Talk:Pseudoskepticism/Archive 1

POV?
Is this POV or is it inherit in the subject?

It's certainly inherent in the subject. "Pathological skeptic" or "pseudoskeptic" is sometimes used describe errors, but more commonly it's hurled as an insult during a flamewar (similar to how "pseudoscientist" is often used either as insult or as clinical description.)  Ah, here's an example, talk:scientific_skepticism --Wjbeaty 08:26, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm. The Anome deleted the definition entirely, replacing it with nothing. Very interesting. Is this the first move in a reversion fight? When someone calls me a "hypocrit" I know what they mean. But when they call me a "pseudoskeptic," what does that term mean? Right now Wikipedia gives no clues. The term does have a specific meaning, see Truzzi. --Wjbeaty 10:11, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what this means:
 * "skeptic groups who apply the label of "Pathological Science" to fields which their advocates consider may better be described as protoscience"

Every advocate of anything called a pseudoscience by someone else, disagrees with that label. That's the point of "pseudoscience" - pseudoscientists also call themselves scientists and their opponents call them pseudoscientists. So this part of the sentence is vacuous. The reason is its vagueness. Could we have concrete examples of pseudoskepticism? --Hob Gadling 10:03, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Blame RJFJR who added that phrase "their advocates" (possibly attempting to make it POV in favor of the skeptic side.)  My original statement was about skeptics who mis-label a genuinely protoscientific field as fake science; as "pseudoscience."   If a field of research can honestly be described as protoscience, then it's highly unscientific to exaggerate its flaws by labeling it as pseudoscience.   So what's "protoscience?"  As I've seen the word used, whenever a field of research is pursued by degreed scientists in an academic setting, yet it's not a legitimate science (it's unproven and controversial,) then it's not fake science or "pseudoscience."   Instead it falls under the definition of "protoscience:"  perhaps it will eventually become a valid field, or perhaps not.   This is distinct from "pseudoscience" where non-scientists advocating some claim will try to persuade their audience by dishonestly using scientific jargon, by wearing white lab coats, awarding themselves false academic degrees, etc.  Example: creationism is pseudoscience, it's religion dressed up in scientific clothing with intent to deceive.   On the other hand, "cold fusion" is protoscience, it's still studied by scientists in university departments and R&D companies.   Another example: the parapsychology research which takes place in a university psychology department and which gets published in peer-reviewed journals is "protoscience," but if similar research is performed by highly biased New Age believers who commonly indulge in selection of evidence and who impose no proper controls, then they're practicing pretend-science or "pseudoscience."


 * But all this is inherently POV. "fields which might be better described as protoscience": Who decides this? Why is our opinion better than those of "skeptics who mis-label a genuinely protoscientific field as fake science"? By the same reasoning those you call "pseudoskeptics" can claim the are genuinely protoskeptics. The whole article needs rewriting along the lines that "group A considers group B pseudoscientists, therefore group B and C, who disagree, consider group A pseudoskeptics" and not "group A considers group B pseudoscientists, therefore group A are pseudoskeptics". I'll try soon. --Hob Gadling 14:32, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * "Who decides this?" Honest and unbiased people can decide, based on the meaning of "pseudoscience" and "protoscience."  For example, if supporters of a certain belief embark on a search for supporting evidence while rejecting contrary evidence, yet they adopt the trappings of science... that's science in name only: pseudoscience.   But if professional researchers in academia decide to investigate a controversial claimed anomaly (bigfoot, paranormal, etc.), and they rigorously adhere to the methods of science, then they're working outside of normal science (since science operates by replication and concensus.)  They're doing "protoscience," science which is not yet replicated nor accepted by the scientific community. --Wjbeaty 20:06, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * That's a laugh. "Honest and unbiased people can decide" - and the one who decides who is honest and unbiased is? You? Please think for a bit. The world out there is full of people who think they are honest and unbiased, but call each other dishonest and biased. This article is your POV. I call you extremely biased (which is not a fault in itself, but not recognizing it is). I don't make any claims about your honesty though. --Hob Gadling July 4, 2005 22:26 (UTC)


 * "The whole article needs rewriting" Nah, just add your part.   The article first needs to clearly define what "pseudoskeptic" means.  As with the term "pseudoscience," it's irrelevant whether it is used as a clinical term by skeptical authors, or used as a derogatory term during a flamewar.  (Heh.  The target of such insults would probably prefer to erase the term from WP, but then to be fair, we would also have to erase the term "pseudoscience.")--Wjbeaty 20:06, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * No, just adding to the article doesn't NPOV it. It needs to be written in a neutral manner through out. "Some scientific pseudoskeptics hold that it is better to disbelieve a correct assertion and to believe an incorrect one." is not neutral, and is probably factually incorrect if you're talking about Randi and Sagan. And since this is a modern issue, why are all the cites of historical sciences? Is it because mentioning cold fusion and homopathy doesn't make your case as well? And what about the historical cases like N-Rays?--Prosfilaes 23:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

William Beaty, a while ago on your site I read an article which explained about pahtological skepticism, and gave examples of a ship that savages couldn't see until they had touched it and savages in africa who couldn't comprehend the advanced geometry of a camcorder until they touched it. This ecompasses TWO different states, pathological skepticism, but also another effect that I can't rmember the name of. When an artist draws a line and leaves a break - the viewer's mind fills in the break in the line by continuing the line with the line on either side.

It is then possible that somebody subconciously could not beleive in something of a geometry so advanced that even if they did see it, their mind would refuse to comprehened it, thus filling it in with the surrounding understood geometry. Not only would the person have not seen it, but also have no recollection of ever seeing it. What is this phenomenon called? Are there any other examples of this type of thing around? --someone —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Innovati (talk • contribs) 2005-05-19 15:58:21.

Fun; my computer trashed my detailed criticism, and I don't have time to rewrite it. But you quoting from and linking to people, but you never name them. You misrepresent their arguments; I don't think any of them would characterize their position as it's good to believe in false theories. Furthermore, this is a big list of successful scientific theories, but you never list the failed theories (which is the whole point of that quote from Sagan.) You also never mention any of the theories which "pseudoskeptics" are actually arguing against, perhaps becuase mentioning homopathy and astrology and alien abductions and cold fusion would hurt the case you're building.--Prosfilaes 21:07, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I added NPOv, since that seems more appropriat than saying that it is "controversial". Bubba73 (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Article abuse
The user Prosfilaes has attempted to suppress information regarding the diagnosis and treatment of pseudoskepticism. In so doing, he used the dominant intimidating tactic of calling it 'complete crap', indicating that he himself is a pseudoskeptic with dominant personality disorder, which in turn means that he is attempting to prevent people from understanding him and people like him. The behavior of suppressing scientific information to avoid accountability for one's character has no place here. I therefore move that Prosfilaes be banned. I would normally recommend that he merely be given a warning, but dominant personality disorder is genetic (and therefore unchanging), and people that have it are typically very stubborn in the assertion of their dominance


 * So you're diagnosing people from incredibly limited interaction? That's completely bogus; no competent psychologist would try diagnose someone they've never meet or had significant interaction with. The attitude that genetic disorders are unchangable is absurd, and the leap to conclude that this so-called "dominant personality disorder" (if it exists as at all) is completely genetic is also absurd--few psychological disorders are 100% genetic, and most have very strong environmental factors.


 * If this is scientific information that is acceptable in Wikipedia (that is published, and preferably in something credible), why do you provide a cite? Where was this published? For example, how did anyone find out that it can be cured by castration? Given the rarity of castration, it seems highly unlikely that anyone could have a sample of even a half-dozen pseudoskeptics that have been castrated. This information doesn't pass the smell test, and seriously needs some evidence that it's not personal research (or personal nonsense, IMO.) --Prosfilaes 7 July 2005 07:36 (UTC)


 * I agree with Prosfilaes. Our anonymous contributor is trying to spread his own POV, which is that certain people are villains. His motivation is probably that they debunked some of his cherished beliefs, but that's just a hypothesis of mine. As is is, this article is not an encyclopedia article but a polemic diatribe. His above attempt to have people banned just because they disagree with him and remove his rants, shows that he is not a position to criticise anybody for their behaviour. --Hob Gadling July 7, 2005 14:32 (UTC)


 * Prosfilaes and Hob Gadling have again proven the truth of my words with their very replies by using intimidating / derogatory statements to blindly discredit the information that I have given and thus distract from it's logic and omnipresent empirical proof. Prosfilaes uses the intimidating / discrediting false-portrayal tactic of calling my statements 'personal nonsense', and calling my recommendation for his banning 'trying to silence critics due to lack of evidence (paraphrased, from the history; it is also rather funny because he is projecting his own behavior of discrediting his opponents (me) on to myself, like the little children that say 'I know you are but what am I'; I have no problem with people trying to honestly challenge the LOGIC or EVIDENCE of my statements (which by the way does not include deliberate strawman misinterpretation, in case you were getting any ideas) )'. Hob Gadling uses the intimidating / discrediting false-portrayal tactic of calling my statements 'personal POV (paraphrased)', 'polemic diatribe', 'ranting (paraphrased)', and 'the result of personal resentment (paraphrased)', and calling my recommendation for banning Prosfilaes 'the result of disagreement with personal beliefs (paraphrased)'. Wow Hob, that's FIVE blatant attempts to deceptively discredit my statements and thus distract from their logic, all in a short paragraph. You're on a role. That indicates that Hob Gadling is obviously a person of innate dominant personality disorder and a pseudoskeptic, who is obviously trying to suppress scientific information to prevent people from understanding him and thus holding him accountable, as Prosfilaes has already shown himself to be. Such behavior has no place in the composition of an encyclopedia. I therefore move that both Prosfilaes and Hob Gadling be banned from wikipedia, unless of course they are castrated, after which they can be trusted not to do such behavior. As for proof of the truth of my statements, the proof is everywhere, as I have shown in Prosfilaes's and Hob Gadling's very responses. It is a known and verified fact that testosterone, dihydrotestosterone, and particularly the dihydrotestosterone receptors in the brain cause dominant behavior, and the psychological information that I have given can be verified in the majority of science-related debates. Regarding the first anonymous reply, I didn't say that dominant personality disorder is 100% genetic, but it IS sufficiently unchangeable (without the direct neurochemical treatments of castration or anti-androgen drugs), that environmental factors may as well be ignored for treatment purposes.


 * It's not good enough that it be obvious, it should be published. See No_original_research. That's official policy. If it's been verified, then please provide a cite. (And, BTW, the normal writing style on Wikipedia talk pages permits the use of paragraphs; both the replies above Hob's are mine.) --Prosfilaes 9 July 2005 09:25 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I first didn't recognize you as a troll, Mr. 216. My mistake. You sounded so much like a serious crackpot at first... --Hob Gadling 18:07, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

NPOVing
This articles is a quagmire of opinion. I find it very difficult to make the "Scientific pseudoskepticism" section neutral, and I am close to suggesting that the whole article be deleted for unNPOVability. It would be easier if there were a universally accepted name for the people who call others "pseudoskeptics". Maybe "zetetics", as Marcello Truzzi suggested? Then one could used phrases like "according to zetetics..." But I think it doesn't really fit. --Hob Gadling July 7, 2005 15:02 (UTC)


 * This article is not completely without merit and shouldn't be deleted. Many of the external links are actually pretty interesting. The problem lies in the wording and POV. Maybe we could move the article to some other name... - Haukurth 22:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * As with the word "pseudoscience," pseudoskepticism is in general use and needs a entry in WP, but the present article has become a morass of opinion and should be totally rewritten. E.g. I've never heard the term "scientific pseudoskepticism" used before.   There are no google hits for it.  I believe that the term is a personal creation of that author, i.e. is purely an individual opinion and is used nowhere but in this WP entry, and can be safely removed. --Wjbeaty 01:33, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I think the article needs fundamental rewriting, as the terms look as if they may have several meanings: Even if this is not true, the terms remain subject to self-definition, so the article can only be of the form ''"Pathological skepticism is used by A to mean B". "C thinks it is a disease". "D has accused E of being a pseudoskeptic because F".'' --Audiovideo 12:42, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) A skeptic doubts everything, asks for evidence, and even after altering degrees of doubt in the like of evidence (which may itself doubted), remains doubtful; a pseudoskeptic only pretends to be like this, but in fact does believe something firmly and simply casts doubt on its opposite.
 * 2) A skeptic initially doubts everything, asks for evidence and then decides whether to remain a skeptic on that issue; a pathological skeptic is incapable of removing or changing doubts in the light of evidence, either on a particular issue, or on the truth of anything.


 * It certainly remains subject to fights! OK, by analogy we have habitual abusers of science, and we label their practice "pseudoscience," and those who behave this way are usually called "pseudoscientists," and CSICOP publications often shorten this to the term "pseudos."   A class of people certainly exists who practice fake science, facades of science with a corrupt core, science in name only.  They need a name!  They have one: "pseudoscientists."  But sometimes "pseudoscientist" is used as a slur.  Does this mean that we should remove "pseudoscience" from WP?  Of course not.  It's use as a slur has no effect on its more clinical uses and definition.  So then Truzzi attached a name to a similar but opposite problem: people who call themselves Skeptic, but are irrational and unscientific; skeptics in name only.  Simple?  I thought so.  But some people seem to want to delete this entry, or to obscure it's meaning.  Well, if the term has several different definitions in general use, then LIST THEM instead of arguing over which is the "real" definition. --Wjbeaty 01:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "some people seem to want to delete this entry": who are those people? It's not me. I said: "I am close to suggesting that the whole article be deleted for unNPOVability". You repeated that claim in Talk:Pseudoscience: . Will you please either substantiate or retract the claim? Or do you want me to invent a phrase containing the word "pathological" to describe you? --Hob Gadling 21:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That's the original form of the article: Pseudoskepticism was coined by Marcello Truzzi to refer to a portion of the membership of the CSICOP organization who claim to support rationality and skepticism, but who maintain rigid beliefs, violating the methods of Scientific Skepticism.  It's analogous to the term Pseudoscience: to crackpots who claim to be scientific but who don't use the methods of science. Are there other common definitions?   Also: these terms refer to Scientific Skepticism, not skepticism in general. I don't think the term Scientific Skepticism is really open to debate, but if you want to try changing its accepted meaning, refer to the WP entry on Skepticism.--Wjbeaty 01:33, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe the best thing to do would be to stop pretending that this is a neutral, well-understood concept and start out with Marcello Truzzi and the history of this concept, and explain how this is a controversial, heated concept tightly involved in a war of worldviews. And since we'd be showing that it's a modern concept, we could discuss modern examples like cold-fusion and ESP along with the ancient examples picked because they were the one in a thousand that were incorrectly dismissed.--Prosfilaes 18:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure, go ahead. But what does cold fusion (etc.) have to do with the topic?  Or do you intend to argue that Pseudoskepticism doesn't exist (and cold fusion etc. is a counterexample?)  Aside: I certainly agree that the great majority of self-described skeptics are honest and properly skeptical.  Only a minority (perhaps 5%, perhaps less) are irrational "skeptics in name only."  Personally, I'm convinced that Skeptic organizations could be much more popular and powerful on the world stage if they were more like the science community, i.e. self-critical and extremely intolerant of bad behavior among their own.  On the other hand, groups like CSICOP have greatly improved over the last 20 years, and today they tend to distance themselves from the "flaming woowoo-haters" and other irrational types who seem common on newsgroups but rare at skeptic meetings.  --Wjbeaty 01:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Revision?
...the article completely, given POV. The first sentence might as well read "Pathological skepticism is total bullshit" as the tone adopted through out effectively implies that. Marskell 09:46, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Rewrite...


