The Nature of Scepticism

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?

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.

---

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. ...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.

I agree. Again, I agree.The important part is deciding when repeated observations of the past are valid enough to make plans for the future.
1?
2?
over 9, 000?
different for different situations?Note... it's "making plans" for the future... not "signing my soul over to the devil if I'm not 100% correct about this for all of eternity" My point here is that "never" is a ridiculous reservation.
If "never" was used... we would not have computers. Or even be alive, really...

Objective evidence of what? Specifically about inaudible trumpeting elephants? Or that people make things up?I think it's rather objective that people can and do make things up.
It is also objective that when people make things up, it comes off exactly that same as this "inaudible trumpeting elephant" claim... Major indicators (but not the only ones) are things like context and the fact that no additional supporting evidence was provided for the claim. I learn many things:
-not to cry wolf
-this boy isn't to be trusted until he can prove himself again
-do not leave a boy to do a man's jobI am not limited to only learning one thing from any particular situation. To imply that the only possible lesson of a story is the one intended by the original author is... unimaginative. Well yeah... as you can see from my example, the boy cried wolf 5 times and there was no wolf.
From my example... there was never even known to be a wolf around anyway.
From my example... the story isn't finished and the wolf has never shown up.So, what does your logic say when you apply it to my example?I would suggest something closer to the scientific method where you make observations and use repeatable observations to plan for the future.When those observations change... you should change.
When those observations stay consistent... you should stay consistent.You are limited to the observations you make (as we all are).
You can always make more... and you are the judge as to how much you need.
Things can always turn out different from the observations you've experienced in the past... and we need to remember this and try to plan for it accordingly. I rely on objective evidence.
Objective evidence that people make things up.
Objective evidence about how scenarios look when people make things up. (Context, evidence for the claim, repeatability...)
Objective evidence about how scenarios look when people do not make things up. (Context, evidence for the claim, repeatability...)
Then I ask others to see if they get the same results. Some will, some won't.
Then I ask them about how they got the same results. If all the ones who agree used my method, and all those who disagree did not... then it is objectively made up.No opinion required. Nope.
Do you? I don't think so...
Why would we replace a person if the wolf maybe disappeared into the woods? That doesn't sound logical at all, you'd never find any person who would be qualified, so what's the point in replacing them?It seems to me we should base things on the observations we have. Here's the scenario again. Please don't add other aspects of the story, let's just see if we can find something simple that we can agree on: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?

Heh... for sure. Probably more than one, even And there are stories on the other side of the fence as well... people who are exhausting their search and die trying instead of just moving forward, missed dreams because they never took a risk and all that sort of stuff.It is a complicated monster, llfe.And we're back to making decisions on the information we have in the time frame we deem "worthy."See how I said that all confident-like as if it actually helps?

This is very true. Although irrelevant.What makes you think that having evidence something is de facto made up is required?
Such a thing, actually, is impossible to ever achieve.In fact, there is no observation of reality, no matter how many times it's repeated or verified... that it can become de facto knowledge. Because we don't know the future.Not that you exist.
Not the formula F=ma
Not the laws of thermodynamicsNot a single observation of reality can ever be known "de facto" anything as long as we are unable to observe all of time.Therefore, we're not trying to find any evidence that anything is de facto made up.
We're just trying to find evidence to plan for the future about things being made up. Yes, it is your core issue with bluegenes' argument.
And the response is the same... you're simply wrong for implying that anything de facto about reality is required... or even possible.All we can do is plan for the future with the information we have. We will never know anything about reality de facto unless there comes a time where we can know the future.Do you know the future? I'm going to go with "no."
Therefore, all you can do as well is plan for the future with the information available.
You, too, must deal with the issue that we can never know anything at all about reality "de facto" because we cannot observe the future. You seem to imply that just because we have objective evidence for two different possibilities then the resulting conclusion must therefore be an opinion.Um...This is not true.You are right that there is objective evidence people make things up.
And there is objective evidence people do not make things up.You are right that there is objective evidence about how things appear when then are made up.
You are right that there is objective evidence about how things appear when they are not made up.We can, then, look at the situation presented, and objectively see if it fits better in one group over the other.If it can... then we can make an objective conclusion (that may or may not be correct).
If it cannot... then we move onto opinion (if we're going to force a decision).But just because there are two different objective options doesn't mean that the conclusion is necessarily an opinion... that's ridiculous. No. I make an objective conclusion based on objective evidence.Here it is again: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.You are correct. We have objective evidence that people make things up, and that they do not.
We also have objective evidence that when this boy cries wolf... there is no wolf.Therefore, objectively, this evidence sides more with a boy who makes things up then with a boy who does not.Therefore, it is an objective conclusion that the next time this boy cries wolf, there will be no wolf.
This conclusion may or may not be objectively true.. (it would have to be verified when the scenario presents itself again) but the process in arriving at this conclusion is itself objective... and that's what we're discussing.There is nothing "de facto" about this, but there doesn't need to be, either. The observation has already been replicated.If the implications of your question were valid, you would never decide to do anything at all, you would constantly get more information before all your decisions. And you would die because you would not decide to eat before it was too late.

