities" in his field sneering at heresies.
This point is typical of pseudo-skeptics: these individuals are absolutely submitted (at an intellectual level) to the mainstream consensus. Unable to think for themselves, they have an extreme credulity in the authority of scientific orthodoxy.
Marcello Truzzi, originally a co-founder of the pseudo-skeptical organization CSICOP, realized this: "Originally I was invited to be a co-chairman of CSICOP by Paul Kurtz. I helped to write the bylaws and edited their journal. I found myself attacked by the Committee members and board, who considered me to be too soft on the paranormalists. My position was not to treat protoscientists as adversaries, but to look to the best of them and ask them for their best scientific evidence. I found that the Committee was much more interested in attacking the most publicly visible claimants such as the "National Enquirer". The major interest of the Committee was not inquiry but to serve as an advocacy body, a public relations group for scientific orthodoxy. The Committee has made many mistakes. My main objection to the Committee, and the reason I chose to leave it, was that it was taking the public position that it represented the scientific community, serving as gatekeepers on maverick claims, whereas I felt they were simply unqualified to act as judge and jury when they were simply lawyers"
Possibly, this fact is the most obvious about professional pseudo-skeptics. I've known many people who don't have much knowledge about the origin, nature, tactics and motivation of organized pseudo-skepticism, but they realize that these individuals seem to be always defending the status quo.
As Vinstonas Wu has noted: "Randi, Shermer and the CSICOPers are highly selective with their skepticism. Not only do they not question their own beliefs, but they never challenge or apply skepticism to the status quo. Instead, they have a fanatical allegiance to it, evidenced by their behavior. A true skeptic examines all sides, including his own. But pseudoskeptics only point their skepticism at what they don't believe in, which everyone else does too. So what makes them different than anyone else then? Only one thing: The SIDE they're on. In this case, they are on the side of authority, orthodoxy and materialism. That is why their skepticism and critical examination is ONLY directed at anything and anyone that challenges the status quo, but NEVER at the status quo itself. In essence, that makes them "establishment defenders" (or establishment whores), not real skeptics."
Other authors has also realized this point, for example the author of this article: "The Skeptic's Dictionary, a leading pseudoskeptical online resource, gives us a great example of this selective blindness. Under the heading "ad hoc hypothesis", we find the following definition:
*The intellectual is looking for the right questions to ask; the pseudo is giving what he claims to be the right answers.
Example of a pseudo-intellectual: In his article "What's wrong with the paranormal", naturalist, atheist propagandist and pseudo-skeptic Richard Dawkins wrote: "The paranormal is bunk. Those who try to sell it to us are fakes and charlatans, and some of them have grown rich and fat by taking us for a ride. You wouldn’t fall for a smooth salesman who offered you a car without an engine. So why be fooled by paranormal con-artists? What they are selling you doesn’t work. Send them packing and drive them out of business."
While a pseudo-intellectual like Dawkins claims to have the right answers about the paranormal ("the paranormal is bunk"), other better informed skeptics and naturalists like Richard Wiseman have claimed that "I think that they (ESP claims) meet the usual (scientific) standards for a normal claim".
So if the "paranormal is bunk" like Dawkins claims, it is not due to any technical flaw in the scientific evidence supporting some of the phenomena called "paranormal".
*The intellectual is evidently motivated by a disinterested love of truth; the pseudo is interested in being right, or being thought to be right, whether he is or not.
An example of this are some metaphysical naturalists, who instead of critically examine the implications of their own position in order to test them against the severest tests, try to defend it with fallacies and semantics like claiming that naturalism is simply the claim that "there is not God or inmaterial souls" (which is simply a restatement of atheistic materialism), and not a full worldview (and they defend such fallacy while defending and arguing for naturalist organizations that define naturalism explicitly as a worldview. An obvious example of logical inconsistency and intellectual dishonesty. See my post about it here.).
