Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Nature of Scepticism
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 181 of 271 (697060)
04-20-2013 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Straggler
04-17-2013 1:21 PM


Re: Unconvinced: confidence built on repeatability
... 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.

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 177 by Straggler, posted 04-17-2013 1:21 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2013 12:24 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 182 of 271 (697106)
04-21-2013 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by RAZD
04-20-2013 9:04 PM


Re: really?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by RAZD, posted 04-20-2013 9:04 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2014 7:42 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 183 of 271 (697108)
04-21-2013 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by RAZD
04-20-2013 9:18 PM


Descriptive or Prescriptive?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by RAZD, posted 04-20-2013 9:18 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 184 of 271 (697194)
04-22-2013 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by RAZD
04-20-2013 9:11 PM


Re: an observation
RAZD writes:
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?
Yes.
RAZD writes:
If that is true\valid in science, then isn't that same approach valid\rational outside science?
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.
RAZD writes:
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?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by RAZD, posted 04-20-2013 9:11 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 185 of 271 (715324)
01-03-2014 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Straggler
04-21-2013 12:06 PM


happy new year
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.

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 182 by Straggler, posted 04-21-2013 12:06 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Straggler, posted 01-04-2014 7:05 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 186 of 271 (715343)
01-04-2014 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by RAZD
01-03-2014 7:42 PM


Re: happy new year
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2014 7:42 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by RAZD, posted 01-04-2014 8:04 AM Straggler has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 187 of 271 (715346)
01-04-2014 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Straggler
01-04-2014 7:05 AM


same old same old
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.
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 186 by Straggler, posted 01-04-2014 7:05 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Straggler, posted 01-07-2014 6:09 AM RAZD has replied

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


Message 188 of 271 (715540)
01-07-2014 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by RAZD
01-04-2014 8:04 AM


Re: same old same old
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by RAZD, posted 01-04-2014 8:04 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Phat, posted 01-07-2014 1:34 PM Straggler has not replied
 Message 190 by RAZD, posted 01-07-2014 10:01 PM Straggler has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 189 of 271 (715579)
01-07-2014 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Straggler
01-07-2014 6:09 AM


Re: same old same old
straggler writes:
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.
Do me a favor. Bring your skeptical philosophy over to this new guys topic.
Science, Religion, God — Let’s just be honest
By the way...can reality "care" about anything?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Straggler, posted 01-07-2014 6:09 AM Straggler has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 190 of 271 (715634)
01-07-2014 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Straggler
01-07-2014 6:09 AM


Re: same old same old
Says Straggler applying his worldview to the argument.

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 188 by Straggler, posted 01-07-2014 6:09 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Straggler, posted 01-20-2014 1:17 PM RAZD has replied

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


Message 191 of 271 (716703)
01-20-2014 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by RAZD
01-07-2014 10:01 PM


Re: same old same old
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by RAZD, posted 01-07-2014 10:01 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by RAZD, posted 01-20-2014 8:10 PM Straggler has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 192 of 271 (716739)
01-20-2014 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by Straggler
01-20-2014 1:17 PM


same old same old, surely you know that
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:
question
                    |
        is there sufficient valid
     information available to decide
       |                        |
      yes                       no
       |                        |
   decide based           is a decision
   on empirical         (1) necessary or
  valid evidence        (2) not necessary?
    =logical               /            \
   conclusion            (1)            (2) ... but ... ?
      (A)                /               |              |
                      decide          decision        make a
                     based on       not required     decision
                    inadequate       inadequate       anyway
                     evidence         evidence       based on
                     = guess           = wait       = opinion ?
                       (B)               (C)           (D)
Another word for "wait" could be "abstain" or you could use "ignore for now"
Must be a slow week ...

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 191 by Straggler, posted 01-20-2014 1:17 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Stile, posted 01-21-2014 8:40 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 196 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-21-2014 10:51 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 203 by Straggler, posted 01-21-2014 3:37 PM RAZD has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 193 of 271 (716764)
01-21-2014 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by RAZD
01-20-2014 8:10 PM


Re: same old same old, surely you know that
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by RAZD, posted 01-20-2014 8:10 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by 1.61803, posted 01-21-2014 10:16 AM Stile has replied
 Message 198 by RAZD, posted 01-21-2014 1:27 PM Stile has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1503 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 194 of 271 (716772)
01-21-2014 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Stile
01-21-2014 8:40 AM


Re: same old same old, surely you know that
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Stile, posted 01-21-2014 8:40 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Stile, posted 01-21-2014 10:41 AM 1.61803 has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 195 of 271 (716774)
01-21-2014 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by 1.61803
01-21-2014 10:16 AM


Re: same old same old, surely you know that
1.61803 writes:
David Hume's problem of induction rears it's ugly head.
Whazzat??
Oh, this is that:
quote:
The problem of induction is the philosophical question of whether inductive reasoning leads to knowledge understood in the classic philosophical sense, since it focuses on the lack of justification for either:
  • Generalizing about the properties of a class of objects based on some number of observations of particular instances of that class (for example, the inference that "all swans we have seen are white, and therefore all swans are white", before the discovery of black swans)
  • Presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past (for example, that the laws of physics will hold as they have always been observed to hold). Hume called this the principle of uniformity of nature.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by 1.61803, posted 01-21-2014 10:16 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by 1.61803, posted 01-21-2014 11:20 AM Stile has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024