Thomas Sheridan-Are Hardcore Skeptics and Debunkers Actually Brain Deficient?

[Heidi Lemmer]

Interesting take on how people think. Granted it's a harsh take on skeptics and debunkers but it's explored, oddly enough with some science to back it up! In my short exploration into the land of unknown I've found myself oddly distracted by people's behavior instead of by the subject that I wish to explore. It's been easier to leave people out of the exploration. This article lends insight.
Thomas Sheridan Arts - Articles: Obsessive Debunking Disorder (ODD)?

"There is simply no grey areas within the concrete consciousness of the debunker or the hardcore skeptic; instead, only a kind of scientific idealism—and idealism, both secular or otherwise, is really just a nice way of saying 'fascism'.

So what gives? How come they behave the way they do? A complete lack of social intelligence? An inability to debate, share interesting banter and listen to what another person is saying which might be at odds with their own beliefs? Surprisingly, their own beloved science might well provide the answer to these questions. It may well be an over-stimulation of the left hemisphere of their brains leading to a kind of self-induced schizophrenia whereby the right hemisphere of their brain has been switched off. Hence, why they place no value on other forms of non-lateral intelligence: noetic wisdom and intuition. "

"All the great scientific discoveries were 'eureka' moments. They were not developed in the labs by white coats working for corporations and foundations. Scientific discovery was not gained by piling sequential 'certainties' upon previous 'certainties'. They were intuitive insights which were validated through the Scientific Method of measurement and constant re-testing.

Well worth the read...

 

[Robert Baird]

Thomas Sheridan updates modern brain theory by throwing in a dose of history to illustrate how many people obsess over being liked by others on both sides of issues including what is called conspiracy or Ufology. It is easy for me to point out that some paradigm thinkers using gradualistic or reductivist methodology have produced improvements in how we can maximize any insight or debate some of his statements. However, I find it an interesting read well worth contemplation through all filters of consciousness. Idealism is like any ism (other than ecumenicism) and political phraseology is so prejudiced people using the term fascism are often looking in the mirror. But the reader has to allow the writer a chance to convey the point without an overly parsed dictionary or deconstructive ego. Sagan for example had a very limited Glossary or openness to many things despite being championed as a reasonable scientist.

In an excellent article from Psychology Today in August 1980 (Which I have used in austere circles including university classrooms to beat back the advancing spectre of Materialism since the year after it was written.) we see Professor of Microbiology Harold Morowitz of Yale addressing Sagan. It applies to Thomas Kuhn the champion of Paradigm Change perspectives, and Isaac Asimov just as much.

"The study of life at all levels, from social to molecular behavior, has in modern times relied on reductionism as the chief explanatory concept. This approach to knowledge tries to comprehend one level of scientific phenomena in terms of concepts at a lower and presumably more fundamental level... Reductionism at the psychological level is exemplified by the viewpoint in Carl Sagan's best selling book THE DRAGONS OF EDEN.

He writes: 'My fundamental premise about the brain is that its workings- what we sometimes call 'mind' - are a consequence of its anatomy and, physiology and nothing more.' As a further demonstration of this trend of thought, we note that Sagan's glossary does not contain the words mind, consciousness, perception, awareness or thought, but rather deals with entries such as synapse, lobotomy, proteins and electrodes?"

"It is only fair to point out that there are also healthy skeptics who genuinely do look at anomalies and unexplained phenomena within the natural and unseen cosmos with a cautious eye. They will at least indulge a novel or radical opinion and look at the evidence before taking a stance—often it is an arbitrary position—based on using the Scientific Method coupled with Carl Sagan's "extraordinary evidence". They are generally polite and only moderately condescending at worst.

The debunker and the hardcore skeptics, on the other hand, will even attack these open-minded Materialists, similar to how a flying saucer cult will have very public witch hunts of so-so members who have not shown their unconditional devotion to the messages sent from the 'space brothers'. The irony is that many of the open-minded skeptics that they attack often have a scientific or engineering background, and these folks are being attacked by debunkers whose sum total of their own quest for reason and logic rarely extends beyond procuring a 'Mythbusters' DVD box set or having a poster of Richard Dawkins on their wall. Any Reductionist fence-sitters will be treated with ridicule and contempt—even fascistic vitriol and vicious insults.



There is simply no grey areas within the concrete consciousness of the debunker or the hardcore skeptic; instead, only a kind of scientific idealism—and idealism, both secular or otherwise, is really just a nice way of saying 'fascism'. "

Thomas Sheridan Arts - Articles: Obsessive Debunking Disorder (ODD)?

I always like to see a person who doesn't just demean hunter-gatherers as if they were less capable of knowing. However I hasten to add people living in caves today are better off than those living under bridges who have 'benefitted' from allopaths pushing mind games and drugs that produce the effects which the self same drug is supposed to overcome. And there are still many people functioning at a hunter gatherer level inside the Halls of Academia. History lies perpetrated by Empire set out to make all civilizations before our vaunted Bible-theory alien-derived advancements in The Cradle of Civilization, invisible and worse. I especially loved seeing how he characterized the Hounds of Hell who conducted the Children's Crusade in Southern France against the Gnostic/Sufi/Jewish Cathars.