Szkeptikus Fórum

Scientific skepticism

Main article: Scientific skepticism
A scientific (or empirical) skeptic is one who questions beliefs on the basis of scientific understanding. Most scientists, being scientific skeptics, test the reliability of certain kinds of claims by subjecting them to a systematic investigation using some form of the scientific method.[10] As a result, a number of claims are considered "pseudoscience" if they are found to improperly apply or ignore the fundamental aspects of the scientific method. Scientific skepticism may discard beliefs pertaining to things outside perceivable observation and thus outside the realm of systematic, empirical falsifiability/testability.

Pseudoskepticism
Richard Cameron Wilson, in an article in New Statesman, wrote that some advocates of discredited intellectual positions such as AIDS denial and Holocaust denial engage in pseudoskeptical behavior when they characterize themselves as "skeptics" despite cherry picking evidence that conforms to a pre-existing belief.[18] According to Wilson, who highlights the phenomenon in his book Don't Get Fooled Again (2008), the characteristic feature of false skepticism is that it "centres not on an impartial search for the truth, but on the defence of a preconceived ideological position".[19]
Scientific skepticism is itself sometimes criticized on this ground. The term pseudoskepticism has found occasional use in controversial fields where opposition from scientific skeptics is strong. For example, in 1994, Susan Blackmore, a parapsychologist who became more skeptical and eventually became a CSICOP fellow in 1991, described what she termed the "worst kind of pseudoskepticism":
"There are some members of the skeptics’ groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves (heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion..."[20]
Commenting on the labels "dogmatic" and "pathological" that the "Association for Skeptical Investigation"[21] puts on critics of paranormal investigations, Robert Todd Carroll of the Skeptic's Dictionary[22] argues that that association "is a group of pseudo-skeptical paranormal investigators and supporters who do not appreciate criticism of paranormal studies by truly genuine skeptics and critical thinkers. The only skepticism this group promotes is skepticism of critics and [their] criticisms of paranormal studies."[23]

Valódi szkeptikus: hall egy állítást, azt összeveti a fejében lévő ismereteivel, és ha nincs egyezés, de az állítás nem nyilvánvalóan abszurd, akkor...

Én inkább "bolondként" körbefutom a házat, ha valaki azt állítja, hogy a túloldalának színe gyógyhatású, maximum csak a futás gyógyhatását élvezem így ki, s visszaérve meggyőző bizonyítékokat tálalok arról, hogy az állítása hamis volt, hiszen ugyanolyan színű minden oldal.

Ránézésre hogyan mondod meg, hogy gyógyhatású e, vagy sem?

Ha ránézésre gyógyít, akkor pont ránézéssel lehet ezt kivizsgálni.

Reagálok is rá, csak előbb András véleményére is kíváncsi vagyok.

Utána, tehát miatta?