Deconstruction of the Significance-Junkie and the Mystery-Monger
My next post will be a critique of significance-junkies and mystery-mongers in general.
One of the things I've noticed since posting at SciForums in the last 4-5 years is that it's a magnet for significance-junkies and mystery-mongers who seem to post crack-pot ideas because they
think they're doing “science.” Having the word “science” as the prefix for our fair internet forum is one of the draws to these crackpots, that ours is a culture that doesn't run off those that would be considered outright trolls at other forums probably encourages them.
But hey, the more the merrier I say. Also, crackpots, cranks, nuts and woo-woos create lively discussion. I have fond memories of crazymikey, craterchains (Norval), and one or two others. Spookz never really went away.
Let me offer a few definitions.
Significance-junkie: someone who finds undo significance in rather mundane or prosaic things that defy
that person's explanations. The significance-junkie will frequently make appeals to ignorance, popularity, authority, and belief.
Mystery-monger: someone who looks for mystery. Everywhere. Conspiracies exist comfortably in the mind of the mystery-monger, who, while ready to appeal to authority, only does so selectively. The government is covering up UFOs and cannot be trusted, but a colonel who claims he saw space aliens is believable even though he's a part of the very government covering up their existence. Its the cake-and-eat-it-too fallacy, also known as
special pleading. Mostly, though, the mystery-mongers seem to make deductive and inductive fallacies since they're unaccustomed to critical thought and logical argumentation.
Pseudoscience: no need to look anything up in a dictionary here.
Pseudo-, meaning 'fake' and
science, which is a way of logically and rationally observing the universe attempting to offer legitimate explanations. Pseudoscience is, therefore,
fake science. It's done by using scientific-sounding terms and a pretense of being rational. Unfortunately, the pseudoscience proponent misapplies terminology, uses nonsense terms, fails to rationalize arguments with sound or cogent premises, and so on. Sometimes this is intentional, mostly it's probably unintentional and just a result of poor education, critical thinking skills, or psychological failings.
Woo-woo – Like the train's whistle, the
woo-woo is trying to gain attention. He's the mystery-monger and the significance-junkie rolled into one. He wants validation and is often self-aggrandizing -with a personality that screams “its all about me” and my beliefs/worldview/perspective/etc. The woo-woo
hates to have his conclusions criticized and questioned. This is sacrilegious to the woo-woo and he'll typically respond on the internet with hatred, vile comments, accusations, name-calling, etc. and so on.
That's not to say the woo-woo doesn't receive his fair share of the same, but the difference is the woo-woo will almost always be first to do so and will always,
always respond in-kind with such ad hominem criticisms. Indeed, the woo-woo sees criticism and inquiry as an insult to his intelligence and considers either to be threats to his self-image.
Electrafixtion is a woo-woo. A mystery-monger and a significance-junkie.
I don't feel the least bit guilty of making that statement having explained in detail how these labels are defined. Electrafixtion (and many others before him: isufos, ufotheatre, btimsah, etc) come to science forums for the sole purpose of picking fights with skeptics. Then they complain about the “unfair” treatment, “oppression,” and name-calling.
They don't want discussion. They're not interested in, nor are they intellectually capable of, true discourse with rationally minded people on an academic level. Indeed, an academic level is the antithesis of their very worldview and, likewise, threatens the fallacious conclusions to which they've already arrived and rooted themselves in.
The vast majority of electrafixtion's posts at SciForums have been within this very thread. The very first post of his in this thread was to state,
ANYBODY that denies the basic premise that UFOs are REAL and controlled either by occupants or remotely is a complete moron. DON'T waste your time even responding.
Clearly, this woo-woo has no desire for intellectual discourse; he considers his own position beyond reproach; and isn't interested in hearing arguments to the contrary.
Yet they came anyway.
One person noted that NASA, the unquestioned authority on “aeronautics” and “space” in the world, has the position that space aliens visiting Earth is nonsense.
Electrafixtion responded with:
Maybe that's why they are all over NASA footage
This notion was handily refuted with very prosaic and mundane explanations in following posts, but do you think electrafixtion would acknowledge these explanations and their more rational, parsimonious, and
probable qualities.
Nope. Not in the least.
This is because electrafixtion, like all woo-woo's, has conclusions to which he has already arrived at and wants
nothing to do with data or information that are not supportive of these conclusions. He's rather like the 15th century townsfolk that
just know the reason for the failure of their crops is due to witchcraft. The woo-woo will burn his critics to the stake before admitting the barest
possibility of being wrong.
On the internet anyway.
Truth be told, the woo-woo is probably very non-confrontational in real life. If he has the courage to bring his theories up in casual conversation, he does so only after a bit of encouragement or indication that others might have an interest in them. After all, he wants gratification and affirmation, not rejection and ridicule. In real life, the fear of ridicule and facing critics is so great he'll likely just shut up or walk away at the first sign of rejection or questioning. Perhaps this is why electrafixtion is so quick to accuse his critics here of being “fearful.”
He doesn't have to face either of us on the internet and risks nothing in the anonymity of his attempts at riposte. The fear he normally feels is absent, but he's aware of it, if only subconsciously, which causes him to project that accusation so easily. He probably believes that
all people feel that sort of fear. In a way, it's saddening to realize that there are those out there that are unable to express themselves in person to their potential critics. I imagine electrafixtion shouts aloud when he reads some of our posts -perhaps he's already exploded in profane utterance as he's reached this point, realizing that he's more transparent that he'd like to think.
I'm sure he'll respond with some sort of attempt at riposte, similar to his self-declaration of being a “winner” in his imaginary debate. The debate where the rational players mostly asked questions that received circular and otherwise fallacious answers if any answer at all.
