The ODD : Obsessive Debunking Disorder... A serious Disease...

Are Hardcore Skeptics and Debunkers Actually Brain Deficient? Their Own Beloved 'Hard Science' Might Well Suggest Many Are.

We have all encountered them. The men and women of 'reason'. The self-appointed guardians and vanguards of materialist dogma along with their absolute faith and belief in official government and corporate press releases. The debunker, the hardcore skeptic—how they love to compulsively ridicule and mock all they deem 'pseudoscience' and 'conspiracy theory'—while also declaring anyone who thinks outside the box or questions the prevailing orthodoxy, a "moron" and a "tard".

Well, there seems to be a sort of internal contradiction in the text. It seems to say skeptics rely a lot on analytic thinking while leaving the right side of the brain ( the "intuitive" side ) with few functionality. Yet, on the other hand, he seems to describe this skeptics as highly emotional and "preachy" people who seem to rely a lot on impulses and intuitive behaviour ( no matter how much evidence you give them, they "know" you are wrong).

It just left me a bit confused.


I got some YouTube vids of Ian McGilchrist:

RSA Animate - The Divided Brain

The full lecture the above animation is based on is definitely worth a listen:

Iain McGilchrist - The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World

More information on the psychology of "obsessive debunkers" can be found in the following:

The Pathology of Organized Skepticism

When Science Becomes Scientism: Carl Sagan and His Demon-Haunted World

The materialist Lycan admits the choice between materialism and immaterialism is a matter of faith. How the faith of materialists leads to questionable tactics while they do missionary work can be found here.

Further issues with this religion of materialism, particularly with respect to the dehumanization of persons that certain sects entertain, are covered by Compsci Prof Gelernter's Closing of the Scientific Mind and VR designer Jaron Lanier's One Half a Manifesto.
Last edited by a moderator:
Surely the article is satirical? A name-callng tirade with little resemblance to reality from someone without scientific accreditation, ranting about name-calling "skeptics" without scientific accreditation who misrepresent reality? That can't be unintentional.

I doubt it's unintentional, but at the same time it's probably jot satirical. A lot of people who take issues with (some) skeptics view skeptical discourse very similarly; mostly non-expert people firing off ad hominem and not really engaging in legitimate debate. And there are a fair amount of skeptics that are like that, though in all fairness that probably extends to the other side of the argument as well.


I think people can just watch McGilchrist's videos.

I'm all for rants against materialists and even I struggled with the verbosity. ;-)