Nameless was so kind as to post a link in the "Developing Telepathy" thread to a site that has a page which boasts itself to be the "symptoms of pathological skepticism."
The page begins with "hostility" that the so-called "mainstream scientific community" reacts with when faced with supernatural, metaphysical, or pseudoscience claims. Apparently, the woo-woo's were upset even in 1996 (this is the alleged copyright date of the page) when skeptics questioned their nonsense.
First, I'll get a few conventions out of the way. "Woo-woo" in this post will likely be familiar to everyone and perhaps understood. But I use it in the following context: someone who draws attention to wild claims of the paranormal or metaphysical in the way a train whistle draws attention to a train approaching a crossing. "Woo-woo" is the sound of the whistle, but in the case of the pseudoscience claimant, the train hasn't even left the station. Skepticism refers to the thoughtful and reflective inquiry, particularly with regard to wild claims and speculations. Skeptic comes from the Greek "skeptikos," which translates to "thoughtful." The latin scepticus means "thoughtful" or "reflective." Skepticism, therefore, is not about being close minded, it's about being open minded. Also, "thinking out of the box" is fine. It's called brainstorming. In such modes, everything is a valid thought. But at the end of the day, when the thoughts are collected, only the ones that are testable can be kept. The rest must, necessarily, be discarded. This is the nature of the hypothesis.
Now, on to the "symptoms of pathological skepticism."
William J. Beaty, the apparent author of the page, charges that the "mainstream scientific community" reacts with emotion to nonsense like abductions by space aliens, cold fusion, psychic claims, etc. The first fallacy Beaty commits is his use of the term "mainstream scientific community." This would suggest that there exists a community of scientists who aren't "mainstream" in that they consider themselves "alternative." This just isn't so. There is no such thing as an alternative scientist. Either you understand and use the scientific method and its various procedures or you don't. If you don't, and you profess to be doing "science," you are a pseudoscientist. A fake scientist.
But regardless of what the scientific community is referred to as, emotional responses to wild, speculative claims that assert to be truths is warranted. Poor science is detrimental to society. The attempt by creationists to introduce religion into classrooms via the pseudoscience of 'intelligent design' is a prime example. Moreover, people are quite frequently scammed for money either through sales of pseudoscientific books (Dianetics, how-to books on junk like 'remote viewing,' etc.) or classes, or large-scale funding for bogus research (as was the case with cold fusion).
Emotional reactions, when they occur are completely warranted. But overall, Beaty didn't demonstrate that they are frequent; that these responses originate from the scientific community; or that they even occur at all. They do. We've all seen them. Some of us have even written some of them. But nearly always the emotion is directed toward the claim itself, and nearly always in the form of skeptical inquiry usually in the form of "where's the evidence? Where are the data?" In fact, most of the responses lack any emotion at all until the woo-woo begins a tautology of arguments that retreat into one another ultimately claiming the skeptic to be "close minded," a "pseudoskeptic," or some other equally indefinable and illogical derision. The first emotion seems nearly always to erupt from the woo-woo, but I provide no more data on the subject than Beaty.
Beaty admits that he is engaging in "intellectually dishonest reasoning," and "underhanded debating tactics" when he proposes a list of "symptoms of pathological skepticism" which he claims, unsuccessfully, are evidence of "irrational reasoning." Here's the list in full:
1. Belief that theories determine phenomena, rather than the reverse.
Anyone that thinks this way is not a skeptic nor a scientist. However, I have, indeed, read many a post and claim of various woo-woo's who make assertions based their speculations and acknowledge only that data that supports their claim while thoroughly ignoring any data that refutes it. Beaty offers a brief disclaimer that all of the examples he offers for each of the "symptoms" are artificial, but in this first "symptom," Beaty seems to focus on the rejection of pseudoscience by peer-review authorities or funding sources as an example. This doesn't follow, of course, since to obtain either, one must show more than simply a phenomenon, one must show a testable hypothesis and a well-designed research model.
2. Erecting barriers against new ideas by constantly altering the requirements for acceptance. (A practice called "moving the goalposts.")
Again, Beaty uses faulty examples. This practice would seem to appear only in the minds of the woo-woo. Evidence is, after all, evidence. Either it exists or it doesn't. Either there are supporting data or there aren't.
3. Belief that fundamental concepts in science rarely change, coupled with a "herd following" behavior where the individual changes his/her opinions when colleagues all do, all the while remaining blind to the fact that any opinions had ever changed.
Another typical objection by the average woo-woo. This argument is usually followed with the words "paradigm" and "shift" and, again, meaningless. All science is provisional. It is all open to revision. It isn't easy, nor should it be. Invariably the woo-woo with some education will mention Wegener and his theory of continental drift. But it is the rare woo-woo that will bother to mention (or even know) that part of Wegener's hypothesis was that gravity alone was the reason continents drifted, to which physicists responded with derision, and rightfully so. Wegener did not have a working theory or even an hypothesis for what the mechanism was that moved the continents. But the very fact that science eventually accepted Wegener's assertion is a positive testament to the reliability of science as a method. It's difficult for a new paradigm to be accepted, this is true. But if it weren't, our understanding of the universe would be completely muddled by nonsense and poppycock and the things that might have been accepted as fundamental truths in science. Evidence always wins out.
4. Belief that science is guided by consensus beliefs and majority rule, rather than by evidence. Indulging in behavior which reinforces the negative effects of consensus beliefs while minimizing the impact of any evidence which contradicts those beliefs.
Nonsense. Anyone that believes this is neither a skeptic nor a scientist. Scientific truths are not voted upon. This is a completely spurious claim by the author.
5. Adopting a prejudiced stance against a theory or an observed phenomena (sic) without first investigating the details, then using this as justification for refusing to investigate the details.
