What's A Skeptic?

[Old Dog]

You know, since the new forums have emerged, I have been reading a lot of the posts and have some to realize that the term skeptic is not being used in it's true form. A lot of posts use skeptic to mean someone who adamantly refuses to believe in the possibility of BF's existence.

Things seem to be divided into basically two groups, believers and skeptics. There really are three groups though.

Believers, Skeptics, and Non-believers.

Skeptic definition:

skep·tic   

[skep-tik]

–noun

1.

a person who questions the validity or authenticity of something purporting to be factual.

2.

a person who maintains a doubting attitude, as toward values, plans, statements, or the character of others.

3.

a person who doubts the truth of a religion, esp. Christianity, or of important elements of it.

As you can see, the way skeptic is sometimes being used, it is actually being used to describe a non-believer.

I'm not advocating any one stance, just that if we lump the skeptics and non-believers in one group, we are doing a disservice to both groups.

Just sayin.

[slabdog]

well said

[Guest]

well said

^ditto

[Huntster]

I believe there is a role here for the word denial:

de·ni·al 

–noun

1. an assertion that something said, believed, alleged, etc., is false: Despite his denials, we knew he had taken the purse. The politician issued a denial of his opponent's charges.

2. refusal to believe a doctrine, theory, or the like.

3. disbelief in the existence or reality of a thing.

4. the refusal to satisfy a claim, request, desire, etc., or the refusal of a person making it.

5. refusal to recognize or acknowledge; a disowning or disavowal: the traitor's denial of his country; Peter's denial of Christ.

6. Law . refusal to acknowledge the validity of a claim, suit, or the like; a plea that denies allegations of fact in an adversary's plea: Although she sued for libel, he entered a general denial.

7. sacrifice of one's own wants or needs; self-denial.

8. Psychology . an unconscious defense mechanism used to reduce anxiety by denying thoughts, feelings, or facts that are consciously intolerable.

[Guest UPs]

I have found a reference in Wiki that fits what the OP is describing and its pseudo skepticism. Here is an excerpt from that reference.

the characteristic feature of false skepticism is that it "centres not on an impartial search for the truth, but on the defence of a preconceived ideological position".

Scientific skepticism is itself sometimes criticized on this ground. The term pseudoskepticism has found occasional use in controversial fields where opposition from scientific skeptics is strong.

I probably hacked the punctuation but the reference fits here fairly well. Some of the people here seem to fit this definition much more so than the term skeptic (after reading their posts). I will not get into specific posts or posters and will hope that if you consider yourself a hardcore skeptic, you can still be objective when analyzing evidence. UPs

[BobZenor]

I would tend to divide the believers into two groups. One group had an encounter or something they thought was an encounter and the other group just believes the evidence absolutely proves Bigfoot is real. I would place the second group and what is commonly called skeptics in the non skeptical category for whatever reasons they have to believe what they believe. It is kind of hard to judge what someone saw or didn't see and I am reluctant to make judgments on that. To me, it is arrogant to just assume that much knowledge. It seems to me that being a skeptic is the only rational position for the vast majority of us. I had an encounter that largely convinced me but since I am not all knowing I can't take that as proof. That is just the way my mind mind works. Thinking you know something that you clearly don't and calling yourself a skeptic is really stretching the definition of the word way past the breaking point. I like calling myself a skeptic and don't appreciate it at all when people that think they have all the answers use the term to describe themselves.

[indiefoot]

This guy rocks, Professor Marcello Truzi.

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

He was one of the founders of the modern skeptical movement and he is credited with coining the term pseudo-skepticism. He has written quite a bit on the subject.

Points courtesy of Proff Truzi,

Characteristics of a pseudoskeptic:

1. The tendency to deny, rather than doubt.

2. Double standards in the application of criticism.

3. The making of judgments without full inquiry.

4. Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate.

5. Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments.

6. Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.

7. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof.

8. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof.

9. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims.

10. Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence.

11. Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it.

12. Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims.

13. Asserting that claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa (Argument from ignorance).

14. They speak down to their audience using 'arguments from authority'.

15. They put forward their assumptions as if they were universal truths.

16. No references to reputable journal material.

17. If the pseudo-skeptic has a monetary interest (such as maintaining a funding stream or a salary) his criticisms often become vituperative.

True Skeptics / Open-Minded Skeptics

A. Does not show any of the characteristics of a pseudoskeptic.

B. Inquires and asks questions to try to understand things

C. Applies open inquiry and investigation of both sides

D. Is nonjudgmental, doesn't jump to rash conclusions

E. Has honest doubt and questions all beliefs, including their own

F. Seeks the truth, considers it the highest aim

G. Fairly and objectively weighs evidence on all sides

H. Acknowledges valid convincing evidence

I. Possesses solid sharp common sense and reason

J. Is able to adapt and update their paradigms to new evidence

[Guest UPs]

Indie...great reference. He sums it up very well. These pseudo skeptics have given the true skeptics a bad reputation. When I identify one of these pseudo skeptics from their posts, I wonder what their motive is. One reasonable motive for the scientist is justification for not investigating this subject seriously. If bf is ever discovered, I do not see how they will be able to justify their prior positions on the subject. As long as bf goes undiscovered, they will be safe from this scrutiny. For the non scientist, there are many motives that come to mind and many have to do with the mighty dollar. UPs

[Guest]

One reasonable motive for the scientist is justification for not investigating this subject seriously. If bf is ever discovered, I do not see how they will be able to justify their prior positions on the subject.

