Abstract

Comments on the article by M. Keen regarding a skeptical view of parapsychology. The author finds that Keen\'s argument contains a serious distortion of what it means to be a skeptic and what constitutes skepticism. It is argued that Keen used some of the following distortions: the straw-person and ad hominem fallacies, affirming the consequent, and persuasive redefinition. It is concluded that due to the uncharitable representation of skeptics and skepticism and the unreasonable emphasis on the quality and quantity of evidence, Keen\'s article cannot be considered a fully rational discourse. A reply by Keen, which brands Stanwick\'s comments as a morass of pseudo-semantic sophistry, is appended.