The scientific method and the spirits

#21
do you agree with Marcelo Truzzi on Pseudoketicism? have you published any books on pseudo-skepticism?
Yes, I agree with his most notable and rather out-of-school statement... but then again, I did not agree with most of what CSICOP did/does as CSI... so his leadership fell upon deaf ears. They no longer heed this caution:
Pseudo-Skeptics: Critics who assert negative claims, but who mistakenly call themselves ‘skeptics,’ often act as though they have no burden of proof placed on them at all. A result of this is that many critics seem to feel it is only necessary to present a case for their counter-claims based upon plausibility rather than empirical evidence.” – Marcello Truzzi (Founding Co-chairman of CSICOP)
They did not like the aura of conducting science on 'pseudoscience'; plus when they attempted to actually do science, it revealed how actually inept and uneducated their members really were. They thought that doing one stand alone test was 'science' and failed to assemble series-tests based upon incremental hypothesis, and used the wrong null hypothesis or none at all. It was a total charade. They took inductive modus absens anecdote (usually just one) as not only evidence (which it is not), but also as proof. There is no such thing. I think that real scientists began to call them on this charade behind the scenes, and they realized that they did not have the budget to do real science.

Then the celebrity skeptics stepped in and said... 'Hey the goal of all this is to make me famous and pay me a salary, what are you doing?'

So they shifted from their old mission of actually doing pretend science as CSICOP, into a new mission of 'critical thinking and science education' and holding pep rallies - which is code for propaganda. Not one of these jokers would have ever survived a month working for me. Most of them wouldn't know science if it fell on their face and p-valued.

For this reason I go beyond Truzzi's brief moment of lucidity with my blog - and it begins here The Appeal to Skepticism
 
Last edited:
#22
Yes, I agree with his most notable and rather out-of-school statement... but then again, I did not agree with most of what CSICOP did/does as CSI... so his leadership fell upon deaf ears. They no longer heed this caution:
Pseudo-Skeptics: Critics who assert negative claims, but who mistakenly call themselves ‘skeptics,’ often act as though they have no burden of proof placed on them at all. A result of this is that many critics seem to feel it is only necessary to present a case for their counter-claims based upon plausibility rather than empirical evidence.” – Marcello Truzzi (Founding Co-chairman of CSICOP)
They did not like the aura of conducting science on 'pseudoscience'; plus when they attempted to actually do science, it revealed how actually inept and uneducated their members really were. They thought that doing one stand alone test was 'science' and failed to assemble series-tests based upon incremental hypothesis, and used the wrong null hypothesis or none at all. It was a total charade. They took inductive modus absens anecdote (usually just one) as not only evidence (which it is not), but also as proof. There is no such thing. I think that real scientists began to call them on this charade behind the scenes, and they realized that they did not have the budget to do real science.

Then the celebrity skeptics stepped in and said... 'Hey the goal of all this is to make me famous and pay me a salary, what are you doing?'

So they shifted from their old mission of actually doing pretend science as CSICOP, into a new mission of 'critical thinking and science education' and holding pep rallies - which is code for propaganda. Not one of these jokers would have ever survived a month working for me. Most of them wouldn't know science if it fell on their face and p-valued.

For this reason I go beyond Truzzi's brief moment of lucidity with my blog - and it begins here The Appeal to Skepticism
I would add they the plausibility of a phenomenon has a relationship to other lines of well established evidence.
 
#23
I would add they the plausibility of a phenomenon has a relationship to other lines of well established evidence.
Plausibility however is a personal judgement, a mythos employed in lieu of empiricism - which is an externally accountable method. When plausibility (personal skepticism or reduction) is used in lieu of empiricism (science), one, possibly two errors are broached:

Using philosophy (skepticism) to decide answers in lieu of science. This is not a legitimate role of philosophy.

Once plurality is necessary under Ockham's Razor, it cannot be dismissed by means of skepticism alone.

When plausibility turns out to be correct, it is only so by accident. So if there is uncertainty, one's 'plausible' alternative carries no more weight than any other idea. One still has to bring evidence. This was Popper's essential argument.

“In the view of many social scientists, the more probable a theory is, the better it is, and if we have to choose between two theories which are equally strong in terms of their explanatory power, and differ only in that one is probable and the other is improbable, then we should choose the former. Popper rejects this.” - The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Karl Popper
In essence what we consider plausible, is driven more by our conflating plausibility with obviousness - rather than any form of chain of evidence. If something is not obvious - then we should be hesitant as skeptics to therefore assign it a plausibility assessment.

One brings deductive evidence at that point, or one chooses nothing.

John F. Kennedy: For the great enemy of truth is very often not the lie — deliberate, contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.

Master Yoda: Bring it, or do not. There is no plausible.
 
Last edited:
Top