The Nature of Scepticism

But no-one ever does have that as a general approach. There are in effect only two kinds of people: there are skeptics, and then there are people who are skeptics except which they want to give some particular favored idea a free ride.

Are you expecting a different answer this time? It may be as valid for the person in question. It could be the next Einstein thought experiment. Why should my opinion be important in determining validity?Note that the vast majority of people are scientifically ignorant and seem to be no worse of than many scientists: they eat, they drink, they have children ...But again -- what is "valid" Your opinion based on your worldview. You trust the scientific process and approach, and accept the accuracy of research papers based on these beliefs. (1) How could you ever know?
(2) Why would you need to decide?What would be the more productive use of your time:

1. Loudly proclaim to all around you that it is "Highly likely to be incorrect and only fools would pursue it"
2. Assist in investigating to see whether or not it is correct
3. Wait for more information before developing an opinion.

What does "more correct" mean -- that they are more consilient with your views?Certainly a general conformity of the consilience of many views on many topics would appear to give the impression of reliability and accuracy -- correctness -- when compared with your worldview The logical fallacy of popularity? Or confirmation bias? Or just open trust\acceptance that they are experiencing a singular and same reality at some basic level?People do generally appear to be open to trusting\accepting the worldviews of others that are similar to their own, and the greater the consilience of the views the greater they are open to trusting\accepting those worldviews in a general way.Problems arise when there is disagreement, not consilience, and this can lead to cognitive dissonance and may lead to loss of openness. Judging from the context of the article ...

quote:

---

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." ...
Marcello Truzzi, "On Pseudo-Skepticism", Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987[5]

---

... I would assume that Truzzi means that the claim is not proved rather than disproved ... it could be true and it could be false.So now -- using this definition -- do you agree with Truzzi's characterization of "true" skepticism (see Message 17):

quote:

---

1. Acceptance of doubt when neither assertion nor denial has been established
2. No burden of proof to take an agnostic position
3. Agreement that the corpus of established knowledge must be based on what is proved, but recognising its incompleteness
4. Even-handedness in requirement for proofs, whatever their implication
5. Accepting that a failure of a proof in itself proves nothing
6. Continuing examination of the results of experiments even when flaws are found

---

Still seems rational to me.Enjoy

Don't tell me that my reading comprehension is poor.Every time someone shows how you are wrong you accuse them of having poor reading comprehension.I'll have you know that when I took the GMAT I did severely well regarding reading comprehension. Your assessment is shit.The first sentence plainly reads "In the beginning God created the heaven and earth."It clearly and literally says that the earth was made "in the beginning."It's wrong.Premise 1: The "beginning" is in regard to the big bang. (Your claim)Premise 2: The earth was made "in the beginning." (biblical claim)Conclusion: The earth was made at the moment of the big bang.Is that true? No. The earth was not made at the moment of the big bang. Therefore, one or both of the premises is wrong.It's your reading comprehension that is poor. Not mine.

[Straggler says: "For example is this picture moving?"] No it is not moving and and it has no apparent motion what so ever.If you see it moving there is something very wrong in your mind.Try fixing it.....something you have never in your life considered.Your inability to accurately observe reality brings your conclusions about reality and the OP into serious doubt.You use your misstaken idea of skepticism to remove evidence you don't like from your expierence. It makes you look "scientific" to the 98% of people who don't do science for a living. To the other 2% you look like an idiot.Now do your normal "skepticism" thing where you deny that I have presented evidence that your preception of reality is fucked up.You can start with saying I lied and that I see the above picture as moving but just said it wasn't. It is what you normally do, I've only got 9000+ posts to show that.Edited by petrophysics1, : No reason given.Edited by petrophysics1, : No reason given.Edited by petrophysics1, : No reason given.Edited by petrophysics1, : No reason given.

Certainly appears to be moving to me.