*The intellectual is willing to admit that what he does not know is far greater than what he knows; the pseudo claims to know as much as can be known about the subject under consideration.
*The intellectual states as good a case for his adversary as can be made out; the pseudo sets up a straw man and beats it to death for the sake of seeming superior.
An example of this form of pseudo-intellectual is seen in naturalist Paul Edwards, who arguing against the transmission/instrument theory of consciousness, posed the following "illustration" of the transmission theory:
Let us now see what the survival theorists would say about Mrs. D.’s behavior. It should be remembered that on this view Mrs.D., after her death, will exist with her mind intact and will only lack the means of communicating with people on earth. This view implies that throughout her affliction with Alzheimer’s Mrs. D.’s mind was intact. She recognized her daughter but had lost her ability to express this recognition. She had no wish to beat up an inoffensive paralyzed old woman. On the contrary, “inside” she was the same considerate person as before the onset of the illness. It is simply that her brain disease prevented her from acting in accordance with her true emotions. I must insist these are the implications of the theory that the mind survives the death of the brain and that the brain is only an instrument for communication. Surely these consequences are absurd
Any person familiar with the literature arguing for the transmission/instrument theory will realize that Edwards is arguing against a straw man, a position which no contemporary survivalist defends.
As I argued in other post, "Edwards' basic formulation of the instrument theory entails that consciousness is causative on the brain, but not the reverse. In other words, in Edwards' formulation of the transmission/instrument theory, the communication runs only in one-way direction:
Consciousness -----------------------> Brain
However, I added: Contemporary survivalists explicitly defend a two-way communication between consciousness and the brain. In other words:
Consciousness ---------------> Brain (e.g. placebo effect)
Brain ------------> Consciousness (e.g. drugs, LSD, brain diseases, etc.)
I cited as an example William James' EXPLICIT admission and reference to causation from the brain to consciousness: "Everyone knows that arrests of brain development occasion imbecility, that blows on the head abolish memory or consciousness, and that brain-stimulants and poisons change the quality of our ideas." (emphasis added)
Note that Edwards is not arguing against the ACTUAL (and best) formulation of the transmission theory as defended by its best proponents, but against an arbitrary and weak formulation of it in order to make it more easily refutable.
Other materialists follow Edwards in arguing against this straw man, because they fully realize that they cannot refute the transmission/instrument theory in its best formulation.
When you see such fallacious attempts of refutation of your position, you'll have an additional reason to think that your position is, after all, not very easy to refute.
*The intellectual is deeply and constantly aware of the limitations of human reason; the pseudo makes a deity of reason and tries to force it into realms it cannot penetrate.
*The intellectual seeks light from whatever source, realizing that ideas are no respecters of persons and turn up in the most unexpected places from the most improbable people; the pseudo accepts ideas, when he does, only from experts and specialists and certified authorities.
See below.
*The intellectual advances an hypothesis that he hopes may be true; the pseudo propounds a dogma that he insists is true.
An example of this is the hypothesis that the brain causes or produces consciousness (i.e. the materialistic hypothesis) and in general the idea that "everything is material or physical" (philosophical materialism and naturalism). Materialistic pseudo-intellectuals defend such position as if it were a dogma.
For example, according to atheist biologist Richard Lewontin: "Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patently absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so-stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.... It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door (quoted by J. Budziszewski in "The Second Tablet Project", First Things. June/July 2002. Emphasis in blue added)
See my comment about pseudo-intellectual Lewontin's materialistic faith in this post.
*The intellectual recognizes that opposites are not always contradictory, and may indeed reinforce each other; the pseudo paints a picture in black and white, right or wrong, leaving no room for a contrary viewpoint.
Very often, you can see this "black and white" thinking in atheist websites (e.g. "science vs. religion", "skepticism vs. the paranormal", etc.). Note too Lewontin's reference above to the "real struggle between science and the supernatural" (keep in mind that Lewontin conflates science with naturalism, a clever trick since if you believe in something supernatural like God , the afterlife or souls, then you're, by Lewontin's arbitrary definition, unscientific or anti-scientific).
