Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Nature of Scepticism
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 166 of 271 (696360)
04-15-2013 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by kofh2u
03-04-2013 12:50 PM


Re: ... Fundamentalist are those who refuse to acknowledge evidence...
Isn't that EXACTLY why Feynman says the Wave/particle observation is the fundamental issue for Physics in this next century???
No.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by kofh2u, posted 03-04-2013 12:50 PM kofh2u has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 167 of 271 (696402)
04-15-2013 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Straggler
04-15-2013 5:24 AM


Re: not convinced
Does your open-minded approach allow us to distinguish between opinion 1 and opinion 2 in terms of either one being any more or less rational than the other?
RAZ writes:
Strictly speaking the answer is no.
Why not?
Because, strictly speaking, neither of the two choices you provide are rational.
So - What is the safest rational course of action according to your approach? This is what I want to know.
RAZ writes:
Without a determinable risk there is no rational choice but to wait for more information.
Just waiting to see if my children become brain damaged is not a sensible approach to the predicament at hand ...
If you base your actions, worldview, etc, on evidence based concepts, and are consistently skeptical of any non-evidenced concepts, then you are forced to either wait for evidence or act non-skeptically on the basis of opinion (perhaps flavored with emotion, depending on how close you are to the situation).
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Straggler, posted 04-15-2013 5:24 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Straggler, posted 04-16-2013 1:00 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 168 of 271 (696403)
04-15-2013 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by ringo
04-15-2013 11:57 AM


Re: an observation
The desire to have a better model.
But how do we know the tweaks make it better?
Random fiddling would hardly be strictly speaking scientific -- what events cause tweaking to be considered?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by ringo, posted 04-15-2013 11:57 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by ringo, posted 04-16-2013 11:57 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 169 of 271 (696404)
04-15-2013 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Straggler
04-15-2013 5:47 AM


Re: Unconvinced
On it's own terms we cannot have any confidence in the legitimacy of your scale of confidence.
Why?
Curiously, blanket rejection is not debate or a way to convince anyone of your claim.
What specifically makes you feel this way?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Straggler, posted 04-15-2013 5:47 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Straggler, posted 04-16-2013 12:52 PM RAZD has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 170 of 271 (696474)
04-16-2013 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by RAZD
04-15-2013 7:03 PM


Re: an observation
RAZD writes:
But how do we know the tweaks make it better?
If the model fits reality better - i.e. predictions made from the model "work" - then the tweaks made it better. Otherwise, we untweak the tweaks.
RAZD writes:
Random fiddling would hardly be strictly speaking scientific -- what events cause tweaking to be considered?
I don't think the tweaking is caused by "events" per se. I think it's a natural human behaviour to want to know "more".
There's a survival advantage in wanting "more" of something - e.g eating more than you need because tomorrow you might not have enough, or hoarding for a time of famine. (Unfortunately, overeating and hoarding have disadvantages too in a situation where resources are practically unlimited.)
Wanting more food extrapolates easily to wanting more information.
So a trial-and-error approach to getting more information seems natural enough. Science is just a refinement of that trial-and-error method.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by RAZD, posted 04-15-2013 7:03 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by RAZD, posted 04-16-2013 6:57 PM ringo has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 171 of 271 (696497)
04-16-2013 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by RAZD
04-15-2013 7:09 PM


Re: Unconvinced
In Message 114 you were kind enough to give us a long list of things that you are not convinced of.
I have a simple question for you. Are you convinced of your position in this thread?
Straggler writes:
On it's own terms we cannot have any confidence in the legitimacy of your scale of confidence.
RAZ writes:
Why?
In your confidence scale you stipulate the criteria you require to rationally justify confidence in a given proposition.
Yet if we treat your confidence scale itself as a proposition (a proposition as to how confidence can be rationally acquired) then we see that it fails to meet it's own criteria.
Similarly we can consider your little chart showing how you personally distinguish between decisions that you think qualify as "logical conclusions" and decisions which you classify as a "guess" or "opinion".
Question: How did you decide upon this distinction?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by RAZD, posted 04-15-2013 7:09 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by RAZD, posted 04-16-2013 8:16 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 172 of 271 (696502)
04-16-2013 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by RAZD
04-15-2013 6:59 PM