 * How is the article POV? please list.
 * IYO, "Pathological skepticism is total bullshit"? please explain ...
 * The tone adopted throughout implies that pathological behavior of debunking ....
 * Sincerely, JDR


 * Part of the complexity is that pathological skepticism is pathological by definition; the question is what type of skepticism is pathological. Alternately, pathological skepticism is inherantly a POV subject; one side of the argument wouldn't use the word or concept. --Prosfilaes 23:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * For NPOV, all that is necessary is to define the use of the word. It's in the policy. One side's "feeling" of "preference" is irrelevant. JDR 04:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Would it perhaps be better to have an abuses of skepticism article instead? This is an idea, not any kind of slur, that I've even seen in skeptical groups. I think Sagan mentioned it. Essentially it's people who are closer to hostile to any new theory or claim without sufficient cause. Or they use Ockham's Razor in a way not intended. For example writer Norman Spinrad reportedly said Quantum Mechanics is too complicated to be real. This was also recently in the news because a few scientists, and others, insisted there could be no way for the rediscovery of the ivory billed woodpecker to be real. Yet, the last time I checked, the woodpecker rediscovery is indeed legitimate.--T. Anthony 11:33, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * abuses of skepticism may be a good subsection in this article. JDR 04:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's an article on "Abuses of skepticism" at the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal. Richard Dawkins, Paul Kurtz, and the like are members so it doesn't look to be "woo woo" or opposed to all skepticism.--T. Anthony 11:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal has exhibited features of Pathological skepticism. Marcello Truzzi, a founding member of CSICP, discovered that many members of CSICP fall within this article's scope. The article @ csicop.org that you cite would be more "pseudoscience" (or atleast "bad science") ... not pseudoskepticism (in the kind of this article). JDR


 * Well okay. I'm just saying it would seem useful to consider when skeptics think skeptics go too far. Besides the guy who wrote that might be one of their more moderate members. (Truzzi didn't criticize every member for this) Dismissing it out of hand due to the source seems pseudoskeptical in itself. Anyway I've seen skeptic groups that quite clearly say they feel that Michael Shermer, for example, goes too far. He did an article "debunking" SETI that I thought was ludicrous and full of really bad logic. It's mentioned on the Drake equation page. I've seen self-described skeptics who agree on my verdict. (I'm not a skeptic really) The article was full of odd assumptions about civilizations dying or alien civilizations following our pattern. That wasn't the only one though. Many of his articles were like that. Skeptical Inquirer, put out by CSICOP, has at times ran essays brutal on perfectly scientific hypothesis that the author dislikes on philosophical grounds. For example certain theories about the anthropic principle make them go into near conniptions. Free Inquiry was similarly insulting of Anthony Flew for becoming a Deist because of related issues. Also studies showed that overly skeptical people are unable to see patterns that are there due to decreased dopamine levels. (Locus linked to this so it must've been in Newscientist or Nature) To me stuff like that is "pathological skepticism." I guess I don't know what you're talking about. I might just do a separate article on abuses of skepticism elsewhere--T. Anthony 06:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Interesting article. In the third paragraph from the end it mentions scientists hired by tobacco companies to be skeptical of links between smoking and health risks, creation scientists that are skeptical of evolution, etc. Aren't these the real pseudoskeptics?  Bubba73 (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Those are some examples of certian pseudoskeptics (in the sense that it's skeptism by 'bad science'). There are other examples, like those who block honest inquiry and others not agnostic toward anomalous claims (these are not exclusive groups either). This later groups is the focus of this article. JDR

Two items in the article
The article says "Commonly cited are Galileo's heliocentric theory...". This was the theory of Copernicus, but Galileo supported it. Were scientists opposed to it or was it religious leaders? The only evidence that Galileo gave that the Earth moved was that he thought the tides were due to the motion of the Earth - and that was wrong.Bubba73


 * Were scientists opposed to it Yes, well sort of in a way. It's generally made out to be a religion versus science debate, but that's only part of it. Many academics in the Church were very wedded to Aristotelianism and they wanted to squash rival theories. Although just as important, if not at all related to this article, the Pope at that time felt Galileo had mocked him. People back then seemed to have reacted very badly to being mocked or believing they'd been mocked. Copernicus was hesitant and never really mocked any Pope so was okay throughout his life. Likewise the Jesuits in China translated Galileo into Chinese in the late 1600s. Although technically forbidden they were also okay as they were also not doing it to make the Pope look bad.--T. Anthony 14:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Galileo (in some respects) is considered the first "modern" scientist, so maybe it should be noted that scientists opposed to Galileo weren't quite the same as modern scientists.  Also remember that we are looking at this with hindsight and much more information than they had at the time. Also, no one is right all of the time.  For every (debatable) case like Galileo, Wegener, etc, there are many thousands of theories that are rejected by scientists that never proved to be true.  Bubba73 (talk) 15:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Also in the article is "Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift". The idea of the possibility of went back more than 100 years before that, but there was no proof either then or in Wegener's time. Wegener thought that the continents floated on the mantle, and that is definitely wrong, and scientists knew that at the time. As soon as evidence came in from the ocean bottom about what was actually happening, the theory of continental drift was replaced by plate techtonics. That proved that the continents do move, but not in the manner Wegener said. Bubba73 (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Im quite confusded by the english in that section is it claiming It is widely claimed columbusses contemporaries said the earth was flat, but that isnt true they all(many) knew it was round? If so could what is being claimed by the artcile be mad emore explicit please, people with my meagre grasp of the language stand no chance of understanding it as it stands. If it is being claimed that the stories of unscientific prejudiced opposition to Wegener were greatly exagerated. Then I wish to object in fact. I dont have a citable reference but I had a reliable annectdote who was personally at least instructed by his professor not to read the book and I believe physical actions were taken to make it hard. Removal from normal library shelves or something like that. getting citation for the kinds of things I heard about will be hard. I guess it may be one of the bits of truth that may fail to met wikipedias verifiability rules. I would suggest however that a claim it didnt happen also fails the test. Darwin is also wrong at the edges he didnt know about DNA. He too stood on the shoulders of giants. Wegener may be wrong in detail but the extensive observation of faulting, mineral patterns extending from Africa to SAmerica were rather impressive. Not sure what the pint of arguing that is, andalso not sure what that paragraph in question is trying to convey. IF someone knows please make it clearer and correct. AccurateOne 19:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

scientific pseudoskeptics
The title of the section scientific pseudoskeptics seems to me to be an intentional slur on scientific skepticism. Also the section says "Some people called scientific pseudoskeptics by their opponents hold that it is better to disbelieve a correct hypothesis than to believe an incorrect one, and therefore prefer disbelief as a default opinion. " Well, that comes from the scientific method, folks. Also, in statistics, it is recognized that it is much worse to accept a false hypothesis than to reject a true hypothesis. Bubba73 (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Not so: science is agnostic as well as practical. In short, theories may be used until invalidated. Harald88 22:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought the scientific method was proving or disproving a hypothesis. To me that implies you neither disbelieve or believe it. More like you are agnostic on the issue until it's proved or disproved by data. If you actively think it's impossible from the get go I'd think that'd make testing a hypothesis difficult.--T. Anthony 00:37, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * That it s very valid point. 18:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * "To me that implies you neither disbelieve or believe it."
 * Nonsense. People's belief is not part of the scientific method. Scientists can believe what they want and still be scientists, because science is a method and not a point of view. Otherwise almost nobody could do science. Einstein, for example, wouldn't be a scientist according to that definition because he was strongly opposed to the Copenhagen Interpretation.
 * IMHO, that "neither disbelieve or believe it" thing is a myth used by Truzzi and others to define their own point of view (the neutral one) as the only one allowed in science. This trick allows them to use ad hominem arguments against CSICOP and others whose point of view they don't like, and I really wonder why skeptics let them do it. -- Hob Gadling 13:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Your POV on the "neither disbelieve or believe it" is simplely wrong. As Truzzi (a skeptic's skeptic) and others have pointed out .... an "objective neutral view" is the one that should be sought in science. People's belief should not be part of the scientific method, BUT 'people's belief' can induce experimenter's bias into testing. The inability of a human being to remain completely objective is the ultimate source of bias.
 * It's not a "trick" .... and, as for "ad hominem arguments", CSICOP and others debunkers have used ad hominem methods against views and theories they don't like repeatedly. JDR 18:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This is really funny. Why should I accept as truth what Truzzi "points out" about science? So you and Truzzi think that Mr. Spock is the role model for scientists? That's fine, if you want to believe that, believe it. I have no obligation to agree with your or Truzzi's POV. BTW, your vocabulary ("simplely wrong") shows you are confusing your own POV with the truth.
 * I think that scientists should be allowed to believe whatever they want. If a scientist makes a mistake because of his bias, other scientists with other biases can correct him. That's what the scientific method is all about. But your model, where every scientist has to think in a certain restricted way, is a poor environment for the exchange of ideas because all scientists think the same. The diversity is missing. Your scientists are closer to robots than real people.
 * About CSICOP folks also using "ad hominem" - do you really think that is a valid argument? This is like a burglar being caught by the police and defending himself by saying, "there are other burglars beside me! And some policemen break the law too!" What do you think, will the police let him go? --Hob Gadling 12:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * What kinda is funny that you ignore valid points, misconstrue others, and make snipes about Star Trek characters. You also are not obliged to agree with facts. Your opinion on the operation of the "scientific method" is not the "scientific investigation and acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence; ie., characterizations, hypotheses, predictions, experiment". Scientist have to think but in a certain restricted way (ie., neither disbelieve or believe something) ... they should not let thier own assumptions into the process to tilt the method one way or another during the route to a conclusion. The exchange of ideas about hypotheses and predictions will still occur because not all scientists will think the same. Scientists are allowed to hypothesize and make predictions on whatever they want ... but a prediction (eg., thier belief) should not confound the experiment (or prevent the testeing altogether). This is what many pseudoskeptics do though.
 * About CSICOP folks also using "ad hominem", this is not a "logical argument" to demonstrate a truth ... it a point of history ... Sincerely, JDR 21:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * (Been away for a while). Which valid point did I ignore? I am also not aware of misconstruing anything. Which facts did I... whatever you think I did? Maybe you could be more specific (and thereby helpful) instead of using broad attacks? Only the Star Trek part is easily identifiable but I can't see anything wrong with that.
 * "Scientist have to think but in a certain restricted way (ie., neither disbelieve or believe something) etc." - repeating your POV does not make it truth. You claim that scientists should avoid some things but you have not given any reason for that.
 * I don't understand what you are saying in the last sentence. Do you mean that CSICOP used to use ad hominem, but doesn't now (that behaviour is history)? --Hob Gadling 08:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd never heard of Truzzi before this article. Although I think I did misphrase it. Ideally I think you're beliefs or disbeliefs are not to bias the testing. Is that in least right?--T. Anthony 15:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

LOL - I do find skepticism as a philosophy (?) to be devoid of most human attributes. Taken to its extreme, unless one has a reliable witness to document every act an devery emotion and every event, it might as well never exist. This category ought to stay, because it's a clear warning of the dangers of Hubris Dictostelium 17:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's your own problem if you take anything "to its extreme" and find the result not viable. Maybe you should take it as it is instead? --Hob Gadling 12:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

NPOV vio tag
Could someone please list ... in a bullet list prefereably ... the concerns as to the NPOV violations? JDR 22:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * if the article is about skepticism to the point of being pathological, it seems to me that it is philosophical skepticism instead.


 * What part of "a class of pseudoscience masquerading as proper skepticism" confuses you on "pathological skepticism" being only "philosophical skepticism" and not a 'pseudoscience' itself? It is not "a school of thought which examines whether the knowledge and perceptions one has are true" but is a "harmful abnormality" of true skepticism. JDR 17:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "Pathological skepticism (or Pseudoskepticism)" - as far as I can tell, Pseudoskepticism is an "attack the messenger" term that was made up from the legitimate terms scientific skepticism and pseudoscience. When skeptics debunk a particular item of pseudoscience, believers in that which has been debunked may resort to labeling the debunker a pseudoskeptic.  (attack the messenger of bad news)


 * 'Attack the messenger' is a ploy used by pseudoskeptics against real sciences they don't deem "true". When the "skeptics" attack and "debunk" a particular item of science, scientist in that field sometimes expose the "debunker". JDR 17:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC) (PS., though this works the other way too ... as in your example)


 * The part about continental drift repeats a common popular misconception. It is misleading and largely wrong.  I thought about correcting this section, but I think that if I did that, it would be seem to be irrelevant to the topic of the article.  Just because scientists are not convinced that something is true is not the same as thinking it is false - it just needs more evidence to be convincing. That's the scientific process at work. Strictly speaking, Wegener's theory that continents float on the Earth's mantle has never been accepted by scientists.  At the time Wegener proposed his theory, there was insufficient evidence in favor of it to accept it.  Sixteen years someone else proposed a better theory, which is now known as plate tectonics and that replaced the theory of continental drift.  But it still took decades for there to be enough evidence to support it.


 * It seem that you disagree with this paragraph:
 * Against this, the establishment also chose to ignore the many compelling elements of Wegener's empirical evidence pointing towards continental drift. Instead they dismissed the theory in its entirety because of Wegener's faulty proposed mechanism, thus "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." In doing so, they discouraged further investigation and prevented acceptance of a revolutionary concept for another 40 years.
 * Whjat is wrong with this? and as to your statement "insufficient evidence in favor of it" .... didn't Wegener have empirical evidence? At what point does the amount of evidence become "sufficient"? Seems a bit selectively biased ... Sincerely, JDR 17:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC) (more later ... after I see the revision via WMC edit)


 * the part about meteors is somewhat like continental drift. It is a commonly-used attack on the scientific process, i.e. "many scientists were wrong about meteoroids falling from the sky (or other things), so science is wrong about XYZ".


 * "Some people called scientific pseudoskeptics by their opponents hold that it is better to dismiss a correct hypothesis than to accept an incorrect one, and therefore prefer dismissal as a default opinion." That's the way science works, folks.  A correct hypothesis that is not currently accepted always has a chance to be accepted later as more evidence is gathered.  It is a much worse error to accept a false hypotheses - then that has to be fixed later, and everything that was founded on it then becomes unfounded.  That's the way hypothesis testing in statistics is done too.


 * the non-encyclopedic tone of the article. Would a legitimate print encyclopedia such as the Encyclopedia Britannica publish something this biased?  I don't think so.  This article is largely a one-sided opinion. Bubba73 (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Many (all?) of these bullets come from the recent edits by an anon. I agree with you in disliking them, and have reverted to an earlier version. This includes rm'ing your POV tag. Put it back if you think the current state still justifies it. William M. Connolley 10:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC).


 * WMC, don't remove the info because you don't like it ... unless a valid reason is give the information should stay. Note, I didn't put in all the info you removed the 1st time ... but some relevant info that you might not have "liked". JDR


 * The article with the additions is poorly written and rambling. You can't just keep adding stuff to the paragraphs. Furthermore, parallelism should be upheld; don't switch back between viewpoints. Continental drift should present why it's pathological, and then the disagreeing viewpoint, not bouncing back and forth. A one or two line explanation of why CSICOP is linked under "See also" is good; a rambling, accusatory paragraph isn't. If you want to bring CSICOP up in the main body and discuss it as a/the primary pseudoskeptical organization, do so, but please try to be more NPOV than what you have there now.--Prosfilaes 22:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I readded that the proof should not be extremely burdensome ... pseudoskeptics do that ... ask for proof and move the goal post to an extreme proof. Also ... a section iin this article on CSICOP might be good ... because any addition to that article would be removed instantly there ... CSICOP has many defenders, even when they are wrong (do note that they are not necessarily a pseudoskeptical organization ... but some of thier members are pseudoskeptics) ... Sincerely, JDR 22:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC) (PS., no one has answere my question 2 Bubba73, please respond Prosfilaes and anyone else .... otherwise the information should be readded)

Prosfilaes, do you mean Parallelism (grammar)? I would lioke you to clarify .... and .... What's wrong with witching back between viewpoints? ... going back and forth is expressing both sides ... Sincerly, JDR 22:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Why do you keep using ellipses? It makes your writing very hard to read. People shouldn't switch back and forth between viewpoints because it makes it very hard to follow. Explaining one side clearly, and then the other makes it a lot easier to follow what is going on. Whether you break it down and discuss both views of each point in seperate paragraphs, or you write many paragraphs on one viewpoint and respond in another set of paragraphs, it's a lot easier to read.


 * As for my last edit, you shouldn't say "arguably, the standards for acceptance of a patently impossible theory should be high, but the amount of evidence for a plausible theory should not be extremely burdensome" because "the standards for acceptance of a patently impossible theory" being high doesn't conflict with "the amount of evidence for a plausible theory" being not "extremely burdensome". If you want to make your addition relevant, you've got to argue that it is a plausible theory, and then argue that the standards were overly high. (It wasn't a plausible theory, IMO.)


