Skeptico NOT Skeptiko

Please note that this blog is Skeptico and NOT the similar sounding Skeptiko. The latter, which seems to concentrate mostly on Podcasts, appears to present mostly a woo-ish version of research into psi, while pretending to wear the mantle of science and skepticism. As an example of what I mean, this is part of Skeptiko’s agenda:

Explore the possibility that the existing materialistic paradigm might be overturned (and may already be at a tipping point).

Standard woo. And complete drivel.  (Also, see The Woo Handbook #17.)

Apparently Dean Radin likes Skeptiko. For information on Radin, read Claus Larsen’s article on Radin’s presentation of the flawed Global Consciousness Project, and form your own views on Radin and Skeptiko's agenda.

Read Skeptiko if you want. Just don’t confuse him with me.

Back to main page

Comments

[Chad]

I thin you've given Skeptiko a bad wrap ther- it also has some podcasts with the likes of James Randi, Richard Wiseman and Michael Shermer

Judging from what I have seen of this site (skeptiko, not this one) thus far, it tries to be impartial and open-minded, which is to be applauded. I suppose that whether they actually succeed in this is open to interpretation, but they DO try to present a balanced view to any and all of the issues they present. They also make the important point, which is often overlooked by many, that there is a difference between being sceptical (and therefore open-minded) about a claim being made, and actively attempting to debunk that very claim, whilst calling anyone who disagrees with their own interpretation of events a 'woo'.
The fact that they may have an agenda hardly discredits their arguments. Doesn't this site also have an agenda? Each claim made should be judged on it's own merits, on whether or not the claim being made makes any sense and has evidence in its favour, and not upon the motives of the one(s) making the claim.
They also don't lower themselves by resorting to insulting those with whom they may disagree, which is more than can be said for this site.

[Q]

I don't know what can be said about the other site, but the regulars of this one are very much justified in their criticisms of woo and the proponents of such, giving verbose and well detailed arguments which are thoroughly researched and in most cases linked to. How they present their arguments is a non-issue, as those who push their view in a polite, yet vacuous and flowery fashion often have no basis to ground their own views. You seem to mistake open-mindedness with the accepting of anything without merit.

Yes Q, you are quite right in what you say, it's just that name-calling to me seems both rude - maybe I'm just too old-fashioned - and used by many, on sites that I have come across, as an attempt to distract and/or discredit (via character assassination) their opponent(s). Ex. calling Deepak Chopra a misguided and dishonest crook and charlatan. Not that he isn't one, but the point of the argument should be to attack his beliefs, not him.

[Jimmy_Blue]

Ex. calling Deepak Chopra a misguided and dishonest crook and charlatan. Not that he isn't one, but the point of the argument should be to attack his beliefs, not him.

But if he is one, why should he not be called one?

[Tom Foss]

and used by many, on sites that I have come across, as an attempt to distract and/or discredit (via character assassination) their opponent(s). Ex. calling Deepak Chopra a misguided and dishonest crook and charlatan. Not that he isn't one, but the point of the argument should be to attack his beliefs, not him.

What you're talking about is an ad hominem attack, where you attack the person instead of the arguments and claims made by said person. I defy you to find Skeptico or any of the regular posters here engaging in ad hominem attacks.

What we do is not attack the person in lieu of their arguments, but along with their arguments. It would be fallacious to say "you're wrong because you're an asshat." It is, however, perfectly valid to say "you're wrong because of X, Y, and Z. Also, you're an asshat."

Rude? Maybe. I subscribe to the "call a spade a spade" school of thought; if someone is a liar, a charlatan, and a thief, then they should be called as such. It is not, in my opinion, rude to tell the truth.

I do, however, feel that it is the height of rudeness to lie, cheat, and swindle innocent people out of their money, to spread disinformation and anti-intellectualism, and to do the various other sorts of things that the illustrious Deepak Chopra has built his life on. It is opinion and judgment to call someone vile and deplorable for believing or doing vile and deplorable things, and I (and anyone else here) would recognize it as such. That doesn't mean there isn't room in argument for statements of opinion and judgment, so long as they aren't the substance of the argument.

[Tom Foss]

Whoops, that italics tag was supposed to close after "arguments"

[Bronze Dog]

Looks like a comment of mine didn't make it up. Skeptics calling woos for what they are without apology was one of the things that motivated me to speak up. Before, I'd just call woos silly and move on. After reading a lot of skeptical threads, the Skeptic's Dictionary, and Randi's weekly commentary it really sunk in how bad these people are, and why I needed to contribute.