Does everyone on here agree that healthy skepticism is good?

[Maddogkull]

Does everyone on here agree that healthy skepticism is good? E.G Believing in a talking plant needs skeptics and people to debunk that of course a plant can’t talk, or else we would still be worshipping rocks in the stone age, or thinking every noise we hear is a ghost. Does everyone agree with me that healthy skepticism is needed to progress in this world? I am not talking about skeptics like Randi who of course try to do everything in their power to make their views seem right. I am just talking about healthy skepticism. Does everyone agree on here that we need this? I am just wondering because some people on here are 100% against any kind of skepticism, and that just seems weird in a way. I am not trying to be offensive, and if I am I apologize, but seriously don’t we all agree we need some skepticism in this world?

[NinjaPuppy]

You are most certainly NOT being offensive. It's a great topic.

I believe that the word skeptic is sometimes defined or lumped into the same category as cynic. Heck, some skeptics are just plain ballbusters, with present company on this forum excluded from that comment. I obviously must be more skeptical than some as I do tend to question or at least look for alternate reasons for some paranormal examples.

[Craig Browning]

Maddogkull, you need to understand that there is a huge difference between being a "Skeptic" vs. a "Debunker"... the latter of the two tends to be an ass hole with a born-again attitude that would made Pat Robertson look timid.

Yes, healthy skepticism is important BUT, an outrageous number of folks now days go well outside the parameters of anything remotely healthy let alone "skeptical"... they have become pure Cynics that want everything cut & dry, black & white and in the exact niche boxes they personally ascribe to bar none!

The element has a cult-mind mentality in which they parrot what St. Randi & Company have told them to say in every given case where the phenomenal may be presented. They do not (such as science would do) leave room for possible "unknown" influences or variables or even the possibility that they really don't know it all.

True, genuine, honest skeptics aren't dogmatic in their views even though they will take most of what they encounter that seem fantastic, with a small Ukrainian Salt Mine.

[ProfWag]

No! I don't agree with your statement that healthy skepticism is good. I think we all should believe everything we see and read withoout question! Okay, just kidding. I think people who've seen me know my feelings to that question.

[really?]

[NinjaPuppy]

I'd like clarification on the subject matter please. Are we talking about the JREF or the JREF Forums? The two are completely different as the Forums are open to every type of person on the face of the earth to post their personal opinions. Those opinions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Management.

Every open forum has it's collection of characters. Some are more outspoken than others but their words and attitudes are their own.

[really?]

[NinjaPuppy]

Mia Culpa. I came off of the topic started by Highflyertoo in the JREF topic and posted this here by mistake.

[Craig Browning]

[wjbeaty]

Is skepticism good? Well, from the way skepticism is discussed on this forum, it sounds like skepticism=evil, and healthy skepticism can never exist. The website after all isn't "debunkingskeptopaths.com," or "debunkingscoffers.com." Skepticism is our oft-stated target: skeptics double standards, skeptics ignoring evidence, why I'm not a skeptic, Skeptic magazine. Over and over we say we hold Randi and JREF in low esteem because they're "skeptics," not because they're pseudoskeptics.

But perhaps that's not what SCEPCOP members intend? Well, it's certainly difficult to tell, from the words we actually use. Look at the titles of articles here. And any newcomers will see us constantly using the term "skeptic" to mean "scoffer;" we object to "skepticism" or "skeptical" behavior, and only part of the time does anyone go back to clarify that we actually meant to say "pseudoskeptic" rather than skeptic.

Here's one solution: make a personal decision to stop using the word "skeptic." It's corrupted. It's always misleading and nearly always misused. So simply remove it from your personal vocabulary. This forces us to replace it with clear terms which say what we really intended to say all along.

.

[Craig Browning]

[jakesteele]

Skeptic: one who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons. the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics

Debunker – one who holds an a priori belief that it does not exist, therefore, it is just a matter of finding a way to explain it away.
Debunkers cloak denialism in the language of skepticism and critical thinking. They start with a conclusion and look for evidence to support what they already believe.

Healthy skepticism is a very important tool to have. It allows you to cut through the bullshit and get down to a base line reading. Every one's heard of the saying, "If it's too good to be true, it probably is." You should be skeptical of things like that; get rich and instant enlightenment schemes in particular.

I employ much skepticism when it comes to all of the areas that fall into the category that a debunker would call woo. I have found that most of it is crapola and sometimes you just have to wade through all of that bullshit and get down to the few that defy explanation. I believe Occam's Razor is an extremely valuable tool but one has to keep in mind Occam's Beard (the simplest solution isn't always the best).

[NucleicAcid]

Depending on the setting, I sometimes use the title psychic and skeptic. That one really makes people give you funny looks. Then I explain to them that I practice psi, and I enjoy exposing people who are deliberate frauds, because they give the industry a bad name.

[Craig Browning]

[NucleicAcid]

Hahaha see I have less of a problem with anyone in the entertainment industry, it's their job to entertain, and if they can throw some solid intuition into the mix, all the better. What pisses me off is people who deliberately do fake things and pass it off as real, like youtube videos of telekinesis. At least I'll claim that while there is a chance it could be naturalistic causes, I'm not deliberately faking it.

It's funny/sad. You get these people who have relatively obvious fakes, and you get 13 year olds commenting "OMG UR A MASTER TEACH ME HOW YOU DO IT" and it's just like uggghhhhh idiots...both of them.