Why can't the justification for not believing in bigfoot be simply that the evidence for it is unconvincing? That's the first definition in the OP.

I'm a scientist. I've considered the evidence. I question the validity of that evidence, and I'm unconvinced by it. Therefore, I see no justification in conducting my own specific investigation other than as part of the survey work I do for any other wildlife species. If bigfoot is ever discovered, I will have ample justification for my prior position in that no other large mammal species in the history of human exploration had been as widespread, and yet as elusive, as bigfoot. I will have been proven wrong in that position, but that doesn't mean that position was unjustified given the data at hand when it was formulated.

[Guest River]

I think many skeptics would love to see some valid/indisputable evidence. Its just not there Unfortunately.

[Guest]

I'm skeptical but would absolutely love to be wrong and Bigfoot be real.

[Huntster]

Why can't the justification for not believing in bigfoot be simply that the evidence for it is unconvincing?

Good choice of words; convince:

–verb (used with object), -vinced, -vinc·ing.

1.to move by argument or evidence to belief, agreement, consent, or a course of action: to convince a jury of his guilt; A test drive will convince you that this car handles well.

2.to persuade; cajole: We finally convinced them to have dinner with us.

3.Obsolete . to prove or find guilty.

4.Obsolete . to overcome; vanquish.

Note that "to prove" has come to be seen as "obsolete" with respect to "convince". Now, the primary definition includes the term, "to move by argument or evidence to belief, agreement, consent, or a course of action."

Now, my position is (and I believe I've made this repeatedly and abundantly clear) that the existing evidence should be sufficient to move the proper authorities to a course of action.

I'm a scientist.

This, in my opinion, places you among the proper authorities, especially if you are lecturing specifically on this subject to the legal regulatory authorities who manage wildlife for our society (and the legal ramifications of their actions/inactions).

I've considered the evidence. I question the validity of that evidence, and I'm unconvinced by it.

Thus, if proven wrong later, and we are indeed facing the possible extinction of such an important species as a bipedal ape (likely the closest biological relative to humans) you will be among the primary people who should face society over the consequences of the current inaction.

Therefore, I see no justification in conducting my own specific investigation other than as part of the survey work I do for any other wildlife species.

Excuse me, but didn't you tell us recently that you lectured to our legally authorized and responsible wildlife management authorities at their invitation? Doesn't that squarely place you in a position of responsibility? If so, then your decision should carry with it some responsibility. If you're correct and sasquatches don't exist, then you are truly a wise risk taker.

But what if you're incorrect?

If bigfoot is ever discovered, I will have ample justification for my prior position in that no other large mammal species in the history of human exploration had been as widespread, and yet as elusive, as bigfoot.

That is your opinion, but it may not be the decision of a court of law.

I will have been proven wrong in that position, but that doesn't mean that position was unjustified given the data at hand when it was formulated.

Sorry. I don't buy that at all. We put people to death for crimes with less evidence than we have for the existence of sasquatch.

Do you gamble much at casinos?

[Guest]

Do you gamble much at casinos?

Was in Las Vegas for a conference once a few years ago. I believe that over 4 nights I spent a grand total of $0.00 gambling. I'm a very cautious individual, Huntster. Our prime rib dinner wager is by far the most extravagant bet I've ever made. Sure would be fun to lose that one.

[indiefoot]

Are scientists ever guilty of ignoring data, 'cherry picking" data, "massaging data" or otherwise being less than honest in their research? All of these things are what BF researchers are accused of doing and the "scientists" on the side of truth would never stoop to such tactics. I am not anti-science. I do believe that scientists are no more or less honest or ethical than Cops or Politicians, Teachers or Preachers, Lawyers or Doctors.

[southernyahoo]

Why can't the justification for not believing in bigfoot be simply that the evidence for it is unconvincing? That's the first definition in the OP.

I'm a scientist. I've considered the evidence. I question the validity of that evidence, and I'm unconvinced by it. Therefore, I see no justification in conducting my own specific investigation other than as part of the survey work I do for any other wildlife species. If bigfoot is ever discovered, I will have ample justification for my prior position in that no other large mammal species in the history of human exploration had been as widespread, and yet as elusive, as bigfoot. I will have been proven wrong in that position, but that doesn't mean that position was unjustified given the data at hand when it was formulated.

Saskeptic,

If someone reports finding a pupulation of Ivory Billed Wood Peckers in the LA. swamps, are you going to be all over that?

Just curious.