Globally, noted skeptic watchers are converging via useful collaboration and cross fertilisation of insights, and decades of long term historic data collection, and observations. Skeptic watchers are converging on some very clear, firm conclusions regarding the incapacity of pseudo-skeptics to evaluate evidence.
This was announced recently by Victor Zammit in his weekly afterlife newsletter.
And skeptic watchers everywhere would give Victors major conclusion a very loud "Hear here" signifying consensus agreement.
Now,--- Supreme Court lawyer Victor Zammit didnt list the many reasons why pseudo-skeptics cant evaluate evidence.
Its such a long list.
He simply stated the bald fact.
Victors carefully considered conclusion with Winston Wu is axiomatic.
Now here is a supplementary opinion explaining why pseudoskeptics just cant evaluate evidence.
Its the elephant in the room, skeptic watchers.
You are all so polite and positive and balanced and dont want to say negative things. Dont want to label people.
So I will do it for you, guys.
Pseudoskeptics dont evaluate evidence like any honest jury, because they have a criminal personality.
Their main "crime" is simply lying full time and perennially, the mark of a criminal.
They judiciously, (note the irony,) always oppose by arguing off point. By circling the point so many times and insisting that any ridiculous mundane shallow alternatives are better than the common obvious truth, in the centre of the picture.
They basically colour in the picture anywhere, and everywhere but, in the central truth area, inadvertently and tacitly displaying the fact, that they know the truth, as we all do. And precisely its position and standing.
They just cant verbalise the truth.
The pseudo-skeptic gets away with his perennial lying behaviour in the public domain. There is no penalty there, and in fact there is often profit for lying.
But in a court room if they continue that full time behaviour they could end up in jail for lying in court. Perjury. Lying under oath,
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ?
That is the one thing that criminal personality pseudo-skeptics cannot normally bring themselves to do. Speak only the truth.
Its tempting to insist their desire to deceive everyone they converse with, is simply physical brain dysfunction, and they cant control their mouths. Like Turettes, or stuttering, say. Dyslexia perhaps, But they colour in the picture all around the truth, dont they ! Emphasising it !
They basically speak upside down. They argue everything that is not the truth. Not the point in question.
But if there was a serious penalty for lying about
their evaluation of ESP data, such as in a court, I am sure even pseudo-skeptics could verbalise the truth, out of the fear which is so great in them.
Their public domain lying is certainly a criminal act but they are petty criminals doing only that, as they lack the gumption, the courage to take any real risks.
Susan Black-more , High Priestess of skepticism, sitting on the right hand side of James Randi, at skeptic HQ, CSICOP, describes pseudo-skeptics as dysfunctionally timid males , in Wiki-pedia.
Thus pseudo-skeptics commit the softest of crimes, public domain lying, for which there is no risk of retribution whatsoever, so risk averse are they.
And from their viewpoint, they can't lose any contest because they never actually engage, never actually face their opponents contention, they argue off point, dancing around the ring, due to their risk aversion, and the fact that they dont need to know anything of the subject, if they argue off point, and just confabulate. And it seems to them they are scoring points
Emboldened by apparent anonymity and safety behind a remote keyboard, leads risk averse online pseudo-skeptics to aggressively often hysterically denounce religious people and proponents of ESP and Afterlife.
Restated, it is dysfunctionally timid, cowardly feebleminded attacks on average people, that pseudoskeptics make, mostly by the criminal act of, Lying.
When major qualified scientists do it, this Lying , there is almost no penalty whatsoever. And indeed there can be major pay offs such as research grant money not to mention drug company profits. Big Pharma is regularly caught committing major fraud, ( Lying ), in scientific research . Its OK to call that Organised Crime, isnt it?
And so it happens, at the big end of town, we consider that criminality, "normal"(?), and down at the local skeptic club, but mostly online, Pseudoskeptics are just amateur wannabe criminals, just too scared, too feeble, not positioned, to do anything more adventurous than, absolutely risk free, public domain, Lying,
They get their little thrills that way, thats their life.
So skeptic watchers, I think its about time we called a spade a spade.
Pseudo-skeptics and skeptic groups and leading public domain magician pskeps, who practise this lifelong denialism are essentially running a lifelong petty criminal enterprise, wasting their lives, while the rest of society grows happily, effortlessly keeping their eye on the evidence, central to the picture.
Victor Zammits simple axiom states that Pseudo-skeptics are automatically disqualified for making their endless off point counterclaims, as they are proven incapable of evaluating evidence and verbalising the result as a courtroom demands, to enable justice to function. Setting pseudo-skeptics apart from the rest of society.
I think we should put this to them, guys.
For the sake of progress