|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
 Posted - 06/30/2001 : 17:33:48
|
Skepticism should be divided into various levels. The level at the top would be the work of scientists as they challenge each other's theories. These skeptics are working inside the scientific framework and peer review will be a determining factor in the fate of the various theories bandied about in scientific circles and in their journals. Those outside of the scientific circle would not be considered. We skeptics (unless we are bona fide scientists) would not be a part of this system. However, we can be a part of their cheering section.
Other levels would be those outside of the sphere of science, composed of ideas which would not see the light of day in a scientific journal. These might be the work of *cranks* and others holding scientifically questionable ideas. These would be rejected for publication by any scientific journal worth its salt. However, they might have a grain of scientific merit which might not have been entirely thought out.
Then there are the ideas which do not reach the level of any kind of scientific scrutiny. Scientific Creationism and Intelligent Design Theory would be in this group. They are not based upon any recognizable scientific principles. Astrology easily would fit into this category.
Then, I suppose that there could be theories *all the way down* which would not even come up to the level of Astrology, *Scientific* Creationism, and Intelligent Design theories.
Skepticism is a way of life in science. Ideas are constantly challenged by the scientists who are the originators of the theories, themselves, as well as the rest of the scientific community when confronted with those theories.
Being a skeptic does not necessarily mean being a scientist. However, every scientist, by vocation, must be a skeptic.
Now, I am not a scientific skeptic. I do not think that I have the right to challenge the theories of science unless I am in the position of being a peer of those in that particular area of science. The simple fact that I am not a practicing scientist prevents my ever becoming a scientific peer. I am a lover of science, and I know my place. Of course, there will be theories which I favor. However, my opinion of that science, either for or against it, is really meaningless to science. It will go on its merry way without my input. Therefore, I would expect for nonscientists (like me) to have their favorite scientific experts to do that skeptical job for them. It will be my experts against the experts of others. There should be no bloodshed over disagreements.
ljbrs
If my experts knew better they should do better...
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2001 : 18:29:12 [Permalink]
|
Nice suggestion/opinion/whatever.
I think you should think of areas( of expertise) rather then levels of Skepticism.
One should also be skeptic of everything in general, but only voice their opinion if one has sufficient understanding.
Don't trust a doctor of medicine, to know more about astrophysics than you, just because he is a scientist.
Don't challenge an expert on something just because you feel that he might be wrong; don't blindly belive him either because he is an expert.
Edited by - Lars_H on 06/30/2001 18:33:21 |
 |
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 06/30/2001 : 20:16:16 [Permalink]
|
You are absolutely right!
I missed a level of people with scientific knowledge who have every right to be considered as full-fledged skeptics in their own right. They may not be working scientists, but their ideas are good nevertheless. Still, in order to make waves in the scientific community, they would need some kind of credentials. And there are scientists who change their fields in midstream and who become experts in other areas.
However, I felt that only scientists count with scientists, so I personally let them fight it out among themselves. They would never respond to an outsider as being an authority. They would give short shrift to people who were crossing boundaries without sufficient expertise in the new fields. Then there are the trailblazers in science who cut out new territories at the fringes of science. Plate techtonics was one of those areas. Alfred L. Wegener, the originator of Plate Techtonics, was way ahead of his time and died before his theory was accepted by the scientific community. I find that very sad. Very, very sad -- tragic. But that is life. Perhaps he somehow knew that he was right and that, eventually, it would rise to the top.
I look at myself as a scientific cheerleader who knows a lot about some areas of science, but who would never think of challenging anybody in the scientific community (except to myself). However, with others, I can pretty well hold my own on those subjects. Outside of those fields, I am on scientific quicksand.
Excellent points!
ljbrs
You knew better and you do better! Bravo!
Edited by - ljbrs on 06/30/2001 20:48:43 |
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2001 : 03:19:16 [Permalink]
|
In science it isn't actually the letters after a persons name that matter as to whether they can make discoveries.
Its their ideas that matter, if they are good and proven then no matter who had them they will eventually be accepted by science.
However in terms of who to believe for a general overview you do tend to want to listen to the PhD's more then those who dropped out of school.
Abondon Drugs, say no to Religion |
|
|
|
shank
New Member
Singapore
9 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2001 : 09:41:10 [Permalink]
|
Lars_H has given a very good definition of a reasonable skeptic. The extreme form of skepticism maybe Rationalism (this is what I think), where the element of open enquiry is restricted. For example, rationalism leads to atheism, whereas skepticism leads to agnosticm.
