If I don't get banned after this, well, at least I tried...

Here's the challenge: Please check from the following list, all those characteristics that apply to you. Try to be objective, for a change.

Characteristics of pseudoskeptics (from Wikipedia)

According to Truzzi, pseudoskeptics show the following characteristics:

* The tendency to deny, rather than doubt,[2]
* Double standards in the application of criticism, [3]
* The making of judgements without full inquiry,[4]
* Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate,[5]
* Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks,[6]
* Presenting insufficient evidence or proof, [7]
* Pejorative labelling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.' [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]
* Tendency to dismiss all evidence, [13]

1. I tend to doubt things, if they're is little evidence, or deny if there is no evidence.

2. Don't quite understand no 3.

3. It's automatic to judge things, I think the point is to reserver FINAL judgment till the end of inquiry.

4. If the investigation ends in something being discredited, then it is discredited.
5. I try very hard not to.

6. I think that is occasionally unavoidable. But if possible I won't provide too little evidence.

7. Depends how much evidence the other claim has, for instance, Xianity has some anecdotal evidence and a fictional text. Evolution has fossil evidence, and is observable today. Therefore evolution would win that debate if based on evidence alone.

8.Unsure of meaning

9. If I criticize I have reason and argument behind it.

10.Acting on impulse in any given debate or discussion is a bad idea.

11. If something is more plausible than something else, and both have no evidence, then we side with the more plausible, but do not completely ignore the implausible.

12. Unconvincing evidence is grounds for making it secondary to a claim WITH convincing evidence (this depends upon the definition of 'convincing').

12.That defies the point of arguing at all.

Finally.
Who is Truzzi to tell us what a pseudo-skeptic is?

Hey XTimmy,

I think [3] (double-standars) refers to not having the same criterea in evaluating for or against arguments (eg: requiring all sorts of arguments to prove psi phenomenae, but failing to produce arguments against, like assuming that the skeptic argument is by definition more correct, so it doesn't have to be argued)

As for "Who is Truzzi to tell us what a pseudo-skeptic is?", I think he is a real-skeptic You can find more information at the wikipedia link, if your question was not rethorical.

And congratulations for a sane and objective self-analysis.

BTW: I've been willing to ask you, what's the thing with your eyes (may I have some of that, too? ) and what is that over-active brat doing in your sig? He makes my head spin...

This post was last modified: 01-20-2007 02:54 AM by Pedro Batista.

If I don't get banned after this, well, at least I tried...

Nah, you're still a beginner compared to the only guy who was banned so far.

I won't say "keep trying", though, as you might take me seriously.

BTW, are you Portuguese, too?

Pedro Batista Wrote:

If I don't get banned after this, well, at least I tried...

Nah, you're still a beginner compared to the only guy who was banned so far.

hehehe
I don't read the bible, maybe that's why I'm not so possessed by EVIL

now seriously, first off, let me apologise for spoiling you the fact of being the only Pedro on this forum

yep (zona do porto)

btw, dig your work!!! ("met" you a few days ago, but already!)
and I hope we can have some conversations, cause you seem to have a span of interests pretty close to mine
gotta go now, but “aquele abraço” and keep up the good work!

Final thought: (can’t give it a rest, can I?)
The tendency to deny, rather than doubt,

That’s exactly what scepticism is about. It is not to say that something does not exist, it is to be doubtful that it exists! Don’t you see? Denying something is the same as having faith that it is false!