Michael Fullerton

People like Dee are what we call pseudoskeptics or pathological skeptics. They pretend to be skeptical of "dodgy" claims, practice critical thinking and adhere to scientific principles but they rarely ever do. As you see here, Dee continually makes grand purely faith-based pronouncements but is completely unable or unwilling to support them in any way, because you can't provide evidence for what doesn't exist.

Instead of rationally dealing with the topic at hand he attempts to malign people by introducing irrelevant information. An actual skeptic will be skeptical of those who steadfastly refuse to support the claims they make, substitute ridicule for evidence or redirect attention away from the topic at hand.

LOL "Dee", your posts consist of nothing but logical fallacies. Here you continue with your attacks and pepper these with raving pronouncements of unadulterated faith (bare assertion fallacies). This is all "skeptics" like you can do to support your grossly distorted view of science and critical thinking.

Hopefully the rational readers here will understand that your contributions are nothing but a diversion away from the imminently serious topic at hand, the scientific and critical thinking butchery meted out in Dunnings recent documentary. Perhaps my article contained some errors? Why then doesn't someone rationally point them out rather than engage in attacks and other sophomoric diversions? To me that is always a clue: when arguments can't be attacked, the arguer is attacked instead. Talk about playground tactics.

I've committed no ad hominem. I suspect you have no idea what this fallacy is. This fallacy involves attacking a person instead of dealing with the person's argument. Like you've done here.

You've actually committed this fallacy by refusing to address the points my article exposes about Dunning and instead post a completely irrelevant Vice hack job involved a debate I've had with another "skeptic". Your attacking me instead of my arguments.

The following article shows how I was not in any way crushed by Novella. The next shows Vice's complete lack of journalistic integrity.

http://skeptopathy.com/wp/?p=330
http://skeptopathy.com/wp/?p=341

A couple of things to ask yourself:

1) how would Brian know what Google alerts I have setup? He is either simply lying about me as a pathetic attempt to discredit me or he somehow (terrifyingly) has access to my personal Google account. Which is it Brian?

2) why would he attack me instead of attack the arguments I made about his film? What he is employing here is a boringly common fallacy called ad hominem, attack the person not the argument. This champion of "critical thinking" employs fallacies (the direct opposite of critical thinking) instead of reasoned debate.

For anyone looking for an alternate look at Brian Dunning and his latest film you can check out this recent review at Skeptopathy Magazine: http://skeptopathy.com/wp/?p=502