Links of interest:
-Vinstonas Wu's excellente treatise "Debunking the arguments of pseudo-skeptics and paranormal debunkers"
-Marcello Truzzi, co-founder and original member of the pseudo-skeptical organization CSICOP, exposed in this article the actual agenda, intentions, and actions of organized pseudo-skepticism: "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"
Truzzi's full article is an absolute must read, it's an eye opener for any truth seeker.
-Compare Truzzi's first hand experience with professional "skeptics" and Vinstonas Wu's argumentation on pseudo-skepticism, with this post on professional skeptic Richard Wiseman's concession that remote viewing is proven by science but it's still something that cannot and shouldn't be accepted (A complementary post clarifying Wiseman's concession can be read here)
-Article "Seven signs of bogus skepticism".
-Marcello Truzzi, co-founder and original member of the pseudo-skeptical organization CSICOP, exposed in this article the actual agenda, intentions, and actions of organized pseudo-skepticism: "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"
Truzzi's full article is an absolute must read, it's an eye opener for any truth seeker.
-Compare Truzzi's first hand experience with professional "skeptics" and Vinstonas Wu's argumentation on pseudo-skepticism, with this post on professional skeptic Richard Wiseman's concession that remote viewing is proven by science but it's still something that cannot and shouldn't be accepted (A complementary post clarifying Wiseman's concession can be read here)
-Article "Seven signs of bogus skepticism".
0 comments:
Post a Comment