Pseudoskepticism and logic

I ran across this today, and for some reason it reminds me of a certain person (or two) here.Pseudoskepticism - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Pseudoskepticism

​

The term pseudoskepticism was popularized and characterized by Marcello Truzzi in response to skeptics who, in his opinion, made negative claims without bearing the burden of proof of those claims.[9]

​

While a Professor of Sociology at Eastern Michigan University in 1987, Truzzi gave the following description of pseudoskeptics in the journal Zetetic Scholar which he founded:

​

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

​

— Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism, Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987

​

The term pseudoskepticism has found occasional use in fringe fields where opposition from those within the scientific mainstream or from scientific skeptics is strong. In 1994, Susan Blackmore, a parapsychologist who became more skeptical and eventually became a CSICOP fellow in 1991, described what she termed the "worst kind of pseudoskepticism":

​

"There are some members of the skeptics’ groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves (heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion . . . I have to say itmost of these people are men. Indeed, I have not met a single woman of this type."[10]

​

Commenting on the labels "dogmatic" and "pathological" that the "Association for Skeptical Investigation"[11] puts on critics of paranormal investigations, Robert Todd Carroll of the Skeptic's Dictionary[12] argues that that association "is a group of pseudo-skeptical paranormal investigators and supporters who do not appreciate criticism of paranormal studies by truly genuine skeptics and critical thinkers. The only skepticism this group promotes is skepticism of critics and [their] criticisms of paranormal studies."[13]

---

The issue of providing evidence for a positive assertion is well known, and what I would like to discuss is the issue of providing evidence for a negative assertion.Taking these three statements:

• The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything.
• But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.
• There are some members of the skeptics’ groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves (heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion . . .

I know of at least one such individual on this board, and there may be a few more, but the point is not to make any personal attack, but rather to provide a discussion of this side of the equation: if you claim a negative position, the burden of proof is on you to show evidence for it.People have no trouble addressing this issue when creationists try to claim that evolution is not a true science etc etc - to provide evidence that disproves evolution, and the same should hold for any philosophical or logical position.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Straggler, I undertook this thread knowing you would be by. I trust you can keep your wild conclusions and false assertions about my positions in check on this thread, and perhaps we can have a discussion of the issue this time.You will also note, I trust, that the opening post specifically refers to the logical position I have posted before: "The true skeptic takes an agnostic position," and it goes on to say that if you do not take the agnostic position, that then the burden falls on you to show why. Curiously, what you have just done is dismiss evidence of other possibilities, and you have used your opinion of the evidence to do it. When you classify a priori all evidence that doesn't comply with your belief as evidence of something else, you are dismissing evidence out of hand. You've done this before.Not surprisingly, I also thought of you when I posted this to Archangel:Skepticism - Wikipedia

quote:

---

False claims of skepticism
Advocates of discredited intellectual positions such as AIDS denial and Holocaust denial will sometimes seek to characterize themselves as "skeptics" despite cherry picking evidence that conforms to a pre-existing belief.[6] According to Richard Wilson, who highlights the phenomenon in his book Don't Get Fooled Again (2008), the characteristic feature of false skepticism is that it "centres not on an impartial search for the truth, but on the defence of a preconceived ideological position".

---

I've said before that what is needed is not just skepticism, not just an open mind to other possibilities, but that an open-minded skeptical approach gives you the best approach, especially when you get into areas where objective evidence may not be possible or there is not sufficient validation to turn evidence that exists into objective information.When you start with the statements like "Mutually Exclusive Evidenced Alternatives" and "To me this seems undeniable" you are betraying your preconceived ideological position and your lack of objectivity or open mindedness to consider other possibilities. The burden of proof is on you to show that this applies in all possible cases before you can dismiss any other explanation.Have fun.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Well that was short lived. There you go making stuff up again that isn't true and pretending that you know more about my position than I do.Curiously there is absolutely no evidence provided to substantiate your position.Good-bye.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Looks that way, unless someone wants to actually discuss the topic.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Rrhain, see Message 1

quote:

---

Taking these three statements:

• The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything.
• But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.
• There are some members of the skeptics’ groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves (heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion . . .

​

People have no trouble addressing this issue when creationists try to claim that evolution is not a true science etc etc - to provide evidence that disproves evolution, and the same should hold for any philosophical or logical position.

