Guest Zoe Grace Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 I found this article, and thought it was interesting on the issue of what skepticism is. Of special interest to me was the "negative claims" requiring proof: http://www.anomalist.com/commentaries/pseudo.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 This sounds just like the burdon of proof shift that the creationists pull. Skeptics don't claim that UFOs are plasma blips, but offer that there are alternative and more naturalistic explanations available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 Whether or not it is just another version of the burden of proof switcheroo, from what I gathered from that article, it does seem to hint at wanting to make bullshit more plausible. Like this, for instance: All of us must remember science can tell us what is empirically unlikely but not what is empirically impossible. Evidence in science is always a matter of degree and is seldom if ever absolutely conclusive. To me, it seems as though the writer wishes to convey the message that science can not tell us for sure what is bullshit and since it can not provide conclusive answers that it is even more flawed than a claim. (or dogma for that matter) Heh! Right now, I'd like to tell the author of that piece to blow me. Sneaky little bastard anyway.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 This sounds just like the burdon of proof shift that the creationists pull. Skeptics don't claim that UFOs are plasma blips, but offer that there are alternative and more naturalistic explanations available. vigile this article doesn't criticize skeptics or skepticism, it criticizes a type of pseudo-skepticism, a type of dogmatism that goes beyond skepticism. I only present the article as one way of looking at things. You are free to disagree. And I disagree that it's the "burdon of proof shit that the creationists pull." That was "shift," not "shit." Now you and I are going to have to go rounds. Oh, and what Fwee said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 Zoe, this sounds like its a can of worms for you so I'll just leave it be. I would add however that I think you are pulling the fundy card too readily on this issue. Think what you want though. I don't care. I don't need to win anyone over to my side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trashy Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 I thought it was an interesting article, but it seems to have been written from the viewpoint of an assumption that super-natural or para-normal events were worthy of consideration as being believable. While I believe that there are many things about the natural universe that are yet to be discovered I think it is safe for me to say "Woody Woodpecker is not real" without making a negative claim that requires proof. Same for Santa Claus. I think I'm safe in saying "The sun is not a god." It would seem ridiculous for someone to come back to me and say "the burden of proof is on YOU to prove Woody Woodpecker is not real." I generally put UFO's, ghosts, hauntings, etc. in the same category. I put the burden of proof on those who claim them to be real, and I think that's where it belongs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trashy Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 To be fair Trashy, this isn't exactly the same thing. No adult human being not locked up in a mental hospital believes woody woodpecker or santa claus to be real...whereas...many people have had what they consider to be "paranormal" experiences. Do I automatically "believe" in these experiences? Of course not. But it strains credibility (for me at least) that ALL these people are liars or hallucinating. Thousands of people have thought they have seen God and angels and demons and dragons and unicorns. Most of them (especially those who have seen deities) were generally sane and not locked up. But their experiences still involve super-natural things not seen by any one else. Do they not still bear the burden of proof? Trashy, Although I do agree with you on the issue of "viewpoint" I really would have preferred it if ANY mention of "paranormal" had been left out of it...because the issue is dogmaticism, not specific ideas or sets of ideas because it produces an unnecessary "knee jerk" reaction in the reader. To be fair, the author *does* frame the discussion around those who believe in or are skeptics of anomalies. But I do agree that, in general terms, the burden of proof *does* shift to the 'skeptic' if said skeptic puts forth some alternate explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 The author of this is doing really the same thing as the Creationist is doing in appealing his cause to the non-scientist. He is misstating why things are not accepted in the scientific processes, characterizing them as emotionally biased against any new hypothesis that has even a little shred of possible evidence for it, and appealing to the masses for political support. This is not doing real science. He is a pseudo-scientist, trying to appeal to non-scientist through rhetoric. From the mouth of a real scientist: The deception goes like this. Take a concept that is generally and uncritically accepted by lots of people, even though it is unsupported by any evidence or logic (such as the idea of a supernatural creator/designer). Then point to evidence supposedly supportive of it. The concept precedes the evidence, and the concept is already decked out with attributes: intelligence, powerful, invisible, and perfect. The