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) • • •
™ Version 4.2