---

Curiously, I am surprised to see the appeal to popularity from you, Rrhain. You should also know that claiming that buckets of evidence exists is not the same as showing what that evidence is: that is the kind of argument one gets from creationists.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Phage0070, See Message 1 again please:

quote:

---

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

---

The burden is not escaped or shifted by claiming to have a better explanation, you need to provide the evidence that supports the position.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi again Phage0070 Curiously, the burden to provide evidence for you position is independent of any other position or the relative merits of evidence for it. If you claim a position other than agnostic, you incur the burden. This burden is well established for positive claims, but the point here is that it applies equally to negative claims.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Please read. Once again it seems you are misrepresenting information that is right in front of you. Curiously claims are not evidence, nor vice versa. No, it isn't - it is just pointing out that if you have a position other than agnostic that you need to support it, you have a burden of proof. This is the essence of why agnostic is the default logical position when there is inconclusive evidence one way or the other. Again I refer to the OP:

quote:

---

... But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

---

This is essentially what you are claiming yes? If that is your claim then, yes, the burden is on you to provide evidence that supports it.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Izanagi, and welcome to the fray, I would say "evidence" instead of "empirical data", as empirical data is not always available, but yes, if you have a positive or a negative hypothesis, there is a burden of proof on you to show support for your argument. In this thread I want to focus on the need to support any negative hypothesis.For the atheist, for example, one needs to demonstrate that there is more than an absence of evidence for evidence of absence.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Thanks petrophysics1,That's it in a nutshell. Good point, however one can find evidence of what the actual geologists, paleontologists, etc., have done in the journals.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi again Izanagi. Message 24Welcome to the club. But would you not say that they need a cause for having made a decision pro or con rather than stay solid agnostic? Isn't this parsing the details pretty finely? I agree with you IF empirical information is available, my concern is where it is NOT available and people still make claims pro and con.You may not be (most likely are not) aware of the back story here, a discussion (to be polite) that has spanned several thread discussing the merits of subjective evidence when there is no objective validation of the evidence. Percy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist?, Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument, and finally Is My Hypothesis Valid???. I believe Straggler has continued with his thread Immaterial "Evidence", but I haven't participated in that thread, not being interested in further misrepresentations of my positions and his pretensions to knowing more about my argument than I do. A summary of my position can be found at: Message 338 and Message 353, and this is pretty much the point I am starting with here:

quote:

---

Let's review the real RAZD position on what has been problematically referred to as "subjective evidence":

​

1. the "subjective evidence" in question refers specifically to an experience by a conscious and aware individual,
2. it is called "subjective" because the only evidence is what is\was sensed by the person having the experience, and what they recall of the experience,
3. this is the same kind of experience that happens to people everyday, with mundane experiences: experiences so common that rarely do we ask for backup information to validate the experience, even though these too are only "evidenced" by the senses of the person having the experience,
4. however, such experiences do become notable when they are novel, unexpected, or unusual,
5. we do not question that the mundane experiences can be indicative of reality,
6. likewise, as long as the novel\unexpected\unusual experience is not contrary to known reality, there is no logical reason not to accept that the experience may be indicative of reality,
7. without additional validation of the experience, however, one cannot logically progress beyond an unknown possibility of validity,
8. additional validation is best provided by either
   (a) additional experience by other people, with objective evidence being gathered, or,
   (b) through the scientific method, formulating falsification tests to invalidate the concept and testing them.
9. if you have a concept that does not seem tractable to forming scientific tests of validity, either because it is inherently untestable, or because of a lack of technology to make the test, and where the experience has not been repeated, then one is left at (7), with an unknown possibility at best, and the concept should be considered on philosophical grounds rather than scientific, if one is interested in pursuing it,
10. such philosophical considerations, to be valid, must be logically consistent and not contradicted by any known evidence,
11. additional subjective experiences, similar to the initial experience, can add to the possibility of validity, however this still does not get you past (8), objective validation.

​

Please note that this is entirely consistent with the Perceptions of Reality, where, once we have run out of scientifically testable concepts we are forced into the realm of philosophy, with logic, with concepts not invalidated by any known evidence, and where the only measure of validity is a multiplicity of opinions that concur, an admittedly poor and unreliable method at best.

