do you agree with Marcelo Truzzi on Pseudoketicism? have you published any books on pseudo-skepticism?
“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