|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Nature of Scepticism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... Is your confidence scale derived from any evidence? ... Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with me on the classification of the two examples given? I've run them by some people and all have agreed so far ... Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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. Straggler writes: 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: 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? You tell me!!!! I am asking your advice because I don't want my children's brains put at risk by any subjective, preudoskeptical or irrational beliefs that I (or anyone else) may hold. As much as it ires me I am seeking your advice as the resident expert on skepticism. I have stated the two criteria that you need concern yourself with: [1] I want to safeguard my children from suffering brain damage.[2] I want to act in a manner that is rational. My question to you was this - Is 3 a rational course of action as far as your approach to skepticism is concerned? Will you answer that question?
RAZD writes: Do you assume that this assumption based process is pragmatic? If all 3 options - Taking practical action, not taking practical action and the active pursuit of more evidence are all ruled out as irrational - Then you need to tell me how your approach can possibly meet the criteria specified with regard to the proposition at hand.
RAZ writes: If you base your actions, worldview, etc, on evidence based concepts, and are consistently skeptical of any non-evidenced concepts....... Straggler writes: 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 RAZ writes: Technically speaking, this is, of course, wrong ... You do agree that ethereal elephants are an unevidenced concept don't you? In which case scepticism towards this concept seems justified. Are you possibly conflating the concepts we are assessing with the assessments being made.....? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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: 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 RAZ writes: Do you AGREE or DISAGREE with me on the classification of the two examples given? I've run them by some people and all have agreed so far... Why would I place myself on a scale which is itself a "No confidence concept" based on an argument that by it's own criteria demands that one be "unconvinced" by it.....? But if you are seeking to suggest that your little scale is descriptive rather than prescriptive because you have found some people that agree with a couple of your confidence assessments then it obviously falls apart under minimal further examination. You only have to look at this forum or poll the beliefs of your fellow countrymen to see that there are many who have considerable confidence in concepts which defy well established scientific knowledge (e.g. Young Earth Creationists). Yet there is no place for the existence of such confidence on your scale despite being widespread. Is your scale intended to be descriptive or prescriptive RAZ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
RAZD writes:
Yes.
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? RAZD writes:
It can be a valid approach but the rigor of science isn't necessarily applicable to every question. There may be some areas where a "Scepticism Lite" approach is more useful.
If that is true\valid in science, then isn't that same approach valid\rational outside science? RAZD writes:
I'm not sure that scepticism is something that can be measured. We can look at something scientifically when there is a significant amount of evidence pointing in one direction or another. However, we can be sceptical even when there is no evidence.
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You tell me!!!! You have to make the decision based on your worldviews and what evidence you have.
If all 3 options - Taking practical action, not taking practical action and the active pursuit of more evidence are all ruled out as irrational - Then you need to tell me how your approach can possibly meet the criteria specified with regard to the proposition at hand. Which one is the practical one? Without sufficient information you do not know this. If you feel threatened then make a decision based on your worldviews and what evidence you have. This is not a difficult concept Straggler.
You do agree that ethereal elephants are an unevidenced concept don't you? In which case scepticism towards this concept seems justified. Are you possibly conflating the concepts we are assessing with the assessments being made.....? That would depend on where the concept came from. Skepticism is practical for any unknown new concepts with at best subjective anecdotal evidence, but so is open-mindedness. Again 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.
Message 183: 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? Again, as convinced as I can be about most positions. Not convinced that my opinions are absolutely true? Of course. Scientific tentativity rules out complete conviction yes? Can I have some confidence in concepts that are not contraindicated by evidence or current theory? Some, but a wary confidence willing to yield to new information.
But if you are seeking to suggest that your little scale is descriptive rather than prescriptive because you have found some people that agree with a couple of your confidence assessments then it obviously falls apart under minimal further examination. If you have suggestions to improve this then by all means suggest them.
You only have to look at this forum or poll the beliefs of your fellow countrymen to see that there are many who have considerable confidence in concepts which defy well established scientific knowledge (e.g. Young Earth Creationists). Yet there is no place for the existence of such confidence on your scale despite being widespread. But the issue is not whether people have or don't have confidence in a concept but whether the concept on its own feet as it were can be categorized at a specific level of confidence. A person will have confidence in concepts based on how they fit in with their world view (cognitive consonance) and have low confidence with concepts that don't fit in and cause cognitive dissonance. We see this with every poster here. The question is whether you can distinguish concepts that are connected to evidential basis from ones that aren't with an objective measure of innate confidence (ie confidence that can be measured independently of worldview. Don't you agree that "concepts which defy well established scientific knowledge (e.g. Young Earth Creationists)" are not high confidence concepts? Why don't such concepts that do have contraindicative evidence have a comparable objective comparison to concepts supported by objective empirical evidence that don't have any contraindicative evidence? Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
This has nothing to do with 'world views'.
This is about objectively assessing whether there is any real risk of brain damage from the inaudible trumpeting of ethereal elephants.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Sorry, but you can't operate without your worldview being involved, it is what you know and what you think about what you know.
This is about objectively assessing whether there is any real risk of brain damage from the inaudible trumpeting of ethereal elephants It seems you are trying to apply scientific requirements to something you may not be able to assess with science, so yes world view is involved. Again what is the evidence you have, and what is the source of your information? Is it objective (testable)? Anecdotal(someone told you)? Imaginary (did you make it up to play hypothetical games, or do you suffer from delusions)? Is the source trustworthy or a person known for false or misunderstood information? Where is your information about ethereal elephants coming from? Is it objective (testable)? Anecdotal(someone told you)? Imaginary (did you make it up to play hypothetical games, or do you suffer from delusions)? Is the source trustworthy or a person known for false or misunderstood information? Where is your information that brain damage will occur coming from? Is it objective (testable)? Anecdotal(someone told you)? Imaginary (did you make it up to play hypothetical games, or do you suffer from delusions)? Is the source trustworthy or a person known for false or misunderstood information? Where is your information that there is a causal link coming from? Is it objective (testable)? Anecdotal(someone told you)? Imaginary (did you make it up to play hypothetical games, or do you suffer from delusions)? Is the source trustworthy or a person known for false or misunderstood information? Do you feel you have enough information to make a decision? If yes then you have no problem -- make the decision. If no then do you feel there is there peril involved, and what is the evidence for that peril? Is it objective (testable)? Anecdotal(someone told you)? Imaginary (did you make it up to play games, or do you suffer from delusions)? These assessments depend on your worldview ... If, based on your (worldview) assessment, you feel there is valid peril then you make a decision based on what you do know and what you think about it (there's that worldview issue again). If no then you can afford to wait for more information. Enjoyby 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Your ‘world view’ has no bearing on whether or not anyone is actually going to suffer brain damage as a result of the inaudible trumpeting of ethereal elephants.
Your 'world view' is of no consequence to reality. Reality doesn’t care about your ‘world view’. Meanwhile a sceptical approach is about reliably discerning what is likely to be real and what isn’t.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
straggler writes: Do me a favor. Bring your skeptical philosophy over to this new guys topic.
Your 'world view' is of no consequence to reality. Reality doesn’t care about your ‘world view’. Meanwhile a sceptical approach is about reliably discerning what is likely to be real and what isn’t.Science, Religion, God — Let’s just be honest By the way...can reality "care" about anything?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Says Straggler applying his worldview to the argument.
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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Anyone whose ‘world view’ leads them to conclude that brain damage as a result of the inaudible trumpeting of ethereal elephants is a realistic danger without proper evidence of such - Is almost certainly wrong in their ethereal-elephant 'world view' conclusion.
Ditto for all other such propositions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
As I said: without information to support a valid conclusion you make up your mind according you your worldview.
Curiously I cannot make up your mind for you, nobody but you can do that.
Anyone whose ‘world view’ leads them to conclude that brain damage as a result of the inaudible trumpeting of ethereal elephants is a realistic danger without proper evidence of such ... More same old same old. And I would note that certainly I was not advocating that conclusion being reached ... were you? An open-minded skeptic would conclude that there was insufficient information to make a decision, and that one would need to wait for more information before deciding -- that unless you perceive a personal danger you can afford to wait for more information to develop. Only if you perceive a personal danger then you would want to decide a course of action. But first you need to decide if there is a personal danger: same rules apply. Surely, you remember this:
Must be a slow week ... 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
RAZD writes: An open-minded skeptic would conclude that there was insufficient information to make a decision, and that one would need to wait for more information before deciding What makes you conclude that there is insufficient information to make a decision about the possibility of "inaudible trumpeting of ethereal elephants" being a danger? Are we ever able to use our information about human nature to logically identify a con-job without actually purchasing the tonic for testing purposes? I would think that since this elephant scenario is so similar to our past experiences of "somebody just making things up," we can confidently, and logically, conclude that such a phrase is also "just made up" by someone. Therefore, wouldn't we be able to make a logical conclusion based on this valid, empirical evidence? If no, is it ever possible to use our valid, empirical evidence that it's human nature to imagine certain things and make a logical conclusion from that information? For example: isn't it logical to conclude that the "the boy who cried wolf" is just making it up when he cries wolf again?I mean, we would be wrong when the wolf actually comes... (and such valid evidence would prove us wrong...) But "logically valid" doesn't necessarily equal "always 100% conforming to reality." Kind of like falsification. The boy cries wolf... no wolf.The boy cries wolf... no wolf. The boy cries wolf... no wolf. The boy cries wolf... no wolf. The boy cries wolf... no wolf. ...seems like we have valid, empirical evidence that when the boy cries wolf, we can logically induce that there actually is no wolf. No?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Stile writes: seems like we have valid, empirical evidence that when the boy cries wolf, we can logically induce that there actually is no wolf. David Hume's problem of induction rears it's ugly head.We can never be certain the events that preceded will happen again. It is good enough to make the assumption and be most likely right. But one can never be certain. "You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
1.61803 writes: David Hume's problem of induction rears it's ugly head. Whazzat?? Oh, this is that:
quote: 1.61803 writes: We can never be certain the events that preceded will happen again. It is good enough to make the assumption and be most likely right. But one can never be certain. I agree.The problem is that this is true for everything we observe in reality. Unfortunately... we live in reality Therefore, it is a problem we need to live with, one we need to remember and one we need to deal with.
Stile writes: seems like we have valid, empirical evidence that when the boy cries wolf, we can logically induce that there actually is no wolf. ...so, do you agree with my statement? Or not? I can't really tell from your response. Or maybe that's your point? You just want to point out that we need to remember neither science or logic define reality? I think that's an important point to repeat and remember... but it doesn't stop certain conclusions from being "logically valid and based on empirical information." Maybe you know the limit? How many times does the boy need to cry wolf.. and no wolf is present... before it is valid to say that his cries are nonsense? "Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth."-Sherlock Holmes Edited by Stile, : Sneaked in a sneaky quote hinting at Karl Popper's response to the problem of induction.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024