---

Notice that an unconfirmed encounter with something real that has never before been experienced is classified here as subjective evidence, because we don't know from one experience if it will stand up to scrutiny. This too was discussed before, and this - problematical as it is - is the best standard available to date where the scientific method cannot be used, which is why it frequently is used in court -- life doesn't fit into nice packaged scientific experiments.I note that above you explain the cause of your agnostic deism with subjective evidence, and this fits in with my arguments regarding cause for belief/s, whether gods or aliens or ghosts.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This is totally irrelevant to the topic, which is about providing evidence for negative claims, and is just another example of your mental masturbation/s, false dichotomies, and self-serving assumptions, based on your world view and a priori assumptions.Are you going to repeat your previous pattern of promising evidence and failing to provide it?Consider yourself on probation in my book, as you have still failed totally to provide the evidence you claimed was in my posts for your fantasies about my positions, you still spout off on "RAZD this" and "RAZD that" seemingly unaware that your fantasies are just that - fantasies: they are not real.You have a bad history of posting false claims, and haven't done a thing to remedy that situation.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Gosh, Straggler, other people don't seem to have a problem with what the topic is. Read the OP, and if still in doubt see Message 22. We can trade message citations all night, but in Message 332 you actually posted this: Curiously, I fail to see how your last two paragraphs quoted there is not claiming that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. No, what you have done is ASSERT that it is false. To show that it is false you will need to provide that evidence you keep promising. Message 11Amusingly this is not evidence that god/s do not exist. Message 17Interestingly, trying to convert subjective experiences of god/s into mental inventions is the same as saying that the PSI experiences are the result of some other artifact, with the result that there is no evidence of god/s that is not explained by your beliefs\worldview\opinion/s.Fascinatingly, you denied this was your argument:In response to my Message 18

quote:

---

Again I refer to the OP:

quote:

---

... But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

---

This is essentially what you are claiming yes? If that is your claim then, yes, the burden is on you to provide evidence that supports it.

---

You replied (Message 1): So you must have some other killer evidence for you to assert a negative hypothesis is true. So we have seen three (so far empty) promises to provide evidence that conclusively proves that all religious experiences are necessarily the result of imagination. Your contention is that this argument negates all arguments for god/s, so yes you have the burden to provide evidence that substantiates your position.Your other option is to back up the assertion bus and go to the intermediate position that Izanagi provided in Message 24: What this entails, though is admitting that there is no conclusive evidence pro or con, but that you have chosen to believe in the absence of god/s, or you are left with his other position: Of course this gets us right back to the beginning of Percy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist? Message 4And I take this again back to the OP and Marcello Truzzi's comment:

quote:

---

The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

---

So what is it? Evidence negating the possibility of god/s, or admitting that there is inconclusive evidence one way or the other, and that the logical position is agnostic, with the provisio that an "agnostic atheist" can choose to believe that god/s do not exist, while "agnostic theists" can choose to believe that god/s exist.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added Izanagi arguments and final commentsEdited by RAZD, : clarity

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi bluegenes, That is fine as long as it is acknowledged that the default logical position is agnostic, and that the choice to be an atheist is because of certain personal beliefs about reality. You are free to tentatively conclude that god/s don't exist while waiting for more conclusive evidence, whether pro or con. Exactly, the default logical position is agnostic, as I said at the beginning, and I am a deist because of certain personal beliefs about reality. Likewise I am free to tentatively conclude that god/s exist while waiting for more conclusive evidence, whether pro or con. Subjective evidence can suggest possibilities, and that doesn't mean knowing truth.Only if I claim that my beliefs are necessarily true, and try to convince others that my belief is true, does the mantle of agnostic fall. It is the assertion of knowing the truth that puts the burden of proof on the claimant, whether that purported truth is positive or negative.I have not done this, and in fact have refused to discuss what my belief entails, because (among other reasons) I don't know absolutely know the truth.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi again bluegenes, Curiously, I give this as much credence as people claiming to be skeptics while still exhibiting bias in there posts - everyone likes to believe that they are rational and make decisions based on logic rather than emotions and (hidden?) beliefs. Perhaps we need to apply an objective measure to what we are talking about here:From the Google cached copy of website (so you can access without signing in) of "Where do you stand on the probability of God's existence?"

quote:

---

1.00: Strong theist. 100 percent possibility of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'

​

2.00: Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there

​

3.00: Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'

​

4.00: Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'

​

5.00: Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'

​

6.00: Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

​

7:00: Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one.'

---

Most devout theists would be 2's with some (fundamentalists?) that can be classed as 1's.I'd say I'm a 3 - "agnostic deist."A 5 would be an "agnostic atheist."A 6 cannot really be regarded as agnostic according to this scale, because the uncertainty is so small in comparison to the certainty, would you agree? I would say that 2's (De facto theist) and 6's (De facto atheist) exhibit a certainty that bears the burden of proof for that certainty. This thread is focused on the equal burden of proof on those who assert the validity of the negative hypothesis.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added clarityEdited by RAZD, : clrty

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •