From: pae@blackcat.stortek.com (Phil Earnhardt)
Subject: The sci.skeptic FAQ
Summary: The Frequently Questioned Answers
Organization: StorageTek, Louisville, CO
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:13:57 GMT

The sci.skeptic FAQ was just posted. I felt there were three answers
whose pertinence to our current dicussion merited re-posting to our
group.

I request that anyone who wishes to participate in the Scientology
discussions read the sci.skeptic FAQ in its entirety. I'm not asking
people to necessarily agree with it; I'm asking that you read it to
have a clear picture of the culture that you are speaking into.

If someone doesn't have access to news.answers and/or sci.skeptic, I'm
willing to send you a copy.

In article <skeptic-faq_722005554@gec-mrc.co.uk> paj@gec-mrc.co.uk writes:
>Version: @(#)skeptic-faq.text	1.4
>		  The Frequently Questioned Answers
>		  =================================
>[...]
>0.6: Aren't all skeptics just closed-minded bigots?
>---------------------------------------------------
>
>People who have failed to convince skeptics often say "Well all
>skeptics are just closed-minded bigots who won't listen to me!".  This
>is not true.  Skeptics pay close attention to the evidence.  If you
>have no evidence then you will get nowhere.
>
>Unfortunately life is short.  Most of us have better things to do than
>investigate yet another bogus claim.  Some paranormal topics,
>especially psi research and UFOlogy, produce vast quantities of low
>grade evidence.  In the past people have investigated such evidence
>carefully, but it always seems to evaporate when anyone looks at it
>closely.  Hence skeptics should be forgiven for not bothering to
>investigate yet another piece of low grade evidence before rejecting
>it.
>
>Of course there are some who substitute flaming and rhetoric for
>logical argument.  We all lose our temper sometimes.
>
>0.7: Aren't all paranormalists just woolly-minded fools?
>--------------------------------------------------------
>
>No.  Some just pick a belief and then search for evidence to support
>it.  Others have had experiences which they find compelling evidence
>for belief.  This includes channellers, palmists and dowsers.  Shouting
>won't convince these people.  The best tactic is to explain why you
>think they are wrong, and do it slowly and quietly.
>
>Of course, some of them are confidence tricksters out for a fast buck.
>But its best to assume innocence unless you can prove guilt.
>
>[Any paranormalists out there want to add something? PAJ]
>
>0.8: What is a Conspiracy Theory?
>---------------------------------
>
>A conspiracy theory is a belief that there is a large-scale conspiracy
>by those in power to mislead and/or control the rest of the world.
>Consider the following example:
>
>	There is a conspiracy amongst the computer programmers to
>	control the world.  They are only allowing the public to have
>	simple machines, while they control the really powerful ones.
>	There is a computer in <city> they call "The Beast".  It has
>	records about everyone.  They use this information to
>	manipulate the politicians and businessmen who ostensibly rule
>	the world into doing their will.  The Beast was prophesied in
>	the Book of Revelations.
>
>Conspiracy theories divide the world into three groups.  The
>Conspirators, the Investigators, and the Dupes.  Conspirators have a
>vast secret.  The Investigators have revealed parts of the conspiracy,
>but much is still secret.  Investigators are always in great danger of
>being silenced by Conspirators.  Dupes are just the rest of us.  Often
>the Conspiritors show a mixture of incredible subtlety and stunning
>stupidity.
>
>Evidence produced by the Investigators is always either circumstantial
>or evaporates when looked at carefully.  The theories can never be
>disproved, since any evidence to the contrary can be dismissed as
>having been planted by the Conspirators.  If you spend any time or
>effort digging into the evidence produced by Investigators then you
>will be labelled a Conspirator yourself.  Of course, nothing a
>Conspirator says can be believed.
>
>[Since this was first posted, Nick Silver <nik@scs.leeds.ac.uk> has
>written to tell me that a friend of his was accosted by two guys who
>told her that the Beast computer is in Holland and that you can be
>saved by converting to their religion.  They also added that every
>product bar code includes three 6 digits as frame markers, hence 666,
>the number of the beast.  In fact this is not true, and even if it
>were it would not fulfil the prophecy in Revelations]

--phil