attributes are already uncritically accepted by non-scientists. Then any evidence that seems to fit these attributes is counted as evidence proving the existence of the assumed "creator/designer" entity. This is why the ID argument has appeal for those with little knowledge of science and little experience in recognizing flawed arguments. There's a big difference between an argument that merely "sounds good", and a good, sound argument. In science, evidence precedes theories. We insist that theories must be specifically supportive of a theory. If evidence supports a whole host of diverse theories equally well, we don't consider any one of those theories persuasive. Theories that are only devised to "explain" one narrow or isolated piece of evidence are not taken seriously. Scientific theories should be capable of embracing diverse phenomena, and unifying a diversity of laws, that is, they should have broad scope. In other words, stuff like Creation, reincarnation, levitation, astral-projection, et al, have a host of established concepts already there looking to science for evidence of what's already believed! This is not science. All good science must pass independent peer review the same as all other good science has to. What real scientist is going to willfully reject something that is a sensational new discovery if he in fact can back it up to withstand peer review? Are you kidding, they'd be jumping up and down to find something like this if it could be confirmed! However, what we see time and time again are pseudo-scientists appealing to non-scientists for popular support of a theory that failed the necessary rigorous testing of independent peer-review of the scientific community. The fact they are doing this, speaks to what they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted May 30, 2006 Share Posted May 30, 2006 And IMO true skepticism is open to new information should it arrive. And while I don't accept any paranormal claim as "proven" I don't think it's an impossibility. This article has nothing to do with bashing science or the scientific method IMO, but in bashing the armchair pseudoskeptic who generally knows very little one way or another about the "ridiculous idea" he's bashing. Well put that way, I think really we are talking about critical thinking. We should always be open to possibilities, however remain skeptical of "too good to be true" evidences, which tend to appeal to emotional responses. If someone is outright dismissive of a half-ways reasonable possibility, then I would say they are letting biases prevent having an open mind and are on the same level as the religious. However, skepticism being shown first in response to claims of the fantastical is not unreasonable. As the old adage says, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". That a dubious skepticism is applied to the typical sorts of "evidences" that accompany these typical extraordinary claims is not unreasonable, IMO. That they close themselves to those without any sort of honest effort at objectivity is not being skeptical - the word I would use instead of inventing a new term would be cynical. That said though... when someone is presented with an endless parade of evidences of Virgin Mary sightings in concrete and Wonder Bread, UFO propaganda, etc, etc, etc, it does tend to make one just a little on the cynical side about the fantastical. You only have so much energy to spend looking at claims. They have to overcome a least sounding totally ridiculous - which most of the time they really are! When my son comes to me having heard these fantastical conspiracy theory claims, I must admit I react with a little more than skepticism and 'am almost cynical about them, simply because of the endless parade of such ill-founded quasi-knowledge nonsense. Sure... maybe one of the 300,000 lunacy theories out there might have some truth to it, but that my first reaction of "this is crap" is not a surprise and is usually right. However, I do nonetheless, hear the "evidences", look at them, then after a fair enough look at it, either pursue more information about it, or toss it into the garbage pile with the 3 headed-Monkey Boy pictures from the National Enquirer. (I don't spend a lot of time on those either ) I guess this whole popular attraction to the fantastical is something that escapes me. But what irratates me, is when it tries so hard to make itself credible using science, without following its rules, or better still, trying to change the rules of science!! I'm really seeing that all this is not about the pursuit of solid knowledge, it's about psychology. God and the 3-headed Monkey Boy being scientifically credible, is driven by a psychological need, not a desire for knowledge of the natural world. If it were, then why all the criticism of science when science can't see what they want it to??? What are they really after? BTW, I'm really not directing this at you. I understand where you are coming from in your objections about fundi-anythings. I'm just voicing the frustrations I feel sometimes (FYI, my kid's a fundi xian). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigile Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 Zoe, Can you give us an example of someone that is being overly skeptical? For example, if I am dismissive of the ghost issue that is being argued on other threads here, am I then being fundy and overly dismissive? I'm just trying to pin down your argument. It seems to be lost (by me anyway) in the long replies here. thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Friendly Misanthrope Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 I think there is a difference in saying: "I don't believe in ghosts, I don't see the evidence" and saying: "Ghosts definitely absolutely do not exist and have been proven not to." That's just illogically stated all the way around. THAT'S my basic issue. What you have said there I agree with. The first statement demonstrates the proper use of inductive reasoning, which is what science uses. Inductive reasoning, in a nutshell is using logic to draw a conclusion by taking specific examples, ie empirical evidence, and from that inducing a generality, which is broader in scope than the specifics. Here is an example of inductive reasoning: "I have seen 63 ravens in my life. All the ravens I have seen are black. Therefore, the next raven I see will most likely be black." The logic is sound, but the conclusion is not 100% certain. Are the albino ravens? Maybe. Deductive reasoning is the only type of reasoning where the conclusions drawn must be correct, if the premises are correct. This type of reasoning is most effective in mathematics. Here is an example: "Joe is taller than Tammy. Tammy is taller than Stacy. Therefore, Joe is taller than Stacy." The logic is sound and the conclusion is 100% certain if the premises. The weakness of inductive reasoning, although a powerful tool, is that the conclusions are never 100%. However, I do think inductive reasoning is one of the best examples of the power of the human mind, as it combines elements of imagination and creativity with logic and rationality. How in the name of all that is holy do you edit posts on this forum? My last post has some attrocious grammer mistakes. What you have said there I agree with. The first statement demonstrates the proper use of inductive reasoning, which is what science uses. Inductive reasoning, in a nutshell is using logic to draw a conclusion by taking specific examples, ie empirical evidence, and from that inducing a generality, which is broader in scope than the specifics. Here is an example of inductive reasoning: "I have seen 63 ravens in my life. All the ravens I have seen are black. Therefore, the next raven I see will most likely be black." The logic is sound, but the conclusion is not 100% certain. Are there albino ravens? Maybe. Deductive reasoning is the only type of reasoning where the conclusions drawn must be correct, if the premises are correct. This type of reasoning is most effective in mathematics. Here is an example: "Joe is taller than Tammy. Tammy is taller than Stacy. Therefore, Joe is taller than Stacy." The logic is sound and the conclusion is 100% certain if the premises. The weakness of inductive reasoning, although a powerful tool, is that the conclusions are never 100%. However, I do think inductive reasoning is one of the best examples of the power of the human mind, as it combines elements of imagination and creativity with logic and rationality. Damn it! I borked up my last post even more trying to fix it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted May 31, 2006 Share Posted May 31, 2006 There are such things as albino ravens. I checked. http://www.shades-of-night.com/aviary/gall...emp/albino.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 1. Is it necessary for people to be complete assholes to anyone who accepts the possibility that something like that could exist, is it necessary to consider such a person a superstitious twat? What if the skeptic in this case is pretty sure that people are insane for believing this stuff? Shouldn't he try to shake them out of it as best as he can? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 I don't know. For the life of me, I can't picture a hardcore skeptic killing/hating/shunning someone for not accepting what they have to say. On the other hand though, there's all sorts of people out there who love to do those very things because people don't believe in their weird-ass bullshit. Honesty stands in the middle here. Skepticism and honesty are the two main things that are used to sift through bullshit. If someone holds on to a whacky belief, it is simply because they aren't being honest with themselves. Honesty helps to cut through the emotionalism that keeps people hanging on to screwy beliefs too. Most people don't use it though because it usually causes their fluffy beliefs to go up in a puff of smoke real quick like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted June 1, 2006 Share Posted June 1, 2006 Also, I think it's wrong to call someone a liar because they perceive things differently than you. Not everyone who thinks differently than you is being "dishonest with themselves." Honesty puts perception on the same level for everyone. When a person dies, and I stand there looking at their corpse and say, "That person is dead. What a shame. That life is gone forever." and you turn around and say, "Death is but the beginning! Her spirit is soaring through the heavens as we speak and she shall soon be in paradise sitting naked next to a stream sipping lemonade in the warm sun for all eternity!" Which one of us is being honest? Which one of us is lying? Honesty is what answers both of those questions. Your skepticism knows the difference. Like I said, each and every time, skepticism will enable anyone to cut through the bullshit instead of accepting it at face value regardless of how good it makes you feel. You may not be denying yourself fluffy thoughts, but you are denying yourself the opportunity to be honest with yourself