Re: not convinced
1: Brain damage due to the inaudible trumpeting of ethereal elephants congregating in the garden is a realistic proposition and action should be taken to avoid damage to my children's brains (i.e. I should evacuate my children to a gardenless place)
2: Brain damage due to the inaudible trumpeting of ethereal elephants congregating in the garden is not a realistic proposition and there is no need to take any practical action to avoid it.
Straggler writes:
Does your open-minded approach allow us to distinguish between opinion 1 and opinion 2 in terms of either one being any more or less rational than the other?
RAZ writes:
Strictly speaking the answer is no.
Straggler writes:
Why not?
RAZ writes:
Because, strictly speaking, neither of the two choices you provide are rational.
In what sense is the behaviour described in 2 irrational?
RAZ writes:
If you base your actions, worldview, etc, on evidence based concepts, and are consistently skeptical of any non-evidenced concepts.......
Then you would come to 2 as a conclusion. If not why not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by RAZD, posted 04-15-2013 6:59 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by RAZD, posted 04-16-2013 7:37 PM Straggler has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 173 of 271 (696546)
04-16-2013 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by ringo
04-16-2013 11:57 AM


Re: an observation
You're still missing a rather critical element imho, but so is Straggler ...
I don't think the tweaking is caused by "events" per se. I think it's a natural human behaviour to want to know "more".
What about "events" that force tweaking, wholesale revision or discarding of the model? Aren't they important in the scientific process?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by ringo, posted 04-16-2013 11:57 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 176 by ringo, posted 04-17-2013 11:58 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 174 of 271 (696555)
04-16-2013 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by Straggler
04-16-2013 1:00 PM


Re: not convinced
In what sense is the behaviour described in 2 irrational?
It is based on opinion, not on evidence. It would mean your assumption that a lack of information or evidence pro or con means that it must be against the concept as a basis for action. If you are consistent in application of skepticism, then you need to be skeptical of this assumption.
You may think it is a logical position based on your worldview, but inherent in that view are the assumptions you make that lead you to that conclusion.
Then you would come to 2 as a conclusion. If not why not?
No. because of being equally skeptical of both positions, and remaining unconvinced until there was evidence one way or the other.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Straggler, posted 04-16-2013 1:00 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by Straggler, posted 04-17-2013 1:40 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 175 of 271 (696559)
04-16-2013 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by Straggler
04-16-2013 12:52 PM


Re: Unconvinced: confidence built on repeatability
I have a simple question for you. Are you convinced of your position in this thread?
As much as I can be about most positions. It seems to me (anyway) that consistently applying the same basic principles and repeatedly ending up in the same place is a result of a rational approach. In general, some concepts would be level II (medium) and some level III (high) confidence concepts, depending on the levels of supporting evidence.
In your confidence scale you stipulate the criteria you require to rationally justify confidence in a given proposition.
Yet if we treat your confidence scale itself as a proposition (a proposition as to how confidence can be rationally acquired) then we see that it fails to meet it's own criteria.
You still do not explain why you feel this way.
If I look at various concepts I can fairly easily categorize them by this scale. If I repeatedly end up in the same level on specific concepts, this testing consistency gives confidence. If several people get the same results, then this objective testing consistency increases confidence, and if there are no contradictory results (high or low confidence result contrary to criteria) then this too leads to confidence.
Let's take an example concept:
The process of evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.
Now I place this concept at III high confidence:
III High Confidence Concepts
  1. Validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, empirically tested, and no known contradictory evidence
  2. Conclusions regarding probable reality can be made, repeated attempts to falsify such concepts can lead to high confidence in their being true.
Do you disagree, and if so, why?
Your ethereal elephants would be a 0 no confidence concept in my evaluation:
0 No Confidence Concepts
  1. No evidence, or the evidence is inconclusive, conjecture involved, hypothetical arguments,
  2. No logical conclusions possible, but opinion possible
and you agree IIRC, yes?
If we get consistent results by testing with various different concepts to judge the confidence we have, does this not lead to medium if not high confidence?
What leads to low confidence? Why do we think some concepts are wrong?
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by Straggler, posted 04-16-2013 12:52 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Straggler, posted 04-17-2013 1:21 PM RAZD has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 176 of 271 (696630)
04-17-2013 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by RAZD
04-16-2013 6:57 PM


Re: an observation
RAZD writes:
What about "events" that force tweaking, wholesale revision or discarding of the model?
Nothing "forces" tweaking. That's why models like "God" still exist.
RAZD writes:
Aren't they important in the scientific process?
We're not talking about the scientific process specifically. We're talking about scepticism in general. In the more rigourous form of scepticism, known as science, an objective consensus may "force" major tweaking.
Edited by ringo, : Changed "require" to "force".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by RAZD, posted 04-16-2013 6:57 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 180 by RAZD, posted 04-20-2013 9:11 PM ringo has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 177 of 271 (696649)
04-17-2013 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by RAZD
04-16-2013 8:16 PM