This misuse and abuse of terms and clever use of sematics is typical of ideologues and propagandists.
*The intellectual knows there are no final answers to human questions; the pseudo makes each tentative and provisional answer sound like a finality.
*The intellectual is courageous in opposing majority opinion, even when it jeopardizes his position; the pseudo slavishly follows "the most reliable authorities" in his field sneering at heresies.
This point is typical of pseudo-skeptics: these individuals are absolutely submitted (at an intellectual level) to the mainstream consensus. Unable to think for themselves, they have an extreme credulity in the authority of scientific orthodoxy.
Marcello Truzzi, originally a co-founder of the pseudo-skeptical organization CSICOP, realized this: "Originally I was invited to be a co-chairman of CSICOP by Paul Kurtz. I helped to write the bylaws and edited their journal. I found myself attacked by the Committee members and board, who considered me to be too soft on the paranormalists. My position was not to treat protoscientists as adversaries, but to look to the best of them and ask them for their best scientific evidence. I found that the Committee was much more interested in attacking the most publicly visible claimants such as the "National Enquirer". The major interest of the Committee was not inquiry but to serve as an advocacy body, a public relations group for scientific orthodoxy. The Committee has made many mistakes. My main objection to the Committee, and the reason I chose to leave it, was that it was taking the public position that it represented the scientific community, serving as gatekeepers on maverick claims, whereas I felt they were simply unqualified to act as judge and jury when they were simply lawyers"
Possibly, this fact is the most obvious about professional pseudo-skeptics. I've known many people who don't have much knowledge about the origin, nature, tactics and motivation of organized pseudo-skepticism, but they realize that these individuals seem to be always defending the status quo.
As Vinstonas Wu has noted: "Randi, Shermer and the CSICOPers are highly selective with their skepticism. Not only do they not question their own beliefs, but they never challenge or apply skepticism to the status quo. Instead, they have a fanatical allegiance to it, evidenced by their behavior. A true skeptic examines all sides, including his own. But pseudoskeptics only point their skepticism at what they don't believe in, which everyone else does too. So what makes them different than anyone else then? Only one thing: The SIDE they're on. In this case, they are on the side of authority, orthodoxy and materialism. That is why their skepticism and critical examination is ONLY directed at anything and anyone that challenges the status quo, but NEVER at the status quo itself. In essence, that makes them "establishment defenders" (or establishment whores), not real skeptics."
Other authors has also realized this point, for example the author of this article: "The Skeptic's Dictionary, a leading pseudoskeptical online resource, gives us a great example of this selective blindness. Under the heading "ad hoc hypothesis", we find the following definition:
An ad hoc hypothesis is one created to explain away facts that seem to refute one's theory. Ad hoc hypotheses are common in paranormal research and in the work of pseudoscientists.
What Todd Caroll, the author of the Skeptic's Dictionary does not see fit to share with his readers is that some of the most celebrated "discoveries" of mainstream science are mere ad hoc hypotheses designed to cover the failure of theories to agree with observational evidence. Some of these ad hoc hypotheses, such as the hypothesis that almost all of the matter and energy of the universe exists in a form undetectable by the instruments of science, that there is a particle that causes mass (the Higgs Boson), and that people who fail to improve on AIDS drugs must be infected with a resistant mutation of HIV, are then taken as facts, with the strongest evidence for the existence being that accepted theory requires them! And yet, you will search skeptical publications in vain for truly skeptical discussion of these subjects (as opposed to ones that agree with the mainstream consensus). "The Mainstream Consensus Is Always Right" seems to be the motto.
Pseudos-skeptics, like many other dogmatists, are intellectual cowards, and have a typical herd and sectarian mentality. And in my opinion, this is only one of the intellectual consequences of the faith in metaphysical naturalism (a worldview that tends to destroy the ability to reason efficiently).