 * And what question to Bubba73?--Prosfilaes 01:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * What question do you have for me? Give me a keyword so I can search for it.  Bubba73 (talk), 04:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * JDR, has someone gotten onto your account somehow?KrytenKoro 08:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No such thing as "philosophical pseudoskepticism."
I've removed it. The term "philosphical pseudoskepticism" was made up by a wikipedia user, and does not appear in web searches (except for wikipedia pages and mirrors.) The terms "pseudoskepticism" and "pathological skepticism" were coined many years ago and have come into general use, especially in debates between members of skeptical organizations versus "Believers" who support religions, UFOs, etc.--Wjbeaty 14:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Not only believers. There is a type of person (I'm tempted to term them "Vulcans") who insist that opinions are a big no-no for scientists. Vulcans are pretty intolerant against non-Vulcans, and get angry when people disagree with them. Reddi seems to be an example (see my earlier edit today). Marcello Truzzi is another - he didn't accept anything weird as true, so your characterization does not fit him. But I guess that a lot of "Believers" camouflage themselves as Vulcans. --Hob Gadling 09:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Truzzi coined "pseudoskeptic" but it does not appear in any of my dictionaries or lists of English words. For what that's worth.   Bubba73 (talk), 00:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the term has only been in use a few years, and it's partly a piece of Usenet sci.skeptic and JREF-style jargon. Analogy: there are plenty of WP entries (especially involving the WWW) which are in common use but which don't appear in any dictionary.   Hey, I see that another sci.skeptic term isn't on WP: the term "woo woo!"  grin. --Wjbeaty 19:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is in need of severe revision
It reads less like an encyclopedia article and more like a point/counterpoint. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that "Neutral Point of View" is not the same thing as points of view arguing with each other. The article as it stands now is somewhat surreal. Anybody want to take a swing at this? There's no reason an entry about a simple definition of a Usenet insult should read this way.SPEWEY 20:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Several WP terms have attracted warfare between radical believers and disbelievers trying to out-shout each other. I think things have finally died down for this one.   Also: this term was coined by a famous Skeptic for purposes similar to the term "pseudoscientist."  Naming things is often the first step to understanding them.  We can use "pseudoscientist" as a clinical description, or we can use it as a personal insult.  Same with "pseudoskeptic."  So, is "pseudoskeptic" inherently insulting?  I would argue by analogy, that the word "pseudoscientist" is not an insult if it's an accurate description (yet pseudoscientists would try to silence their critics by complaining about the "insult.")  The same applies to "pseudoskeptic."  --Wjbeaty 20:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Depends. Truzzi and Co define "Skeptic" as containing, among other things, a certain position (theirs, that is, the fence-sitter position). But that is not compulsary - "Skeptic" can simply describe a person who does not believe some hypothesis (as in "HIV skeptic"). Also, "science" makes a claim of superior quality, while "skeptic" does not. I don't care whether I can call myself a skeptic or not. But I care about "scientist". For me, "pseudoskeptic" is not an insult in any case, but a category error and feeble argument surrogate. --Hob Gadling 22:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I kind of agree. For all the disagreement on whether any given topic or study comprises "pseudoscience," there doesn't seem to be any disagreement that the phenomenon actually exists as a corruption of any defined philosophy. Perhaps barring Truzzo's coinage of the term, the only times I have ever seen the label "pseudoskeptic" used, it was as a disapproving moniker for pretty much everyone who likes to call themself "skeptic." In other words, it's the exact analogue of "woo-woo," another term that probably doesn't deserve a lengthy WP entry. Regardless of its originator's intentions, in actual usage it doesn't seem to describe a generally agreed-upon phenomenon distinct from skepticism itself, and doesn't lend itself to being used as a "clinical description" any more than "typical communist moron" or "shortsighted jerkoff libertarian" do. And come on, whatever you think of the above you have to admit that the article right now often vaccilates from one position to the next within a single sentence. If the war is over, perhaps it's time to clean up the corpses. SPEWEY 04:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?
I am considering reporting recent reverts as vandalism. Does anyone have any excuses for what they have done before I do so? Sam Spade 10:15, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You are the one who is disturbing the peace - you attacked the page, and we are defending it. (I don't like the page much,but your edits only make it worse.)


 * Removing the "The term only makes sense" paragraph: so you don't like your pet insult being criticized. Tough luck for you.


 * "Pseudoskeptics are those seen to unduly criticise"...
 * "Pseudoskeptic" is a label put by person A on person B. What you are saying here is: if person A thinks B is a pseudoskeptic, then B is a pseudoskeptic. This is blatant POV. --Hob Gadling 19:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You're wrong, since your argument also "proves" that fanaticism is merely POV and doesn't actually exist. Would you insist that bigotry is not real, that it's nothing but opinion?  In fact, extreme fanatics and bigots are easy to recognize, and their behavior is found under the definition of those words.  Same goes for extreme pseudoskeptics.  Yet all of these characteristics are on a spectrum, and one can exhibit mild bigotry (or pseudoskepticism) without becoming an obvious "poster child" for that ailment. --Wjbeaty 00:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't even try to understand what I am saying. "Pseudoskeptics are those seen to unduly criticise" is POV. "Pseudoskeptics are those who unduly criticise" would not be POV. If you write "Pseudoskeptics are those seen to unduly criticise", you are saying, "Anybody who is seen by whoever as a pseudoskeptic, is a pseudoskeptic." Your example about fanatics and bigots is beside the point. "Easy to recognize"? Disagreeing with some people in a certain direction automatically leads to being "recognized" as a "pseudoskeptic"! (I suspect Sam Spade is one of those, given his behaviour here, but that is beside the point.) Is that what an encyclopedia article should embrace? --Hob Gadling 16:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Hob.  Bubba73 (talk), 18:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice to see that Sam is active on this page as well. Has he tried sneaking spirituality into the article yet?  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  12:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is presently incorrect; Pseudoskepticism is not the same as Pathological skepticism
These two topics need to be separated out from one another, whether in this article combined or in separate articles. Pathological skepticism is skepticism to the point of pathology. Recall that David Hume said inter alia that someone who insisted on sound deductive logic for everything would starve to death. Pathological skepticism is skepticism, often with genuine logical foundation, which works to the detriment of the person and/or the relationships in which that person is involved (including relationships such as research groups I would imagine, but very pertinent in more personal relationships too). Pseudoskepticism is an attitude or form of argument in which a person pretends to be or thinks they are a knowledgeable skeptic, but is instead merely obfuscating what might otherwise pass as a valid point of view.

In other words, most of the article needs restructuring and/or rewriting. Sorry to break the news...Kenosis 01:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The terms Pseudoskepticism and pathological skepticism "have" no inherent meaning... instead, a certain person or group has defined these terms, the terms are in use, and so a certain meaning is associated with them. Truzzi originated "pathological skepticism" and its meaning described here.  Also, several different people in the mid 1990s started using the term "pathological skepticism" in almost exactly the same way that Truzzi used "pseudoskepticism," and for about a decade both terms have been used interchangably among the SSE community, among professional scientists arguing pro/con about the existence of cold fusion, paranormal events, etc., and on forums such as JREF and SCI.SKEPTIC.   If you wish to argue that some other group uses "pathological skepticism" with an alternate meaning, please don't bother insisting that the term "really" means one thing or another.  Instead give us the history of the alternate usage. --Wjbeaty 01:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I will endeavor to attempt to get directly in touch with Truzzi and ask for a clarification-- it may take awhile. If the argument is that Truzzi has used the terms interchangeably, I would appreciate better evidence that someone as articulate as he is has conflated the two meanings; and if that is the case the article should say so. I also happen to think sourcing on the alternate uses not involving the plain meaning would be appropriate, because previously this article was a complete mess full of arbitrary individual POV's by many editors who had some obvious bone to pick with someone else's theory or with the skepticism thereof. What are the editors here supposed to do, cite the misuse of the terms? Perhaps so, if they're widely conflated with one another. Absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, terms should be taken on the plain meaning. Pseudo and pathological have different plain meanings from one another...Kenosis 03:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Marcello Truzzi died in 2003, so it will take more than a while.


 * If a certain definition of a term has never been in common use, then it doesn't belong on WP. Your "plain meaning" concept above is a new one on me.  It's pure POV, as well as being a recipe for filling WP with unlimited numbers of definitions which have never been used in the real world.
 * If the argument is that Truzzi has used the terms interchangeably ...no, instead the two terms have been used interchangably in practice. However, both are neologisms, and the WP rules say that they shouldn't be on WP unless in wide use.  Brief web searches show that "pseudoskeptic" is more commonly used by far, so let's remove "pathological skepticism" entirely and change this entry to "pseudoskepticism."


 * Again: words have no inherent or "plain meaning." Even if they did, you're the one in the wrong, since "pathological skepticism" is obviously inspired by Langmuir's term "pathological science," and therefore the single exclusive "plain meaning" of pathological skepticism is analogous: "skeptical practice which has become corrupted by emotional bias."  :)  (I'm being sarcastic.)  But seriously, if we honestly wish to determine the (perhaps several) valid meanings of a term, then getting involved with religious wars over their One True Meaning is a mark of ignorance.  Instead we must do as has always been done: go out and research their origins, and observe how the terms are commonly used in practice.   --Wjbeaty 00:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * About Marcello Truzzi, I've since learned, thanks.


 * As to the article, it was a complete and utter mess filled with increasingly wild POV's. Since then, it's been fairly stable and at least slightly informative.  If there is sourcing for another definition, then change it; of course the one term is obviously inspired by Langmuir's lambasting; so's the other one.  As to the distribution of topics, I couldn't agree more.  If you proceed to split these terms into two separate articles, I will back any reasonable, well considered edits you make, as will other editors I should expect.  On the other hand maybe the SSE community should write the article...Kenosis 16:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Update: "Pseudoskepticism" had 276 hits on Yahoo, "pathological skepticism" had 551. On Google it was 678 for pseudoskepticism, and 471 for "pathological skepticism".  Essentially then, their usage is pretty even.  (Personally, I use both browsers because neither is better than the other).  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  16:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The present article claims that Truzzi coined both terms. This isn't true, and older versions said no such thing. Truzzi coined "pseudoskepticism" in 1987. Early use of "pathological skepticism" dates from early 1990, on the Compuserve Science forum (during the cold fusion discussion.) --Wjbeaty 02:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

CRITICISM IS REALLY JUST AN INSULT? Pseudoscientists take insult from the word "pseudoscience," and sometimes the insult was intentional. Yet the term is also a valuable tool used by others who criticize actual pseudoscientists. Should we delete the "pseudoscience" entry because some take insult?

Or in other words, who is right... the ones who take insult and see "pseudoscience" as POV, or the ones who see the term as valid criticism, as NPOV? Both are right, obviously. "Pseudoscience" has two meanings: a clear definition which is in common use as accurate criticism, but also as a piece of emotionally loaded rhetoric; pure derogatory slander. The WP entry should describe both uses. The same is true of the terms "pathological skepticism" and "pseudoskepticism." I've seen both used by academic scientists as shorthand labels to criticize misbehavior (e.g. in JSE journal and private listservers.) Both are also used in online forums as pure insult. But the POV doesn't erase the NPOV. If it did, then we'd have to remove the Pseudoscience entry. More important, we should never let anyone suppress criticism on the grounds that the criticism is insulting.

Another topic: a double standard for skeptical abusers? In order to keep from hurting the feelings of pseudoscientists, perhaps we should delete the current WP entry and replace it with one which hasn't been used as an insult: "Abuses of science?" I'd say no. Critics of pseudoscientists should not fear hurting the pseudoscientists' feelings. We should freely apply succinct labels already in wide use. The same is true of those who criticize the "abusers of skepticism." We should point out their pseudoskepticism in clear terms and in great detail, don't obscure things by creating new labels such as "abusers of skeptcism" intended to avoid insult. No double standards. Abusers of skepticism should not be treated with kid gloves, any more than we should be tolerant of the dishonest behavior of pseudoscientists'. To do otherwise would be to support a pseudoscientist complaint: that skeptics can dish out criticism, but they can't take it. --Wjbeaty 02:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The List
Rather than improving the list or adding "references needed," Jefffire deleted it without pointing out which parts were POV, or without any explanation. I've restored the list, let's edit it without these silent "hit and run" tactics. What if someone silently deleted the analogous list from pseudoscience? I'd see that as flagrant vandalism, and probably suspect that the perp was a Believer in some pseudoscience topic or other. When the same happens to this entry, I make the same conclusions.

Of those claiming to follow science, some are pseudoscientists. Of those claiming to be skeptics, some are pseudoskeptics. The two are analogous, both terms are in wide use, and neither one need be a derogatory slur. While pseudoscientists would probably see the most NPOV pseudoscience article as insulting, pseudoskeptics would most likely do the same: declaring as POV any detailed discription of their misbehavior. Yet just because someone takes insult at an article, that doesn't mean the article was intended as insulting, or was even at all NPOV. And if they take action and delete things, that's an attempt to silence criticism, not an attempt to improve WP. The upshot: before calling POV and deleting large chunks of the WP entries on pseudoscience or pseudoskepticism, first discussion is required. Sit down, think clearly, and make certain the POV opinion isn't just the illusory product of emotional bias. --Wjbeaty 01:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have tagged this article as a warning to the unwary reader, based in large part on the "charcteristics" presented without citation. Also, none of this article has citation to reputable sources or M. Truzzi's literature as backup for the definitions and characteristics mentioned. No particular bias here, it's just that a lot of the content is obviously made up off the top of various editors' heads, and should be cleaned up and cited.  Whatever isn't citable should be removed in due course as OR.... Kenosis 03:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No reliable souces are provided for the list, and the list itself is highly POV. eg "Displaying the attitudes of traditional patriarchial religion"- is also POV against Muslims and Christians, "Ignoring or downplaying the role of power, economics and status in the activities of science" - appears to be someone's pet theory. Since it fails WP:V pretty badly (in addition to being POV) I removed it. Jefffire 12:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi--well, if you don't think Kuhn or Feyerabend are reliable sources, I don't know what to say...The point about patriarchal religion is not POV against patriarchal religion but a point about the inappropriateness of patriarchal religious attitudes in the realm of science. I would have thought that was self-evident, like the point about logical contradictions in the realm of pseudoskepticism. I suppose I could source arguments against logical contradiction going back to Aristotle, but most people agree that it's not scientific, I think. The "pet theory" may be found in Feyerabend's "Against Method". As a general point, I'm amazed that someone could review and consider the sources and remove the citations, all in the space of two minutes...I could spend a couple of hours hunting down the precise references with page numbers etc. where appropriate, but I don't see a lot of point in doing that if it's going to be instantly removed.81.108.28.190 13:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources in this case would be people who are very well respected scientists/skeptics or the like. For instance the Skeptics dictionary would a useful source, or James Randi's encyclopedia of the paranormal, if they mention pseudoskepticism. Philosopher's and sociologist's opinions don't hold much water. Jefffire 13:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, Carroll (author of SkepDic) is a philosopher.... Jim Butler(talk) 01:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That must be a joke: Randi actually bets a lot of money on his belief that certain things such as homeopathy are false - so much so that he is not credible as a true sceptic, but sooner a pseudosceptic. In contrast, philosophers are more credible because they have no vested interest in the matter. Harald88 23:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Really? Your lifelong reputation is worth nothing? Just because Randi had the money to put up to encourage people to submit their discoveries to scientific testing, does not negate the value of his opinion. --Prosfilaes 13:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't address his opinion (which is certainly of value) but his credibility as a true skeptic. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's not credible to argue that it's a swan. Harald88 22:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't hold much water with whom? Is that a joke?? You need to put in smileys if so, like ;-) 81.108.28.190 13:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I assure you, no joke. We need more than the opinions of such people since they are nothing but opinion. Personally I haven't got any respect for what passes for philosophy and sociology today, but that's me. Jefffire 13:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, other people don't have respect for what passes for religion, science, skepticism, sliced bread or whatever. It doesn't mean they remove what they disagree with. Anyway, I think the discussion immediately above doesn't need any more comment. Your remarks speak volumes, and for anyone reading this discussion it will probably do them as much good as if the material had been left intact on the main page. G'day.81.108.28.190 13:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you've misinterprated what was intended as a whimsical aside. Essentially my point is that the sources you propose are not reliable sources for this topic. They have a definate POV which is influencing them, in many cases to apply a derogatory label to people criticising their pet theories. Jefffire 13:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Both Kuhn and Feyerabend are reliable for such a topic as very notable points of view. They are both major philosophers and historians of science in the 20th century who have written extensively on questions like the conservatism in science, and their work has been influential both in the sciences and the humanities.

