"Why I am no longer a skeptic"

As we have some members now who weren't around when this was discussed on Skeptiko, I'd like to bring it back up:

Why I am no longer a skeptic by Stephen Bond.

I'd especially like to hear what skeptical members make of his points. Because I can tell you that everything he wrote about, is a reason I hold no interest in "organized" skepticism and find myself so unsympathetic to the Wisemans and Shermers of the world, even when I agree with the points they're trying to make.

As we have some members now who weren't around when this was discussed on Skeptiko, I'd like to bring it back up:

Why I am no longer a skeptic by Stephen Bond.

I'd especially like to hear what skeptical members make of his points. Because I can tell you that everything he wrote about, is a reason I hold no interest in "organized" skepticism and find myself so unsympathetic to the Wisemans and Shermers of the world, even when I agree with the points they're trying to make.

He was never a true skeptic. His piece was debunked here:

https://debunkingdenialism.com/2013/04/2...onvincing/

As we shall see, Mr. Bond makes makes many dubious hasty generalizations about people, such as skeptics, as a group (which is ironic as he himself objects to this practice later on) and even entire scientific fields. He also appears to subscribe to a long list of irrational and pseudoscientific beliefs including anti-psychiatry, anti-evolution, cancer quackery and alternative medicine. Far from being a convincing case against scientific skepticism, it resembles the debating tactic of denialists, together with many of the same rehashed assertions.

Hmm. I  skimmed through the first piece, and felt driven (mildly) towards scepticism by it. Then I read Leuders's reply, skimmed even more rapidly through his linked rebuttal, and felt driven strongly in the opposite direction.

No doubt I'm being hopelessly naive, but can't we just try to evaluate the evidence in a sensible way, without obsessing over the merits of the rival ideologies of scepticism and proponency?

He was never a true skeptic. His piece was debunked here:

https://debunkingdenialism.com/2013/04/2...onvincing/

You really are a run-of-the-mill, through and through internet skeptic ain't ya?

You really are a run-of-the-mill, through and through internet skeptic ain't ya?

Even deploying the No True Scotsman.

He was never a true skeptic. His piece was debunked here:

https://debunkingdenialism.com/2013/04/2...onvincing/

Didn't know you could debunk opinions now haha. It's funny that the little bit you posted critical of Bond states he generalises, before going on to generalise itself. 

I think many proponents here are proper skeptics, the Geller thread seemed to for example consisting of the 'skeptics' being very sure what happened, taking the skeptical writers said words at face value, whereas the proponents seemed unsure. (I also found it funny that FLS put proponents on one side, and 'skeptics/scientists on the other, shows what Parapsychologists are up against, as well as insinuations of fraud from people like Max etc.)

For what it's worth I find it hard to accept psi in a psychological/emotional way, but the evidence is statistically very strong, and it's unlikely all the positive results are due to fraud/mistakes etc and the millions of experiences every day are people being deluded or mistaken.

Didn't know you could debunk opinions now haha. It's funny that the little bit you posted critical of Bond states he generalises, before going on to generalise itself. 

I think many proponents here are proper skeptics, the Geller thread seemed to for example consisting of the 'skeptics' being very sure what happened, taking the skeptical writers said words at face value, whereas the proponents seemed unsure. (I also found it funny that FLS put proponents on one side, and 'skeptics/scientists on the other, shows what Parapsychologists are up against, as well as insinuations of fraud from people like Max etc.)

For what it's worth I find it hard to accept psi in a psychological/emotional way, but the evidence is statistically very strong, and it's unlikely all the positive results are due to fraud/mistakes etc and the millions of experiences every day are people being deluded or mista

No offence, but what you are saying is obvious based on the the mountains of evidence and stories. 

But it so refreshing and heartening to have someone just come out and say it... 

That it's hard to believe this stuff,,, but it wouldn't make logical sense NOT to.

He was never a true skeptic. His piece was debunked here:

https://debunkingdenialism.com/2013/04/2...onvincing/

Not exactly what I would call a thorough debunking. There are valid critiques present, but a lot of cheap shots and devious straw men in place of the actual content too, and the same sort of arrogant tone Bond objected to in the first place.

I think many proponents here are proper skeptics, the Geller thread seemed to for example consisting of the 'skeptics' being very sure what happened, taking the skeptical writers said words at face value, whereas the proponents seemed unsure. (I also found it funny that FLS put proponents on one side, and 'skeptics/scientists on the other, shows what Parapsychologists are up against. 

I'm not sure what you mean by "up against", but I didn't intend for what I said to be unacceptable to anyone. Some people have already made their positions clear - from the people who believe he used psychic powers in at least some cases to the scientists who found the research unconvincing to the people who believe it's all tricks. I thought 'proponent' and 'skeptic' were acceptable terms for someone who has mostly made up their mind one way or the other. If they aren't, what would you suggest instead? I intend no offense or condescension. Like I said earlier, I don't think there's much distinction in terms of who is using critical thinking (with the exception of the formal practice of science). 

Linda

I'm not sure what you mean by "up against", but I didn't intend for what I said to be unacceptable to anyone. Some people have already made their positions clear - from the people who believe he used psychic powers in at least some cases to the scientists who found the research unconvincing to the people who believe it's all tricks. I thought 'proponent' and 'skeptic' were acceptable terms for someone who has mostly made up their mind one way or the other. If they aren't, what would you suggest instead? I intend no offense or condescension. Like I said earlier, I don't think there's much distinction in terms of who is using critical thinking (with the exception of the formal practice of science). 

Linda

You know, and everyone else knows your intentions/insinuations by grouping scientists with skeptics, as if you're a proponent you can't be or aren't a scientist. That sort of attitude (amongst many other things) is what Parapsychologists have to deal with. 

And are you now claiming proponent Parapsychologists practice science differently then skeptics? You're right in the sense that the proponents actually conduct experiments.