For example, he now says:-
Getting back to the skeptics themselves, some of them took my article way too personally, attributing every single statement to themselves. Well of course every single belief in that article isn’t followed by every single “skeptic” person.
It is hardly surprising that sceptics “attribute every single statement to themselves” since every statement began either “skeptics believe” or “skeptics do not believe”. Since he did not qualify these statements by saying some or even many sceptics have the stated beliefs, it is clear he meant “all”.
He then says:-
Even skeptics disagree amongst themselves on how far to take their “skeptic” beliefs.
And here he demonstrates his total lack of understanding as to what scepticism is. Scepticism is not about “belief” but evidence. On some subjects the evidence is not clear-cut, leading to different conclusions. Hence the disagreement amongst sceptics.
It is clear that he regards all opinions as “beliefs” and any which disagree with him are traduced and misinterpreted, which says more about his intellectual processes than it does about his opponents. In his newsletter he says:
Do you know any “skeptics?” They’re an endless source of entertainment. They don’t “believe” in Vitamin C.
There is of course not one sceptic who does not believe in vitamin-C. What there are are people who do not accept the claims that megadoses of vitamin C can treat disease – because there is no evidence to support such claims.
Back to his back-tracking:-
If you, in your own experience, find that herbs and massage therapy and nutrition are all utterly worthless, and you want to join the skeptics camp, then go for it! If you’ve thought about it yourself, and reached your own conclusions, and you’ve pursued truth with an open mind and an open heart, then whatever conclusion you reach is “your” truth.
He concedes here that if you think about the evidence you might come to a different conclusion, though he qualifies that in post-modernist terms by saying that is “your” truth. Therapies work, or they don’t. This can be determined by looking at the evidence. If two people come to different conclusions then either at least one of them has misinterpreted the data or there is insufficient evidence to come to a firm conclusion. I have particular opinions on medicine and health because I think that is the way the evidence points. If you can prove me wrong, I will change my opinion, not continue to insist on “my” truth. That would be simple intellectual dishonesty.
…don’t let your current intellectual position become a prison that prevents you from exploring other possibilities of the way the universe works
Sceptics don’t. That’s what makes them sceptics. Of course, they like to see evidence for these other possibilities.
[Sceptics] also tend to jump to false conclusions about what people are really saying. In my previous article, for example, I never stated whether I believed in God, or whether I was an athiest [sic], or whether I followed organized religion and yet people read the article and they leaped to conclusions, assuming I was promoting organized religion, for example, or that I was condemning atheism.
Since he concluded his diatribe by saying that sceptics do not believe in higher powers or the after-life and are “usually atheists” it is safe to say that he was condemning atheism and endorsing a religious viewpoint. As was his ad-hom attack saying that we are all zombies and mindless drones. Something he is now clearly trying to forget.
He reverts to normal mode in his concluding paragraph with another blanket ad-hom attack on all sceptics:-
The skeptics’ view of the universe is that of a child . Embracing the holistic nature of the universe requires a more mature understanding.
Personally, I think that it is more mature to accept the evidence, rather than stamp your feet and sulk because the universe is not the way you want it to be. And that’s “my truth”.