We can and should definitely label their POV as being from them specifically, but they are definitely notable POVs on the subject. Personally I'm not sure why you think someone like Randi has any less of a POV, and I admit that I find it somewhat odd that you think scientists are the best source to go to for philosophical questions about the validity of their own attitudes. In any case, though, NPOV clearly means balancing out and attributing notable POVs, and Kuhn/Feyerabend definitely count in that respect. --Fastfission 19:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I really can't condone putting in a sizable list that is drawn from the philosophical opinions of two or three people, especially given that the bulk of the list is made up of varients of the "special pleading" fallacy. Jefffire 10:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * How is Truzzi a less reliable sources than Randi or Carroll? Thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 19:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * See my remark above: Randi discredited himself as a reliable source. Harald88 23:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Who?
It is high time to add information about who uses this term. I added a little bit about that. BTW, the Leiter PDF is hilarious. What a naive, self-important windbag! --Hob Gadling 15:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, even a naive self-important windbag can do good science (and even a person with none of these characteristics can have a hidden agenda, or even be completely wrong.)  Attaching negative labels to Leiter (as above) has nothing to do with whether he's right.  It seems to me to be a Pseudoskeptic tactic: an attempt to damage Leiter's perceived credibility but without bothering to address his errors, if any.  A scientific skeptic would simply show why he's wrong, and not use emotionally manipulative techniques such as ad hominem attacks.   Me, I think Leiter is both right and wrong.  Many extreme skeptic-activists are probably created when a person traumatically rejects religion.  Leiter takes this too far in asserting that all such skeptics have this origin, and that people only will join skeptic organizations because of past religious trauma. --Wjbeaty 02:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The article explained three times who Truzzi is. Once is enough.

I also removed the silly line "Pathological skepticism is not a recognized disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders." Since the article now says that the term is used exclusively by a bunch of people who privately fight for their common viewpoint, it should not be necessary any more. --Hob Gadling 16:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Pseudoskepticism" is a meme used by certain people holding a certain POV, but then so is "pseudoscience". The latter is evidently used by a broader community of people, but both are used in similar contexts by similar groups who "fight for their common viewpoint".  Both are sociological definitions (like "cult"), not scientifically validated categories.  Both terms have been used by respected scientists and philosophers, who are generally writing for popular or "niche" audiences, not scientific audiences, and not in peer-reviewed publications.  The implication is that we should edit both articles to the same standards, including notable viewpoints about each view, although "pseudoscience" should clearly be the longer article since it's a more notable meme.
 * Hob, in light of the above, I'll have a closer look at your recent edits, but I think they may err too far on the side of deletionism and POV. "One person even claimed"?  That's clearly POV tone.  Best regards, Jim Butler(talk) 19:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Then drop the "even". In any case, I think it is important to note that the term makes sense only if one adheres to the POV that "skepticism" has one specific meaning and that people can pretend to be skeptics. There are definitely more people who think that one can pretend to be a scientist. In the past, this article has reflected that, but zetetic editors deleted the passages, creating the impression that "pathological skepticism" is a neutral term used by people without an agenda.


 * "Deletionism"? I deleted one line and some redundancy and added more than that. --Hob Gadling 20:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Hob, I meant to delete the part about deletionism above, seriously (I wrote that before noticing that you'd just moved the section on Leiter, not deleted it). Thanks for deleting the "even".


 * On your comments just now and further above: Aren't you using a double standard?  Apart from the number of people who use the memes, what's the real difference between the two?  Surely there can be debate over the boundaries both of legitimate science and legitimate skepticism, as well as over what constitutes "pretending" to do either.  (For example, to the degree that "health" is intangible, it's not clear that claims of promoting health are empirical claims.  Some self-identified skeptics prefer to designate as "pseudoscientific" all empirical claims that are unsupported by a certain degree of scientific evidence.  That criterion isn't universally held among people who use the term "pseudoscience", however.)


 * So, yes, James Randi could be called a "pseudoskeptic" by someone who feels he uses the term "pseudoscience" too loosely, and conversely, Randi might call someone "pseudoscientific" if he feels that person is playing fast and loose with empirical claims. Aren't both terms used by people who have an agenda, irrespective of what scientific evidence says?  (IOW, both terms are ways for the speaker to belittle people who interpret evidence differently a/o fallaciously.)


 * If that's true, then shouldn't we then say in Pseudoscience who uses the term and what their agendas are? Or is that too POV and OR?  If so, why do it here?  I don't mean for that string of rhetorical questions to seem combative; I'm just highlighting the possibility of a double-standard here.  Thanks for considering this, Jim Butler(talk) 21:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, I've removed your edits as they do not appear to be verifiable. For example: --Iantresman 21:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "The term is exclusively used"... do you have any evidence of exclusivity? A quick Google test shows some 6000+ results, which I suspect shows a much wider usuage.
 * "organized groups of persons "... again, I don't know how you would show that all these people are organsised? Was Truzzi organised?
 * ""anomalists", "zetetics", or "Forteans", or (true) skeptics, "... same as above
 * "who believe that scientists as well as skeptics have to be agnostic regarding their subjects"... do you have a citation? I don't know how you would show what all these people believe?
 * "One person claimed that organized skepticism is automatically pathological"... are you sure it wasn't two?


 * Hi Iantresman - here's a long-overdue thanks for your excellent and diligent edits here. I restored and added to a couple of Hob's edits (i.e. Truzzi bio redundancy, and mentioning Leiter's specific criticism of what is esssentially groupthink among self-identified skeptical groups).  I tend to agree with your concerns that Hob's edits about "ownership of the meme" are a bit on the OR side.  If we do include such language, I think we should be consistent and clarify the same issues at pseudoscience.  Or, since that might raise a ruckus, just don't do it at all, since the sources (imo) adequately speak for themselves.  cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 22:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Fyslee, good call with this edit; I think on reflection that it's correct to designate Truzzi as a skeptic, since by any relevant criterion for identifying skeptics, he was one (and self-identified as such). cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 07:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * He was a skeptic that could afford to criticize the excesses which humans are prone to, including skeptics. His viewpoint on true skepticism being characterized by an agnostic position is good to keep in mind. The large quote near the bottom of the Marcello Truzzi article is worth framing. Everybody, not just skeptics, should read it once a day.....;-) He really understood the essence of the matter, even though he dabbled in some controversial issues. -- Fyslee 08:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Amen, brother. ;-) Yes, that quote's a classic and I agree with it completely.  cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 23:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't get it. Does it become true by reading it more often? In my experience it does not. No matter how often I read the claim that scientists (or skeptics) should have one specific viewpoint, namely the agnostic one, plurality of opinions still stays crucial for the wellbeing of science. --Hob Gadling 11:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure. But use of the "pseudo-" terms persist, for various reasons.  regards, Jim Butler(talk) 00:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Huh? You agree with Truzzi's quote ("I agree with it completely"), and you agree with me that the dogmatism Truzzi displays in the quote is wrong and plurality of opinions is to be preferred ("Sure")? That does not make sense to me. --Hob Gadling 09:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * How is Truzzi any more dogmatic than Randi or Carroll? He's got his opinions.  I agree with those in that particular quote.  I see how reasonable people can differ over the boundaries of science and skepticism, but I still have my own opinions.  I'm a realist about how people use language, and the tendency to substitute labels (like pseudo-whatever) for more nuanced discussion.  Still, the terms can be useful as shorthand.  I put bumperstickers on my car, but don't think in bumpersticker terms.  Does that make sense?  I'm not able to respond except sporadically till Monday, so sorry if I don't get back till then.  cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 07:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Truzzi says that his POV is the POV one must have in order to be called a "true skeptic". Randi does not do that, at least I never read anything by him where he does it.
 * Randi criticizes people for using bad methods. Truzzi does that too, which is OK, but he also criticizes them solely for disagreeing with his POV. He explicitly invented a derogative word to designate dissenters. That is dogmatism.
 * I have no problem with agnostics, unless they claim that their position is the only allowed one and give derogative names to the different-minded.
 * Science needs pluralism because many people who look at a problem from very different positions can see more than the same number of people who all have the same position. Truzzi reduced that pluralism by trying to mob everybody into (not convince them of!) his POV. I never heard a real, working argument (and hardly any attempt at one) why agnosticism should even be preferable, let alone the only permitted POV.
 * The only attempt I know at showing that agnosticism is better goes like this: "Bias is a source of errors in experiments." But bias does not go away if you strive to be unbiased. The opposite is the case: if you think you are unbiased, you are just not aware of your bias anymore, so you tend to drop safety measures against it. Bias has to be controlled by the shape of the experiment. And people with a different bias, who are motivated to find errors, have to take a look at the result. Take care of your bias using the scientific method, so you don't need to remove it artificially. --Hob Gadling 08:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see Truzzi's pseudoskepticism to be only Truzzi's point of view. Just as I recognise that there are people who practice bad science (pseudoscientists), I also recognises that there could also be bad skeptics (pseudoskeptics). Truzzi may have been the first person to identify and define the term, but it is only his point of view, if absolutely no-one else shares his view.
 * It is also not our job as editors to agree nor disagree with Truzzi/pseudoskepticism, but to describe it. If there are reliable sources crtiticising pseudoskepticism, then we can describe that too.
 * Are there notable pseudoskeptics? Again it's not for us to decide, but we can describe reliable sources that do. I note that the article on pseudoscience is happy to use Carroll's Web site as a source, which I assume is considered a reliable source in this case, though Wikipedia guidelines suggests we are wary of self-published sources. --Iantresman 09:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said above, I have no problem with identifying "bad skeptics", I just have a problem with identifying them by their POV instead of only by their methods . I also do not claim that Truzzi is the only one who does that - he just spread the error far and wide.
 * But I seem to be the only one who has a problem with it. Unfortunately, skeptics fall for it too - as far as I know there is no published criticism of this dogmatic usage of the term "pseudoskepticism".
 * Of course agreements or disagreements by editors do not belong in the article. I just wanted to generate awareness that the concept is partly based on a fallacy - maybe others are more lucky than me in finding published criticism to include here. --Hob Gadling 10:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you may be right, to a certain extent with your characterisation. I could speculate that scientists would not generally admit that there might be those who are a little lax with their skepticism, which is why there is not much in the literature on pseudoskepticism... and why most of the quote in the article are attributed to Truzzi.
 * As you suggested, I've removed the sentence "Pathological skepticism is not a recognized disorder..." --Iantresman 10:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've done a bit more research and found some sources predating Truzzi. Unfortunately I am unable to ascertain the full context of the usage. Whether Truzzi was aware of these sources is not known. --Iantresman 11:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
I think this sentence should go:
 * "Pathological skepticism is not a recognized disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders."

The reason is that hardly anyone would think it is. The only reason people would think that "pathological skepticism" may be "recognized disorder" is the word "pathological". But the word "pathological" just refers to the fact that, as in "pathological science", a system of thought deviates from what a group af people believes it should be.

So, why is it not a recognized disorder? Is it because the people writing that manual are still working on it? No, but because it has nothing at all to do with mental disorders, it does even not refer to people. (Or does it? If yes, it is an ad hominem attack.)

There is no reason to write what PS is not. --Hob Gadling 12:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. If it was recognised, we'd say so, and provide a citation. --Iantresman 15:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I detect a double standard: if the word pseudoskeptic is an ad hominem attack, then so is the word pseudoscientist.  If pseudoscience can be applied as a neutral label, then so can pseudoskepticism.  --Wjbeaty 09:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * While pseudo-anything may be intended as a neutral label, I suspect that anyone on the receiving end will take it pejoratively. Sources certainly suggest that "pseudoscientist" is a pejorative lablel,

LACH?
Although I welcome expansion of this article similar to pseudoscience, I must say that I'm rather skeptical about "LACH". Now is consciousness of course a very difficult subject, but it looks like a kind of religious approach about a subject that evades scientific exploration, so that it's hard to distinguish skeptism from psuedoskeptism in this case. In short, probably not the best example to give... Harald88 22:10, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought about this too. My gut reaction is that the study of consciousness, the after life, ESP are all bunkum. But if a university department says that is studies some of these scientifically, that's good enough for me. Pre-judging it would be a form of pseudoskepticism! --Iantresman 23:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry to butt in ... what's "LACH"? CWC (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ref.18 - it's university stuff, but IMHO it reads like crap. And of course, my last statement is in itself already close to a WP:NOR violation... Harald88 21:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * LACH - Laboratory for Advances in Consciousness and Health at the University of Arizona. --Iantresman 22:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The book reviews strengthen my opinion that this example isn't a wise choice for this article: if the head of that lab indeed attempts to defend creationism by circular reasoning, then that seems to leave little room for the occurrence of pseudoskeptic criticism - true skepticism suffices.
 * Harald88 22:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh-huh. See Gary Schwartz. Hmmm. Oh yeah, I'd delete that reference too. Yup. For sure. (Being "too skeptical" may be ill-advised, but not being skeptical enough is always foolish.) Thanks for the explanation, CWC (talk) 00:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I propose to leave it in for the moment, but it needs to be put in perspective - without further comment it could give the false impression that it isn't challenged. I'll do that now. Harald88 11:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Chris Mooney article
After reading a comment by Wjbeaty at the AfD, I did some googling of alternate names for patho  psuedo  this phenonemom but found nothing useful except for Chris Mooney's article "Abuses of Skepticism", which is already in the External Links section. If this article survives the AfD, I suggest balancing stuff from Prof Truzzi with a little bit from Mooney's article. We should probably also consider merging Abuses of skepticism here. Cheers, CWC (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Rename this article to "Pseudoskepticism"
I would like to see if we can already get a consensus to at least rename this article to "Pseudoskepticism" -- Talk:Pathological skepticism/Vote to rename. -- Fyslee 15:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong support per discussion at Articles_for_deletion/Pathological_skepticism. --Jim Butler(talk) 00:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll take the liberty to copy that to the proper page. ;-) Harald88 11:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoops, thank you! (My brain hurts.... it will have to come out.) ;-P cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 05:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The result is very clear support for the name change. -- Fyslee 13:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * We should wait until the AfD is decided before making any changes. --Iantresman 15:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The AfD is on another topic (delete/not delete), and this subject is mentioned there and here, providing all an opportunity to be heard. Therefore I see no reason not to proceed. If the AfD results in a "delete" (so far it's a strong "keep"), then the article, regardless of name, will be deleted. So there is no reason to not proceed. -- Fyslee 18:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

clean-up of "See also" and interesting link
I removed a lot of material in the already too long "See also" list that didn't obvously belong there. In case some subject really belongs there (and not, for example, under skepticism), please clearly point out its relation to pseudoskepticism.

Apart of that, just when I included it, an anon added a link to the following interesting article: http://www.geocities.com/wwu777us/Debunking_Skeptical_Arguments.htm. At first sight it is not good as general referene (it seems to be a personal website), but it may very well lead ot useful (good and sourced) material that can be included in this article. Harald88 17:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is not very well written at all, it is asolutely torn to pieces by the reference that follows it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.24.250 (talk • contribs)

alternative use of "pseudoskepticism"
Pseudo-skepticism applies to people whose opinion is controlled by prejudice due to a strong belief -- the doubt that is a necessary feature of skepticism is lacking. The most common use of the term is for exposing premeditated "debunkers" who pretend to be skeptics, but it can of course also be used to label an approach that claims to be skeptical but is too superficial due to a strong belief in favour of a theory. Occasionally this use occurs, as the article in the "Skeptics dictionary" demonstrates. Thus IMO a sentence to that effect should be included in the article as well. Harald88 18:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It may be the case, but I don't think we have sources to support it. --Iantresman 18:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I just cited one... (?!)
 * I will include that one in the text, and move the comments to a footnote. Harald88 20:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest that the use of the word "pretend" above would indicate that they aren't skeptics at all, but charlatans. While this might occasionally happen (but for what purpose, there's no money in it, in contrast to pseudoscientific practices, where there are plenty of charlatans claiming to be scientific for a profit), I think that it is usually a subconscious process, rather than deliberate. I have another slant on the subject, so here's my contribution to the AfD:


 * I consider myself to very much be a skeptic, and I defend the inclusion of this topic here. (I happen to be the ringmaster for the Skeptic Ring and the Anti-Quackery Ring, so I think I have a bit of understanding on the subject....;-) It is a real concept used in the real world, and therefore Wikipedia should cover it. I really doubt that many skeptics are totally free from occasionally giving way to pseudoskeptic tendencies. Who doesn't get a kick out of an occasional ad hominem attack on true believing idiots? (How was that for an example?....;-) Why do we love Penn and Teller's "Bullshit" program? Because we find it perfectly appropriate, in the name of humor, to make fun of our antagonists. Skepticism and pseudoskepticism abide side-by-side in many of us, and it is only our higher self that intellectually recognizes and attempts to suppress the tendency to sink to the same level as many of our antagonists, especially when involved in serious discussions (which Penn and Teller don't pretend to be doing, although they still are spot on much of the time). The same principle is involved in racism: much as we'd like to think we are totally free of racist tendencies, we actually often harbor them in one way or another. This is human nature. I still support a strong keep, but only after renaming to the much more common expression "pseudoskepticism." -- Fyslee 18:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Fyslee my above phrasing meant to designate self-proclaimed skeptics who strongly disbelieve a theory - without the healthy doubt that is required to deserve the lable "skeptic", so that their only aim is debunking, not knowing. How about such phrasing?
 * Apart of that, you are of course right that few people can be simply put in a box with a qualifying lable such as pseudo-scienctist", "racist" or whatever. Happily there is no need for us to do so in this article. ;-) Harald88 20:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

AfD withdrawal?
Fyslee, how can you tell that the recent AfD was withdrawn? I see that the "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 October 22" are now designated "Old discussions",, but is that the same thing? --Iantresman 18:48, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I confused to different AfD's! My bad. You can read about it here. Where did you read about it? Have I mentioned it somewhere without correcting it? -- Fyslee 19:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In the Article's History, and the template has been removed. --Iantresman 19:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops again! I forgot about that one. It's now restored. Thanks. -- Fyslee 19:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

AfD Result: Keep
The result was Keep and move to Pseudoskepticism. --Iantresman 21:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

intro not yet OK: needs to be made more general in order to reflect the new title
In line with my above comment of the other use of pseudoskepticism, also the intro isn't yet correct: pseudoskepticism is more general than pathological skepticism, contrary to what the intro now claims.

Don't we have a good definition to refer to? As a starter, I think that the apparently non-peer-reviewed definition of Winston Wu isn't bad:

'' a pseudo-skeptic [claim to be a skeptic but] manipulates the facts to fit into their beliefs, using selective attention as well. ''

Harald88 09:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Lantresman now improved the intro to:
 *  	The expressions pseudoskepticism (sometimes pseudo-skepticism) and pathological skepticism are used to suggest that certain forms of skepticism deviate from objectivity. 
 * I agree that that is better, but I doubt that "objectivity" is a good indicator for "skepticism".
 * Thus other suggestions are welcome, preferrably in accordance with skepticism. Harald88 11:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As with other kinds of pseudoscientist, a person cannot be a "pseudoskeptic" unless first they *claim* to be a scientific skeptic, or to follow skeptically scientific behavior.


 * Also, note well that the contemporary controversies about skepticism and pseudoscience all involve scientific skepticism or Pyrrhonian skepticism, and not just skepticism in general.  In other words, a pseudoskeptic in the usual sense isn't a fake version of a "skeptic," but instead is a fake version of a scientific skeptic.   Philosophers tend to use the word "skeptic" to mean something else besides Pyrrhonian or Scientific skeptic, and this apparently leads to confusion. --Wjbeaty 23:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The benefits of pseudoskepticism
The article is POV in assuming that pseudo-skeptic behavior is "evil" in an absolute sense. I see people on the skeptic side complaining about this, but they don't change it. Why not? I suspect its because they want to be scientists, so this leaves them no option. They miss an important fact: a debunker is the opposite of a scientist. OK, time to put on my pseudoskeptic hat for a bit. It's comfortable and familiar. It's the headgear of a skilled fighter in nasty political debate, definitely NOT recommended for a scientist. Pseudoskepticism is an essential part of the political strategy of promoting science in the human world. It's a key skill in the strategy of debunkery. Its negative aspects mostly arise when it becomes part of scientific debate or strict logic-based reasoning. Science and pseudoskepticism don't mix any more than science mixes with politics, or with debunkery. A debunker makes a lousy scientist, debunkers are more like members of the police force. And a scientist makes a terrible debunker; a pansie debunker who lacks the will and solid decision-making skill needed to take direct and necessary action. An ideal scientist might see a debunker as dishonest, political, and with hopeless emotional biases. A debunker might see a scientist as wishy-washy and damaged by self-criticism and ethics taken to a bizarre extreme. For example, suppose a televangelist is selling expensive miracle medical cures. This would require debunking (and perhaps the involvement of the real police.) The debunker reasoning might be as follows: since we know that neither god nor miracles exist, and we know that only a really slimy character would sell cures to people who should be seeing a doctor instead, we therefore know that this televangelist is a con artist who is ripping off gullible fools. It's revolting. Therefore we're driven to take action to stop it. A scientist on the other hand would be always tenative: god and miracles are only low probability rather than outright stupid, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That some money or quackery is involved is irrelevant. There's a non-zero probability that the televangelist is selling genuine miracles. Such a tenative and probability-based stance which ignores well-known parts of human nature makes confident decisions difficult. As one user above said it: it's a load of "Mr. Spock stuff." A similar problem appears in debates with Creationists. Debunkers know that Creationists are not just wrong, but that they are dishonest manipulative politicians to boot, politicians who hide their actions while cynically treating power-grabs and book sales as more important than their own religious beliefs. Scientists know no such thing. Unlike politicians, scientists aren't in the business of mind-reading a disgusting opponent. They might say "Where is the evidence that Creationists are that bad? We can never have trustworthy evidence of what Creationists are thinking.  Where is the double-blind testing?  Perhaps our opponents are in the right, and we ourselves have an unseen emotional bias."  Yet anyone who takes off his scientist hat and puts on his debunker hat will see the obvious: the big-name Creationists have repeatedly shown themselves to be weasely promoters of a political/religious agenda who constantly use known rhetorical tactics to manipulate their followers, and this is so immediately and glaringly obvious that no experimental verification or statistical analysis of collected data is necessary. The trickery and evasion of Creationists are clear, and debunkers successfully read their intention, agenda; their minds. Debate with Creationists becomes a matter of convincing an audience, and not a matter of investigating the truth. It requires political savvy, and anyone putting on their scientist hat will instantly lose the battle to an opponent who is a fighter skilled in use of really nasty techniques, and is no way an honest and open investigator. Being scientists means dropping all our defenses and helping our opponents find flaws in our position. That's suicide for a debunker or other politician. My conclusion: the word "skeptic" is the root of the problem. If "skeptic" is taken as meaning "scientific skeptic" or even "scientist," then political skills (such as manipulative rhetoric) become abhorrant. But if "skeptic" is taken as meaning "debunker," then those same skills which would be abhorrant in a scientist are the skills that win the fight against crooked people. (This can be very confusing if we are unsure about what being a skeptic really means.) Go right now and read the symptoms of the pseudoskeptic again. Each one is perfectly acceptable or even desirable in a member of the "science police." The present WP article is really just a scientist's complaint that "science policemen" or "science-defending politicians" are not behaving as proper scientists. What's totally lost in this complaint is this: THAT'S NOT THEIR JOB. --Wjbeaty 10:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Is misrepresentation "bad"? I agree that that such is not for Wikipedia to claim. But there is no need for weasel phrasing either. A skeptic is certainly not a prejudiced debunker but what is revealed to be fake claims thanks to a skeptical approach can certainly be called "debunked". Please comment above on finding a good description of "pseudo-skeptic"and thanks in advance. Harald88 11:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't clear enough. This is not about weasel phrasing, nor is it about prejudiced debunkers.  The problem is that science can never debunk a claim since science never provides certainty.  All the results of science are fundamentally tenative, are probablistic in nature, and are open to future changes.  Who decides when "improbable" means "non-existent" or "debunked?"  Science can't even prove that the Flat Earther's claims are wrong; it only shows that their claims are very improbable and are unsupported by the major part of the evidence.   When speaking before the public, we need to say that flat-earthers are wrong, not that "their claims remain unsupported by most evidence."   Science is not about proof, it's about evidence.  If you want proof, become a mathematician.  And so the process of debunking a Flat Earther or a Phrenologist is a very different process than a scientific one.  It involves human behavior, politics and philosophy: freedom of choice and human decisions.  I *know* that phrenology and flat-earth-belief are not just highly improbable, but are actually wrong, blatantly obviously wrong, and my knowledge is unscientific because I'm certain.   Where phrenology is concerned, I'm a debunker and not a scientist, so the term "unscientific" is not a problem for me.  As a debunker, science might be a tool, but it's not my job, and anyone who accuses me of not being a proper scientist is mistaken.  Since the Earth is not a flat plane, I claim the right to highly unscientific behavior: laughing sneeringly at Flat Earthers if I wish.  And so, should I call myself a "skeptic?"  If skeptics are required to be scientists, this means that a skeptic is forbidden from debunking, or even from laughing at fools.  If skeptics are required to be scientists, then a debunker is automatically a failed skeptic, a pseudoskeptic.  Yet debunkery is usually a selfless and honorable act: going after bad guys who harm society but who aren't breaking the law.   Or teaching members of the public how to avoid the metnal failures that lead to phrenology or flat-earth belief.  "Debunker" should be a proud label, and in the past the terms "skeptic" and "debunker" were synonymous. But this WP entry is essentially turning "debunker" into something meaning "second-rate failure of a scientist."  It's silly.  Artists, cops, and salesmen are also poor scientists, but we don't go calling them "pseudo-policemen" (etc.) because of it.   (Well, all this is getting long, and I've been writing it after too little sleep.   I'm thinking out loud about how to NPOV the list of horrible symptoms.  I might eventually cure the TALK-bloat and remove it to a private webpage.) --Wjbeaty 07:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I also wsn't clear enough, and indeed didn't fully follow your argument.
 * Debunking differs significantly from skepticism: *if* it's based on *disbelief* but claimed to be based on skepticism then it's certainly "pseudo", although not necessarily pathological. I agree that debunking can be "good" and in any case helpful, as long as it's fair, and not blinded by prejudice. For example some people want to "debunk" special relativity theory because they "know" that it is wrong, and only those who are sufficiently open-minded will be able to conclude that it's a valid theory despite their initial skepticism.
 * Also, nowhere is stated that debunkers are pseudodebunkers. Debunkers and skeptics are simply not synonyms, even if this was thought by some people in the past.
 * Anyway, I agree with you that debunking isn't synonymous with pseudoskeptic either, and perhaps this article overstresses the opinion that focussing on debunking can endanger healthy skepticism -- do you have a specific passage in mind? Harald88 20:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The specific passage is the list of symptoms of Pseudoskepticism. And it's certainly not just people in the past who use two definitions for the word "skeptic."  Unless "Skeptic" has a single unambiguous definition, it becomes impossible to say what "pseudoskepticism" means.


 * And "Skeptic" really has no single definition. You might wish it to be otherwise, but wide public useage of the word says differently.  Skeptics are genuinely ambiguous in that they are scientist-warriors; Debunkers as well as Investigators.  They wear one hat or the other as required by the situation.  The WP entry for Skepticism may disagree, and even many Skeptics may pretend that they're purely rational scientists and nothing else.  But in the greater outside world, the word "skeptic" also means "person who uses unscientific persuasion tatics to turn people against Phrenologists and Flat-Earthers."  Genuine skeptics really do use unscientific political tactics, but only when wearing their "debunker" hat.  The Debunker side of skepticism involves the techniques of public speaking, the swaying of an audience, the play of politics ...and the valued skill set of Debunkers is the same as our list of "disease symptoms."  The list describes the flaws of a scientist, it's the symptoms-list for a pseudoscientist.  But it also describes the necessary behavior of an expert politican, or an ad-campaign designer.  Politicians and advertisers are very bad scientists, but as long as they're not pretending to be scientific, then they're no more "bad" than soldiers.  Without a military, your nation doesn't survive long against other nations using military tactics.  Without debunkers, the scientific skeptics would have to debate the Flat Earthers by being honest and self-critical while presenting both sides of the evidence, and probably the Flat Earthers would win.  The Flat-Earthers just have to employ superior political weapons: dishonesty and all the tactics of persuasion.  Who wins the US elections?  Honest and self-critical Democrats?  Or a political party which consciously adopts all the effective debating tactics discovered by Rush Limbaugh?  Public debate is not an investigation, instead it's a battle for the minds of the general public.  If Phrenologists attack, send your Debunkers.


 * Looking at the "pseudoskepticism" entry, I could see it as an elegant and devious ploy by paranormalists to force all Skeptics into the ineffectual "scientist" mode, and make them ashamed of being Debunkers.  On the other hand, Skeptics have done the damage themselves by trying to dishonestly adopt a Scientist facade in order to acquire its perceived legitimacy, while at the same time distancing themselves from their own Debunker side.   That may be a good way to counter opponents who accuse Skeptics of being unscientific.   But it's also a good way to damage their Skeptic fighting skills and so lose battles in the rough-and-tumble public arena.  Heh.  If scientists are ineffectual, and debunkers are evil, then maybe the transporter on the Enterprise needs to rejoin the Evil Captain Kirk with the Wimpy Indecisive Kirk to form a single Skeptic/WarriorScientist.  --Wjbeaty 02:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well it would be difficult to describe it as a 'ploy' by paranormalists considering that the concept was originated by a skeptic. One could just as easily claim that the use of the term 'pseudoscience' is a ploy. From what I've read, Skepticism did traditionally have a fairly precise definition, a skeptic being an individual who doubts new and extraordinary ideas and claims but is an honest truth-seeker. If one decides in advance that one already knows the truth on the basis of their own a priori assumptions and biases, and would not be prepared to honestly consider any evidence that contradicted those assumptions (and would seek to 'debunk' genuine evidence, by dishonest means) then evidently that is not 'skepticism' by any reasonable definition. Provided a skeptic is prepared to accept and honestly evaluate any serious evidence in support of a claimed anomaly and his own biases do not hinder that, then I don't think the pseudo-skeptic term is fair. I think Truzzi's use of the word 'agnostic' is slightly misunderstood, I don't think he is suggesting that skeptics should not hold opinions or beliefs, if he did then he himself would be a pseudo-skeptic since he didn't believe in the paranormal and considered it's existance to be highly unlikely. By 'agnostic' I think he means taking a certain approach to investigation ie. not letting your own beliefs hinder inquiry. If you take the approach you are suggesting, essentially that no inquiry into the truth is really needed and all that matters is a propaganda war, then a good many problems emerge, the obvious one being that if skeptics are wrong about just one anomalous phenomena, then the information they are demanding the public believe would be false. Of course, a pseudo-skeptic dosen't even consider that possibility because of his own bias. Skeptics should be able to be regarded by the public as protectors of the truth and an honest, responsible and realible source of information, not as propagandists. Of course, it depends on circumstance - to take your own example, the flat-earth theory, nobody would accuse anyone of being a 'psuedo-skeptic' because they asserted that no inquiry is needed into whether or not the earth is flat because they already know the truth. The theory has overwhelming hard evidence against it, next to nobody believes it, it isn't based on anomalous experiences that any number of people claim to have that might warrant investigation, it's just a patently false theory endorsed by a handful of whacko fundamentalists who simply have no excuse for what they believe. However not all unusual claims can be dismissed with such ease and some do warrant honest if skeptical enquiry. The other point is that taking a superficial debunking/propagandistic approach will never work. If you stand up and say "I know the truth, you must believe everything I say and you must come to share my beliefs" then nobody will be interested. They will regard you as arrogant and doing nothing more than asserted your opinions as fact and demanding that people accept them. They will switch off and they won't listen. The only people who want to be told what to believe and have somebody else do their thinking for them are going to listen to people like Jerry Falwell. Generally the public don't like being told what they must believe by a self-appointed expert and they will be, oddly enough, highly skeptical of such people. Ray Hyman knows that, he has pointed out how much such an approach has set skpeticism back in the eyes of the public many times, that's why he advocates serious skeptical inquiry and a genuinely educational approach. Describing the situation as a 'battle' might be appropriate in cases where people are promoting trly dangerous ideas, but more generally it has nothing to do with skeptical inquiry and a search for truth. I don't happen to agree that 'debunking' is automatically pseudo-skeptical - if that is what you are suggesting - debunkery is fine so long as the 'debunker' is honest and open to all evidence. He may set out to disprove the claim, assuming it to be false, the only problem arises if he discovers compelling evidence in favour of what he was trying to debunk. Honest consideration of that evidence is needed, and a responsible 'debunker' will be willing to consider evidence that contradicts his assumptions. In any case, that's probably what it all comes down to - you are not a pseudo-skeptic because you don't believe in something and would like to debunk it, you are a psuedo-skeptic if you are not willing to even consider the prospect that you might be wrong and you will not -or are incapable of - considering evidence that contradicts your own beliefs and assumptions. The pseudo-skeptic label is probably over-used - I'm sure some people regard anyone involved in organised skepticism as a pseudo-skeptic - but I don't think the term is always used without some justification. 195.93.21.40 06:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal to talk
This sentence:


 * In particular, these expressions have been applied to organized skepticism and to individuals' use of skepticism to an extent that is detrimental to the individuals concerned or their relationships. 

is removed here for discussion. I'll point out a few things:


 * 1) The sentence claims that the expression has been applied to the extent to which "individuals' use of skepticism to an extent that is detrimental to the individuals concerned or their relationships." However, the cite given doesn't mention this idea at all.
 * 2) The cite is to a work by David Leiter who is indeed criticizing "organized skepticism". I grant that Leiter is not a fan of organized skepticism.
 * 3) However, the citation is not to a neutral use of the term. Leiter is a member/worker in an organization (Society for Scientific Exploration) that is devoted to attacking organized skepticism. The organization states its primary goal as "to provide a professional forum for presentations, criticism, and debate concerning topics which are for various reasons ignored or studied inadequately within mainstream science." What we have is basically an organization that is devoted to criticizing the marginalization done in the scientific community at the introductory level (see pseudoscience in the lead now appropriately contextualizes pseudoscience demarcation as being an elementary exercise).
 * 4) It is not, in principle, a bad thing to quote Leiter in the lead, however the characterization of Leiter's baggage must be mentioned. In particular, it should be stated that pseudoskepticism is used often as a critique by the very people whom skeptics criticize. In other words, this is not a term that is free of bias.
 * 5) However, I'm not convinced that these are the only groups and only contexts in which the term is applied. For example, HIV skepticism and Holocaust denial has been called by certain proper rejectors of pseudoscience "pseudoskeptical" I think that to be fair we should point out that there may be a form of pseudoskpeticism which criticized people who are "pathologically" skeptical of the scientific process.

