Yoda v the Skeptics

“Trust your feelings, you must!” YODA

“Do not trust your feelings, trust the doctor or the scientist, for they are the experts, not your feelings, for they are unreliable!” THE SKEPTICS

Sharka Todd

Message to 911 truthers

There are those who attempt to shed light on an issue- and there are those who only wish to disrupt communications.  The disruptors should be treated as trolls and ignored.  When this is done en mass the disruptors will be made ineffective- and clarity will emerge.

Having observed the battles during the mid-2000's between those interested in 911 truth and those who actively oppose it- it is my suggestion to those of good will who support 911 truth that they completely disengage from discussing the topic with opposing (anti-truth) forces. It is energy wasted that could be used constructively.

Anti-truth activists should be treated as trolls, as they mostly are, and ignored, for they are not interested in truth, only in wasting the precious resources of those of good will who seek it and attempting to upset them.

Instead, discuss the topic with those who are interested and have an open-mind and leave the "anti-truthers" to stew in the juices of their own self-loathing.  "Anti-truthers" are unworthy of one's attention and waste precious resources and focus!

Sharka Todd

Skeptics: gatekeepers for materialism

Ahriman, lord of materialism (sculpture by Rudolf Steiner)

Self-proclaimed skeptics are gatekeepers for materialism, the view that physical matter is the only substance in existence and that humans and other living beings are solely made of such matter. Their job is to go out and try to destroy or discredit any viewpoint or practice that challenges this materialist mindset.  They are anti-God’s henchmen, so to speak.  If materialism was Nazism, then "skeptics" would be its' SS.

Skeptics don’t truly care about truth but rather about maintaining the materialist status quo which currently holds sway in much of the world and is favored by those who seek to destroy notions of the spiritual worth of all things.  After all, it’s easier to justify exploiting the Earth and its people when they are just seen as soulless pieces of matter.

A more holistic spiritual view, as held by the native people of the world, who are not removed from the natural world like western man, would make this exploitation seem so ugly and destructive that it would be hard to justify and carry on.  As a result “spirit” is discredited by the very forces that would lose from its general acceptance and so-called skeptics are their attack dogs, the views of which they widely promote.

Broadly speaking, it’s an attempt to destroy the spiritual perspective in human life and they’re doing their best to achieve it!

Originally published as a comment here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_P7G4kcWQBM

See also:  James Randi and anti-spiritualism, Efforts to destroy the spiritual perspective, and Pseudoskeptics vs True Skeptics.

Sharka Todd

Skepticz magazine- objectivity edition

Image edit by Sharka Todd

Are pseudoskeptics harming science's reputation?

Source: Wikipedia- Pseudoskepticism

Psychiatrist Richard Kluft noted that pseudoskepticism can inhibit research progress:

".. today genuine skepticism of the benign sort that looks evenly in all directions and encourages the advancement of knowledge seems vanishingly rare. Instead, we find a prevalence of pseudo-skepticism consisting of harsh and invidious skepticism toward one's opponents' points of view and observations, and egregious self-congratulatory confirmatory bias toward one's own stances and findings misrepresented as the earnest and dispassionate pursuit of clinical, scholarly, and scientific truth."

David Leiter, a member of the Society for Scientific Exploration, uses the terms 'pseudo-skepticism' and 'pathological skepticism' to refer to the "organized skepticism" he found in one group he had encountered. 

Leiter claimed that many of its members had an "unfortunate experience with a faith-based philosophy" at an earlier period in their lives, and that they had sought an organized skeptical group as a reaction to this. "  Instead of becoming scientifically minded, they become adherents of scientism, the belief system in which science and only science has all the answers to everything" and that even many of these members are unwilling to spend the time to "read significantly into the literature on the subjects about which they are most skeptical". He goes on to characterize members of skeptical organizations as "scientifically inclined, but psychologically scarred."

Susan Blackmore, who lost her initial belief in parapsychology and in 1991 became a CSICOP fellow, later described what she termed the "worst kind of pseudoskepticism":

"There are some members of the skeptics’ groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves (heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion."

Truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:

1. Denying, when only doubt has been established
2. Double standards in the application of criticism
3. The tendency to discredit rather than investigate
4. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
5. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
6. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
7. Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
8. Suggesting that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for completely dismissing a claim

The strange world of “skeptics”

When you already know all the answers what's left to talk about?

If you point out to a self-proclaimed "skeptic" that science is unable to answer all the questions that intrigue man and that the only way to answer some questions is to step outside the scientific domain you may be met with great hostility.  Their attachment to the scientific method is fanatical in its passion and zeal and hard for an outsider to fathom.

Because science has proven so successful in helping us understand certain universal mechanisms many people mistakenly conclude that it is able to answer all of our questions.  The questions it is unable to answer are then seen as nonsense or irrelevant.  But to adhere to this perspective (scientism) means that many of the most interesting and essential elements of human life are placed off limits for contemplation and debate.  I believe this limits us as human beings.