It is difficult to beleive our ancestors surviving all the dangers of evolving in the wild if they were rationalists. The sixth sense that warns you of danger, the rationalist will simply deny that and get eaten by the lion !!
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2001 : 13:00:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Lars_H has given a very good definition of a reasonable skeptic. The extreme form of skepticism maybe Rationalism (this is what I think), where the element of open enquiry is restricted. For example, rationalism leads to atheism, whereas skepticism leads to agnosticm.
I'm going to take issue with this statement. I am an atheist and I think your going to a point where you don't realize the meaning of the word. I live a life without belief. Can I prove there is a god...no, can I prove there is no god...no. Do I choose to believe in a god as presented by the religions of the world today...no. Do I see adequate evidence for the existence of a god...no. The inadequacy of the evidence to suggest even the possiblity of a god leads me to the decision there is no god. Prove me wrong with good solid evidence that can be supported and I will change my position. Until such time my decision will stand.
quote:
It is difficult to beleive our ancestors surviving all the dangers of evolving in the wild if they were rationalists. The sixth sense that warns you of danger, the rationalist will simply deny that and get eaten by the lion !!
There is no sixth sense involved. It's called fear a neuro-chemical reaction in the brain that triggers the fight or flight response. Fear is healthy and warns you of danger...there is no intangible sense involved here.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2001 : 13:11:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
There is no sixth sense involved. It's called fear a neuro-chemical reaction in the brain that triggers the fight or flight response. Fear is healthy and warns you of danger...there is no intangible sense involved here.
I thought this was an interesting tidbit on what a "6th Sense" might be: http://humdev.uchicago.edu/hiding.html
[To be honest, I hadn't finished reading the entire article before I posted the link, but now that I have, it's doubly fascinating. I'd always wondered what caused women's monthly cycles to become syncronized after a number of months together. The article is also, in my opinion, an excellent example of how scientists should approach new ideas.]
------------
Gambatte kudasai!
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 07/03/2001 13:17:57 |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2001 : 13:49:59 [Permalink]
|
Hee, hee....TD. Read the article, definitely an interesting read and idea. As for the sixth sense of being able to *sense* danger - nah, non-existant. There's always a clue to something being wrong or our own imagination.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Orpheus
Skeptic Friend
92 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2001 : 09:18:11 [Permalink]
|
Although this sixth sense business is currently holding the floor, I feel I must reply to ljbrs's statements regarding the levels of skepticism. If you are skeptic, what prevents you from being skeptical about skepticism? Does that not call into question the utility of the skeptical method? Note that being a skeptic about skepticism does not imply that you hold with any other method of knowing, just that you doubt skepticism as complete. Thoughts??
|
|
|
|
ljbrs
SFN Regular
USA
842 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2001 : 09:52:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Although this sixth sense business is currently holding the floor, I feel I must reply to ljbrs's statements regarding the levels of skepticism. If you are skeptic, what prevents you from being skeptical about skepticism? Does that not call into question the utility of the skeptical method? Note that being a skeptic about skepticism does not imply that you hold with any other method of knowing, just that you doubt skepticism as complete. Thoughts??
Of course, if one doubts skeptical methods then how does one find anything out? Tea leaves? Crystals?
I think that the scientific methods for acquiring information and the fact that no theory is sacrosanct and beyond criticism by other scientists is enough. I do not think that the *man on the street* (such as a philosopher who knows nothing about science) should have a say in what is good science (based on skepticism) and what is not. This includes me, myself. I am not a scientist. Therefore, I let the scientists hold forth on science. I simply think that the scientific method is a great way to go about *finding things out*.
How else would one find things out other than with observation, experiment, and theorizing about observation and experiment? As the saying goes, if nothing is true, then nothing is permitted.
The word *skepticism* implies the method for finding things out that scientists use. It is not merely a word, it implies a method.
Now to go back to my tea leaves and crystals for truth finding...
ljbrs
|
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2001 : 10:06:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If you are skeptic, what prevents you from being skeptical about skepticism? Does that not call into question the utility of the skeptical method? Note that being a skeptic about skepticism does not imply that you hold with any other method of knowing, just that you doubt skepticism as complete. Thoughts??
That's some heavy epistomology there Orpheus.
