Skeptical about the skeptical claims of the anti-skeptical skeptics.

There's a group of paranormal folks out there who have banded together (both of them, along with their laptop computer) and have dubbed themselves "SCEPCOP." This is of course an attempt to parody CSICOP (now CSI) with a pro-paranormal agenda. Interestingly, the agenda seems to be to steal back the "Skeptic" label from the "Skeptics." They claim that today's skeptics are not truly skeptical, because they outright dismiss things, yada yada yada....

Feel free to check out the webpage. I can't really be sure if it's for real but if it's a parody, I missed the humor. I did laugh, but not with them. I'll direct you to possibly the saddest and funniest parts, where they claim that Skeptics use straw man arguments against paranormal enthusiasts. I cannot speak for all skeptics, but it's a very normal thing for anybody anywhere to slip into an easy straw man argument, often without noticing it themselves. I don't doubt that some skeptics have done this. I usually have to double check my own critical writings to make sure I haven't committed logical fallacies of this or any other type.

As a quick refresher, a "straw man" argument is an argument whereby you purposely misrepresent what the opposition is stating, so that you can easily refute their argument. It's like setting up a straw man, which you can knock down far more easily than a real man. So here's their explanation:

"For instance, they constantly claim that paranormal supporters advocate that one should believe "everything they hear of every paranormal claim".  That is totally untrue.  NOT ONE paranormal supporter I know advocates such a thing.  Not one.  No one has ever said publicly "We should believe everything we hear" and I challenge anyone to find someone who has said that publicly.  All reasonable paranormal experiencers and researchers believe, just like true skeptics do, that one should consider all explanations first before concluding a paranormal cause.  Any smart human would do the same.  But nevertheless, no matter how many times this is explained to them, pseudoskeptics continue to claim that we advocate believing everything we hear.  It's gotten to the point of dishonesty on their part."


I find it fascinatingly inept and disingenuous that these folks are using a straw man argument against the use of a nonexistent straw man argument. Gentlemen please. Point out to me where any legitimate skeptic (and no, ranting weirdos on random internet forums do not count) has actually made this claim. Please show me where it was said and where it was published or aired. You've set up a really, really bad example of a straw man while arguing against such tactics. Please, get some self respect.