[x] Close ad

PATHOLOGICAL SKEPTICISM

Zetetic Scholar journal Vol 12/13 founded by Marcello Truzzi in which he coined the term Pseudoskepticism in the mid 1980s
Zetetic Scholar journal Vol 12/13 founded by Marcello Truzzi in which he coined the term Pseudoskepticism in the mid 1980s

Pathological skepticism refers to the excessive use of skepticism to the detriment of that person and/or their relationships. On Pseudoskepticism sociologist and skeptic Marcello Truzzi said in 1987

Since "skepticism" properly refers to doubt rather than denial--nonbelief rather than belief--critics who take the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves "skeptics" are actually pseudo-skeptics[1]

The term pathological skepticism was used by Dr Ed Storms at the Third International Conference on the Cold Fusion (ICCF3), held in Nagoya, Japan in October 1992.[2]

Pathological skepticism is not a recognized disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

Contents

Characteristics of Pseudoskepticism

The late professor of sociology, Marcello Truzzi, identified the following characteristics of Pseudoskepticism:

  • The tendency to deny, rather than doubt,[3]
  • Double standards in the application of criticism, [4]
  • The making of judgements without full inquiry,[5]
  • Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate,[6]
  • Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks,[7]
  • Presenting insufficient evidence or proof, [8]
  • Pejorative labelling of proponents as "promoters", "pseudoscientists" or practitioners of "pathological science." [9]
  • Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof, [10]
  • Making unsubstantiated counter-claims,[11]
  • Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence,[12]
  • Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it,[13]
  • Tendency to dismiss all evidence, [14]

History

The terms Pathological skepticism and Pseudoskepticism may have been coined by Marcello Truzzi (sociology professor at Eastern Michigan University) in the early 1990s in response to the skeptic groups who applied the label of "Pathological Science" to fields which Truzzi thought might be better described as protoscience.

Notes and references

  1. ^ "Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism" Zetetic Scholar (1987) No. 12/13, 3-4.
  2. ^ Scott R. Chubb, "Introduction to the Special Series of Papers in Accountability in Research Dealing With “Cold Fusion”" (PDF, 2000) Accountability in Research, 2000. 8
  3. ^ "Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism" Zetetic Scholar (1987) No. 12/13, 3-4. "Though many in this category who dismiss and ridicule anomaly claims call themselves "skeptics," they often are really "pseudo-skeptics" because they deny rather than doubt anomaly claims"
  4. ^ Truzzi, ibid, ".. they seem less inclined to take the same critical stance towards orthodox theories. For example, they may attack alternative methods in medicine (e.g., for a lack of double-blind studies) while ignoring that similar criticisms can be levelled against much conventional medicine"
  5. ^ Truzzi, ibid, "those I term scoffers often make judgements without full inquiry"
  6. ^ Hyman, Ray, 1980. "Pathological Science: Towards a Proper Diagnosis and Remedy," Zetetic Scholar, No. 6, 31-43. Truzzi wrote: ".. they may be more interested in discrediting an anomaly claim than in dispassionately investigating it"
  7. ^ Truzzi, ibid, "scoffers sometimes manage to discredit anomaly claims (e.g., through ridicule or ad hominem attacks) "
  8. ^ Truzzi, ibid, "scoffers sometimes manage to discredit anomaly claims .. without presenting any solid disproof
  9. ^ Truzzi, ibid, "A characteristic of many scoffers is their pejorative characterization of proponents as "promoters" and sometimes even the most protoscientific anomaly claimants are labelled as "pseudoscientists" or practitioners of "pathological science." "
  10. ^ Marcello Truzzi, "On Pseudo-Skepticism]", Zetetic Scholar, #12-13, 1987. "Critics who assert negative claims, but who mistakenly call themselves "skeptics," often act as though they have no burden of proof placed on them at all, though such a stance would be appropriate only for the agnostic or true skeptic"
  11. ^ Truzzi, ibid, ".. the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis — saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact — he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof."
  12. ^ Truzzi, ibid, ".. many critics seem to feel it is only necessary to present a case for their counter-claims based upon plausibility rather than empirical evidence"
  13. ^ Truzzi, ibid, "Showing evidence is unconvincing is not grounds for completely dismissing it."
  14. ^ Truzzi, ibid, "Some proponents of anomaly claims, like some critics, seen unwilling to consider evidence in probabilistic terms, clinging to any slim loose end as though the critic must disprove all evidence ever put forward for a particular claim."

See also

External links and resources