Sue St.Clair and Matthew Didier's Paranormal Blog

Note: If you don't read the following with the knowledge that it's somewhat of a parody and tinged with more than a little bit of truth combined with snark and humour, you will be missing the point. (The mere fact that I need to include this prelude is rather telling about some of the people discussed below... but experience has taught me that this is a necessary evil.)

In the field of discussions of paranormal topics it's can be important if not vital to know the fauna that may be encountered while navigating the internet and other areas where these creatures can be viewed "in the wild", as it were.

Although there could be volumes about the differing species one might encounter, this entry is specific to the genus Hominis Scepticus or the American variation of the species, the Hominis Skepticus or common sceptic.

The sceptic comes in many variations and cross-genera, but the basic categories remain visible and easy to detect.

This guide will allow the user to identify the common varieties of sceptic they may encounter within the discussion of the paranormal.

This sceptic is one of the most common varieties found in almost all corners of human habitat. Claiming to practice "scepticism", this variety is actually almost another species, the Non-Believerious Incapabolous Accepticus Hypothesisous or common non-believer that does not understand that scepticism means to doubt rather than knee-jerk deny things. They are easily spotted by their cry which is always similar and sounds like, "I don't believe any of that bunk. I'm a sceptic."

This variety uses the cloaking ability of the word "scepticism" to make themselves feel better about their absolute faith in the non-existence of things they don't wish to acknowledge a possibility of. Like many sceptics listed in this guide, they really are not a sceptic as such, but popular vernacular has forced them into the genus category.

This variation feels that science is on their "side"... when it is not... as science, as a method, is "undecided" about things without empirical evidence to substantiate a stance. Also, this variation usually can't cite any scientific studies or papers to substantiate it's point.

This variety occasionally displays a sincere sense, albeit false, of persecution over their stance and how it is viewed by others. More often than not, they are so snug within their viewpoints that really, it doesn't matter all that much what anyone thinks or discusses with them... They'd rather be somewhere else discussing other things anyway.

Often found in groups or as rogue (and often unwanted) individuals, this variation is closely related to the Fraudulous Representatious above, but takes more pro-active measures and works to feather it's nest by trying to rid the planet of what it considers the work of Hominis Woowooiticus.

Sadly, it often mistakes literally most (if not every) piece of writing, study, literature, and experience that does not fit it's self-built paradigm (regardless if it is truly the work of the Hominis Woowooiticus or not,) and feels compelled to shred said work or loudly disavow it usually in a public forum.

This species is often incapable of looking at any data or even entertaining an alternative hypothesis that may allow for differing ideas to what it feels is 'acceptable' or even allowing the concept of hypothesis or speculation within any field that might distress it's own safe view of it's habitat. (Closely related to Non-Believerious Incapabolous Accepticus Hypothesisous, but more likely to attack without legitimate provocation and usually without full argument as to why the attack is taking place.)

When confronted by uncomfortable things, the Compulsionious Preachus will most often secrete it's foul cry of "WOO!" accompanied by a finger point, and then it will change the subject to allow for easier mockery of any subject it feels is "questionable", regardless of relation to the original points it took offence to.

Active within the general community it inhabits, Compulsionious Preachus feels it's life's work is to "assist" all other hominid life away from what it considers dangerous matter.

This vitriolic variation of sceptic is often considered, even within some of scepticism's general group habitats, to be problematic at best, annoying and pointless at worst.

This variation feels that science is on their "side"... when it is not... as science, as a method, is "undecided" about things without empirical evidence to substantiate a stance (including a negative one) and because of this, true science allows for speculation and hypothesis where this version of sceptic will not and really, can not.

This variety often displays a sincere sense, albeit false, of persecution over their stance and how they are viewed by others which they feel justifies their behaviour and actions. (Realistically, people don't like them because of their zealotry in general, but this truism is dismissed by the Preachus as they are so so certain of their own paths or action. "Exitus acta probat" is effectively their mantra.)

This variation is often located within the field of the paranormal studies (of a sort) and often displays the word "sceptic" to describe itself, but then does something to ensure that the keen observer understands that it is not actually a pure bred sceptic.

For example, there are things that are self-named "Sceptical Demonologists", which in itself proves that the "sceptic" part in this group is probably not apt as they have already pre-determined the cause for what they're looking into... again, removing doubt or questioning which, again, doesn't truly make them appropriate for the genus "sceptic", but they are still self-labeled thusly.

This variation feels that science is on their "side" because they occasionally utilise "scientific" equipment... again, "science" is not on their side as using scientific equipment without proper controls or even a truly complete understanding of the measurements taken (and why they are being taken) makes one a "scientist" much the same way as using a cranial saw to slice cheese for a sandwich makes one a neurosurgeon.

This variety often displays a sincere sense, albeit false, of persecution over their stance and how they are viewed by others.

