Skeptic's Dictionary: Is it a reliable source?

[dybmh]

"The Skeptic's Dictionary features definitions, arguments, and essays on hundreds of strange beliefs, amusing deceptions, and dangerous delusions. It also features dozens of entries on logical fallacies, cognitive biases, perception, science, and philosophy."

hyperlink >>> skepdic.com - The Skeptic's Dictionary

Are you familiar with The Skeptic's Dictionary? If so, what is your confidence that its scientific articles are well researched and accurate?

IOW: Would you trust it more or less than wikipedia?

 

[sun rise]

Its very name betrays that it is biased. Without going through many entries, I expect it to be good in the areas such as logical fallacies where they are presenting factual statements and rational conclusions.

But when the articles get into value judgement such calling someone naive as in Philosophically, Stevenson was a naive dualist the bias of the site becomes evident.

So my answer is Wikipedia which strives for a "neutral point of view" with no value judgement or bias in their entries.

 

[Sunstone]

I sampled the Dictionary by reading the page on "Altered States of Consciousness". How did the page stack up to the Wikipedia article on the same subject?

I think the Wiki article is clearly superior. However, neither article in my opinion should be used as an unquestioned source of information on their subject.

You can find the Skeptic's Dictionary article here.

You can find the Wikipedia article here.

 

[Twilight Hue]

"The Skeptic's Dictionary features definitions, arguments, and essays on hundreds of strange beliefs, amusing deceptions, and dangerous delusions. It also features dozens of entries on logical fallacies, cognitive biases, perception, science, and philosophy."

hyperlink >>> skepdic.com - The Skeptic's Dictionary

Are you familiar with The Skeptic's Dictionary? If so, what is your confidence that its scientific articles are well researched and accurate?

IOW: Would you trust it more or less than wikipedia?

It's a good resource to find all the inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible and the Quran.

I find a little bit is overboard, but in general they're pretty good resources for finding the flaws.

 

[joe1776]

Genuine skepticism is unbiased. In my opinion, the people who are likely to refer to themselves as "skeptics" are almost always biased against PSI research which I've been following for years.

They're biased because they've never had an experience with precognition or telepathy and can't believe that other minds might have been capable of such rare experiences but not theirs.

 

[Sunstone]

Philosophically, Stevenson was a naive dualist

In philosophy, the term "naive" is a technical word that is routinely used to describe a simple, uncomplicated approach to some topic, such as the approach one might naturally take to a subject before thoroughly studying it. But it does not necessarily imply that the approach is wrong. More importantly, it is never meant to be taken as a comment on someone's mental state. It always refers to their beliefs, never to their state of mind.

 

[Skwim]

.

From the Wikipedia article on The Skeptic's Dictionary. (book version)

"Reception
Roy Herbert's review of the paperback version written for the New Scientist magazine commented that "it is an amazing assembly, elegantly written and level-headed, with a wry remark here and there", and that "this superb work is likely to be used so often that it is a pity it is a softback book.". Skeptical Inquirer stated that it was "a book that should be a staple of everyone’s diet-part of the package we are given at birth to help us avoid the dangers and pitfalls of living in a world riddled with bad ideas and empty promises...". It was also described by Gary Jason, a Philosophy professor at California State University as "... a good reference book for a critical thinking class."

.​

 

[Nakosis]

"The Skeptic's Dictionary features definitions, arguments, and essays on hundreds of strange beliefs, amusing deceptions, and dangerous delusions. It also features dozens of entries on logical fallacies, cognitive biases, perception, science, and philosophy."

hyperlink >>> skepdic.com - The Skeptic's Dictionary

Are you familiar with The Skeptic's Dictionary? If so, what is your confidence that its scientific articles are well researched and accurate?

IOW: Would you trust it more or less than wikipedia?

"Skeptics" are biased against everything. Wikipedia I think would be less biased. Still I wouldn't take either source at their word. Probably best to refer to both as well as a couple of other unrelated sources.

 

[joe1776]

...So my answer is Wikipedia which strives for a "neutral point of view" with no value judgement or bias in their entries.

Because of the way it's compiled, Wikipedia can't be trusted on controversial topics. One side can gain control of the article and what you'll read is a slanted version that fakes balance.

The Skeptics Dictionary is always slanted and faking balance on certain topics.

 

[Mock Turtle]

"Skeptics" are biased against everything. Wikipedia I think would be less biased. Still I wouldn't take either source at their word. Probably best to refer to both as well as a couple of other unrelated sources.

Not sure that is true:

4. a person who habitually doubts, questions, or suspends judgment upon matters generally accepted

Perhaps it is those who accept too readily who are biased?

 

[paarsurrey]

"The Skeptic's Dictionary features definitions, arguments, and essays on hundreds of strange beliefs, amusing deceptions, and dangerous delusions. It also features dozens of entries on logical fallacies, cognitive biases, perception, science, and philosophy."

hyperlink >>> skepdic.com - The Skeptic's Dictionary

Are you familiar with The Skeptic's Dictionary? If so, what is your confidence that its scientific articles are well researched and accurate?

IOW: Would you trust it more or less than wikipedia?

Is it really a dictionary, please?
If yes, in what sense, please

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

It's a good resource to find all the inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible and the Quran.
I find a little bit is overboard, but in general they're pretty good resources for finding the flaws.

"all the inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible and the Quran."

Where to find these in the skeptics dictionary, please?

Regards

 

[Howard Is]

Because of the way it's compiled, Wikipedia can't be trusted on controversial topics. One side can gain control of the article and what you'll read is a slanted version that fakes balance.

The Skeptics Dictionary is always slanted and faking balance on certain topics.

I recently noticed that on Wikipedia.
I went back to reread an article on the Carlyle Group, particularly the long list ‘of business advisors’ - lots of recent ex heads of state from all over the globe.

When I went back to read it again, that article had been replaced by corporate self advertising, and that list has been deleted.

Footnote : the Carlyle Group do all sorts of business, but of interest to me was their major involvement in ‘international security’. They were meeting in New York on 9/11 2001. Among the members present that day were the Bin Ladens.

 

[paarsurrey]

Not sure that is true:

4. a person who habitually doubts, questions, or suspends judgment upon matters generally accepted

Perhaps it is those who accept too readily who are biased?

What about a person who is sceptical of the Skeptics, please?

Regards

 

[Jedster]

What about a person who is sceptical of the Skeptics, please?

Regards

Being a sceptic myself, I would not accept said dictionary as necessarily true.
I have seen the damage to humanity by people blindly accepting the words in a book as truth.

 

[dybmh]

Is it really a dictionary, please?
If yes, in what sense, please

Regards

No. It's not a dictionary. It's just a name they chose, I think.

 

[dybmh]

"Skeptics" are biased against everything. Wikipedia I think would be less biased. Still I wouldn't take either source at their word. Probably best to refer to both as well as a couple of other unrelated sources.

Thank you.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is an excellent source. Remarkably well-researched.

A bit specialized, of course, and one should always question claims.

All in all, a top-notch site.

 

[dybmh]

It is an excellent source. Remarkably well-researched.

A bit specialized, of course, and one should always question claims.

All in all, a top-notch site.

Thank you.

 

[Phaedrus]

They're biased because they've never had an experience with.....

Experience is not necessary.

People tend to get caught up on the experience angle.

I have no experience licking a dog's turd, it doesn't mean someone out there enjoys it.