How do you define, "pseudo-skeptic?" More accurately, how do you qualify one since the definition is clear: a "fake skeptic?"
Is a fake skeptic one that pretends to be skeptical but is really a believer in disguise? If so, a believer in what, specifically? And is belief the problem for skepticism or is it belief without the wisdom of evidence?
I think your point is a good one and there are those that profess to be skeptical who demonstrate they can be as dogmatic and fanatical as those they consider "
woo-woo's," and I freely admit to being guilty of this from time to time. But perhaps this sort of behavior is simply out of frustration. Discussions with those that believe in the fantastical; the mystical; the supernatural; the paranormal; etc. become quite circular. The believer makes a claim, the skeptic challenges it with a demand for evidence, the believer claims the evidence "is all around you; is common sense; is not apparent to the non-believer; etc."
But when the dust is settled, the result is the same. We are left with a claim for the fantastic without a shred of testable or reproducible evidence. Even if the challenges to the claims of the fantastic are kept to an intellectual level and emotional appeal avoided, the response from the believer crowd is often, you can't truly be skeptical without an "open mind." Skeptics get accused of "refusing to think out of the box."
Fair criticisms in some cases. But there are so many more in which "out of the box" thought processes are worthless because they violate rules of scientific method or the hypothetico-deductive process (a part of the sci-method). And one can only be so open-minded before reality has to be considered. If the hypothesis isn't testable or the results reproducible, its not a valid hypothesis. You can call it speculation, fantasy, wishful thinking, etc., but you
cannot call it an hypothesis. You certainly cannot call it a valid explanation. And very often, the "woo-woo" will call it a fact.
I realize the term "woo-woo" is perceived as a pejorative, but a label is necessary to differentiate. Mystery-monger and Significance-junkie is often appropriate, but difficult to type. "Believer" is too subjective. I believe in many things, but few that aren't supported by some sort of evidence or at least potentially falsifiable (I believe your mother was/is a female -an
a priori assumption, but one that can be tested).
I think the real root of the complaint with skeptics is that they are frustrating to the "woo-woo" (again, apologies to those that are offended by the term... I'm willing to accept another label if one should be suggested that is equally discriptive). Beyond the term "woo-woo," much of what the skeptic says with regard to their beliefs is considered to be
ad hominem in nature. I frequently use the word cult when discussing religions past & present, even with regard to Christianity. This offends them. I'm simply being accurate. Likewise, there are many attitudes and conventions that skeptics use that offend those that believe in the existence of aliens who abduct hapless Earthlings in the middle of the night; those that think others speak to the dead; those that believe a man can bend a spoon with his mind; etc.
All of these notions are challenged and, indeed, the claimants and, by extension, their proponents are challenged as well. These extraordinary claims are sometimes ridiculed and spoken of with derision, and nearly always challenged to be demonstrated with evidence.
Personally, I deride these claims because I think they're intellectually unhealthy. Instead of thinking critically, people are being encouraged to accept the words of others on blind faith. Very often, there's monetary exchange involved and
someone gets conned out of a few (or many) dollars, be it through tithing, book sales, seminars, etc There is a flourishing industry that thrives on the wierd; the paranormal; the mystical; etc.
Finally, a person who claims to have some supernatural gift (ESP, telekinesis, remote viewing etc.) but is not able to produce evidence of this claim is, simply put, a liar. And its this assertion that some skeptics will imply without being direct, but I say it quite blountly. Some may
believe they have some special abilty -truly believe it- but a lie it is, whether it be to the world, themselves, or both. Unless they can provide the evidence.
