Should SCEPCoP Change it's name?

[Eternally Learning]

"Scientific Committee to Evaluate PseudoSkeptical Criticism of the Paranormal"

If you consider yourselves to be true skeptics, then part of that is not pre-judging someone's opinions or ideas based on external and unrelated criteria. How then can your mission be to "Evaluate PseudoSkeptical" criticism alone? In order to consider criticism "pseudoskeptical" you'd need to first evaluate it yes? To not do so, would be to rely on what you consider the status quo of paranormal research and commentary by declaring that you know the value of someone’s opinion before even reading it or being familiar with them.

I don’t really suppose this is some death-blow point I’m making here, but the way your name comes across does not seem to convey the ideals you are purporting to promote. Perhaps you could change it to “Presented,” “Public,” “Presumed,” “Possible,” or something to that effect?

[ProfWag]

[Eternally Learning]

[Arouet]

Scepcop's MO is to start a half-dozen threads with controversial claims. Say how mindblowing they are. Then abandon the thread when critiicism is raised. He stays quiet for a bit,, then starts the cycle over again with another half dozen threads that he will promptly abandon.

[ProfWag]

[Eternally Learning]

Well, I guess I'm an eternal optimist about people, so I suppose I'll just have to see for myself.

I should note, for scepcop's sake, that when I post topics like this, I'm in no way presupposing I'm correct and making rhetorical, supposedly self-evident, questions. When I ask questions, I mean them as questions. I'm completely open to having my opinion changed.

[Scepcop]

Eternally Learning,
I don't really understand your questions. Have you read through the treatise and the fallacies section? Which parts don't you agree with? Your statements are vague. I'm not sure what your point is.

If you propose changing the SCEPCOP acronym, then what name would you suggest? The way it is is very creative and brilliant. And very well liked.

Arouet,
You got it backwards. I present a ton of info and ideas to consider, esp in videos. You address none of them, do not watch the videos, and just rant senselessly with no point other than empty cynicism.

How about this: Let's have a debate on the radio, you vs. me, or ProfWag vs. me, with a neutral host. Or we can just have a phone conversation debate. Then one of us can record it and post it here. Then we will see that it is YOU who are avoiding all the key points and evidence, and dodging my questions. A simple phone debate over skype will show this. The facts, truth and evidence are not on your side, and no matter how many times I demonstrate that, you are in denial. So I give up. I do not waste my time.

[Arouet]

[ProfWag]

I agree with Arouet. I don't believe a skype debate would help solve anything. Much of a skeptic's stance comes from solid sources and referenced data rather than throwing information out there that cannot be immediately verified. Whenever you post something that gets a critical examination, you run away and avoid the issue until something new comes along that you post and then avoid again, and so on. Reference my recent thread entitled a Challenge to Scepcop. Have you commented on it? No. As far as I'm concerned, if you would give me a reason to debate a subject that you have shown you have done your own research on to verify your credibility, I would seriously consider it. However, until then, your posts are uncredible and I only post replies in a dying hope that others will see the fallacies in your arguments.
You have repeatedly sited stories from people whom you believe are credible because they appear "sincere" or "well-spoken," neither of which even begins to speak of actual credibility from a source but I know you would use that argument which would come across incorrectly to a believer.
Let's debate in writing for all to see and be able to verify the sources.

[Eternally Learning]

[ProfWag]

Most excellent points Eternal. I would suggest, if I may, that when Scepcoop ignores your post (and I'm fairly certain he will), that we bump this up from time to time so there are no excuses about him not seeing it.

[Eternally Learning]

[ProfWag]

[ProfWag]

[Eternally Learning]

scepcop,

It's been two weeks now. I know you're busy and all, but if you disagree with me, could you just tell me why?