About Skepticism & Pseudo-Skepticism ;What's the difference?

Question

Why Marcello Truzzi("the skeptic's skeptic.") leave or detach himself from CSICOP?

Answer 1

Obviously because of members that hold beliefs like those that answered above that decide their answer to a question before any evidence is provided and then dismissing evidence because it can't exist since the phenomena doesn't exist.

Also, for the same reason that CSICOP no longer goes by that name and has dropped all pretense of objective scientific investigation but set their selves up as the judges of others works. Science already has a process where claims are evaluated it's called peer review and critiques and responses often appear in peer reviewed science journals.

The link to the article/web site is below.

Michael John Weaver, M.S.

Answer 2

For the basics, see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcello_Tr...

All organizations (good or bad, left or right, secular or religious) have politics and personality clashes.

.

Answer 3

The paranormal field is one of the few places where irrational thought and old wives tales are given more weight than logic and evidence.

Skepticism in science is an opposition, seeking to find the loopholes in people research. It is a positive engine, which is important to keep researchers on the path.

I believe that pseudo-skepticism is just closing your eyes to the possibilities which is counter productive to progress.

Of course, since paranormal research is based on old wives tales and irrational ideas, its very easy for anyone of a sound mind to completely reject the concepts and research supporting it.

Answer 4

Truzzi invented the term pseudo-skepticism to address what he saw as a disturbing habit that some skeptics have to dismiss paranormal claims before investigating them.  But as he himself said, "In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded."

I can understand where he is coming from.  No matter what a person believes, he should withhold judgment until the evidence is in.  That being said, I don't think it's reasonable to be completely agnostic on every claim ever made.  Although things are subject to change, we have to be able to rely on the current body of evidence to allow us to be able to predict and draw conclusions.  In other words, if 10,000 ghost stories have no evidence to back them why should I believe the 10,001st?

Answer 5

I'm glad you asked this question because I'd never heard of Marcello Truzzi. I guess he's not as well known as Randi.

It made me consider that I may be too skeptical of skeptics. Because of one undeniable experience I have no choice but to believe that on at least rare occasions PSI phenomena happens. Even still, a mind is like a parachute. It has to be open to work right. I suppose I've been guilty of not being open to the possibility of an open minded skeptic!

Answer 6

I liked what Truzzi had to say. For the most part I agree with him, though I have no idea whether his criticisms of others in CSICOP were grounded in truth or merely in his perceptions.

I think Truzzi basically delineated "skeptic" and "pseudo-skeptic" by saying that a skeptic always retains an agnostic view of a hypothesis until it is either falsified or supported by experiment/observation. A pseudo-skeptic, on the other hand, was someone who rejected the hypothesis at the start based on prior beliefs. There was more to it, but that's basically how I understand it.

Strictly speaking I think the scientific approach is to take the agnostic position and not reach a hard conclusion before a hypothesis is tested, as Truzzi recommended. However, many ideas in the paranormal cannot be tested scientifically, and frankly since the ideas are both absurd (in my opinion) and almost always totally lacking in evidence, it is not unreasonable for a scientist to have at least a negative opinion at the outset. It's not unreasonable to offer an opinion on the likelihood of a paranormal hypothesis being true, since such hypotheses often peripherally touch on actual scientific knowledge that can be used to judge the likeliness of the claim. We are all human and it's impossible not to have opinions, though we can recognize the difference between opinions and hard, unwavering conclusions. I wonder if Truzzi was able to discern this difference in his CSICOP peers or not, and whether it led to the dissension.

Answer 7

Your question makes it sound like a recent development.In fact the break happened in 1977 or 78.It was over philosophical differences.His main problem was how these claims were investigated. He was more receptive to claims of the paranormal.Still, I don't think he ever became a believer.If I'm wrong about that,it isn't the first time.

Answer 8

Because he believes that:

these, among others, are the characteristics to pseudoskeptics:

-the tendency to deny rather than doubt

-double standards in the application of criticism

-the making of judgements without full inquiry

-tendency to discredit rather than investigate

-use of ridicule, attacks in lien of arguments

-pejorative labeling of proponents as "promoters", "pseudo scientists" or practitioners of "pathological science"

-presenting insufficient evidence of proof

-assuming criticism requires no burden of proof

-suggesting that unconvincing evidence is ground for dismissing it

-making unsubstantiated counter claims

-counter claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence

Answer 9

Maybe he was god smacked by a ghost or anal probed by aliens.  Most likely he couldn't stand hanging out with Randi! HA HA