Can you count the straw men about skepticism?

Woo-meisters love to build massive straw men about what skepticism is, the better to tear it down with gusto and paint skeptics as close-minded "debunkers." I just came across a video that does just that (click on the link for even more straw men in addition to the video), but in one of the most overblown and ridiculous ways I've ever seen. Can you count the number of straw men and outright lies about skepticism and skeptics in this video?

I lost track fairly early on, so fast and furious came the misinformation, particularly because the portrayal of skeptics and skepticism wasn't even particularly clever in its attacks. In fact, I feel stupider for having watched this video, which clearly produced neuron apoptosising waves that had to be fought off. On the other hand, caricaturing skeptics and scientists is about the only thing cranks are any good at.

You know, I have a couple of scientific (allegedly) papers lying relevant to various pseudoscience. Maybe I'll discuss one or both of them over the next couple of days--in honor of Daniel Drasin, of course. At the very least, it'll cleanse the palate after tasting of such misinformation.

More like this

He's baaaack. Deepak Chopra. Remember him? It's been a while since I've said much about him and him alone. True, I've gone after him this year when he joined up with three other major league woo-meisters Dean Ornish, Rustum Roy, and Andrew Weil to try to try to help Senator Tom Harkin hijack the…
Woo-meisters will not be pleased. While perusing this week's Skeptics' Circle, I was reminded of something that I had meant to post about a couple of days ago. I don't know how he did it or where he got it, but somehow he has found the Holy of Holies for woos everywhere. He found The Woo Handbook.…
Oh, goody. Just what we need. Some of my readers sent this to me yesterday, and I, like them, was appalled. Apparently that wretched hive of scum and quackery, The Huffington Post, has decided that it's starting a "real" health section (to be, apparently, distinguished from its old "Lifestyle"…
As hard as it is for me to believe sometimes, I've been at this blogging biz a long time--well over six years now. However, I've been engaged, in one form or another, in combatting pseudoscience, pseudohistory, and crankery online since the late 1990s. Although I try hard not to fall into the same…

So very stupid.

Isn't this some sort of ironic video or joke? The end is kind of hilarious; the 'scientist' knows there are aliens because she has seen them!? That's not a very convincing argument, even for a 'woo-meister'. Maybe you shouldn't take it at face value.

I think that you've been conned by a brilliant attempt at extracting urine. The "Skeptic" is so obviously using all the arguments of loony creationists, climate change denialists and other woo-meisters who consider themselves to be right just because, well, they're right.
Look at the cartoon from the point of view of a CLIMATE-CHANGE SKEPTIC. (Sorry about the shouting, but I don't know how to use HTML to embolden). He considers himself to be a skeptic. Now see how the scientist shoots him down.

Isn't this some sort of ironic video or joke? The end is kind of hilarious; the 'scientist' knows there are aliens because she has seen them!? That's not a very convincing argument, even for a 'woo-meister'. Maybe you shouldn't take it at face value.

I thought of that, but follow the links on the blog where the video appears. I linked to it in my introductory paragraph.

Oh... my bad. Followed the link this time and I have to agree; Apparently Daniel Drasin never heard the frase 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof'.
He actually thinks that the mere mentioning of seeing an 'alien' witnessing an "impossible healing", or the experience of a perfectly cogent conversation with your dead uncle, is enough proof for an "expanded notion of reality". No need for proper documentation, apparently.

Well: I'm going to adjust my irony-meter now...

Considering other videos from xtranormal use the same style of deadpan "humor", I do believe this is meant to be ironic (and actually aimed at "denialists" more than at skeptics).

Not the best they've done, though...

Looking at some of the other links on the parent site made my head hurt from the stupid...

From what I can tell from his website his arguments sound logical, then goes off into la-la land.

Sadly, I can picture a person reading his work and finding his conclusions reasonable.

I got through maybe 15 seconds and had to stop. The dryness of the dialogue and the constant refrain of 'I'm a skeptic' were driving me nuts.

Apart from Ben Stein in Ferris Bueller's Day Off who is that boring?

Also, one gets the feeling that a little bit of digging into the blogger's quotes will reveal some low-hanging picked cherries. Mmm mmm good.

Composer99

low-hanging picked cherries. Mmm mmm good.

I read this, navigated away from this page, thought for a moment, then got it...I don't know how much more coffee my laptop can take.

The video demonstrates a problem I find over and over again when it comes to the woosters, hubris and laziness.

One of the few specific fact statements regards the problem of Scientific American not acknowledging the first flight of the Wright Brothers for three years because "that's an example of prudent scientific journalism."

To me, if I didn't know any more, (which I do) this claim sounds very unusual. Scientific journals, especially for technological information, are pretty quick to publish. So I would spend a few minutes researching first A google for "Wright Brothers" and a quick read of wikipedia (scan for "Trouble Establishing Legitmacy" provides a reasonable reason for Scientific American's waiting.

Is that milk in the water cooler?

I saw that when someone posted in the comments a few days ago trying to do "Hey, look at you skeptics!".

Horrendous! But it could have been *even worse* if they had gone into "scientism". ( Maybe that's "Part II").

By Denice Walter (not verified) on 17 Nov 2010 #permalink

@Chemgeek-- given the content of the video, I suspect it's a flavor of koolaid.

By nancyinwi (not verified) on 17 Nov 2010 #permalink

For the last time, the absence of a plausible mechanism for a phenomenon is not the same as a phenomenon that would require half the laws of physics to be rewritten if it actually existed (e.g. homeopathy).

Kristen: I am to please. Or soak laptops/keyboards with coffee/beverages of choice. Take your pick. :)

More seriously, it looks like one of this blogger's key points of argument against atheism/methodological naturalism has to do with the supposed lack of objectivity that such a position entails vis-à-vis morality.

Now, I'm not an atheist, but I really can't see his point.

Consider that Christians would hold that being a moral person entails following the two "Great Commandments":
1- Love God (with heart, mind, strength, &c.)
2- Love your neighbour as yourself
which, per Jesus, are the foundation of "all the law and the prophets" (that is, of all conventional sources of morality in the Judean culture of the time).

To get a non-theist foundation for morality, just take out part 1 of the above and reword part 2 a bit to get something like:
"Operate on the presumption that other people's interests as equivalent to yours", with the caveat that the equivalence of interest applies to like interests (e.g. my interest in fulfilling personal ambitions is not equivalent to other people's interest in self-preservation or securing material necessities).

@Chemgeek,

Is that milk in the water cooler?

Dare we hope its propofol?

I do not think that word means what they think it means.

By Mephistopheles… (not verified) on 17 Nov 2010 #permalink

xtramnormal.com has jumped the shark. I find these videos more annoying than funny now, even when the content is good.

Composer99:

To get a non-theist foundation for morality, just take out part 1 of the above and reword part 2 a bit to get something like:
"Operate on the presumption that other people's interests as equivalent to yours", with the caveat that the equivalence of interest applies to like interests (e.g. my interest in fulfilling personal ambitions is not equivalent to other people's interest in self-preservation or securing material necessities).

Or, as G'kar put it, "the Universe runs on the complex interweaving of three elements: energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." While many religions espouse very good morals (even if their adherents are a bit spotty in the actual implementation), religion is not, in fact, necessary for morality. In fact, I tend to think it works the other way around -- morals are necessary for religion. I think most organized religions start out as a means of codifying a set of morals.

By Calli Arcale (not verified) on 17 Nov 2010 #permalink

Hilarious! Loved it!

Especially the punchline at the end.

By Vince Whirlwind (not verified) on 17 Nov 2010 #permalink

What is with crazy people using these terribly produced, computer voiced animations? I've seen creationists use them a lot. Nearly impossible to watch. As if the message wasn't bad enough, the delivery hurts.

The site xtranormal.com lets people make animations by typing in their own dialog. Probably it attracts people with no budget, no skills in animation, and who are not put off by the stilted results. Perhaps non-wackaloons have more creativity or access to better tools, or don't like the results and opt out of sharing them.

By Toxicology Kat (not verified) on 17 Nov 2010 #permalink

It described nicely a lot of climate change deniers and general contrarians I've run into, as they consider themselves "true skeptics" along similar lines. But I'm not sure what effect they were really going for tere.

By mistermuz (not verified) on 17 Nov 2010 #permalink