Re: Unconvinced: confidence built on repeatability
Straggler writes:
Are you convinced of your position in this thread?
RAZ writes:
As much as I can be about most positions.
According to Message 114 you are not convinced by most positions. So would you classify yourself as convinced or not convinced with regard to your position in this thread?
Straggler writes:
In your confidence scale you stipulate the criteria you require to rationally justify confidence in a given proposition. Yet if we treat your confidence scale itself as a proposition (a proposition as to how confidence can be rationally acquired) then we see that it fails to meet it's own criteria.
RAZ writes:
You still do not explain why you feel this way.
It has nothing to do with feeling and everything to do with the criteria you yourself have stipulated in your scale of confidence. Is your confidence scale derived from any evidence? If the answer to this question is ‘No’ then, by it’s own terms, it qualifies as a No confidence concept. If however you are claiming that your scale is derived from evidence now would be the time to present that evidence

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by RAZD, posted 04-16-2013 8:16 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 181 by RAZD, posted 04-20-2013 9:18 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 178 of 271 (696655)
04-17-2013 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by RAZD
04-16-2013 7:37 PM


Re: not convinced
1: Brain damage due to the inaudible trumpeting of ethereal elephants congregating in the garden is a realistic proposition and action should be taken to avoid damage to my children's brains (i.e. I should evacuate my children to a gardenless place)
2: Brain damage due to the inaudible trumpeting of ethereal elephants congregating in the garden is not a realistic proposition and there is no need to take any practical action to avoid it.
3: In order to actively pursue more evidence pertaining to the possibility of my children being brain damaged by the inaudible trumpeting of ethereal elephants congregating in the garden I should take my children to the hospital every six months and insist that they are brain scanned for any signs of potential brain damage being caused by the aforementioned elephants.
Obviously you don’t like 1 and 2 so, with your insistence on the pursuit of more information in mind, I have added 3. Would 3 qualify as a rational course of action by the terms of your approach?
RAZ writes:
If you base your actions, worldview, etc, on evidence based concepts, and are consistently skeptical of any non-evidenced concepts.......
Straggler writes:
Then you would come to 2 as a conclusion. If not why not?
RAZ writes:
No. because of being equally skeptical of both positions, and remaining unconvinced until there was evidence one way or the other.
But there is only one non-evidenced concept here. That non-evidenced concept is ethereal elephants (and the brain damage associated with their inaudible trumpeting). If one is consistently sceptical of non-evidenced concepts one would be sceptical of the existence of ethereal elephants - No?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by RAZD, posted 04-16-2013 7:37 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by RAZD, posted 04-20-2013 9:04 PM Straggler has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 179 of 271 (697058)
04-20-2013 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Straggler
04-17-2013 1:40 PM


really?
But there is only one non-evidenced concept here. ...
Technically speaking, this is, of course, wrong ... or do we need (sigh) to revisit pseudoskepticism again?
What is the evidence for (1)?
What is the evidence for (2)?
If only one is non-evidenced then the other must be evidenced -- what is the evidence?
The Thirteen Clocks (online), by James Thurber.
quote:
"'Half the places I have been to, never were. I make things up. Half the things I say are there cannot be found. When I was young I told a tale of buried gold, and men from leagues around dug in the woods. I dug myself."
"But why?"
"I thought the tale of treasure might be true."
An excellent (and very funny) book to share with your children btw ... one of my all time favorites.
3: In order to actively pursue more evidence pertaining to the possibility of my children being brain damaged by the inaudible trumpeting of ethereal elephants congregating in the garden I should take my children to the hospital every six months and insist that they are brain scanned for any signs of potential brain damage being caused by the aforementioned elephants.
Obviously you don’t like 1 and 2 so, with your insistence on the pursuit of more information in mind, I have added 3. Would 3 qualify as a rational course of action by the terms of your approach?
And if the test is negative, would that conclusively show that the risk did not exist?
Are you positive that this testing would show any and all possible results of brain damage?
Why would you not be equally skeptical of this approach?
The question is whether or not you are being consistent in your application of skepticism, or do you give certain concepts a "bye" (because they match your worldview) while being skeptical of others.
IE -- do you assume some things to be valid without evidence?
Do you assume that this assumption based process is pragmatic?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Straggler, posted 04-17-2013 1:40 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2013 12:06 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 180 of 271 (697059)
04-20-2013 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by ringo
04-17-2013 11:58 AM


Re: an observation
We're not talking about the scientific process specifically. We're talking about scepticism in general. In the more rigourous form of scepticism, known as science, an objective consensus may "force" major tweaking.
And yet, technically, in the field of science, does not invalidation of an hypothesis "force" tweaking, wholesale revision or a complete discarding of the model?
If that is true\valid in science, then isn't that same approach valid\rational outside science?
So should we be more or less skeptical of concepts that are in discord with other concepts or evidence, when compared to ones with no (or less) discord?
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : clrty

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by ringo, posted 04-17-2013 11:58 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by ringo, posted 04-22-2013 11:55 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024