Society of Critics
This may exist as some group already, but how about an organization dedicated to carefully scrutinizing and disproving claims. A level of academic criticism and research would be applied to any subject, no matter how inane, to show how fallible a certain claim is. While a rational thinker may dismiss obvious fallacious claims, it is the innocent and gullible who swallow myths and lies as truth. Some examples:
New world Order/Illuminati/Freemason/Zionist/Reptilian/Alien conspiracy theories, Get rich quick schemes and business scams, pseudoscience in therapy and self help (ionized water, trepanation, miracle cures, beliefs based on faulty or inaccurate studies), spiritual fads and treatments (quantum touch, reiki, The Secret), etc, The goal wouldn't be just to write skeptically, but to do actual research and testing to reach a conclusion on whether the claims are valid, with a published report. Books that cite fallacious claims and references would be fact checked, such as Kevin Trudeau's popular nutrition books which use a number of fallacious nutrition books as a reference.
Would such an organization be successful, or would it run into too much financial difficulty by chasing after claims with costly research and testing?
- Login to post comments
Sounds like those fucking creationists
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I'm talking about real science versus fictional science rather than fictional science versus real science
Actually, you listed psuedoscience up there. I think creationism is actually a listed psuedoscience.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I love this idea. If I had the time and would definately be a part of that. This sounds like it could be a spin off of Penn and Teller.
"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."