|Login||Logout||Register||Contact the Webmaster||PayPal Me|
Hardcore skeptical groups such as CSICOP, the James Randi foundation, the Skeptics’ Society, and others have really gotten under the skin of the pseudo-scientists. The basic premise of skepticism is simply this: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. When the pseudo-scientific wackos fail to provide this proof, they resort to claims of “persecution” by skeptics, along with a lot of loud blathering that skeptics have a fixed point of view and absolutely will not waver from this point of view, simply to protect their own egos. This, in turn, has led to sites like this one.
“Skeptical Investigations” is a purported hard look at “the skeptics,” and it attempts to make us doubtful of the claims of James Randi (especially Randi!) and his fellow skeptics. How so? Why, through the usual methods of pseudo-scientists: rather than defending their methods, they use personal attacks and niggling details to "prove" that JREF and other skeptical organizations are untrustworthy. There's a lot of political infighting, debate, and outright arguments among the members of the skeptical community – and there's no surprise about that, because every group has its own politics and back-stabbing – and these guys are gleefully compiling it all to show us that Michael Shermer, Randi, and other skeptics are human and capable of mistakes (or rather, "have their own agendas" ) . Therefore, we should not trust them!
These guys point excitedly at Randi and declare he will "soon" have to pay his million-dollar prize, because he is allegedly refusing to admit to being wrong. And, of course, they show us the fields of "science" that are worthy of a second look, even though the so-called "skeptics" have debunked these fields time and time again: "Psi" research, UFOs, free energy, and all the usual gobbledy-gook.
Perhaps the skeptics would leave themselves less open to criticism if they adopted the open-minded "multiple working hypotheses" stance of that great scientist Carl Sagan, whom they often misquote, but whose fair-minded devotion to true science can be seen in this article from NOVA: