Well, it's perhaps a bad example...

My point is simply that it's one thing to ignore an issue and something completely different to pretend to address an issue while not actually addressing it at all.

If one is going to engage with a person making a statement and claim to refute them, they should at least engage with the material itself and offer an actual explanation of why they do or don't support the idea.

A personal attack or statement of "disbelief" does not a counter-argument make.

It goes back to the general characteristics of pseudoskepticism:

* Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments
* Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
* Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
* Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
* Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it

Now, if one were to take the specific example from the prior posts and state an ACTUAL reason why one believes that such a proposal is baloney, that's fine and dandy. Not pseudoskeptical at all.

It's the lack of engagement with the material and the lack of supporting evidence for one's counter-position that makes it appear to be a hand-waving counter-argument.

IE, "You're an idiot, and that's not plausible" is a considerably different response from "you can't put water into a carburetor and have any chance of it working properly, here's why..."

Also, how is there sufficient technical detail (as you put it) in the statement "I have a carburetor sized device that can power a car using only water and air as input." to evaluate the device without seeing how the device works or on what principle? How can one evaluate a device's effectiveness without knowing what the device is predicated upon?

Essentially, you've been shown a "black box" (so-to-speak) and know nothing about the internal workings of the box, and only two external substances that get added to the black box give clues as to what may or may not go on within the box.

You claim that you would dismiss the entirety of the argument without even seeing a demonstration of the device or hearing how the internals of the black box are arranged to achieve the claimed effects. While presenting no specific evidence showing that the alleged effect is not possible.

To me, that sounds like a pseudo-scientific standpoint.

It appears to make a "plausibility" argument (since it cannot be based upon any actual technical argument against the internal workings of the device, which you have refused to examine in detail before waving it off, in the above example).

In making a scientific counter-claim that such a device cannot function, the counter-claimant should be able to provide some level of support for their counter-claim. It doesn't necessarily have to be a rigorous technical paper. But a simple hand-waving dismissal without satisfying a minimal burden of proof seems insufficient.

The counter claim's proof could be as simple as saying "there's no chemical reaction between oxygen and water that can release enough energy to physically or electrically power a car." the claimant can then either say "okay, you're right" or "perhaps, but here's the principle on which the device works, let me show you how it works." That's how an ideal scientific conversation should go. Each side presents some modicum of evidence and discusses the facts. Just my opinion.

The pseudo-skeptical case seems to divorce from the idealized scenario insofar as one side refuses to enter into the debate or to provide scientific evidence for its case. IE, a hand-waving argument of "plausibility" or "you're an idiot" is used, which doesn't in any way address the actual technical issues raised. It skirts them disingenuously and unscientifically.

A skeptic, in what I'd think would be the true sense of the term, would open-mindedly evaluate the claim based upon technical merits and offer technical advice where the issue at hand has been misaddressed by the original claimant.

IE, a scientist would be interested in hearing how the device is supposed to work and then evaluating whether the claimed process / effect have been correctly interpreted. Where errors are found, errors should be pointed out in order to either improve or falsify the claim. Again, in the ideal case.

Obviously not everyone has time to evaluate every case in any particular depth, but that does not excuse them from any burden of proof in making a counter-claim, if they choose to engage in discussion of some issue at hand. If they feel they have the time to address the claim, they should ensure they have the time to offer at least a basic appraisal of the scheme and a basic confirmation or refutation of the same. If they are unwilling to offer a scientific opinion or technical argument (pro or con), perhaps they shouldn't involve themself in the conversation to begin with.

Again, claiming to evaluate the proposition and actually technically evaluating it are two wholly separate propositions. Likewise, claiming to evaluate a claim while intentionally not actually offering an evaluation seems disingenuous (and again, pseudoskeptical) insofar as saying one thing and doing another.

It really seems to be about the level of discourse and whether it does or doesn't address the issue under discussion.

If someone claims to discuss whether a carburetor (or a carburetor-sized device) can or can't run off water, but instead concerns themself with whether the claimant sounds like an idiot or has a PhD or has hobbies that are unsatisfactory, they have not addressed the issue at hand (which is the carburetor or carburetor-sized device), but rather gone off on a wholly unrelated and unscientific tangent (arguing against the person or their situation rather than the topic of discussion).

Just my 2c. Sorry it was a bit more long-winded than I'd intended. =o\