I would like to present a new scenario to see if we can agree on anything at all.
In my experience, simple is better than complicated for finding common ground.Here is the new situation:

quote:

---

The boy cries wolf... the village expert wolf-hunters checked and concluded that there was no wolf.

---

That's it, just once.Do you agree that we have objective evidence that when the boy cries wolf there is no wolf?I'm not talking about good objective evidence, or lots of it or even enough for a confident conclusion.
I'm not talking about whether or not this evidence should lead one to believe or disbelieve the boy next time.
I'm just wondering if you accept this observation as objective evidence or not.I say that it is objective evidence because it was verified.If you agree, please move on. If not, just disregard the below section and we'll work on how to identify objective evidence in the first place.Next step:

quote:

---

The boy cries wolf again...

---

That's it. We just hear the boy in the distance crying "wolf" to the villagers.These are my thoughts, feel free to say whether or not you agree or disagree with them:

• There is not enough information to make a confident decision about whether or not a wolf is there.
• The very small amount of objective data we have (just one occurance, above) suggests that there is no wolf.
• Therefore, if we conclude that there is no wolf, there is a very good chance we're wrong.
• However, if we do conclude that there is no wolf, even based on just the one objective observation... such a conclusion would be objectively based on evidence... just not very likely to be correct.
• If we conclude that there is a wolf, this would be based on subjective opinion that goes against the evidence. It would be extremely justified because there is only 1 previous observation... but it would still go against the evidence.

I am interested to know which parts you disagree with (if any), and why... at your leisure, of course.Edited by Stile, : Quick correction before anybody sees it. That means, if you saw it before I corrected it... you're nobody! Ha! Take that! Logicked!!!

Okay. What do you think it's attempting to imply? Okay.How does any of this change whether or not the observations are objective?
How does any of this change whether or not a conclusion based on the observations is an evidenced-based, objective conclusion?I like the wolf example because it helps a lot in showing the difference between an evidence-based, objective conclusion and reality.We can have tons of evidence that the boy is wrong and there is no wolf...
This evidence can lead us to an evidence-based, objective conclusion about what to expect when the boy cries wolf.
None of this has any effect whatsoever on the reality of the wolf.I think one of RAZD's issues, and I think it's rather prevalent in the general population... is that some people think that just because it's objective and evidenced... then it's necessarily "real." This is complete and utter bullshit. Anyone who thinks this is missing a fundamental idea in how the scientific method works. They may be able to use and mimic the scientific method... but they do not understand it.Edited by Stile, : I was all excited about posting a message with no typos or spelling mistakes. Then I realized I was feeling sick. Yup. Sick. And the dog ate my homework.

I see, you are going earlier in the example and wondering if the observations are objective in the first place.
This makes more sense for your position.I was trying to make a simple scenario where we can assume the proper validation had been done for the objective observations already so that I could make a point about the next steps. I didn't know you were backed up even further.So we were talking about different things.I suggest we move onto my simpler (one observation) wolf example in the next post (Message 217), then we can find out if we're on the same page or not yet.