Modern skepicism is based around the philosophy of science. Skeptics in the past have questioned whether knowledge can be obtained through the senses (ie. observation). In essence, they have questioned whether the observable universe is in fact reality. In science, the only reality one ever has to deal with is that of the obervable universe - which of course is always changing. The definition of observation is also diffrent than the old days. It's a progressive thing. Science views the unobservable as, at worst irrelevant and, at best speculation to be used for further study.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Orpheus
Skeptic Friend
92 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2001 : 03:12:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I think that the scientific methods for acquiring information and the fact that no theory is sacrosanct and beyond criticism by other scientists is enough...It is not merely a word, it implies a method.
i agree, the basic idea that we are often in error seems to be best captured by the scientific paradigm. However, I would like to submit that your contention that skepticism implies a method which leads us to science is perhaps overstated.
Here the distinction between epistemology, method, and methodology seem important. Science, as epistemology seems to suggest that we are often in error, that we must be careful when generalising our findings, that systematic, trial-and-error investigations, which are open to peer review, should be conducted, and (perhaps most importantly), that we should state our contentions in ways which can admit of being proven to be wrong (i.e. falsification, openess to disconfirming evidence).
Such an epistemology is one skeptical view of reality, and it does imply a method. Whether this method is what is currently identified as science is unclear. Methodology, as the study of how methods fit their parent epistemologies, can perhaps illuminate this question.
I would however argue that some "scientific practices" are less true to its epistemology than their practitioners would admit of (such as over-reliance on inferential statistics), while some are more scientific than is given credit for (such as phenomenological investigations).
(phew!)
|
|
|
|
Orpheus
Skeptic Friend
92 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2001 : 03:21:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Skeptics in the past have questioned whether knowledge can be obtained through the senses (ie. observation). In essence, they have questioned whether the observable universe is in fact reality. In science, the only reality one ever has to deal with is that of the obervable universe - which of course is always changing.
More an observation than reply: one of the primary dilemmas of that view is that we can only justify observational statements by deferring to further observational statements! As observational statements themselves include theoretical assumptions, what you have is an infinite regress of question begging!
To illustrate: If I observe someone driving off a cliff and state that "the car is going off the cliff", I am assuming various things by stating this: 1. that movement and gravity are linked, that 2. the car is an object subject to gravity, that 3. gravity makes objects go downward, that 4. the cliff has an edge etc.
Now while these are hardly revolutionary insights, it becomes clear that you cannot justify observations by further observations, since the theories they invoke cannot be assumed to be true.
By even admitting of the "observable universe", we are begging quite a few questions (skeptically speaking).
(I apologise if the above was less than clear- sleep deprivation + caffeine OD + madness= gobligook!)
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2001 : 12:28:02 [Permalink]
|
I would like to submit that your contention that skepticism implies a method which leads us to science is perhaps overstated.
Most of us here on the SFN boards consider Skepticism as a philosophy. A "philosophy" in the truest sense of that word --a "love of truth."
Classical (Greek) Skepticism eventually led the European world to science. But it is science, or to be more exact, the "liberal scientific method" that is the basis of Modern Skepticism.
Science, as epistemology seems to suggest that we are often in error, that we must be careful when generalising our findings, that systematic, trial-and-error investigations, which are open to peer review, should be conducted, and (perhaps most importantly), that we should state our contentions in ways which can admit of being proven to be wrong (i.e. falsification, openess to disconfirming evidence).
Epistemology is the science of the origin/ nature / methods /limits of knowledge, so yeah, I suppose it implies those things.
Such an epistemology is one skeptical view of reality, and it does imply a method. Whether this method is what is currently identified as science is unclear.
Yes, as I previously stated, the "method" is known as "the liberal scientific method" and sometimes as "baloney detection." Can you tell us precisely to whom it is unclear that the liberal scientific method is science?
I would however argue that some "scientific practices" are less true to its epistemology than their practitioners would admit of (such as over-reliance on inferential statistics), while some are more scientific than is given credit for (such as phenomenological investigations).
Phenomenology merely describes phenomena and makes no attempt to explain it. Surely you don't think that people are so pea brained that they have to be limited to just that?
… it becomes clear that you cannot justify observations by further observations, since the theories they invoke cannot be assumed to be true.
By even admitting of the "observable universe", we are begging quite a few questions (skeptically speaking).
Flapdoodle.
Over the years I have noticed that Christians like to tell one another stories about Atheists. Occasionally one will be emboldened to tell them to actual Atheists. The result, invariably, is that the Atheist furrows their brow and shakes their head and tires to explain that Atheism isn't what you say it is nor do Atheists do or think what you say they do.
