This is Velma. You may recognize her from Scooby Doo as the nerdy skeptic [As opposed to that ditz Daphne] who usually realized that the monster at the Church wasn’t the return of the Priest’s grandma telling him not to plant more trees, but the janitor in drag trying to make a quick buck. That’s good skepticism. She realized that it was more likely the owner of the water park bought a $5 mask, than a vortex to the spirit world mysteriously opened.
This is an example of good skepticism. She analyzed the evidence and picked the most likely solution. She didn’t make any assumptions that were literally out of this world. Questioning things is good. From the government, to what you see on message boards or blogs, to what Shaggy thinks about how ghost come back to fight off visitors.
But can skepticism be misplaced? As you gathered by the title, yes. 9/11 “truthers” are “skeptical” of the government. One of my favorite shows is Penn & Teller’s Bullshit! where they examine pseudoscience. What really hit me like a ton of bricks is that the assholes on the show [the guests, not Penn & Teller] are thinking they’re the skeptical ones! The New Age magnetic flux medicine advocator thought they were being skeptical of modern medicine. Creationists think they’re being skeptical of evolution. etc etc…
It seems these days that there is no shortage of self-proclaimed “skeptics”. What they don’t realize is that skepticism comes with a price. Skepticism is useless we’re willing to admit it when we’re wrong. That’s the difference between scientific skepticism which relies on science and what I liked to call “misplaced Skepticism”. This type of skepticism relies not on evidence, but rather on emotions, it feels good when we have all the answers [even if they're wrong!] we like outsmarting the reptilians by figuring out their plot of world domination [and those dumbasses that can't see the truth right in front of them!]. I understand that. I like being right and hate being wrong. But skepticism isn’t about feeling good, it’s about finding the truth. Actual skepticism relies on evidence, not anecdotes. We should question the government, medicine, religion etc… but we should apply scientific skepticism, not misplaced skepticism.
I can understand that science is hard. I took science at university and there are areas of science that I am weak on [especially biology and even evolution] I took physics, so I know that simply putting in “Quantum magnetic inverse polarity flux” in your claim doesn’t make it true, but it seems to fool New Age hippies.
Worse of all, I think these misplaced skeptics are doing more harm. They’re good people, wanting to find truth, and that’s good, but then they get taken advantage of by pushers of pseudoscience and tricksters take their money and their time, fill their heads with shit and do it in the name of “skepticism”.
So next time somebody introduces themselves a s a”skeptic”…be skeptical of that claim.
I shall become skeptical of the skeptics who are skeptical about the skeptics. That Sherman guy spoke about this topic in one of his talks when he was investigating the holocaust skeptics. they were skeptical of the holocaust and he is a skeptic so they are both skeptic and so they must be friends. Personally I just feel that skepticism is a waste of time, you cannot be skeptical of everything that comes your way. You live and you learn as it becomes important. And let me be honest I am just not smart enough. I believe that evolution is correct but hell if I understand it. Oh I understand the random mutation, best suited to the environment crap but how that stuff works, how the mutations occur, and a whole range of things about evolution I have not the faintest clue about I simply take on blind faith, I don’t know enough to make an informed choice. Most of my beliefs are like this and so will most of everyone’s beliefs be like this, there is to much knowledge in the world to understand it all. You have to take most of it on faith or at best and educated guess. This is why this skeptics thing makes very little sense to me, how can anyone claim to be a skeptic yet take most of there knowledge on faith? Maybe I am misunderstanding what it means to be a skeptic but it makes no sense to me.
Penn & Teller’s BS… great example to base a scientific model of skepticism on, “Alice”. Only… not so much. Penn & Teller do a great job of pulling rabbits out of hats and putting on a nice circus show of rhetoric in front of a camera, as does their programming directors, executive producers, cameramen and set crews, so on and so forth.
Alice/Pineapple, the first and foremost objective when watching something on TV, be it on EWTN or Showtime, is that it is engineered to garner Nielsen’s Ratings. Nielsen’s Ratings means more $$$. More $$$ means more joy and fun things in life, but in a “selfish” context. It also means Penn has an outlet for his views. It does not mean more ‘well-placed’ satire, more rationalism, more /accurate/ skepticism, or more spectacles of irrationality from theism for the general public. It does mean more money and more people with jobs, book deals, autographs, fame and accolades for Penn and some for his partner Teller.
I would not rely on “Bullshit” to convey truth. Just a suggestion.
I always am, especially when said skeptic is an atheist on a mission…and I am never surprised when it turns out that their “skepticism” is rooted in raw emotion and not facts. It’s what I have come to expect.
CB
What atheist mission? I didn’t realize we atheists were on one.
People can’t have an agenda when interacting with others? That’s news to me.
I never said all of you were — but some of you definitely are, whether you/they care to acknowledge it or not. In many cases, said mission is, by all appearances, the utter demonization of all things religious (e.g. “How Religion ‘Poisons’ Everything.”)