OK, I understand that, but since it is stationary to me and in reality I don't know how it is supposed to be moving. If you can tell me maybe I can change the way I'm thinking/perceiving to make it move and figure out what you are doing.This is like when having realized you cannot see 3D with one eye I spent several weeks trying to find the hidden software in my mind that still made the world look 3D with one eye closed. I found it and now can close one eye and see the world in either 3D or flat depending on if I chose to have the software on or off.There is a lot of interesting stuff in your mind and subconscious memory, unforntunately even though it is part of the physical universe most people never look there.Skepticism keeps people from looking there because only you can know what is in there. Science says LOOK, skepticism says don't look.......it's not scientific. LOL

The epistemological difference between the skepticism advocated by Russel and the approach advocated by you is this:When confronted by an evidentially unsupported but unfalsifiable proposition (e.g. a herd of undetectable ethereal elephants are congregating in my garden) Russel's approach to skepticism leads to the conclusion that this is NOT the case. This conclusion already incorporates tentativity and fallibility in it's approach to knowledge. So philosophical certainty is not claimed. But Russel's approach does allow us to meaningfully draw a conclusion. We can say that we (albeit tentatively) know that there are NOT a herd of undetectable ethereal elephants congregating in my garden.Conversely when confronted by an evidentially unsupported but unfalsifiable proposition your approach to skepticism demands either:A) That both possibilities (i.e. that there ARE a herd of undetectable ethereal elephants congregating in my garden and that there are NOT) be given equal credence and that any stated position on the matter either way is mere opinion no more or less epistemologically justified than the opposite opinion. Thus belief in an absence of undetectable ethereal elephants in my garden is no more or less justified than the belief that my garden is in fact full of undetectable ethereal elephants.B) That you evade any consideration of such scenarios because you know giving equal weight to such possibilities makes you look foolish in the extreme. Consilient with reality.Are all world views equally consistent with reality or are some more so than others? How do you determine which are more consilient with reality and which are less? Because, in the specific case of ethereal elephants, if too many congregate in one place their inaudible trumpeting causes long term brain damage to small children. Only when it's too late and my children grow into brain damaged adults. So do you think I should evacuate my children from my house just in case there are a congregation of ethereal elephants in my garden? Or do you (skeptically?) think this unevidenced proposition not something remotely worth worrying about?

Well you seem to have hit the nail on the head with regard to Faith's approach. It didn't take long for her special pleading to manifest.RAZD's approach.... I guess we'll see.As for Petrophysics - I don't care. He's an imbecile.

It isn't actually moving but approx 98% of human beings will perceive it as moving. According to you the overwhelming majority of people are wrong minded because they are able to perceive optical illusions. Apparently you can't. I don't know if monkeys (for example) have the capacity to see such things either.The point being made (over your head no doubt) is that naive acceptance of sensory perception is notoriously and demonstrably fallible.

Actually both science and skepticism say "Always look but don't naively believe everything you see".

Does science believe anything? Do skeptics reject all quick answers? do they accept any answers at all apart from evidence?Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Science uses the scientific method, don't they? And would it not also depend on who is making the claims? Extraordinary claims may well require extraordinary evidence, but for me personally, vivid dreams are weak yet possible evidence as well as daily happenings that are beyond random coincidence...though I suppose you will challenge me to explain the difference between..say..a chance encounter and a divine appointment.

My belief basically boils down to the idea that God exists...regardless of evidence. I suppose that its healthy for me to question my thought processes, but I dont want to end the day with a question regarding Gods interaction with me. One must stand for something or else they will fall for anything! as far as "there" I would define there as being in communion, or walking in the Spirit, if you will.

I think the term "science" is being used as a shorthand for empirical evidence as a basis for knowledge and thus justified belief. You could apply the same principle to history or any other similarly evidenced discipline however. In short - Skeptics reject unsupported assertions and forms of evidence which are unable to demonstrate themselves as leading to conclusions more reliable than simply guessing. With regard to answers/claims that pertain to any reality that exists external to one's own mind - No. Probably not.What did you have in mind?

Science is the application of the scientific method. Practically by definition. But as I said previously I think we are using the term "science" more broadly to refer to empirical evidence as a basis for knowledge. It matters in the sense that some people demonstrably know what they are talking about and other demonstrably don't. But in principle scientific claims are able to be challenged by anyone who is willing to put in the time and effort to learn the subject and able to demonstrate that they do know what they are talking about. The truth will out....... sort of approach. I'd challenge you to show that anything you are putting forward as a form of evidence (e.g. dreams) results in conclusions which are demonstrably superior to those obtained by random chance.