I think you are getting stuck on the story.
My apologies, when I said I was going to try a change of pace with a simpler example... I meant I was breaking from the story and trying to simplify everything so that we can look at specific aspects.The scenario as presented does not include a time for the hunters to look... you are assuming this is present (probably because that's in the story?).But that's not the point of this example.
What if the hunter are right there, just resting with their eyes closed? All they have to do is open their eyes, immediately, as soon as they boy cries wolf.I am not trying to complicate things, I'm trying to make them simple. Once we agree on a simple example (if such a thing is possible), then we can add complications and move on from there. Doesn't that seem fair? Absolutely true.Conclusions based on objective evidence do not make predictions of the future.
People make predictions of the future.
I'm just trying to show you that objective evidence does still exist, and it's possible that we may personally judge this objective evidence to "not be enough" for us to follow your chart to path B, C or D.If we personally decide that there is "insufficient evidence" it doesn't mean that what evidence is there no longer exists... it doesn't mean that an objective, evidence-based conclusion cannot be made... it just means that we do not have confidence in that conclusion.This is the point I'm looking for agreement from you on. Do you understand what I'm trying to say? I agree.I'm only pointing out the objective, evidence-based conclusion that does actually exist.
I'm pointing out that this conclusion exists even if there is only 1 observation.Your chart says this first:"is there sufficient valid information available to decide"....my point is that as long as there is 1 objective observation... then there is "sufficient valid information available to decide" in the sense that we can make "a decision."
However, there is not "sufficient valid information available to decide" for us to make "a confident decision."
Plus, regardless of whether or not the evidence is sufficient... it cannot predict if the wolf is actually going to be there or not the next time. It can help us with a decision... but can never be 100% reliable. Such a thing is impossible as long as we are unable to observe the future.The issue, of course, then becomes... how much objective information is required before it is "sufficiently confident?"
And we can deal with that next, if we can agree on what objective information is in the first place. Of course the objective, evidenced based conclusion would change if you add more evidence to the scenario.
That's what the conclusion is based on... the available information. If you add more information... you've changed "the available information" and of course the conclusion should be altered to account for that information.But, let's go back and focus on something simple before we try to complicate things. When we complicate things... you end up talking about one thing and I end up talking about another and we end up confusing each other (like we did in your first response).So:The boy cries wolf... the village expert wolf-hunters checked and concluded that there was no wolf.Do you agree that we have objective evidence that when the boy cries wolf there is no wolf?If we cannot agree on such a simple concept, what point is there in moving forward?

I never really liked the story either.That's why I didn't include the entire story in my example.
I'm making an example in order to simplify things, not complicate them. I agree.
The fable and the lesson are kind of silly, as is the example you show here.
That's why I simplified the scenario... to take something familiar and delve into some basic aspects.
Sorry for any confusion. Okay. I agree that Aesop was not a scientist? I'm not trying to discuss what the villagers did, or even should do, at all.

This is the issue. This statement can be taken 2 different ways, and they're both wrong. 1. "The evidence being indicative of reality" could be taken to reference the past observation. The objective statement itself: The boy cries wolf... the village expert wolf-hunters checked and concluded that there was no wolf.Then it's incorrect. This evidence is corroborated and validated... that's what the village experts are for... to corroborate and validate the observation that there is no wolf.
Therefore, we have objective, verified information that when the boy cried wolf, there was no wolf (for this one observation, in the past). 2. "The evidence being indicative of reality" could be taken to reference the future observation. The objective conclusion: that based upon this single observation... when the boy cries wolf again, then there will be no wolf at that time.This is, strictly, correct (that this evidence is not indicative of reality). However, it's like trying to show the best path up a mountain and claiming "you have to increase your elevation."No amount of repeated observations can make this "indicative of reality" That's the point, even after many objective, verified observations that the boy cried wolf... the village expert wolf-hunters check and conclude that there was no wolf.... do it 100,000 times in a row. It is still "not indicative of reality" that when the boy cries wolf the next time, then there will be no wolf at that time.There is no such thing as an objective conclusion or theory that is "indicative of reality" for future observations. The only thing that is "indicative of reality" is past observations.Objective conclusions do not make future predictions that are "indicative of reality." The observations don't know the future any more than you do. They only make future predictions that reflect our objective observations from the past.So, what is it?

• Are you referencing the past observation here? And then you're incorrect because the information actually is objective and "indicative of reality" because the evidence has been verified, corroborated and validated by the expert wolf hunters?
  ​
• Are you referencing the future observation here? And then you're incorrect because no one is ever claiming that the objective information is actually indicative of a future observation. This just isn't how science works.

Later in your recent message, you say something else: This is something we agree on.However, if we did conclude that when the boy cries wolf again, then there will be no wolf... this is not "based on opinion/bias/belief."
It is based on objective evidence... the one observation.
It's highly likely to be wrong... and there's a very low level of confidence in the conclusion.But it's absolutely wrong to say it's "based on opionion/bias belief" because it's not. It's based on the one objective, verified observation.
This makes it an objective conclusion.
Not a very confident (good) one... but one all the same.Edited by Stile, : Just some minor clarity.

We've dealt with this already, remember? Back from Message 239:

quote:

---

that's not the point of this example.
What if the hunters are right there, just resting with their eyes closed? All they have to do is open their eyes, immediately, as soon as they boy cries wolf.

​

I am not trying to complicate things, I'm trying to make them simple. Once we agree on a simple example (if such a thing is possible), then we can add complications and move on from there. Doesn't that seem fair?

---

Why do you feel the need to add the possibility of extra information that complicates the example?
The point is to provide a simple example and deal with the information at hand.I agree that *if* we're going to add more information (more possibilities to my hand-crafted example) then yes, there would be more things to consider. This is rather obvious.However, this example is specifically chosen to be simple and not have to worry about such extra concerns. You seem to be jumping ahead now.
I am not claiming to have the assumption\belief that the scenario will happen in the same way again.I agree with you in this context:

• The objective, verified conclusion exists (based on the one objective, verified observation)... that if the scenario occurs again in the future, then the boy will be incorrect and there will be no wolf again.
• It is a personal choice (opinion... belief... whatever) if you are going to accept the objective conclusion or not.

And, of course... this context exists with all objective conclusions.Even our current theories of gravity and planetary motion... things that have been tested and verified and are as objective as any information we currently have available to us. Even these theories include the same two components:

• The objective, verified conclusion exists (here there would be thousands, possibly even millions of objective observations to base it on).
• It is a personal choice (opinion... belief... whatever) if you are going to accept the objective conclusion or not.

You seem to imply that this inclusion of opinion is a bad thing... but it exists with *all* objective conclusions. It's always a personal choice in deciding when something has "enough evidence" to be considered a personally "valid" conclusion. This opinion aspect has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that the objective evidence exists and the objective conclusion exists.When there are "few" objective observations, it's a personal choice ("opinion") that the objective conclusion is not a very good one ("big red flag").
When there are "many" objective observations, it's a personal choice ("opinion") that the objective conclusion is a good one ("very confident").The opinion part is always there, you can never get away with it in any observations of reality unless we gain the ability to make observations of the future. Or if we get to set the original axioms of the scenario (like in math).Any conclusions about future observations are *always* opinion/personal choice. You can choose to accept what the objective evidence is pointing towards ("follow the evidence") or you can choose to accept your own idea.You seem to keep identifying this part of the "opinion" in the scientific method... but ascribing it to the objective data... calling the objective conclusion itself "an opinion." The objective conclusion is never an opinion... that's why it's "objective"... because it's based on the objective information that is available.You are right, however, that the "opinion" exists in choosing to side with the objective evidence or not. But this part of "opinion" is present in *all* scientific theories/conclusions/laws. Exactly. That's what I've said: "Not a very confident (good) one" = "a big red flag."
The point you seem to be missing (or, at least... not actually saying you agree with me while arguing other extraneous notions...) is that the objective, validated conclusion is still there... it's (as always) just our personal choice that tells us the one observation is not enough to have confidence in that conclusion. I don't understand the point you're trying to make here.
"no matter how solid you think the 1 is in the equation"... is referring to which "1"? The constant or the "x-variable"?When dealing with math, we are the ones who constructed the axioms and, actually, no assumptions are necessary. We can prove definitively that (in this equation) x = 1. This only depends on our original axioms (base 10, real number system... blah, blah, blah...).I agree that we can only assume that x = 1 if we don't know who created the equation and what axioms they based it on originally.
This is the thing with reality... we don't know who (or what) created the universe and what axioms the universe is based on originally.Therefore... all our conclusions are always "assumed" (opinion, belief, whatever...).However, based on objective evidence... we can choose to "assume" that the objective conclusion is going to be correct again... depending on how many objective observations it's based on.This is how science works.Not so much like this (your system): But more like this (very similar, just a bit different): The choice of 1, 2 or 3 is opinion... always. But if objective evidence exists... then the objective conclusion also exists. It's only our opinion to decide to follow the evidence or not. Usually we do this based on there being "enough" observations. But how many "enough" is will be different for everyone... because that portion is an opinion.

Actually, I've stated that I agree with RAZDs final decision in this case as well.
My point is to show the separation between "the objective conclusion" and "the choice to accept the objective conclusion." Not quite.
I've set up my scenario such that the experts are 100% objective...
There is a difference between being objective and being correct.It may be entirely, 100% objective that the experts did all their searching and all their looking and never found the wolf.
You can repeat this a million times with a billion experts, if you'd like.This doesn't make it correct in any way. They all could have missed the wolf for one reason or another."Objective" does not equal "correct." Regardless of there being 1 objective observation or a zillion-kajillion. The only reason it's an objective conclusion is because it is derived from the objective observations.
This is not "defining it into one." This is simply "agreeing with what the word objective actually means in the first place." This is the issue.You are correct that we don't ever have 100% confidence.
The objective conclusion is not based on the assumption that the evidence we have is indicative of reality.
The objective conclusion exists as long as objective evidence exists (no matter how much).It is, however, personal opinion that the objective conclusion (whatever it is) is a confident one and one we should choose to accept.This personal opinion is generally (logically?) based on the number of objective observations. The thing is, this is not only true "in that sense" but it is true "in all senses."
This statement is true all the time.Regardless of whether or not we have 1 observation of the wolf not being present... or if we have a million observations of the wolf not being present.
Regardless of whether or not we have 1 observation of gravity and planetary motion being correct... or if we have a million observations of gravity and planetary motion being correct.*** this sentence is wrong *** There is never an "objective conclusion that is based on the assumption that the evidence we have is indicative of reality."*** supposed to say something like this *** There is never a time where we can make this comparison. The assumption (or something similar) has to be made all the time. Because we don't have an objective measuring device for "reality." We don't know the axioms. We can't see the future... all that stuff.The objective conclusion is only ever based on the objective evidence.We can never, ever know that any observation or any amount of observations is "indicative of reality" (future tense) because we can't observe the future.The decision of whether or not the objective conclusion is going to help us predict the future is always an opinion. (Usually logically based on the number of observations... the "weight" of the evidence.)That's why science is "tested all the time"... because we don't know if future observations are suddenly going to show us that Newton's laws are completely useless now... or if V no longer equals IR.Science is "tested all the time... on every single future observation" because we don't know the future... because the objective conclusion is never "indicative of reality." It's only based on the objective observations of the past. Can't. Ever. No matter how many experts.. no matter how many observations.. not even if you do it yourself.
We don't have a "meter stick of reality" in order to measure "objectivity" with. Nope. I'd wait for more information.
However... this doesn't make the objective evidence we do have go away.
What I'm doing here is going against the evidence. My reason for going against the evidence is because there's not enough of it to be confident in it's objective conclusion. The objective conclusion is there just fine... derived from the evidence we have. It's a personal choice whether or not to accept that evidence. Yes, of course.My point is that this doesn't mean it's "an opinion" that the objective conclusion is that when the boy cries wolf... then there is no wolf.
That is not an opinion.... that's the objective conclusion.
We are choosing (an opinion in itself) not to accept the objective conclusion because there is only 1 objective observation... and therefore there's not much confidence in it. However... none of this turns the objective conclusion into an opinion itself... that's a bit insane.This then leads into the next question (if we can ever get past this simple example...).
How many objective observations are required to label something as "enough" to make following the evidence a confident choice?
(I think the answer to this is all that sigma-5 statistical analysis math stuff... but even then, you have to have an "opinion" if you want 95% accuracy or 99% accuracy or whatever...)Edited by Stile, : Wrote something really confusing. Fixed it in a way that's... even more confusing

Okay, I get your point here.
But you really used a bad example to show it.Math just doesn't do this.The "=" sign is a part of the axioms in math... it tells us that it's not "an assumption" that this equation is true... it tells us that the equation is 100% true.If you're going to redefine the normal axioms of math such that the "=" sign is no longer a 100% indicator that the equation is true... then we're back to what I discussed in my response... that we don't know the axioms for the original situation and therefore cannot derive anything that is "correct" or "indicative of reality" or anything like that... all we can do is make objective observations and then choose to accept the objective conclusion (or not). No. This is not what my example is showing. But thank-you for starting to actually engage it and ask questions about it specifically.My example is only showing that we absolutely know that the observation is objective.
"Objective" does not mean we "absolutely know" anything. If you really think this is what I was aiming for... you're missing the point of the example.The things you've quoted here are impossible to do in reality... regardless of the number of observations we make... regardless of the number of witnesses we have... regardless of the scenario being about wolves in a forest or gravity or planetary motion or a simple triangle on a piece of paper... it is impossible for us to ever absolutely know anything. Because we do not know the axioms of reality (or if any even exist). We also cannot observe the future.We are, however, quite capable of making objective observations. There can be 1 objective observation that has been verified (as in my example). Or there can be more. But as long as there's one... we are able to derive an objective conclusion that is based on the objective observation(s). Then, we can choose whether or not to accept this objective conclusion (usually based on the number of objective conclusions). But none of this includes any assumptions. Again, no.
It is impossible to ever "absolutely know" whether or not the boy's alarm is a false positive.
However, it is quite possible to derive a 100% objective conclusion from the 100% objective observation(s) (evidence).
In this example... the unquestionable objective conclusion from the single objective observation is that when the boy cried wolf, there was no wolf.Are you seriously trying to say that the conclusion "when the boy cried wolf, there was no wolf" cannot be derived from the objective observation that when the boy cried wolf, the expert hunters did not find a wolf? RAZD... that's insane. This is also untrue.Once the objective evidence is identified... we then identify the objective conclusion.
Now we use our skepticism.
Our skepticism tells us that the objective conclusion is a bad one because it's only based on one objective observation.Therefore... our skeptical conclusion is that we should wait for more information.
However... the objective conclusion still exists... and is not an opinion. We just didn't choose it as our personal conclusion because of our skepticism. The point is that your idea of the process requires some fine-tuning.You see the ridiculousness that one observation cannot lead us to a good conclusion... and you automatically jump to "that's an opinion!!! Objective evidence is never wrong!!!!'This, however, is absolute bullshit. Objective evidence is wrong all the time in the sense that we'll never know whether or not it is indicative of "absolute reality." It's also wrong a lot of times in practical science... this is when more evidence is found and a theory can be overturned and a new one takes it's place.Therefore... your gut reaction is wrong.Just because science is built on overwhelming objective evidence... doesn't mean that objective evidence is always "correct" or "indicative of reality"... that sort of thinking can send us back to the dark ages. All objective evidence shows us is data... this data can be used to create an objective conclusion... we then use our "skepticism" to decide if we should trust in that conclusion (or not). Why would you say this? What's not validated about having multiple experts make the observation in the first place?
If it makes you feel better.. we can say that there are over a million wolf-hunter experts in this village. Are you trying to say that a million experts agreeing on the same observation does not validate that observation? That's ridiculous. This is not missed by me.
This is an obvious point that's ongoing all the time. And it is ongoing all the time with everything I've said in this message (and others).We are always skeptical of the conclusion because their are other possibilities.
-Maybe it's a guess - be skeptical, there may be other possibilities
-Maybe it's an objective conclusion with a few objective observations to back it up - be skeptical, there may be other possibilities
-Maybe it's an objective conclusion with many, many objective observations to back it up - be skeptical, there may be other possibilitiesWhy would you ever not be skeptical? Only if you ever "absolutely know" anything... which is impossible for our current grasp on reality.