Again, this is bad science. I agree. But what the author doesn't point out is that there are many who are skeptical of nonsense claims of junk like 'telepathy' and 'esp' who have studied the available literature and are experienced in the nature of belief. Thus, the bias obtained by a skeptic against such claims is obtained legitimately: through education. This 'symptom,' like so many others here, cuts both ways. The woo-woo almost always has as bias for the claim regardless of the data. The skeptics main query is for the data; for the evidence. Yet questions of the open minded are refused, rejected, and the woo-woo responds only that the inquirer is close minded for daring to question the claim instead of simply accepting it at face value.
6. Maintaining an unshakable stance of hostile, intolerant skepticism, and when anyone complains of this, accusing them of paranoid delusion. Remaining blind to scientists' widespread practice of intellectual suppression of unorthodox findings, and to the practice of "expulsion of heretics" through secret, back-room accusations of deviance or insanity.
Fascinating that the author exhibits paranoia while charging that the skeptic unfairly accuses the woo-woo of being paranoid. "Intolerant skepticism" is an oxymoron. The term is spurious and doesn't exist (see the definition of skeptic above). Again, the skeptic is questioning the claim. A simple response with sufficient data or evidence and the questions are answered.
7. Ignoring the lessons of history, and therefore opening the way for repeating them again and again.
I fail to see what this has to do with skepticism. There are many lessons of history. The woo-woo will undoubtedly chose to ignore the ones of trickery and flim-flam created by charlatans and scam artists who made spurious claims of "science" in order to fleece the believers and the gullible from their money. The Cardiff Giant was a prime example of such flim-flam.
8. *Denial* of the lessons of history. An inability to admit that science has made serious mistakes in the past. Maintaining a belief that good ideas and discoveries are never accidentally suppressed by closed-mindedness, then revising history to fit this belief.
Again, this is irrelevant. Science has, indeed, made serious mistakes. Science, being a provisional set of disciplines, is self-correcting. Most of the mistakes of science were corrected by others in science. This is the obvious ranting of the woo-woo who is saying, "look, they make mistakes! They can't be trusted! But my drivel without evidence can!"
9. Using circular arguments to avoid accepting evidence which supports unusual discoveries, or to prevent publication of this evidence.
I thought this was supposed to be a list of symptoms deriding "science" not "pseudoscience." And, again, Beaty's examples were spurious and nonsensical. It appears to be the ranting of someone whose research design was severely flawed and is grumpy at not being accepted for publication because his methodology didn't pass muster. Poor him.
10. Accusing opponents of delusion, lying, or even financial fraud, where no evidence for fraud exists other than the supposed impossibility of evidence being presented.
If the woo-woo persists in making wild claims without showing even the least amount of testable evidence, then the obvious explanations equate to delusion or deception. Period. It's not as if people don't become deluded. This is a well-known human characteristic. Delusion doesn't automatically imply some mental health issue such as schizophrenia or bipolar, it simply means that hopes, desires, and belief have influenced one's ability to think critically (assuming such ability previously existed). Again, the author is overreacting in a telling manner.
11. Unwarranted confidence that the unknown is in the far distance, not staring us in the face.
This is a testament to the author's own ignorance and short-sightedness. I know of no scientist or skeptic that doesn't readily acknowledge that the unknown is readily present in some of the most basic aspects of our lives. Gravity is an example.
12. Belief that certain fields of science are complete, that scientific revolutions never happen, and that any further progress must occur only in brushing up the details.
I offer much the same answer as #11, Beaty obviously doesn't know any real scientists or skeptics.
13. Excusing the ridicule, trivialization, and the scorn which is directed at 'maverick' ideas and at anomalous evidence. Insisting that sneering and derisive emotional attacks constitute a desirable and properly scientific natural selection force.
Quite frankly, there are those for whom it is one's duty to offend and even ridicule. Those that make wild claims about silliness deserve to be called silly. But again, science is provisional and so is my skepticism. Show the evidence on the wild claim, and I revise my position. Its as easy as that.
14. Justifying any refusal to inspect evidence by claiming a "slippery slope." Using the necessary judicious allocation of time and funding as a weapon to prevent investigation of unusual, novel, or threatening ideas.
So the burden of proof lies with the one asking the questions of the claimant? Not likely. The skeptic is asking the questions. The evidence must be tested by the person making the claim. The problem is, there generally isn't any evidence to test. Take 'telepathy' for instance. I would love to examine the evidence. Contrary to what woo-woo's would think of me, I would love for 'telepathy' or 'esp' to be real. There just simply isn't any evidence to support this claim.
15. A blindness to phenomena which do not fit the current belief system, coupled with a denial that beliefs affect perceptions.
Again, is this a symptom of so-called 'pathological skepticism' or 'pathological woo-woos?" Phenomena are great. But when they can't even be demonstrated to be actual phenomena ('telepathy'), then we aren't discussing science, we're discussing fantasy. The woo-woo's posting that they "know" telepathy exists in this thread are living in a fantasy world. One of them even admits that he's reading fiction based on the subject. It's like those D&D nutters that kept living the game in their daily life, thinking that they're some kind of elf-warriors.
16. A belief that all scientific progress is made by small, safe, obvious steps, that widely-accepted theories are never overturned, and that no new discoveries come from anomalies observed.
Why would anyone believe that? This is the unfounded ranting of a disgruntled woo-woo. There are no scientists who believe such nonsense. Science comes in sudden, short leaps as well as slow, steady progress. But, again, it is evidence that defines the changes in paradigms and the acceptance of new theories
I only had time to go through the first 16 of these so-called symptoms. They speak more about woo-woos than skeptics though, this much is clear. Perhaps I'll get around to the rest later.