It now seems to be Skeptics turn.
If you are a true Skeptic then you must be skeptical of everything, even of Skepticism itself, and therefore you can never really know anything--we are being told.
This is like saying if a cabinetmaker owns a table saw that cuts through any thing she can never actually make anything other than saw dust. Why since she works with tools then she must use her tools to take her other tools apart. Therefore a cabinetmaker could never construct furniture she could only cause chaos.
Skeptics are skeptical about even their skepticism. But they use it as a gauge. Is my skepticism in line with the real world? Is it sharp enough, is it too encompassing?
Is there a better method altogether?
So far the answer is -- no there isn't. But, and this is how Skepticism is different from the blind religious persuasions, if a better method comes along we will drop Skepticism in favor of it.
Skepticism does not prevent you from "knowing." In fact it makes it more reliable that the things you do know are correct because you have checked your assumptions against the data. If and when new data is available you revise your assumptions. Being human that is not easy. Being truthful it is essential.
Shank, a few days back posted, what I consider a pretty offensive, note in which he decided that Skepticism might lead to Agnosticism but not Atheism.
Somehow he believes that you can "never know" if god is a fact or not. My personal view is that if all I had to go on was the data of the past couple of years I might be tempted to be an Agnostic. However since claims of recognizable gods have been made for at least the last ten thousand years with not a single shred of substantiating data to back them up it seems absurd to me to be anything other than an Atheist.
However since I am a Skeptic if the data should change I shall revise my assumptions. In the meantime I shall not hold my breath.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Orpheus
Skeptic Friend
92 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2001 : 03:25:15 [Permalink]
|
Can you tell us precisely to whom it is unclear that the liberal scientific method is science?
Yes, I can. Almost everybody involved in current debates concerning the philosophy of science. Some prominent thinkers of our time who have debated this very point include Lakatos, Kuhn, Popper, Ryle, Quine, and Chalmers.
I'm not sure what you mean by the "liberal scientific method". What does the liberal in this sentence imply?
Phenomenology merely describes phenomena and makes no attempt to explain it.
I think you are giving phenomenology a minimalistic reading. It is one of the classical inductive ways of questioning reality, especially the experience of humans. Themes are usually identified out of a host of data- this identification involves interpretation and hence, explanation.
Surely you don't think that people are so pea brained that they have to be limited to just that?
No, but I'm sure I did not imply that. I merely meant that there may be more methods which are scientific than currently admitted of, and that some which are, may not be.
Skeptics are skeptical about even their skepticism.
If that were true, you would have no way of knowing anything. If you doubt your method of knowing (i.e. skepticism), then you vitiate any claims made on behalf of that method! This is exactly the mistake certain postmodernists and other radical idealists make. In the end of the day, to be a rational skeptic, you have to concede that certain truths are self-evident- most notably the rules of logic and language, without which induction and deduction won't be possible.
However since claims of recognizable gods have been made for at least the last ten thousand years with not a single shred of substantiating data to back them up it seems absurd to me to be anything other than an Atheist
Here semantics seem important. Atheism means, roughly translated, "without god". This is similar to the position many agnostics hold, in that they doubt god's existence, and thus, presently, do not believe it exists. I would argue that perhaps a more elegant view of this atheism vs agnosticism debate would be that the question of whether god exists or not is meaningless. Religious folk tend to phrase their "proofs" of god's existence in ways which escape rational or even basic empirical inquiry. Therefore, untill religion can forward some non-supernatural reasons why we should believe it, the question is a non-question.
Find your own damned answers! |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2001 : 10:50:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Skeptics are skeptical about even their skepticism.
If that were true, you would have no way of knowing anything. If you doubt your method of knowing (i.e. skepticism), then you vitiate any claims made on behalf of that method! This is exactly the mistake certain postmodernists and other radical idealists make. In the end of the day, to be a rational skeptic, you have to concede that certain truths are self-evident- most notably the rules of logic and language, without which induction and deduction won't be possible.
I find it interesting that in one thread called Spirits some of us have said that now and then we like to have a Martini or prehaps a glass of beer. And some one hops in with the contention that this is all alcoholism.
Now we get the philosophy of Skepticism presented as a type of psychosis.
I suppose if I said that I take one small spoon of sugar in my tea someone would rail on about diabetes.
Attack by exaggeration....what a strange thing to do. What could it possibly prove to argue that things, that are not happening, are wrong?
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