Parapsychologists, students and fans of the paranormal have not realized this point correctly. They know that pseudo-skeptics are uncritical believers in the scientific consensus, but have not realized yet (as far I can see) that such intellectual position is CONSEQUENCE of the pseudo-skeptic's faith in metaphysical naturalism. Naturalism is the basic intellectual motivation of pseudo-skepticism, and failing to realize this is a great mistake.
Philosophers, not particularly interested in parapsychological questions but being trained to discover hidden theoretical premises and assumptions in the people's positions, have noted this. In particular, they have noted that pseudo-skeptics actual motivation is to push an atheist, materialist, naturalistic agenda (organized pseudo-skepticism is a necessary consequence of the faith in naturalism, because if you believe in naturalism, you have to disbelieve in parapsychological and afterlife evidence). For example Christian philosopher Peter Williams has written: "Sagan was a ‘Skeptic’, an American term that tends to designate someone who is sceptical about paranormal and supernatural truth claims, but who (so it often seems to me at least) uncritically endorses an atheistic, naturalistic worldview"
Williams easily notes that the term "skeptic" (as used by its proponents), designates an hyper-critic of everything which is inconsistent with the naturalist worldview.
This is why Marcello Truzzi proposed the word "zetetic" (=real or true skeptic) to describe a real truth seeker, a person who critically examine all the relevant sides and positions in order to find the truth (contrary to the the materialistic pseudo-skeptic/scoffer/denialist). In Truzzi's words: "the term skepticism is properly defined as doubt, not denial. It is a position of agnosticism, of nonbelief rather than disbelief. The true skeptic (a doubter) asserts no claim, so has no burden of proof. However, the scoffer (denier) asserts a negative claim, so the burden of proof science places on any claimant must apply. When scoffers misrepresent their position as a form of "hard-line" skepticism, they really seek escape from their burden to prove a negative position.
Perhaps the greatest confusion related to the needed distinction between skeptics and scoffers concerns their different reactions to the failure by a claimant to support an anomaly claim. The skeptics' attitude towards extraordinary claims (for example, those of parapsychology) where proponents have so far produced inadequate evidence to convince most scientists that their hypotheses about anomalies are true is characterized as a case not proven. A skeptic contends that "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The scoffer, on the other hand, sees the failure of proponents as evidence that an anomaly claim has been disproved. The perspective of the scoffer, as with most dogmatists, tends to distinguish only black from white and fails to acknowledge gray areas. (Our criminal justice system may likewise be too dichotomous. Thus, similar reasoning led some citizens to conclude that the murder acquittal of O.J. Simpson meant he was judged innocent when he was merely found to be not guilty. Science might better follow the path of Scottish Law which allows for three possible judgements: guilty, not guilty or innocent, and not proven.) Scoffers use a similar foreshortening towards issues of evidence. It is common to hear statements to the effect that "there is no evidence supporting a claim" when in fact it is merely inadequate evidence that has been presented. Evidence is always a matter of degree, some being extremely weak; but even weak evidence can mount up (as shown by meta-analysis) to produce a stronger case. Weak evidence (most commonly anecdotal rather than systematic and experimental evidence) is often discounted, however, by assertions that it falls below some threshold of what science should consider evidence at all. This, of course, eliminates the evidential basis for most of clinical medicine and the social sciences, but that seems to hold no terror for the scoffer who invokes such criteria"
Keep in mind that pseudo-intellectuals, and therefore pseudo-skeptics, tend to be seasoned sophists, clever propagandists, trained in the use of semantics and fallacies in order to cause confusion and misrepresent the evidence.
The misuse of the term "skeptic" and other word games by these dogmatists is only part of their clever strategy to push a naturalistic and atheistic agenda and get the upper hand in debates.
*The intellectual never talks down to his audience, but tries to be as clear as possible; the pseudo talks above his audience to mystify and impress them."