These problems outlined above are enough for me to remove the sentence. Since Truzzi's quote is still in the lead, I think we do a fine job of beginning to illustrate what pseudoskepticism is, but I wanted to remove Leiter's quote so it could be worked on to a neutral fashion here on the talkpage. In particular, I would like to see a qualification of the source and an inclusion of "the other side".

--ScienceApologist 14:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would argue that many of the statements in the pseudoscience article are also points of view from various skeptics. However, describing a point of view is not a problem, as long as we describe it accurately. So Leiter may not be the most object person himself, and the source may not the best, but it's no "worse" than some pseudoscience statements. --Iantresman 17:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to discuss the pseudoscience article here since that's a different article. I will say though that Leiter's opinion may be included in this article as an example of a pseudoscience supporter using the pseudoskepticism moniker to denigrate skpetics, but it should not be used as a generalized description of the term, nor should it be phrased as a generalized use for how the opinions surrounding the term are applied. --ScienceApologist 22:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds fine. --Iantresman 23:12, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

C. Eugene Emery, Jr.
Why is his grading of encyclopedia entries on here? Perhaps I'm at fault for missing the point, but is it implying that he is a pseudoskeptic because he is awarding encyclopedias higher scores if they take a more hardline skeptical approach to writing about unusual claims, as opposed to taking a more neutral approach? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.40 (talk • contribs)


 * The point seems to be his use of the term "pseudoskeptical". Harald88 07:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't get the point much either. For one thing, there are no results of the encyclopedias listed. The only reason seems to be that he uses the word "pseudoskeptic", and that may not be in the same sense as the article.  Bubba73 (talk), 04:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, there is more discussion in the link. I'd like for him to rate Wikipedia.  Bubba73 (talk), 04:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

pseudoskepticism as insufficent skepticism

 * Science writer C. Eugene Emery, Jr. in comparing the degrees of skepticism of CD-ROM-based encyclopedias (Grolier, Britannica, Encarta, and Compton's) of articles on pseudoscientific subjects, wrote:
 * "A "very skeptical" entry got three points for explaining the evidence, experiments, or studies that support a skeptical stance.
 * Two points were bestowed on "mildly skeptical" articles that suggested there was some rationale for scientists' disbelief.
 * One point went to articles with "token skepticism," where it simply stated that scientists don't believe it or the concept is unproven, without explaining why.
 * A "pseudoskeptical" article, one that only suggested that the concept was controversial, got zero points.
 * If there was no hint of controversy, the article got -1 point."
 * In Emery's evaluations, "pseudoskepticism" means that an article merely "states that it's controversial, but the author may not have a clue as to why".

I've moved the above out of the main page because, as is, it doesn't quite say anything. It talks about the methodology, but not the findings, which seems to be the wrong way around. On the other hand, the findings aren't really about pseudoskepticism as defined in this article. Rather they are about a lack of skepticism in the encyclopedias studied. By pseudoskepticism he seems to mean someone trying to be skeptical, but falling short. "Pseudoskepticism (states that it's controversial, but the author may not have a clue as to why)" We could put something in somewhere, but I'm not sure what or where. Any thoughts? Regards, Ben Aveling 10:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I included Emery's quote as another example of the use of the word pseudoskepticism, which to me, implied that a view is not skeptical enough. But rather than summarise it in my words, I thought the quote said it all. --Iantresman 12:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * His conclusions are in the link, and could be included. However, I agree that the discussion of his point system doesn't really need to be in this article, and a mention that he used the term pseudoskeptical and how is sufficient, I think.  Bubba73 (talk), 14:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Society of Scientific Exploration as pseudoscience

 * ScienceApologist, you just added a sentence indicating that the Society of Scientific Exploration is "itself criticized as pseudoscientific", and added three references.
 * Could you extract the relevant quote from each source which supports this, as I am unable to locate them. --Iantresman 21:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, even the only immediately verifiable ref. (Time) states rather the contrary - I move the two others here and adapt the text -
 * See archives on http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/

name=cross">Cross A (2004). The Flexibility of Scientific Rhetoric: A Case Study of UFO Researchers. Qualitative Sociology. Volume 27, Number 1 / March, 2004 name="Lemonick">Lemonick MD (May 24, 2005).


 * (changing from Mozilla to IE, there seems to be a bug!) -> thus didn't work; remove "ref" -> that helped!)
 * BTW, I like the Time magazine reference and quoted it.
 * Harald88 22:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please fix your refs code and then sign. It's screwing up my attempt to add a references section with code. -- [apparently Fyslee]

I'm find with this change. What needed to happen was some qualification of what SSE was. --ScienceApologist 13:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

CSICOP seems to be really a black sheep
Just by a chance search for UFO skepticism, I came on the following: http://www.o4r.org/publications/pf_v3n4/UFOs.htm. There CSICOP is criticized for "the tone":

'Skeptical speakers, supposedly addressing the topic with an open mind, resorted to a variety of ad hominem attacks, raising the specter of "if you can't debate the subject, attack the believers." '

I don't see a direct use of the above in the article, at least not at this time, but it does weigh in for mainstream opinions about that organization. Harald88 23:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you contending that CSICOP is not mainstream? --ScienceApologist 13:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Mainstream skepticists are probably divided about the methodology of that group. Harald88 20:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Your source is not to a mainstream skeptic. Therefore, we're going to have to see some source for this. --ScienceApologist 19:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What source? Do you know any source for statements or claims about "mainstream" or "not mainstream"? I don't thus I put "probably". If you do know such a source, please provide a reference. Harald88 20:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My reading of the context seems to indicate the author admitted to sharing the same types of opinions about true believers in UFOs, and "obviously couldn't lead a session like this," probably because he wouldn't be able to resist the temptation to also use ad hominem comments. The setting must be kept in mind: they were singing to the choir, not debating with believers in UFOs. Pretty much human nature at work. It's really hard to keep a straight face sometimes when discussing the beliefs some people have, and it is a kind of safety valve to fire off a few quick insults and other desparaging remarks. Is it nice to do it? Of course not. So what?! Such petty "misbehaviors" don't make people any less skeptics, it just shows they are human. -- Fyslee 19:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * While doing that they behaved like pseudoskeptics, eventhough the author didn't use the pseudo word. He also wrote "One individual at the conference observed that this battle is fought for the small audience of true believers and disbelievers."
 * Do I need to remind people that skeptics are not disbelievers but agnostics? Also the cited skeptic organisation emphasises: "NOT reject on a priori grounds, but to examine claims objectively and carefully."
 * Indeed, nobody is perfect but this occasion is described as a major operational failure - a bit like a scientist trashing the scientific method. That can happen (and does happen), but if it's habitual then the "pseudo" label applies. Harald88 20:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It sounds like you're making a mountain out of a molehill. -- Fyslee 20:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I only made a molehill - it's the questioning of the molehill that turns it into a mountain. ;-)
 * A discussion of SCOPIS has been part of this article and is likely to come back. In view of that, more data by reliable sources is welcome. Harald88 21:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD
FYI:

The User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard page is up for deletion right now. This article was listed on User:GabrielF/ConspiracyNoticeboard during the last AfD. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge this article
While I don't think the content should be deleted completely, it seems rather pointless to have an entire article on something that was apparently a neologism created by a Sociology professor. Let's merge it with the existing article on skepticism. Does anyone know how to do that? I'm new here.--Curtis Bledsoe 00:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No go. As a skeptic I think this article is important enough to have its own life. Even if I didn't think so, Wikipedia rules on notability justify its existence. -- Fyslee 00:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Why? How does a neologism coined in a single paper by an obscure sociologist warrant an entire article?  --Curtis Bledsoe 00:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Marcello Truzzi is hardly obscure! Read the article. He always appears in lists of top skeptics. Keep in mind that one editor should treat the hard work of other editors with good faith and show respect for their work. Collaboration is the name of the game here, and even proper edits made without collaboration can and often will get reverted, leading to edit wars and other disruptive behaviors. I hate to see a fellow skeptic get in trouble here. If you wonder who I am, just look at the early history of my user page. I am a potential ally, but so far your behavior is creating a lot of trouble and embarrassment for other skeptics. -- Fyslee 00:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Easy there... I'm just asking.  I meant no disrespect by saying he was "obscure".  Lots of great people aren't household names and some of them are great BECAUSE they're not household names.  --Curtis Bledsoe 00:59, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree

with Fyslee. (Happy New Year, Fyslee) I think this is an excellent article that should be more widely circulated & linked as an internal rating & safety check for all scientists & skeptics. There are few things more obstructive and destructive in science, technology and life, than such "skepticism" locked on autofire. Heavy weapons require good aim and (self) restraint.--I&#39;clast 01:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So why wouldn't the article on skepticism benefit from having this material merged with it? No one seems to be able to come up with an answer to the original question:  why should a neologism coined by a single skeptic in a single paper warrant its own article?  --Curtis Bledsoe 03:27, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No one is suggesting that pseudoskepticism is not mentioned in the Skepticism article. By all means add a paragraph, but link to this article for a detailed explanation. --Iantresman 16:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And the word was in use long before Truzzi. --Iantresman 16:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I suffer from a lack of good faith, but I see your motives as very suspicious. You honestly want to improve the Skepticism entry?  Or do you actually want to find a way to remove "Pseudoskepticism", but cannot admit this?  Dr. B Martin says that whenever attempts at intellectual suppression are suspected, check their arguments for double standards:  do they single out the "enemy" for special treatment, yet *don't* suggest that "friends" get the same treatment?  Sure enough, the ones who want to delete or otherwise conceal "pseudoskepticism" are notable in that they *never* suggest the same treatment for the "pathological science" entry, the "pseudoscience" entery, the "quackery" entry, etc.   Very dishonest, but one needs to know what to look for.


 * Since you mention "single skeptic" and "single paper," I gather that you're unaware of history of this term, as well as the recent history of this WP entry.  This term has quite a large amount of online use, as does "pathological skepticism."  (Do a quick Google search.)  But because the term doesn't yet appear widely in paper publications besides JSE and Skeptical Inquirer, those hoping to delete this entry have attacked the entry as being Original Research.  And so it was re-written to concentrate on Truzzi, which is much stronger evidence than the previous references to various personal websites discussing this term.


 * I've noted several times on this talk page, members of skeptic groups repeatedly try hide this term because it lets their opponents easily make the skeptics look bad. And rightly so, since skeptical organizations have a history of lacking self-skepticism; ignoring extremely unscientific behavior among their members.  Pseudoskeptics no doubt prefer that no succinct label exists for their sort of misbehavior (though the situation is improving, see .  Skeptic groups can become self-critical and self-policing.)  Names are powerful: just imagine if the words "creationist" or "quack" didn't exist.  The term "pseudoskepticism" is a significant bit of rhetorical ammunition, same as the term "pseudoscience."   To sway an audience against irrational people who hide behind a false facade of science, we label them Quacks or Pseudoscientists.  To sway an audience against irrational people hiding behinde a false facade of proper Skepticism, we label them Pseudoskeptics.


 * Here's more possible double-standards: if we neglect Truzzi and write about the wide online usage, then people want to delete this entry because it's OR, but if we concentrate on Truzzi, then they want to delete this entry by pretending that it's used by nobody except Truzzi.  Damned if we do, and damned if we don't...  but the constant in all this is that certain people want to marginalize the term "pseudoskepticism," yet very obviously don't want to do the same to the "pathological science" or other similar entries.  Until they get rid of such double standards, their motives are revealed as being political, and their assertions that they wish to "improve" WP remain suspect. --Wjbeaty 10:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say no, because pseudoskepticism is not really skepticism, in the same way that pseudoscience is not science. The term also goes back before Truzzi, and has a distinct meaning from skepticism. But certainly we need to link between the two articles. I also think there's a chance that pseudoskepticism might get lost in the skepticism article, or will become marginalized. --Iantresman 07:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Any move to merge the articles would need to get a consensus agreement from the editors of both articles, so if Curtis really wants to undo the years of effort by myriad other editors (a bad faith move that will not get him any friends or cooperation here, neither from scientific skeptics like myself, or from promoters of pseudosciences), then he should put the proper merge tag on both articles and start an WP:RFC where we can find a consensus on the issue. Before doing so, he should consider that shooting himself in both feet is a rather painful matter that will hobble all of his efforts hereafter. Maybe he doesn't realize that many, if not most, of the editors who wrote this article are active skeptics! -- Fyslee 13:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Fyslee (and Iantresman and Wjbeaty) and oppose the merge; the terms are as different as "pseudoscience" is from "abuses of science". The latter phrase is so diffuse as to be virtually meaningless. Jim Butler(talk) 18:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I support the position to oppose any merge or move. J. D. Redding 21:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Should definitely not be merged with Skepticism. Sounds like someone is trying to hide something.
 * Could possible be merged with Abuses of skepticism, even though that article says it is a distinct, intentional concept. — Omegatron 13:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * An 'individual's thinking'is 'their psychology'. Support merge of that article with this one. Thinking is a higher cognitive function and the analysis of thinking processes is part of cognitive psychology. Psychology is an academic or applied discipline involving the scientific study of mental processes such as perception, cognition, emotion, personality, behavior, and interpersonal relationships. J. D. Redding 19:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure if I was clear, but that article's contents should be moved here. Not the other way around. J. D. Redding

Atheism as pseudo-skeptic
This seems like a pretty obvious part of the subject - atheism (or a-supernatural, if you wish - Buddhists sometimes claim to be atheistic without the "skeptic" label) relies on claiming the negative, and when they commonly claim that they are skeptics, they are following this topic to the letter. Is there really no sources commenting on this, or is it just being removed every time it's mentioned?

I mean, I know that I can't put it in here myself, because no matter how obvious it is, it would be OR. But surely some scholar somewhere has noticed that this pretty much applies to any atheist, right?KrytenKoro 08:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In order to be a pseudoskeptic, you have to deny something even when there's significant evidence for it (and of course, claim to be a skeptic). This is different from simply assuming the null hypothesis until otherwise is shown to be true. Almost all atheistic skeptics fall into the latter category, as they haven't seen sufficient evidence for any religion, so they simply proceed on with their lives as if no god exists.


 * As a parallel, let's say I come up to you and talk about Slood, a miraculous substance on the importance level of fire or water, which has gone previously undiscovered by humanity. However, I never actually show you any slood or give you evidence that it exists, instead asking you to believe it on faith. If, after you're sufficiently frustrated with me, you give up on me ever showing you evidence for slood and go on with your life as if slood doesn't exist, are you any less of a skeptic? Replace "slood" with "God" and you have your typical atheist. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 12:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh. From what I understood of the article, any case of claiming the negative without strong support would be pseudo-skepticism - i.e., going beyond the "we don't know" (agnosticism) to "we do know, and the answer is no" (atheism).
 * I would like to say that your analogy is a bit off, though - if you were religious (pretty much any of them), then evidence has been given, it was just in the past and people still wanted to deny it then (so why would doing it now really make a difference?). Not wanting to start any arguments or anything, but...yeah.KrytenKoro 23:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, as for your first point, this gives us a reason to rework the article so the distinction is more clear. On my analogy, you could easily expand it to account for claims of past evidence, but we're drifting from the point there.
 * Anyways, part of the problem with an article like this is whose definition we use. Among "skeptical seekers" (a very small group compared to "scientific skeptics"), "pseudoskepticism" might be used to describe anyone who ever comes to a conclusion about anything (since part of their philosophy is to never stop questioning anything, however much the evidence might point one way). Among people who believe in some subjects which skeptics generally don't, anyone who calls themself a skeptic and has concluded that their subject is probably bunk is automatically a "pseudoskeptic." And finally, among some "scientific skeptics," "pseudoskeptic" is most often used to describe denialists such as people who call themselves "global warming skeptics" (and sometimes, anyone who tries to gain credibility through the use of "I was a skeptic once, but...").
 * In the end, we come to somewhat of a problem with choosing which interpretation to use in the article. While scientific skeptics far outnumber skeptical seekers, the use of the term "pseudoskeptic" among the former is much more uncommon than among the latter (I'm leaving out the second group, as they use it more as an epithet). So it's a question of whether we give primacy to an insignificant view of a significant group or a significant view of an insignificant group. In the end, probably best to give both (assuming they can both be well-sourced).--Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 13:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not for us to debate who, or what might be pseudoskeptic. If someone has made a connection between atheism and pseudoskepticism, and the information is published and verifiable, then by all means, we can described it and attribute it, otherwise it is speculation on our behalf. --Iantresman 13:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Right you are. I got sidetracked a bit in a diatribe about what "pseudoskepticism" is/should be (though it did reveal a good point in that the article may be misleading). I'm going to go and add quote I used not long ago to my userpage so I'm reminded of it myself when necessary: "Ours is not to question why, ours is but to report what reliable sources say on the matter." --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 14:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem as I see the article, is that it contains two different (although vaguely rated) concepts (1) Pseudoskeptisicsm (2) Abuses of skepticism.
 * The analogy would be combining the article on (A) pseudoscience, with (B) abuses of science.
 * I'm not sure how the article is misleading as everything seems fairly well documented with sources (except the misplaced section, Abuses of skepticism), though perhaps it is not sufficiently clear. --Iantresman 14:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The misleading part is that the article implies (or at least KrytenKoro infered) that any instance of doubt by someone who calls themself a skeptic is pseudoskepticism. As I illustrated with my Slood-skepticism example, this leads to the absurd extreme that in order to be a true skeptic, you have to accept the possibility of every wild claim and can't simply accept the null hypothesis until something better comes along. Of course, this may be exactly what Truzzi's version of a true skeptic is, but as I said before, his "skeptics" are in a small minority.
 * What I think we need to do is either find some analysis of the term by mainstream skeptical authorities and report on their views on the matter or, if they don't say anything, make it clear that they haven't done so and point out that this is only the view of "pseudoskeptics" by a minority who call themselves skeptics, and that this label actually casts almost all mainstream skeptics as "pseudoskeptics." --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 15:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I did some research, and it turns out that Truzzi's view isn't as hardlined as the article currently makes it seem. I'll go in and try to balance it out. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 15:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there should be no implication that genuine skepticism is automatically assumed to be pseudoskepticism. But assuming Truzzi's good faith, I think he gives specific examples of where he felt critics had stepped over the line. I included most of the quotes from Truzzi, and included them so that people could see how Truzzi described them, not as myself, or perhaps others interpret them. --Iantresman 15:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've rewritten the characterization section. This should make it more clear what Truzzi is talking about. I've given an original quote from him, plus an explanation of it and how it fits in when you apply the scientific standard of replicability. Also let's see if we can find some of those examples; they should help to illustrate exactly what he means. The article I found had a few vague references in it, but nothing concrete. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 15:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've restored Truzzi's specific examples of pseudoskepticism, which I think are important, and all are verifiable. It gives the reader details which are not available elsewhere in the article. --Iantresman 20:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason I removed them is that he never game those as a list as such. Rather, they're all mixed in with a longer description. We really shouldn't be giving a simple "list of characteristics" if the original source doesn't; this tends to mischaracterize it and lose or distort information. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 17:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

What is pseudoskepticism?
In response to a query (elsewhere at Wikipedia) for a description of pseudoskepticism, I wrote the following response and have adapted it for use here where it is definitely on-topic:

It's a term used by skeptics and invented by them, but when used by quacks and believers in various pseudosciences in their attacks on skeptics and scientists it is a pejorative. It is a very human failing and skeptics can certainly fall into it, but when done only occasionally it's no problem. When skeptics engage in informal rants and jokes at the expense of pseudoscientists, they are engaging in a form of pseudoskeptical behavior, but that isn't their serious mode of dealing with things and to then accuse them of being pseudoskeptics is improper, since they don't normally deal with things in that manner. OTOH, if that is the way they normally and exclusively deal with pseudoscience when serious, then they have a problem and are guilty as charged.

Skeptic humor is often funny precisely because it employs the logical fallacies commonly used as the normal mode of thinking among believers in pseudoscience. People like Penn & Teller often use pseudoskeptical humor in their entertainment shows, but when they are serious they are not only very intelligent, but serious skeptics who then avoid using logical fallacies. (Unfortunately their victims aren't readers of their more serious writings and utterances.) Their type of humor is easily understood by most (but not all) who are highly educated, but goes right over the heads of true believers, who consider it simply insulting (which it is!) and then only focus on the logical fallacies (and scream "pseudoskepticism"!) and totally miss the whole point, being the butts of the joke that they are. It's just too complicated for their brains to handle. The term is also used as a pejorative by scientists when describing those who claim to be skeptics, but whose actions and beliefs show they are only skeptical of the topics that scientific skeptics accept as fact (for example, that the earth isn't flat and that homeopathy is nonsense) and are believers in the subjects laughed at by scientific skeptics (most types of alternative medicine). Such persons would have a hard time if they actually joined groups like the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, The Skeptics Society, the Healthfraud Discussion List, or wrote articles for them. They would be laughed right out of the room, and rightly so. We even have editors right here who have attempted to infiltrate WikiProject Rational Skepticism by joining, but their actions and editing show they are either sneaky or self-deceived. You'll recognize their user names. -- Fyslee/talk 07:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Fyslee, those maxims look more potentially appropriate for skepticism or one of the other skepticism related articles. Here, they dilute and distract from the article about pseudoskepticism & pathological skepticism, where similar critical processes are presumed to have failed to be used correctly or be(ing) questioned for being exceeded.  As others have noted, Truzzi's specific examples are verifiable, illustrate, and make more clear what Truzzzi is talking about, providing more detail for the reader. Some of the "new" quotes already appear in Wikipedia.  So I am restoring the Truzzi examples.--I&#39;clast 08:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My deletion was only to satisfy the concerns expressed above by Infophile, which are legitimate concerns. I have hidden the last part as being unsatisfactorily worded. (That's the danger of paraphrasing rather than quoting.) The other quotes are good illustrations of the null hypothesis point. One cannot understand pseudoskepticism without understanding the skeptical position on this matter, hence the quotes here, rather than the skepticism article (where they might also be good). Is this a good compromise? We both get to improve the article. -- Fyslee/talk 10:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And now it looks even more like that section is overwhelmed with bullet points. I'm not sure we really need all the quotes there. Simply being famous and topical doesn't mean they should go in (though it's more than enough for Wikiquote); the quote has to add something to the article. Perhaps we should cut all of them but the "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" one, seeing as it was how Truzzi himself who said that. This helps illustrate that this a point Truzzi agrees with, and we aren't just sneaking in the mainstream skeptical position and presenting it as his. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 12:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed the following text, which is about skepticism, not about (so-called) psuedoskepticism:


 * It is thus acceptable scientific and skeptical practice to continue to assume the null hypothesis relative to some novel claim before the claim has convincing evidence showing that it might be true. This concept is born out in the following quotes:


 * * "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." - Marcello Truzzi


 * * "The brightest flashes in the world of thought are incomplete until they have been proven to have their counterparts in the world of fact." - John Tyndall (1820-1893), physicist


 * * "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." - William Kingdon Clifford


 * * "A habit of basing convictions upon evidence, and of giving to them only that degree of certainty which the evidence warrants, would, if it became general, cure most of the ills from which this world is suffering." - Bertrand Russell


 * * "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts." - Sherlock Holmes (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle) in "A Scandal In Bohemia"

Regards, Ben Aveling 13:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not protesting the removal of the quotes so much as the totally unsourced editorializing that would violate even Truzzi's skeptical position (and he WAS a skeptic!). Sticking to his longer quote as presented would be a good idea. -- Fyslee/talk 14:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * He called himself a skeptic. That's not quite the same thing. If you feel my attempt to summarize his position in any way misstates it, I'll let it be.   Regards, Ben Aveling 14:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I just fear your good intent got lost in there somewhere. Words are tricky things and I struggle with it too. Sometimes I have an idea and I just can't get it out, and then when I think I've gotten it expressed so beautifully, someone else reads it quite differently, which means I didn't "plug up" some hole I wasn't thinking about. Keep trying. This is interesting stuff. To understand pseudoskepticism one must understand skepticism from the inside (IOW be a super skeptic), and which one of us here is truly skeptical all the time, with no failings or momentary lapses into pseudoskepticism? I certainly fail at times. Truzzi could afford to criticize skeptical excesses because he was an insider. Those who aren't super skeptics themselves risk misusing the term "pseudoskeptic" in their accusations against scientific skeptics. They thus reveal their self-deluded state of mind. Quite human and forgivable if not taken too far. -- Fyslee/talk 14:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * A nicely measured response. OK.  The problem I have with the article as it stands starts in the first sentence: "The terms pseudoskepticism (sometimes pseudo-skepticism) and pathological skepticism are used to denote the phenomena when certain forms of skepticism deviate from objectivity."  While the statement is true, it is incomplete.  While the term is sometimes used to that end, it is also used, and perhaps more often, by people who are, not to put too fine a point on it, barking mad.  And when they use the word, they mean something different, or perhaps, they mean the same thing but using their own definition of 'objective'.  And currently, the article does not make clear that Truzzi does not fall into that category.  For example, this sentence: "if a test is performed that shows apparent evidence for ESP, it no longer remains reasonable to" ... "continue with scientific inquiry as if ESP did not exist."   Well, no.  Plenty of tests are performed properly that show all sorts of things that turn out not to be so.  5% of tests randomly return results that are significant at the 5% level.  And given the number of flawed tests that wrongly claim to prove things like ESP, one does not need to be psychic to suspect that the latest such test is going to follow the same pattern.  It's completely reasonable to hang-on to existing belief and behaviours.  I think we're closer to the truth when we later say: "... If a skeptic not only believes, but states that there was some flaw in the test which might invalidate the results, the burden of proof then shifts to them to show that the possibility of such a flaw was more likely than that ESP exists and showed results in the test."  Certainly, to say that "a test demonstrating support for ESP must be flawed because ESP does not exist" would be psuedoskeptic.  But I don't like saying that the burden of proof shifts away from the ESP believer.  Phrased like that, it sounds like we're saying that Truzzi is saying that "unless we are completely certain, we must accept that reasonable doubt exists; to do otherwise is psuedoskepticism".  That, it seems to me, is ignoring the existence of a space in-between "beyond reasonable doubt" and "absolute certainty".  Regards, Ben Aveling 20:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ben Aveling, you wrote:


 * "But I don't like saying that the burden of proof shifts away from the ESP believer."


 * I don't either! The burden of proof is still on the shoulders of the one making unusual claims, but by entering into the discussion by making a counter claim, the skeptic assumes a degree of burden of proof to back up the counter claim. BUT...even if a skeptic cannot adequately reply to the claims made, that is no proof the claims are true. A fool can ask a thousand questions the wisest man can never answer, yet he's still a fool and the wise man is still wise.


 * I think you are right, that there is "a space in-between 'beyond reasonable doubt' and 'absolute certainty'." I touch on it below, but with other words. You are doing a good job. Go for it! -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>/<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 23:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's worth noting that at the time he made these observations, Truzzi wasn't exactly the most skeptical fellow himself (in the mainstream sense; he used his own, different, definition of "skeptic"). He'd just parted ways with CSICOP because they wouldn't publish the views of some paranormal believers. His persistence in trying to get them in resulted in him being voted out. It seems likely to me that he was in something of a snit when he started talking about "pseudoskepticism," and tailored it specifically to described what (he perceived) CSICOP did.
 * Look at your paraphrasing, ""unless we are completely certain, we must accept that reasonable doubt exists; to do otherwise is psuedoskepticism," for instance. Actually, this is exactly what Truzzi likely believed. His definition of "skepticism" characterized it as constantly seeking. In it, you could never come to a conclusion as conclusive evidence is a logical impossibility. Therefore, he advocated always being open to everything, and simply seeking the unattainable goal of the truth. Since he saw "skeptics" making absolute claims, they violated the rules of his type of skepticism, so he saw them as pseudoskeptics.
 * With this in mind, it's hard to make a case that we can present his view on the matter as an objective or neutral one, especially since it was designed to cast many mainstream skeptics as pseudoskeptics. The problem is that it's the most well-sourced use of the term. The more common modern understanding of the term has very little reliable sourcing for its use, so it tends to get swept off the page. About all that can be reliably said about it is that it's something that claims to be skepticism but isn't. So, what I've been trying to do on the page is illustrate what mainstream skepticism is and point out where deviations could merit a label of pseudoskepticism. A fair bit of what Truzzi used to describe pseudoskepticism covers this as well, but I'd like to prune out the parts that seemed specifically designed to color mainstream skeptics as pseudoskeptics. An edit a while back did mostly that, but all the bullet-points were reverted back in and I didn't feel like edit-warring over it. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 20:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I felt the tenor of his pre-occupation with CSICOP is that it caused him to paint with perhaps too a broad brush on skeptical organzitions. Pseudoskeptics as individuals can be (technically) dead wrong and extremely disruptive. The greater the ignorance the greater the dogmatism.--Sir William Osler--I&#39;clast 23:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is very well put:


 * * Infophile: "About all that can be reliably said about it is that it's something that claims to be skepticism but isn't."
 * * Infophile: "...what mainstream skepticism is and point out where deviations could merit a label of pseudoskepticism."


 * It has the same pattern as for pseudoscience: that which claims to be scientific but which deviates from it. Pseudoscience is defined in relation to science, and pseudoskepticism is defined in relation to skepticism. One must first understand (and practice) the first to be able to understand and spot the second.


 * Your points on Truzzi sound right. I'm no expert on him, but "by their fruits".... He was a founder of the SSE, and if that isn't a pseudoscientific organization, I don't know what is. They not only examine pseudoscientific matters, they promote it, if not outright, then by refusing to openly condemn it. It's this noncommital eventualism that is problematic. Fear of pseudoskepticism shouldn't lead one to be wishy washy or foolish. Sometimes one needs to say "enough is enough. You've got to provide much better evidence before I will waste anymore time considering your extraordinary proposal. But make no mistake, I will always be willing to change my mind if much more convincing evidence is forthcoming, but it better be more than ordinarily convincing before I will believe your extraordinary claim. You have an unusually large burden of proof on your shoulders when you try to get me to believe in homeopathy." Skeptics who are noncommital and wishy washy risk supporting pseudoscience.


 * You were concerned about the bullet points? Well, consider that some who believe in pseudosciences are active on this article....and are using it to further their agenda. Time spent here on explaining the true nature of skepticism and science is not wasted, since the subject cannot be explained or understood without it. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>/<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 23:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As do super "skeptics". Also I am not precisely sure who you refer to in consider that some who believe in pseudosciences are active on this article....and are using it to further their agenda.


 * Fyslee, re your earlier anser, I am a little dubious about an "insider's members only" proposition but I do feel your pain. Sometimes I feel those that who have not had to deliver robust, public, tangible results (that make or break personal & corporate bottomlines) made on counterintuitive predictions & routinely deal with the chastening of highly uncertain data, are at more risk of misappropriating the term "scientific".--I&#39;clast 23:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

two different meanings
Perhaps we need to clarify that there is a general, layman's usage and a specific, crystal hugger usage. Layman's usage is that a psuedoskeptic is one who, for whatever reason, appears to be a skeptic but is not. Without checking the OED, just looking at the examples of the different ways the two words have been joined, as documented in Pseudoskepticism, there doesn't seem to be a single hard and fast predefined agreed meaning, but just a set of constructed meanings, each clear by context, which the various authors have reached, expecting the reader to intuit what is meant from context. Crystal huggers on the other hand, do have a predefined agreed meaning for psuedoskeptic, the one created by Truzzi. For them, a psuedoskeptic is one who treats as impossible, something not proven to be impossible. They declare that a 'true skeptic' accepts that anything that is not proven to be impossible, must be possible. Using a mechanical, strictly symbolic application of these words, this is true. But it is also playing word games because they then switch from this strict literal meaning of possible (not impossible) to the weaker, common day usage (reasonably likely) and through this linguistic slight of hand, they define skepticism as psuedoskepticism and they define credulity as skepticism. Scientific theory does not deal in absolutes (true or false beyond all doubt), but only in evidence based conclusions (true or false beyond reasonable doubt, probable or improbable, plausible, implausible, etc). But it allows a space between reasonably probable and impossible, in which we treat things as if they were impossible. So by this definition, all scientists are psuedoskeptics and only the credulous can be called skeptics. By way of example, it is not impossible, dear reader, that you are Queen Elizabeth the 2nd, in a hot-air ballon over the Seine, accompanied by the ashes of Elvis Presley and a piece of the true cross. But although not technically impossible, it is a sufficiently unlikely scenario that it can for all real world purposes be treated as impossible and I do not consider myself a psuedoskeptic for dismissing the possibility even though I cannot disprove it.