which is something that few people ever do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 we won't agree on this issue. If we were both being honest, we would. Also, I just truly don't perceive things in the same way that you do. I guess I could say this again. " Honesty puts perception on the same level for everyone."If you want to say I'm "lying to myself" oh well, I guess you can say that. I don't need to. If you were honest with yourself, there would be no doubt.I personally feel that I'm being intellectually dishonest if I accept your position so you won't think I have "weird ass beliefs" Then don't do it for that reason. Do it because you want to be honest with yourself. What the hell do I care? You think I might have weird ass beliefs...or "leanings" toward weird ass beliefs, fundie christians think I'm going to hell. Oh well. I can't live my life for what OTHER people think reality is all about. If this is the case, then why bother trying to slam skepticism? If it weren't for skepticism, you very well might be curled up in a corner fearing the demons surrounding you at this very moment. Like I said, to me it's not changing people's views/beliefs so much as it is wanting to be respected as a thinking human being even though I may keep an open mind about things. I have no interest in debating who is "right" on a topic that is IMO unknowable and amounts to mental masturbation. Being "open minded" is fine. I'd just like to know when being "open minded" began to mean accepting anything that comes along. The truth is, most people really don't want to spend all their time debating what they believe or don't believe, they just want to live their life in peace, and I myself am getting more and more to that point. That is true. I'm starting to feel that people are just gonna be who they are, whether they are a fundamentalist christian, or someone who thinks i'm a gullible moron because I'm not completely nihilistic about everything. oh well. At the moment, I have no idea what being nihilistic even means. If it means being honest with myself to a point where I won't allow any sort of whacky beliefs to take up homestead in my mind and become a driving force in my life, then yes, I guess I am nihilistic. I don't really argue with fundie christians anymore, because I honestly don't care what they believe. I'm not threatened by their beliefs, nor am I living in a gripping paranoia that tomorrow at noon they're gonna storm washington and take over the world. And I'm starting to get tired of arguing with more fundamentalist skeptics not on their views, but on their attitudes. I'm getting a bit apathetic toward it. Yeah, it's a quick shift, but that's me. Okay. Would you consider me to be a fundamentalist skeptic based on what you've read in this thread? If so, do you find anything wrong with my attitude? I tend to get obsessed with something, and then after a time lose interest with it rather quickly. What about vampires? ---continued--- I'm getting to that point now with this. So, think what you want, present it however you want, try to deconvert everyone all the way down to the strictest nihilism with no openmindedness toward the possibility of anything. If that's your view and you feel compelled to spread it, more power to you, but I find I'm getting bored debating, with anyone, because it's always the same shit, different viewpoint. That's just it! I don't "think what I want". I usually ponder as many aspects of any argument that I can until I dwindle it down to being as close to the truth (reality) as possible. Quite often, the answer ends up NOT being something that I want to think. But if I'm honest with myself, I have to accept the solution for what it is. See I'm closeminded. My mind is closed to being closeminded. I refuse to become a cynic and disbelieve in everything so I can be perceived as "logical." I've witnessed myself that no one is logical 24/7. People can hide behind logic and science all they want, but at the end of the day, most people are just laypeople who have their own bizarre little views about things that I'll never really understand. Who hides behind logic? Is it the person who uses logic to come closest to the truest answer, or the person who shuns logic in favor of whacky beliefs? Honesty will answer that one for you, too. You can't hide behind something that you use all of the time. But I do appreciate this dialogue, and the back and forth, because it's taken this and several other threads, for me to get to this point I am at now, where I can comfortably be me. I've seen hypocrisy on both sides of the fence and just like I once looked up to fundie christians as having all the answers, then stopped, I no longer look to "skeptics" to really be any more knowledgable about what's going on in the sense of the bigger picture. Then exactly what is it that you "believe"? What is it that is keeping you from trusting theology or skeptics? Sorry, but that's just the way I see it. Call me dishonest, delusional, closeminded, whatever, but I'm really beyond tired of struggling with people. Okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 I thought the we's I's you's and me's in this thread were used only for the sole discussion within this thread, and that was it. If I had thought otherwise, I may have taken offense so some of what was said here, but I didn't. <--- There you are. A typical Fweesponse. Carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted June 2, 2006 Share Posted June 2, 2006 Few people do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts