From: pepke@gw.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Pseudoskepticism (was CFD: New Newsgroup)
Date: 21 Aug 92 20:36:17 GMT
Distribution: sci.skeptic
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <KENTD.92Aug17152727@zappa.FtCollins.NCR.com> 
kentd@FtCollins.NCR.com (Kent Dalton) writes:
> This newsgroup would be a moderated newsgroup where only revpk and
> Robert Schaeffer (sic) could post. The purpose of the group would be to
> provide a vehicle for long pseudo-intellectual diatribes directed at the
> intellectual humiliation of the opponent.

Great idea, but Loren should be allowed to post as well.

Actually, although this rant fest has been the longest and emptiest so 
far, it is certainly not the only one we have had.  There was that flame 
war between Rick Moen of the Bay Area Skeptics and that other guy from the 
East Bay Skeptics (or was it the People's Front of Judea and the Judean 
People's Front?)  And there was always Tim Maroney.  The problem really is 
bigger than a copule of overinflated egos.

We're all familiar with pseudoscience, where the trappings and language of 
science are used to give apparent substance to an unsupported claim.  What 
we have here is, I think, an analogous phenomenon: pseudoskepticism, where 
the trappings and language of skepticism are used to give apparent 
objective basis to ideology.

There's nothing inherently wrong with ideology, just as there's nothing 
inherently wrong with faith.  These things can be useful and enlightening 
in their own way, as long as they are accepted for what they are.  Most 
people have the courage to admit that beliefs and opinions are just that.  
The pseudoskeptic, on the other hand, tries to throw a bad toupee over 
bald ideology, and the result makes Sam Donaldson look good by comparison. 
 In the process, the pseudoskeptic winds up doing most of the things that 
skeptics are supposed to reject: appeals to authority, ad-hominem attacks, 
guilt-by-association ploys, extensive iron-clad conclusions based on very 
little evidence, etc.

In the process, they wind up discrediting both their positions and 
skepticism itself.  As skepticism has gradually changed from a way of 
approaching problems to a "movement," pseudoskeptics seem to have grown in 
number, volume, and influence.  Both Robert and Brian have been published 
in skeptical publications more often than many people on the net who are 
far more deserving of the opportunity.  Of course, the published material 
is of higher quality than what we see here, but the skeptical patina is 
still pretty patchy.

As pseudoskeptics become more common and their influence and power grows, 
at some point they will define a significant portion of what skepticism 
functionally is.  At that point those who hold the basic principles of 
skepticism as more than tools to pump up an argument will have a difficult
choice.
 
Eric Pepke                                    INTERNET: pepke@gw.scri.fsu.edu
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute MFENET:   pepke@fsu
Florida State University                      SPAN:     scri::pepke
Tallahassee, FL 32306-4052                    BITNET:   pepke@fsu

Disclaimer: My employers seldom even LISTEN to my opinions.
Meta-disclaimer: Any society that needs disclaimers has too many lawyers.