Pseudoskeptismi

Pseudoskeptismi on nimitys asenteelle, joka on vain näennäisesti skeptistä. Filosofian professori Frederick L. Will käytti ensimmäisen kerran termiä pseudoskeptismi vuonna 1942. Termin teki tunnetuksi Itä-Michiganin yliopiston sosiologian professori, entinen skeptikko Marcello Truzzi vuonna 1987 vastatessaan skeptikkoryhmille, jotka kutsuivat näennäistieteeksi aloja, joita Truzzi mieluummin nimitti esitieteeksi. Truzzi kirjoitti vuonna 1987:

»Koska skeptismi oikeastaan viittaa epäilyyn ennemmin kuin kieltämiseen – epäuskoon ennemmin kuin uskoon –, ovat kriitikot, jotka kernaammin ottavat kielteisen kuin epäileväisen kannan ja silti nimittävät itseään skeptikoiksi, oikeastaan pseudoskeptikoita.^[1]»

Pseudoskeptismin tunnusmerkkejä

Truzzi on määritellyt muun muassa seuraavat pseudoskeptisyyden tunnusmerkit:

Kielletään mieluummin kuin epäillään.^[2]
Valikoiva kriittisyys.^[3]
Tuomitaan ilman kattavaa tutkimusta.^[4]
Mieluummin mustataan maine kuin tutkitaan.^[5]
Pilkataan ja hyökätään henkilöä vastaan.^[6]
Oletetaan, että todistustaakka ei kuulu arvostelijalle.^[7]
Vastaväitteet perustuvat enemmänkin uskottavuuteen kuin empiiriseen todistusaineistoon.^[8]
Vastapuoli luokitellaan halventavasti "edistäjiksi", "pseudotieteilijöiksi" ja "patologisen tieteen harjoittajiksi".^[9]
Esitetään vahvistamattomia vastaväitteitä.^[10]

Pseudoskeptismi denialismin synonyyminä

Jotkut määrittelevät pseudoskeptismin läheiseksi käsitteeksi denialismille. Siinä tieteellisesti vakuuttavasti perusteltua käsitystä vastaan hyökätään näennäisen skeptisillä mutta puolueellisesti vain oman näkökulman tueksi valikoiduilla argumenteilla, jotka ovat usein heikkotasoisia.^[11] Esimerkkejä tällaiseksi pseudoskeptismiksi väitetystä ovat muun muassa:

Holokaustin kiistäminen^[12]^[11]
HI-viruksen kiistäminen AIDSin syyksi.^[13]^[11]
Ilmastonmuutoksen kiistäminen.^[14]
Tupakoinnin terveyshaittojen kiistäminen^[11]
Evoluution kiistäminen

Lähteet

"Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism." Zetetic Scholar (1987) No. 12/13.

Viitteet

↑ Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticisms, s. 3–4.
↑ Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticisms, s. 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"
↑ Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticisms, s. 3–4, "[...] 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"
↑ Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticisms, s. 3–4, "those I term scoffers often make judgements without full inquiry"
↑ Hyman, Ray, 1980. "Pathological Science: Towards a Proper Diagnosis and Remedy," Zetetic Scholar, No. 6, 31-43. Truzzi kirjoittaa: "[...] they may be more interested in discrediting an anomaly claim than in dispassionately investigating it"
↑ Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticisms, s. 3–4, "scoffers sometimes manage to discredit anomaly claims (e.g., through ridicule or ad hominem attacks) "
↑ Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticisms. "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"
↑ Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticisms, s. 3–4 "[...] many critics seem to feel it is only necessary to present a case for their counter-claims based upon plausibility rather than empirical evidence"
↑ Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticisms. s. 3-4, "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.'"
↑ Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticisms, s. 3–4, "[...] 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."
↑ ^a ^b ^c ^d Wilson, Richard: Against the evidence New Statesman. Viitattu 21.12.2012.
↑ http://www.skepdic.com/holocaustdenial.html
↑ http://www.skepdic.com/aidsdenial.html
↑ http://www.skepdic.com/climatedeniers.html

Aiheesta muualla

Truzzi, Marcello, On Some Unfair Practices towards Claims of the Paranormal. Oxymoron, 1998
Drasin, Daniel, Zen and the Art of Debunkery. Aol.com, 1997.
Milton, Richard, Scientific skepticism.
Mooney, Chris, Abuses of Skepticism : Doubting is a powerful tool, but it can definitely be taken too far. CSICOP, December, 2003.
Haack, Susan, "Science, Scientism, and Anti-Science in the Age of Preposterism". CSICOP, December 1997.
Sofka, Michael D., Myths of Skepticism. ISUNY, March, 2002.
Beaty, William J., Symptoms of Pathological Sketicism. 1996.
Hyman, Ray, Proper Criticism. (Csicop.org)
Martin, Brian, Strategies for dissenting scientists. Society for Scientific Exploration. Journal of Scientific Exploration, Volume 12, No 4. 1998. (PDF)
Baez, John, The crackpot index : Method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics..
Kruger, Justin, and David Dunning, Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments. Department of Psychology, Cornell University.
Wilson, Robert Anton, interview in which he discusses CSICOP and pseudoskeptism, what he calls "irrational rationalists" and "fundamentalist materialism"
Skepdic article on pseudo-skeptics, discussing the fallacious labeling of skeptics as "pseudo-skeptics".
Sarma, Amardeo, Misguided Stigmatization of "Organized Skepticism"

[1] Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticisms, s. 3–4.

[2] Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticisms, s. 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"

[3] Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticisms, s. 3–4, "[...] 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"

[4] Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticisms, s. 3–4, "those I term scoffers often make judgements without full inquiry"

[5] Hyman, Ray, 1980. "Pathological Science: Towards a Proper Diagnosis and Remedy," Zetetic Scholar, No. 6, 31-43. Truzzi kirjoittaa: "[...] they may be more interested in discrediting an anomaly claim than in dispassionately investigating it"

[6] Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticisms, s. 3–4, "scoffers sometimes manage to discredit anomaly claims (e.g., through ridicule or ad hominem attacks) "

[7] Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticisms. "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"

[8] Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticisms, s. 3–4 "[...] many critics seem to feel it is only necessary to present a case for their counter-claims based upon plausibility rather than empirical evidence"

[9] Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticisms. s. 3-4, "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] Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticisms, s. 3–4, "[...] 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."

[wilson-11] Wilson, Richard: Against the evidence New Statesman. Viitattu 21.12.2012.

[12] ttp://www.skepdic.com/holocaustdenial.html

[13] ttp://www.skepdic.com/aidsdenial.html

[14] ttp://www.skepdic.com/climatedeniers.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]