1/2 Why James Randi, Michael Shermer and other Pseudoskeptics are NOT real skeptics!

To learn more about why James Randi, Michael Shermer, the CSICOP crowd, and other Pseudo-Skeptics are NOT real skeptics, visit my website and treatise at: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com

To learn about the actual SOLID PROOF for psychic phenomena, see the new books by Dean Radin, Charles Tart, and Chris Carter in the SCEPCOP bookstore at: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/books.php

Category:

Education

Tags:

• SCEPCOP
• CSICOP
• James Randi
• Michael Shermer
• pseudoskeptics
• skepticism
• skeptics
• paranormal
• evidence
• parapsychology
• ghosts
• afterlife
• spirits
• ESP
• telepathy
• psychics
• mediums
• NDE
• OBE
• psi
• JREF
• science
• debate
• debunk
• critical thinking
• supernatural
• unexplained
• debunkers
• fallacies

[DoktorSick]

this guy is a joke !!!

[villainandfox]

This is pointless garble.

[dpowens]

Someone needs to familiarize himself with the people whom he critiques. That person is Winston "Woo Woo" Wu. Also, I love the phrase "actual SOLID PROOF for psychic phenomena." Because I find capital letters so much more convincing than science, and not at all a cheap plea to sell a product. Nice credentials, by the way, Mr. Wu.

[AnduinX]

These "skeptics" are the most negative people on the planet. They always dislike videos in great numbers compared to the general population. I'll echo what MrParanormalist said, please continue your work, the materialist idea that mind=brain must be overturned.

[JustPietzche]

Why should it matter to anyone, whether or not people like James Randi and Michael Shermer are "real" skeptics, according to your definition? Even if your assessment is correct and the president of the word 'skeptics' says they have to stop calling themselves skeptics, does that suddenly mean psychics aren't full of shit?

CSICOP, et. al are skeptical of things that, all at once:

1) Seem to defy logic.

2) Are rooted in and defended by fallacies.

3) People have come to depend on & believe in.

[MrParanormalist]

Keep it up, ignore the pseudoskeptics voting down your videos, what you say is important

[mlgarton]

@eblonk10 I still think he is biased and he's not qualified to scientifically prove or disprove anything. I would leave that to trained scientists.

[eblonk10]

@mlgarton No he doesn't. It's from donors (including himself) and held separately. Do some research, it isn't much work.

Also, from your logic it would always be suspect to challenge to disprove psychics and such because there would always something at stake, at the very least one's reputation.

[eblonk10]

Poisoning the well and a very bad straw-man argument as proof.

Let's see: James Randi does not criticize the Vietnam and Iraqi war (if that is a correct assumption in the first place) and therefore they side with the establishment/status quo (which are among the most abused expressions but apparently gains one credibility when used in abundance) anything else they say is unreliable? I fail to see the logic.

[DevinThomas]

I think you are the one who is biased. Of course people are skeptical of things that they don't believe in as you say. The difference is that a true skeptic is willing to test things to find out if they are true or not. You talk a lot in vague terms about the "establishment" but can you name one belief that Shermer or Randi, etc. holds that is untrue and has been proven to be untrue? If you can't, then it seems like you want to hang onto your beliefs "just because" you hold them!