The Nature of Scepticism

Or you might say the person was unreliable to provide objective evidence to whether or not a wolf was actually around. Next time could be 'true' next time could be 'false' (or not validated), and you could also have a false positive or a false negative. The past evidence of wolves means one cannot conclude that they are not a threat (the probability of a wolf attack is non-zero).Because the sheep are valuable a more reliable lookout system is needed than one of questionable value - ∴ replace with or add a different person (increase the probability of an accurate report).skeptical of the ability of the boy to provide an accurate report
skeptical of the conclusion that the boy provides false witness

Because it is based on opinion/bias/belief ... particularly the assumption that the evidence you have is indicative of reality. The evidence is neither corroborated nor invalidated. Based on opinion/bias/belief ... and a failure to be skeptical of that conclusion if acted upon. Curiously I never said that evidence was non-existent, just that it was not sufficient to form a valid conclusion. One person sighting a wolf in the woods is not sufficient evidence for people to conclude that they are a real threat or that they are not a real threat when nobody else sees it. In this case a decision is necessary to provide adequate protection for the sheep, and several possibilities are available:

1. guess that wolves are not around and that the boy will be reliable next time
2. guess that wolves are around and that the boy will be reliable next time
3. guess that wolves are not around and that the boy will not be reliable next time
4. guess that the wolves are around and that the boy will not be reliable next time
5. conclude that more information needs to be obtained before more reliable guesses could be made and that you have time and means to do this
6. conclude that more information needs to be obtained before more reliable guesses could be made and that you do not have time to do this

Positions a, b, and c would not present a problem, but d would open the possibility of a wolf attack on the sheep occurring, and this would be an undesirable result.Position d means that false positives (c) are possible while waiting for more information but assuming that false negatives (d) do not occur, and that it is okay to climb the mountain for each false or possibly true positive in order to protect the sheep.Position e means thoroughly looking around for wolves within the possible (large) range of wolves. It is reasonable to investigate further due to the potential danger to the sheep.Position f means adding or replacing observers to watch for wolves in order to see if the sighting is replicated while increasing the protection of the sheep due to the potential danger.A cost benefit analysis would likely result in position f being followed.

Admission of lying, independent observed real-time invalidation. Yes, or you might as well not have anyone there. Or you conclude that you don't need those sheep? or that the number that might be taken is an acceptable risk? In which case you don't need anyone there?

Or it can be taken a third way: the two observations (1 - boy, 2 - hunter) are not concurrent so both observations could be true (looked at with an open mind), and - with skepticism applied - both could be false or either one could be true and the other false: you don't know. The probability of a future observation not being validated by another (also non-concurrent) observation needs to be balanced by the probability of an actual wolf attack regardless of the boys behavior. Is the wolf disappearing when the alarm is sounded? And more to the point, on the assumption\belief that it will happen in the same way again. An assumption that is not questioned skeptically. That lack of confidence should be a big red flag for anyone claiming a skeptical approach to the issue.And no matter how many times you say this you are still missing that one of your precepts is opinion\assumption\belief and not an objective fact but a guess, and that any conclusion based on it is a leap to a conclusion not fully supported by the evidence.1 + x = 2 only works if you assume x = 1 and not any other number, no matter how solid you think the 1 is in the equation.

Simple to the point of being pointless?
Do you agree that 1 plus 1 equals 2?Well it could be 10 in binary ... (Why do you feel the need to add the possibility of extra information that complicates the example?) 1 is the known value and x is the unknown value. Only when you assume that the equation is true. If x = any other value then the equation is not true.The purpose of this discussion is to show how a consistent application of skepticism to a question can be rationally pursued. My main point is that frequently skepticism will only be applied to one side of the issue and that the possibility - however small - of an alternative explanation is ignored or dismissed without the one side being assessed skeptically as well. So what you are saying is that if we reduce the situation to its most ridiculous extreme such that(a) we absolutely know that the boy cried wolf and
(b) we absolutely know that there is no wolfthat the conclusion
∴ the boy's alarm is absolutely known to be a false positive
is based on objective evidence ... because you have removed any and all elements in need of skepticism from the discussion ...... that is about how skepticism is applied or misapplied. You reduce it to a pointless semantic juggling of words to arrive at a pedantic point. The only valid conclusion is that the one claim of wolf was not validated. Does not follow from the evidence ... which, curiously, still includes the fact that wolves have been seen and wolves have attacked the sheep ... so all you can rationally conclude is that there may be a wolf and there may not be a wolf but you won't know until you (open Schroedinger's box and) look. No it is a matter of being consistently skeptical that is being discussed and you have totally missed where opinion fits into your equations.It is a matter of being skeptical of the claim that a rational objective conclusion has been reached. It is a matter of reviewing all the evidence that is known and seeing if there is sufficient to form a valid conclusion. Labeling this as a verified objective evidence based conclusion in your premise means that you have included your conclusion in the premise -- a logical fallacy called begging the question.This a priori labeling doesn't make it true. The conclusion that a single observation will represent a future observation is not validated by the initial single observation: you can't use the evidence for a premise to validate a conclusion (another problem that bluegenes had btw). This should be blindingly evident:• observation: person "A" is observed to do action "B"
• hypothesis: person "A" will do action "B" again
• validation: person "A" was already observed once to do action "B"Really? No, you still miss the - to me rather obvious - point that you still need to be skeptical of the conclusion because you are not looking at all the possibilities with the same skepticism but focus on one. Do you really not see that you have included your opinion\bias\assumption in this already?Edited by RAZD, : [.]