Parapsychologists, students and fans of the paranormal have not realized this point correctly. They know that pseudo-skeptics are uncritical believers in the scientific consensus, but have not realized yet (as far I can see) that such intellectual position is CONSEQUENCE of the pseudo-skeptic's faith in metaphysical naturalism. Naturalism is the basic intellectual motivation of pseudo-skepticism, and failing to realize this is a great mistake.
Philosophers, not particularly interested in parapsychological questions but being trained to discover hidden theoretical premises and assumptions in the people's positions, have noted this. In particular, they have noted that pseudo-skeptics actual motivation is to push an atheist, materialist, naturalistic agenda (organized pseudo-skepticism is a necessary consequence of the faith in naturalism, because if you believe in naturalism, you have to disbelieve in parapsychological and afterlife evidence). For example Christian philosopher Peter Williams has written: "Sagan was a ‘Skeptic’, an American term that tends to designate someone who is sceptical about paranormal and supernatural truth claims, but who (so it often seems to me at least) uncritically endorses an atheistic, naturalistic worldview"
Williams easily notes that the term "skeptic" (as used by its proponents), designates an hyper-critic of everything which is inconsistent with the naturalist worldview.
This is why Marcello Truzzi proposed the word "zetetic" (=real or true skeptic) to describe a real truth seeker, a person who critically examine all the relevant sides and positions in order to find the truth (contrary to the the materialistic pseudo-skeptic/scoffer/denialist). In Truzzi's words: "the term skepticism is properly defined as doubt, not denial. It is a position of agnosticism, of nonbelief rather than disbelief. The true skeptic (a doubter) asserts no claim, so has no burden of proof. However, the scoffer (denier) asserts a negative claim, so the burden of proof science places on any claimant must apply. When scoffers misrepresent their position as a form of "hard-line" skepticism, they really seek escape from their burden to prove a negative position.
Perhaps the greatest confusion related to the needed distinction between skeptics and scoffers concerns their different reactions to the failure by a claimant to support an anomaly claim. The skeptics' attitude towards extraordinary claims (for example, those of parapsychology) where proponents have so far produced inadequate evidence to convince most scientists that their hypotheses about anomalies are true is characterized as a case not proven. A skeptic contends that "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The scoffer, on the other hand, sees the failure of proponents as evidence that an anomaly claim has been disproved. The perspective of the scoffer, as with most dogmatists, tends to distinguish only black from white and fails to acknowledge gray areas. (Our criminal justice system may likewise be too dichotomous. Thus, similar reasoning led some citizens to conclude that the murder acquittal of O.J. Simpson meant he was judged innocent when he was merely found to be not guilty. Science might better follow the path of Scottish Law which allows for three possible judgements: guilty, not guilty or innocent, and not proven.) Scoffers use a similar foreshortening towards issues of evidence. It is common to hear statements to the effect that "there is no evidence supporting a claim" when in fact it is merely inadequate evidence that has been presented. Evidence is always a matter of degree, some being extremely weak; but even weak evidence can mount up (as shown by meta-analysis) to produce a stronger case. Weak evidence (most commonly anecdotal rather than systematic and experimental evidence) is often discounted, however, by assertions that it falls below some threshold of what science should consider evidence at all. This, of course, eliminates the evidential basis for most of clinical medicine and the social sciences, but that seems to hold no terror for the scoffer who invokes such criteria"
Keep in mind that pseudo-intellectuals, and therefore pseudo-skeptics, tend to be seasoned sophists, clever propagandists, trained in the use of semantics and fallacies in order to cause confusion and misrepresent the evidence.
The misuse of the term "skeptic" and other word games by these dogmatists is only part of their clever strategy to push a naturalistic and atheistic agenda and get the upper hand in debates.
*The intellectual never talks down to his audience, but tries to be as clear as possible; the pseudo talks above his audience to mystify and impress them."
0 comments:
Post a Comment