Related to this is the notion that there are no valid types of evidence for any given phenomenon outside those gained by the scientific method.  All other ways of gathering information are not just seen as fallible but are seen as completely worthless.  As a result you have one of the high priests of scientism, Richard Dawkins, saying his own personal experiences are completely irrelevant in terms of his understanding of truth.  For him, only things that other high priests of science have agreed upon have any reality, apparently.  I find this strange, to say the least!

Another strange element of the “skeptic” mindset is that if you question the all-seeing, all-knowing ability of science and claim that there are other types of evidence that can be used to understand the world they start to think you are advocating for a belief in every hypothesis and belief mankind has ever held under the sun.  They think you are advocating for flat Earth theory, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy and so on.  It is as if, somehow, if we realize science is limited in its ability to describe and explain human experience then we must also lose our rational sense as well.  Of course, this idea makes no sense and it shows just how much skeptics are dominated by emotion rather than by logic. 

Like other fundamentalist religions, scientism is an emotion driven belief system which just happens to place establishment science as its arbiter of truth, where other religions may place a holy book, or more accurately, the interpretation of that holy book given by its priests.  For “skeptics” their priests are the public figures of establishment science, who can do and say no wrong.  And if they do suddenly disagree with a key pillar of scientific dogma then they are excommunicated, seen as heretics, and called pseudo-scientists, a title held for those who fundamentally disagree with prevailing scientific dogma.

Sharka Todd

Skeptics help promote woo

All publicity is good publicity

There is a battle going on in cyberspace between "believers" and "skeptics" over who has the inside running on truth.  Both sides are convinced they are right and can get quite indignant if someone disagrees with them and questions the validity of their arguments.

Quite a number of believers (not to be confused with Beliebers) are upset because they feel they are being attacked and misrepresented by the skeptics.  So what?  All publicity is good publicity.  If anyone is talking about you and your ideas, even if they are trash talking, this helps generate traffic.  And if you are selling something this can only help generate sales.  Richard Dawkins actually gives lectures on this very topic!

So to the believers I say: welcome the skeptics- at least they care enough to pay attention to what you are saying and by commenting on it they are helping to promote it!  After all, who communicates publicly, but wants their views ignored?

Sharka Todd

Yes, I am a proponent of "woo"!

Exactly.  Woo.  That is: anything not included in the small basket called "establishment science".

My own undeniable experience went way beyond the confines of materialism many years ago so I had to adopt a broader view. This mirrors what happened to physics when the quantum revolution happened.  Some scientists changed their worldview to reflect the revolution, while most clung to the old, now discredited, materialistic paradigm.

It's all about explanatory power.  We create a worldview able to hold everything we have experienced and believe to be true, and for me materialism doesn't even come close!  As a result I live in the land of "woo".  And let me tell you- "woo" is where it's at, man!

Sharka Todd

SKEPTICS in name only!

Matrix Reloaded (film)

The true skeptic admits they don't have all the answers. If they haven't directly experienced something for themselves they make no claim about it. The true skeptic has an open mind and is open to all possibilities.

The false skeptic thinks they already know the answers, even in areas where they have little or no direct experience. They use a distorted view of science to back them up, even though science is in a continual state of revision and can only answer questions in a limited field. These people are not true skeptics, they are naysayer's. They have little interest in discovering truth but instead wish to stir up trouble among others who believe outside the materialist framework.

Sharka Todd

An argument in support of Homeopathy

Homeopathy has come under fire in recent times from people who call themselves “skeptics”. They claim that the methods used to create homeopathic medicines could not possibly result in an active ingredient being present in the medicines and therefore such medicines are worthless. It is claimed homeopathic medicines are no better than placebos.

Even if the preceding is true, there would still be value in homeopathic medicines. The reason for this is that homeopathics harness the power of belief (which gives rise to the placebo effect) in people who have faith in the efficiency of the medicine. In those with no such faith we would expect no effect, if the claims of the skeptics are true. Such people would not be drawn to homeopathic remedies. If it is believed homeopathic medicines will give the desired result with no negative side effects, then those who are able to harness the power of belief to heal their own body will receive a good result.

A response to James Randi's call to ban psychics

 Watch a video of James Randi expressing his desire to outlaw the promotion of supernatural beliefs here.

Well known "skeptic" James Randi believes supernatural ideas are promoted by the media to please sponsors. But he fails to mention that the sponsors like having people watch their ads and that TV and radio are programmed to draw an audience to increase advertising revenue. In other words, psychic matters are discussed because people are interested in them and it therefore draws an audience with the resulting advertising revenue. This is democracy in action in the marketplace.

What Randi seems to be suggesting is some kind of elitist or totalitarian approach to remove from the media those things that a select "knowledgeable" few believes promotes untruths or "pseudoscience". But who gets to choose what is banned and what would this mean for a supposedly "free" society?

Randi seems unable to realize what he is promoting. He is certainly un-American in his thinking. Instead, he is more aligned with the Communist Chinese Government who seek to control what the public has access to, to protect the government's interests. Why any free society would wish to move closer to such a repressive regime remains unclear and highlights the shallowness of thought entertained by James Randi.

Sharka Todd