Anyone can claim to be a skeptic. But there are two kinds of skeptics that I have so far in my experiences on the internet.<\/p>\n
The first is what I consider a genuine skeptic.\u00a0 This is someone who questions everything.\u00a0 But when presented with sufficient evidence, they are convinced and that’s the end of the story.\u00a0 They learn about the subject and determine who are authorities to listen to and who are not.<\/p>\n
The second is what I call a pseudo-skeptic.\u00a0 This is someone who says that they are skeptical. But what’s really going on is that they don’t like the thing that they’ve just heard because it offends their belief.\u00a0 These people are not skeptical of everything, just the things that they don’t agree with.<\/p>\n
Creationists are a fantastic example of the latter group.\u00a0 They are skeptical.\u00a0 They say ‘teach the controversy’.\u00a0 They are skeptical of every science report on evolution.\u00a0 But they are not equally skeptical of their own beliefs.<\/p>\n
These pseudo-skeptics have higher standards for things that they don’t agree with.\u00a0 Indeed, some of the standards are so high, it is literally impossible for them to be met.\u00a0 This makes the pseudo-skeptic happy.\u00a0 His beliefs are no longer questioned (at least in his mind).<\/p>\n
I use creationists here, because that’s the area I’ve studied the most.\u00a0 But it can be applied to any number of other groups.\u00a0 Almost every member of every religion is a pseduo-skeptic.\u00a0 They skeptically analyze other religions and find them lacking, but they don’t do the same for their own religion.<\/p>\n
It can be difficult to figure out if someone is a pseudo-skeptic are not, but here’s a few clues.<\/p>\n
The first is that they really don’t understand what they are arguing about.\u00a0 This is very common when dealing with creationism and cosmology ‘skeptics’.\u00a0 The extensive use of argument by analogy (false analogy) is a dead give away.\u00a0 They may have read a few popular science books on the subject, but they were probably looking for statements to quotemine.\u00a0 But they really don’t understand what’s going on.<\/p>\n
A real skeptic will spend inordinate amounts of energy learning about a subject.\u00a0 Examining and analyzing data is something that they just do.\u00a0 It’s almost second nature.\u00a0 And they won’t state an opinion until they really understand it.\u00a0 When asked why, the real skeptic can provide links to resources, data, and explain themselves.<\/p>\n
A pseudo-skeptic will often not answer questions.\u00a0 They will waffle and try to do anything to not answer a question that they don’t understand.\u00a0 This is especially true in the sciences.\u00a0 It can be very entertaining to watch someone try to explain something that they don’t have a clue about.\u00a0 Then they start arguing by quote.\u00a0 They will find someone that believes the same as they do who has written on the subject and they will quote them.\u00a0 They will quote(-mine) scientists and anyone else.\u00a0 They will try to change the subject (“But science can’t explain it either!”).<\/p>\n
Very often these pseduo-skeptics will say anything to try to win the argument.\u00a0 It gets interesting, because they don’t think about what they are saying.\u00a0 They don’t take the next logical step.\u00a0 And that next logical step shows them to be not even wrong<\/a>.<\/p>\n A great example of this are Bible apologists.\u00a0 Noah’s flood happened, they say. The water came from the vapor canopy.\u00a0 Of course, they want to argue about Bible myths in a scientific way and don’t realize that, to match Biblical claims, it would have to rain at something like 3 meters an hour for 40 days (when 3 inches an hour is about the largest amount of rainfall recorded).\u00a0 It’s not so much rain as someone dropping a multi-trillion gallon aquarium on the planet.<\/p>\n