If you expect that people should accept your claims as true, then it is your job to educate them and you must be ready to defend them against criticisms. When you have entered into the area of rational discourse, there is no option called “I want to spew my nonsense all over the place, have it be unquestionably accepted by everyone / be protected from any and all criticisms / never have to justify anything”. You cannot have all of the benefits, but none of the responsibilities. You play the game, you follow the rules. It is that simple. You can ignore the rules of course, but then we can ignore you. So how do pseudoscientific cranks attempt to avoid critical exchanges with skeptics? Here are some examples (although there are many more): – Mind reading: mind reading is a common cognitive distortion that is based on deducing exaggerated negative intentions, thoughts or motives from the behavior of others without clear evidence from direct communication about the issue. In the context of refusing to provide evidence, mind reading is used to infer that scientific skeptics ask their critical questions “in bad faith”, even when the questions are neutral. – Playing the martyr card: pseudoscientific cranks often make use of a well-characterized denialist tactic called playing the martyr card. This occurs when they, without any evidence, portray themselves as oppressed and skeptics as malicious harassers. – Misunderstanding the nature of critical exchanges the skeptical examination of crank claim is not about making friends and sitting by the fire and singing Kumbaya. It is not about “understanding other people” or “valuing” the input of cranks. It is about exposing frauds and scams. It is about determining the degree to which cherished beliefs is supported (or not supported) by evidence and arguments. – Attribution of personal failings: it is quite common for skeptics to be told that they are “close-minded”, radiating too much “negative energy” or similar. – Rejecting the burden of evidence: they often claim that they are not here to educate skeptics, that skeptics lack the required spiritual background to understand the mystical experiences involved or reject the burden of evidence in other ways. The fact is that they were the ones who put forward the claim, and therefore have the burden of evidence to demonstrate that it is accurate. – Appeals to consequence: this comes in two different kinds: (1) assert that skeptics are playing with forces beyond their understanding and that questioning those powers will only lead to mischief or (2) trying to maintain that the mere act of questioning those beliefs is immoral and contribute to negative consequences (e. g. “why do you want to take away the last hope a parent of a dead child has?” in reference to a psychic reading). – Ad hominem circumstantial: pseudoscientific cranks often dismiss the critical questions posed by skeptics by accusing them of being shills for large corporations or claim that the skeptic is disposed to make certain arguments. VIa Debunking Denialism, and courtesy of my friend, Jerry. debunkingdenialism/2015/01/04/refusing-to-provide-evidence-here-are-some-productive-alternatives/
Posted on: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 22:02:48 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015