This variety of sceptic is often related to the Compulsionious Preachus above, but unlike Preachus, it's usual form of attack is not tangible articles, but debates and usually devolves to online "internet trolling" (see the Urban Dictionary for definition of "Internet Troll" for more information,) of anyone it feels is "opposed" or even humouing an opposing view of things than it holds to be true.

This variation feels that science is on their "side" and they are "fighting the good fight" without actual action or even data to prop up their case... they are, of course, wrong as science requires empirical data, not simply being the "loudest voice" to be accepted as fact.

This variety often displays a sincere sense, albeit false, of persecution over their stance and how they are viewed by others which they feel justifies their behaviour.

Like many other species that is of the Lustivus variation, (such as the Apple Fanboius, the Beiber Feverous, and the ever present Astra Trekkieus,) this variation of sceptic latches on to a favourite aspect of their adoration and flogs it almost completely to death much to the irritation of others.

In Lustivus Scientisticus Scepticus, this often is a quote from a scientist or noted intellectual and is little more than a sound byte which completely defines their stance.

Usually, the Lustivus Scientisticus Scepticus doesn't understand the quote completely or is unaware of the origins.

The two most common that are bandied about as the call of the Lustivus Scientisticus Scepticus are "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence" which is cited as coming from the late Dr. Carl Sagan. Sagan did not coin the term, the late Dr. Marcello Truzzi did, and when Truzzi noted that scepticism had been taken over by non-believers rather than doubters, he left the sceptical organisation he helped found... and also, on noting that evidence is evidence and/or truth is truth and things either can be or "not be", he changed his stance and wished he'd simply said, "Claims Require Evidence"... and that meant all claims including claims of non-existence in the face or overwhelming reported experiences.

The other oft used phrase is "The Simplest Answer is Usually the Correct One" or "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem" to be correct. This is Occam's Razor... which was "coined" by William of Ockham, a 14th century monk who did utilise this logic more than a few times to say that simply "God Made It So" (the simplest answer) to "answer" things that seemed (at the time) to defy simplistic observational (scientific) answers.

With these examples known, this variation of sceptic often worships these words and their (often incorrectly attributed) original creators and all "arguments" end up with these words being parroted back to the opposing number... usually to the point of extreme redundancy.

This variety assumes "science" is on their side because they cite "scientists" so it must be right.

This variety does not usually display a sincere sense of persecution... only misplaced smugness in support of their own 'intelligence'.

(See also: Fallback Position to Randi's Million-Dollar "Challenge" as Proof of Non-Existence.)

The rarest of all sceptics and within the realm of the garden variety "popular" sceptic, these are often mocked or called a "soft-sceptic", because they actually use scientific logic and thought and don't make sweeping generalisations but work from a case-by-case scenario when presented with things.

They "doubt" and do not "deny out of hand" which also makes them targets of the "harder" variations of the sceptic species. They understand that there are no true limits to our knowledge and understanding of the universe regardless of any stand one takes and that some "laws" may not apply as more information comes into play.

They demand empirical evidence before supporting any position on things, but do not dismiss ideas until evidence if brought to the fore to show an idea may or may not be correct.

Science (as a method) is on their side as indeed, they only work from the empirical and will accept possible hypothesis and even speculation provided it's presented as such.

Unlike all of the above, this variety will not resort to ad hominem attacks when presented with questionable things, but instead question the data itself.

This variety is persecuted by the above variations of sceptic and also by Hominis Woowooiticus (true believers who don't wish to have their faith questioned,) as they refuse to take any stand without, again, empirical evidence and as such, are not viewed as being "one of the faithful" by any of these camps.

They are also soundly loathed by the not-common, but oft seen Fraudulous Conmanicus Woowooator or predatory hominid that prey on Hominis Woowooiticus for money and whatnot as the findings and presentation of facts and data by Thinkerus Learningus Educati Scepticus are far more difficult to "contradict" which the Conmanicus must do in order to entice prey continue to feed.

Thinkerus Learningus Educati Scepticus is truly the more successful and discreet variant of Compulsionious Preachus... making the Preachus usually very jealous.

All of the above mentioned, with the exception of Thinkerus Learningus Educati Scepticus, when presented with empirical evidence that forces them to re-think their stance on any subject they originally held near-and-dear, (say the original "sceptical" view on panspermia,) will show that they are indeed of the same genus as they resort to one of the two common wild calls of 'correction'... "Well, that was self-evident and I knew it all along. You just didn't understand me!" or "That wasn't my point..." which is a pseudo-intellectual variation of "Exitus acta probat" in a way.

Again, save the Thinkerus Learningus Educati Scepticus, the common sceptic is never wrong and as such, must be truly "God like" in their infallibility.

I do hope this guide has been helpful... and yes, I do understand that one could do many differing guides to all sorts of types of species found in the realm of these studies, and this article is a little one-sided... but when one reads things such as...
TheSkeptoidZone - Uber-skeptoid with way too much time on his hands gets libx warning
...one might understand why I believe that it's important for all to know or be able to figure out what type of sceptic they are dealing with in the wild.

Thank you for reading...