irrational skepticism

Irrational Skeptics are a lot like Rational Skeptics, but they are spiritually similar to con artists, hype traders, scammers, and scammers. The dangers of the latter are well established, the dangers of the former not so much, but they can also have serious consequences for those who are genuinely and unequivocally interested in the search for the truth.

Rational skeptics are conservative by nature, requiring substantive proof that something works before accepting it. But, they have no agenda. They will be patient in examining something before dismissing it. If a method passes rigorous scrutiny, it will be taken into account and incorporated into the broad body of accepted conventional knowledge. They are the heroes of science and discovery.

By contrast, proving something to an irrational skeptic is nearly impossible. They use a series of tricks that are essentially hostile to critical analysis. In particular, they often comment on matters in which they have no practical experience. The motivation of the irrational skeptic is ego gratification rather than the search for truth (see point 4).

These are some of the main tricks that you should be aware of. I admit I don’t know all of them, I only know a couple hundred.

1) I think method A is absurd. Therefore it is absurd. So I don’t need to review it.

2) The defender of method A promotes a method that I think is absurd, therefore he is absurd. Because the promoter of method A is absurd, his method must be absurd. (Circular Blur Logic)

3) I don’t need to get practical experience of the circumstances in which method A can be used, because method A is absurd.

4) We shouldn’t entertain the possibility that method A actually works, because it may hurt the naive (Of course, irrational skeptics actually preach almost exclusively to converts, to buy easy credibility. You’ll never find an irrational skeptic trying to talk a little). (What’s the point? Who among the intellectual elite would know?)

5) If method A is proven to be non-absurd, to the extent that I no longer claim otherwise without losing credibility (the Achilles heel among irrational skeptics), then I will say:

a) The method is impracticable in most practical circumstances.

I

b) The method is difficult for a common person to exploit.

I

c) The gain or potential benefit is small for the effort expended.

Note: the above can be applied to almost anything. Strong arguments can be made to say that bc applies to many methods that are scientifically valid, eg. Because the ac definitions are conveniently vague, the irrational skeptic may imply that the practical value of method A is close to zero, whatever its actual value. It is impossible for there to be an advantage play method that does not meet one of these criteria, as it would be corrected by the market if one of these factors did not apply.

6) Generally speaking, I will misquote method A proponent because I have not vetted his sources correctly or because I wish to misrepresent method A proponent’s views. Once those perverted views are established in the public mind as fact, then debunking method A becomes simple.

7) Look at me.

8) I own the superficial trappings, though not the substance, of the academy, therefore you must respect what I say. Because you respect what I say, please accept that method A is invalid.

9) You must respect my opinion on the infeasibility of method B, because I successfully debunked method A, etc., etc. to infinity.

The ultimate consequence of the behavior of the irrational skeptic is a general brake on progress in the field of knowledge, which has serious consequences for the whole of society.