What is to be done? In some ways, I'm tempted to suggest we change the introduction to say something like "Psuedoskepticism is a term occasionally used to mean something that appears to be skepticism but is not. In particular, pseudoskepticism often refers to treating a concept as impossible when it has not been proven to be impossible. The term is also commonly and wrongly applied to those who refuse to treat implausible concepts as plausible, on the grounds that anything that is not impossible must be possible, ignoring the inconvenient distinction between plausible and implausible." And after that, we discuss Truzzi, and some examples and so on. Thoughts? Ben Aveling 12:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Very well put. You have exposed the way promoters of pseudoscience misuse the term to discredit scientific skeptics, while claiming that their noncommital and wishy washy credulity is the only "real" skepticism. Robert Todd Carroll has pointed out this problem. Your suggestion for the lead sounds good, but the WP:LEAD must reflect the article's contents, so if there is anything improper in the article, it needs to be changed first. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>/<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 11:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

(1) Truzzi's definition is well documented with citations. Can we have some citations for the other meaning of pseudoskeptic? (2) The text following Truzzi's characteristics, starting "It is acceptable scientific and skeptical practice..." seems to be on skepticism, not pseudoskeptic, and is also without citations. --70.118.218.55 11:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * How do you suggest we discuss what pseudoskepticism is without telling people (at least briefly) what skepticism is? --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 12:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There is already an article on skepticism, so we need only link to it, or include a sentence at most. For example, in the article on the monkfish, we don't describe what a fish is; in the articles on [protoscience and fringe science we don't describe science. Counterpointing each statement is not necessary, unless perhaps, there is a criticism together with a citation. --84.9.191.165 15:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * However, the pseudoscience article (a much closer analog), goes into good detail on what science is. Particularly, a few notes in the lead, plus much more in the Background section. (I'm not trying to avoid the issue of finding sources here, I just haven't had time to look for them quite yet. I'll see what I can do when I have sufficient free time.) --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 15:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Lack of sources
Well, I've done a lot of research looking for reliable sources on this concept, and there's one big problem: Aside from one paper by Truzzi, I can't find them. There are a lot of mentions of it and uses of it, but the no places ever define or discuss it outside of personal blogs or the random forum post. Basically, this seems to just be somewhat of a neologism which hasn't gotten independent comment.

So, what should we do here? We can only go by Truzzi's view of it and only use what he's said for the article, but this amounts to giving him undue weight as - reliably sourced or not - there's another contradictory interpretation of the word out there. We could put out both interpretations using the best sources we can find, but then we're not using reliable sources.

But the solution I think is best at this point would be to merge this into the article on Truzzi. No worries about undue weight there as we only have to give what he's said on it, and we can find reliable sources for that. What do you guys think? --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 18:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we are indeed describing Truzzi's view, which makes sense, because he defined it. It is currectly attributed to him and wholly verifiable, (with some additional comments in the section "Academic studies"). As a published professor of Sociology at Eastern Michigan University, his view is credible, and we don't claim it is anyone else's. Hence I don't see it failing undue weight; if there was one criticism of the word, and we devoted most of the article to the criticism, then the criticism would fail undue weight.


 * I'm not aware of any contradictory interpretations which are verifiable by reliable sources. Likewise the paragraphs beginning "It is acceptable scientific and skeptical practice..." are also unverified. --71.202.86.107 19:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That's the problem: It's a pet theory of Truzzi's. There's no independent review of it, and just because a person is notable doesn't mean every theory they may come up with is notable. If the theory were notable enough to include, there would be independent analysis of it. There isn't. Wikipedia isn't about describing theories that only one person has talked about. Simply put, you need to come up with some evidence of how this satisfies notability guidelines; simply saying Truzzi's notable and he's talked about it does not.


 * Also, note that even Truzzi's writing on it doesn't meet the reliability guidelines: He self-published it, essentially. Also, what he said on it is a primary source. We need a reliable secondary source reporting on it, and it needs to be independent of the subject. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 20:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Wiki founder Jimbo Wales, when asked "the proper criteria for inclusion/exclusion is the fact that any theory, albeit mainstream, minority or other", replied that, "'verifiability' has long been accepted as a decision rule.". Jimbo further confirms that "what we're really interested in, which is verifiability and NPOV."
 * If there is no independent review, then we can't provide one in the article, but a review is not necessary to describe Pseudoskepticism; which will be reliable because we have the original source for verification. Is Pseudoskepticism notable? Sure, there's an article on the subject, and it was found notable enough to republish elsewhere. --82.80.248.177 22:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Nope, that doesn't cut it. Truzzi wrote that article, and that single article is the sole source for this one. Being republished by a site that precisely shares his bias proves nothing. Zip, zero, zilch. Read the notability guidelines. It needs to be independently referenced by a reliable source to be notable (and thus worthy of an article). As far as I've looked, I've found no such source. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 00:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Notability is one suggested criteria for inclusion. Verifiability is another, as described by Jimbo Wales above.  Truzzi may well be biased and wrong. But Pseudoskepticism still exists as an concept, and Truzzi's view of it can still be described impartially and accurately. I've not found any sources to suggest that Truzzi's view of Pseudoskepticism is either biased or unreliable. --75.108.114.36 01:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you're confusing "and" with "or." Subjects must be both notable and verifiable. There are many, many theories out there that were verifiably proposed, but they shouldn't all be in Wikipedia. We need to apply a notability filter to get rid of all the ones no one cares about. Just because Jimbo didn't mention notability 3 years ago doesn't mean it isn't a key criterion for article inclusion.


 * (1) As was noted by 82.80.248.177 above, Jimbo did clarify this point three years ago in comments concerning notability and importance, and I am not aware that he has changed his position on the matter. (2) The result of an AfD on this article last year, found that it was sufficiently notable, and to keep it. I appreciate that you (and perhaps a 1000 others) may not find the article notable, but the article satisfies those that do find it notable, and those who have no preference. (3) I further note that the section on "History" credits several others who also use the word Pseudoskepticism in addition to Truzzi. --87.118.106.100 09:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

In my humble opinion the overall article is sufficiently notable to survive another Afd, however the Abuses of skepticism section lacks sources and could be deleted unless references are included. Addhoc 19:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * During the previous attempts to delete this article and its predecessor (pathological skepticism) we found hundreds and thousands of links to these words. It just depends on how one searches for various spellings: pseudoskepticism, pseudo-skepticism, pseudoscepticism, pseudo-scepticism, pathological skepticism, pathological scepticism, etc. Among them are numerous instances of use of the word by skeptical (and other) sources, many of which are considered reliable sources, especially by skeptics. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>/<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 20:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, didn't think of the different spellings. Mind point to a few of the sources for the "alternative" interpretation? --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 20:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about that one....;-) -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>/<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 21:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I was referring to the interpretation of it as being "a psuedoskeptic is one who, for whatever reason, appears to be a skeptic but is not," as Ben Aveling mentioned and you seemed to agree with. Are you saying there aren't any reliable sources for this interpretation, and the only reliably sourced interpretation is Truzzi's (and those similar to his)? If so, we'll have to do some pruning and rewording, but I'd like to confirm this first. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 22:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Does the article contain this "alternative" interpretation in those words? It's true enough and is inherent in what Truzzi writes, but if you want a good source saying precisely that, I'm not sure where it find it. It's probably out there somewhere. It would be a logical dictionary definition, since that's what the word means when one parses it. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>/<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 21:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll do some looking. If I can't find anything, then I think it might be a good idea to put a note to this effect somewhere. Something along the lines of saying "Pseudoskepticism, unlike pseudoscience, is not simply that which appears or claims to be skepticism but isn't..." Sound good? --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 00:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless the article actually contains this "alternative" interpretation (you didn't answer my question), there is no need to say anything. Both terms (pseudoscience and pseudoskepticism) suffer that same thing as many other words - they have limited, mechanistic, literal meanings based on their very construction, and then they have numerous applied meanings based on usage. We can't get all the nuances in the article, but we can cite what we can find. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>/<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 05:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I thought that question was rhetorical, which is why I didn't answer it. And no, at this point it doesn't. The reason I'm bringing it up is that although there aren't any reliable sources defining it in this way, I did find in my searches that it is colloquially used this way but some skeptics ( to name just a couple in a quick search). There's no "formal" defining of it by some reliable source, but you don't always get that with neologisms (in fact, there's no "formal" defining the other way for that matter; it's just more common and has some professors who wrote about it). Given that some people might easily come here having heard one side's version and not the other's, I think we should give them at least a token explanation of why we're presenting the article this way (even if we just imply it somehow). --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 13:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Truzzi's definition dominates the article because (a) it is verifibable (b) he popularized the term this way. I'm not sure that the "colloquially" definition is even correctly used; the first example you gave just has the word in a header. I honestly don't think that a couple of colloquially uses is sufficiently notable, especially when Truzzi's definition had to go through an AfD to decided its notability.  --Deeper Black 14:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I agree that it's not notable or verifiable enough to warrant a section in this article. What I'm arguing here is that the article should take greater pains to clarify that the type it's describing isn't that version. It's quite possible people could come to this article having only heard that version (or assuming it based on the parallel to pseudoscience), and as the article stands it might confuse them somewhat. They might think the article is simply wrong, biased, or not even catch the subtle distinction. At this point, I think the best solution would be to put in a short passage to the lead making the contrast, such as "This is not to be confused with positions which claim to be skepticism but are in fact not. While there is some colloquial use of the term this way, the vast majority of its uses describe skepticism taken too far." --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 15:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That sounds like good wording (based on a bit of innocent OR ;-) Go for it and let's hope it floats. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>/<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 21:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, it is a bit ORish, but far from the type of OR the guideline is trying to keep out. I think this one qualifies under ignore all rules if it'll make the article better. (Just making this note for anyone else who comes along to this discussion.) --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 21:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

article was better w quotes
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pseudoskepticism&diff=152147745&oldid=146498621 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect URL and subject association
The article is incorrectly associated with Pathological Skepticism which is a reference (unintended or not) to Insanity of Doubt, a mental illness. This article should simply have a pseudoskepticism url and be associated with dishonesty and lying. Also would someone get that dumb dumbbot off my back which kept deleting related references to the Insanity of Doubt FACTS? Stupidpedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyleain (talk • contribs) 15:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

UFOs and scientists
I saw this in the article:

"Truzzi held that anything that has not been proved to be impossible must be treated as possible. On the strength of this argument, he personally accepted as plausible several phenomena that have been rejected by scientists, such as the existence of UFOs"

I think it's unfair to say that the idea of UFOs (specifically involving aliens, rather than just the literal term) is 'rejected' by scientists. I'm sure some do reject it outright, but others take another view, one that might be seen as more rational scepticism.

Attributed to Richard Feynman: "So my antagonist said, "Is it impossible that there are flying saucers? Can you prove that it's impossible?" "No", I said, "I can't prove it's impossible. It's just very unlikely". At that he said, "You are very unscientific. If you can't prove it impossible then how can you say that it's unlikely?" But that is the way that is scientific. It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible."

Carl Sagan appears to take a similar line, from the wiki article:

"Sagan had some interest in UFO reports from at least 1964, when he had several conversations on the subject with Jacques Vallee.[22] Though quite skeptical of any extraordinary answer to the UFO question, Sagan thought scientists should study the phenomenon, at least because there was widespread public interest in UFO reports."

If he was outright rejecting it, I doubt he would call for studies into the phenomenon, or take part in them himself.

Michio Kaku seems to follow Sagan in some respects, he does not rule out UFOs or aliens, but puts it as very unlikely, in his opinion due to the huge energy that would be required to travel the distances necessary from areas of the universe that other life may be possible. At other times however Kaku speaks of the idea of Von Neuman probes on the moon, waiting for us to become a type 1 civilization (Kardashev scale) before reporting back, as in Kubricks 2001.

So they are 3 well known, quite well respected scientists who don't reject it outright, just take the line it's unlikely based on what we know and the evidence available. Sagankakufeynmanareokinmybook (talk) 13:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * These three scientists all consider UFOs to be, not impossible, but very unlikely, implausible if you prefer. Whereas Truzzi considered UFOs to be plausible, even probable. Regards, Ben Aveling 19:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to CfD Category:Pseudoskeptic Target Discussion
Those who have edited in related areas within WP might have an interest in this discussion.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Pseudo-skepticism and scientific method
I've tagged this section requesting sources, as it makes no mention of Pseudo-skepticism in the context of the scientific method. There is no dispute that this is how the scientific method works, and all this information can be found in the article on the scientific method --John294 (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You're right about that. I've removed the tag not because I disagree but because the whole article could do with more citations, and is already tagged as such at the top.  I'll try to make clearer the relationship between the two.  Regards, Ben Aveling 13:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. I prefer your introduction, better to define the term first, and then say when it was popularized. --John294 (talk) 13:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. What makes this tricky is that the word scepticism has two meanings, at least, it gets used in ways that are almost diametrically opposed.  Trying to hold both in the same head at the same time is not easy.  Regards, Ben Aveling 13:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the introductory paragraph (I hope my interpretation is accurate), and included a quote from Truzzi, so there can be no ambiguity over what he actually wrote. --John294 (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I like what you've done, except that we've now got almost the same sentence twice. I'm not sure which one to keep.  I'm also wondering whose italics those are in the first sentence.  Are they Trozzi's?  Or ours?  Regards, Ben Aveling 20:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are referring to the first two sentences, then each one is quite different, though perhaps they can be combined or reworded better:
 * "Truzzi's argument begins with the premise that any phenomenon that has not been proven, does not imply that it has been disproven. But Truzzi went further, holding that any phenomena that had not been disproven, implies that it is plausible, and that anyone who does not consider both options equally, is pseudoskeptic"
 * The italics in the quote are in the original. --John294 (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good. They do add to it, and I'm glad there's no risk that we're spinning what he said by choosing what to empathise. The duplicated bit is "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."  Maybe we chop it the second time it appears, just leaving the extra sentence that wasn't in there the first time.  Regards, Ben Aveling 11:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Doh! Those quotes! I've replaced the first occurrence which I believe defines pseudoskeptic more specifically, and left the second quote as-is, which I think provides background information. --John294 (talk) 12:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That is a great quote. I've tidied up the reference tag.  Would be good to have more 3rd party references.  Later, Ben Aveling 21:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this article a POV-fork of skepticism?
Why is this article separate from skepticism? What is covered here that cannot be covered in more depth and in better context at skepticism? Should we merge the articles? ScienceApologist (talk) 14:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is a tribute to Marcello Truzzi. Support merge.  NJGW (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If you re-read the AfD in which you participated, you'll find that this option was rejected, including various reasons. There is nothing in the article suggesting a tribute to Truzzi. Are there any reliable sources on skepticism which discuss pseudoskepticism? --John294 (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Does this article or section really need sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publication?
Does this article or section really need sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publication? If not or if no response, going to remove the tag. J. D. Redding 15:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know, what does Wikipedia policy have to say on the subject? NJGW (talk) 16:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In my opinion No, It has lots. If more sourcein is needed coudl some one add cite tags to show specifically where? (I have removed the banner for now)--Nate1481 16:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree. The first half of the references verify Truzzi's views, for example, ten references 4-14 identify ten Truzzi quotes, so this does not seem unreasonable. The second half of the references are to a wide range of third party sources. --John294 (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that this is meant to be an encyclopedic treatment of the subject, not a verbatim recapitulation of the words of Marcello Truzzi. If that's all it is, then put it in Marcello Truzzi. If we want a better article, then Truzzi should be one (fundamental) part of it, but yes, independent, reliable sources are necessary. MastCell Talk 22:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice collation of references, though a bit of a shame that we loose context for all the quotes. I've found a few more independent sources and added them to the article. --John294 (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Problems with quote from Mencken?
Could someone--preferably the person who inserted it--check the quote from Mencken (on Strauss and Nietzsche etc.)? I'm fairly sure that "disciplines" should be "disciples" and that "bourgeoise" should be "bourgeois". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.236.37 (talk) 09:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Zetetic-scholar-12-13.jpg
The image Image:Zetetic-scholar-12-13.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --11:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)