I've dealt with these types for years. The actual term I prefer to use is Pseudosceptics - due to the fact that they do not display any of the traits of true sceptics, but rather that they are opposed to ANYTHING which cannot be explained by establishment dogma. The term sceptic no longer means what it used to but has been hijacked by these insects.
Read my website for more details. http://truthfall.com/pseudoscepticism/ Craig -----Original Message----- From: William Beaty [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, 16 May 2013 4:08 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [Vo]:skepticism versus Debunkers On Sun, 12 May 2013, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > We need to know where to draw the line. Which facts do we consider so > obvious that when someone denies them, they're a debunker rather than > small 's' skeptic. Nah, because we become "debunkers" only if we start logging onto forums in order to crusade against the sad muddled beliefs of their users. For example, I don't subscribe to crazy Phrenologist belief systems, or even UFO stuff. Does that make me a Debunker? Nooo, I just disbelieve, yet I have zero interest in those topics. And if a pro-N-rays thread takes off here, that's no prob, even though I'm a complete Disbeliever. Again, everyone please read: http://amasci.com/weird/vmore.html, it's basically the Rule II details.
